Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures-2013

Collision and Grounding of Ships
and Offshore Structures
Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures contains the latest
research results and innovations presented at the 6th International Conference on
Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures (Trondheim, Norway, 1719 June 2013). The book comprises contributions made in the field of numerical and
analytical analysis of collision and grounding consequences for ships and offshore
structures in various scenarios, such as narrow passageways and arctic conditions
including accidental ice impact. A wide range of topics is covered:
- Recent large-scale collision experiments
- Innovative concepts and procedures to improve the crashworthiness of ships and
offshore structures
- Ship collisions with offshore renewable energy installations
- Residual strength of damaged ship structures as well as mitigation measures for
the consequences of such accidents
- Statistical analysis of collision and grounding incidents to analyse and predict the
probability of their occurrence
- Developments concerning rational rules for structural design to avoid collisions
- Grounding actions comprising the use of general risk assessment methodologies
E. Kim
Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures contributes significantly

to increasing the safety and reliability of seaborne transport and operations, and
will be useful to academics and engineers involved in marine technology-related
research and the marine industry.
Amdahl
Ehlers
Leira

Jrgen Amdahl
Sren Ehlers
Bernt J. Leira
an informa business
COLLISION AND GROUNDING OF SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
This page intentionally left blank
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLLISION AND GROUNDING

OF SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES, ICCGS, TRONDHEIM, NORWAY, 1719 JUNE 2013

Editors
Jrgen Amdahl, Sren Ehlers & Bernt J. Leira
Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Norway
CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India
Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior
permission from the publishers.
Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the
information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any
damage to the property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication
and/or the information contained herein.
Published by:
CRC Press/Balkema
P.O. Box 11320, 2301 EH, Leiden, The Netherlands
e-mail: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com
www.crcpress.com www.taylorandfrancis.com
ISBN: 978-1-138-00059-9 (Hbk + CD-ROM)

ISBN: 978-1-315-88489-9 (eBook)
Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures Amdahl, Ehlers & Leira (Eds)
2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00059-9
Table of contents
Foreword
VII
Feasibility of collision and grounding data for probabilistic accident modeling

M. Hnninen, M. Sladojevic, S. Tirunagari & P. Kujala
Bridge crossings at Sognefjorden Ship collision risk studies

M.G. Hansen, S. Randrup-Thomsen, T. Askeland, M. Ask, L. Skorpa, S.J. Hillestad & J. Veie
VTS a risk reducer: A quantitative study of the effect of VTS Great Belt
T. Lehn-Schiler, M.G. Hansen, K. Melchild, T.K. Jensen, S. Randrup-Thomsen, K.A.K. Glibbery,
F.M. Rasmussen & F. Ennemark
19
An improvement on a method for estimating number of collision candidates between ships

F. Kaneko
27
Modeling and simulation system for marine accident cause investigation

S.G. Lee, S.H. Jun & G.Y. Kong
39
Development of vessel collision model based on Naturalistic Decision Making model

M. Asami & F. Kaneko
49
Material characterization and implementation of the RTCL, BWH and SHEAR failure
criteria to finite element codes for the simulation of impacts on ship structures
J.N. Marinatos & M.S. Samuelides
57
Prediction of failure strain according to stress triaxiality of a high strength marine structural steel
A. Woongshik Nam & J. Choung
69
Fracture mechanics approach to assess the progressive structural failure of a damaged ship
A. Bardetsky
77
Evaluation of the fendering capabilities of the SPS for an offshore application

G. Notaro, K. Brinchmann, E. Steen & N. Oma
85
Collision tests with rigid and deformable bulbous bows driven against double hull side structures
I. Tautz, M. Schttelndreyer, E. Lehmann & W. Fricke
93
Side structure filled with multicellular glass hollow spheres in a quasi-static collision test
M. Schttelndreyer, I. Tautz, W. Fricke & E. Lehmann
101
Response of a tanker side panel punched by a knife edge indenter

R. Villavicencio, B. Liu & C. Guedes Soares
109
A study on positive separating bulbous bow

B. Li, L.S. Zhang & L.P. Sun
117
Calculation of a stranding scenario

B. Zipfel & E. Lehmann
127
Grounding resistance capacity of a bulk carrier considering damage confined to the bow
Y. Qumner & C.H. Huang
135
Loading on stranded ships

C. Souliotis & M.S. Samuelides
143
Plastic mechanism analysis of structural performances for stiffeners on outer bottom plate
during shoal grounding accident
Z. Yu, Z. Hu, G. Wang & Z. Jiang
151
A simplified approach to predict the bottom damage in tanker grounding

M. Heinvee, K. Tabri & M. Krgesaar
Residual ultimate longitudinal strength grounding damage index diagram of a corroded
oil tanker hull structure
D.K. Kim, H.B. Kim, X.M. Zhang, J.K. Paik & J.K. Seo
161
171
Towards an integrated approach to collision and grounding damage assessment

E. La Scola & G. Mermiris
179
Towards more rational design of ship structures against collisions

S.R. Cho, J.M. Kim, Y.H. Kim, J.S. Lee & M.I. Roh
187
Structural safety assessment of ship collision and grounding using FSI analysis technique
S.G. Lee, T. Zhao & J.H. Nam
197
Ship-ice collision analysis to define ice model according to the IACS Polar Rule
M.J. Kwak, J.H. Choi, O.J. Hwang & Y.T. Oh
205
On the plastic and fracture damage of polar class vessel structures subjected to impact loadings
D.K. Min, Y.M. Heo, D.W. Shin, S.H. Kim & S.R. Cho
213
Review of existing methods for the analysis of the accidental limit state due to ice actions
E. Kim & J. Amdahl
221
A particle swarm optimization-based procedure to obtain a crashworthy ice-classed LNG tanker

S. Ehlers
233
Drop tests of ice blocks on stiffened panels with different structural flexibility
E. Kim, M. Storheim, J. Amdahl, S. Lset & R. von Bock und Polach
241
Risk analysis for offloading operations in the Barents, Pechora and Caspian seas
N.G. Popov, L.G. Shchemelinin & N.A. Valdman
251
Safe jacket configurations to resist boat impact

A.W. Vredeveldt, J.H.A. Schipperen, Q.H.A. Nassr & C.A. Spaans
261
Collision between a spar platform and a tanker

T. de Jonge & L. Laukeland
267
Ship collisions against wind turbines, quays and bridge piers

P.T. Pedersen
273
Experimental and numerical investigations on the collision between offshore wind turbine support
structures and service vessels
S.R. Cho, B.S. Seo, B.C. Cerik & H.K. Shin
281
Ultimate strength of an intact and damaged LNG vessel subjected to sub-zero temperature
S. Ehlers, S. Benson & K. Misirlis
289
Ultimate strength of damaged hulls

C. Pollalis & M.S. Samuelides
297
Longitudinal strength assessment of damaged box girders

S. Benson, M. Syrigou & R.S. Dow
305
The analysis and comparison of double side skin crashworthiness

A.Y.F. Gong, J.X. Liu, B.S.M. Xiao & N. Wang
315
A methodology for comparison and assessment of three crashworthy side-shell structures:

The X-core, Y-core and corrugation panel structures
J.W. Ringsberg & P. Hogstrm
323
Crashworthiness study of LPG ship with type C tanks

S. Rudan, B. Acic & I. Viic
331
Study on influence of striking bow strength to the side structure during ship collision
K. Liu, Y. Zhang & Z. Wang
339
Author index
345
VI
Foreword
We are pleased to host the 6th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore
Structures in Trondheim this year. This conference has now served for almost two decades as an important
and internationally recognized platform to disseminate the latest research results in the field of collision and
grounding of ships and offshore structures.
The preparation of this conference and proceedings would not have been possible without the excellent support
from Frank Klbo, Martin Storheim and Ekaterina Kim and we would like to express our thankfulness to them.
In addition, we would like to thank Leila Dashtizadeh and Rouzbeh Siavashi for their efforts in formatting
the manuscripts where needed. Furthermore, we would like to thank the steering committee for promoting and
supporting the conference as well as the reviewers for their valuable contributions to this event. The financial
support of DNV, MARINTEK and DYNAmore Nordic is also greatly acknowledged Finally, we are wishing all
participants a fruitful, stimulating and professionally rewarding stay at NTNUs Marine Technology Centre.
the editors
VII
Feasibility of collision and grounding data for probabilistic

accident modeling
M. Hnninen, M. Sladojevic, S. Tirunagari & P. Kujala
Aalto University, Department of Applied Mechanics, Espoo, Finland
ABSTRACT: There exist various sources of data related to marine traffic safety, and the amount of data seems
to be further growing in the future. However, the data sets have different formats, scopes, and initial purposes.
The paper discusses the feasibility of maritime traffic accident and incident data to probabilistic modeling of
collision and grounding accidents, especially their causal factors. In addition, a case study is conducted for
examining the data feasibility. First, categorical Finnish accident causal data is utilized in learning a Bayesian
network model from the data. The data feasibility is then evaluated based on the how well the model matches
to unseen accident cases and how it performs in classification of the accidents. The results indicate that the
dataset does not contain enough information for the applied of modeling approach. Finally, recommendations
to improving the data or ways to cope with the uncertainty are given.
INTRODUCTION
(VTS) violation and incident reports. Other potential

data sources such as Port State Control inspection data,
occupational safety data, data from insurance companies or classification societies are not addressed. The
systems and practices of accident or incident reporting or the corresponding data formats might differ
from country to country. Here the emphasis is on data
describing the marine traffic in Finland.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
Chapters 24 describe the features of the aforementioned accident and incident data sources and discusses
their feasibility to probabilistic collision and grounding modeling. Chapter 5 presents the data, methods,
results and discussion of the case study, learning
a Bayesian network of reported accident causes in
Finnish collisions and groundings. Finally, conclusions from the data, the literature review and the case
study results are drawn in Chapter 6.
The purpose of accident modeling is to learn more

about accidents in order to prevent them in the
future. Probabilistic accident models, depending on
the underlying theoretical accident model type used
(see e.g. Hollnagel 2004), quantitatively describe
accident causes, mechanisms, event chains, or system variability. Such a model could be utilized within
a cost-benefit analysis, risk management or safetyrelated decision making. However, a ship, and further
the marine traffic system as a whole, can be considered
as a complex socio-technical system. In such a system
an accident is hardly ever a result of a single cause or a
chain of events (Hollnagel, 2004). On the other hand,
accidents are low probability events and thus relatively
little data about accidents exists. Therefore, the lack of
data combined to the complexity of the problem might
result in unreliable or invalid probabilistic models.
This paper discusses the feasibility of ship accident data for probabilistic collision and/or grounding
modeling purposes. In addition, as incidents or nearmisses occur more frequently than accidents but might
be partly governed by the same underlying mechanisms and thus could provide additional information
about marine traffic accidents (Harrald et al. 1998),
also incident data is considered. The study is based
on examining the data itself when available, reviewing relevant literature, and a case study of evaluating
accident data feasibility to learning a Bayesian network model of the dependencies between the reported
accident causes. The examination is limited to accident databases providing categorical information on
the accidents, accident investigation reports, a nearmiss reporting database, and Vessel Traffic Service
2 ACCIDENT DATABASES
2.1 EMCIP
All Member States of the European Union are obligated to report any marine casualty or accident occurrence involving merchant ships, recreational crafts
and inland waterway vessels to the European Marine
Casualty Information Platform (EMCIP) operated by
European Maritime Safety Agency EMSA (Correia
2010). In EMCIP, the casualty events are classified
into 25 event types. Collisions and groundings can
be categorized as a collision with another ship, a collision with multiple ships, a collision when the ship
is not underway, contact with floating cargo, contact
Table 1.
with ice, contact with other floating object, contact

with unknown floating object, contact with a fixed
object, contact with a flying object, drift grounding/stranding, or powered grounding/stranding. The
collected information is divided into factual data and
casualty analysis data. To describe the sequence of
the events related to a casualty, the results obtained in
the Casualty analysis methodology for maritime operations (CASMET) project (Caridis 1999) are used.
Special focus has been paid to verifying the quality
of the reporting and accomplishing the application of
the same principles in the investigations of casualties
and data analyses across the EU (EMSA 2010).
EMCIP database had operated on a voluntary basis
for two years until June 2011 when it became mandatory. Therefore, the data it currently contains might
still be too scarce for probabilistic modeling purposes.
Further, all accidents stored in the system are available
only to EMSA. A particular Member State has access
only to her own data, and the access is only granted to
authorities. Nevertheless, despite the low number of
records and the limited access to the system, EMCIP
manages to establish a common taxonomy. This could
facilitate different comparison studies in the future.
So far the Finnish EMCIP data has only been utilized in reporting marine traffic accident statistics for
the years 20092010 (Trafi 2011) and the authors were
unable to find studies of further accident modeling
based on EMCIP data. Due to researchers not having
access to the data, further examination of its feasibility
is impossible.
2.2
Data fields in the DAMA accident database.
Field
Format
Field
Format
Case number
Ship name
Home port
Nationality
Type of ship
Constuction year
Renovation year
Material
GRT
DWT
Length
Classification soc.
Year
Month
Day
Time of event
Day of the week
Event #1
Event #2
Event #3
Cause #1
Cause #2
Cause #3
Cause #4
Departure port
Destination port
Latitude
Longitude
number
text
text
text
cat
number
number
cat
number
number
number
text
number
number
number
number
number
cat
cat
cat
cat
cat
cat
cat
text
text
number
number
Country
Waters
Voyage phase
Working ac.
Wind direction
Wind force
Sea
Visibility
Light
Cargo
Pilot onboard
2. ship name
2. ship nation
Loss/dam. severity
Evacuated
Hull damage
Hull dam. severity
Damage length
Damage width
Damage depth
Hull dam. locat. y
Hull dam. locat. z
Hull dam. locat. x
Death people
Injured people
Oil pollution
Bridge manning
Damages
text
cat
cat
cat
cat
cat
cat
cat
cat
cat
y/n
text
text
cat
y/n
y/n
cat
Number
Number
Number
cat
cat
cat
Number
Number
Number
Free text
Free text
in-depth analyses of the marine accidents in Finland,

such as an analysis of the correlations between the
different factors, or studies for finding subgroups or
clusters within the accidents, could not be found.
DAMA
Before EMCIP, from the year 1990 to 2010, the marine

accidents of Finnish vessels and accidents to foreign
vessels within Finnish territorial waters were stored
in accident database DAMA (Laiho 2007, Kallberg
2011). In 20012005, the average number of accident cases stored per year was 50, of which 15 were
groundings and 5 collisions (Laiho 2007).
DAMA included 20 accident type categories,
including ship-ship collision, collision with an offshore platform, collision with a floating object, collision with a bridge or quay, and grounding/stranding.
Besides the accident type, DAMA entries included
fields listed in Table 1. However, not all fields had been
filled in all accident cases. DAMA had 78 alternatives
for the accident causes and a possibility to report up
to four causes per accident. These causes had been
categorized under the following seven cause groups:
external factors; ship structure and layout; technical
faults in ship equipment; factors related to equipment
usage and placement; cargo, cargo and fuel handling
and related safety equipment; communication, organizing, instructions and routines; and people, situation
assessment, actions.
Based on the DAMA data, statistical analyses of
accident characteristics such as ship types, circumstances and causes have been conducted (Heiskanen
2001, Laiho 2007, Kujala et al. 2009). However, more
2.3 HELCOM
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) gathers data on
Baltic Sea accidents (HELCOM 2012a) covering all
accidents of tankers over 150 GT and/or other ships
over 400 GT within the states territorial waters or
EEZs. Due to a change in the reporting format, the
data before 2004 and the subsequent years are not fully
comparable. In 20052009, the average annual number of accidents in HELCOM database was 125. The
accident dataset, from 1989 on, can be accessed online
with a map based web tool (HELCOM 2012b) and is
also available on request.
HELCOM database accidents are divided into collisions, fire, groundings, machinery damages, physical
damages, pollutions, sinkings, technical failures and
other accidents. Collisions can be further classified as
collisions with another vessel, with an object, or as the
ones with another vessel and an object. The HELCOM
data fields and the numbers of times the field has been
filled in the 19892009 data can be seen in Table 2.
Only one cause per involved ship is reported.The cause
categorization into a human factor, a technical factor,
DAMA data and HELCOM data from the years 19971999 and 20012006 were also used in evaluating
accident statistics for the Gulf of Finland (Kujala et al.
2009). Mazaheri et al. (in prep.) have studied correlations between the ship traffic and the location of
the grounding accidents within the HELCOM data.
HELCOM data was also used by Hnninen & Kujala
(2013) when modeling the dependencies of the Gulf
of Finland Port State Control inspection findings and
accident involvement.
Compared with DAMA, HELCOM contains fewer
accidents from Finnish waters: as an example, in
DAMA there are 46 accidents from Finnish waters in
2004, whereas in HELCOM database the number is 8.
On the other hand, some of the accidents present in the
HELCOM data are missing from DAMA. Nevertheless, although not complete and even containing some
errors (Salmi 2010), at the moment HELCOM data is
the largest database with a uniform data format of the
Baltic Sea accidents.
Table 2. Data fields in HELCOM accident database. The

number of times reported describes the number of cases
where the corresponding field has not been left blank or
reported as n.i., unknown etc. in 19892009. Ship2 size
values were found to be identical to the reported Ship1 size in
all but one collision with another vessel, so its correctness can
be questioned and the reporting percentage is not presented
in the table.
# of times
reported
Reporting
(%)
dd.mm.yyyy
text
text
numeric
numeric
numeric
cat.
cat.
no/yes/n.i.
text
numeric
cat.
text
cat.
text
text
numeric
hh.mm
numeric
cat
numeric/
interval
cat
text
no/yes/n.i.
text
cat
text
numeric
text
text
text
single/
double/n.i.
cat
single/
double/n.i.
numeric/
interval
text
text
1251
1251
145
1251
1250
1250
1249
1230
1166
133
1021
273
964
108
87
756
725
646
68
616
590
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%*
100,0%
99,9%
99,9%
99,8%
98,3%
93,2%
93,0%***
81,6%
78,0%**
77,1%
75,0%*
65,9%*
60,4%
58,0%
51,6%
51,5%*
49,2%
47,2%
572
535
507
478
46
423
395
277
274
209
170
45,7%
42,8%
40,5%
38,2%
34,8%
33,8%
31,6%
22,1%
21,9%
16,7%
13,6%
15
13
11,4%*
9,8%*
55
4,4%*
38
36
3,0%
2,9%
numeric
no/yes/n.i.
15
14
1,2%
1,1%
numeric
157
Data field
Entry format
Date
Ship1 name
Ship2 name
Year
Latitude
Longitude
Accident type
Ship1 category
Pollution
Type of pollution
Amount of poll.
Collision type
Ship1 type
Ship2 category
Ship2 type
Country
Ship1 size (gt)
Time
Ship2 size (gt)
Cause, ship1
Ship1 draught (m)
Pilot, ship1
Cargo type
Ice conditions
Damage
Cause, ship2
Accident details
Ship1 size (dwt)
Offence
Cause details
Assistance need
Ship1 hull
Pilot, ship2
Ship2 hull
Ship2 draught (m)
Additional info
Consequences/
response actions
Amount of poll. (tons)
Crew trained in ice
navigation
Ship2 size (dwt)
3 ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS

In Finland, Safety Investigation Authority (SIA) investigates and reports all major accidents regardless of
their nature as well as all aviation, marine and rail
accidents and their incidents (SIA 2012a). Marine
accidents are investigated if they have occurred within
Finnish waters, or if a Finnish vessel has been involved
in the accident. SIA investigates and reports how the
accident occurred, what were the circumstances, the
causes, the consequences and the rescue operations.
The reports based on the investigations also provide
recommendations of actions for preventing similar
accidents.
The marine traffic accident investigation reports of
accidents from 1997 on and 10 older reports canbe
downloaded from SIA web pages (SIA 2012b). In
October 2012, 187 reports of accidents, serious incidents, incidents, damages, minor accidents and other
incidents were available.
Accident reports are in text format and their usage
typically requires human effort in extracting information of interest from the text. The task can become
tedious while humans may not always be capable of
extracting the information objectively. Text mining is
an emerging technology that can be used to augment
existing data in electronic textual databases by making
unstructured text data available for analysis (Francis &
Flynn 2010).
Zheng & Jin (2010) used accident reports and a
text data mining technique called attribute reduction
for extracting the most frequent human factors which
they considered as reasons leading to human errors in
marine traffic accidents. Artana et al. (2005) developed and evaluated software utilizing text-mining for
encountering maritimmarinee hazards as well as a
risk management system covering organizations and
human resources. Tirunagari et al. (2012) applied NLP
methods text mining to cluster the marine accident
*of the collisions with another vessel.

**of collisions.
***of accidents with pollution.
an external factor, or another factor is coarser than the

one in DAMA. It is supplemented with a text field for
describing the cause in more detail. However, as can
be seen from Table 2, it has been filled in only 22% of
the cases.
From the data, HELCOM publishes annual accident statistics (HELCOM 2012c). A combination of
text mining. So far, the data has not been utilized for
even establishing trends (Erdogan 2011).
reports. However, the utilization of text mining is a

complex task as it involves addressing text data which
is very unstructured and fuzzy (Tan 1999). Moreover,
there are quite many challenges when accident reports
are concerned as the reports are written in natural language with no standard template and often contain
misspellings and abbreviations. Also, the detection
of multi words such as safety culture is difficult
because it is not known which word is of greater
importance and the words safety and culture
have a different meaning when appearing separately
compared with when considered as a single word.
4
4.1
4.2 VTS violation and incident reporting

Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) provides information and
navigational guidance to the vessels and can organize the traffic within a VTS monitoring area (FTA
2011). In the Gulf of Finland, areas not included in
the VTS areas are covered by Mandatory Ship Reporting System GOFREP. Within Finnish territorial waters,
vessels with a GT of at least 300 are obliged by law
to participate in the VTS monitoring and report their
arrival to the GOFREP area or when they are leaving
a port in the Gulf (FTA 2012).
VTS operators should report all violations they
observe within the Finnish VTS areas and the
GOFREP area. Also, incidents or near misses within
Finnish waters are reported. However, differences in
the numbers of reported violations between VTS operators have been detected (Talja, pers. comm.). In 2010,
a total number of 125 incident and violation reports
were made at the Gulf of Finland VTS center.
The format of the violation and especially the
incident reporting forms has slightly varied over the
years but the basic structure, a narrative text field
for describing the event and a few check box-type
options for the location or circumstances has remained
unchanged. The information the reports covered in the
first half of the year 2009 and the fill-up percentages
is presented in Tables 34. At the beginning of 2012,
the reporting system was reformed and all reporting is
to be done into an electrical system.
The work of the VTS was described both verbally
and statistically based on two two-week periods of
VTS operators reporting all situations requiring VTS
intervention (Westerlund 2011). Salmi (2010) used
violation reports for identifying accident-prone vessels by comparing the vessels present at the violation
reports to HELCOM accident statistics. Unfortunately,
the categorized data the reports contain does not
provide much input to probabilistic models and the
information about the situation, the vessel(s) and the
circumstances must be transformed into categorical
data, which may introduce some uncertainty. On the
other hand, as with accident investigation and near
miss reports, finding the truth behind the textual information may also be challenging. Nevertheless, the
advantage of VTS violation and incident reports is that
violations and incidents occur more frequently than
accidents and thus there is more data available.
NEAR-MISS REPORTING
Insj and ForeSea
ForeSea is an anonymous and voluntary experience

database initiated by Finnish and Swedish organizations and government agencies. The aim of the
database is to capture the conditions that are normally not reported to authorities including accidents,
near misses and non-conformities (ForeSea 2012).
The database is a refined version of the Swedish Insj
system which was launched in 2002 and the plan
is to replace Insj with ForeSea.
In September 2011, twelve companies were reporting to ForeSea and 76 to Insj (Brfelt, pers. comm).
Approximately one report per year per ship has been
obtained to Insj. On the 7th of December 2011, Insj
contained 1282 accident reports, 841 near misses and
532 non conformity records. 1268 of these reports had
been transferred to ForeSea. After ForeSea becomes
fully operational in July 2013, every individual member company will be required to provide reports to the
database every year.
The philosophy behind the ForeSea taxonomy is
what can be got into, compared with EMCIPs philosophy of what the collector wants to get in (Brfelt,
pers. comm). The database administrator is responsible for classifying the event into 27 categories based on
his interpretation. Data can be separated into five main
categories: prerequisite data, the course of events, the
causes, the consequences, and the measures. Each of
these is further divided into subcategories. The causes
are divided into human/manning, working environment, marine environment, technical ship and cargo
and management causes.
Data stored in the Insj database is available to four
categories of users with different rights and accesses
to features. Researchers have access to the most of the
features, including also a right to export data to Excel
format.
Insj and ForeSea contain only a short description
of the event in narrative textual form, with very little factual data available (the ship type, type of event,
the activity of the ship, the location) and its quality
depends on the reporters skills (Brfelt, pers. comm).
As with accident investigation reports, the utilization
of the data would require information extraction from
the text, conducted either manually or possibly with
5.1
CASE STUDY: FEASIBILITY OF

CATEGORICAL ACCIDENT CAUSE
DATA FOR LEARNING A BAYESIAN
NETWORK MODEL
Purpose of the case study
Although textual descriptions provide the rich information on accidents, the terms or expressions when
Table 3. Information fields of the Finnish VTS violation

reports from the year 2009. In addition, a capture of the situation on ECDIS is attached to the report which may include
additional AIS information about the speed, course and heading of the vessel. The filling percentages are calculated from
37 VTS violation reports from JanuaryJuly 2009.
Table 4. Information fields of the Finnish VTS incident

reports from the year 2009. In addition, a capture of the situation on ECDIS is attached to the report which may include
additional AIS information about the vessels speed, course
and heading. The filling percentages are calculated from 21
incident reports from JanuaryJuly 2009.
Type of
information
Type of field
and filling %
Type of
information
Text (100%)
Text (100%)
Text (65%)
Text (100%)
Text (100%)
Text (100%)
Text (100%)
Text (76%)
Text (92%)
Text (100%)
Vessel
identification
Field
Vessel
identification
Name
Flag
Port of registry
Callsign
Type
IMO Number
MMSI
GT
Time
Date and time
Position, speed Latitude & longitude
and course
Location
Territorial waters of
Finland/international
waters
Outside scheme/
Traffic Separation
Scheme/
Lane/
Separation zone/
Other location
Identification
Plotted by Radar/
Plotted by AIS
Identified by
Weather
Wind direction
Wind force (m/s)
Sea state (douglas)
Visibility (m)
Rule 10 (b) I
Rule 10 (b) ii
Rule 10 (b) iii, joining
Rule 10 (b) iii, leaving
Rule 10 (c)
Rule 10 (d)
Rule 10 (e)
Rule 10 (f)
Rule 10 (g)
Rule 10 (h)
Rule 10 (i)
Rule 10 (j)
IMO Resolution
MSC.139(76) Annex 1
Other rules
Contravened
regulations
Additional
information
Details of the incident
Time
Position, speed
and course
Location
Check box
(100%)
Check box
Check box/
Text (name)
Check box/
Text (desc.)
Check box
Check box/
Text (desc.)
(76%)
Check box
(89%)
Text (GOFREP
or VTS) (0%)
Text (68%)
Text (68%)
Text (22%)
Text (8%)
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box/
Text (95%)
Text (97%)
Field
Name
Callsign
IMO Number
Pilot
Master
Date and time
Position
Destination
Hanko VTS
Helsinki VTS
Kotka VTS
GOFREP
Weather
Weather
Type of
non-conformity
Near miss
Accident
AIS
Environment
Pilot
Equipment
Personal injuries
Emergency
Other
Additional
information
Description of
incident
Actions taken by
VTS Operator
Operator
Supervisor
Type of field
and filling%
Text (95%)
Text (90%)
Text (76%)
Text (38%)
Text (0%)
Text (100%)
Text (86%)
Text (81%)
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
(95%)
Text (visib. 67%,
wind dir. 95%,
wind force 95%)
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
Check box
(100% )
Text
Text (Descr. and/or
actions 100%)
Text (100%)
Text (95%)
However, fixed categorization might result information loss and thus introduce uncertainty in the model.
Further, given the complexity of the problem, the categorization of accident causes should be rather detailed
while the dataset would need to be large in order to
have enough data within each category.
The aim of the case study is to evaluate if categorical accident-cause data is a feasible information
source for a probabilistic model of collisions and
groundings and their reported causes. The model is
constructed directly from the data. The feasibility is
evaluated based on how well the model matches to
unseen accident cases.
5.2 Data and methods
referring to a similar factor or cause might vary, which

might complicate any probabilistic modeling based
on the data. Categorical accident information requires
less effort on preparing the data for probabilistic
analyses and removes the problem of unambiguity.
In order to avoid problems from taxonomy differences,

a single accident database is used as an input. As
EMCIP data is not available, DAMA accident database
is chosen as the input data due to featuring the most
Table 5. The number of cases in the dataset and the number

of cases with at least one, two or three reported causes.
No. of cases
>0 reported causes
>1 reported causes
>2 reported causes
Collisions
Groundings
Total
55
55
11
4
160
157
21
10
215
212
32
14
Table 6. The number of cause types within cause categories

of the dataset and the number of cases with the reported cause
category.
People, situation
assessment,
actions (13)
External conditions (7)
Technical failure (5)
Communication
organization
procedures etc. (8)
Ship structure and
layout (2)
Equipment and
layout (1)
Other (1)
Total (37)
Collisions
Groundings
Total
32
117
149
33
0
8
29
30
7
62
30
15
0
73
2
189
0
262
Figure 1. A part of the BN model structure learned from

the data with the NPC algorithm. The rest of the variables
are unconnected or pairwise connected variables and are not
shown.
Table 7. The performance of the Bayesian network model
given the test set compared to an empty graph (for the scores,
higher values are better).
Log-likelihood score
AIC score
BIC score
Classification error
Precision (collision)
Recall (collision)
F-measure
AUC
detailed cause categorization and a possibility to report

more than one cause per accident. Table 5 summarizes the data consististing of 55 ship-ship collisions
and 160 grounding cases. The accidents have occurred
within 19971999 and January 2001June 2006. From
the accidents, accident type (collision/grounding) and
the reported primary, secondary and third causes are
considered. 37 different cause types are present in the
dataset. These causes can be grouped into seven categories. The frequencies of these categories within the
data are shown in Table 6.
A Bayesian network (BN) model (Pearl 1988) consisting of 38 variables in total is learned from the
data. In brief, BN is a graphical representation of
the joint probability distribution of a set of variables
describing a certain problem (Darwiche 2009). The
case study model variables describe the accident type
(collision/grounding) and whether each cause type had
been reported in an accident (yes/no). The graph structure is learned using NPC algorithm (Steck & Tresp
1999) whereas Expectation-maximization method
(Dempster et al. 1977) is applied for determining
the network probability parameters. Hugin Expert
software (Mdsen et al. 2005) is utilized in the
construction.
For evaluating the quality of the resulting model,
the dataset is divided into a training set (143 cases)
which is used for learning the model and a test set
(72 cases) for evaluating how well the resulted model
BN model
Empty graph
599.8
659.8
728.1
16.7%
0.625
0.357
0.455
0.87
603.2
640.2
682.3
19.4%
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.80
performs with unseen data. Log-likelihood score is

calculated for comparing the model fit to the test
set. However, as log-likelihood favors densely connected networks, the Akaike Information Criterion
(AIC) (Akaike 1974) and the Bayesian Information
Criterion (BIC) (Schwarz 1978) scores, which additionally penalize a model based on its complexity, are
also determined. The scores are then compared with
the ones of an empty graph, i.e., a model with no dependencies between the variables. In addition, the models
ability to correctly classify test set cases as collisions
is evaluated by calculating the collision misclassification rate, precision and recall and the area under the
ROC-curve (AUC) (e.g. Bradley 1997).
5.3 Results and discussion
From the data, NPC algorithm learns a Bayesian
network of ten connected variables (including the
event type and the presences of nine cause types), 17
unconnected cause type variables, and five pairs of
dependent causes. Figure 1 presents the ten connected
variables.
The data itself (Table 5) already suggests that it
cannot produce a very informative model on the connections between different causes, as in less than 15%
the amount of data compared to the complexity of

accident mechanisms. As an example, the case study
results suggest that a reliable Bayesian network model
of the interdependencies of collisions and groundings
and their causes cannot be learned from the most comprehensive categorized collision and grounding cause
data available. In addition, all data sources have been
populated by humans and the contents are thus based
on their views on the accident and its possible causes,
which is inevitably subjective.
It can be concluded that using any of the accident or near miss data as the only source of input
to a quantitative collision or grounding model seems
risky: if factors such as underreporting, biases, errors
and missing fields are not considered, the models may
produce unreliable results. Double checking between
two or more databases, using the data together with
prior knowledge on the problem, combining multiple
related data sources when learning the model from
data, and choosing the modeling approach carefully
are a few potential ways for decreasing the uncertainty
or improving the validity of the models. However, it is
important to emphasize that any improvements in the
data or its handling will not matter, if the databases
stay unavailable to the modelers and further indirectly
to the stakeholders making the decisions based on the
models.
of the cases more than one cause had been reported.

This can also be seen from the model performance metrics. Table 4 presents the log-likelihood, AIC and BIC
score of the model and the accident type classification performance characteristics given the test set data.
Log-likelihood score of the model was slightly better
but not clearly superior to the one of the empty graph.
Further, AIC and BIC slightly preferred the empty
graph, which indicates that the BN model variable
dependencies were not very strong. When considering the accident type classification performance,
both models had over 80% overall classification performance. However, this is largely due to the clear
dominance of groundings over collisions in the data:
empty graph assigned all cases to the most probable class, groundings, and yet reached relatively good
overall performance. However, whereas the empty
graph thus had zero recall and precision for collisions,
the BN model did not do well either. It correctly classified only 36% of the collisions and 63% of the cases
classified as collisions were true collisions. A slightly
better classification performance might be possible
to achieve by artificially balancing the proportions
of collisions and groundings in the data by over- or
undersampling, but still it seems that DAMA does not
contain enough information for the purposes of this
type of BN model construction.
Although Bayesian networks can represent rather
complex interactions between variables, include
uncertainty related to the problem and handle missing data while also having a qualitative, graphical
dimension (Darwiche 2009), it should be noted that
the chosen modeling technique and its assumptions
always affect the results. If the aim of the model
was solely classify the accidents into collisions or
groundings based on the reported causes, a better or
comparable classification might have resulted from a
simpler naive Bayes classifier than a Bayesian network fully constructed from data. Moreover, instead of
using Bayesian networks, the classification could have
been conducted with other methods such as decision
trees, logistic regression, neural networks, or support vector machines models. However, as the model
was not targeted only to classification but mainly
to describing the dependencies between the different
causes, and not only probabilistically but also visually, Bayesian networks and the applied NPC structure
learning algorithm were chosen to be used.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study was conducted as a part of Competitive
Advantage by Safety (CAFE) project, financed by the
European Union European Regional Development
Fund through the Regional Council of Pijt-Hme,
City of Kotka, Finnish Shipowners Association, and
Kotka Maritime Research Centre corporate group:
Aker Arctic Technology Inc., Port of HaminaKotka,
Port of Helsinki, Kristina Cruises Ltd, and Meriaura
Ltd. The authors wish to express their gratitude to
the fundersOlle Brfelt from ICC and Sari Talja from
Finnish Transport Agency are warmly thanked for the
interviews.
REFERENCES
Artana, K.B.; Putranta, D.D.; Nurkhalis, I.K. & Kuntjoro,
Y.D. 2005. Development of Simulation and Data Mining Concept for Marine Hazard and Risk Management.
In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on
Marine Engineering. Tokyo, October 24th to 28th, 2005.
Bradley, A.P. 1997. The use of the area under the ROC curve
in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern
recognition 30(7): 11451159.
Brfelt, O. 2011. Pers. comm. Insj/ForeSea administrator.
Interview, 1st of September.
Caridis, P.A. 1999. CASMET. Casualty Analysis Methodology for Maritime Operations. National Technical
University of Athens, Athens. C01.FR.003.
Correia, P. 2010. European Marine Casualty Information
Platform a common EU taxonomy. 5th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships (ICCGS).
TKK-AM-16: 1317. Espoo, Finland.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has examined a few potential sources of

input data for quantitative marine traffic accident
models. Although relatively many sources of data
exist, none of them seem to have the quality and quantity to serve as a sufficient information source for
probabilistic modeling of collisions and groundings
occurrence. The quantity problem is further enhanced
by the restricted data availability, even for academic
research purposes. The largest challenges come from
Darwiche, A. 2009. Modeling and reasoning with Bayesian

networks volume 1. Cambridge University Press.
Dempster, A.P.; Laird, N.M. & Rubin, D.B. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B
(Methodological): 138.
[EMSA] European Maritime Safety Agency. 2010. European Maritime Casualty Information Platform. EMCIP
Reporting (online) [cited 11.10.2012]. Available: http://
emcipportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EMCIP-Reporting.341.0.
html
Erdogan, I. 2011. Best practices in near-miss reporting.
The role of near-miss reporting in creating and enhancing
the safety culture. Masters thesis, Chalmers University
of Technology, Sweden.
ForeSea. About (online) [cited 16.10.2012]. Available: http://
www. foresea.org/about.aspx
Francis, L. & Flynn, M. 2010. Text mining handbook. In
Casualty Actuarial Society E-Forum.
[FTA] The Finnish Transport Agency. 2011. Vessel
Traffic Service (online) [cited 16.10.2012]. Available:
http://portal. liikennevirasto.fi/sivu/www/e/professionals/
vts/vts
[FTA] The Finnish Transport Agency. 2012. GOFREP
(online) [cited 16.10.2012]. Available: http://portal.
liikennevirasto. fi/sivu/www/e/professionals/vts/gofrep
Geiger, D.; Verma, T. & Pearl, J. 1990. Identifying independence in Bayesian networks. Networks 20(5): 507534.
Harrald, J.R.; Mazzuchi, T.A.; Spahn, J.; Van Dorp, R.;
Merrick, J.; Shrestha, S. & Grabowski, M. 1998. Using
system simulation to model the impact of human error in
a maritime system. Safety Science 30(12): 235247.
Heiskanen, M. 2001. Accident analysis 19902000, Groundings and collisions with vessel (in Finnish). Helsinki,
Finland: Finnish Maritime Administration. Merenkulkulaitoksen julkaisuja 7/2001.
[HELCOM] Helsinki Commission. 2012a. Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea area for the year
2011 (online) [cited 11.10.2012]. Available: http://
www.helcom.fi/stc/files/shipping/shipping_accidents_
2011.pdf
[HELCOM] Helsinki Commission. 2012b. HELCOM Map
and Data Service (online) [cited 12.10.2012]. Available:
http:// maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html
[HELCOM] Helsinki Commission. 2012c. Helcom:
Accidents and response (online) [cited 12.10.2012]
Available: http:// www.helcom.fi/shipping/accidents/en_
GB/accidents/
Hollnagel, E. 2004. Barriers and Accident Prevention.
Hampshire: Ashgate.
Hnninen, M. & Kujala, P. 2013. Port State Control Inspections and Ship Safety, Part II: Bayesian Network Modeling of Inspection Findings and Accident Involvement.
Submitted manuscript.
Kallberg, V.P. 2011. Accident statistics for different modes
of transport preliminary survey (in Finnish). Helsinki,
Finland: Finnish Transport Safety Agency. Trafin

julkaisuja 1/2011.
Kujala, P.; Hnninen, M.;Arola,T. &Ylitalo, J. 2009.Analysis
of the marine traffic safety in the Gulf of Finland. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 94(8): 13491357.
Laiho, A. 2007. Ship accident analysis 2001-2005 (in
Finnish). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Maritime Administration. Merenkulkulaitoksen julkaisuja 5/2007.
Mazaheri A.; Kotilainen P.; Montewka J.; Sormunen O. &
Kujala P. in prep. Correlation study between ship grounding, ship traffic, and waterway complexity-A case study
based on the statistics of the Gulf of Finland.
Mdsen, A.L.; Jensen, F.; Kjrulff, U.B. & Lang, M. 2005.
The Hugin tool for probabilistic graphical models. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools 14 (3):
507544.
Pearl, J. 1988. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems:
networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann.
Salmi, K. 2010. Targeting accident prone ships by their
behavior and safety culture. Aalto University School of
Science and Technology, Espoo TKK-AM-14. Available:
http://appmech.tkk.fi/julkaisut/TKK-AM-14.pdf
[SIA] Safety Investigarion Authority. 2012a. Role and function (online) [cited 12.10.2012]. Available: http://www.
turvalli suustutkinta.fi/en/Etusivu/OTKES
[SIA] Safety Investigation Authority. 2012. Marine
(online) [cited 12.10.2012]. Available: http://www.
turvallisuustutkin ta.fi/en/Etusivu/Tutkintaselostukset/
Vesiliikenne
Steck, H. & Tresp, V. 1999. Bayesian Belief Networks for
Data Mining. Proceedings of the 2. Workshop on Data
Mining and Data Warehousing: 145154.
Talja, S. Pers. comm. Finnish Transport Agency/Gulf of
Finland Vessel Traffic Centre. Phone interview, 7th of
October, 2011.
Tan, A.H. 1999. Text mining: The state of the art and the
challenges. In: Proceedings of the PAKDD 1999 Workshop on Knowledge Discovery from Advanced Databases:
6570.
Tirunagari, S.; Hnninen, M.; Guggilla, A.; Sthlberg, K. &
Kujala, P. 2012. Impact of similarity measures on causal
relation based feature selection method for clustering
maritime accident reports. Journal of Global Research
in Computer Science 3(8): 4650.
[Trafi] Finnish Transport Safety Agency & Statistics
Finland. 2011. Maritime traffic accident statistics 2010
(in Finnish) (online) [cited 11.10.2012]. Available:
http://www.trafi.fi/ filebank/a/1322164797/6ce7133934c
4017751894384eb04fc41/1616-721-Vesiliikenneonnetto
muuksien_vuositilasto_ 2010.pdf
Westerlund, K. 2011. The Risk Reducing Effect of
VTS in Finnish Waters. EfficienSea Deliverable No.
D_WP6_5_01. Finnish Transport Agency.
Zheng, B. & Jin, Y. 2010. Analysis on factors leading
to human fault in marine accidents based on attribute
reduction. Journal of Shanghai Maritime University 1.
Bridge crossings at Sognefjorden Ship collision risk studies

M.G. Hansen, S. Randrup-Thomsen, T. Askeland & M. Ask
Rambll, Copenhagen, Denmark
L. Skorpa, S.J. Hillestad & J. Veie

The Norwegian Public Roads Administration, Statens Vegvesen, Oslo, Norway
ABSTRACT: The Norwegian Public Roads Administration, Statens Vegvesen (SVV), intends to improve the
existing E39 road connection between Kristiansand and Trondheim by replacing eight existing fjord ferry crossings along E39 by fixed crossings either replaced by tunnels or by bridges. Some of the crossings are highly
complicated due to large water depths and the width of the fjords. For this reason Ramboll has for SVV carried
out ship collision risk studies for different bridge designs for the Sognefjorden crossing 3,7 km wide and up to
1,3 km deep in order to demonstrate that the solution is technical feasible and safe. The present paper describes
the applied methods for transforming the available information bathymetry, geography, bridge geometry and
the very detailed ship traffic recordings (AIS data) into a risk model that is able to estimate ship collision
probabilities and also forms the basis for delivering design loading requirements to the bridge designers.
INTRODUCTION
modes for the ship traffic technical and human

failures in the determination of ship collisions
frequencies.
The present paper is structured as follows: Section
2 provides overview of the given background information, Section 3 describes the basis of the ship collision
risk model, Section 4 gives the results of applying the
risk model with given input information and Section
5 describes how to transfer the collision results into
design requirements for the bridge and in Section 6 is
given some concluding remarks.
The existing E39 road in Norway between Kristiansand

in south and Trondheim in north shall be improved
such that the eight existing fjord crossings being a part
of E39 presently ferry crossings are replaced with
fixed crossings either as tunnels or as bridges. Some of
the crossings are highly complicated due to the large
water depths and the width of the fjords.
For this reason, SVV has asked Rambll to verify that establishing a fixed crossing for these fjords
is technical possible and safe for the users. Rambll
has been involved in many large bridge and tunnel
projects including e.g. resund Bridge and Tunnel
(DK/SE), Femern Belt Immersed Tunnel (DK/DE),
Forth Replacement Crossing (UK) preparing design
requirements and demonstrating that risk is acceptable for users of the bridge, for third party and for the
environment.
For use in these projects Rambll has established a
ship collision risk model, Rasmussen (2012), Femern
Blt A/S (2010) and The Royal Danish Administration of Navigation and Hydrography (2006), that
determines collision probabilities and consequences
for selected structural elements based on given
information regarding bridge geometry, bathymetry,
geography, current and weather and also based on
quantification of human errors.
The present paper describes the background information and how this information is used in the
modeling of ship collision frequencies for different
conceptual bridge designs in Sognefjorden.
The risk model uses the background information
together with information regarding possible failure
BASIC INFORMATION
Sognefjorden is Norways longest, and the worlds second longest fjord. It stretches 205 kilometers and is up
to 1300 m deep. Part of Sognefjorden and the location
of the proposed fixed link are seen below in Figure 1.
The large water depth makes bridge solutions far
more feasible than tunnel solutions below seabed.
However, the bridge alternative forms obviously an
Figure 1. Proposed fixed link crossing of Sognefjorden.
Figure 2. Conceptual bridge designs. Floating bridge (top)

and submerged floating tunnel SFT (bottom).
Figure 3. Pontoon distances. Floating bridge (top) and SFT

(bottom).
obstacle to the ship traffic and in order to estimate

whether this obstacle poses an acceptable or unacceptable risk to the users of the bridge, to the marine
traffic and to the environment, a risk model has been
established.
The ship collision risk model relies on a set of input
that has to be available and described. This includes
bridge design, geographical and meteorological information and ship traffic information. This information
is described in the following sections. In later sections
descriptions regarding failure modes (technical and
human failures) that also are input to the risk model
are given.
2.1
2.2 Geographical and meteorological

information
Location of the bridge (alignment, pontoons etc.) is
hence given. Furthermore, all coastlines and water
depths are stored with coordinates such that grounding
issues can be included in the analysis (ships grounding
before passing the bridge should not contribute to the
ship collision risk to the bridge).
Wind and current influences drifting behavior of
ships with failure on propulsion machinery. A wind
rose from Takle (see Figure 1 for location of Takle),
the nearest weather station around 10 km west of the
location of the fixed link, has been used and is shown
together with current patterns in Figure 4. It is noted
that the resulting drifting direction besides depending
on wind and current also depends on the wind area of
the ship. In the risk model a common drifting ship
direction is determined as a function of both wind
and current weighing wind directions with 80% and
current direction with 20%.
Bridge design
Sognefjorden is a very deep fjord up to 1,3 km deep.

This means that usual bridge designs founded on the
seabed is not possible. In order to account for this the
proposed design of bridges are floating bridge designs
using pontoons as supports.
The present paper deals with two different designs
a floating bridge with piers supported on pontoons
and a submerged floating tunnel (SFT) where tunnel
tubes are kept in place by fixation to floating pontoons.
Examples of the two conceptual designs are shown in
the figure above.
The floating bridge is hence supported on two floating piers with a distance between of 1233 m. The SFT
is supported by 16 pontoons. The distances between
pontoons vary from 175 m to 430 m in the middle span.
The floating bridge has concrete pontoons circular
shaped with a diameter of 75 m. The SFT has steel
pontoons rectangular shaped (80 m 30 m) with
length axis parallel to the main sailing route.
2.3 Ship traffic

The ship traffic in Sognefjorden has been described
based on analysis of registrations of ship movements
in 2010. The ship movement registrations are based on
AIS (Automatic Identification System) data. The AIS
is an automatic tracking system used for identifying
and locating vessels by electronically exchanging data
with other nearby ships and AIS Base stations. The
majority of ships are equipped with the system and for
ships above 300GT the system has been mandatory
since 2003. It is noted that data from AIS, in many
10
Figure 5. Intensity plot of ship traffic in Sognefjorden.
Figure 4. Wind rose, wind velocities and current patterns at

Sognefjorden.
Figure 6. The cruise ship Balmoral.
respect to size (length, breadth and draught, displacement and GT) and with respect to velocity, course, ship
type etc. In Figure 5 is shown an intensity plot of the
AIS data and an annual counting of ships on the three
main routes in the area.
Since the ferry route (route 4) is expected to stop
service when the bridge is opened, this route is not
described further.
An example of a cruise ship in Sognfjorden is
Balmoral, a large cruise ship of approximately
25000 tons displacement. Balmoral is shown in
Figure 6.
In order to use the ship traffic data in the risk
model, the registered number of ships on each route
is assigned to a GT class according to their size and a
traffic forecast for 2030 have been carried out.
Forecasted values are based on the registered
present values and corrected in order to account for
national economic development and local initiatives
concerning cruise ship operations.
A general annual increase of 2.5 % is applied to the
number of ships in all ship classes. Furthermore, construction of new cruise ship harbors in Sognefjorden
is expected to increase the number of cruise ships over
the coming years. Hence, besides the general annual
2.5% increase, the ship classes 8 and 9 primarily
consisting of cruise ship movements is increased
further by 10%.
In Figure 7 the estimated number of annual ship
movements divided into GT classes is given for the
forecast year 2030.
cases, does not contain information about pleasure

crafts, smaller fishing vessels and other small vessels
not equipped with AIS. These are however considered
not having any influence on the structural damage in
case of a ship collision.
In the area where the bridge are planned to cross
Sognefjorden there are presently four major sailing
routes.
1. The main sailing route for commercial ship traffic
is located in the centre of Sognefjorden. The main
sailing route for commercial ship traffic is also used
by a large number of cruise ships in the cruiseseason visiting a number of important cruise ports
in the fjord.
2. High speed passenger crafts (HSC) go from
Bergen to Sognefjorden and use a sailing route
closer to the northern coast line.
3. Local traffic to Instefjord use a sailing route close
to the southern coast line
3 THE FERRY ROUTE CROSSING

SOGNEFJORDEN AS A PART OF THE E39
CONNECTION FROM DRAMMEN TO
TRONDHEIM
The detailed information available in AIS data forms
a solid basis for presenting the ship traffic in the area.
This includes intensity plots, distribution of ships with
11
Figure 7. Distribution of ships in GT classes forecasted

values for 2030.
4
4.1
SHIP COLLISION RISK MODELLING

Introduction
In connection with design and construction of the

Fehmarnbelt Link proposed bridge and tunnel
designs for a fixed link between Denmark and
Germany detailed sip traffic studies have been made
and an advanced ship collision risk model have been
established, Rasmussen (2012). This reference reviews
existing models, Fujii (1983), Macduff (1974) and
Pedersen (1995), and estimated data input, RandrupThomsen (2001) in renewing the ship collision risk
model.
The risk model deals with a set of ship accident
scenarios including e.g. groundings, ship-ship collisions and ship-obstacle collisions. For the present use
focus is on accident scenarios leading to ship-obstacle
collisions collisions between the ship and the bridge.
The basic concept in the ship accident scenarios is
that the ships may based on the location on the considered route be at collision or grounding course,
but will normally make proper evasive actions such
that an accident does not occur, Pedersen (1995). An
accident only occurs in cases, where a failure occurs
and an evasive action is not made. Hence, the frequency of an accident relates to the two probability
contributions: 1 The probability of a ship being on collision or grounding course and 2 The probability that
the navigator(s) does not make evasive actions in due
time. The risk model is based on a modelling of ships
on defined routes and a modelling of ship behaviour
on these routes. Since the focus of the present paper
merely is on demonstrating how real ship data is transformed into a risk model, the focus will be on the route
modelling part and other parts are described in more
general terms.
4.2
Figure 8. Intensity plot of current ship traffic in

Sognefjorden and estimated sailing routes when bridge is
present floating bridge (top) and SFT (bottom).
into a set of defined routes. Possible routes have been

discussed with pilots from The Norwegian Coastal
Directorate (Kystverket) having large experience in
maneuvering in Fjords. Based on their statements
and based on experience from AIS registrations from
similar bridge crossings, the routes shown below are
applied to the model.
4.2.1 Geometrical modeling
The geometrical modeling of location of ships on the
described routes is based on knowledge on how ships
are located on the routes today.
Far away from the bridge there will be no difference
from today whereas close to the bridge the ship location on the routes is influenced by the presence of a
bridge.
Hence, as a starting point the geometric modeling
of the routes will be based on AIS registrations of
actual observations on ships on the routes and a suitable probability distribution fitting to the observations.
The observed ship locations in form of histograms are
shown below in Figure 9.
In Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12 are shown
histograms and corresponding fitted probability distributions for the routes in Sognefjorden.
It is seen from the figures that most ships are located
centrally around the centre line of the route but also that
some ships are moving quite a distance from the centre line. The fitting procedure maximum-likelihood
fitting selects parameters from a uniform distribution (U) accounting for ships far from the centre
Route modeling
Obviously the routes are changed compared to the current ship pattern due to the presence of the bridge.
The total ship traffic volume must therefore be split
12
Figure 9. Histograms of observed ship locations on the three

routes along Sognefjorden.
Figure 12. Distribution fitting secondary route.
Table 1.
Distribution parameters.
Route
Direction
Type*
[m]
HSC
HSC
Main
Main
Secondary
Secondary
West
East
West
East
West
East
N -U
LN -U
N -U
N -U
N -U
N -U
89
128
200
188
126
180
11%
14%
17%
17%
6%
0%
1000
1300
2640
2640
830
830
The ML-fitting to the selected distributions aims

at maximizing the ML-function for the following
resulting density function F(x):
Figure 10. Distribution fitting HSC route.
where U = the uniform distribution function; and

G = the Normal (N) or Log-Normal (LN) distribution
function.
The fitting parameters maximizing F(x) are given
in Table 1. Distributions are shifted such that mean
value is located at the centre line of the route
( = 0).
Closer to the bridge crossing other distribution
parameters for , and b are used. These parameters
are based on observations from similar route types in
resund (resund Bridge) and in Great Belt (Great
Belt Bridge) in Denmark.
It is noted that fitting to observed data not in all
cases will account for ships erroneously out of course
due to the relative short period of registrations.
The risk model allows for ships located more
random in the area by requiring that the uniform
distribution is a part of the resulting distribution.
Figure 11. Distribution fitting main route.
line, a Normal/Log-Normal distribution (N/LN) and

a weighting of the two distributions depending on the
considered location. From other studies, Rasmussen
(2012) and Randrup-Thomsen (2001), different distribution types and parameters (standard deviation
, uniform ratio and uniform width b) are found
depending on the nature of the route open waters,
narrow navigation channels, bridge crossings etc.
4.3 Accident scenarios

Accident scenarios are driven by two different failure
types human failure and technical failure (loss of
propulsion or steering machine failure).
13
Figure 14. Illustration of a drifting ship after loss of

propulsion.
Figure 13. Illustration of collision due to human failure.
4.3.1 Ship-obstacle collisions human failure

The model for determining the number of ships on
collision course (number of collision candidates NCC )
consists of one or two contributions depending on the
layout of the navigation route: Straight route before
obstacle: All ships at collision course are collision
candidates and Bend on the route before meeting
obstacle: All ships on collision/grounding course
before the bend are collision candidates. The situations are sketched in Figure 13 above.
It is seen that a collision will occur, if the ships on
collision course keeps the position and do not make
evasive manoeuvres. Not making evasive maneuvers
is taken as a human failure.
It is assumed that the occurrence of a human failure is independent of the position of the ship and that
a human failure will influence navigation of the ship
for an average of 20 minutes. During this period it is
assumed that the ship will maintain the same course
and speed as it did before the human failure occurred.
It is assumed that the sailing course and speed is corrected after the human failure is detected. The annual
number of collisions Ncoll due to human failure can be
determined as
Figure 15. Illustration of a ship track after steering machine

failure.
The present model uses an annual failure probability of 2 104 which also corresponds well with more
general studies of human behavior, Kirwan (1994).
4.3.2 Ship-obstacle collision technical failure
Technical failures are here related to situations where
the navigator loses control of speed and course. Two
scenarios dealing with technical failures are included:
loss of propulsion (leading to a ship drifting in a
direction generated by wind and current) and steering
machine failure (leading to a ship leaving the planned
course taking a new direction). Examples of the two
situations are sketched in Figure 14 and in Figure 15.
4.3.2.1 Loss of propulsion machinery
Reliable statistical data have not been reported for loss
of propulsion on a ship. However, according to general
ship navigator experience and engineering judgments,
the propulsion machinery on a ship is assumed to
fail approximately once during a year in service.
Furthermore, assuming 270 effective sailing days per
year to be relevant for a typical commercial ship,
the frequency fdrift of loss of propulsion machinery
becomes
where NCC = the number of collision candidates; and

1 Pevasive = the probability of not making an evasive
manoeuvre due to human failure (Phuman ).
The probability of human failure the probability
that a collision candidate does not avoid the collision
is estimated based on a large number of studies referred
in details in Rasmussen (2012). This includes Fujii
(1983) and Fujii (1971), MacDuff (1974) and Pedersen
(1995). The studies all find values for human failures in the region of between 0.8 104 and 5.0 104 .
14
The frequency of loss of propulsion is adopted

for all types of ships, although differences in reserve
power and backup systems are present. Furthermore,
the frequency is assumed constant throughout the
passage of the investigated area.
The risk related to loss of propulsion is beside the
failure frequency also depending on wind and current
conditions in the area and on the ability to regain control of the ship either by repairing machinery or by
emergency anchoring (all though not considered possible in Sognefjorden). Probabilities related to these
issues are also accounted for in the risk model.
4.3.2.2 Steering failure
The frequency of failure of the steering system fsteering
has in a U.S. investigation by Heinrich (1959) been
estimated to 0.41 failures per year pr ship. With 270
effective sailing days per year assumed representative
for a typical commercial ship, the frequency per hour
of failure of the steering system becomes
Figure 16. HOB collision frequencies SFT.
This frequency or rate of steering failure is adopted

for all types of ships and is assumed constant throughout the passage of the investigated area. In the risk
model is included a scenario where a steering failure
occurs immediately before passing the bridge leading
to an immediate and significant course change. The
course change will be depending on turning radius and
rudder angle. In the risk model is used a turning radius
of 2,5 times the length of the ship.
Additional scenarios for ships having steering failures further away from the bridge with only minor or no
course changes is not included. It is assumed that this
failure will be detected and repaired before reaching
bridge passage area or that measures are taken (engine
machinery astern) to avoid the risk.
The frequency of loss of propulsion and the frequency of steering failure is studied and reviewed in
details in the Fehmarnbelt link project as reported in
Rasmussen (2012). These studies support the order of
magnitude of the applied failure frequencies.
5
Figure 17. Sideways collision frequencies SFT.
ships. Only a fraction of the total collision frequencies

originates from more serious collisions.
The ship collisions will have different initial impact
energy depending on e.g. ship size, velocity and the
type of collision under consideration. For head on collisions (HOB) the impact energy will be considerably
larger than for sideways collisions. HOB collisions
tend to occur with higher ship speed than sideways collisions (drifting ships having lost engine power). For
this reason the collision frequencies have been divided
into HOB collisions and sideway collisions. Resulting
frequencies distributed on single pontoons are shown
in Figure 16 and Figure 17. The navigational route goes
between pontoon 8 and 9.
It is seen that sideways collision frequencies are
far smaller than HOB collisions frequencies but are
having contributions from all pontoons also the ones
closest to shore.
Dominating contributions to the overall HOB collisions are closer to the sailing route. It is noted that the
most critical pontoon is no. 6. This pontoon is critical
since it is on a straight line from the main route from
east to west having a bend east of the bridge. Navigators forgetting to turn at the bend will continue and
collide in an area around pontoon 6. The situation is
sketched in Figure 18.
RESULTING COLLISION FREQUENCIES
The ship collision risk model described in the previous

sections has been applied to both bridge solutions the
SFT and the floating bridge.
Results in terms of collision frequencies with the
pontoons and in terms of pontoon impact energy
distributions are given in the following.
5.1
SFT collision frequencies
The overall collision frequency for the bridge is

1.1 101 corresponding to a return period for ship
collisions of approximately 10 years. This includes
all types of collisions including from minor glancing of the pontoons and collisions from very small
5.2 SFT collision impact energy

The collision frequency for each pontoon has contributions from different ships in the risk model
15
Table 2.
Collision frequency and impact energy percentiles.

Energy [MNm]
Pontoon
Frequency
90%
95%
99%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
9.31 104
1.01 103
1.18 103
2.79 103
1.29 102
2.51 102
1.51 102
1.46 102
1.25 102
5.28 103
5.10 103
9.10 103
1.94 103
8.54 104
6.61 104
5.80 104
371
378
384
391
348
303
336
234
204
240
132
124
194
255
133
121
1056
1078
1098
1121
1022
908
995
667
560
739
164
144
543
644
173
138
3052
3067
3080
3095
3042
2973
3025
2785
2669
2866
1600
271
2633
2658
3158
170
Figure 18. Human failure at route bends.
Figure 20. HOB collision frequencies floating bridge.
Figure 19. Collision energy distribution for pontoon 6

(HOB collision = Baugkollisjon, Sideway collisions =
Sidevegskollisjon).
expressed in terms of ship size classes. Hence, by

knowing ship displacements and ship velocities related
to the different ship classes it is possible to determine
the resulting collision impact energies to be accounted
for in the design of the pontoons. The impact energy
is expressed as
Figure 21. Sideways collision frequencies floating bridge.
where m = ship displacement including added hydrodynamic mass (20% for HOB collisions and 60% for
sideways collisions); and v = the velocity of the ship at
impact. The resulting impact energy is represented by
an impact energy distribution accounting for contributions from collision frequency for different ship classes
and also accounting for variation of displacement and
velocity within a given ship class. Resulting energy
distributions for pontoon 6 are shown in Figure 19.
For the floating bridge the dominating energy distributions originates from the HOB collisions. Energy
distribution percentiles for HOB collisions for use in
design work are given in Table 2.
5.3 Floating bridge collision frequencies

The overall collision frequency for the bridge is
9.2 103 corresponding to a return period for ship
collisions of approximately 100 years. Resulting frequencies for the two pontoons are shown in Figure 20
and Figure 21.
5.4
Floating bridge collision impact energy
It is seen that sideway collision frequencies and HOB

collision frequencies are of same order of magnitude.
16
Other less strict requirements shall be established

if redundancy arrangements ensure that a collision
does not lead to collapse of the bridge.
7
It is demonstrated that the use of AIS data forms a solid

basis for establishing a ship collision risk model that
is able to evaluate ship collision frequencies.
The very detailed information inAIS data data that
has not previously been available makes it possible to
determine design parameters in a more accurate manner than before. This includes estimation of impact
energies and impact loads through detailed information about ship velocities and ship size parameters
(length, breadth, actual draught and displacement).
For the considered bridge designs it has been shown
that the ship collision frequencies is of a magnitude that requires that ship collision loading shall be
included in the bridge design. Suggestions for design
parameters in form of impact energy distributions are
made available.
Figure 22. Collision energy distribution for pier 1

(HOB collision = Baugkollisjon, Sideway collisions =
Sidevegskollisjon).
Table 3.
Collision frequency and impact energy percentiles.

Energy [MNm]
Pontoon
Frequency
90%
95%
99%
1
2
5,55 104
3,56 103
275
202
781
598
2855
2762
REFERENCES
EN 1991 Eurocode 1. Part 17. 2007. Actions on
structures accidental loading.
Eurocode 0 1990. 2007. Basis for structural design, EN 1990.
Femern Blt A/S. 2010. Navig ational studies of vessel traffic
conditions in the Fehmarnbelt. Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link.
Great Belt VTS Reports.
Fujii, Y. & Tanaka, K. 1971. Traffic capacity. Journal of
navigation.
Fujii, Y. 1983. Integrated Study on Marine Traffic Accidents,
IABSE Colloquium Copenhagen.
Heinrich, H. W. 1959. Industrial Accident Preservation. A
Scientific Approach.
Hndbok 185 Bruprosjektering Eurokode utgave, Statens
vegvesen, 2011.
Joint Committee of Structural Safety. 2001. Probabilistic
Model Code, Basis of Design.
Kirwan, B. 1994. A guide to practical human reliability
assessment.
Larsen, O. D. 1993. Ship collision with bridges.
MacDuff, T. 1974.The Probability of Vessel Collisions.
Ocean Industry: 144148.
Pedersen, P. T. 1995. Probability of Grounding and Collision
Events, Risk and Response, 22nd WEGEMT School.
Randrup-Thomsen, S. et al. 2001, Characteristics of the
Ship Traffic Distribution Transverse to the Navigation
Channel, ICCGS 2001.
Rasmussen, F. M. et al. 2012, Quantitative assessment of
risk to ship traffic in the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link project,
Journal of Polish Safety and Reliability Association,
Summer Safety and Reliability Seminars 3, Number 12.
The Royal Danish Administration of Navigation and Hydrography, The Danish Maritime Authority and The Swedish
Maritime Administration. 2006, Navigational safety in
the Sound between Denmark and Sweden, Risk and
cost-benefit analysis.
Simonsen, B. C. 1997. Mechanics of ship, grounding, Technical University of Denmark.
Zhang, S. 1999. Mechanics of Ship Collision, Ph.D. thesis.
The collision energy for HOB collisions are however

significantly larger. For this reason, HOB collision
energies for the two piers have been determined. The
collision energy distribution for pier 1 is seen in
Figure 22.
Energy distribution percentiles for HOB collisions
for use in design work are presented in Table 3 above.
CONCLUSION
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
SVV (2011) suggests that accidental loading like e.g.

ship collisions shall be considered in design if the frequency is above 1 104 . This means that for both the
floating bridge and the SFT the design must take into
account ship collision loading for pontoons where the
collision frequency is above 1 104 .
The energy distributions are hence available for
the bridge designers in their determination of design
requirements for the pontoons. This can be done
directly by using the impact energy distributions
together with force-indentation curves for relevant
ship types. Zhang (1999), Larsen (1993) and Simonsen
(1997) suggest various force indentation curve representations. Or it can be done indirectly by determining
a design ship on basis of the energy distributions and
the related ship classes.
Further, Eurocodes (1990) and Eurocodes (2007)
gives requirements for designing for accidental loading depending on the consequence of a collision. Also
Joint Committee of Structural Safety (2001) suggests
methods for demonstrating sufficient safety. Design
in high safety class must be in place if the collision
leads to a collapse of the bridge.
17
VTS a risk reducer: A quantitative study of the effect of VTS Great Belt
T. Lehn-Schiler, M.G. Hansen, K. Melchild, T.K. Jensen, S. Randrup-Thomsen,
K.A.K. Glibbery & F.M. Rasmussen
Rambll, Copenhagen, Denmark
F. Ennemark
Femern A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark
ABSTRACT: In the Danish water of Great Belt a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) offers navigational assistance
and information about conditions important to shipping and safety at sea. In this paper a general method for
evaluating the effect of a VTS in terms of how much VTS increases the navigational safety is presented. The
method is developed based on incident reports from Great Belt VTS. Results from the Great Belt VTS leads to
a conservative estimate that VTS is able to reduce the number of collision and grounding with between 60%
and 90%.
INTRODUCTION
provides a methodology for quantifying the effect of a

VTS system in terms of how much the VTS increases
the navigational safety by reducing the frequency of
groundings and collisions.VTS may also have an effect
on minimizing the consequences of an accident if it
should occur. In this case VTS may be able to inform
other ships thus avoiding the accident to evolve further
or VTS may be able to assist in search and rescue or in
oil containment operations. The effect of consequence
minimization is not considered in this paper.
The background for the study is the construction of
the fixed link in Fehmarn Belt. However, the findings
are of general interest, e.g.:
The Baltic Sea is one of the worlds most trafficked waters and the entrance through Great Belt
and Fehmarn Belt is busy with many large oil tankers,
bulk carriers and container vessels traveling through
the area. Around 25,000 ships pass through Great
Belt each year and around 40,000 ships pass through
Fehmarn Belt. These numbers are expected to increase
in the future. With the construction of the Great Belt
Bridge in 1998 and the future construction of a fixed
link crossing Fehmarn Belt to join Denmark and
Germany a great effort is put into analyzing and ensuring the safety for the ships in the region. During work
with navigational safety on the fixed link in Fehmarn
Belt a range of risk reducing measures have been considered to ensure that the construction phase and the
fixed link itself will be as safe as possible for the ships
traveling through the waters.
In the investigations it became apparent that relatively little is known about the risk reduction effect
of a VTS system. In the Formal Safety Assessment made before the construction of the Great Belt
Bridge the fixed link between Zealand and Funen
in Denmark and in the Formal Safety Assessments for
the resundsbron the fixed link between Denmark
and Sweden the introduction of a VTS is estimated
to reduce the number of accidents by 50%. However,
this number is not verified in the literature; in fact the
literature contains only few references dealing with
the effect of VTS the few available references are
described in section 2.
It is of interest to gain quantified knowledge about
the effect of the VTS as VTS is one of the greatest risk reducers in navigational safety. This paper
When considering whether to construct a VTS

When evaluating the cost/benefit of existing VTS
systems
When considering VTS as a risk reducing measure
for navigational safety and environmental impact
of new constructions
This paper provides a case study of the Great Belt
VTS; even though every VTS system is expected to
be different, the effect of a VTS is likely to be similar
under similar conditions with regard to traffic intensity
and the nature of the water way. In general the approach
for quantifying the effect is applicable to other types of
VTS where the results cannot be transferred directly.
Examples of this include both coastal, river, and harbor
VTS.
In the Great Belt area a VTS has existed since
the construction of the Great Belt Bridge began. The
VTS operates a Ship Reporting System offering information about conditions and incidents important to
shipping and safety at sea. If necessary the service can
provide individual information to a ship particularly
19
of VTS as described by Rambll Danmark (Rambll

Danmark, 2006).
Evaluating the effect of navigational risk reducers
can be difficult due to the small number of accidents
(Goossens & Glansdorp, 1998; Debnath, 2009). In
Great Belt a historical comparison, a before VTS/after
VTS study is further complicated due to factors such
as a change in the traffic intensity, installation of the
Great Belt bridge and subsequent changes in fairway
layout and the introduction of the Automatic Identification System (AIS). In general a study of the VTS
efficiency is complicated by the fact that the number
of accidents that would have occurred without VTS is
unknown.
In their analysis of navigational safety and the
efficiency of VTS systems Goossens and Glansdorp
(Goossens & Glansdorp, 1998) describe three levels of initiating events for accidents: Macro-strategic
events, meso-strategic events and tactical events. For
the macro-strategic events the reason for the accident is insufficient voyage planning; according to
systems Goossens and Glansdorp such events account
for around 20% of the accidents. Meso-strategic events
occur when the navigator has insufficient information
about the traffic conditions or the situation otherwise
is different than expected when planning the journey. Such events account for approximately 20% of
all accidents. Tactical events occur when the navigator has to make quick decisions in unforeseen
situations; in (Goossens & Glansdorp, 1998) tactical
events are reported to account for around 60% of all
accidents.
Goossens and Glansdorp argue that the time frame
for tactical initiating events is too short for the VTS
operator to intervene; thus leaving a VTS with influence only on 40% of the accidents. However, as the
paper was written in 1998 before the introduction of
AIS, it is reasonable to believe that this new tool has
made it possible for VTS operators in some cases
to intervene in the tactical stage. Furthermore, early
advice by the VTS operator might prevent a critical
situation that requires immediate action from the navigator in occurring, such action will remove some of
the accidents due to tactical events even before they
arise.
A low number of observed accidents are typical to
traffic safety studies. This problem has been handled
in other studies using an approach taken from road
traffic namely the Traffic-Conflict-Technique (TCT).
TCT is described in relation to navigational safety in
(Debnath, 2009). TCT relies on the fact that even
though few accidents are observed, the number of near
misses is greater than the number of accidents and the
number of unsafe situations is even higher.A drawback
of the TCT is the reliance on subjective judgments by
the observers, a problem that could be relieved by using
objective measures. From AIS data which is also
available in Great Belt it would be possible to estimate the severity of a traffic conflict, either using the
methods described in (Debnath, 2009) or by employing
the ship domain theory (Hansen, 2013).
in relation to positioning and navigation assistance or

local conditions. The services provided are described
in IMO resolution MSC.230-82.
In this paper it is proposed to split the effect VTS
has on the navigational safety into two different effects:
1) Increased awareness and information level:
VTS informs about the intentions of other ships,
general navigational conditions and special
conditions such as slow traffic.
The fact that VTS monitors the traffic increases
the awareness of the navigators.
VTS encourages ships to communicate, relieving difficult situations before they occur.
2) Acute accident avoidance:
VTS detects situations which may lead to
groundings and collisions and provides navigational assistance to navigators in these
situations.
In the following sections focus is on estimating
these two main effects of VTS. First an introduction
to previous studies is presented in section 2, followed
by a description of the approach taken in this study in
section 3. In section 4 the two effects of VTS are examined and combined to an overall estimate, before the
conclusion in section 5. Throughout the paper numbers
from Great Belt VTS are used to illustrate the method
but, it is straightforward to replace the numbers and
perform the analysis for any other VTS.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The number of studies describing the effect of a VTS

system is limited; a few studies (Fujii & Mizuki, 1998;
Olsen, et al., 1992) are related to the construction of
the Great Belt Bridge, but they do not provide any
data based quantification of the effects of the VTS.
However, since the early work of Fujii and Macduff in
the 70ties (Fujii & Shiobara, 1971; MacDuff, 1974)
marine traffic risk has been studied intensively in many
papers. Studies of probability of collision and groundings are numerous, see e.g. (Mazaheri, 2009;T Nyman,
VTT, 2009), and the field of domain theory has also
received a fair amount of attention (Goodwin, 1975;
Hansen, 2013; Wang, et al., 2009; Fujii, 1971). The
use of Formal Safety Assessments in risk studies of
harbors (Trbojevic & Carr, 2000) and in relation to
construction of the Great Belt Bridge (Gimsing, 1998),
the bridge between Denmark and Sweden (Rambll
Danmark, 2006) and other safety evaluations, have
emphasized the need for quantitative evaluation of risk
reduction. According to several studies (Rothblum,
2006; van Manen & Frandsen, 1998) human error contributes to between 75% and 96% of all accidents. In
(Hnninen, 2008) a review of how human factors influence navigational safety is given, including a Bayesian
network analysis linking human failures to the effect
20
METHOD
only the southern part of the area was covered. Reports

from before and after the expansion are treated alike
as the analysis does not depend on the size of the area).
A total of 341 reports were written and 107 of these
concerned danger of collision or grounding. In the five
year period 7 accidents occurred in the area, none of
them with serious consequences.
This study relies on the incident reporting system in

place at the Great Belt VTS. The VTS operators monitor the traffic and provide assistance to the navigators.
An incident report is generated when a serious incident
occurs, or if an incident is important for future learning. The nature of these reports varies from reporting
small boats fishing in a no-fishing zone to machine
failures on large oil tankers. Around one third of the
reports concern situations with a risk of collision or
grounding. Such reports typically contain a detailed
description of the involved ship(s), a detailed account
for the actions on the ship and by the VTS operator
and maps with radar and AIS tracks of the episode.
The reports are subjective in nature as they are written by the operators. However, the procedures at the
Great Belt VTS ensure reasonable consistency in what
is reported.
Studies of AIS tracks from the area have also been
performed but a direct comparison to the incident
reports has not been conducted as little is known about
incidents where no report was written.
To conduct the analysis, two effects of VTS on the
navigational safety are considered:
EFFECT OF VTS
In the five year period from 2006 to 2010 approximately 125,000 ships passed through the Great Belt.
For the entire VTS area the number is slightly higher
as some smaller ships cross the area in the East/West
direction. Under the current conditions with VTS
present it is found from the reports that around 107
of the 125,000 ships are involved in an incident with
danger of grounding or collision. VTS has contact with
all the navigators as they enter the VTS area and are
hence able to inform the navigators about the navigational conditions and ensure that they are aware of the
obstacles both permanent and temporary due to
weather or traffic. VTS operators also provide early
warnings to navigators on ships that may meet another
ship at a critical location, typically operators request
navigators to contact each other to make arrangements
for safe passage; such early warning contacts are made
around 8 times each day but, are not recorded in a
report. Furthermore, the navigators are aware that they
are travelling in a VTS area and are under observation and it is likely that this will heighten their level
of awareness. All these factors influence the overall
safety in the area in a positive direction.
From the reports it is not possible directly to
estimate how large this positive effect of increased
awareness and information level is on the safety.
1) Increased awareness and information level.

VTS has an effect from increasing the awareness of
the navigators and the information level available
to the navigators (macro-strategic and mesostrategic). VTS informs about the general navigational conditions and about special conditions such
as slow traffic or bad weather. Furthermore, the
fact that VTS monitors the traffic increases the
awareness level of the navigators in the area.
2) Acute accident avoidance.
There is an effect of VTS on acute accident avoidance (tactical level). VTS can detect incidents
which may lead to groundings and collisions and
provide navigational assistance to the ships in these
situations.
4.1 Mathematical formulation

We assume that the number of accidents would be
higher without VTS than with a VTS. The number of
potential accidents that would have happened without
VTS is denoted as AP , and the number of accidents that
are actually observed is denoted as A0 . The relation
between the two can be written as:
The two effects are investigated based on the reports

from VTS during the period 20062010. In this period
around 25,000 ships passed through the Great Belt
area each year, the VTS area can be seen in Figure 1
(In July 2007 the VTS area was expanded to cover
two sectors as illustrated in the figure, before this date
where RVTS is the reduction factor (between 0 and 1)

on the number of accidents. If the total effect of VTS
is a 60% reduction in accidents (RVTS = 0.6), 40% of
the potential accident will turn into observed accidents
(A0 = AP (10.6)). In this equation it is unfortunately
only A0 that can be observed directly.
As pointed out in the previous section there are
two major effects of VTS behind the reduction in the
number of accidents:
Increased information level and awareness
Acute accident avoidance
Figure 1. Overview of the Great Belt VTS area.
21
The first effect reduces the number of critical situation that occur, and the second effect reduces the
number of critical situations that turn into accidents.
Assuming that these effects are statistically independent a reduction of the number of critical situations
of 20% due to increased information combined with a
reduction in the number of critical situations that turn
into accident of 50% will result in a total reduction
factor of 1 (1 0.2)(1 0.5) = 0.6 or in general:
where Rac is the reduction factor due to acute accident prevention and Raw is the reduction factor due
to increased awareness and information level. The
effect of increased awareness and information level
is important for the effect of VTS Raw unfortunately
it is difficult if not impossible to get an accurate estimate of the effect. Therefore the effect of
VTS for varying influence of Raw is investigated in
a later section.
4.2
Estimating effect on acute accident

avoidance Rac
Figure 2. Breakdown of incident reports concerning

groundings and collision.
Of the 125,000 ships that have passed through the

Great Belt in the five year period 107 ships are mentioned in VTS reports concerning incidents with a
potential for either collision or grounding. Figure 2
shows a diagram of how these incidents evolve. The
process of categorizing the incidents in the incident
reports is important, but also time consuming and
somewhat subjective. Table 1 shows counts of various
types of situations from the Great Belt VTS incident
reports.
From the diagram it can be seen that some reports
(NA = 102) concern situations where VTS offer navigational assistance to the ships and some (ANP = 5)
reports concern accidents that were not predictable or
were not detected by the VTS until after the accident
had occurred. There are most likely a number of unpredicted incidents that do not lead to accidents and are
therefore unreported. As there are no reliable counts
of these incidents they are excluded from the analysis.
During the five year period VTS has been in contact
with 85 ships that are involved in a critical situation
(SC ). These ships are either heading towards shallow
water or are getting close to a critical ship ship situation. From the reports it is evident that some of these
situations would have resulted in an accident without
the intervention of the VTS. However, it is also evident
that most of the situations would have been handled last
minute by the navigator(s) or avoided by pure luck. A
fairly common situation is when a ship approaches
shallow waters and is informed by VTS, in this case it
is likely that the navigator in some cases would have
checked the map and location before an accident would
occur. Situations where VTS was not able to contact
the ship or where the VTS advice was ignored (SNC )
are examined to estimate the fraction of critical situations that would result in an accident. Here we see
Table 1. Observed statistics from the Great Belt VTS

incident reports from the period 20062010.
Symbol
Description
ANP
Unpredicted accidents accidents that

could not be or were not predicted by
the VTS
Navigational assistance offered
Communication not possible.
Number of situations where a ship
could not be contacted byVTS or
ship ignored VTS advice in a
critical situation
Communication possible. Number of
situations where a ship was successfully
contacted by VTS in a critical situation
Accidents where VTS was not able to
contact the ship or VTS advice was
ignored
Accidents when communication is
possible
NA
SNC
SC
ANC
AC
Count
5
102
17
85
2
0
that in 17 cases VTS cannot contact the ship during a

critical situation or the VTS advice was ignored. Two
of these situations result in an accident (ANC ). That
is, the fraction of critical situations that evolve into an
accident (FA ) when VTS cannot communicate with the
ship or VTS advice was ignored is:
Assuming that the fraction of critical situations that

evolve into an accident when VTS cannot communicate with the ship or when VTS advice was ignored is
22
approximately the same for the ships that was contacted by the VTS (SC ) yields that the number of
accidents without acute VTS intervention would have
been:
The total number of potential accidents without

VTS (AP ) is written as a function of the number
of observed accidents (A0 ) and the total effect of
the VTS (RVTS ). With RVTS as described by equation 2 the number of total accidents becomes a
function of the estimated effect of acute accident
avoidance Rac = 59% and the effect of increased
awareness Raw .
That is, the actual number of accidents avoided in

acute situations (AA ) is a small fraction of the number
of situations in which VTS offered assistance.
The number of accidents that are observed in the
area (A0 ), is a sum of unpredicted accidents (ANP ),
accidents where VTS could not contact the ship or
where VTS advice was ignored (ANC ) and accidents
where VTS did contact the ship (AC )
To illustrate the effect of increased awareness and

information the number of avoided accidents (AP A0 )
during a 5 year period is plotted in Figure 3 as a
function of the effect of increased awareness and
information. With no effect of increased awareness
and information (Raw = 0%) the estimated number of
avoided accidents is equal to the 10 accidents estimated
with only the effect of acute accident avoidance. In the
other end of the scale with a high effect of increased
information and awareness the number of avoided
accidents becomes very high as a high reduction
requires a high number of potential accidents.
Unfortunately there is no evidence as to what the
true number of avoided accidents would have been
without the VTS. A comparison with the situation
before the VTS was established is not accurate as
routes have been changed partly as a consequence of
building the Great Belt Bridge, the intensity in traffic varies, ferries have stopped operating and AIS has
been introduced in the period.
Still a rough indication could be gained by examining historical accident data. The Danish maritime authorities keeps rigorously track of accidents
involving Danish ships and such accident registrations are available dating back to 1893 and can be
downloaded from the web site of the Danish Maritime Museum (http://www.maritime-museum.dk/vid
enscenter/soeulykke.asp).
In the 5 year period 1983-1987 just before construction of the Great Belt Bridge started accidents
involving Danish ships in the Great Belt area (groundings and collisions) have been counted based on these
reports. A total of 19 accidents (9 groundings and
10 collisions) involving Danish ships were found.
According to passage registration from VTS Great Belt
Danish ships only account for approximately 20% of
the ship traffic (2006 numbers) the real number of
accidents in the area could therefore easily have been
twice as high and most likely even higher. Comparing
with the 7 observed accidents from the VTS incident
reports yields a low estimate of 12 (19-7) avoided
accidents leading to a low estimate of the effect of
increased information and awareness of 10%. As the
19 accident only represent 20% of the ship traffic a
significantly higher actual accident count would be
expected. A conservative estimate is to double the
number of occurring accidents, with twice as many
occurring accidents the number of avoided accidents
would have been 32 (2 19 7), with a high estimate
of 5 times as many accidents the number of avoided
Adding the number of avoided accidents (AA ) to

the observed accidents, an estimate for the total number accidents that would have occurred without the
acute accident avoidance effect of VTS is found and
converted to a ratio of avoided accidents:
Or in general:
The estimate of Rac relies on an estimate of the fraction of critical situations that turn into accidents (FA ).
In Great Belt this fraction is estimated to be 12% based
on 2 observed accidents in 17 critical situations. Estimating the fraction of critical situations that would
evolve into an accident without a VTS present (FA ) is
difficult. In this study, the situations where VTS were
not able to contact the ship are used as a proxy leading to the fraction of 12%. As the data material behind
estimation of FA is limited the calculation of Rac has
been subjected to a sensitivity study to illustrate the
difference if one or three accidents had been observed
instead. In these cases the values of FA would lead to
a low estimate of 6% and a high estimatee of 18%
respectively. From the reports where VTS did contact the ships it seems reasonable to believe that the
true fraction is in this range. With these low and high
estimate of the values of FA the value of Rac would be
47% and 65% respectively.
4.3 Total effect of VTS
To estimate the total effect of the VTS on the navigational safety the effect of acute accident prevention
must be combined with the effect of an increased
awareness and information level. By rearranging
equation 1 we get:
23
Table 3.
Procedure for calculating the effect of a VTS.
Procedure
Symbol Details
From the event reports SC

find values for:
SNC
AC
ANP
Figure 3. The total number of accidents in the area without a
VTS can be written as the number of observed accidents with
VTS (AO) plus the number of accidents avoided by VTS. The
influence of increased awareness and information level on the
number of avoided accidents in a 5 year period is depicted
above. Calculations are based on the estimate of Rac .
ANC
Table 2. By utilizing equation 2 the total effect of the

Great belt VTS system is calculated for various combinations of the acute accident avoidance effect and the effect of
increased information and awareness, the low medium and
high estimates for Rac is derived in section 4.2.
Effect of acute accident
avoidance (Rac )
Effect of increased
awareness and
information level (Raw )
0%
10%
25%
50%
75%
Low
(6%)
Medium
(12%)
High
(18%)
Overall effect of VTS (RVTS )

47%
52%
60%
73%
87%
59%
63%
69%
79%
90%
65%
69%
74%
83%
91%
accidents would have been 88 over a 5 year period.

From Figure 3 this leads to an effect of increased information and awareness of 55% and 82% respectively.
These numbers are very rough estimates and should
be treated as such.
Values for the total effect of VTS can be found by
combining equation 2 with the estimate of Rac for various values of Raw , values for the total effect of VTS can
be found in Table 2. In lack of observed data about the
effect of increased awareness and information a best
guess based on the incident reports and the historic
accident counts is that the reduction in accidents from
increased awareness and information is in the range
of 25%75%. This results in a total accident reduction
effect of the Great Belt VTS of 60% to 90% where
60% is considered a very conservative value.
During the 5 year period (20062010) 7 accidents have been reported in the VTS area; of these 5
accidents were not detected beforehand by the VTS.
Number of situations
where a ship was
contacted by VTS in a
critical situation
Number of situations
where a ship could not
be contacted by VTS or
VTS advice is ignored
in a critical situation
Accidents when
communication is
possible
Accidents that was not
predicted or could not
be predicted by the
VTS VTS did not
detect the accident
before it was too late
Accidents where VTS
was not able to contact
the ship or VTS advice
was ignored
ANC
SNC
Estimate fraction
FA
of critical situations
that will result in an
accident without acute
VTS intervention.
Estimate the increase

in ships that would
have been involved in
an accident without
acute VTS
intervention.
= SC FA
AA
Calculate the total

A0
number of observed
accidents (with VTS).
= ANP + ANS + AC
Estimate the reduction Rac

effect from acute
accident avoidance.
Choose value of effect Raw

of increased awareness
and information level
(Raw ).
Calculate the risk
RVTS
reduction effect of
VTS
A value in the range

of 25%75% is
recommended.
AA
A0 + AA
= 1 (1 Rac )(1 Raw )
If this is a general trend it shows that when a VTS

system is present most of the accidents that occur are
from dangerous situations that were not predicted or
could not be predicted by the VTS. The positive side
to this is that when VTS detects a dangerous situation
they are most often able to prevent the situation from
evolving into an accident.
4.4 Procedure for calculating the effect of a VTS
The procedure for calculating the effect of a VTS is
summarized in Table 3. The procedure is based on
24
REFERENCES
access to incident report from the VTS. The procedure

identifies the key number FA which is the fraction of
critical situation that would evolve into an accident
without VTS interaction. Operators are conservative
when they contact ships, that is, some ships are contacted even when the incident would not have evolved
into an accident. The estimate of FA contains, among
other things, information about this conservatism, FA
could hence differ between VTS system and between
cultures. The output from the procedure is the risk
reduction from the acute accident avoidance. This
number combined with an estimate of the effect of
increased information and awareness results in the
total effect of the VTS.
5
Debnath, A.K. 2009. Traffic-conflict-based modeling of collision risk in port waters. Singapore: National University
of Singapore.
Fujii, Y. 1971. Effective Areas of Ships. Journal of Navigation 24.
Fujii, Y. & Mizuki, N. 1998. Design of VTS systems for
water with bridges. Ship collision Analysis: 177190.
Copenhagen.
Fujii, Y. & Shiobara, R. 1971. The Analysis of Traffic
Accidents. Journal of Navigation 24: 534543.
Gimsing, N. 1998. East Bridge. Copenhagen: Storebltsforbindelsen.
Goodwin, E.M. 1975. A Statistical Study of Ship Domains.
Journal of Navigation 28: 328344.
Goossens, L.H.J. & Glansdorp, C.C. 1998. Operational
benefits and risk reduction of marine accidents. Journal
of Navigation 51(3): 368381.
Hnninen, M. 2008. Analysis of human and organizational
factors in marine traffic risk modeling literature review,
s.l.: SAFGOF: Helsinki University of Technology.
Hansen, M. G. e. a., 2013. Safety ellipsis (In preperation).
MacDuff, T. 1974. The Probability of Vessel Collisions.
Ocean Industry: 144148.
Mazaheri, A. 2009. Probabilistic Modeling of Ship
Grounding A review of the literature, s.l.: Helsinki
University of Technology.
Olsen, D.; Gotfredsen, H. & Fujii, Y. 1992. Risk Reducing
Effects of the Great Belt VTS System. 7th International
VTS Symposium. Vancouver.
Rambll Danmark. 2006. Navigational Saftety in the Sound
between Demark and Sweden Risk and cost-benefit
analysis, s.l.: The Royal Danish Administration of
Navigation and Hydrography, the Danish Maritime
Authority and the Swedish Maritime Administration.
Rothblum, A.M. 2006. Safety, Human Error and Marine
Safety. In: U.S. Coast Guard Risk-Based Decision-Making
Guidelines. Orlando: U.S. Coast Guard Research &
Development Center.
T Nyman, V.T.T. 2009. Review of collision and grounding
risk analysis methods which can utilize the historical AIS
data and traffic patterns in seawaters, s.l.: Maritime and
logistics co-ordination platform SKEMA Coordination
Action.
Trbojevic, V. & Carr, B. 2000. Risk based methodology
for safety improvements in ports. Journal of Hazardous
Materials: 467480.
van Manen, S.E. & Frandsen, A.G. 1998. Ship collision with
bridges, review of accidents. In: Ship Collision Analysis:
310. Copenhagen: Balkema.
Wang, N.; Meng, X. & Xu, Q.W.Z. 2009. A Unified Analytical Framework for Ship Domains. Journal of Navigation:
643655.
CONCLUSION
This paper provides a general procedure to evaluate the

effect of a VTS and applies this procedure to analyze
the effect of the VTS in Great Belt. The procedure is
based on incident reports from the VTS and uses these
to quantify and combine two different effects of the
VTS: The effect of acute accident avoidance and the
effect of increased awareness and information level.
The procedure is described in general and can easily
be applied to quantify the effect of other VTS systems
where incident reports are available.
The Great Belt is heavily trafficked and difficult
to navigate. Even under such conditions the number
of accidents and the number of VTS incident reports
are limited. It is therefore evident that any estimates
based on the incident reports are uncertain; hence also
the estimate of the effect of VTS. Our analysis of the
effect of the Great Belt VTS results in an estimated
60% to 90% reduction of the frequency of collision
and grounding. A 60% reduction of the accident
frequency is considered a conservative estimate. The
true effect of VTS is probably higher.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors which to thank Niels Jacob Mygind at
the Admiral Danish Fleet and Jrgen Brandt and the
operators at the Great Belt VTS for providing access
to the incident reports and for inspiring discussions.
The valuable inputs from Professor Jens Froese at
the Jacobs University Bremen and Professor Preben
Terndrup Petersen at the Technical University of
Denmark are also much appreciated.
25
An improvement on a method for estimating number of collision

candidates between ships
F. Kaneko
National Maritime Research Institute, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan
ABSTRACT: Methods for estimation of frequency of collision candidates have been developed by several
researchers, such as Fujii, Pedersen and Kaneko etc. Those methods are thought to be able to deal with wide
ranging situations of collision candidates. However the case of small crossing angle has not been dealt with to a
satisfactory extent. This paper introduces a method to estimate the number of collision candidates in a crossing
between twowater ways which cross with a small angle. Prior to this a holistic formulation for considering
collision candidates is made and the existing method is reformulated. The method was examined by comparing
its results with the results of traffic simulations. This examination suggests the rationality of the model.
INTRODUCTION
water way considering the shape of ships (Pedersen

2010). He used a closed region around a ship which
is defined in the same way as Fujii defined. He
also used collision diameter defined by Fujii in his
formulation.
Kaneko developed a method that enables to estimate number of collision candidate analytically under
the assumption that a ship appears at the circular border
and progresses in the circular area with random direction (Kaneko 2004). Kaneko also developed a method
that enables to estimate the number of collision candidates in the area of unique ship density by defining the
ships shape as rectangle (Kaneko 2007). Kaneko estimated the number of collision candidates in real sea
area in Japan and estimated the collision frequency
of the area using the estimated number of collision
candidates obtained by application of the method and
number of collision accidents which were written in
the casualty statistics from the Japan Coast Guard
(Kaneko 2007).
Montewka developed a collision model in which
a ship is represented as a disc and MDTC (minimum distance to collision) is defined instead of
the abovementioned collision diameter. To determine MDTC value ship dynamics was considered
(Montewka 2010, 2012). He criticized collision models by Fujii, Pedersen and Kaneko as not considering
ship dynamics. He also suspected that their model may
not fully reflect the real interaction between ships at
close quarters (Montewka 2010). However rationality
of their model can be supported by the abovementioned
definition of collision candidates. The result of interaction between relevant ships at close quarters may
affects causation probability along as ship dynamics
affects it (Pedersen 2010). Therefore collision candidate based on geometrical collisional situation is
essential for analysis of occurrence of collision.
As Table 1 shows collision between ships has been

still very numerous and hazardous casualty to life and
environment globally. As the results of collision water
ingress and capsizing occur, persons on board were
killed and serious water pollution was caused. Most
collision accidents are considered to be caused in such
a manner that after occurrences of collision candidates
which are situations in which related ships collide with
each other without evasive action, responses of related
ships to the situations are failed. The probability of
failing evasive action is called causation probability
(Pedersen 2010). This approach for modeling collision
is regarded as common way to consider collision now.
Fujii proposed this approach first (Fujii 1970). The
case that while no collision candidates occur sudden
turning of a ship to the near ship occur and shortly
after collision between those ships occur, rarely occurs.
However this case is out of consideration in this paper.
The important thing in judging collision candidate
is to model the collision situation between two ships,
that is, to model geometrical collision situation considering ship shape.
Fujii considered collision situation between ships
which sail in mutually crossed waterways. He defined
closed region the border of which is a trajectory of the
center point of an other ship obtained by sliding the
other ship keeping the progress direction of it along
the edge of an own ship and keeping it contact with
the own ship (Fujii 1970). He also defined the collision diameter which is the length of projection of the
region to the direction of the relative velocity vector.
Pedersen developed the method that enables to
estimate number of collision candidate in crossing
area between two water ways which have probabilistic distribution of ships position laterally along each
27
Table 1. Significant casualties from 2000 to 2011 (IHS

Fairplay casualty database).
Casualty
Collision
Contact
Foundered
Fire/Explosion
Hull/machinery
damage
War loss etc.
Missing
Grounding
Miscellaneous
Occurrence
number
Number of
fatalities
Volume of
spilled
liquids
(Kilo Liter)
3,181
1,357
582
1,123
5,030
421
47
6,622
1,751
40
55,353.0
19,169.2
11,024.6
25,042.0
6,832.1
30
12
3,246
60
43
72
1,127
22
352.8
0.0
59,040.3
12.0
Figure 1. Expression of crossed waterways.
Here the shape of an IA is assumed to be a rectangle

and a pair of edges which are parallel is parallel to one
of the crossing waterways. The complementary problem to Problem 1 is the problem to count the number
inside an IA which does not include the whole crossing
(Figure 1(b)). The problem is called Problem 2. A
case that a whole IA is included in the crossing area is
called Problem 2C. As the methods used to solve Problem 2C can be applied to the other cases of Problem
2, only methods for solving Problem 2C are discussed
here. In Problem 1 all considered ships pass through
the crossing perfectly. In Problem 2, in an IA there exist
ships which do not pass through the crossing perfectly.
If the angle between crossed waterways is large, that
is, near /2 radian, it is easy to set an IA as it includes
whole crossing area. On the other hand if the angle is
small, that is, near 0 or radian, it becomes difficult to
set an IA in such a manner. This indicates that in case
of a crossing with a small angle Problem 2 is essential.
The basic process of calculating the number of collision candidates is to count colliding ships in the other
waterway while a ship in the waterway of upright position sails in the considered time. The former ship is
called the other ship and the latter ship is called
the own ship here. After that by multiplying the estimated number of colliding ships in the other waterway
with the number of ships in the waterway of upright
position which sail in the crossing in the considered
time the number of collision candidates in the crossing
can be obtained.
Prior to the formulation of the problems the following definition of symbols are made. In the definitions
suffix i denotes own (i = 1) or other ship (i = 2).
Li : Length of a ship
Bi : Breadth of a ship
Vi : Velocity vector
Vi : Absolute value of velocity vector.
V2 V1 : Relative velocity vector of an other ship
to an own ship.
|V2 V1 |: Absolute value of the relative velocity
: Crossing angle of waterway 2 to waterway 1
defined in Figure 1
V1 V2 V1 : Angle between V2 V1 and reverse
direction to the progress direction of an own ship.
However in case of small crossing angle to the

extent that two crossing waterways are almost parallel, such as a juncture of river branches and closely
located waterways near a coast, the models by Fujii and
Pedersen cannot be applied to for estimating number of
collision candidates. In such crossing area the length
of the crossing is relatively so long that collision candidates are likely to happen even though such a crossing
is narrow. Here the crossing angle is categorized into
two types by its sharpness, and an applicable method
for estimating number of collision candidates to each
type is discussed. The method for estimating the number of collision candidates in a crossing with small
angle is newly developed and is an improvement on a
method for estimating number of collision candidates.
2
HOLISTIC FORMULATION FOR

ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF COLLISION
CANDIDATES AT CROSSING AREA
In the followings the shape of a ship is approximated to

be rectangular, the length and the width of which are
the length and the breadth of a ship (Kaneko 2007).
One of crossed waterways is set upright so that the
other waterway crosses it from the left to the right.
Because the case that the other waterway crosses the
vertically set waterway from the right to the left can
be considered to be a mirror image of the crossing
situation from the left to the right, the handling does
not lose generality.
The crossing angle is defined as shown in Figure 1.
The crossing angle of opposite directional waterway
is 0 radian and that of co-directional waterway is
radian by this definition. At the edge of each waterways a ship appears following Poisson distribution
mean appearance rate of which is 1 (x1 ) or 2 (x2 )
respectively.
Here an inspection area (IA) is set to count the
number of collision candidates in the crossing of two
mutually crossed waterways. If an IA includes the
whole crossing, the problem to count a number of
collision candidates is called Problem 1 (Figure 1(a)).
28
Figure 2. Collision area (CA) and collision polygon (CP).
Figure 3. Relation between CA and crossed water way and

collision segment (CS) at problems.
Figure 4. Case division of Problem 1.
2.1 Problem 1
For simplifying explanatory figures below a filled
rectangle () is used instead of V1 V2 V1 .
V2 V2 V1 : Angle between V2 V1 and the progress
direction of an other ship. Similarl to the treatment
of V1 V2 V1 , a filled triangle () is used instead of
V2 V2 V1 .
An other ship collides with an own ship when she
comes into the polygonal area, the boundary of which
is the trajectory of a center point of an other ship
obtained by sliding the other ship while keeping the
progress direction of an other ship along the edge of
an own ship and keeping it contact with the own ship.
The polygonal area is called the Collision polygon
(CP) (Figure 2). Other ships which collide with an
own ship during duration T locates in the area shown
in Figure 3. The both edges of the area are parts of a
CP and both sides are line segments which is tangent
to the CP of both sides of the area. The length of the
line segments of both sides of the area is |V2 V1 | T
and the slant is the slope of a vector of V2 V1 .
The area is called Collision area (CA). Ships on
the line segment which is obtained after cutting a sailing line of other ships by CA collide with the own ship.
The line segment is called Collision Segment (CS)
(Figure 3). Problem 1 is the case that both boundaries
of waterway 2 intersect the side lines of CA. Problem 2C is the case that whole CA is included inside
of waterway 2. There exists the case that only a part
of CA is included in waterway 2. As stated above the
case can be dealt with using the methods used to the
above case. Therefore the case is not dealt with here.
This problem includes four cases considering an angle

between relative the velocity vector V2 V1 and the
velocity vector of an own ship V1 . The case division is
illustrated in Figure 4.
The positions of other ships on a CS which correspond to the points on the border of a CP are illustrated
in figures from Figure 5(a) to (d) at every cases. Ships
of both ends of a CS is only tangent to a CP. Although
the positions of the other ships at the border of a CP
differ at every cases, the width of both lines which connect both ends of a CS and corresponding points on
the border of CP is expressed by the same equation,
that is, Equation (1). The width has been called the
collision diameter until now (ex. (Pedersen 2010)).
From law of sines Equation (2) holds.
Then Equation (1) is transformed into Equation (3)
29
Equation (3) is the same form as the length of collision diameter in (Pedersen 2010). The length of CS
(LCOL ) is related to collision diameter (DCOL ). The
relation is expressed as equation (4).
The numbers of ships which collide with an own

ship during duration T while the own ship passes
through the crossing area between waterways can be
estimated by integrating numbers of ships on a CS
throughout a CA. As a ship is assumed to appear at
the edge of waterway following Poisson distribution,
the number is obtained if the sailing time in CS is estimated. The time is obtained to divide the length of CS
by the velocity of an other ship (V2 ).
Then the mean value of number of ships in CS(NS )
is expressed by Equation (5).
Next the parameter of Poisson distribution (i (xi )),

that is, the mean value of ship appearance rate, can be
expressed as i (xi ) = i ki (xi ) using the following
values. In the definitions suffix i denotes own (i = 1)
or other ship (i = 2).
i : Number of ships which appear at the end of a
waterway during unit time
ki (xi ): Probabilistic distribution function (PDF) of
position where ship appear
Then in the case that all ships pass through the crossing between waterway 1 and 2 number of collision
candidate (NCOL ) is obtained by Equation (6) during
duration T that is much longer than the time for passing
through the crossing.
Equation (6) is the same form with that of (Pedersen

2010). As Equation (6) does not include any function
of x1 and x2 , it is simplified as Equation (7).
Figure 5. Collision segment (CS) and collision diameter in

cases of Problem 1.
2.2
be S/(2*DCOL ). S means surface of a CP. S is expressed

by Equation (8).
Problem 2C
CA defined above has edge parts with a complicated

shape. Therefore in order to simplify the case division
needed to estimate number of collision candidates at
this problem, the shape of edges of the CA is transformed into a rectangle the width of which is DCOL
and the length(d) defined in Figure 6 is calculated to
30
Figure 6. Simplified collision area (CA) used in

Problem 2C.
This transformation of edges of a CA has a merit

that transformed edges becomes the right shape at the
crossing angle is 0 and .
This problem is divided into several cases by a crossing angle and the difference of edges of a CA which a
CS crosses. In the following an IA is defined in front
of an own ship inside the crossing and it is assumed
that an own ship appears at the lower edge of the IA.
DW1 is defined as the length of IA. Then the time that
an own ship passes through the IA is DW1 /V1 .
In the following sections several auxiliary lines and
points are defined in explanatory figures to obtain
an equation which express the number of collision
candidates. As explanation of those lines and points
consumes so much space that the explanation is made
only in Figure 7. Auxiliary lines and points in other
figures can be understood easily by analogy with the
explanation of Figure 7.
Figure 7. Relation between CS and CA in Case 1.
E5 is a point of intersection of E1 E2 and a line which

passes through E3 and is parallel to V2 . E6 is a point
of intersection of line XW2 and E3 E5 . E7 is a point
of intersection of line XW2 and a line which passes
through E2 and is parallel to V2 . E8 is a point of intersection of E4 E3 and a line which passes through E1 and
is parallel to V2 . E9 is a point of intersection of line
XW2 and a line which passes through E4 and is parallel to V2 . E10 is a point of intersection of line XW2 and
E1 E8 . E11 is a point of intersection of line XW1 and
a line which passes through E1 and is perpendicular
to XW1 . E12 is a point of intersection of line XW1 and
E1 E4 . E13 is a foot of the perpendicular to E1 E4 from
PS1 which is an appearance position of an own ship.
E14 is also a foot of the perpendicular to line XW2 from
E1 . H is the distance between line XW1 and XW2 . x1
is distance between E6 and a point of intersection of
the line XW2 and a line which is parallel to E3 E5 and
intersects E1 E2 and E2 E3 . y1 is length of a line segment obtained by cutting the line which is parallel to
E3 E5 and intersects E1 E2 and E2 E3 by E1 E2 and E2 E3 .
x2 is distance between E9 and a point of intersection of
the line XW2 and a line which is parallel to E1 E6 and
intersects E1 E4 and E4 E3 . y2 is length of a line segment obtained by cutting the line which is parallel to
E3 E5 and intersects E1 E2 and E2 E3 by E1 E2 and E2 E3 .
Then length of E1 E8 , y1 and y2 are obtained below.
2.2.1 Case 1: 0 and a CS crosses both a short

edge and a long edge or a CS crosses short
edges of both sides of a CA
This case corresponds to the following inequality.
In Figure 7 the rectangle E1 E2 E3 E4 is a CA. PS1

is appearance position of an own ship. The own ship
appears at an optional position on the line XW1 , coordinates of which is denotes as (xW1 , 0) following the
Poisson distribution parameter of which is 1 k1 (xW1 ),
and she sails upward. The other ship appears at an
optional position on the line XW2 , coordinates of which
is denoted as (xW2 , H) following the Poisson distribution parameter of which is 2 k2 (xW2 ) and sails
diagonally downward with crossing angle . In case
that the own ship sails from its original position to the
other edge of the IA, the length of a CS cut by the CA,
which is included in the integrand for obtaining NCOL
can be derived from Figure 7. Upper and lower limits
of the domains of integration also can be derived from
Figure 7.
NCOL (T) of this case is estimated by Equation (9)

using Z defined below.
31
The upper and lower limits of the domains of integration, that is E6 (xW2 ), E7 (xW2 ), E9 (xW2 ), E10 (xW2 ),
are obtained below.
Figure 8. Relation between CS and CA in Case 2.
2.2.3 Case 3: and 4 cases defined by

overtaking relation between an own and an
other ship and crossing relations between a
CS and edges of a CA
This case is rather complicated. In this case relation
between velocity of an own ship and an other ship the
situation that an other ship overtakes an own ship and
the opposite situation exists if there exists probabilistic
distribution of velocity of ships. In the case that velocitys mean value of an own ship and that of an other
ship are nearly equal, those opposite situations occur
frequently. In the case that an other ship overtakes an
own ship CA is made at left lower of an own ship,
in the opposite case CA is made at left upper of an
own ship. Moreover in every cases there are two cases
which are case 1 and case 2 of Problem 2C. Therefore
the four cases explained in the followings should be
considered.
As integral forms of NCOL in the cases after this case

are all the same except integrand Z for saving space
the integral forms are not described in the following
cases. Only integrand Z is shown.
= 0, that is the opposite directional is a special
one of this case. In this case as E9 and E10 are same
point, E6 and E7 are also same point, y1 and y2 cannot
be defined. Moreover the following relations hold.
Therefore at = 0, integrand Z is expressed by

Equation (10).
2.2.3.1 Case 3.1: and an own ship overtakes

an other ship and a CS crosses both a short
In this case velocity of an own ship and that of an other
ship have the relation below.
Case 2: 0 and a CS crosses both a short

edge and a long edge or a CS crosses long
This case corresponds to the following inequality.
2.2.2
Similar to Case 1 length of CS cut by CA, which

is included in integrand for obtaining NCOL can be
derived from Figure 8. Upper and lower limits of the
domains of integration can be derived from Figure 8.
Then length of E1 E15 , y1 and y2 are obtained below.
In addition following inequality holds.
In Figure 9 E1 E2 E3 E4 is a CA. PS1 is appearance

position of an own ship. QS1 is the relative position of
the center point of other ships which collide with the
own ship at the final position of the own ship. An own
ship appears at an optional position of line XW1 being
followed to PDF of an own ships appearance and sails
upward. An other ship appears at an optional position
of line XW2 being followed to PDF of an other ships
In this case, integrand Z is expressed by

Equation (11)
32
Figure 9. Relation between CS and CA in Case 3.1.

2.2.3.2 Case 3.2: and an own ship overtakes

an other ship and a CS crosses both a short
Similar to Case 3.1 of Problem 2C, velocity of an own
ship and that of an other ship have the relation below.
appearance, and sails diagonally upward at crossing

angle .
In case that an own ship sails from appearance position to the opposite edge of the IA, length of a CS cut
by the CA, which is included in integrand for obtaining
NCOL can be derived from Figure 9. Upper and lower
limits of the domains of integration can be derived
from Figure 9. Length of E1 E8 , y1 and y2 are obtained
below.
The length of a CS cut by a CA, which is included

in integrand for obtaining NCOL can be derived from
Figure 10. Length of E2 E5 , y1 and y2 are obtained
below.
Then in this case, integrand Z is expressed by

Equation (12).

Equation (14).
= , that is the co-directional is a special one of

this case. In this case as E9 and E10 are same point,
E6 and E7 are also same point, y1 and y2 cannot be
defined. Moreover the following relations hold.
2.2.3.3 Case 3.3: and an other ship overtakes

an own ship and a CS crosses both a short
In this case velocity of an own ship and that of an other
ship have the relation below.

Equation (13).
33
In this case a CA locates lower left of an own ship

and there would be the case that the line where other
ships appear crosses the CA. To deal with this case a
treatment explained in the followings to estimate coordinate value of the appearance position of an other ship
applied to. The line where other ships appear is named
as XW2 and a position where other ships which collide
with the own ship appear is named using a symbol with
a dash, that is, E6 , E7 , E9 , E10 .
The length of a CS cut by the CA, which is included
Figure 11. E6 (xW2 ), E7 (xW2 ), E9 (xW2 ), E10 (xW2 ),
length of E4 E5 , y1 and y2 are obtained below.

Equation (15).
= , that is the co-directional is a special one of

this case.
In this case as E9 and E10 are same point, E6 and
E7 are also same point, y1 and y2 cannot be defined.
Moreover the following relations hold.

Equation (16).
A CA locates also lower left of an own ship and there

would be the case that the line where other ships appear
crosses the CA. To deal with this case a treatment
explained in the followings to estimate the coordinate value of the appearance position of an other ship
applied to. The line where other ships appear is named
as XW2 and a position where other ships which collide
with the own ship appear is named using a symbol with
a dash. E6 (xW2 ), E7 (xW2 ), E9 (xW2 ) and E10 (xW2 ) are
obtained by same equations of Case 3.3.
The length of a CS cut by the CA, which is included
Figure 12.
2.2.3.4 Case 3.4: and an other ship overtakes

an own ship and a CS crosses both a short
Similar to case 3.3 velocity of an own ship and that of
an other ship have the relation below.
34
E4 E19 , y1 and y2 are obtained below.

Equation (17).
3 TRAFFIC SIMULATION
Assuming that own ships and other ships appear at
edges of Waterway 1 and 2 being followed to Poisson
distributions which are defined at each waterway
respectively, and that the appearance positions of own
ships and other ships are followed to normal distributions which are also defined at each waterway
respectively, ship traffic simulations were carried out
in both Problem 1 and Problem 2C. The formulations made in chapter 2 were examined comparing the
results with corresponding results by simulations.
Since probabilistic distribution of ship appearance assumed to be normal distribution, ends of ship
appearance line segment are meaningless. Important
values are the center of the line segment and standard
deviation.
Collision between ships is judged by finding the
intersection of ships which sail in mutually different
waterways.
3.1
Figure 13. Target area of simulation at Problem 1.
Problem 1
Figure 14. A snapshot of a traffic simulation of Problem 1

(crossing angle: 1/3 ).
Conditions of simulation are as follows.

Duration: One hour
This means that counting number of collision was
continued until all own ships which appear during
continuous one hour had passed through the crossing
area.
Crossing angle: /4, /3, /2, 2/3, 3/4
Number of times of simulation: 10 (at each crossing
angle)
Additional conditions were set in Table 2 to every
crossing angle.
Figure 13 shows the target area used in the simulation for Problem 1. IA was set as it included the
crossing area between Waterway 1 and 2. Own ships
and other ships sail until they reach their terminal lines.
Figure 14 is a snapshot of a traffic simulation
of Problem 1, where crossing angle is 1/3. Filled
rectangles are ships in Waterway 2 which collide with
ships in Waterway 1.
Table 3 shows the results obtained by the theoretical
model and by the simulation.
In the column Theory the values which were
obtained by models was shown. The integration of Equation (7) was carried out by using
MATHEMATICA. In the column Simulation the

number obtained by simulation was shown.
It can be said that values by the model is near to corresponding value by simulation. However number of
times of simulations is too few to judge whether there
is significant difference between the theoretical model
and the corresponding simulation or not statistically.
3.2 Problem 2C
Simulation condition is as follows.
Duration: One hour
This means that counting number of collision
continued until all own ships which appear within
continuous one hour had passed through IA.
Crossing angle: 0, /50, /20, (45/50), (49/50),
Number of times of simulation: 10 (at each crossing
angle)
Additional conditions were set in Table 4 to every
crossing angle.
35
Table 2. Traffic simulation condition (Problem 1).

Items
Table 4. Traffic simulation condition (Problem 2C).

Waterway 2
Waterway 1 Waterway 2
Ship appearance rate

Type of distribution
Mean (1/sec)
Ship appearance position
Type of probabilistic
distribution
Coordinates of center
point
standard deviation (m)
Velocity
mean (kt)
standard deviation (kt)
Ship length
mean (m)
Ship Breadth
mean (m)
Items
Poisson
1/60
Poisson
2/60
Normal
Normal
(1450, 0)
(0, XW2min + 250)
87.5
67.5
Normal
10
1
Normal
20
2
Normal
250
25
Normal
150
15
Normal
40
4
Normal
30
3
*XW 2MIN = 1000 + 1700 tan

2
Waterway 1 0
Ship appearance rate

Type of distribution Poisson
Mean (1/sec)
1/60
Ship appearance
position
Type of distribution Normal
Coordinates of
(1450, 0)
center point
standard
deviation (m)
87.5
Inspection Area (IA)

Lower left
Upper right
Velocity
Type of distribution Normal
mean (kt)
10
standard
1
deviation (kt)
Poisson
2/60
Poisson
2/60
Normal
(1400
2000 tan(),
4300)
200 + 250
tan()
Normal
(1400
500 tan
( ), 0)
200 + 250
tan( )
(1100, 300)
(1800, 1300)
(1100, 500)
(1800, 500)
Normal
20
2
Normal
20
2
Length of ship (m)

(Constant)
250
150
150
Breadth of ship (m)

(Constant)
40
30
30
Table 3. Number of collision candidates by theoretical

model and by simulation (Problem 1).
Simulation
Crossing
angle
Theory
Average
Maximum
Minimum
/4
/3
/2
2/3
3/4
170.7
162.8
147.3
138.9
143.0
168.0
162.7
153.6
145.6
139.9
210
220
189
184
210
145
118
120
124
85
In this problem integration was carried out in the

manner that every used random valuable is digitized by suitable interval and summarized all number
of collision candidate obtained at the combination
of valuables. For saving time of integration, length
and breadth of a ship are assumed to be constant
respectively and MATHEMATICA was not used.
Figure 15 shows the target area used in the simulation for Problem 2C where crossing angle () is close
to zero. Figure 16 also shows the target area used in the
simulation for Problem 2C where crossing angle () is
close to . IAs are hatched rectangles in these figures.
Own ships and other ships sail until they reach their
terminal lines.
Figure 17 is a snapshot of a traffic simulation of
Problem 1, where crossing angle is 45/50. Filled rectangles are ships in Waterway 2 which collide with ships
in Waterway 1.
Figure 15. Target area of simulation at Problem 2C where

crossing angle () is close to zero.
Results are summarized in Table 5.

Similar to Problem 1 it is said that values from
theory is near to the corresponding value from simulation. However simulation number is too few to
judge whether there is a significant difference or not
statistically.
36
Table 5. Number of collision candidates by developed

method and by simulation (Problem 2).
Simulation
Crossing
angle
Theory
Average
Maximum
Minimum
0
1/50
1/20
45/50
49/50
90.7
82.9
66.7
80.3
54.8
69.2
84.3
74.6
63.3
71.7
46.0
56.4
106
111
96
103
72
76
55
50
44
56
20
46
existing method already. Problem 2 has not been dealt

with by existing method. Therefore it can be said that
the developed method for Problem 2 can be said to
be an improvement added to the existing method for
Problem 1.
Moreover at every sub-problem those methods were
verified by traffic simulation. For establishment of
those methods for estimation of number of the collision candidates statistical verification is necessary.
For this purpose a lot of traffic simulations and field
measurement are necessary.
Figure 16. Target area of simulation at Problem 2C where

crossing angle () is close to radian.
REFERENCES
Fujii, Y.; Yamanouch, H. & Mizuki, N. 1970. On the fundamentals of marine traffic control. Part I: Probabilities
of collision and evasive actions. Electronic Navigation
Research Institute Papers 2: 116.
Kaneko, F. 2004. Effectiveness of separation scheme for
prevention of collision by diminishing ships encounter
probability, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on collision and grounding of ships (ICCGS):
211220. Izu, Japan.
Kaneko, F. & Hara, D. 2007. Estimation of dangerous
encounters number from observed ship trajectories.
4th international conference on collision and grounding
of ships. Hamburg University of Technology (ICCGS).
Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft. 18719. Hamburg,
Germany.
Pedersen, P.T. 2010. Review and application of ship collision
and grounding analysis procedures. Marine Structures 23:
241262.
Montewka, J.; Hinz, T.; Kujala, P. & Matusiak, J. 2010.
Probability modeling of vessel collisions. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety 95: 573589.
Montewka, J.; Goerlandt, F. & Kujala, P. 2011. Determination of collision criteria and causation factors appropriate
to a model for estimating the probability of maritime
accidents. Ocean Engineering 40: 5061.
Figure 17. A snapshot of a traffic simulation of Problem 2C

(crossing angle: 45/50).
CONCLUSION
The existing method for estimation of the number

of collision candidates at the crossing of two water
ways was reexamined and a holistic formulation for
the estimation of the collision candidates was made.
In the formulation the problem of the estimation of
the number of collision candidates was divided into
two sub-problems, that is Problem 1 and Problem 2
by the relation between an inspection area (IA) and
the crossing. Problem 1 has been dealt with by the
37
Modeling and simulation system for marine accident cause investigation

S.G. Lee
Division of Naval Architecture & Ocean Systems Engineering, Korea Maritime University, Busan, Korea
S.H. Jun & G.Y. Kong

Division of Navigation Science, Korea Maritime University, Busan, Korea
ABSTRACT: Investigation of marine accident causes usually depends on the judgments of maritime experts,
based on the statements of the concerned persons in the case where there is no navigation equipment, such as AIS
and VDR. Scientific verification also has a limitation in the case of their conflicting statements. It is necessary to
develop a highly sophisticated Modeling & Simulation (M&S) system for the scientific investigation of marine
accident causes and for the systematic reproduction of accident damage procedure. To ensure an accurate and
reasonable prediction of marine accident causes, such as collision and grounding, full-scale ship collision and
grounding simulations would be the best approach using hydrocode, such as LS-DYNA, with its Fluid-Structure
Interaction (FSI) analysis technique and propulsion force for ship velocity. The objective of this paper is to
present the findings from three full-scale ship collision simulations of marine accidents, and to demonstrate the
feasibility of the scientific investigation of marine accident causes using a highly sophisticated M&S system.
INTRODUCTION
It has been reported, from the statistics of marine

accidents by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal
(KMST) and the Lloyds Maritime Information Services (LMIS), that collision and grounding accidents
compose a majority of marine accidents, as shown in
Figure 1, bringing great loss of life and property, and
hurting the ocean environment due to oil spills. Investigation of marine accident causes usually depends on
the judgments of maritime experts, based on the statements of the concerned persons in the case where there
is no navigation equipment, such as AIS and VDR. Scientific verification also has a limitation in the case of
their conflicting statements. It is necessary to develop
a highly sophisticated Modeling & Simulation (M&S)
system for the scientific investigation of marine accident causes and for the systematic reproduction of
what happens in marine accidents.
To ensure an accurate and reasonable prediction of

marine accident causes, such as collision and grounding, full-scale ship collision and grounding simulations would be the best approach using hydrocode,
such as LS-DYNA (LSTC 2011), with its FluidStructure Interaction (FSI) analysis technique and
propulsion force for ship velocity. Several interaction
effects in the seawater are conceptualized in this highly
sophisticated M&S system, such as motion, wave making, squeezing pressure, bank effect and realistic ship
velocity. Fracture criteria have to be suitably applied
to the ship structural damage considering strain rate
effect, together with careful investigation of damage
information.
FSI problems, such as sloshing and slamming etc.,
are conveniently simulated by moving the mesh algorithm and overlap capability of the grid to structure
mesh using the Multi-Material Arbitrary Lagrangian
Eulerian (MMALE) formulation and the Euler
Lagrange coupling algorithm of LS-DYNA code, as
shown in Figure 2. Volume Of Fluid (VOF) method
Figure 1. Marine accidents according to type (KMST Judgment Report 20022006).
Figure 2. Sketch of penalty coupling algorithm (Aquelet

et al. 2006).
39
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of highly sophisticated M&S

system for ship collision/grounding accidents.
is adopted for solving a broad range of nonlinear

free surface problems. A coupling algorithm is more
suitable for the FSI problems with very complicated
deformable structure, where fluid grid overlaps the
structural mesh (Aquelet et al. 2006, Souli et al. 2000).
Figure 3 depicts a schematic diagram of highly
sophisticated M&S system for ship collision and
grounding accidents, where external motion dynamics can be treated by the FSI analysis technique, and
internal damage mechanics, by considering reasonable
fracture criteria with strain rate effect. In this study,
three typical full-scale ship collision simulation results
are presented to demonstrate the feasibility of the scientific investigation of marine accidents using highly
sophisticated M&S system.
2
Figure 4. Grounding test of NSWC (Rodd & Sikora 1995).
INTERNAL DAMAGE MECHANICS
1:5 scale grounding test results of NSWC (Rodd &

Sikora 1995) are usually used for the verification of
F.E. simulation capacity and fracture criteria, as shown
in Figure 4. One of grounding test models, ADH/
PD328V, was simulated using rough and fine mesh
models with failure strains from 0.20 to 0.35, as shown
in Figure 5, and material properties of ASTM 569, as
shown inTable 1. It was found that failure strain 0.3 and
0.2 were suitable for the fine and rough meshes with
ratio 12.5 and 25.0 of finite element size to thickness,
respectively (Lee 2007).
3
M&S SIMULATION OF MARINE ACCIDENT
Three full-scale collision simulations are presented;

investigation of collision accident between two ships,
collision safety assessment of high-speed passenger
ship with underwater floating object (whale), and
collision damage assessment of bulk carrier with
floating or submerged object (40 ft container box).
3.1
Figure 5. Grounding test simulation of ADH/PD328V

model.
occurred on the way of typhoon evasion. The struck

ship sank after its side bottom structure was torn away
due to the bulbous bows penetration of striking ship.
Figure 6 shows the damage configurations of the striking ships forebody, such as the forecastle bulwark, the
fashion plate and the bulbous bow, where the bulbous
bow was torn away from starboard to port side with
1.2 m size, and was also dented around bulbous bow
with 1.5 m radius quarter circle. Figure 7 illustrates
schematic damage drawings.
Investigation of collision accident between

two ships
The first example is the investigation of collision accident between striking ship (cargo ship) and struck
ship (pelagic fishing vessel). This collision accident
40
Table 1.
Material properties of ASTM 569.
Property
ASTM 569
Youngs modulus
Density
Poissons ratio
Yield stress
Ultimate stress
Failure strain
Dynamic yield stress constants
3.00 107 ksi

7.43 104 lbf-s2 /in
0.30
41.00 ksi
50.00 ksi
0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35
D = 40.4 s1 , q = 5
Figure 9. Collision damage configuration of struck ships

bottom side structure under free surface.
Figure 6. Collision damage configuration of striking ship

(cargo ship).
Figure 10. Schematic damage drawings of struck ship.
Figure 7. Schematic damage drawings of striking ship.
Figure 11. Collision scenarios between two ships.

Table 2. Principal particulars of striking and struck ships
(unit: ton, m).
Figure 8. Collision damage configuration of struck ships

superstructure (pelagic fishing vessel).
G/T
Figure 8 depicts the damage configurations of the

struck ships side superstructure, such as the derrick
post and casing. From this damage configuration, it
was found that the forecastle bulwark of the striking
ship hit and pushed the derrick post of the struck one
at 2.75 m from the casing and that the fashion plate
also pushed the casing during the collision (The derrick post was cut off after salvage). Figure 9 shows the
damage configuration of the struck ships bottom side
structure under free surface, such as side plate in the
meal factory and bilge keel. Schematic damage drawings were summarized, as shown in Figure 10, from
these damage configurations.
Type
LOA
LBP
Breadth Depth Draft
15,932 Striking 169.510 160.400 25.500 13.650 9.788

ship
5,680 Struck 114.630 106.300 17.600 11.300 7.200
ship
From the investigation of all collision damage

information, a collision scenario between the two
ships was sketched, as shown in Figure 11(a). Figure 11(b) depicts one collision scenario in a plan view
among several ones, considering several attack angles,
their speeds, and wind speeds and directions. Their
principal particulars are summarized in Table 2.
41
Figure 13. Full-scale collision behavior configurations

using FSI analysis technique.
Figure 12. F.E. mesh configurations of full-scale collision

simulation using FSI analysis technique.
Table 3.
Material properties of mild and high tensile steels.
Property
Mild steel
High tensile steel
Youngs modulus
Density
Yield stress
Ultimate stress
Failure strain
Dynamic yield stress
constants
206.0 GPa
7,850 kg/m3
235.0 MPa
445.0 MPa
0.20, 0.25, 0.30
D = 40.4 s1 ,
q=5
206.0 GPa
7,850 kg/m3
315.0 MPa
525.0 MPa
0.20, 0.25, 0.30
D = 24,805.6 s1 ,
q=5
Figure 12(a) shows the overall view of the F.E. mesh

configuration for the full-scale ship collision simulation using FSI analysis technique without air part,
and Figures 12(b) & 12(c), the crushable fine ones of
the striking and struck ships, respectively. Mild and
high tensile steels were used for the ship structures,
as shown in Table 3, where the strain rate dependent
material of Cowper-Symonds was considered, failure
strains 0.20, 0.25 and 0.30 according to the ratio of
element size to thickness, and thickness was adjusted
according to aging and corrosion.
Figure 13 shows the overall and close views of
full-scale ship collision behavior configurations using
FSI analysis technique, and Figure 14, ship collision
damage configurations, following the collision scenario of Figure 11(b). It was found that the boundary
conditions are very important in the full-scale ship collision simulation during collision between the ships,
especially in the seawater.
Figure 14. Full-scale collision damage configurations

using FSI analysis technique without surrounding seawater.
The bottom side structure of the struck ship was

penetrated by the bulbous bow of the striking one, and
was torn away at around 4.0 m in length (Fr. No. 56Fr.
No. 50) and 4.0 m in height (between the platform deck
and the double bottom), even though the forecastle
of the striking ship extends over the bulbous bow by
1.55 m. This could have been possible due to the struck
ship being turned around by the collision of forecastle with the derrick post and the pushing down of the
fashion plate to the casing in the seawater, and also
due to the attack angle 70 and the speeds of the two
ships and the wind, as shown in the collision scenario.
42
Figure 17. Sketch and F.E. mesh configuration of bow foil &
strut systems.
Figure 18. F.E. configurations of absorber and pivot.
Figure 15. Judgment report of KMST.
Figure 19. F.E. configuration of high-speed passenger ship.
Figure 16. Damage configurations of high-speed passenger

ship collision accidents.
The bulbous bow was dented by the side frame

structure and the bulkhead of the struck ship, and torn
away by the strong member, the tank top structure.
This collision scenario and damage configuration
could be confirmed by the judgment report of KMST,
as shown in Figure 15.
3.2
Figure 20. F.E. configuration of whale and foil & strut

system for collision scenario.
system. In this study principal particulars of Kobee 5

were adopted for the modeling and simulation. Figure 17 shows the F.E. mesh configurations of the bow
foil & strut systems, which generally consist of foil,
strut, king post, yoke, yoke support, absorber, actuator,
trunnion support fitting and pivot. It is very important
to figure out exactly the absorber capacity and pivot
damage performance according to impact load. The
absorber was idealized using spring and damper, as
shown in Figure 18.
Figure 19 illustrates the overall view of F.E. mesh
configurations of the high-speed passenger ship. The
whale collided with the foil & strut system, as shown
in Figure 20. The muscle and skin of the whale was
modeled using MAT_MOONEY_RIVLIN RUBBER
model. Aluminum alloys were used for the high-speed
passenger ship for light weight, and stainless steel,
for the foil & strut system except the flap, as shown
in Table 4. Principal particulars are summarized in
Table 5.
For the prediction of collision damage mechanism
of the foil & strut system, a collision simulation
of 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 ton whales with the foil pod
was carried out using diverse combinations of spring
and damper constants of the absorber. As shown in
Collision safety assessment of high-speed

passenger ship with whale
Several collision accidents of high-speed passenger ships with underwater floating objects (whales)
occurred from 2004 to 2008, as shown in Figure 16.
Some high-speed passengers were flooded due to the
fracture of the bottom, and foil & strut systems were
pulled out, and one passenger was killed with many
injured. Full-scale ship collision simulations of a highspeed passenger ship with whales were performed
using FSI analysis technique of LS-DYNA code for
the crashworthy safety assessment of its hull, and
using local zooming analysis technique for the safety
assessment of passengers.
Since there was not enough information, such as
drawings of a high-speed passenger ships structure
and of its foil & strut system, collision scenarios were
established through the close investigation of ship
structure and component parts, and also through the
understanding of damage mechanisms of its hydrofoil
43
Table 4.
steel.
Material properties of aluminum and stainless
Property
Aluminum alloy
Stainless steel
Youngs modulus
Density
Yield stress
Ultimate stress
Failure strain
Dynamic yield stress
constants
69.0 GPa
2,660 kg/m3
147.0 MPa
294.0 MPa
0.20, 0.25, 0.30
D = 6,500 s1 ,
q=4
206.0 GPa
7,850 kg/m3
282.0 MPa
623.0 MPa
0.20, 0.25, 0.30
D = 5,860.6 s1 ,
q=5
Table 5.
Figure 23. F.E. mesh configuration of full-scale ship collision using FSI analysis technique.
Principal particulars of high-speed passenger ship.
Figure 24. Full-scale collision simulation response

behavior of high-speed passenger ship using FSI analysis
technique.
Figure 21. Collision simulation behavior of whale and

foil & strut system.
Figure 25. Collision damage response of high-speed passenger ship with whale.
Figure 22. Collision damage behaviors of absorber and
pivot.
A full-scale ship collision simulation of a highspeed passenger ship in service at 40.0 knots with
a 10.0 ton whale at 5.0 knots was carried out using
FSI analysis technique, as shown in Figure 23. Figure
24 shows its overall view, and Figure 25, its collision
damage response behavior.
As the foil & strut system was pushed to the bulbous bow and then the foil & pod hit the ships bottom
structure, the bottom shell plate was torn away like in
the real accident damage. It was confirmed that this
damage to the bottom structure might be due to the
leverage of the bulbous bow during damage in the
absorber and pivot, and that the ship maintained stable
from the foil bourn state to the hull bourn one.
Figures 21 and 22, the damage capacity of the absorber

spring and damper was estimated in the case of breakage in the absorber and damage at the pivot between
the yoke support bottom and the trunnion support fitting at the relative collision speed of the whale at 45.0
knots to the foil & strut system at a standstill. It was
found that the foil & strut system was pushed to the
bulbous bow, and then the pod collided with the ships
bottom plate due to the leverage of bulbous bow during damage in the absorber and pivot. The mass of
whale was estimated at 10.0 ton, and the spring and
damper constants of the absorber, at 3.0 MN/m and
60.0 kN-s/m, respectively.
44
Figure 26. Interface segments for local zooming analysis.
Figure 27. F.E. mesh configuration of seats, passenger

dummies, and seat belts for local zooming analysis.
Figure 28. Collision response of passengers according to

front & middle decks, and seat belts for local zooming
analysis.
Figure 29. Acceleration response of passengers according

to their position in front & middle decks and type of dummy.
Local zooming analysis was performed for the

crashworthy safety assessment of passengers by setting interface segments in the full-scale collision simulation, such as the front deck and the middle deck, as
shown in Figure 26. Figure 27 illustrates the fine mesh
modeling for local zooming analysis, such as decks,
chairs, and dummies with seat belts, where Hybrid III
dummy model of LS-DYNA code was used for the
passengers. Dummy B represents a sitting passenger
with a seat belt, Dummy C, a sitting one without a seat
belt, and Dummy A, a sitting one on the edge of his
seat without a seat belt.
Figure 28 shows the collision response behavior of
passengers in the front and middle decks, and Figure 29, their acceleration responses according to deck
position and dummy pattern. As expected, the acceleration response of Dummy B was much lower than
those of Dummy A & C in the front deck. The acceleration responses of Dummy A, B & C in the middle
deck were almost the same as that of Dummy B in the
front deck. HIC (Head Injury Criteria) is usually considered as 80 g for longer duration 200 ms in the car
accidents (www.eurailsafe.net). The HIC of passenger
with seat belt in the front deck and of passengers in
the middle deck was under the range of this value.
From this study it was confirmed that the leverage
of the bulbous bow brought about a larger impact of
the foil & strut system on the ship structure and on
the passenger, and led the bottom shell plate to be
torn away and flooded. Seat belt was found to enhance
the passenger safety from the collision shock with the
whale in the front deck. The high-speed passenger ship
was also superior to the stability from the foil bourn
state to the hull bourn state.
Figure 30. Damage traces on port side shell of cargo tank.
3.3 Collision damage assessment of bulk carrier

with container box
Damage was reported on the side shell structure of a
bulk carrier due to the collision accident with a unidentified floating or submerged object (a 40 ft high cube
container box), as shown in Figure 30. There were two
blow point traces, and , and an inclined trace band
between two points and , and three cracks at .
This bulk carrier sank because of flooding through
these cracks.
For the objective verification of marine accident,
crashworthiness response analysis was carried out
between the bulk carrier and the floating or submerged container box using FSI analysis technique of
LS-DYNA code for considering their motion, wave
45
Table 6.
box.
Principal particulars of bulk carrier and container
Items
Bulk carrier Items
Length (PP)
Length
(Scantling)
Breadth (MLD)
Depth (MLD)
Draught (MLD)
140.000 m
139.069 m
22.860 m
13.000 m
9.611 m
Container box
Length
Breadth
Height
12,192 mm (40 ft)

2,438 mm (8 ft)
2,896 mm
(9 ft 6 in)
Self mass 2,593.6 kg
Max. total 30,480 kg
mass
Figure 32. Parameters of container boxs position down the

surface (a meter) and off the longitudinal centerline (b meter).
Table 7.
range.
Collision possibility of container box in broad
a (m)
b (m)
collision
yes or no
b (m)
collision
yes or no
draft 1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
No
No
No
No
No
No
Table 8.
range.
Collision possibility of container box in narrow
a (m)
b (m)
collision
yes or no
a (m)
b (m)
collision
yes or no
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.00
2.02
2.04
2.00
2.02
2.03
2.04
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.50
1.60
1.61
1.50
1.70
1.50
2.00
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Figure 31. Full-scale collision simulation scenario with

container box using FSI analysis technique.
making, the effect of squeezing pressure, and the bank

effect in the surrounding seawater. A full-scale ship
collision simulation was carried out with a floating
or submerged container box in front of its bow and
off the longitudinal center line for the investigation
of their collision courses. Principal particulars of the
bulk carrier and of the 40ft high cube container box
are summarized in Table 6. In this study mild and high
tensile steels were used for the bulk carrier and the
container box, as shown in Table 3.
Figure 31 illustrates the collision scenario with full
design speed 12.0 knots of the bulk carrier, where the
stationary container box was initially located at 15.0 m
in front of the bow of the bulk carrier for considering
the ships wave making effect, also off the longitudinal
centerline (b meter) and below the surface (a meter),
as shown in Figure 32. In the case of the submerged
container box, its mass was balanced at a standstill
according to its depth under the free surface.
Full-scale ship collision simulation scenarios were
set up to confirm the impact possibility of the container
box at the first and second blow points, and , on the
side shell, and to figure out the crack damage at point
Figure 33. Collision response behavior of container box at

a = draft 1.0 m & b = 1.0 m in a broad range scenario.
. In this study the first and second scenarios were

to consider broad and narrow ranges of the container
box, respectively, as shown in Tables 7 and 8.
Figures 33 and 34 show the full-scale ship collision response behaviors of a broad range scenario, and
Figures 35 and 36, those of a narrow range scenario.
Figure 37 illustrates the collision damage configurations, such as stress, plastic strain and deformation, on
the side shell, and Figure 38, their collision responses
at the first blow point, such as maximum stress,
deformation and plastic strain. Their maximum stress,
plastic strain and deformation were around 250.0 MPa,
0.025 and 60.0 mm, respectively, with residual deformation, approximately 40.0 mm, which means that
there was no fracture even at the first blow point.
46
From full-scale ship collision simulations, the floating container box on the free surface could hardly
collide the bulk carriers bow side shell due to the wave
making effect and squeezing pressure, and submerged
container boxes, at 0.0 m0.1 m under the free surface
and around 2.0 m off the longitudinal center line, could
impact only on the first blow point area and sunk due
to the very small buoyancy. There was no possibility
for the second impact and on the 2nd blow point, and
also very small damage even at the first blow point
area.

a = 0.0 m & b = 1.0 m in a broad range scenario.
CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Through full-scale ship collision simulations of marine

accidents using FSI analysis technique, the usefulness
of highly sophisticated M&S system was reconfirmed
for the scientific investigation of marine accidents and
for the systematic reproduction of accidental damage
procedure. This system is still being developed for
advanced simulation techniques and for realization of
rough sea state, such as waves, winds and currents.
Ship maneuvering simulation system should be joined
for comprehensive investigations.

a = 0.4 m & b = 1.5 m in a narrow range scenario.
REFERENCES
Aquelet, N.; Souli, M. & Olovsson, L. 2006. EulerLagrange
coupling with damping effects: Application to slamming
problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 195: 110132.
http://www.eurailsafe.net/subsites/operas/HTML/Section3/
Page3.3.1.3.htm.
Lee, S.G. 2007. A Study on Double Bottom Structural Criterion of Small Oil Tanker. Report of Ministry of Maritime
Affairs and Fisheries, Korea.
LSTC 2011. LS-DYNA Users Manual, Version 971 R5,
Livermore Software Technology Corporation, USA.
Rodd, J. & Sikora, J. 1995. Double hull grounding experiments. Proceedings of the 5th ISOPE: 446456.
Souli, M.; Ouahsine, A. & Lewin, L. 2000. ALE formulation for fluid-structure interaction problems. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 190:
659675.

a = 0.1 m & b = 2.02 m.
Figure 37. Collision damage configuration of bulk carrier

at a = 0.1 m & b = 2.02 m.
Figure 38. Collision response of bulk carrier at a = 0.1 m &

b = 2.02 m.
47
Development of vessel collision model based on Naturalistic Decision

Making model
M. Asami & F. Kaneko
National Maritime Research Institute, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan
ABSTRACT: In order to estimate probability of collision avoidance failure at a occurrence of a collision

candidate, a collision model between two vessels based on Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) model was
developed by an approach that utilizes fault trees and event trees. The developed collision model is composed
of factors of the navigators elemental situation (observation, cognition, planning and action). Quantification
of the model by applying a frequency index of human error resulted in a failure probability which is the same
order of magnitude as that from a geometric and statistical collision model. This result suggests that the model
has an accuracy equivalent to the geometric and statistical collision model. Therefore, the failure probability of
collision avoidance at an occurrence of a collision candidate can be derived by only employing the frequency
index of human error for the collision model. This study shows that the collision model based on NDM model
is useful not only to discern the impact of vessel collision caused by human error but also to assess the effect of
risk control options.
INTRODUCTION
the databases of vessels collision which made from

the items related to causes of accidents. Furthermore, the effect of the measures to prevent collision
accidents was investigated by the probability of occurrence for vessels collision which was estimated with
a combination of the database of vessels collision
and trajectory data (Tamura, Y. & Shinoda, T. 2009).
Kaneko developed an analytical methodology to estimate the number of collision candidates among vessels
(Kaneko, F. 2004). By means of the methodology,
Kaneko also estimated that Uraga Suido Traffic Route
(USTR) has diminished number of encounters to
approximately one third fewer than that before USTR
was not established (Kaneko, F. 2004). In this study,
the fraction of the accident candidates that result in
an accident, in other word causation probability
(Pedersen, P.T. 2010), can be obtained using number of collision candidates and corresponding number
of collision accidents as Kaneko did (Kaneko, F.
2004). In the present study, a Collision model that can
estimate causation probability using geometric information like Kanekos methodology is called geometric
and statistical collision model.
On the other hand, Fukuchi et.al. quantitatively evaluated causation probability between vessels on the
basis of the human reliability analyses. Fukuchi et.al.
performed the evaluation which consists of the estimation of accident probability on the basis of the detailed
fault tree analysis and the prediction of effectiveness
to reduce the risk by suitable countermeasures in specified functional system (Fukuchi, N. Shinoda, T. Ono,
T. 2000; Fukuchi, N. Shinoda, T. Ono, T. Tamura, Y.
2000; Fukuchi, N. Tamura,Y. Koyama, K. 2003). In the
To identify available data-bases of marine accidents,

a project was conducted reviewing their structures
and analyzing the contents. (Baker, C.C. & McCafferty 2005). The objective of the project was to
improve understanding roles of the human element
in accidents resulting in prevention of accidents and
mitigation of consequences. The analysis of the accident data included accidents associated with commercial vessels in territorial waters of United States,
Australia, Canada, Norway and the United Kingdom.
This project summarized findings from the analysis of
those accident data reviewed and revealed human and
organizational factors which is listed in the followings:
a) While the frequency of accidents has declined,
human error has continued to be a dominant factor
in approximately 80 to 85% of maritime accidents.
b) Failures of situation awareness and situation assessment overwhelmingly predominate as causal factors in the majority of those accidents.
c) Human fatigue and task omission seem closely
related to failures of situation awareness.
Therefore, effective measures are required to reduce
human errors related to maritime accidents.
Many researchers have devoted to preventing vessels collision accidents relevant to human error.
Shinoda et. al. extracted the fact and the human factor
related to vessels collision accidents from available
marine casualty reports released by Marine Accident
Inquiry Agency by utilizing VTA(Variation Tree Analysis). Then, attribution analyses were performed by
49
Figure 1. Model of situation awareness in dynamic decision making (Endsley, M. R. 1995).
discussing situation awareness in terms of its role in

the overall decision-making process (Endsley, M. R.
1995). According to this model, a persons perception
of the relevant elements in the displays or directly
by the senses forms the basis for his or her situation awareness. Action selection and performance are
shown as separate stages that will proceed directly
from situation awareness. To account for the fact that
improper decision-making comes from the mistake of
situation awareness, Endsley also proposes the model
which express the function of cognition on the basis
of the concept of the situation awareness. Situation
Awareness is defined by Endsley as the perception
of elements in the environment within a volume of
time and space, the comprehension of their meaning
and the projection of their status in the near future.
(Endsley, M. R., Bolte B., Jones D.G. 2003) Thus,
Situation awareness is comprised of three dependent
levels: (1) perception of current situation, (2) comprehension of current situation, and (3) projection of
future state (Endsley, M. R. 1995).
Level 1 Perception of elements in current situation
the Environment: The first step in achieving Situation awareness is to perceive the status, attributes, and
dynamics of relevant elements in the environment.
Level 2 Comprehension of the Current Situation:
Comprehension of the situation is on the basis of a
synthesis of disjointed Level l elements. Level 2 situation awareness goes beyond simply being aware of
the elements that are present to include an understanding of the significance of those elements in light of
pertinent operator goals. On the basis of knowledge
of Level 1 elements, particularly when put together
to form patterns with the other elements (gestalt), the
decision maker forms a holistic picture of the environment, comprehending the significance of objects and
events. Level 3 Projection of future status:
The ability to project the future actions of the elements in the environment at least in the very near
term forms the third and highest level of Situation awareness. This is achieved through knowledge
of the status and dynamics of the elements and comprehension of the situation (both Level 1 and Level 2
Situation awareness). Situation awareness, therefore,
is on the basis of far more than simply perceiving
information about the environment. It includes comprehending the meaning of that information in an
integrated form, comparing it with operator goals,
and providing projected future states of the environment that are valuable for decision making. In this
aspect, Situation awareness is a broad construct that is
research, simplifying a complex successive cognitive

process for collision avoidance between vessels, only
one fault tree was used for the evaluation. However,
the sources of probabilities of the basic events in the
fault tree were not shown. In the present study, a collision model that can estimate causation probability
based on cognitive decision process like Fukuchi et al.
is called cognitive collision model.
Described above, existing cognitive collision models do not fully deal with complex successive cognitive
process for collision avoidance between vessels or its
microscopic process.
In the present study, a cognitive collision model on
the basis of a cognitive process theory are developed
quantifying the model by the frequency index database
for human error. Moreover, the causation probability
obtained from the model was compared with that from
the geometric and statistical collision model and good
agreement between both values were found.
2
2.1
COLLISION MODEL BASED ON

NDM MODEL
NDM model
A naturalistic decision making (NDM) framework

emerged as a means of studying how people actually make decisions and perform cognitively complex functions in demanding situations. NDM model
(NDMM) is a theoretical model of situation awareness
on the basis of its role in dynamic human decision
making in a variety of domains. Situation awareness
is presented as a predominant concern in system operation, on the basis of a descriptive view of decision
making. The relationship between situation awareness
and individual and environmental factors is explored.
Among these factors, attention and working memory are presented as critical factors limiting operators
from acquiring and interpreting information from the
environment to form situation awareness, and mental
models and goal-directed behavior are hypothesized
as important mechanisms for overcoming these limits. The impact of design features, workload, stress,
system complexity, and automation on operator situation awareness is addressed, and a taxonomy of
errors in situation awareness is introduced, on the
basis of the model presented. The model is used to
generate design implications for enhancing operator
situation awareness and future directions for situation awareness research. Figure 1 provides a basis for
50
Table 1. The Correspondence relation of NDMM to the navigators action.

NDMM
The Vessels and Navigators Situation

a) Detection of opponent vessel at normal voyage
b) Judgment of crossing situation at keeping watch
Situation awareness Level 1(Perception) (Observation)

Situation awareness Level 2 (Comprehension) and Level 3
(Projection) (Cognition)
Decision (Planning)
Performance of Actions (Action)
1
2
c) Judgment of taking avoidance action at perilous

condition of collision
d) Taking avoidance action from crisis of collision
Figure 2. Event tree of vessel-A (or vessel-B) and calculation results for collision avoidance (Japan Shipbuilding Research
Association. 2003).
from the Variation Tree Analysis (VTA) (Leplat, J. &

Rasmussen, J. 1987). VTA uses a set of symbols within
a flowchart-type pattern to enable analysis of a situation. Variation factors are deviations from normal safe
driving behavior. VTA is a methodology to analyze
accidents, and to extract Variation Factors (VFs),
which deviate from usual procedures/processes. The
extracted VFs are arranged sequentially to show the
flow of the VFs focused on human errors, and measures against accidents are methods to cut the flow of
VFs. The extracted VFs are identified as hazards.
The marine casualty database was constructed from
the results of VTA (Tamura, Y. and Shinoda, T. 2009).
The database consists of the extracted VFs (hazards),
which are sorted in accordance with their attributes and
situations. The VFs in the database extracted from the
visualized VTA and the facts obtained from the records
of Judgment Record of Marine Accidents Inquiry
Agency, which are accident attributes vessel attributes,
and so on. VFs are categorized into four situations
according to distance between two vessels at an initial
recognition on the basis of the definition of Judgment
Record of Marine Accidents Inquiry Agency. The situations are Normal Voyage for Situation A, Crossing
Situation for Situation B, Perilous Condition of Collision for Situation C and Crisis Condition of Collision
for Situation D (Table 1). Additionally, 100 records of
collision accidents between fishing vessel and cargo
vessel judged at Moji MarineAccident InquiryAgency
from 2001 to 2008 are analyzed by the visualized
VTA methodology (Tamura, Y. and Shinoda, T. 2009,
Table 2ab).
applicable across a wide variety of application areas,

with many underlying cognitive processes in common.
For the vessel operation, Level 1 corresponds to
observation, Level 2 and 3 correspond to cognition, respectively (Grech, M.R. Horberry, T.J. and
Koester, T. 2008). Next after successive situation
awareness Level 1-3, adequate action is chosen. Actually, all of the actions which can be chose are not
extracted before choice of action with adequate time
and care. According to Klein, on the basis of experience, we discern the same situation which is experienced in the past for a short time, then derive
practicable solution by both intuitive sense and analysis.The decision making as presented above is called as
Recognition-primed decision (RPD) (Klein, G. 1993).
Therefore, RPD is performed to choose the action after
the conclusion of cognition.
Section II 16 of International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea says, The give-way vessel:
The give-way vessel must take early and substantial action to keep well clear. This regulation does
not indicate the precise timing or steering for collision avoidance between vessels. The action planning
for collision avoidance between vessels is a typical
exemplar of RPD making. Therefore, RPD making is
correspond to planning as for operation of the vessel.
2.2
Development of collision model
(1) Perceptual decision factor on collision model

In this section, collision model based on NDMM is
developed on the basis of the facts which were derived
51
Table 2. Cognition and decision-making factors on collision accident by analysis of constructed marine casualty database
and corresponding human error probabilities (Tamura, Y. & Shinoda, T. 2009; Benhardt, H.C. Eide, S.A. Held, J.E. Olsen,
L.M. Vail, R.E. 1994).
52
(2) Development of Event Tree and Matrix for the calculation of the collision avoidance failure probability
between vessels
Success or failure in each stage corresponding to
NDMM affects a success or failure of the following
stage. Therefore, the event tree related to collision
between vessels is expressed by setting the each stage
of NDMM to process key shown in Fig. 2 (Japan
Shipbuilding Research Association. 2003). For development of event tree shown in Figure 2, several
assumptions were introduced as follows:
1) Success or failure of collision avoidance is determined by the combination of collision avoidance
failure probability of vessel A and B.
2) Even if one of two vessels fails the collision avoidance, the collision is avoidable if another vessel
avoids a collision correctly if the other vessel avoids
a collision correctly.
3) If both vessels fail in the stage of the upstream of
a process of avoiding a collision, collision avoidance is failed and the collision avoidance process
is ended.
The combination of each stage of avoiding the
collision between vessel A and B is expressed in
matrix form shown in Table 3. On the basis of the
above-mentioned assumption, the failure probability
of collision avoidance is the summation of the matrix
element in which both vessels fail collision avoidance
in each stage. Therefore, the collision avoidance failure probability between vessel A and B is the sum of
the coloring part domain of Table 3.
(3) Preparation of fault tree on the basis of the
perceptual decision factor
On the basis of the table of cognition and decisionmaking factors shown in Table 2, fault trees corresponding to each stage of the NDMM are prepared
shown in Fig. 3(a)(d). The cognition and decisionmaking factors are divided into each stage of the
NDMM.
QUANTIFICATION OF THE MODEL

EMPLOYING FREQUENCY INDEX
DATABASE FOR HUMAN ERROR
All elements of the developed collision model

explained above can be quantified if the fault trees
in Figure 3 are quantified. Therefore, a methodology
for quantifying the fault trees is essentially important.
In this chapter, we explain the methodology precisely.
Human error probability data is used for human
reliability analysis (HRA) to evaluate human reliability. The Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction
(THERP) is the sophisticated and most frequently
applied methodology for human performance reliability prediction. It is a methodology for estimating
human error rates and for evaluating the degradation
of a human-machine system caused by human errors
Figure 3. Fault trees corresponding to each four-event

which constitutes the NDMM.
in association with factors such as equipment reliability and procedures. The methodology was developed
for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Reactor
Safety Study, 1975) in the Sandia National Laboratories. THERP is based on a large human reliability database that contains human error probabilities
(HEPs), and is on the basis of both plant data and
expert judgments.
Such human reliability data shown in NUREG/CR1278 (Swein, A.D. & Guttmann, H. E. 1983) includes
53
Table 3. Matrix description for determining success or failure of collision avoidance corresponding to each situation of
NDMM(Japan Shipbuilding Research Association. 2003).
Px1 : Success probability of observation, Px2 : Success probability of cognition, Px3 : Success probability of planning and Px4 :
Success probability of action. x corresponds respectively to A: A-vessel and B: B-vessel. The sum over the article with hatching
corresponds to the failure of collision avoidance probability.
in Table 4 are applied to the basic condition which

constructs fault trees shown in Fig. 3.
In the present study, we used the human failure
probability rate quantified to nominal mean values
on the basis of general environment.
so much detail that it is difficult to use for investigation

of the cause of collision accidents between general vessels. In addition, large discrepancies have been found
compared to other risk assessments associated with
the same tasks. Such discrepancies may have arisen
from either the process mapping of the tasks in question or the estimation of the HEPs associated with each
task.
For the above reason, instead of the human reliability data in NUREG/CR-1238, we have decided
to use the macroscopic human error data in safety
analysis report of non-reactor nuclear facilities at the
Savannah River Site (SRS) (Benhardt, H.C. Eide, S.A.
Held, J.E. Olsen, L.M. Vail, R.E. 1994) in which
macroscopic HEP data has been compiled. This report
consists of the classification and the description of
human error, which respond to diverse situations by
typical human reliability data from NUREG/CR-1278
(Swein, A.D. & Guttmann, H. E. 1983). The SRSspecific human error data described in the reference
(Benhardt, H.C. Eide, S.A. Held, J.E. Olsen, L.M. Vail,
R.E. 1994) contains SRS-specific conditions as necessary, so we modified the data to make it available to
this study. The modified data is indicated by bold face
in Table 4. The modified human errors summarized
CALCULATED VALUE OF THE COLLISION

AVOIDANCE FAILURE PROBABILITY
BETWEEN VESSELS
By means of the frequency index data for human error

described in Table 2 or Table 4, event probabilities for
each stage of NDMM were calculated based on the
fault trees for vessel handling described in Fig. 3, and
probabilities of collision avoidance failure per demand
were evaluated by event tree for collision avoidance
described in Table 3 or Fig. 2.
The calculation result is also shown in Table 3
and Fig.2. The collision avoidance failure probability is 1.11E-4 [1/vessel encounter]. The probability is
calculated as 8.5E-5 [1/vessel encounter] for Uraga
Suido Traffic Route, 6.3E-5 for Akashi channel by the
geometric and statistical collision model which was
54
Table 4. Recommended human error probabilities and rates

(Benhardt, H.C. Eide, S.A. Held, J.E. Olsen, L.M. Vail, R.E.
1994).
No.
Human error event
1
2
3
4
5
Failure of administrative control

Failure to respond to compelling signal
Failure to verify within control room
Failure to verify outside control room
Error in selecting control within control
room
Communication error
Incorrect reading or recording of data
Miscalibration
Failure to restore following maintenance
Laboratory analysis error
Diagnosis error
Failure of long-term accident recovery
7
11
12
14
19
30
35
Table 5. The effect of collision avoidance expected from the

use of the risk control option.
Failure
probability
rate
(/demand)
1.60E-2
1.00E-2
1.00E-2
3.00E-2
1.00E-2
5.00E-2
1.00E-2
1.60E-2
1.70E-2
6.10E-4
1.00E-2
3.00E-3
RCO
Desired effect
1 AIS
(Automatic
Identification
System)
Detection
of current
situation related
to other vessels
(25%)a)
2 Radar
redundancy
The probability
of the
conjunction of
all the radars
failure is very
small.
(100%)a)
Reduction of
Failure of
collision
avoidance
planning and
Failure of
collision
avoidance
action
(30%)a)
Keeping in
close contact
with person
concerned to
avoid collision
(25%)a)
3 Coast pilot
developed by Kaneko et.al. (Kaneko, F. 2004; Kaneko,

F. & Daichi, H. 2007).
Therefore, the failure probability of collision avoidance at vessels encounter can be derived by only
employing the frequency index of human error for the
vessel collision model.
4 VHF radio
telephone
5 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RISK CONTROL

OPTION USED FOR VESSELS
From the calculated value of the failure probability of
collision avoidance in chapter 4, effective risk control
options (RCOs) are required to reduce the impact of
human error related to maritime accidents. The literature (Japan Shipbuilding Research Association. 2003)
summarizes findings of RCOs related to human factors from the questionnaire.After that, the research was
estimated analyzed by m-SHEL model (Kawano, R.
1997) which can explain the human error in an orderly
sequence. The RCOs which considered in this study
was shown in Table 5.
The fault tree which applied to the effect of RCO
was calculated and the variation of probability on each
stage of NDMM. From Table 5, boarding and onboard VHF radio telephone are most effective of
RCOs, which are also effective for vessels which are
not required to be equipped with by legislations, since
this model does not depend on the size of vessels.
Combination
of RCO1-5
The maximum
effect expected
from the use of
the risk control
option
The effect expected from

the use of the RCOb)
[BJ511] 7.5E-3 (1.0E-2)
[BJ512] 1.2E-2 (1.6E-2)
[Failure of cognition]
4.41E-3 (4.73E-3)
[Failure of collision
avoidance]
1.05E-4 (1.11E-4) [6%]
[AJ221] 0.0 (1.7E-2)
[AJ222] 0.0 (1.6E-2)
[Failure of observation]
1.12E-3 (1.45E-3)
avoidance]
1.05E-4 (1.11E-4) [6%]
[Failure of planning]
1.82E-4 (2.60E-4)
[Failure of action]
2.91E-3 (4.15E-3)
avoidance]
8.55E-5 (1.11E-4) [23%]
[AJ32] 3.75E-2 (5.0E-2)

[BJ62] 3.75E-2 (5.0E-2)
[BP43] 3.75E-2 (5.0E-2)
[CJ65] 4.58E-4 (6.1E-4)
[CJ67] 4.58E-4 (6.1E-4)
[CJ51] 7.50E-3 (1.0E-2)
[CM1] 7.50E-3 (1.0E-2)
1.25E-3 (1.45E-3)
3.70E-3 (4.73E-3)
1.95E-4 (2.60E-4)
avoidance]
8.59E-5 (1.11E-4) [23%]
1.12E-3 (1.45E-3)
3.70E-3 (4.73E-3)
1.82E-4 (2.60E-4)
[Failure of action]
2.91E-3 (4.15E-3)
avoidance]
6.23E-5 (1.11E-4) [44%]
a) Reduction rate of Human error.

b) The value in each bracket means the probability before
taking into account the effect of each RCO and the value in
each square bracket means the reduction rate of the failure of
collision avoidance.
CONCLUSION
In this study, a vessel collision model between two

vessels based on NDMM was developed in order to
determine success or failure of collision avoidance
between vessels, which illustrates the navigators situation. Applying a frequency index of human error to
this collision model resulted in the same order of magnitude as the geometric and statistical collision model.
This result suggests that the model based on NDMM
has an accuracy equivalent to the geometric and statistical collision model. Subsequently, we examined the
55
Fukuchi, N.; Shinoda, T.; Ono, T. & Tamura, Y. 2000. A

Stochastic State-transition and Preventing Countermeasures for Marine Accidents Originating from Human
Factors. Journal of Seibu Zosen Kai Transactions of
the West-Japan Society of Naval Architects 2000 (100):
207218. (in Japanese)
Fukuchi, N.; Tamura, Y. & Koyama, K. 2003. A Safety
Assessment for Marine Accidents considering Psychological Intelligence Process in an Emergency. Journal of the
Society of Naval Architects of Japan 2003 (193): 109119.
(in Japanese)
Grech, M.R.; Horberry, T.J. & Koester, T. 2008. Human
Factors in the Maritime Domain. CRC Press: 49.
Japan Shipbuilding Research Association. 2003. Report of
research on general safety assessment of ships. Tokyo
(Japan): JSRA.
Kaneko, F. 2004. Effectiveness of Separation Scheme for
Prevention of Collision by Diminishing Ships Encounter
Probability. Proc. of 3rd Int. Conf. on Collision and
Grounding of ships.
Kaneko, F. & Daichi, H. 2007. Estimation of Dangerous
Encounters Number from Observed Ship Trajectories.
Proc. of 4th Int. Conf. on Collision and Grounding of ships.
Kawano, R. 1997. Human error. Human factors in nuclear
power plants. High Pressure Gas, 34[9] P: 3643. (in
Japanese)
Klein, G. 1993. A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model
of rapid decision making. In G. Klein, et al. (Eds.), Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods: 138147,
Ablex.
Leplat, J. & Rasmussen, J. 1987. Analysis of human errors
in industrial incidents and accidents for improvement of
work safety. New technology and human error, John Wiley
and Sons, Ltd.: 157168.
and grounding analysis procedure. Marine Structures 23:
241262.
Reactor Safety Study. 1975. An Assessment of Accident
Risks in US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, WASH1400 (NUREG-75/014), USNRC.
Swein, A.D. & Guttmann, H. E. 1983. Handbook of human
reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant
application. NUREG/CR-1278.
Tamura, Y. & Shinoda, T. 2009. Safety Assessment with
Marine Casualty Data on Collision Accidents between
Fishing Vessels and Cargo Vessels. Proc. of 2009 Int. Conf.
on Offshore and Polar Engineering.
effect of the four RCOs for vessel collision, which are

applicable to general vessels. The examination implied
that boarding a coast pilot and on-board VHF radio
telephone are the most effective RCOs. This study
shows that the vessel collision avoidance model based
on NDMM is useful not only to discern the impact
of vessel collision caused by human error but also to
assess the effect of RCOs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was carried out as a part of the research
project, title of which is Research on general safety
assessment of ships (RR-S7) of the Japan Shipbuilding Research Association, which was carried
out during 2002 fiscal year of Japan (Japan Shipbuilding Research Association 2003). The project was
supported by the Nippon Foundation. The author is
grateful to those association, foundation and people
concerned for their cooperation and support.
REFERENCES
Baker, C.C. & McCafferty, D.B. 2005. Accident database
review of human element concerns: What do the results
mean for classification?. Proc. of Int. Conf. on Human
Factors in Ship Design and Operation, RINA.
Benhardt, H.C.; Eide, S.A.; Held, J.E.; Olsen, L.M. & Vail,
R.E. 1994. Savannah River Site Human Error Data Base
Development for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities. WSRCTR-93-581.
Endsley, M. R. 1995. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness
in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors 37(1): 3264.
Endsley, M. R.; Bolte, B. & Jones, D.G. 2003. What is Situation Awareness? In Designing for Situation Awareness:
An Approach to User-Centered Design. New York, NY.
Taylor & Francis: 13.
Fukuchi, N.; Shinoda, T. & Ono, T. 2000. A Stochastic Statetransition and Safety Assessment for Marine Accidents
Based on Human Factors (Part 1: Tensional Stress by Measuring Fractal Nature of Heart Rate Variability). Journal
of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan 2000 (188):
465478. (in Japanese)
56
Material characterization and implementation of the RTCL, BWH and

SHEAR failure criteria to finite element codes for the simulation of
impacts on ship structures
J.N. Marinatos & M.S. Samuelides
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
ABSTRACT: The present work aims in defining a numerical procedure to simulate the response of ship
structures under accidental loading conditions, which suffer various different modes of failure, such as tension,
bending, shear, and crushing and in particular to investigate the effect of material modeling on the results.
To this end, medium scale indentation experiments, conducted by two different research groups, are simulated
using ABAQUS 6.10-2 explicit code. The tests refer to the quasi-static transverse loading of an un-stiffened and
stiffened plates and to the quasi-static indentation of a double hull model. Three failure criteria are incorporated
into the explicit finite element code ABAQUS 6.10-2, in order to investigate the prediction of fracture. These are
referred in the literature as the critical equivalent plastic strain criterion or SHEAR criterion, the BWH instability
criterion and the RTCL damage criterion. In the present investigation, the focus is on investigating whether it is
possible to define a single methodology, which is appropriate for the simulation of all different tests.
INTRODUCTION
BWH instability criterion (Alsos et al. 2008) and

the RTCL damage criterion (Trnqvist 2003), respectively. In the present investigation focus is placed on
the determination of a true stress-strain relation, which
in combination with the selected failure criteria shall
simulate the tests in a realistic manner and produce
accurate predictions. Furthermore, actions to determine the relevant material parameters and to assess
whether the failure criteria are appropriate for application to simulations concerning different indentation
experiments are identified.
Section 2 presents the failure criteria used in the
present work, SHEAR, RTCL and BWH according to
Alsos et al. (2008) and Trnqvist (2003), respectively
and section 3 describes the experiments of Alsos &
Amdahl (2009) and Paik et al. (1999), which have been
investigated. Section 4 addresses the material properties and shows how the variables of the material and
failure criteria are calibrated, as well as how the critical
strain in the cases of SHEAR and RTCL failure criteria is set to take into account the mesh size sensitivity.
Section 5 presents the numerical modeling details and
section 6 includes discussion of the numerical results
and conclusions.
In order to simulate in a realistic manner the response,

the ultimate load carrying capacity and damage initiation of a ship structure under extreme loading
conditions, as is the case in a collision or grounding
event, it is required to have an appropriate material
model. This implies the definition of a true stressstrain relation until failure, that represents the material
used in the simulations, as well as the incorporation of
an appropriate failure criterion through which satisfactory description and prediction of fracture can be
attained. The true stress-strain relationship is usually
determined from the engineering stress-strain curve
obtained from uniaxial tensile tests. However, after
the neck is formed, uniformity is violated and plastic
instabilities prevail until the final stage of fracture.
The present work aims in investigating the effect
of material modeling on the results of simulations of
tests, on steel specimens under transverse loading. To
this end, medium scale indentation experiments, conducted by two different research groups, are simulated
using ABAQUS 6.10-2 explicit code. The tests are presented in Alsos & Amdahl (2009) and Paik et al. (1999)
and refer the former to quasi-static transverse loading
of an un-stiffened and two stiffened plates, one with
one flat bar and the other with two flat bar stiffeners,
and the latter to quasi-static indentation tests of a double hull model. Three failure criteria are implemented
into the explicit finite element code ABAQUS 6.102, in order to investigate fracture prediction. These
are referred in the literature as the critical equivalent plastic strain criterion or SHEAR criterion, the
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 General
Correct prediction of rupture is of great importance
in crashworthiness analyses. The magnitude of critical
strain before fracture varies with the quality of the steel
57
and the stress state involved. Mathematically the stress

state, also referred to as the stress triaxiality, is defined
as the ratio of mean stress to effective or von Mises
equivalent stress, i.e. T = m /eq . Mean or hydrostatic
stress is associated with dilatation or the change in volume of a solid element as it deforms. Effective or von
Mises equivalent stress is directly related to octahedral
shearing stress, which in turn is related to distortional
energy to change the shape of a solid element as it
deforms. Therefore, a physical interpretation of stress
triaxiality is that it describes the general state of stress
in a solid element and is related to the ratio of volume change to shape change. Triaxialities above 1/3,
describe tension stress states. On a micro-structural
level, fracture is driven by small impurities inside the
material which nucleate and create material voids. As
the deformation continues, these voids grow and coalesce. Fracture takes place when the ligament between
the voids has thinned down to a certain level. Stress
triaxialities below 1/3, describe a compression state.
As a general, fracture will not initiate in this state.
Between compression and tension, fracture appears in
a shear state, (Alsos et al. 2007).
Critical equivalent plastic strain criterion or
SHEAR criterion, is one of the first used failure criteria in finite element simulations. It is widely used
due to its simple form that makes it convenient for
simulations with finite elements. According to it, failure is determined at some critical equivalent plastic
strain. However, SHEAR criterions main drawback
is the complete neglect of stress triaxiality. It shows
constant ductility for all variations of stress triaxiality and may even yield fracture in pure compression,
which is unrealistic; according to observations from
related experiments with ductile materials. RTCL and
BWH failure criteria have been used in finite element simulations only during the last decade. They
are advantageous respecting to the former, because in
their formulation is considered not only the effect, but
also the whole range of stress triaxiality in a fracture
analysis. This implies that they account for various
failure modes from shear to ductile fracture, as stress
triaxiality varies between negative and positive values.
The RTCL damage criterion is a strain based criterion and it constitutes a combination of the Rice &
Tracey (1969) and the modified Cockcroft & Latham
(1968) damage criteria. The BWH criterion is a stress
based criterion and it constitutes a combination of
the local necking analysis presented by Hill (1952)
with the Bressan & Williams (1983) shear stress criterion. For a more detailed presentation of the RTCL
and BWH damage criteria see Trnqvist (2003), Alsos
et al. (2008).
3
3.1
Figure 1. The transverse (left) and longitudinal (right) cross

section with and without stiffeners. Alsos & Amdahl (2009).
Figure 2. Schematic view of the test set-up for initial colliding BW (on the left) and OW (on the right). Paik et al.
(1999).
in stranding, when the ship settles on the sea floor

without being subjected to sway or surge motions and
also in collision events. In the case of such events,
damaged hull and cargo tanks may have severe environmental consequences and could even result in
serious injury even loss of life. Thus, focus through this
experimental procedure is placed on the investigation
of the resistance of the struck structure under transverse loading; including the response of the structure
after ultimate load is reached. Furthermore valuable
data is attained, which then can be used for the verification of the failure criteria that are applied in numerical
simulations.
Five different panel indentation experiments are
examined, i) according to the experiments that were
conducted by Alsos & Amdahl (2009): an un-stiffened
plate (US Plate), a plate with one (1-FB) and two (2FB) flat bar stiffeners, respectively, ii) according to
the experiments that were conducted by Paik et al.
(1999): two double skinned structural models, where
the impact location of the cone shape indenter on the
outer skin plating was varied between webs and on
webs, ST-3-BW and ST-3-OW respectively. A brief
description of these indentation tests is given in the
following.
3.2 Experiments
In all experiments a rigid, bulbous, bow shape indenter was forced upon different mid-scaled structures,
which constitute parts of a ship. In the case of
Alsos & Amdahl (2009) experiments all components were loaded in displacement control at a rate
of 0.16 mm/sec, while in the case of Paik et al.
(1999) experiments the loading was kept at less
than 0.13 mm/sec, in order to avoid dynamic effects.
The configuration of each test and the form of the
rigid indenters are illustrated in Figures 1 to 4. The
INDENTATION EXPERIMENTS
General
The scope of this type of experiments is to investigate

the structural crashworthiness of the collided vessels
58
Figure 3. The rigid indenter. Paik et al. (1999).
Figure 5. Stress-strain engineering curves for each material.

Figure 4. Details of the ST-3-BW model (a) and of the
ST-3-OW model (b). Paik et al. (1999).
Table 1.
engineering stress-strain curves to true-logarithmic,

adopting the volume incompressibility concept. This
leads to the following two familiar relationships:
Dimensions of the specimens.
Model
Thickness
(mm)
Depth
(mm)
Web/
FB space
(mm)
Indenter
radius
(mm)
US Plate
1-FB
2-FB
ST-3-BW
ST-3-OW
5.0
6.0
6.0
2.8
2.8
120
120
350
350
240
282
235
200
200
200
80
80
where eng and eng indicate the engineering values

of stress and total strain as occurred from the uniaxial tensile tests. The contribution of the elastic strains
is not significant in the following analysis, so they
are neglected. Thus, true plastic strains pl are calculated by subtracting true elastic strains from total true
strains, that is:
dimensions and thicknesses of the models are summarized in Table 1. For a more detailed presentation of
the tests set up see Alsos & Amdahl (2009) and Paik
et al. (1999).
4
4.1
where E theYoungs modulus of each material sample.

Beyond the point of necking three different types
of true curves are assumed and implemented in the
simulations, i.e. the experimental, the powerlaw and
the tangent type, Figure 6.
The experimental type has the following form:
MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
Stress-strain relation
In all cases of the examined indentation tests, the material used is mild steel and it is assumed to have isotropic
plastic properties, following the plane stress J 2 flow
theory during the modeling process. The engineering
stress-strain curves for the material of the specimens
that have been tested, are given in Figure 5 and they
were obtained by tensile testing of flat specimens,
(Alsos & Amdahl 2009), (Paik et al. 1999). The true
equivalent stress-strain curves are determined according to the following process. Up to the point at which
necking starts, that is assumed to occur at maximum
load or ultimate stress of the stress-strain engineering curves, the true equivalent stress-strain curves,
true true are derived by simply transforming the
where eq and eq pl are the true Mises stress and

plastic strain, while u and u are the true values of
stress and plastic strain at the point the neck starts
and can be calculated by (1) and (2). According to the
experimental type, there is no hardening after maximum load and the material is considered as perfect
plastic.
The power law type has the form:
59
Table 2. Powerlaw material parameters for the various

structural components.
Component
E
y
ue
(GPa) (MPa) (MPa) fr
US Plate
210.0 285.0
FB Stiff.
210.0 340.0
ST-3 models 197.7 245.3
416.0
442.0
337.8
K
(MPa) n
0.35 740
0.35 760
0.46 590
0.240
0.225
0.221
where ue and fr the engineering values of ultimate stress

and fracture strain, respectively.
When w gets the zero value, then the true curve

becomes a powerlaw type curve and a tangent type
curve in the other case. For intermediate values of w,
true curves between the powerlaw and tangent type
are derived. Thus, powerlaw type curve represents the
lower bound and tangent type the upper bound of the
curves obtained by relationship (10).
In Table 2 are presented the material parameters of
all tests that have been simulated (lines one and two for
Alsos & Amdahl (2009) and line three for Paik et al.
(1999).
Figure 6. Different types of true equivalent stress-plastic

straicurves.
The parameters K, n are the material parameters, namely the strength coefficient and the strainhardening index. At the onset of necking (u , u ) in a
uniaxial tension test it is
4.2 Element size sensitivity

In the present study the mesh sensitivity is handled by
the following formula for the US Plate, 1-FB and 2-FB
models as proposed by Alsos, Amdahl et al. (2009):
Thus, parameters K, n can be determined easily as:
Here, n is the power law exponent and diffuse necking strain, while n is the failure strain when t = le ,
namely the thickness of the element is equal to the
element length and can be determined from numerical
reproduction of uniaxial tensile tests.
RTCL and SHEAR damage criteria are related to a
critical equivalent plastic strain, which can be found
from uniaxial tensile tests. This relation is referred
to as a fracture scaling law and was applied to the
RTCL and SHEAR damage criteria for the US Plate,
1-FB and 2-FB models. A detailed description for the
derivation of (11) can be found in Alsos, Amdahl et al.
(2009).
BWH damage criterion due to its formulation
exhibits much less mesh sensitivity, as the material parameters K and n included in the equations
are assumed to be independent of the element size;
up to the point of ultimate true stress, up to which
these parameters are determined, a uniform behavior
is considered regardless of the element length. The
derivation of K and n material parameters has already
been described in section 4.1.
According to (6) the powerlaw type becomes
For the tangent type it is assumed that the true curve

beyond the point of necking is linear and moreover
tangent to (u , u ). Hence, it will have the following
form:
where the coefficients c, d of the linear expression (8)

can be determined with the use of (6) which will give
c = u and d = u (1 u ). Finally tangent type true
curve takes the form:
Ling (1996) proposed a general type for eq after the

point of necking by introducing an unknown weight
constant w which varies between 0 and 1. This weight
constant combines relations (7) and (9) and has the
following form:
4.3 Calibration of SHEAR and RTCL damage

criteria
The RTCL and SHEAR damage criteria were calibrated from simulations of uniaxial tensile tests with
60
one had to the results. Three different mesh sizes were

used for the uniaxial simulations. Specifically element
sizes of 5, 10 and 18 mm for the cases ofAlsos,Amdahl
et al. (2009) and 25, 40 and 50 mm for the case of Paik
et al. (1999) material samples, respectively. Results for
each material sample, curve type and element length
are presented in Figure 8.
According to Figure 8, it is obvious that powerlaw and tangent curves yield the best reproduction of
the experimental results. They coincide for all element
sizes and start to diverge between each other slightly
after the fracture point. On the other hand the experimental type exhibits mesh dependency and an abrupt
fall right after the maximum load has been reached. It
is noted that, regardless of the element size and curve
type used for the simulations, up to maximum load
coincidence of the numerical results is achieved.
Figure 7. Equivalent plastic failure strains for different

element sizes (uniaxial tension). Data points from FE simulations are compared with the curves derived from (11) and
(12) for the ST-3 models.
different mesh sizes. A finite element model was

made to simulate the rectangular tensile tests. The four
noded reduced integration quadrilateral BelytschkoLin-Tsay shell elements, i.e. S4R, with five section
points through the thickness were chosen. Several
different mesh sizes were used to study the mesh
dependence.
One end of the simulated model was totally fixed
while at the opposite end a controlled displacement
was applied. The displacement of two nodes, one at
the left and the other at the right end of the gauge
length (gauge length = 50 mm) was monitored during the simulation and written down as history output.
When the relative displacement of the selected nodes
reached the value obtained at the experimental point
of fracture; see also Table 2, the maximum value of the
equivalent plastic strain was detected at the mid section of the specimen and selected as the critical one.
The aspect ratio was kept as close as possible to 1:1.
The powerlaw type curve beyond necking was used
during this process, as it yielded the best reproduction of the experimental curve for all element sizes.
In the case of the US Plate, 1-FB and 2-FB panels the
calibrated value 0.71 of the parameter n was used in
(11), (Alsos, Amdahl et al. 2009). In the case of the
ST-3 models, the calibrated value of the parameter n
was determined by the author following the previous
procedure and found equal to 0.75 when t = le . Note
that in this case, the fitted curve to the values of cr ,
which derived from the uniaxial simulations for different element sizes, is a third order polynomial and
not the fracture scaling law of relation (11) as, as one
may observe in Figure 7 this analytical type does not
seem to work well in this case. This polynomial has
the following form:
5
5.1
5.2
Numerical modeling of the US-Plate, 1-FB,

2-FB and ST-3 models
The simulations have been performed with a constant

indenter velocity of about 3.2 m/sec in the cases of the
US Plate, 1-FB and 2-FB models and 3.8 m/sec in the
cases of the ST-3 models. Contact between indenter
and collided structure was accounted for by applying
the general contact algorithm in ABAQUS/Explicit. A
static friction coefficient equal to 0.3 was assumed.
US Plate, 1-FB and 2-FB models were modeled with
5, 10 and 18 mm, while ST-3 models with 25, 40 and
50 mm element sizes, respectively. In the cases of the 1FB and 2-FB models, the additional thickness caused
by the weld seams was accounted for by increasing
the plate thickness in the plate-stiffener intersection,
as seen in Alsos, Amdahl et al. (2009). The height and
width of the welds varied between 57 mm. Welds were
represented by single rows of 6 mm wide elements with
increased thicknesses. On the plate side, the thickness
increase was equal to 2 mm and on the stiffener side
the thickness increase was equal to 4 mm. In the cases
of the ST-3 models welds were not included in the
simulations due to lack of experimental data.
6
DISCUSSION OF NUMERICAL RESULTS
Herein, the results of the finite element analyses are

compared with the experimental results. Focus was
placed on the force-penetration relationship and the
initiation of fracture. Note that, two forms of the RTCL
and SHEAR damage criteria were implemented in
the simulations, the unscaled (RTCL, SHEAR) and the
scaled (RTCLS, SHEARS) form. In the first case the
critical equivalent plastic strain was set equal to n ,
namely fracture was determined regardless of the element length and set to the value predicted for t = le
through uniaxial simulations, while in the second case
the critical equivalent plastic strain became dependent
of the element length according to the adopted fracture scaling laws, as described in section 4, in order to
capture fracture after onset of local necking.
NUMERICAL MODELING
Numerical modeling of the uniaxial tests
Uniaxial simulations using the explicit FE code

ABAQUS 6.10-2, without applying damage criterion
were performed. All types of the aforementioned in
section 4.1 true curves, were implemented in the simulations, in order to assess the potential influence each
61
size seems to have a much less effect on the BWH

criterion comparing to the other ones. As already mentioned in section 2, BWH is a stress based criterion
which predicts local instability rather than the state of
final fracture and applies to membrane stresses and
strains. As the finite element method is sensitive to
mesh sizes close to fracture and BWH criterion is
activated before this stage, mesh size effect is not significant when the specific criterion is used. As a result
BWH tends to predict failure prematurely, especially
when the mesh size is too fine, because when small
elements are used high membrane stresses are developed in biaxial loading conditions, as is the case here.
Furthermore it is noted, that BWH damage criterion
is not satisfied in combination with the experimental type true curve. This is due to the fact that after
the point (u , u ), that is at the onset of necking, this
curve type sustains the value u regardless of the corresponding increase in the strains and the material does
not exhibit any further hardening, i.e. it becomes perfect plastic. BWH damage criterion is satisfied when a
critical value of stress is reached, which implies that in
the case of the experimental type true curve this critical
value is not surpassed. This trend is observed with all
material models used in the simulations. RTCLS criterion does not seem to capture damage correctly. On the
other hand RTCL responds very well, also with coarser
meshes. This is reasonable as diffusion and not local
necking was the predominant failure mechanism in the
case of the un-stiffened plate. This is also in agreement
with the experimental results. Extended scatter to the
results is also observed with both forms of the SHEAR
damage criterion. Good agreement with the experiment is achieved with an element length equal to 5 or
10 mm. Moreover, in most of the cases, experimental
type true curve tends to underestimate the resistance
of the structure.
6.2
Figure 8. Numerical results for different mesh sizes and

curve types. (a) Plate US, 1-FB & 2-FB, (b) FB Stiffener,
(c) ST-3 models.
6.1
Plate with 1-FB stiffener
The force-penetration diagrams in the case of the plate

with one flat bar stiffener, are illustrated in Figure 10.
A similar behavior to the one analysed in the precedent model is observed also in this case for the various
damage criteria. Satisfactory prediction of fracture initiation in the case of the BWH criterion is achieved
for coarser meshes, over 5 mm. In most of the cases
RTCLS, SHEARS criteria underestimate the resistance of the 1-FB component, while RTCL, SHEAR
criteria over predict fracture for meshes greater than
5 mm. Both forms of the RTCL, SHEAR damage criteria yield good correlation with the experimental results
in the use of a 5 mm element length and a powerlaw
type true curve.
6.3 Plate with 2-FB stiffeners
Figure 11 illustrates the force-penetration relationship
for the plate with two flat bar stiffeners. Once more
BWH criterion yields good correlation with the experimental results for coarse meshes, while both forms
US-Plate
According to Figure 9, the difference between RTCL,

SHEAR and BWH damage criteria is obvious. Mesh
62
Figure 9. US-Plate. Force-penetration diagrams. Numerical results in the use of three different failure criteria, true curve
types and element lengths.
Figure 10. 1-FB. Force-penetration diagrams. Numerical results in the use of three different failure criteria, true curve types
and element lengths.
a rather fine mesh is necessary in order to capture the

localized phenomena.
of the RTCL, SHEAR damage criteria for meshes

equal to 5 and 10 mm. Furthermore, the various forcepenetration curves for different element sizes and true
curve types tend to converge between each other and
also with the experimental results in the cases of
the scaled forms of the RTCL and SHEAR damage
criteria. This may be explained by the fact that the
main failure mechanism in this experiment was local
necking. This implies that the basic hypothesis concerning the theoretical formulation of fracture scaling
law, namely fracture due to local necking, is satisfied.
When not scaling RTCL and SHEAR damage criteria
6.4
ST-3-BW model
In Figure 12 is illustrated the force-penetration relationship in the case of the ST-3-BW model. All
damage criteria capture fairly well, in the majority
of the mesh sizes, the first part of the experimental curve, at approximately 180 mm penetration. After
that point divergence from the experimental curve
and overestimation of the structures resistance is
63
Figure 11. 2-FB. Force-penetration diagrams. Numerical results in the use of three different failure criteria, true curve types
Figure 12. ST-3-BW. Force-penetration diagrams. Numerical results in the use of three different failure criteria, true curve
6.5
observed, especially in the cases of the RTCL, RTCLS

and SHEAR damage criteria. Not significant difference is observed for the various types of true curves
implemented in the simulations and furthermore best
reproduction of the experimental curve is achieved for
all damage criteria with an element length equal to
25 mm, which implies of a ratio length over thickness
about 9. As in the previous models, BWH damage
criterion is not satisfied when a true curve of the
experimental type is used for all element lengths. Best
reproduction of the experimental curve is achieved
with the use of BWH and SHEARS damage criteria
for an element length equal to 25 mm.
ST-3-OW model
In Figure 13 is illustrated the force-penetration relationship in the case of the ST-3-OW model. A similar
behavior to the one analysed in the precedent model is
observed also in this case for the various damage criteria, mesh sizes and true curve types. Best reproduction
of the experimental curve is achieved with the use of
BWH and SHEARS damage criteria for an element
length equal to 25 mm.
6.6
Conclusions
Proper definition of true stress-strain curve beyond the

point of true ultimate stress is important, considering
64
Figure 13. ST-3-OW. Force-penetration diagrams. Numerical results in the use of three different failure criteria, true curve
Figure 14. US Plate, 1-FB and 2-FB models. Damage variable. Best representation of damage initiation according to RTCL,
SHEARS and RTCLS criteria for each model, respectively in the use of three true curve types and element lengths.
difference is observed between the different types of

true curves.
The BWH damage criterion provides a satisfactory description of the physical problem for coarser
meshes, in particular for mesh sizes over 10 mm in the
cases of the US plate, 1-FB and 2-FB models, which
implies a length element to thickness ratio greater than
2 and about 2540 mm in the cases of the ST-3-BW and
the effect of the application of the three different true

stress-strain material curves, i.e. experimental, powerlaw and tangent, on the numerical results. It is noted
that, in the cases of uniaxial simulations and in most
of the cases of the US plate, 1-FB and 2-FB models
powerlaw and tangent type true curves, yield the best
correlation with the experimental results. On the contrary in the cases of the ST-3 models no significant
65
ST-3-OW models, which implies a length element to

thickness ratio between 9 and 14.
Both forms of the RTCL and SHEAR damage criteria in the cases of the US plate, 1-FB and 2-FB models,
seem to yield good results for a thickness to length element ratio close to 1 and in the cases of the ST-3-BW
and ST-3-OW models for a length element to thickness
ratio equal to 9.
In the cases of the US plate and the 1-FB and 2-FB
models, both satisfactory representations of fracture as
well as good correlation between the experimental and
numerical results was attained by the same failure criterion. Specifically, in the case of the US plate this was
observed for RTCL criterion, while in the cases of the
1-FB and 2-FB models this occurred for the SHEARS
and the RTCLS criterion, respectively. On the contrary,
in the cases of the ST-3-BW and ST-3-OW models both
satisfactory representation of fracture was attained by
RTCL criterion, while good correlation between the
experimental and numerical results was observed for
the BWH and SHEARS criteria, respectively. As noted
from the above, in most of the cases of the simulated
models, best representation of fracture was attained
by the RTCL damage criterion either the scaled or
unscaled. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the deformation modes of the five models, in order to highlight
the effect of the material curve, the failure criterion
and the mesh size on the results.
Considering all simulations, it is noted that as
the structures complexity increases the true curve
type used for the material modeling seem not to
induce significant differences in the numerical results,
whereas when the model is simpler, the effect of the
element size becomes greater. See for instance the
results in the cases of the ST-3-BW and ST-3-OW
models.
Finally a close-up in Figures 9-13 manifests that
SHEARS damage criterion in combination with the
tangent type true stress-strain curve, corresponds
fairly well in all cases of the examined models and in
some of the cases, i.e. 1-FB, ST-3-BW and ST-3-OW,
gives the best results in comparison with the results
obtained by the other models. Considering also its
simple form, this combination appears appropriate for
the simulation of the response of structural elements
under extreme loading conditions; see also Figure 3 in
Marinatos et al. (2012).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund ESF) and
Greek national funds through the Operational Program
Education and Lifelong Learning of the National
Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) Research
Funding Program: Heracleitus II. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund.
Figure 15. ST-3-BW and ST-3-OW models. Damage variable. Best representation of damage according to RTCL
criterion for each model in the use of three true curve types
66
REFERENCES
Hill, R. 1952. On discontinuous plastic states with special

reference to localized necking in thin sheets. Journal of
the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1: 1930.
Hogstrm, P. 2012. RoPax Ship Collision-a Methodology for
Survivability Analysis. Chalmers University of Technology. Ph.D. thesis.
Ling, Z. 1996. Uniaxial true stress-strain after necking. AMP
Journal of Technology 5: 3748.
Marinatos, J.N. & Samuelides, M. 2012. Material modeling
for Finite-Element simulation of ship impacts. Submitted
to the 4th International Conference on Marine Structures,
Espoo, Finland.
Paik, J.K.; Chung, J.Y.; Choe, I.H.; Thayamballi, A.K.;
Pedersen, P.T. & Wang, G. 1999. On rational design of double hull tanker structures against collision. Transactions of
the Society of NavalArchitects and Marine Engineers, Vol.
107: 323363.
Rice, J. & Tracey, D. 1969. On the ductile enlargement of
voids in triaxial stress fields, Journal of the Mechanics
and Physics of Solids 17: 201217.
Trnqvist, R. 2003. Design of crashworthy ship structures.
Ph.D. thesis, DTU, Lyngby, Denmark.
ABAQUS 6.10-2. 2010. Documentation.

Alsos, H.S. & Amdahl, J. 2007. On the resistance of tanker
bottom structures during stranding. Marine Structures
20(4): 218237.
Alsos, H.S.; Hopperstad, O.S.; Tornqvist, R. & Amdahl, J.
2008. Analytical and numerical analysis of local necking using a stress based instability criterion. International
Journal of Solids and Structures 45(78): 20422055.
Alsos, H.S. & Amdahl, J. 2009. On the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, part I: experiments. International
Journal of Impact Engineering 36(6): 799807.
Alsos, H.S.; Amdahl, J. & Hopperstad, O.S. 2009. On the
resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, part II: numerical analysis. International Journal of Impact Engineering
36(7): 875887.
Bressan, J.D. & Williams, J.A. 1983. The use of a shear
instability criterion to predict local necking in sheet
metal deformation. International Journal of Mechanical
Science 25: 155168.
Cockcroft, M.G. & Latham, D.J. 1968. Ductility and the
workability of metals, J. Inst. Metals 96: 3339.
67
Prediction of failure strain according to stress triaxiality of a high strength

marine structural steel
A. Woongshik Nam & J. Choung
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Inha University, Republic of Korea
ABSTRACT: For the accurate prediction of failure behaviors in case of ship collisions and strandings, it is
urgent to establish failure criteria of marine steels. The stress triaxiailty is considered as an important factor for
prediction of failure strain of a metallic material. This study deals with effect of stress triaxiality on failure strain
of a typical high strength marine structural steel EH36. Tensile tests were carried out for flat specimens with
different notches from relatively smooth to sharp notched specimens. Numerical simulations of each specimen
are performed by using ABAQUS. From comparison of the engineering stress-strain curves from experiments
and numerical simulations, failure strains are identified. It is concluded that the failure strains are well expressed
as a function of the average stress triaxiality.
PRELIMINARY
In ship and offshore structure industry, shear failure model with constant failure strain has been widely
used. Nowadays, there have been some trials to apply
Johnson-Cook fracture model (Choung et al., 2011)
and classical Gurson model (Choung, 2009; Choung,
2010).
Important tendency of recent study on failure is
that many people have been trying to consider lode
angle on failure. According to Bai and Wierzbicki
(2008), however, one of the typical marine structural
steels, called DH36, is much more sensitive to stress
triaxiality rather than lode angle.
In this paper, we demonstrate the relationship
between failure strain and stress triaxiality from the
results of experimental works. For an arctic class high
strength steel, EH36, tensile tests with various notch
specimens are carried out. From the comparison of
test results with numerical simulations, we present a
failure strain diagram in the average stress triaxiality
domain for various critical energy levels.
Stress triaxiality, a ratio of hydrostatic stress to von

Mises equivalent stress, is well known to be a dominant parameter on failure behavior of ductile materials.
The term failure has been sometimes called fracture
or rupture. It has been thought when accumulated von
Mises plastic strain reaches a critical value, then fracture starts to initiate. We normally consider the critical
one as failure strain. There have been different assumptions on the failure initiation such as critical porosity
and structural damage in the micromechanical view
point.
McClintock (1968) and Rice and Tracey (1969)
proposed that plastic deformation process of ductile
material from yield to failure was mainly affected
by level of stress triaxiality. Hancock and Mackenzie
(1976) explained that stress triaxiality affected on ductility by performing a series of tensile tests. Rupture
index based on continuum damage mechanics was proposed by Lehmann andYu (1998). RTCL (Rice-Tracey
and Cockcroft-Latham) model has been applied to the
simulation of groundings of ship structures (Alsos and
Amdahl, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2011).
Bao and Wierzbicki (2004) proposed the relationship between failure strain and average stress
triaxiality which were obtained from compression,
shear and tension tests of aluminum alloy. Recently,
soil mechanics-based new failure model has been
proposed: modified Mohr-Coulomb model (Bai and
Wierzbicki, 2008; Bai and Wierzbicki, 2010; Luo and
Wierzbicki, 2010; Luo et al., 2012). By introducing evolution of shear-induced porosity, accuracy of
Gurson model has been much more improved (Xue,
2008; Nielsen andTvergaard, 2010; Dunand and Mohr,
2011).
2 TEST
2.1 Design of specimans
The material used in this study is an arctic class high
strength steel, EH36, made in a Korean steel company,
POSCO. Flat specimens for tensile test are machined
from 25 mm base plate of EH36. Basic dimensions of
the smooth specimen are compliant withASTM (2004)
(refer to left most one of Figure 1 and 2(a)). Minimum
cross section areas of notched bars are same as that
of the smooth one. Minimum breadth and thickness of
all specimens are designed to be 8.5 mm and 2.0 mm,
respectively, and there are negligible differences in
actual sizes.
69
Table 1.
Specimen labels.
Notch radius
Top
Middle
Bottom
(smooth)
0.5 mm
1.0 mm
2.0 mm
4.0 mm
8.0 mm
16.0 mm
32.0 mm
64.0 mm
128.0 mm
EH36-1
EH36-10
EH36-13
EH36-16
EH36-19
EH36-22
EH36-25
EH36-28
EH36-31
EH36-34
EH36-2
EH36-11
EH36-14
EH36-17
EH36-20
EH36-23
EH36-26
EH36-29
EH36-32
EH36-35
EH36-3
EH36-12
EH36-15
EH36-18
EH36-21
EH36-24
EH36-27
EH36-30
EH36-33
EH36-36
Figure 1. Design of specimens.
Figure 3. Engineering stress-engineering strain curves.
Equation 1 and Equation 2 are obtained and shown

in Figure 3. Using Equation 3 and Equation 4, the
uniform true stress vs. uniform true strain curve are
depicted in Figure 4. However, after onset of necking,
uniform true stress and uniform true strain is no more
effective. Material coefficients of n and K are determined using uniform true data.Then, Hollomon plastic
constitutive equation (Equation (5)) is employed to
predict true stress after onset of necking. Equation
(5) is usually known to be effective in wide plastic
strain regime, but nonlinearity in large plastic zone
becomes significant in most of structural steels. It
means that Hollomon equation becomes inaccurate in
large plastic strain zone. This phenomenon is found
in a reference (Choung, 2009) in which true stress vs.
strain data by direct measurement of continuous reduction of cross section area is obvious nonlinear in high
plastic strain zone. For this reason, using third order
polynomial equation in plastic strain region larger than
0.25 is introduced and best coefficients of the polynomial are identified by trial-error. Finally, modified true
stress curves are shown in Figure 4. Necking correction, which is normally called Bridgman correction,
is implicitly included in the modified true stress vs.
strain curves.The representative properties are listed
in Table 2 for three layers.
Figure 2. Photos of specimens.
The notch sizes of the specimens, R, are gradually increased from 0.5 mm to 128 mm to check
failure strain variation according to the notch sizes
(see Table 1). The specimens are taken from three layers of the base plate in thickness direction: top, middle,
and bottom layers. All specimens are machined along
the rolling direction of the base plate. 30 specimens
are produced in total. The label of each specimen is
summarized in Table 1.
2.2 Test results of smooth specimens
From the tensiletests of smooth specimens, the engineering stress vs. engineering strain curves by using
70
Table 2.
Properties of smooth EH36 specimens.

0
Su
EH36-1 427.507 499.139 576.505 0.1671 851.138

EH36-2 394.728 488.816 576.464 0.1574 813.954
EH36-3 480.432 550.236 634.971 0.1838 975.888
0 : Initial yield strength
Su : Engineering ultimate strength
u : True ultimate strength.
Figure 4. True stress vs. true plastic strain curves of smooth

specimens.
Figure 5. Result from tensile test of EH36 notch specimens.
un : Uniform true strain

p,un : Uniform true plastic strain
K: Strength coefficient
n: Plastic strain hardening exponent
P: Instantaneous tension force
A0 : Initial cross section area
l0 : Initial gage length
l: Elongation of gage length
S: Engineering stress
e: Engineering strain
un : Uniform true stress
2.3 Test results of notched specimens

Engineering stress vs. strain curves of notched specimens are listed in Figure 5. Elongation of gage length
is measured in real time and transformed to Engineering strain of notched strain. It is apparent that when the
notch radius increases, the elongation to failure also
71
Figure 6. FE model of EH36-15.
increases, while maximum load-carrying capacities

(engineering ultimate strengths) decrease.
3
3.1
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
Modeling of specimens
Numerical simulations are performed to identify

dependency of failure strain on stress triaxiality In
this paper, ABAQUS/Standard is used for numerical analysis. Typical finite element model of EH3615
is presented in Figure 6 where three dimensional
eight node element with reduced integration scheme
(C3D8R) is used. Finer elements are arranged in way
of notch area. Ratio of element length (Le ) to notch
radius (R) has been kept to be less than 0.1 (Le /R
0.1) for fine mesh zone. Large elements and some
transition elements are arranged for parallel body
fully apart from notch area as shown in Figure 6.
Eight-symmetry model (symmetry about three axes)
is used for all types of specimens.
Translational constraints are imposed on the nodes
located in three symmetry planes. Symmetry nodes
about x-plane, y-plane, and z-plane (dashed green line
in Figure 5(a), dashed red line in Figure 5(a), and
dashed blue line in Figure 5(b)) are constrained in x, y,
and z direction. Prescribed displacement in y direction
(specimen length direction) is applied to nodes on top
plane which corresponds to extensometer gage length
point.
Figure 7. Result of comparison between Experiment and

FEA.
3.2 Comparison between test results and

numerical analysis
Tensile load vs. elongation processes are listed in
Figure 7. It is thought that we can see very good coincidence between test results and numerical analysis
72
Figure 7. Continued.
global aspect, it is concluded that numerical analyses

are performed with reasonable accuracy.
3.3 Proposal of failure strain

In this paper, we introduce average stress triaxiality
and critical energy addressed by Bao and Wierzbicki
(2004). Then, we will demonstrate certain dependency of failure strain to critical energy. Average
stress triaxiality, av , and critical energy, Ef , are presented in Equation 6 and Equation 7 respectively. Ef
is dimensionless and represents product of average
stress triaxiality and corresponding assumed failure
strain.Therefore, it can be considered as dimensionless
average strain energy at a certain failure strain level.
f : expected failure strain

p,eq : von Mises equivalent plastic strain
: stress triaxilaity (= p/q)
f ,av : average stress triaxiality at failure
p: hydrostatic pressure
q: von Mises equivalent stress
In order to establish probable relation between average stress triaxiality and plastic strain level, the next
procedures are proposed. Finally, it is possible to predict expected failure strain level as a function of stress
triaxiality.
(1) Identify fracture initiation point by comparing
engineering stress-strain curves from simulations
with ones from tests.
(2) Obtain hydrostatic stresses (p), von Mises equivalent stress (q), and von Mises equivalent plastic
strain (p,eq = f ) at fracture initiation point.
(3) Plot av versus f for all specimens with different
average stress triaxialities.
except for EH3619, EH3627 and EH3635. These

deviations may come from human error. Namely specimens might not be rigidly fixed to hydraulic jigs and
extensometer might be misaligned with specimen. In
73
Table 3. Material constants of Johnson-Cook failure strain

formula.
Ef
d1
d2
d3
R2
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
0.501
0.143
0.247
0.123
4.116
1.440
2.348
1.113
2.117
2.797
2.373
3.686
0.999
0.963
0.999
0.998
(4) Produce a suitable formula satisfying av versus

f diagram.
It should be noted that physical quantities such as
p, q, and p,eq are taken from most probable fracture
initiation location. For example, in the case of specimens with notch radii of 0.5 mm 1 mm, and 2 mm,
e.g. EH36-4EH36-12, the failure initiated in way of
notches. Meanwhile, we observed that fracture initiated at the centers of specimens with notch radii larger
than 2 mm.
In Figure 8, we displayed that the relation between
failure strain and average stress triaxiality for three
levels of critical energies: 1.0, 0.5 and 0.15. From
Figure 8, a clear tendency is found between plastic
strain and average stress triaxiality on certain critical energy level. Plastic strains versus tensile strength
(ultimate strength) and critical energy level 0.25 are
also presented in Figure 8.
Choung et al. (2011) addressed that the relation
between failure strain and average stress triaxiality
could be expressed as Johnson-Cook failure strain formula (Equation (8)). Data points in Figure 8 are well
predicted by using Johnson-Cook failure strain formula. The material parameters used for the regression
analyses are listed in Table 3 where R2 implies adjusted
coefficient of determination.
In Figure 9, failure strain points from the tests are
plotted together with prediction curves. Unless average stress triaxiality is less than approximately 0.6,
failure points approaches nearly failure strain curve of
Ef = 1.0. These failure points for av 0.6, are associated with notched specimens larger than 2.0 mm. On
the other hand, for av < 0.6, it is difficult to see apparent relation between failure strain curve and failure
points.
Figure 8. Failure strain curves at various critical energy

levels.
DISCUSSIONS
As delineated in Figure 10, Bao and Wierzbicki (2004)

performed experimental study for 2024-T351 aluminum alloy and proposed the failure strain curves
as a function of average stress triaxiality. Average
stress triaxiality from 0.4 to 0.95 covers a hydrostatic
stress-induced failure mode while failure strain curve
in lower average stress triaxiality zone (0 to 0.4) is
formulated from shear or combined shear-tension test
results. Previous test results for round specimens
(Choung et al., 2011) and new test results for flat

specimens are plotted in Figure 10.
Failure strain curve for Ef = 1.0 approximately predicts test results of EH36 as far as average stress
triaxiality lies within 0.61.0, but failure strain curve
for Ef = 0.15 exactly coincides with prediction curves
by Bao and Wierzbicki (2004).
Once average stress triaxiality is less than 0.6, failure strain starts to reduce. This is well explained
74
Johnson-Cook-type failure strain curves are constructed at various levels of critical energy proposed
by Bao and Wierzbicki (2004). In this paper, six levels are introduced: Ef = 0.15, 0.25 0.5, 1.0, and Ef
at tensile strength. Every level of critical energy is
well explained by Johnson-Cook failure strain formula except for Ef at tensile strength. Most failure
strains from experiments of EH36 well follow failure
strain formula for Ef = 1.0 as long as average stress
triaxiality lies within 0.6 to 1.0. However, it should
be noted that the proposed formula is no more effective when average stress triaxiality exists beyond this
boundary.
This shortcoming should be supplemented in future
study. It means that additional experiments should be
taken in lower or higher zone of average stress triaxiality. The developed formula should be implemented
in commercial FE code and verified for collision and
grounding accidents.
Figure 9. Comparison of failure strain formulas with experimental failure strains.
REFERENCES
bottom structures during stranding. Marine Structures 20:
218237.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2004.
E8 04 Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of
Metallic Materials.
Bai, Y. & Wierzbicki, T. 2008. A new model of metal plasticity and fracture with pressure and lode dependence.
International Journal of Plasticity 24: 10711096.
Bai, Y. & Wierzbicki, T. 2010. Application of extended
Mohr-Coulomb criterion to ductile fracture. International
Journal of Fracture 161: 120.
Bao, Y. & Wierzbicki, T. 2004. On Fracture Locus in the
Equivalent Strain and Stress triaxiality space International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences 46: 8198.
Choung, J. 2009. Comparative studies of fracture models for marine structural steels. Ocean Engineering 36:
11641174.
Choung, J. 2010. Micromechanical damage modeling and
simulation of punch test. Ocean Engineering 36: 1158
1163.
Choung, J.; Shim, C.S. & Kim, K.S. 2011. Plasticity and
Fracture Behaviors of Marine Structural Steel, Part III:
Experimental study on Failure Strain. Journal of Ocean
Engineering and Technology 25(3): 5366.
Dunand, M. & Mohe, D. 2011. On the predictive capabilities
of the shear modified Gurson and the modified Mohr
Coulomb fracture models over a wide range of stress
triaxialities and lode angles. Journal of the Mechanics and
Physics of Solids 59: 13741394.
Hancock, J.W. & Mackenzie, A.C. 1976. On the mechanisms
of ductile failure in high-strength steels subjected to multiaxial stress-states. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics
of Solids 24: 147160.
Lehmann, E. & Yu, X. 1998. On Ductile Rupture Criteria for
Structural Tear in the Case of Ship Collision and Grounding. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on
Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units: 141147.
Luo, M. & Wierzbicki, T. 2010. Numerical failure analysis of
a stretch-bending test on dual-phase steel sheets using a
phenomenological fracture model. International Journal
of Solids and Structures 47: 38043102.
Figure 10. Failure strain curves for EH36 and aluminum

alloy (Bao and Wierzbicki, 2004).
by observing failure strain curve for 0.0 av 0.4

by Bao and Wierzbicki (2004) where failure strain
decreases in similar manner. In higher average stress
triaxiality zone, we can see that failure strain decreases
rapidly. Even though it is rare to see such high average stress triaxiality in real structures, it needs to be
verified from future extra tests.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, Johnson-Cook-type failure strain formula of high strength marine structural steel, EH36, is
developed in average stress triaxiality domain.
Specimens with various notch radii are machined
from 25 mm thickness base plate of EH36. Experimental load carrying history along the elongation of
each specimen is compared with that from numerical
analysis. Accuracy of numerical simulations through
entire plastic straining is verified by the comparative
study. Timing of failure initiation in numerical analysis is simply captured by observing sudden reduction
of load-carrying capacity in experiment.
75
Luo, M.; Dunand, M. & Mohr, D. 2012. Experiments

and modeling of anisotropic aluminum extrusions under
multi-axial loading Part II: Ductile fracture. International Journal of Plasticity 3233: 3658.
McClintock, F.A. 1968. A criterion of ductile fracture by
the growth of holes. Journal of Applied Mechanics 35:
363371.
Nguyen, T.H.; Amdahl, J.; Leira, B.J. & Garr, L. 2011.
Understanding ship-grounding events. Marine Structures
24: 551569.
Nielsen, K.L. & Tvergaard, V. 2010. Ductile shear failure of

plug failure of spot welds modeled by modified Gurson
model. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77: 10311047.
Rice J.R. & Tracey, D.M. 1969. On the ductile enlargement
of voids in triaxial stress fields. Journal of the Mechanics
and Physics of Solids 17: 201217.
Xue, L. 2008. Constitutive modeling of void shearing effect in
ductile fracture of porous materials. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 75: 33433366.
76
Fracture mechanics approach to assess the progressive structural

failure of a damaged ship
A. Bardetsky
ABS, Houston, USA
ABSTRACT: It is of primary importance in the aftermath of an accident to be able to assess the possibility of
progressive structural failure of the damaged ship. The progressive structural failure caused by cracks emanating
from the damaged area leads to a gradual reduction of the ships residual strength, eventually leading up to the
point of total hull girder collapse. This paper presents a procedure for predicting the crack propagation under
sea wave loading using the fracture mechanics approach, the spectral fatigue approach and an equivalent stress
intensity factor (SIF) range concept. The SIF is obtained from the finite element model of a damaged ship
subjected to sea wave dynamic loading. The validity of the SIF obtained from the finite element modeling is
confirmed by the independent weight function method widely used in fracture mechanics. The procedure for
estimation of the crack propagation is proposed and implemented for a typical modern 170,000 DWT bulk carrier
in full load condition. The results of this research work can be used to support informed decision-making on the
transit voyage from the accident location to the repair facility.
INTRODUCTION
methodology to solve the problem of loss of structural integrity of a damaged ship due to the progressive
structural failure. That methodology includes the calculation of loading, crack propagation analysis, and the
residual strength assessment. Although very thorough
in general methodology, the work lacks the accuracy
in estimating the load acting on the damaged ship
because the authors considered only the load effect
of the regular sea waves in the head seas.
The aim of the present work is to propose a new
comprehensive procedure for the estimation of the
propagation of the crack emanating from the damaged
area. This procedure is based on a fracture mechanics
(SSC-413 2000, SSC-435 2004) and spectral fatigue
analysis approach (ABS 2009) widely accepted in the
shipbuilding industry.
The article has four sections. The introduction is
followed by Section 2, where detailed analytical considerations are given for the proposed procedure.
Section 3 considers a case study to implement the proposed procedure to a typical modern 170,000 DWT
bulk carrier in full load condition. The conclusions
and the recommendation for the future research are
presented in Section 4.
As recognized by the International Ship and Offshore

Structures Congress (ISSC, 2009), groundings and
collisions are considered the most common accidents
to ships. It is also noted that in order to plan the transit
voyage from the location of the accident to the repair
facility, the assessment of the residual strength of the
damaged ship (in terms of structural stability and collapse) has to be done. In this respect, much effort has
been undertaken, and the number of literature sources
available on this topic is quite large. The essence of the
residual strength assessment is the estimation of the
ultimate hull girder strength of the damaged hull section with the damaged parts removed (IACS 2012). In
the past, this assessment has been done with the strong
assumption that the extent of the initial damage is constant and time independent. However, as pointed out
by Kwon et al. (2011), the initial structural damage can
spread due to sea wave dynamic load and can lead to a
gradual reduction of the ships residual strength. This
progressive, time dependent structural failure eventually leads to the point of total hull girder collapse.
This is why it is important to include progressive structural failure analysis in the assessment of the residual
strength of the damaged ship when planning the transit
voyage from the accident location to the repair facility.
To the best of the authors knowledge, the investigations related to the progressive structural failure are
very limited and have been reported by Kwon et al.
(2010) and Kwon et al. (2011). The authors of the
cited study defined the progressive structure failure
as a sea wave induced propagation of cracks emanating from the damaged area. They proposed a general
2 THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL

BACKGROUND OF PROPOSED PROCEDURE
2.1 Crack propagation analysis
The propagation rate of the crack emanating from the
damaged area is governed by the Paris Law, which
is the fundamental law of Linear Elastic Fracture
77
Law, and the correctness of the K values extracted

from FE models. In that respect, it is worth noting that
the Virtual Crack Closing Technique (VCCT) (Leski
2007) used by Kwon et al. (2010), Kwon et al. (2011) to
extract K values from FE models was rather difficult to
implement. As was pointed out by Kwon et al. (2011),
the VCCT requires 3D solid mesh in the vicinity of
the crack tip, and much effort has been undertaken to
connect the 3D solid elements with the rest of the FE
model created with 2D shell elements.
Additional important experimental result of the
crack propagation in ship steel was reported by Cheng
(1985) and Cheng (1988). The author of the cited study
used the fracture mechanics approach to investigate the
fatigue crack growth of EH36 steel in seawater under
constant amplitude loading and spectrum loading, similar to the North Sea environment. According to the
finding of that investigation the crack propagation
rate under spectrum loading and constant amplitude
loading were in good agreement when the crack propagation rate was plotted as a function of the equivalent
stress intensity range. Cheng determined the equivalent SIF range as a single SIF range that defines
approximately the same crack propagation rate for
a given number of cycles under both constant and
random-amplitude loadings. It was also shown that
the crack propagation in seawater was up to five times
faster than observed in air.
Figure 1. Typical plot of crack propagation rate vs.

logarithm of stress intensity factor range.
Mechanics (Paris & Erdogan 1963). According to that

law, there are three distinct regimes of crack growth on
the plot of crack extension per cycle versus the logarithm of the range of SIF K, as presented in Figure 1:
a threshold regime (region A), a steady growth regime
(region B) and a critical mode regime (region C).
In the steady growth regime at intermediate K
values, the curve is linear and can be described by a
power law:
2.2 Sea wave system
where da/dN = crack propagation rate, meter/cycle;

C, m = material constants; K = the range of SIF,
K = KMAX KMIN ; K = the SIF, which determines
the stress distribution around the tip of the crack and
is
a function of applied stress and crack length, MPa m.
As can be seen from Figure 1, the crack growth rate
deviates from the linear trend at high and low K
levels. In the former case, the crack growth rate accelerates, causing catastrophic failure as K approaches
the fracture toughness of the material. In the latter
case, the crack growth rate is of the order of atomic
dimensions at the threshold K. The numerical value
for the
threshold K, according to (SSC-435 2004) is
3 MPa m.
The Paris Law has successfully been implemented
to verify the experimental findings of crack propagation in stiffened panels, obtained in University
of Minnesota (SSC-413 2000, SSC-435 2004). The
stiffened panels in those large-scale experiments represented the ship hull structure. The analysis of the
experimental findings was conducted using Finite Element (FE) models of the panels to extract the SIF,
utilizing the contour integral approach, followed by
implementation of the Paris Law to predict the crack
propagation rate. It was found that the crack propagation rate in the stiffeners web has the same propagation
rate as in the plate, when the crack passes the stiffener.
According to the conclusion of the authors of the cited
study, the good agreement between the experiments
and the numerical simulations were attributed to reasonable values of the material constant in the Paris
The propagation of the cracks is caused by repeated

loads of the sea waves acting on the floating damaged
ship. The stochastic action of the sea waves is usually described by a spectrum that indicates the amount
of wave energy at different wave frequencies . The
Bretschneider spectrum for fully developed seas (ABS
2004, Tupper 2004) is the spectrum recommended
for the open-ocean wave conditions, e.g. the Atlantic
Ocean. This spectrum is usually used to describe a specific sea state acting on the ship for up to three hours.
The spectrum is mathematically defined below:
where p = modal frequency corresponding to the

highest peak of the spectrum, in radians/second;
Hs = significant wave height, in m.
The Bretschneider spectrum, usually called shortterm wave data, is used in extreme value calculations
for the hull girder strength assessment, whereas, the
long-term wave data is usually applied for the fatigue
assessment of the ship structure. The long-term wave
data generally includes a wave scatter diagram (ABS
2009) with the number of cells representing the probability of occurrence of a specific sea state. The specific
sea state is represented by the wave spectrum, and is
completely described by the spectrums constants Tz
and Hs.
78
2.3
Spectral analysis
Spectral analysis is used to incorporate the cargo loading and speed of the ship into the global model in
order to obtain its response on the sea wave application in terms of ships motion and wave-induced load.
The main objective of ships motion and wave-induced
load calculations is the determination of Reponse
Amplitude Operators (RAO), which are mathematical representations of the ship responses to the unit
amplitude regular waves. According to ABS (2009),
the motion and wave-induced load RAOs should be
determined in the frequency range of 0.2 to 1.8
radians/second in increments of not more than 0.1
radian/second, and the wave heading range of 0 to 360
degrees in increments of not more than 30 degrees.
These RAOs can readily be found by implementing
seakeeping analysis codes, preferably utilizing threedimensional potential flow-based diffraction-radiation
theory (ABS 2009).According toABS (2009) and Kim
(2007), the primary wave-induced load RAOs, which
have a profound effect on the stresses of the damaged
ship, are the RAOs of vertical and horizontal bending
moments, external wave pressure, internal tank and
cargo holds pressures due to fluid and cargo accelerations, and the inertial forces on the masses of structural
components and equipment. Stress Intensity Transfer
Function (SITF) is the SIF response of the cracks emanating from the damaged area to the combined effects
of those RAOs. Due to their complex relationship, the
SITF can be reliably determined by implementing FE
analysis through the ABS DLA\SFA Analysis System
computer software program. Once the SITF is determined, the energy spectrum SSIF (/) of SIF can be
found by scaling the sea wave energy spectrum S ()
in the following way (ABS, 2009):
Figure 2. Successive contour integrals definition in FE

model.
analyses are conducted separately. The nodal forces,

obtained in the global analysis, are applied to the local
model as boundary conditions. The extent of the local
model should be large enough to prevent the effect of
boundary conditions on the calculated result of SIF.
As recommended by (SSC-413 2000 and SSC-435
2004), the SIF can be obtained by implementing the
contour integral method available in the ABAQUS FE
software. The contour integral in linear elastic fracture
mechanics characterizes the energy release associated
with crack propagation, and is calculated using any
closed ring of the elements encircling the crack tip. A
number of separate contour integrals evaluations may
be conducted along the different rings, as depicted in
Figure 2.
Each of these evaluations should give approximately the same value of SIF since the integrals are
path independent in linear elastic materials. The first
evaluation of a contour integral is made using the
ring of elements immediately surrounding the crack
tip. The result of that evaluation is usually inaccurate
and yields higher error than subsequent contour integrals. The contour integral value, obtained for the ring
higher than third, may also be inaccurate, and subject
to error. Therefore, it is suggested (SSC-435 2004) that
the values of the second and third integrals be evaluated. In that respect, it is also important to ensure that
the ring of elements comprising the second or third
contour is in the singularity dominated zone, the size
of which, according to Andersen (2005), is 2% of the
crack length.
The mesh size in the vicinity of the crack tip is
required to be as fine as possible (Andersen 2005), but
with the limitation set up by the shell element formulation. According to the finding of (SSC-430 2003),
where SSIF (/) and HSITF (/) = energy spectrum of

SIF range and SITF correspondingly, determined for
particular crack length in the recommended frequency
range, and in the recommended range of heading
angle .
The SIF range around the crack tip K, defined
in Subsection 2.1, can be found by utilizing Chengs
equivalent SIF range concept (Cheng 1988), which
states that equivalent SIF range is the root mean square
(RMS) value of the energy spectrum of SIF range,
defined by equation (3).
2.4 Finite Element Modeling of crack propagation
The modeling of a damaged ship should be done in
accordance with (SSC-387 1997 and SSC-430 2003).
A complete ship FE global model with relatively coarse
mesh is required to perform the spectral analysis, considered in Subsection 2.3, in order to obtain the ships
RAOs and SITF. The local FE model contains the
cracks details of finer mesh to better capture SIF
in the vicinity of the crack tip. The global and local
79
Table 1.
the minimum element size of the 4-node quadrilateral isotropic shell element should not be less than
the thickness of the shell. As stated in (SSC-435
2004), there are no special elements representing the
stress singularity required around the crack tip. It was
accepted in the past to introduce a singularity at the
crack tip by collapsing quadrilateral elements down to
triangles, but as stated in (Andersen 2005, SSC-435
2004), the actual contribution of the singularity elements to the contour integral evaluated for the ring of
elements higher than second is negligible.
Main characteristics of the ship.
Main characteristics
Units
Values
Length BP
Beam
Depth
Draught
Lightship
Deadweight
Number of Holds
Service Speed
m
m
m
m
T
T
279
45
24.4
18
24,790
170,195
9
15
kn
2.5 Weight Function Method

Another effective method of calculating SIF was introduced by Bueckner (1970). This method enables SIF
(K) calculations for a variety of loading conditions and
the crack length a by simple integration of the weight
function m(x, a) and the distribution of stresses (x),
normal to the plane x of prospective crack:
Figure 3. Global FE model of damaged ship.
The Weight Function Stress Intensity calculator

software (StressIntensityFactorCalc.exe) was developed to incorporate steps a) to e) of the weight function
procedure into the computer codes (SSC-429 2003).
The most important property of the weight function

is its dependence on geometry only. Once the weight
function is determined for a particular geometry, the
SIF for any crack size and stress field can be calculated
from equation (4). Shen & Glinka (1991) proposed
the general expression for the weight function in the
following form:
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED
PROCEDURE, A CASE STUDY
3.1 FE model of damaged ship

The proposed procedure has been implemented for
a typical modern 170,000 DWT bulk carrier in full
load condition. The main characteristics of the ship
are given in Table 1.
The FE global model of the damaged ship was
developed using NASTRAN codes and according to
the recommendation (SSC-387, 1995). The model
consists of 158004 four-noded quadrilateral shell elements, 20127 three-noded rectangular shell elements,
and 85453 two-noded bar elements. These elements
were described in NASTRAN as CQUAD4, CTRIA3,
and CBAR, respectively. The FE model is presented in
Figure 3.
The damage was modeled at the center of the bottom
plate near amidship between the cargo hold #5 and #6.
The damage has an ellipsoid shape, as depicted by
the dashed line in Figure 4. The length of the damage
was calculated according to Yuniter (1973) using the
length of the ship L:
As can be seen from the expression (5), the weight

function for a particular geometrical configuration is
completely determined by the parameters M1 , M2 and
M3 ; therefore, the derivation of weight function can
be reduced to the determination of these parameters.
The expressions for M1 , M2 and M3 applicable for an
edge crack in a finite width plate w (0 < a/w < 0.9)
are presented in (SSC-429 2003).
Thus, the calculation of SIF using the weight function method should be performed in the following
sequence:
a) determine the geometrical configuration relevant
to crack propagation in the finite width plate, i.e.
edge crack, double-edge cracks, central through
thickness crack, semi-elliptical surface cracks;
b) determine the M1 , M2 and M3 from (SSC-429
2003) applicable for that particular geometrical
configuration;
c) calculate weight function using equation (5);
d) obtain the stress distribution (x) in the prospective
crack plane through structural analysis techniques,
which can be a simple beam theory or FE analysis;
e) integrate the product of weight function m(x, a) and
stress distribution (x) over the entire crack length
a using equation (4).
The width and the extent of the damage, depicted in

Figure 4, was defined according to ABS (1995): width
of damage = 7.5 m, which is 1/6 of the ships breath;
extent of damage = 1.8 m, which is 3/4 of the girders
height.
80
Figure 4. Width and extend of the damage.

Figure 7. Details of local FE model of damaged ship.
The mesh size around the crack tip was the same
as the thickness of the plate, which is 23.5 mm. Each
crack propagates transversely in the direction of the
arrows shown in Figures 67 in the bottom plate and
through each of the stiffeners and bottom girders with
equal crack propagation rate. The initial length of each
crack in the bottom plate is taken as 150 mm according
to the statistical data provided by ISSC (2009). Each
crack is assumed to propagate 11.8 meters up to the
third bottom girder at each side of the ship.
The SIF around the crack tip was determined by
implementing the contour integral method available
in the ABAQUS FE software. In order to deploy the
contour integral method, the NASTRAN FE model
was translated into the ABAQUS FE model using the
ABAQUS built-in translator. The ABAQUS translator
converted CQUAD4 and CTRIA3 into the ABAQUS
finite strain shell elements S4R and S3R, correspondingly, and also translated the models boundary
conditions. Then, the translated model was run, and
the value of SIF was obtained from the analysis result
by taking the third contour integral.
Figure 5. Local FE model of damaged ship.
3.2 Spectral analysis

The seakeeping analysis, as a part of spectral analysis, was performed for the 170,000 DWT bulk carrier.
The full load condition was considered, and the motion
and load transfer functions were obtained from the
seakeeping program (PRECAL 2002), which is a
three-dimensional panel code for analyzing the waveinduced rigid body motions and wave loads of a vessel
in regular waves. The RAO of the external wave pressure and acceleration components at the center of
gravity of the tanks and holds are obtained. SITF is
the response of the SIF around the crack tip to the
combined effects of those RAOs, and was obtained
with the help of the well-established ABS DLA\SFA
2010Q1 computer software. SITFs were determined
for the cracks in the range of 1.58 m to 11.80 m with an
increment of 0.41 m, which is half of the stiffener spacing. The frequency range of 0.2 to 1.8 radians/second
with the increment of 0.1 radian/second and the wave
Figure 6. Local FE model of damaged ship with inner

bottom plating removed.
The local FE model, depicted in Figure 5, contains the cracks details; the same model with inner
bottom plating removed for clarity of the damage
representation is depicted in Figure 6.
The local model consists of 22068 CQUAD4 elements and 1936 CTRIA3 elements. There are no
CBAR in the model. In order to better represent the
stress field in the structural members, the stiffeners
web and flange was modeled with shell elements, as
shown in Figure 7. The cracks in the local model are
emanating symmetrically toward the side shell.
81
Figure 10. The ABS wave scatter diagram.
SITF for each crack length obtained for the specified range of frequencies and heading angles using
both contour integral and weight function methods
were used to determine the energy spectrum of SIF
based on the planned transit voyage from the place of
accident to the repair facility. The long-term sea wave
data along the planned transit voyage is determined
by wave scatter diagram. The wave scatter diagram
(ABS 2009) which represents the North Atlantic route
is adopted in the article. The diagram is shown in
Figure 10.
For each crack length, each of the sea states in
this diagram was scaled by the SITF, corresponding to
each of the twelve heading angles, according to equation (3). The resultant SIF energy spectra were used
to determine the range of SIF, K, for the particular
crack length, taking the RMS of the area under each
spectrum (Cheng 1988):
Figure 8. SITFs, as a function of wave frequency and

heading angles, for the crack length of 2.4 m.
Figure 9. Contour integral and weight function solution for

the wave frequency of 0.3 radian/second and the heading
angle of 180 degrees.
Because there is no wave directional probability

distribution considered in this example, each K
determined at each of twelve heading angles has the
probability of occurrence equal to the probability of
occurrence of the correspondent sea state divided
by 12. Then, these K were combined to establish
the equivalent KEQ which has a form suggested by
expression:
heading range of 0 to 360 degrees with the increment of

30 degrees were used for SITFs determination. As an
example, the SITFs, as a function of wave frequency
and heading angles, for the crack length of 2.4 m is
plotted in Figure 8.
The lower level of the crack length (1.58 m) was set
up by the limitation of the singularity dominated zone
considered in Subsection 2.4. In order to overcome that
limitation and obtain values of SITF below 1.58 m,
the weight function method was implemented. The
method demonstrated a satisfactory agreement with
the contour integral method in all ranges of frequencies and heading angles for the cracks with a length
up to 2.35 meters. In Figure 9 the solutions of both
methods are depicted for the particular case of wave
frequency equal to 0.3 radian/second and the heading
angle of 180 degrees.
As can be seen in Figure 9, there is good agreement
between the two methods with the root-mean-square
error of 1.8 MPa m1/2 . The significant disagreement
of the methods for the cracks, with length exceeding
2.35 m, can be attributed to the inability of the weight
function method to capture the load shedding mechanism, i.e. the load redistribution during the crack
propagation (Xu & Bea 1997, SSC-429 2003).
where Ki = SIF range, correspondent to i sea state,
determined at a particular heading angle , MPa m;

pi = probability of occurrence of i sea state; k = the
number of sea states in the wave scatter diagram.
KEQ as a function of the crack length is depicted
in Figure 11.
As can be seen from the Figure 11 KEQ exhibits an
overall rising trend due to increasing crack length. The
sudden drop of KEQ at the locations of bottom girders
(3.63 m, 7.73 m and 11.83 m) can be attributed to the
load shedding effect when the rigid structural members limit the displacement of cracked bottom plating.
This load shedding effect diminished when the crack
82
Figure 12. Prediction of crack propagation.
Figure 11. The equivalent SIF range (KEQ ) as a function

of crack length.
The calculation of crack propagation was performed

in the following sequence:
propagation starts and continues in the bottom girder

plate, reducing its load carrying ability. The fluctuation of KEQ , observed between girders, with the
period equal to the distance between stiffeners, is also
attributed to the load shedding effect. When the crack
in the bottom plate approaches the stiffener, the KEQ
rate tends to slow down. The rising trend of KEQ
is seen when the crack propagates through the stiffener, and finally, KEQ reaches its maximum when
the stiffener is completely severed.
a) the initial crack length was taken as 150 mm and

the crack increment was determined as 40 mm;
b) the value of KEQ corresponding to the crack
length was determined from the graph depicted in
Figure 12. If this value was less than the threshold value of K, the calculation was stopped;
otherwise, the calculation proceeded to the next
step;
c) the number of cycles NC , required for crack to
propagate the increment length was calculated
using the Paris Law, equation (1);
d) the value of NC was compared with NL . If NC was
more or equal to NL , the calculation was stopped;
otherwise, the updated (by the increment) crack
length and the remaining number of cycles in the
voyage were calculated. The calculation proceeded
to step b).
3.3 Crack propagation calculation

The values of KEQ associated with the particular
crack length presented in Figure 12 were used to calculate the crack propagation in accordance with equation
(1). The material constants of the Paris Law were determined from experimental data on the crack growth
in seawater (Cheng 1985) using curve-fitting analysis; C = 2.337 1012 and m = 4.5. These constants
along with the threshold value of K = 3 MPa m,

considered in Section 2, were used for the calculation.
The total number of cycles for the expected transit
voyage NL was determined from (ABS 2006) in the
following way:
The result of the calculation is depicted in Figure

12. As can be seen from the graph the crack increment
rate is high in the initial phase of crack growth and
then drops significantly under the effect of the load
redistribution to the crossed stiffeners.At the end of the
transit voyage the crack propagates up to the bottom
girder where its growth rate is the lowest.
4
where TL = duration of the transit voyage, seconds;
L = rule length, meter.
It is recommended by (SSC-435 2004) that in the
Paris Law calculations, the crack grows by increments.
Within the increment, the value of KEQ , used to calculate the crack propagation rate is considered to be
constant. The value of the increment can be established taking into account that the increase of the crack
length by the increment would not significantly affect
the SIF; its change would be less than 4.5%, which is
about the accuracy of SIF determination by the contour
integral method. Taking that argument into consideration, the crack increment in the calculation is defined
as 40 mm.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
In summarizing the modeling of the propagation of

the cracks emanating from the damaged area, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
A procedure for estimation of the crack propagation comprising spectral analysis, Finite Element
modeling and Fracture Mechanics was proposed.
FE model of crack propagation in the ships bottom
plate was developed, and the stress intensity factor
was determined using the contour integral method,
available in the ABAQUS FE software.
The value of the stress intensity factor, obtained
from FE analysis, was verified by the Weight
Function method.
83
IACS 2012. Common structure rules for bulk carriers.

London: International Association of Classification
Societies.
ISSC 2009. Committee V.1-damage assessment after
accidental events. 17th International Ship and Offshore
Structures Congress 2009, Seoul, Korea.
Kim, B.; Wang, X. & Shin, Y. 2007. Extreme load and fatigue
damage on FPSO in combined waves and swells. Proceedings of PRADS. Houston, 15 October 2007. Houston:
PRADS.
Kwon, S.; Vassalos, D. & Mermiris, G. 2011. Progressive
structural failure and residual strength of damaged ships.
The International Conference on Damaged Ships 2011.
London, UK.
Kwon, S.; Vassalos, D. & Mermiris, G. 2010. Understanding
potential risk from flooding and structural degradation
of a damaged ship. Proceedings of the 4th International
Maritime Conference on Design for Safety. October 1820
2010, Trieste, Italy.
Leski, A. 2007. Implementation of virtual crack closing technique in engineering FE calculations. Finite Element and
Analysis and Design 43: 261268.
Paris, P. & Erdogan, F. 1963. A critical analysis of crack
propagation laws. Journal of Basic Engineering 85(4):
528534.
PRECAL V5.0 2002. Users guide. Wageningen: Maritime
Research Institute (MARIN).
Shen G. & Glinka G. 1991. Determination of weight functions
from reference stress intensity factors. Theoretical and
Applied Fracture Mechanics 15: 237245.
SSC-435 2004. Predicting stable fatigue crack propagation in
stiffened panels. Washington: Ship Structure Committee.
SSC-430 2003. Fracture toughness of a ship structure.
Washington: Ship Structure Committee.
SSC-429 2003. Rapid Stress Intensity Factor Solution Estimation for Ship Structure Applications. Washington: Ship
Structure Committee.
SSC-413 2000. Effect of welded stiffeners on crack growth
rate. Washington: Ship Structure Committee.
SSC-387 1995. Guidelines for Evaluation of Ship Structural Finite Element Analysis. Washington: Ship Structure
Committee.
Tupper, E.C. 2004. Introduction to Naval Architecture. New
York: Elsevier.
Xu, T. & Bea, R. 1997. Load shedding of fatigue fracture in
ship structures. Marine Structures 10: 4980.
Yuniter, A.D. 1973. Damages and repair of see ships hulls.
Moscow: Published House Transport.
In a case study, the procedure for crack propagation

estimation was implemented for a typical modern
170,000 DWT bulk carrier damaged in a grounding
accident.
The Spectral Analysis approach was used to obtain
stress intensity transfer functions SITF of the
damaged ship under the sea wave application.
SITFs and the wave scatter diagrams were used to
obtain the equivalent stress intensity factor range
KEQ .
The crack propagation in the bottom plate was
estimated according to the Paris Law using the
equivalent stress intensity factor range KEQ , material constant and number of cycles expected in the
transit voyage.
The results presented in the paper will be used to
develop a generic analytical model capable of estimating crack propagation in a damaged hull girder. This
analytical model will be used to support informed decision making on the transit voyage from the accident
location to the repair facility.
REFERENCES
ABS 2009. Guidance notes on spectral-based fatigue analysis
for vessels. Houston: American Bureau of Shipping.
ABS 2006. Common structure rules for bulk carriers.
Houston: American Bureau of Shipping.
ABS 2004. Commentary on the criteria to adapt the safehull
system to FPSO applications. Houston: American Bureau
of Shipping.
ABS 1995. Guide for assessing hull-girder residual strength
for bulk carriers. Houston: American Bureau of Shipping.
Andersen, T.L. 2005. Fracture Mechanics. Boca Raton:
Tylor & Francis Group.
Bueckner, H.F. 1970. A novel principle for the computation
of stress intensity factors. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 50: 129
146.
Cheng Y.W. 1988. Fatigue crack growth analysis under seawave loading. Int. J. Fatigue 10(2): 101108.
Cheng Y.W. 1985. Fatigue crack growth of a ship steel in
seawater under spectrum loading. Int. J. Fatigue 7(2):
95100.
84
Evaluation of the fendering capabilities of the SPS

for an offshore application
G. Notaro, K. Brinchmann & E. Steen
Det Norske Veritas AS, Technical Advisory Ship and Offshore, Hvik, Norway
N. Oma
Statoil ASA, Stavanger, Norway
ABSTRACT: Collision criteria and analysis methodologies were framed some decades ago and are given
in design standards. Collision is considered as a design accidental load which an offshore installation has to
sustain. The main objective of designing against accidental actions is to achieve a system where the main safety
functions are not jeopardized by the accidental scenario. When it comes to collision load, the accidental scenario
is defined in terms of the impact energy that the unit has to absorb without impairing the main safety function. In
present DNV and NORSOK codes, the energy criteria is based on a representative raked bow Offshore Service
Vessel (OSV) of the order of 5000 tons impacting with a speed of 2 m/s. OSV vessels of the size of 8000 tones
displacement and designed with a bulbous bow are today common and it is important to understand how an
impact with such of large unit can threaten the safety level of an installation. Advanced FE analysis can be used
to document the resistance of a structure against an accidental load and the post-accident resistance against the
environmental loads. This methodology can also be applied to investigate the effect of various design solutions
or protection systems against impact loads. The collision scenarios presented in this work consider an impact
between an OSV ramming a ship-shaped FPSO and used to investigate the influence of a possible protection
system.
INTRODUCTION
The effects of the SPS as a fendering system are

assessed considering two extreme configurations; initially the steel layers are considered fully bonded with
the core maximizing the sandwich efficiency; secondary in a condition where the bonding between the
structural elements is removed. The intention behind
these parameter variations is to verify the importance
of the bonding and if the related failure mechanism
has an influence on the resistance against a large scale
impact such as collision.
The influence of the proposed protection is then
evaluated considering a deformable OSV bow structure. To get this perspective, the load-deflection relationships for the OSV are established and combined
with the estimated load-deflection curves for the ship
structure as prescribed in recognized design standards
NORSOK (2004; 2007).
The efficiency and capabilities of the SPS (Sandwich

Plate System, IE) as reinforcement against impact
loads are investigated. Offshore standards such as
DNV (2008a; 2008b; 2010) and NORSOK (2004;
2007) specify the minimum impact energy that an
offshore installation has to be capable of absorbing without compromising the main safety function.
Collision analyses can be used to investigate critical
scenarios which can jeopardize the regular operation
and safety level of the unit. When a critical scenario is identified, the offshore installation may be
strengthened.
A possible way to strengthen the unit is to install the
SPS overlay over relevant areas increasing the deformation energy needed to damage the structure. The
aim of this study is to evaluate to what extent such a
solution will give additional resistance against collision and impact loads, identifying the relevant failure
mechanism and governing parameters.
To investigate these aspects, an impact between a
rigid OSV (Offshore Service Vessel) with bulbous
bow and a deformable ship-structure is first simulated to establish the load-deflection relationship for
the struck vessel. In a second stage the load-deflection
relationship for the reinforced structure is estimated
and compared to the unprotected configuration.
SPS OVERLAY
SPS is a technology developed by Intelligent Engineering (I.E.) and is nowadays widely used in maritime
and offshore industry for new-building and repairing.
Additional information about the production and general application can be found in Kennedy et al (2007)
and DNV (2012). A brief overview on the SPS overlay
85
Figure 1. SPS Overlay scheme.

Figure 3. FE model of the SPS Overlay.
Figure 2. FE Model of the offshore installation.
in relation to the application as a protection against

collision is given below.
The SPS overlay consists of a layer of elastomer
(core) glued on to the existing steel structure with an
additional steel top plate, Figure 1.
This solution increases the amount of energy that a
structure is capable of absorbing and the overlay scantlings can be adjusted to produce the desired increase
in impact resistance. In general it is considered that the
amount of energy absorbed by an impacted structure
is proportional to the volume of the steel deforming plastically. In addition, the sandwich construction
increases the bending efficiency of the whole ship-side
and limits the damage due to local denting.
3
3.1
Figure 4. FE model of the deformable bow.
The strength of the bonding between the core and

the surrounding steel plates is not explicitly addressed.
The importance of the bonding strength for this kind
of application is indirectly assessed by modelling and
analysing the SPS overlay in two extreme configurations:
1. The structural elements are fully bonded assuming
perfect bonding with a consequent optimization of
the shear and bending resistance.
2. The structural elements are considered fully
de-bonded with consequent loss of the combined
bending action of the steel structure, the SPS core
and the top plate. However, in the model a contact
is included. This provides support between the different members while separation between the core
and steel is still allowed. The friction will partially
reduce the relative sliding between core and steel.
FE MODELS
Ship structure
A portion of the double side structure of a typical

ship-shaped FPSO unit is used in the present study.
Figure 2 illustrates the cargo-hold model and the plate
thicknesses over the side shell.
The impact area is modeled in detail including
flanges, manholes and buckling stiffeners. A mesh
refinement in the order of 4 to 8 times the plate thicknesses is used. This corresponds to an average mesh
size of 80 mm and it is considered sufficient to capture
the local deformation and the folding mechanisms.
3.2
3.3
OSV
A modern OSV characterized by bulbous bow is

considered in the present study, Figure 4.
An impact with an infinitely rigid bow is simulated
when assessing the load-deflection and energy relationships for the struck vessel. On the other hand, a
deformable bow has to be considered to evaluate the
OSV impact resistance.
SPS overlay
The selected overlay solution consists of a 40 mm thick

core modeled with solid elements and a shell layer
on top representing the 20 mm thick top plate. The
selected material is NV-36 and the resulting overlay
solution is a 20-40-Existing.
The core is meshed with two elements through the
thickness as illustrated in Figure 3.
4
4.1
MATERIAL MODEL
Steel material
The impact resistance of a structure is limited by the

local buckling and folding mechanism of the structural
86
Table 1. Assumed nominal material data (Engineering

data).
Material
E
[MPa]
Y
[Mpa]
U
[Mpa]
NVNS
NVNS*
NV36
206000
206000
206000
235
272
355
460
460
550
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.22
0.22
0.21
*NVNS with mean yield value was conservatively applied to

the OSV bow.
Figure 6. Adopted material curve for the elastomer.
4.2 Core
The properties of the core material are strongly dependent on the temperature. A variation in the core
properties can affect the local plate stiffness but might
have a reduced contribution in terms of stiffness and
deformation energy for collision impacts characterized by large bending and inelastic membrane effects.
This aspect will be further discussed.
Unlike the steel, the elastomer used in this type
of construction presents a different behavior when
exposed to tension and to compression. The elastomer
is capable of large elastic strain and the corresponding
energy can be recovered unless cracks and crushing are induced respectively by large in-plane strains
and compressive strains through the core thickness.
These items are not directly addressed in this study
but their effect on the impact resistance is evaluated as
described in 3.2.
In this study it is assumed that a global tensile response will be governing while the throughthickness behavior is considered of minor importance.
An elastic modulus of 860 MPa is assumed and the
material curve flattens out after 22 MPa. The stressstrain curve presents an early deviation from the linear
behavior, as shown in Figure 6, Hayman et al (2010).
The background for this assumption can be found in
ASTM D638.
A failure criteria based on the equivalent plastic
strain is utilized to define the failure, Figure 6.
Figure 5. Adopted nominal material curve for the steel.
elements exposed to compressive stresses. Tensile failure and rupture is also included. It follows that the
material model is of importance for the prediction of
the amount of energy that the structure is capable of
absorbing during the impact.
The main parameters characterizing the material in
this type of analyses are: the yielding point (Y ), the
tensile strength (U ), hardening law, the elongation
to failure (FAIL ) and post-necking behavior. Some of
these parameters are readily available; some others are
normally not included in standard material data sets
and have to be derived.
DNV (2009) specifies the minimum mechanical
properties including the minimum yield strength, elongation and a range of tensile strength.Table 1 illustrates
the nominal material data assumed in this study.
A tri-linear material curve was adopted in this study
as illustrated in Figure 5.
The nominal stress-strain curves are converted into
true stress-true strain relation when entered in the FE
program.
The post-necking response is strongly mesh dependent and difficult to establish by FE tools. The
ABAQUS failure criterion for ductile materials was
used to introduce a linear material degradation after
the onset of necking over a failure elongation ,
Simulia (2011). A different equivalent plastic strain
(FAIL ) is computed as function of the element sizes:
lower plastic strains will be allowed for longer elements compared to shorter elements.
On the other hand, the structural elements exposed
to compressive loads have to be capable of deforming
plastically after the onset of yield, capturing buckling
and folding mechanisms.
5 ANALYSIS SET-UP
5.1 Analysis method
The load deflection relationships for the two units are
established separately, NORSOK (2004). The impact
between a rigid OSV bow and the deformable ship
structure is simulated first. In second stage the loaddeflection relationship for the OSV is estimated considering an impact between the deformable bow and a
rigid flat surface.
The analyses are performed considering a quasistatic approach where the striking vessel is constrained to move towards the struck ship-side with a
constant speed, Notaro et al (2011). A force is applied
to maintain a constant speed and to overcome the
developing impact forces. An external work (W) is
87
Figure 9. Set-up for estimating the OSV energy curve.

Figure 7. Impact force and energy curves for the ship side.
The rigid OSV bow is constrained to move towards

the struck vessel with a constant speed and the external
kinematic is neglected.
5.3 Analysis of the OSV
Reference energy absorption curves for typical OSV
are given in NORSOK (2004). However, todays trend
in supply vessel design includes greater size and bulbous bows and it can be discussed if the tabulated
curves are still representative of modern designs.
The load-deflection relationship for the OSV considered in this study is estimated by FE analysis using a
quasi-static approach. This implies that the deformable
bow is constrained to move with a constant speed
towards a rigid flat surface representative of the struck
vessel. The selected impact elevation is consistent with
the one considered when assessing the load-deflection
relationship for the ship structure. The progressive
crushing of the bulb is captured before activating the
impact resistance of the forecastle.
The boundary conditions are applied to a reference
point connected to the bow in correspondence of the
collision bulkhead as indicated in Figure 9.
Figure 8. Set-up for estimating the struck vessel energy

curve.
executed on the system and it is representative of the

impact energy required to deform the structure.
This energy is mainly transformed in internal
energy (ALLIE); a fraction is transformed into kinetic
energy of the deforming structure (ALLKIN) and the
rest is dissipated as friction (ALLFD). Other numerical
energies are found to be negligible hence the energy
balance can be stated as in Equation 1.
The internal energy includes contributions related

to the recoverable strain energy, plastic deformation
and energy dissipated by the applied failure criterion.
An artificial strain energy associated to the hour glassing effect is also computed and found to be in the order
of 2 to 4% of the total internal energy.
An illustration of the impact force and energy
curves as function of the indentation of the rigid bow
is given in Figure 7.
The energy terms are uniquely defined by the
deformation, thus the obtained curves can be used to
establish the damages associated to any impact energy
(and vessel speed) in the range of validity of the curves.
LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP
6.1 Unprotected side-shell structure

The load-deformation relationship for the unprotected
ship-side structure is evaluated and presented together
with the energy curves in Figure 7.
The singular points in the load-deformation curve
are associated to the physics of the impact and to the
developing failure mechanisms. The initial increase of
impact force is necessary to overcome the resistance
of the deforming structure. Large areas of the sideshell are exposed to plastic strains and buckles are
observed on the 12 mm frame for an indentation of
approximately 500 mm, Figure 10.
The side-shell suffers a major rupture for an indentation of approximately 850 mm, Figure 11a. This
corresponds to an impact force of 21 MN and 9 MJ
impact energy.
After this point the impact load drops (Figure 11b)
and stabilize on a plateau until the rigid OSV indents
the inner side and the deck, Figure 12a. Most of the
impact energy is now dissipated as plastic deformation
of the inner side which may fracture as shown in
5.2 Analysis of the ship structure

The load-deflection curve for the ship-side is established considering a rigid OSV bow colliding with
the deformable side-shell structure. A perpendicular impact at the mid-span between two frames is
analyzed, Figure 8.
The selected impact elevation allows maximizing
the interaction between the rigid bulb and the ship-side
and retards the transfer of energy to the sheer strake.
The model extends along 5 frames and is clamped at
the boundaries.
88
Figure 10. Equivalent plastic strains and frame buckling.
Figure 13. Load-deflection relationship with protection

system.
Figure 11. Side shell rupture and developing mechanism.
Figure 14. Frame buckling (a), rupture of the side shell (b).
Figure 12. Impact with the inner side and deck (a) and
puncturing of the inner-side (b).
Figure 12b. The deck is gradually folding under the

developing impact force. The estimated impact energy
required to induce a major rupture on the inner side is
35 MJ.
The established load-deflection and energy curves
can be used to predict the amount of energy required
to puncture the side-shell structure or the cargo hold.
This gives a conservative estimate of the consequences
of a hypothetical impact as all the deformation energy
is absorbed by the offshore installation.
6.2
Figure 15. Inner-side and deck impact (a), inner-side rupture (b).
Protected side-shell structure
Similarly, the impact resistance of the side-shell structure protected by the SPS overlay is estimated. The
estimated load-deflection relationship for the bonded
configuration is illustrated in Figure 13.
The singularities in the load-deflection curve can
be associated to the developing failure mechanisms.
Buckling of the frames occur first followed by the
rupture of the ship side-shell and SPS top plate,
Figure 14. The energy required to induce this failure
mechanism is estimated to be approximately 19 MJ,
corresponding to an impact force of 44 MN.
The impact force increases when the rigid bow
indents the cargo-hold and hits the deck, Figure 15a.
The estimated energy needed to cause a major rupture
of the cargo-hold is 62 MJ, Figure 15b.
Figure 16. Distribution of the deformation energy.
The external work, representative of the impact

energy, is mainly transformed into deformation energy.
Figure 16 illustrates the deformation energy distribution into the protected side-shell structure.
For an indentation of 800 mm, the side-shell is
punctured and the ship-structure has absorbed approximately 11 MJ.The SPS top plate contributes with 8 MJ
while the energy taken by the core is relatively small.
The deformation energy absorbed by the shipstructure is larger when the SPS overlay is installed.
The SPS overlay distributes the impact forces to a
89
Figure 19. Utilization of the SPS top plate before rupturing.
Figure 17. Impact force and energy comparison.
Figure 20. Utilization of the side-shell structure.
Figure 18. Comparison between the deformation energies.

Figure 21. Failure mechanism on the side-shell.
larger area improving the overall utilization of the

original side-shell structure.
The importance of the bonding failure on the impact
resistance is analyzed considering a fully de-bonded
SPS overlay solution. The load-deflection relationships and energy curves obtained for the different
configurations are resumed in Figure 17.
It can be observed that the failure at the interface
between the core and the steel has a reduced influence
on the overall impact resistance. The initial response is
practically equal for the two configurations, while the
force necessary to induce the failure of the side-shell
is reduced to 41 MN. The estimated impact energy is
17 MJ. For larger indentation, the de-bonded configuration presents a slightly lower impact resistance: the
energy needed to puncture the inner side is reduced to
58 MJ (6% lower than the bonded solution).
A comparison between the energy component for
the bonded solution (continuous line) and de-bonded
solution (dashed lines) is given in Figure 18. The total
deformation energy and external work for the two configurations are very similar; even if the de-bonded
configuration presents slightly higher energy immediately after that the side-shell rupture is initiated.
Observing the different energy components, it can
be seen that the SPS top plate (black line) is more
efficient when bonded to the core as the plastic stresses
are distributed over a larger area, Figure 19.
The energy absorbed by the ship structure (green
lines in Figure 18) is slightly larger for the de-bonded
Figure 22. Failure mechanism of the supporting stiffeners.
configuration. The overall utilization of the side-shell

is illustrated in Figure 20 and limited differences
between the two configurations are observed.
Beyond the state when the side-shell reaches its
maximum load-bearing capacity, the loads are distributed differently to the surrounding structure introducing a diverse developing failure mechanism as
illustrated in Figure 21 and Figure 22.
In the first case the membrane effect is suddenly
lost while in the second case the loads are redistributed to the supporting members. Both the scenarios
are describing possible failure mechanisms and the
resulting difference is considered to be marginal.
6.3 OSV
Todays OSV are characterized by stiff bulbous bows
which may induce large indentation and damages to the
90
Figure 25. Example of combined curve, NORSOK (2004).
Figure 23. Load-deflection relationship for the bulbous

bow.
Figure 26. Combined curve, unprotected scantling.
offshore installation (ES,I ) according to their relative

stiffness as shown in Equation 2, NORSOK (2004).
Figure 24. Bulb Crushing (a) and deck impact (b).
impacted ship-side. Thus, it can be of interest to evaluate the crushing force for the bulb and then compare
it to the force needed to rupture the side-shell structure before and after the installation of the protection
system.
The discussed approach is used to estimate loaddeflection relationship for the bulbous bow, Figure 23.
The first peak in the load-deflection curve indicates the force necessary to initiate crushing the bulb,
Figure 24a.
The following oscillations in the impact force
reflect the progressive collapse of the plates between
the transverse ring stiffeners. The impact resistance
of the forecastle is activated for a deformation of
approximately 3000 mm, Figure 24b. The forecastle
is typically characterized by a small scantling and its
contribution to the energy absorption is low.
The advantage of this method is that existing tabulated energy curves for typical OSV can be combined
with the estimated load-deflection and energy curves
for the installation. This approach can reduce significantly the amount of work for the designers since only
the load-deflection relationships for the installation
have to be estimated for a selected impact scenario.
However, the approach can have severe limitation and
might lead to non-precise estimate especially when
the contact surface changes significantly during the
impact.
When assessing the efficiency of the SPS overlay
as a protection system, it can be assumed that the contact area will not change during the impact. Figure 26
shows an application to the current case.
For the unprotected scantling the impact force
needed to rupture the side-shell was estimated to be
of approximately 21 MN, corresponding to 9 MJ.
The bulbous bow may initiate crushing at an impact
force of 24 MN, corresponding to 4 MJ. An impact
characterized by 12 MJ might be sufficient to induce
failure of the side-shell structure. For a vessel of
approximately 8000 tons displacement, this corresponds to an impact speed of 1.7 m/s.
When the SPS overlay is installed the impact force
required to induce rupture of the side-shell increases to
44 MN, corresponding to 19 MJ, Figure 27. The bulb
will crush before the side shell is punctured while some
damages to the frames supporting the side-shell are
expected. The total amount of energy dissipated during
the impact is 10 MJ; 6 MJ are dissipated by the shipstructure and 4 MJ by visiting vessel respectively.
NORSOK APPROACH
The load-deflection relationship for the ship-structure

estimated considering a rigid OSV can be used to get
a conservative estimate of the damage level associated
to a given impact energy.
The simplified approach illustrated in NORSOK
(2004) allows accounting for the two deformable bodies by combining the load-deflection relationship of
the two units established independently.
Figure 25 shows an example of combined load
deflection relationships for the installation and the
impacting OSV. The total impact energy (ES ) will be
mainly transformed into deformation energy of the
visiting ship (ES,S ) and in deformation energy of the
91
The eventual loss of the bonding between the steel

and core reduces the bending efficiency and the additional deformation energy (+90%). This is an assumed
extreme condition intended to verify that the loss of the
bonding at interface has minor consequences in this
kind of applications mainly governed by the inelastic
global membrane effect.
In addition to the values resumed in Table 2, the
installation of the SPS can indirectly increase the
structure resistance by modifying the governing failure mechanism, as demonstrated by applying the
simplified approach.
For the unprotected configuration, an impact energy
of 12 MJ (1.7 m/s speed for a vessel of 8000 tons displacement) might be sufficient to induce large rupture
on the side-shell. When the offshore installation is reinforced, a similar impact may lead to crushing of the
bulbous bow, preventing the ship side from suffering
major ruptures. It is in general difficult to conclude
that the side-shell will not suffer a local failure but
the SPS reduces the risk of major structural damages
to the side shell and of an eventual penetration of the
cargo hold.
Figure 27. Combined curve, reinforced scantling.

Table 2.
Results comparison (Rigid OSV bow).

Side Shell
Failure
Force-Energy
Case
[MN]
[MJ]
Steel
plate
[mm]
Unprotected
Bonded*
De-bonded*
21
44
41
9
19
17
16
+20
+20
Increase
energy
Inner
side
rupture
[MJ]
110%
90%
35
62
52
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
*Core Thickness: 40 mm.
The Authors would like to thank DNV and Statoil ASA

for founding and cooperating on this topic. We would
also thank our colleagues at DNV and NTNU/Marine
Department for valuable discussions.
The rise of relative stiffness provided by the SPS

overlay induces a different governing failure mechanism. In fact, with the reinforced configuration, the
bulb will crush under the impact load before the side
shell has reached the maximum impact resistance.
A more comprehensive assessment of the damage
level can be done by performing a fully integrated
analysis accounting for two deformable bodies.
8
REFERENCES
DNV 2008. Offshore Standard, DNV-OS-A101 Safety
Principles and Arrangements, October 2008.
DNV 2008b. Offshore Standard, DNV-OS-C102 Structural
Design of Offshore Ships, October 2008.
DNV 2009. Offshore Standard, DNV-OS-B101-Metallic
Materials, April 2009.
DNV 2010. Recommended Practice, DNV-RP-C204 Design
against Accidental Loads, October 2010.
DNV 2012, Classification Note, DNV-CN-No30.11-Steel
Sandwich Plate Construction, March 2012.
Hayman B. Fladby J 9th International Conference on
Sandwich Structures ICSS 9, G. Ravichandran (Editor)
Steel-Elastomer Sandwich Panels Under Lateral Pressure
and In-Plane Shear Loading, June 2010.
Kennedy S.J., Ferro A. and Collins A. SPS Overlay Side Shell
Protection for 100+MJ Collisions. NORSOK STANDARD 2004 October N-004 Rev.2, Design of steel
structures.
NORSOK STANDARD 2007 September, N-003, Edition 2.
Notaro G, stvold T., Steen E., Oma N. and Kippenes J.
IMAM 2011 Conference, Genoa- A Collision Study of
a Large Supply Vessel hitting a ship shaped FPSO.
Simulia 2011, ABAQUS/CAE 6.11-1 Users Manual.
Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics,
ASTM D638.
CONCLUSION
The capabilities of the SPS overlay as a fendering system against large scale impacts, such as collision, were
studied. The increase of impact resistance was estimated varying different parameter aimed to identify
the governing failure mechanisms.
The SPS overlay is characterized by a light core
material which transfers the shear loads while maintaining the connection between the steel faces increasing the total bending efficiency of the ship-side. As the
bonding strength and other failure mechanism associated with crushing and cracking of the core are
difficult to establish, the consequences of such failures were indirectly addressed considering an extreme
de-bonded configuration.
The performed study showed how the installation
of the SPS overlay can strengthen the structure against
impact loads. The increase of energy estimated for the
different configuration is resumed in Table 2.
The SPS overlay adds 20 mm thick plate on the original 16 mm side-shell plate. The increase of stiffness
raises the impact resistance by 110%.
92
Collision tests with rigid and deformable bulbous bows driven against
double hull side structures
I. Tautz, M. Schttelndreyer, E. Lehmann & W. Fricke
Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Hamburg, Germany
ABSTRACT: Evaluation of ship collision safety is commonly carried out with a striking ship assumed to be
rigid. This approach is in line with classic safety assessments taking a worst case scenario into account. It is
in addition to that justified because the majority of ship-ship collisions occur without significant damage at
the striking vessel. Nevertheless considering stiffness of the striking vessel might have noticeable influence
on absorbable collision energies. Safety level could be increased significantly when design of bulbous bows
is carried out also under the aspect of good crushing behaviour regarding collision load. However up to now
experimental verification of this context is missing. This paper reports about collision experiments with rigid
and deformable bulbous bows driven against double hull side structures that have been carried out on the test
facility of the Institute for Ship Structural Design and Analysis of TUHH. Actual validation status of numerical
calculations is presented based on test results also with regard to material behaviour.
INTRODUCTION
Experimental investigations of ship collisions that consider as many mechanical effects as possible are in
general highly complex. Thus experiments usually
concentrate on the inner mechanics of one collision
partner only, whilst the other one is considered to be
rigid.
Yamada (2006) tested bulbous bows of a fishing
ship with 500 in gross tonnages in true scale. Amdahl
(1983) scaled down and simplified bulbous bow structures as tubes with circular and elliptical cross-section.
Both authors crushed their specimen by driving them
against rigid plates.
Ship collision tests with rigid indenters driven
against ship like side structure models are known from
Peschmann (2001) or Karlsson (2009). Compared to
Karlsson, Peschmann used a larger test model but did
not have laboratory conditions because his tests were
carried out in open air with floating models.
In contrast to the above mentioned publications,
experiments presented in this paper consider stiffness
of both collision partners in a series of systematic variations. Test models of bulbous bow like indenters in
rigid and deformable configuration are driven against
models of ship side structures. Side structures represent a conventional longitudinal stiffened double hull
design. Stiffness of the side structures is varied by
filling them up with granulates.These models are combined in an experimental program with a total number
of four collision tests shown in Figure 1.
This paper focuses on the comparison of CE-1 and
CE-2. Collision test rig, models and test procedure
are described. Results are discussed with regard to
Figure 1. Experimental program.
collision forces and energies as well as to material

behaviour of the used steel grade.
Effect of the side structure filled with granulate
is presented in a separate paper by Schttelndreyer
(2013) who compares CE-1 with CE-3 and gives
additional information with regard to the material
behaviour of the granulate.
CE-4 is scheduled for January 2013; results have
not been available for this paper.
EXPERIMENTS
2.1 Collision test rig

Experimental investigations presented within this
paper consider a right angle collision. This scenario is
well established in evaluation of ship collision safety.
It has in addition to that a lot of advantages regarding
the execution of the tests. Experiments are limited to
inner collision mechanical effects caused by bulbous
bow indentation. Ship motions are not considered.
93
thickness: 14.2 mm; flange: 740/ 940 10 mm,

bolt circle: 876/4 22 mm).
The test model of the struck ship is a conventional
double hull side structure. The model area is welded
within a massive supporting frame that represents the
boundary conditions of the surrounding structure. The
model area is symmetric about all coordinate planes.
The side structure is connected on both sides in xdirection to supports with four connection rods each.
These supports also accommodate forces in z-direction
with a total number of four pressure load cells, one on
each model corner.
Supports and hydraulic cylinders are fixed permanently to both longitudinal girders. Thereby a closed
flow of forces is provided.
If not indicated otherwise all descriptions refer to
the coordinate system shown in Figure 2. Its origin is
located in the intersection point of all three symmetry planes of the ship side structure model area. Please
note that this definition does not correspond with common naval architectural annotation of ship coordinate
systems.
The whole test rig is symmetric about x-z plane and
y-z plane.
Displacements, forces and strains are measured on
several positions of the test rig and monitored by a
multi-channel data acquisition unit with up to 118
channels (Autolog 3000 with three boards CM3410,
Peekel-instruments). Fifty five channels are used to
monitor elastic behaviour of the test rig. Fifty eight
channels are in variable use for strain gauges on the
models. The five remaining channels collect the most
important data: collision force and displacement of
the bulbous bow. The displacement is measured in zdirection by a wire-actuated encoder with a measuring
length of 2000 mm from the aft end of the bulb to a
point fixed in space. Thus a clear measuring quantity is
gained that is independent from elastic deformations of
the test rig and from changing configuration of interim
pieces between bulb and cross-beam as well. This is
important to provide correct comparability with simulations that consider neither cross-beam with cylinders
and longitudinal girders nor interim pieces. Collision
force is interpreted as the sum of the measured forces
at the pressure load cells described above.
The whole test procedure is monitored with eight
cameras from different positions. Recording of all signals is with chronological synchronism. Thus very
detailed analysing of most important incidents is
possible.
Figure 2. Collision test rig total and detailed view.
Test models that represent the interesting area of

the collision partners are scaled down with a factor of about 1:3. This scaling was chosen to provide
comparability to other experiments e.g. published by
Peschmann (2001).
Figure 2 shows the test rig of TUHH, Institute for
Ship Structural Design andAnalysis. Collision process
is carried out in vertical moving direction. The test rig
is mounted on two longitudinal girders (17 m long, 2 m
high).
Collision forces are applied by four servo-hydraulic
driven cylinders. They are mounted on the longitudinal
girders with an x-distance of 10 m and are connected
with the cross-beam. The maximum loading capacity
is 4000 KN.
The test model of the striking ship is a rotational
symmetric bulbous-bow-like indenter. It is connected
to the cross beam with z-axis as axis of rotation.
Hydraulic cylinders are limited to 400 mm regarding the maximum range of displacement. Larger
displacements are realized by using appropriate
interim pieces between the bulbous bow and the
cross beam. Interim pieces are available in several lengths and are manufactured out of a spiral welded pipe with flanges (pipe according to
DIN EN 10220, external diameter: 813 mm, wall
2.2 Test models side structure

Design of the test models is derived from ship
class ConRo 220 built by Flensburger Schiffbau
Gesellscharf mbH, Germany. The model area represents the longitudinally stiffened double hull structure
surrounding the lower hold of this RoRo-vessel.
Dimensions of the structure are described in Figure 3 and Table 1. They have been kept constant for all
four collision experiments.
94
Figure 4. Detailed view on grids on outer and inner shell

plating.
Figure 3. Top view on side structure, dimensions in [mm].

Table 1.
Dimensions of side structure.
Component
Dimensions [mm]
Outer an inner shell

Web frames
t = 4 mm, Grade A
t = 5 mm, Grade A
two manholes, no stiffeners
HP 140x7, Grade A
900 mm
t = 20 mm, Grade A36
Longitudinal frames
Model height (z-length)
Supporting frame
Figure 5. Rigid test model of bulbous bow, dimensions

in [mm].
For orientation on outer and inner shell a rectangular

grid was applied in the contact area of the indenter
(Figure 3, details: Figure 4). Edge lengths of the grid
are as follows.
X-length: 66.67 mm (1/12 web spacing)
Y-length: 70.00 mm (1/4 long. frame spacing)
Collision tests CE-1, CE-2 and CE-3 are additionally equipped with a grid of circles. The circles are
marked with template and scriber. Thus quite accurate
measurements of diameters even in the contact area are
possible when circles become ellipses caused by large
plastic deformation. Circles with 20 mm and 50 mm in
diameter have been used according to Figure 4.
Consistent numbering allows clear identification of
each circle and quadrant.
Figure 6. Test model configurations of bulbous bow.
in diameter, 30 mm wall thickness. Material thickness

increases smoothly in the shaped fore end up to a value
of 150 mm in the bulb tip. The model is fitted with several flanges to mount it at the cross beam (flange A), to
vary the model length in the cylindrical part (flange B)
and to replace the rigid tip with a deformable one
(flange C).
Experiments with deformable bulbous bow are carried out with a sheet metal cap, 3 mm thick, welded on
a flange ring that matches to flange C. Slight differences to the geometry of the rigid tip had to be accepted
because of manufacturing reasons (Figure 6).
2.3 Test models bulbous bow

Outline of the bulbous bow is based on the geometry of pre-tests with deformable bulbous bows driven
against rigid walls described by Tautz (2010). In order
to get a rigid, rotational-symmetric indenter, the bulbous bow was manufactured as a turning work piece
out of a forged round bar welded on a pipe 813 mm
95
Figure 8. History of collision forces of CE-1 and CE-2.

Figure 7. Adjusting the history of forces by classification
of incidents using the example of CE-1.
2.4 Test procedure and data processing

Tests are carried out displacement-controlled with
a velocity of 0.2 mm/sec. This velocity is assumed
to be small enough to regard the test procedure as
quasi static. Sample rate of the multi-channel data
acquisition unit is 2 Hz. The test is interrupted by several unloading operations to insert additional interim
pieces between bulbous bow and cross-beam. Additional interruptions at certain loaded conditions are
carried out to visually analyse the deformed test
model, failure modes, crack pattern, etc. Each test
demands an effort of four to five working days with
all interruptions (preparation and post processing not
included).
Force displacement curves are carefully processed
regarding significant changes in the run of forces also
using extensive video-data. Thus almost every significant change in the run of forces can be clearly
dedicated to a precise incident of the test and is
classified as follows:
Figure 9. Cross-section of schematically illustrated

deformed shape just before crack initiation (*) at outer shell
for CE-1 and CE-2.
Points 1: outer shell rupture occurs at an unexpected

early stage at CE-1 and is followed by continuing increase of force. This early outer shell rupture
is caused by local bending around the longitudinal
stiffeners in the contact area (Figure 9). The outer
shell rupture of CE-2 occurs at a displacement about
420 mm later than in CE-1. Penetration is significantly
less sharp. Contact forces are well distributed on shell
and stiffeners.
Points 2: after crack initiation of outer shell longitudinal stiffeners reach their ultimate load after
significant increase of displacement in CE-1. Collapse
of stiffeners in CE-2 is compared to CE-1shortly after
rupture of outer shell. During the further procedure
forces are caused just by friction between bulbous bow
and parts of the side structure until reaching points 3.
Points 3: bulbous bow (or deformed parts of the
outer hull, only CE-2) comes in contact with inner hull
respectively longitudinal stiffeners of the inner hull.
Points 4 (only CE-2): local crack initiation at inner
shell occurs within the range of transversal intersection
(web/stiffener). This effect is supposed to be negligible
and seems to be avoidable by appropriate application
of collar plates.
Points 5: rupture of inner shell occurs at larger
displacement in CE-2 compared to CE-1.
Points 6: collapse of stiffeners occurs. Tests are
stopped shortly after this incident.
Regarding collision energies shown in Figure 9 it
becomes obvious that the test with deformable bulb
Incidents of major relevance like crack opening of

outer and inner shell, collapse of stiffeners or webframes.
Incidents of minor relevance like changes in the
path of cracks, crack openings at stiffeners or other
structural elements except outer and inner shell.
Incidents of negligible relevance like un-reloading
cycles or temporary decrease of forces caused by
interruptions of the test in loaded condition at a
fixed value of displacement.
For subsequent scientific work original test data is
adjusted by ignoring all incidents of negligible relevance. Figure 7 gives an impression of this approach.
All subsequent descriptions will use adjusted curves
only.
3
3.1
RESULTS
Effect of deformable bulbous bow
The effect of a deformable bulbous bow will be

explained by a detailed description of the forcedisplacement curves of CE-1 and CE-2 (Figure 8).
96
Figure 10. Collision energy versus displacement of CE-1

and CE-2.
Figure 11. Strain measurements at 20 mm-circles. Division

in groups exemplary for CE-1 in the range of crack initiation.
(CE-2) absorbed around twice the energy of CE-1 at

the point of inner shell rupture (Point 5 in Figure 8).
Inner shell rupture occurs at significantly larger displacement which would also lead to larger penetration
of the fore body over water. Thus true-scale energy
difference may differ from experiment. Energy difference at outer shell rupture is even more impressive
but should not be generalized because of the large
differences in failure mode between CE-1 and CE-2
(Figure 9).
3.2
nearby (154 measurements) and group C that are direct

neighbours of Group B (351 measurements).
The chosen grid is in general only suitable to resolute plastic strain distribution quite roughly. To get
more accurate information forming limit diagrams
have to be determined with additional metal forming
experiments defined in DIN EN ISO 12004. Hogstrm
(2009) published results of these kind of tests with
NVA steel grade, a mild steel which is also used in the
model area of the side structure (A-Grade, classified
by Lloyds Register). In order to produce necking and
fracture at different strain states six different specimen
geometries were tested. Corresponding strain states at
fracture are described as points in the principal strain
space for each geometry. Necking is described by a
limiting curve based on the BressanWilliamsHill
criterion proposed by Alsos (2008) and fitted to the
test results by Hogstrm (2009).
Figure 11 shows the measured strain state at the
20 mm-circles in the range of crack initiation for CE-1
in comparison with the data published by Hogstrm
(2009).
Obviously measurements with the above mentioned
method are significantly smaller than those carried
out by Hogstrm. This can be explained by the wellknown dependency of measurements from the chosen
reference length described e.g. by Ehlers (2009).
Although the chosen method is quite rough compared to optical measurement procedures it is nevertheless accurate enough to resolute decrease of strains
with increasing distance from the crack. It is suitable
to derive some statements regarding failure criteria for
FE-calculations with thin shell elements of an edge
length greater than five times the thickness:
Strain measurements at circles
Outer and inner shell of the test model is equipped

with a grid of circles that is described in chapter
2.2. All circles have been applied on the plates previous to model production. Variations in circle diameter
may occur caused by welding heat or by individual
handling of template and scriber. Thus every circle
was photographed with a measuring tape after all
welding works have been finished (photos of 20 mmcircles in groups of four circles per photo). Subsequent processing of relevant photos with CAD-tools
delivered reliable values for diameters in undeformed
condition (d0 ).
According to Hasek (1973) principal strains can be
determined from measured lengths of the principal
axis of ellipses (d1/2 ) as follows:
Measurements have been carried out with a calliper

with extra fine jaws. Accuracy of measurements is
within a range of some few tenth millimetres.
For this paper only 20 mm-circles of CE-1 and CE2 have been processed. No significant differences in
measured strains could be observed between the tests
or the location of the circles on outer respectively inner
shell. Measured circles are classified according to their
distance to a crack in three groups: group A for circles
that are divided by a crack (84 measurements), group
B that are not divided by a crack but that are located
Strain state seems to be of negligible influence, failure strain seems to be dominated by first principal
strain in general.
Failure strains seem to be in the range of or even less
than necking strains received with high resolution
methods (Highest measured values 29.4%, 28.2%,
27.8%).
97
Figure 12. Geometry of specimens for uniaxial tensile tests.
3.3
Figure 13. Determination of True Stress Strain relationship

using the example of structural element shell (CE-1).
Stress-strain relationship
During manufacturing process of the models material

pieces of structural elements were retained for subsequent material tests. For this paper uniaxial tensile
tests according to EN-ISO 6892-1 have been carried
out. Material pieces from shell, longitudinal stiffeners
and web frames have been tested; geometry of specimen is shown in Figure 12. Tests were carried out with
a MTS 810 Material Test System. Straining of the specimens is measured with an extensometer 634.25F-24
(MTS) with a gage length of 50mm. Movement speed
of the machine was 0.04 mm/s. Material tests for tested
structural elements were repeated minimum five times
with small scatter. Engineering stress-strain relationship was determined as arithmetic average over all tests
per structural element (ESSC-Test, see Figure 13).
True stress-strain relationship was determined
by using the power law relationship proposed by
Hollomon (1945):
Figure 14. Validation of TSSC-FEM with implicit simulation of tensile test using the example of struct. elem. shell
(CE-1).
where is the true stress, is the true (logarithmic)

strain, K is the materials strength coefficient and n is
the strain hardening exponent.
True (logarithmic) stress-strain relationship from
tensile test (TSSC-Test, see Figure 13) is used to determine material parameter K and n by a least square
fit within the range of uniform elongation. Values up
to the point when yielding is securely terminated are
disregarded for the approximation. True stress-strain
relationship for FEM-simulations (TSSC-FEM) is a
combination of TSSC-TEST in the range of yielding
and Formula (2) for larger strain values.
TSSC-FEM data was used for an implicit FEMcalculation of the tensile test in order to check applicability of the above mentioned power law relationship
also for higher strain values. Therefore a FEM-model
with solid elements was used (four elements through
the thickness).
Engineering strain was determined by plotting displacements of control-nodes located on positions identical with measuring points of extensometer. Stresses
are plotted as reaction forces divided by initial crosssection. Thus an engineering stress-strain relationship
was determined with the FEM calculation (ESSCFEM) that is comparable with results from tensile
tests. Good agreement was achieved for all tests; one
example is given with Figure 14.
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
4.1 Model description

Numerical simulations are carried out with a FEmodel whose geometry is shown in Figure 15.
Bulbous bow is represented as a rigid body driven
against the side structure with constant velocity. Shell
elements with a mean edge length of 20 mm are used.
Side structure is modelled according to design
drawings with shell elements. HP-profiles are represented as L-Profiles with appropriate moment of
inertia. Mean shell element edge length is 34 mm;
98
Figure 15. Geometry of FE-model with boundary conditions (Only bulb tip is displayed for better overview).
aspect ratio is almost equal to unity in the model area.

LS-DYNA contact type automatic single surface is
used with a static friction coefficient of 0.23 (based on
considerations described in 4.3). Nonlinear material
behaviour is considered by LS-DYNA material type
*MAT 123 (modified piecewise linear plasticity) with
true stress strain relationships from chapter 3.3. Failure
is represented with an equivalent plastic failure strain
criteria being dependent from element edge length
l and thickness t that was proposed by Peschmann
(2001) for shell elements with a thickness less than
12 mm as follows:
Figure 16. Reaction force a) and collision energy b) of

experiment and calculation (CE-1).
Figure 16 shows reaction forces and collision

energy of CE-1 in comparison between simulation
and experiment. Although a comparably simple failure criterion is used simulation is a good match to the
experiment.
Differences in the maximum values of forces at
the point of shell rupture are significant but seem to
be acceptable with regard to repeat accuracy of the
tests and the good agreement in the History of energy.
Better correlation is assumed to be achievable with
finer meshes and more sophisticated failure models.
For example local bending that is responsible for outer
shell rupture in experiment cannot be represented by
the chosen approach.
Although some compromises are to be made with
regard to details of fracture mechanics, the simulation
is validated quite well by the experiment. Collision
energy at the point of inner shell rupture is calculated with high accuracy and is the most important
parameter in the evaluation of collision safety.
Side structure is connected to supports with LSDYNA trusses of type 3 in order not to transmit any
moments. Supports are meshed with shell elements
(mean edge length: about 80 mm). Fixation of the supports at the longitudinal girders is considered with
boundary conditions and trusses according to Figure 15. Elastic material (*MAT 001) is defined for
supports and trusses with standard parameters for mild
steel.
All shell elements are defined with four noded
quadrilateral Belytschko-Lin-Tsay formulations
with five integration points through their thickness.
LS-DYNA Version 971/ R6.1.0 are used.
4.2
4.3 Comments on validation process

The mesh size in the model area was chosen on purpose
as coarse as described above. True-scale simulations
shall be possible based on the presented results without
excessive adaptation of the mesh acuteness. For that
reason validation of the simulation was carried out
without any changes regarding element sizes.
As a result of several calculations with different
values for the coefficient of friction it can be stated
that consideration of friction is a must. It is just negligible for very small displacements previous to outer
shell rupture. Standard value of 0.1 for the coefficient of friction (steel to steel) delivered significantly
lower forces than described in Figure 16. Because
Results
Karlsson (2009) carried out collision tests with two

similar test models of a ship side structure. He achieved
a repeat accuracy of about 10% regarding the peak values in the history of forces. It is assumed that repeat
accuracy of the tests presented in chapter 2 is in comparable range or even worse because complexity of
the rig and the models is even higher compared to
Karlsson. Differences between calculation and experiments have to be evaluated with regard to this
background.
99
roughness of contact surfaces, which is high particularly at broken edges, the coefficient of friction has
to be increased to values of 0.23 to 0.3 to get good
correlation with test results. A value of 0.23 was chosen because this was experimentally approved also by
Karlsson (2009).
Although the possibilities of the test rig allows quite
accurate positioning of the models several calculations have been carried out to check the influence of
changes regarding the first point of contact. Assuming a maximum eccentricity of 10 mm bulbous bow
was positioned with values of 0, 2, 5 and 10 mm in
all possible combinations regarding positive x- and
y-coordinates. Changes in the history of forces were
found to be negligible.
5
CONCLUSION
A collision test rig and procedure for comparably largescaled test specimen is presented. Collision tests with
deformable and rigid bulbous bows driven against ship
side structures are described and corresponding effects
are figured out. Significant increase of about 100%
in absorbed energy is achieved with deformable bulbous bow compared to a rigid one. These tests are
integrated in an experimental program with a total of
four tests that will be finished in spring 2013. Numerical validation of the first test has been carried out
with experimental results and additional examinations
of material strains in the plastic region. Results show
good agreement between measurement and calculation. More results are presented by Schttelndreyer
(2013) and by the end of 2013 when research work
will be finished.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work presented in this paper was performed
within the research Project ELKOS, funded by
German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) under project no. 03SX284B.The authors
are responsible for the content of this paper and wish
to thank for supporting this project. The authors gratitude is particularly addressed to German shipyard
Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft which delivered
the cross-beam and two supports for the test-plant as

well as the test models.
REFERENCES
Alsos HS., Hopperstad OS., Trnqvist R. and Amdahl J. 2008.
Analytical and numerical analysis of sheet metal instability using a stress based criterion. International Journal of
Solids and Structures 45: 20422055.
Amdahl J. 1983. EnergyAbsorption in Ship-platform Impacts.
Report No. UR-83-34. Trondheim: The University of
Trondheim
Ehlers S., Varsta P. 2009. Strain and stress relation for nonlinear finite element simulations. Thin-Walled Structures
47:12031217.
Hasek V. 1973. ber den Formnderungs- und Spannungszustand beim Ziehen von groen unregelmigen
Blechteilen. Report No. 25, Institut fr Umformtechnik.
Stuttgart: Universitt Stuttgart.
Hogstrm P., Ringsberg JW. and Johnson E. 2009. An experimental study of the effects of length scale and strain state
on the necking and fracture behaviours in sheet metals.
International Journal of Impact Engineering 36(1011):
11941203.
Hollomon JH. 1945. Trans. AIME 162: 268290
Karlsson UB., Ringsberg JW., Johnson E., Hoseini M. and
Ulfvarson A. 2009. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Bulb Impact with a Ship Side-Shell Structure.
Marine Technology 46(1): 1626
Peschmann J. 2001. Berechnung der Energieabsorption der
Stahlstruktur von Schiffen bei Kollision und Grundberhrung. Dissertation. Hamburg: Hamburg University
of Technology.
Schttelndreyer M., Tautz I., Fricke W. and Lehmann E.
2013. Side Structure filled with multicellular glass hollow spheres in a quasi-static collision test. Proc. of 6th
Int. Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships
(ICCGS). Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science
and Technology
Tautz I., Schttelndreyer M., Fricke W. and Lehmann E. 2010.
Experimental Investigations on Collision Behaviour of
Bow Structures. Proc. of 5th International Conference on
Collision and Grounding of Ships; June 1416; Espoo,
Finnland: 179183. Ehlers S, Romanoff J. (eds).
Yamada Y. 2006. Bulbous Buffer Bows: A Measure to Reduce
Oil Spill in Tanker Collisions. Dissertation, Lyngby:
Technical University of Denmark.
100
Side structure filled with multicellular glass hollow spheres in a quasi-static

collision test
M. Schttelndreyer, I. Tautz, W. Fricke & E. Lehmann
Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Hamburg, Germany
ABSTRACT: The evolution of ship constructions has been developed for hundreds of years and still exists in
form of a conventional architecture consisting of frames, longitudinal and transverse girders, stiffeners, stringers
and plates. The present numerical methods offer engineers the possibility of weight optimisation as well as the
development of highly complex structures. But even with the use of the Finite Element Method it was not possible
to achieve a novel ship structure worldwide which is significantly different from conventional architectures.
In the context of two collaborative research projects, the authors are carrying out several quasi-static collision
experiments with different kinds of bulbous bow and double hull side structures on the test facility of the Institute
for Ship Structural Design and Analysis of TUHH. Following up the publication at ICCGS 2010, the current state
of research will be presented. This paper focuses on ship side structures which are investigated by simulations
and validated by experiments. Based on a conventional ship side structure and a rigid bulbous bow, enhanced
side structures regarding the collision safety will be presented and afterwards compared with a conventional side
structure. The aim of this work is to improve the passive collision safety without breaching present regulations
of the classification societies. Therefore one conventional side structure is filled with granulate material and it
is investigated by experiments and simulations.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The usage of filling material is not often presented

in literature. In December 1999 one side structure of
the TNO-test was packed with foamed polystyrene
blocks with a density of 22 kg/m3 , see Kulzep (2001).
It was measured that the filled side structure had 32%
higher energy absorption at a depth of penetration of
3 m than the conventional. In the follow up project
CrashCoaster, an ice strengthened side structure, a
sandwich structure with X-corrugated steel between
the faces and a sandwich structure with a concrete
core were tested in full-scale experiments. The measured results showed that the dissipated total energy
was about 10% higher using the concrete sandwich
structure than using the X-corrugated panel but 67%
lower than using the ice strengthened side structure,
see Trnqvist (2003).
Numerical investigation is done by Rhr (2008)
who simulates side structures stiffened with trapeziumprofiles which are filled with light-weight concrete.
The results are compared with the ones of the conventional side structures. The dissipated energy is in
average 40% higher than applying the conventional
side structures.
At least, one major disadvantage of all known and
investigated side structures is that the filling material
cannot easily be removed.
This paper reports on current research work carried

out in a collaborative joint research project.
The project ELKOS started in 2009 and will be
finished in 2013. ELKOS stands for: Improving
collision safety by integrating effects of structural
arrangements in damage stability calculations. The
superior research objective is to develop a method that
allows adequate consideration of structural arrangements that significantly increase collision safety in
damage stability calculations. TUHH is engaged in
this project with its institutes Ship Structural Design
and Analysis and Ship Design and Ship Safety. The
experiment structures were built at the German shipyard Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft (FSG) who
is the official industrial partner of this project.
This project is funded by the German Federal
Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi).
1.2 Scope of the experiments
The authors focus on experimental investigations of
inner mechanics concerning several designs of ship
side structures as well as different kinds of bulbous bows and the appending numerical simulations.
Regarding the collision experiments with bulbous bow
and ship side structures, two pre-tests were carried out
101
on the test facility of the Institute for Ship Structural

Design and Analysis of TUHH in March and June
2010. For further information and details see Tautz
et al. (2010). In August 2011 the first collision test
was carried out. On the whole four collision tests are
planned. To this day the authors carried out three of
them.
The project investigates the striking ship as well as
the struck ship.
Figure 1 shows an overview of the collision tests
except for the two pre-tests. There are still two possibilities to improve the passive collision safety. On
the one hand the side structure has to be strengthened against collision and on the other hand the
bulbous bow has to dissipate more energy. Therefore
the test programme changes all collision parameters
systematically through the test-series for analysing
their influence. In the two pre-tests one conventional
bulbous bow and one partly deformable bulbous bow
were driven against a rigid plate/side structure; in collision test CE-1 a rigid bulbous bow was driven against
a conventional side structure; in collision test CE2 a collision friendly bulbous bow was driven against
a conventional side structure; in collision test CE-3 a
rigid bulbous bow was driven against a side structure
filled with granulate material and the last test CE-4
will drive a partly crushable bulbous bow against a
side structure filled with granulate material. The last
collision test CE-4 will be carried out in spring 2013.
The basis of all side structures is by a RoRo vessel
designed and built on the German shipyard FSG. The
conventional side structure is scaled 1:3 and is used for
all four experiments, except of minor modifications in
applying different kinds of collar plates.
This paper compares the first collision test CE-1
testing a conventional side structure with the third
collision test CE-3 testing a side structure filled with
granulate material. Both collision tests were enforced
with a rigid bulbous bow.
bulbous bow (3) is located underneath the middle of

the cross-beam and is driven against a side structure
(4) with a collision angle of 90 . Collision forces are
measured at the hydraulic cylinders as well as at pressure load cells (5) between side structure and support
(6). Hydraulic cylinders are limited to 400 mm regarding the maximum range of displacement. Thus larger
displacements are implemented by using appropriate
interim pieces between the bulbous bow and the crossbeam. This approach is permitted because the whole
test procedure is quasi-static with a maximum speed
of 0.2 mm/sec. Therefore the interruption of the test is
assumed to be permissible at any time, see Tautz et al.
(2010).
2.2 Test model of the bulbous bow
The bulbous bow is a cylindrical construction with a
diameter of 813 mm and a length over all of 1,700 mm
shown in Figure 3.
The wall thickness amounts to 30 mm in the cylindrical part and up to 150 mm in the forepart of the
bow. The bulbous bow is not deformable and will
be considered as rigid for both collision tests (CE-1,
CE-3).
2.3 Test model of the side structure
The complete test model has a length over all of
5,788 mm, a breadth of 3,490 mm and a height of
900 mm as shown in Figure 4. The investigated area
within the surrounding support-constructions measured a length of 3,400 mm and a breadth of 2,260 mm.
The wall thickness of the four web frames amounts
to 5 mm and the two shell plates amount to 4 mm.
EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
2.1 The collision test-plant

Collision tests are carried out on the existing testplant of the Institute of Ship Structural Design and
Analysis of TUHH, see Figure 2. Collision forces are
applied by four hydraulic cylinders (1) which are connected with a cross-beam (2). The test model of the
Figure 1. Overview of the experimental programme

ELKOS.
Figure 2. Collision test plant of TUHH.
Figure 3. Geometry of the rigid bulbous bow.
102
The frames of the side structure consist of eight bulb

profiles HP 140x7.
2.4 Filling material
For renewal of class certificates the void spaces have
to be inspected in periodical time intervals. Therefore
the filling material has to be removed and refilled after
inspection. For that reason the authors chose mineral
granulate which is not permanently fixed to the outer

and inner shell, see Figure 5.
The test model CE-3 was filled with multicellular
hollow spheres made out of glass which exhibit the
specification of Table 1.
This mineral material has the following useful
characteristics: fire-proof, good thermal insulation,
heat resistant up to ca. 900 , hydrophobic, acoustical absorption, high adhesion, environmental friendly
production and 100% recyclable. It is very light for
granulate material and has good characteristics under
compressive load.
2.5 Test model of the filled side structure
The side structure was filled at the shipyard in
Flensburg. The material was taken from big bags with
a volume of 1 m3 . The big bag was lifted by a crane
and emptied step by step, see Figure 6a.
After each step of ca. 300 mm filling, the new
layer in the side structure was compressed by a shaker
which is normally used for compressing concrete, see
Figure 6b.
Figure 4. Side structure without shell plate.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
3.1 General
The results of both collision tests are presented. For this
the authors concentrate on the principle points which
describe the meaningful characteristics of the forcepenetration curve.
3.2 Comparison of the reaction forces
Figure 5. Multicellular glass hollow spheres and one cent
coin.
Table 1.
Specification of glass multicellular hollow spheres.
grain size distribution

bulk density
grain density
>2.0 mm
190250 kg/m3
380480 kg/m3
In Figure 7 the measured results of both experiments

are compared with each other and build the basis for
validating the numerical calculations further on.
The measured results of the first collision test CE-1
are represented by the grey curve and the results of the
third collision test CE-3 by the black graph.
The mentioned meaningful characteristics of the
curves are marked by the numbers 1 to 5 in Figure 7.
Figure 6. Filling and compressing the side structure CE-3.
103
It is easy to see that the filled side structure has

got the ability to absorb 70.5% more energy than the
conventional side structure at the time of the inner hull
failure.
4
PROPOSAL FOR THE MATERIAL DATA
4.1 General
For validating numerical calculations material tests are
of high importance. Due to the fact that material properties of steel always vary to a certain extent, it is
necessary to measure the exact material parameters of
the steel plates which were used in the collision tests.
Additional to these tests the authors also have to conduct experiments to determine the material properties
of the granulate material.
Figure 7. Measured reaction force of CE-1 and CE-3.
4.2 Properties of steel
Figure 8. Measured energy of CE-1 and CE-3.
The first crack in the outer shell is observed at number

1 and is followed by the collapse of the longitudinal
stiffeners marked with number 2. At point 3 the bulbous bow has contact with the longitudinal stiffeners
of the inner shell which could not be noticed in model
CE-3 because of the inaccessibility of the side structure. The cracks in the inner shell occur at number 4.
Also the collapse of the longitudinal stiffeners of the
inner shell could be monitored at the side structure of
collision test CE-1 (number 5). However, the third test
side structure was not equipped with sensors which
definitely record the collapse of the stiffeners and the
frame. But the collapse of the stiffeners could have
been assumed at the last peak of the black curve. It
is obvious that the reaction force is transferred to the
inner shell and distributed on a large area of the inner
hull construction.
In total a significant increase of the reaction force
of 46.5% was achieved by the third side structure filled
with multicellular glass hollow spheres.
3.3 Comparison of the energies
The absorbed energy of the side structure is plotted
in Figure 8. The point of the first crack in the inner
shells of both test models is chosen for comparison. It
is obvious that the filled side structure collapsed at a
smaller displacement (903 mm) than the conventional
one (1017 mm). However the more interesting result
is the level of absorbed energy.
Prior to each collision test, specimens of the inner and

outer hull, of the stiffeners and of the web frames were
retained and afterwards investigated. Several uniaxial tensile-tests of each steel plate were conducted
with a velocity of 0.04 mm/s. The flat bar tension
specimen was prepared according to the Norm DIN
EN ISO 6892-1. Afterwards the average of these
measured technical stress-strain curves of every component was generated. To predict the plastic deformability in a simulation a true stress-strain relationship
must be calculated. Therefore the stress and the strain
of the technical stress-strain curve were modified up
to the elongation without necking by:
The parameter e is the strain and R the stress of

the determined engineering stress-strain curve. With
the help of the first generated part of the true stressstrain curve the parameter of the power law hardening
approach proposed by Hollomon (1945) could have
been calculated. The part with necking was extrapolated. Furthermore the true stress-strain curve was
checked by an implicit FE-calculation conducted with
ANSYS. For more details of generating the true
stress-strain curve see Tautz et al. (2013).
4.3
Properties of the granulate material
For the implementation of the multicellular glass

hollow spheres in the numerical calculations, two different kinds of experiments were performed. For the
proposal of the volumetric behaviour of the material,
a uniaxial compression test was made.
The uniaxial compression test plant configuration
(see Figure 9) consists of a test frame (1) where the
indenter (2) is mounted. The investigated granulate
material (4) is bounded by an aluminium cylinder
104
Table 2.
Measured parameters at the end of the traxial test.
test no.
axial stress 1
cell pressure 2 /3
[kPa]
[kPa]
285.6
50.0
389.5
98.0
580.4
191.0
followed by increasing the axial stress of the test volume with the indenter. The experiment stops if shear
fracture occurs. In Table 2 the three principal stresses
1 , 2 and 3 are summarised.
5
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
Figure 9. Uniaxial compression test plant.
5.1 General
Figure 10. Triaxial compression test plant DIN 18 137 CU.
(3) and a mounting plate (5) made of steel. The compressive force is measured with a load cell (7) and
the reaction force at the mounting plate with a second load cell (6). The compressive force is generated
by a hydraulic cylinder (8) with a load capacity of
63 kN. The whole test plant is mounted on a steel table
(9) which works as the foundation.
For the proposal of the deviatory behaviour of the
material a triaxial compression test was conducted in
accordance to the Norm DIN 18137 2. This test is
well known in the geotechnical engineering to predict the behaviour of soils. The details of the triaxial
compression test are shown in Figure 10.
The test plant consists of a vent (1) to regulate the
constant pressure inside; the indenter (2) to compress
the test volume (7); the cover plate (3); the cylinder
(4) and the bottom plate (5) building the cell; as well
as the membrane (6) and the liquid (8).
Three tests with three different predetermined cell
pressures 3 were investigated. Hence the test volume
is bound with almost constant hydrostatic compression
The authors use the latest LS-DYNA version 971/

R6.1.0 for their simulations. All structural components
built of steel or aluminium are modelled with fournoded quadrilateral Belytschko-Lin-Tsay elements
using five integration points through their thickness
except for the tension/connection rods of the supports. Their size is 33 35 mm at the area of impact.
The plate thickness amounts to 4 mm. An assumed
static friction coefficient of 0.23 for steel on steel,
a Poissons ratio of 0.3 and the material *MAT 123
implemented in LS-DYNA for a modified piecewise
linear plasticity were applied. The granulate material
is modelled with the eight-noded hexahedral solid element Constant-Stress-Solid in combination with the
material *MAT 005 for soil and foam. The solid elements measured a height of nearly 100 mm with a
base area of roughly 100x100 mm. The stiffeners of
the side structure of collision test CE-3 are modelled
using the Hughes-Liu beam element with cross section
integration and the material *MAT 024 with piecewise linear plasticity. The contact treatment is implemented by using the contact definition *CONTACT
AUTOMATIC SINGLE SURFACE and *CONTACT
FORCE TANSDUCER. For avoiding interior contact of the solid elements, *CONTACT INTERIOR
is activated.
5.2 Boundary conditions
Both supports of the test plant configuration (see Figure 2) are modelled with four-noded shell elements
like the side structures. Each support is adapted to both
longitudinal girders of the test-plant with four vertical
tension rods. The horizontal connection is designed
with four connecting rods per support. The vertical
mounting is realised by using four load cells. The rods
and the load cells are modelled with truss elements of
type 3. The end of all vertical tension rods are fixed
in all translational directions as well as the edge of the
support underneath the load cell.
5.3 Failure criteria and strain rate
Based on the good experience and being in accordance with simulation and collision test, the authors
105
use the Peschmann criterion for the shell elements see

Peschmann (2001) which also was used for the first
calculation in order to find the right design of bulbous bow, Schttelndreyer et al. (2011). This criterion
is a quasi-static uniaxial tension consideration which
is easy to implement in the calculation. Furthermore
one advantage regarding the simulation of the filled
side structure is that this criterion needs less computation time. The critical rupture strain depends on the
length of the elements and the plate thickness. For that
reason the critical rupture strain must be calculated for
all parts with a different element size and a different
material thickness.
The influence of the strain rate can be neglected for
the velocity of impact of 0.5 mm/sec or even slower.
This assumption is verified by using a simplified
geometric model, see Schttelndreyer et al. (2011).
5.4
Figure 11. Measured reaction force versus two calculations.
Simplified side structure
The first calculations of the filled side structure

showed that the deformation of solid elements is
very sensitive under high compression and leads to a
degenerated element size. For that reason the authors
simplified the geometry of the side structure. The stiffeners of the outer and inner hull are modelled with
beam elements in order to avoid geometric disturbances for solid elements. With this modification the
granulate material could be modelled with five blocks
of solid elements using a mapped mesh. The blocks are
bounded by the two shell plates and the web frames/
support-construction, see Figure 4.
If the stiffeners are included by beam elements in
the calculation, it is necessary to arrange them on the
right plate surface. The used beam element offers the
possibility to arrange the stiffeners on the right plate
surface as well as a quadratic cross section with values for the height and values for the breadth. With the
height hbeam and the cross section AHP of the bulb profile as well as the geometrical relation of Equation 3,
a breadth tbeam of 8.89 mm was found:
The focus of the described calculation lies on the forcepenetration curve and will neglect the differences in
penetration behaviour between simulation and experiment. For generating a reasonable force-penetration
curve, a critical rupture strain for beam elements must
be derived. Therefore a validated FE-model with shell
elements for stiffeners was taken, Tautz et al. (2013).
The geometry of bulb profiles is simplified and therefore changed into an L-profile. The web as well as the
flange are modelled with shell elements and will be
shortened by shell-shell in the next figure.
In Figure 11 both calculations are compared with
the measured results of collision test CE-1.
It is easy to see that there are still small differences
between calculations and the experiment but on the
whole both numerical results are sufficient. In order
Figure 12. Pressure versus volumetric strain curve.
to achieve a good numerical result by using beam elements with a length of 33 mm, a rupture strain of 11.5%
had to be applied.
5.5 Numerical material for the granulate

The mentioned material *MAT 005 for soil and foam
is implemented in LS-DYNA, see Livermore Software
Technology Corporation (2012). For small deformations the elastic behaviour is implemented by the shear
modulus of 1986 kN/m2 as well as the Poissons ratio
of 0.0. For higher deformations the stress is reduced
with a yield function. The material model consists of
a volumetric and a deviatoric part for the plastical
deformability.
The volumetric part is described by a pressure
versus volumetric strain curve. This curve can be
implemented with max. ten values of pressure and of
the natural logarithm of the relative volume values.
This curve is generated with the measured reaction
force, cross section dimension of the cylinder and the
measured displacement of the indenter of the uniaxial compression test, see Figure 12. The measured
curve was validated with a simulation of the uniaxial compression test, see Figure 13. Therefore the
later on presented deviatoric part already must be
implemented.
The validation of the uniaxial compression test
showed that the pressure versus volumetric strain curve
106
Figure 15. Measured reaction force versus results

simulation.
Figure 13. Half of the simulated uniaxial compression test

model.
The constants a0 , a1 , a2 characterise the deviatoric

plane and must be calculated. The hydrostatic pressure p can be evaluated with the principal stresses 1 ,
2 and 3 measured in the triaxial compression test,
where 2 = 3 is the pressure of the load cell:
When yielding starts the plastic yield function must be

set to zero. With the presented equations (4)(6) and
the results of the three specimens of the triaxial compression test, the three unknown constants a0 , a1 , a2
can be estimated. Here the values of the final condition are taken, see Table 2. The following values are
determined:
a0 = 3478
a1 = 97
a2 = 0.1547
(kPa)2
(kPa)
()
5.6 Simulation of collision test CE-3

Figure 14. Measured forces versus calculated forces of the
uniaxial compression test.
has to be scaled down by 10%, see black points

Figure 12.
Based on the small volume of the cylinder it is not
possible to use the shaker which was used for the side
structure of experiment CE-3. Therefore a different
void ratio of the granulate material is presumable.
In Figure 14 a good accuracy between simulation
and experiment can be observed.
The deviatoric perfectly plastic yield function is
described by:
The parameter J2 is the second invariant of the stress

deviator and is described as follows:
This simulation is based on the already presented

model with beam elements for stiffeners, see chapter 5.4, without any changes except for the integrated
solid elements to implement the behaviour of the multicellular glass hollow spheres. The friction coefficient
of 0.65 was found by experimental investigations. The
above mentioned measured pressure versus volumetric strain curve is chosen and extended with two strain
values of 0.90 and 0.95 and the corresponding pressure
values of 2.18e7 N/m2 and 2,42e8 N/m2 . These values
describe a volumetric asymptotic limit which cannot
be superseded by the solid elements under highly compressed conditions. In Figure 15 the force-penetration
curve of the simulation is compared to the measured
result.
Figure 15 is in a very good accordance with simulation and experiment up to a displacement of 800 mm.
The simulation misses the point of failure in the outer
shell which perhaps is the consequence of the wrong
friction coefficient for steel on steel. It is also easy to
see that the collapse of the longitudinal stiffeners as
well as the interaction between stiffener and granulate
107
curve which will hopefully influence the behaviour

of the solid elements under high compression.
In summary the results of this investigation show
that granulate material is an adequate alternative to
improve the collision resistance. It can also be used to
protect tanks with highly explosive or flammable liquids for example LNG which acts as fuel for innovative
propulsion systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
cannot be represented using this simulation. Based on

this fact there is no force peak in the calculation.
Finally the energies of simulation and experiment
in Figure 16 confirm the good correlation up to a
displacement of nearly 800 mm and underline the
acceptance of the presented method.
The work was performed within the research Project

ELKOS, funded by German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) carrying the project
no. 03SX284B.
The authors are responsible for the content of
this paper and wish to thank those who supported this project. The authors gratitude is particularly addressed to the German shipyard Flensburger
Schiffbau-Gesellschaft which delivered the crossbeam, the two supports for the test-plant and the test
models.
REFERENCES
Figure 16. Measured energy versus results of simulation.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes two collision experiments which

were performed on the test facility of the Institute for
Ship Structural Design andAnalysis ofTUHH. In addition to these experiments a method how to simulate
ship side structures filled with multicellular granulates
is presented.
Both investigated side structures are deduced from
the side structure of a RoRo vessel designed and
built on the German shipyard FSG. One conventional side structure is compared with a side structure filled with granulate material. These two side
structures are encountered with a rigid bulbous bow.
For analysing and comparing the measured results
the force-penetration curve as well as the energypenetration curve are chosen. The comparison of the
measured values shows impressive results. The filled
side structure manifests an increase of the reaction
force of 47% and the ability to absorb 76% more
energy. The energy is significantly higher than the
measured result of Kulzep with 32% for foam. The
weight of the test structure increases less than 26%.
Prior to the numerical investigations the granulate material had to be investigated by additional
experiments to determine the required parameters.
With these parameters the multicellular glass hollow
spheres can be implemented in the simulations. The
results of the simulations offer a good correlation
with the measured values. The force-penetration curve
shows minor differences which can be explained by
modelling the simplified side structure. A very good
accordance can be observed in the energy curves. In
future this method is to be extended for displacements
higher 800 mm. Therefore further investigations of the
granulate material are necessary to predict an asymptotic value in the pressure versus volumetric strain
DIN 181372. 2011. Soil, investigation and testing

Determination of shear strength Part 2: Triaxial test,
Berlin: Beuth Verlag GmbH.
DIN EN ISO 68921. 2009. Metallic materials Tensile
testing Part 1: Method of test at room temperature,
Berlin: Beuth Verlag GmbH.
Hollomon, J.H. 1945. Trans. AIME 162: 26890.
Kulzep, A. 2001. Verhalten von ausgeschumten Schiffstrukturen bei Kollision und Grundberhrung. Dissertation,
Hamburg University of Technology: Hamburg.
Livermore Software Technology Corporation. 2012. LSDYNA KEYWORD USERS MANUAL VOLUME II:
Livermore.
Peschmann, J. 2001. Berechnung der Energieabsorption der
Stahlstruktur von Schiffen bei Kollision und Grundberhrung. Dissertation, Hamburg University of Technology: Hamburg.
Rhr, U. 2008. Forschungsvorhaben Fertigungs- und sicherheitstechnisch alternative Doppelhllen-Konstruktionen
im Tankschiffschiffbau, Abschlussbericht zum Vorhaben
A 234 / S 24 / 10107/05, Universitt Rostock
Schttelndreyer, M.; Tautz, I.; Kubiczek, J.M.; Fricke, W. &
Lehmann, E. 2011. Influence of bulbous bow structures on
their collision behaviour. In C. Guedes Soares, W. Fricke,
Advances in Marine Structures: 381-390. London: CRC
Press Taylor & Francis Group.
Tautz, I.; Schttelndreyer, M.; Fricke, W. & Lehmann, E.
2010. Experimental investigation on collision behaviour
of Bow Structures. Proc. of 5th Int. Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships (ICCGS). Espoo: Aalto
University.
2013. Collision tests with rigid and deformable bulbous
driven against double hull side structures. Proc. of 6th
Int. Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships
(ICCGS). Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science
and Technology.
Trnqvist, R. 2003. Design of Crashworthy Ship Structures.
Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Denmark.
108
Response of a tanker side panel punched by a knife edge indenter

R. Villavicencio, B. Liu & C. Guedes Soares
Centre for Marine Technology and Engineering (CENTEC), Instituto Superior Tcnico, Technical University of
Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
ABSTRACT: The paper presents finite element simulations of a small-scale side panel quasi-statically punched
by a knife edge indenter.The panel is scaled from a tanker vessel and is limited by one span between the web frames
and the stringers. The simulations describe the energy absorbing mechanisms and failure of typical shell plating
structures, and evaluate the accuracy of the combined material relation and the critical failure strain predicted
by tension test simulations. The calculations find that the numerical representation of the experimental supports
is insignificant when predicting the force-displacement response of the specimens. However, the modelling of
the support is relevant for predicting accurately the deformation and failure modes of the specimens. The results
are discussed in terms of the force-displacement response and the shape of the deformation of the specimens.
INTRODUCTION
Increased attention has being paid to reduce the risk of

oil spill due to accidents involving large tanker vessels.
In the case of a ship-to-ship collision, the absorbed
energy by the struck ship at the moment of the inner
hull rupture can be maximized with a strengthened
double hull structure. Therefore, the design of tanker
double hulls requires an accurate prediction of the
extent of damage in the structural components subjected to lateral impact. Unfortunately, the influence
of the structural details has received very little attention in the marine pollution prevention.The difficulties
in predicting the behaviour of tanker structures under
a variety of possible damage scenarios contribute to
that circumstance. Thus, additional work is needed to
investigate not only the worst case, but also other minor
collision events that ships experience during service.
The finite element analysis is a useful tool to predict
the extent of damage due to large in-plane and out-ofplane loading in the ship structural components. The
available results for comparison between small-scale
impact tests and finite element simulations of double hull structures are few. In most of the published
works, the reported analyses are performed on structures that simulate the bottom or the side structures of
the ship. In those cases, the experimental-numerical
impact response is examined by penetrating the panels using quasi-static lateral loads. The quasi-static
tests have the advantage of continuous records of the
damage process, obtaining detailed information from
each specimen. This information has been used to
propose analytical expressions for the primary damage mechanics (Hagiwara et al. 1983, Wang et al.
2000) or to perform numerical analyses that simulate similar quasi-static interactions (Zhu and Faulkner
1994, Wu et al. 2004, Paik and Seo 2007, Alsos et al.

2009). However, the quasi-static test has the disadvantage of removing the dynamic effects produced by the
high impact forces developed in the indenter-structure
contact during the collision process. Few dynamic collision tests on small-scale ship structures have been
performed, providing analytical expressions to predict
the extension of damage during collision events (Reckling 1983, Cho and Lee 2009) or validate definitions of
material nonlinearities and contact mechanics in finite
element models (Paik and Pedersen 1996, Cho 2000,
Choung et al. 2010).
In general, the collision analyses of tanker double hull structures aim at predicting the onset of
fracture in the inner shell. Before this damage, the
shell plating and the main supporting members of
the double hull suffer substantial damage. Therefore,
the deformation mechanisms of these structural elements require special attention when designing tanker
crashworthy structures. Although simplified methods
could be adopted in the very preliminary design of a
tanker crashworthy structure, the societies of classification require finite element calculations to approve
any novel ship structure that was not designed according to their rules, but satisfies the same degree of
safety in terms of subdivision and damage stability
(Zhang et al. 2004). These calculations are focused
on preventing the penetration of the inner hull and
increasing the ship collision resistance. Moreover, the
approval procedure compares the critical deformation
energy of a strengthened structural design with the
reference design complying with the damage stability
requirements (Zhang et al. 2004). Another advantage
of performing collision simulations is that they can
describe better the deformation process of the ship
structural components under large dynamic loads, thus
109
providing detailed information to the naval architects

for the development of new double hull crashworthy
designs.
The present paper investigates the plastic response
until failure of a small-scale tanker side panel laterally
punched by a knife edge indenter. This is done through
finite element simulations validated with experimental results. In the simulations the strain hardening is
defined by the combined material model proposed
by Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2012) and the
critical failure strain is evaluated by tensile test simulations. Moreover, the numerical model includes part of
the experimental support and uses loads and restraints
to represent its remaining components. The results are
discussed in terms of the force-displacement response
and the shape of the deformation.
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
The experimental program evaluates the plastic

response until failure of a small-scale side panel quasistatically punched at the mid-span by a rigid knife edge
indenter. The geometry of the specimen is shown in
Fig. 1. The specimen includes one span between the
web frames and one span between the stringers and
represents a one-fifth scaled tanker side panel structure. The material used for the plate and the stiffeners
is normal structural steel, which mechanical properties are obtained by standard tensile tests (Table 1).
The engineering stress-strain curves of the plate and
stiffeners materials are presented in the finite element
model section when compared with the true stressstrain relationships of the material. The weld joint
plate-stiffener is double fillet with throat 2.8 mm and

uses electrodes AWS-E-7018 of diameter 3.2 mm.
The shell plate is lap welded (75 mm) to a strong
frame made of four square tubes 150 150 6 mm
(see Fig. 1). The inner sides of the transverse tubes
(web frame oriented) are reinforced with a plate PL.
3 150 960 mm, as illustrated in Fig. 2. In addition toe plates PL. 3 75 100 mm are welded to
connect the ends of the stiffeners. The support frame
is simply supported by a structural base hold on
the floor. The indenter is positioned at the mid-span
as represented by the phantom lines in Fig. 1; the
length of the indenter is 480 mm. The panel deformation is enforced by a hydraulic cylinder at a rate
of 10 mm/min. The force-displacement response is
measured, using a load cell and a displacement transducer. The test stops few instants after the maximum
load. Additional experimental details can be found in
Villavicencio (2012).
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
The finite element model is designed with the following components (Fig. 3): specimen, indenter and
support frame. The plate and the stiffeners are modelled by four-node shell elements with five-integration
points throughout the thickness. The mesh size of the
plate and the stiffeners is 5.0 mm which allows the
definition of the critical failure strain by tensile test
simulations. The meshing is regular and square, meaning that the mesh is not finer neither at the point
of impact nor at the supported perimeters. Coarser
meshes were evaluated in the preliminary simulations
obtaining similar force-displacement responses when
the failure of the elements is omitted. However, the definition of the critical failure strain provokes different
Table 1.
Figure 1. Geometry of the small-scale side panel specimen.
Mechanical properties of material.
Property
Units
PL.3.0
FB. 75 5
Mass density
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Yield stress
Ultimate tensile strength
Fracture stress
Fracture strain
kg/m3
GPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
7850
206
0.26
200
296
225
0.22
7850
206
0.26
250
369
281
0.24
Figure 2. Reinforcement of the support frame and the end

connections of the stiffeners.
110
failure modes than those observed in the experiments.

In the present analysis, triangular meshes are not
evaluated.
The material is characterized by the combined material relation (Villavicencio 2012). In this material
model the true stress-stain curve is divided in two
parts with respect to the onset of necking. The logarithmic true stress and strain up to the maximum load
(Dieter 1986) defines the process before necking and
a power relation (Zhang et al. 2004) after necking.
The engineering and true strain curves are shown in
Fig. 4.
The material relation is named combined material since it combines two approximations for the
flow curve. This true material was proposed by
Villavicencio and Guedes Soares (2012) to predict
the numerical plastic response and the critical failure strain of quasi-static tensile test specimens and
dynamic models of transversely impacted pre-notched
beams. Moreover, the combined material has been
selected to predict the plastic behaviour until fracture
of laterally impacted small-scale rectangular plates
(Liu et al. 2012). The form of this material accounts for
the yield plateau the effect of which has been recently
incorporated in numerical simulations to assess the
influence of the material relation on the accuracy
of collision simulations (Ehlers 2010). Moreover, the
combined material should be more accurate than the
power law based material relation that accounts for
Figure 3. Details of finite element model. Specimen interacting with the model of the supports. The plot illustrates the
von Mises stress.
Figure 4. Engineering and true stress-strain curves of plate

(3.0 mm) and stiffener (flat bar 75 5 mm) steel material.
the yield plateau since the Hollomon expression commonly brings deviations in the log-log plot of the
logarithmic stress and strain that determines the strain
hardening exponent and the strength coefficient.
The critical failure strain is found through numerical
simulations of the tensile tests, using the tensile piece
model proposed by Villavicencio and Guedes Soares
(2012). The tensile simulations are run until they give
the engineering fracture strain. The predicted critical failure strains are 0.42 and 0.68 for the plate and
stiffener materials, respectively. Although the tensile
simulations do not predict accurately the experimental
engineering curve beyond localization, it is assumed
that fracture occurs when the shell elements reach the
failure strain determined by the tension test simulation.
The material selected from the library of LS-DYNA
is Mat.024-Piecewice linear plasticity, which allows
the definition of a true stress-strain curve as an offset
table. Also, failure based on a plastic strain can be
defined.
The indenter is modelled through shell elements
defining adequately the offset of the projected contact
surface (Hallquist 2010). A rigid material is defined
to ensure no deformation, assigning steel mechanical
properties and density. As no information is obtained
from the indenter elements, zero integration points are
defined. The indenter is subjected to a constant displacement of 100 times the experimental speed. Additional details of a similar contact specimen-indenter
can be found in Villavicencio (2012).
In order to provide an accurate representation of
the experimental support, as well as to simplify the
numerical model, part of the structural support frame
is modelled. The model of the frame includes the upper
and inner sides of the tubes as illustrated in Figs. 3
and 5. Both sides are modelled by four-node shell
elements with two-integration points throughout the
thickness. The other two sides of the tubes are represented by fully restrained boundary conditions. An
elastic steel material is defined. The inner plate PL.
3 150 960 mm is represented. The thickness of the
inner plate is increased at the end connection of the
stiffeners to represent the toe plate 3 75 100 mm.
The plate PL. 3 150 960 mm is connected to the
tube by a static surface contact. The upper edge is connected to the nodes of the shell plate simulating the
Figure 5. Numerical modelling of the experimental support.
111
welded connection. The lap weld of the shell plate is

idealized as nodal axial boundary conditions.
The reduced number of integration points and the
elastic properties of the material are adopted since the
support is stiff enough, so it does not suffer important deformations during the experiment. However, the
reaction forces at the ends of the stiffeners should have
been transmitted to the support frame. Therefore, this
representation helps to detect graphically elastic deformations that could have occurred at the supports and
the stiffeners end connections. The model of the supports interacting with the specimen is shown in Fig. 3.
It is possible to observe the stresses transmitted by the
plate and the stiffeners to the structural frame. The plot
represents an intermediate deformation of the specimen where the maximum stress is about 300 MPa.
The localized stresses at the lower edge of the support frame are typically observed at elements with
fully-constrained nodes.
4
Figure 6. Force-displacement response. (1): Experimental

initial fracture of the plate. (2): Numerical initial fracture of
the plate. The dashed line represents the numerical plastic
response without definition of the critical failure strain.
RESULTS
The experimental and numerical force-displacement

responses are presented in Fig. 6 and the shapes of
the deformation are shown in Fig. 7. The numerical
results should be compared until the maximum load
since the assessment of the level of the forces and the
propagation of the fracture beyond that load requires
additional sensitivity analyses in terms of meshing and
material modeling, among others. The elastic slope is
predicted accurately. The point of transition from plate
bending to membrane behaviour is slightly underestimated. This transition occurs at the change of the initial
slope. As the indentation of the plate and stiffeners
progresses, large deformation and membrane forces
develop in the plate, in particular at the end corners of
the indenter. The large strain at these points provokes
the initial fracture of the side plate. This fracture propagates to the centre of the plate. The initiation and
propagation of the fracture is indicated in Fig. 7 by the
numbers (1) and (2), respectively.
The level of the forces is well predicted until the
initial fracture of the shell plate. However, it cannot
be detected clearly in the test data. The first failing
elements suffer biaxial tension since the corners of
the indenter provoke a pronounced local indentation.
Nevertheless, the elements below the indenter fail by
uniaxial tension. It must be mentioned that fracture
does not appear in the weld material (see Fig. 8).
The force-displacement behaviour deviates after the
initial fracture of the plate. In particular the numerical
forces decrease and remain relatively constant until the
maximum load. It must be noted that the experimental force following the fracture of the plate continues
increasing until the maximum load. This numerical
deviation is attributed to the relatively large mesh size
used to simulate the very local phenomenon of fracture since the failing elements are removed from the
structure when they reach the critical failure strain.
Thus, the simulated load carrying capacity of the side
Figure 7. Shape of deformation. Above: Inner side view.

Below: Outer side view. (1): Initiation of fracture. (2): Direction of fracture propagation. The numerical plot represents
the effective plastic strain at the maximum load.
Figure 8. Fracture at the corners of the indenter. (a): Outer

side view. (b): Inner side view.
panel decreases rapidly, because there is no material

contributing to the strength of the panel model. On the
other hand, the experimental fracture occurs at a very
small scale, much smaller than the size of the elements
considered in the numerical model. Thus, the almost
intact plate material continues providing additional
strength to the specimen during the experiment.
The additional strength of the numerical model with
the use of a finer mesh is not considered in this study.
However, the numerical simulation without the definition of the critical failure strain have demonstrated
that the numerical curve should approximate better the
experimental result, as illustrated by the dashed lines
112
Figure 9. Shape of deformation. (a): Deformation at the

maximum load. (b): Fracture of the central plate elements;
the central stiffener suffers small tripping. The plots represent
the effective plastic strain.
in Fig. 6. It must be mentioned that preliminary simulations have also demonstrated that the definition of
a coarser mesh (16 mm) provokes faster reduction of
the load capacity of the panels once the first failing
elements are removed from the model.
The experiment shows that the specimen sustains
the punching load after the initial fracture of the plating. The load decreases once the fracture extends to the
centre of the plate and the indenter cuts the uppermost
part of the central stiffener (see Fig. 8). The complete
fracture of the plate and the fracture of the central stiffener are not predicted by the numerical model at the
instant of maximum load, as illustrated in Fig. 7. The
indenter needs a slightly larger vertical displacement
in order to simulate the experimental failure mode.
However, the larger indentation provokes small tripping of the central stiffener, a situation which is not
clearly observed in the experiments. The shapes of the
deformation at the maximum load and few instants
after it are shown in Fig. 9.
The different failure mode demonstrated by the
numerical model at the maximum load, presumes that
the critical failure strain from the tensile test simulations should be smaller. This situation should be
responsible for the slightly larger displacement predicted by the numerical models at the instants of initial
fracture and maximum load.
5
DISCUSSION
The impact response of the side panel specimen is

treated in a quasi-static manner. This results in simpler
assumptions compared to the dynamic analysis, particularly regarding the definition of the material relation
and the boundary conditions. It is well known that the
energy absorbing mechanisms and fracture types are
similar between dynamic and static tests of ship structures with the same structural arrangement. However,
the energy absorbed in dynamic tests is larger than
that absorbed in the corresponding static tests, a circumstance attributed to the phenomenon of material
strain-rate sensitivity (Jones 1983). The larger energy
is a consequence of the large forces caused by the
impact. Furthermore, plastic wave propagation develops during the early and late stages of the impact tests.
Thus, the nonlinear response of the structural components differs from that of structures indented statically.
In addition, there are no criteria to assess whether
the inertial effects should be considered in particular collision scenarios. This is of significant relevance
when the natural period of other structural elements
and structural connections is larger, provoking overall
vibration of the dynamically impacted structure (Jones
1983). As a result, large dynamic forces can develop
at regions away from the impact position, particularly
at the boundaries (Villavicencio and Guedes Soares
2011, 2012). All aforementioned effects remain undetected in static experiments, and consequently, they are
neglected in the quasi-static numerical simulations of
ship structural components (Wang et al. 2000, Wu et al.
2004, Paik and Seo 2007, Alsos et al. 2009).
In addition, the properties of steel materials under
dynamic loading are different from the corresponding static values. In some cases, the material becomes
stronger due to strain rate effects, but the rupture strain
decreases in a dynamic loading condition. In the actual
simulations, the defined true stress-strain state predicts
the plastic behaviour of the specimens with sufficient
accuracy, as demonstrated in Fig. 6. The assumption
that strain rate effects are not present in the experiment
facilitates considerably the definition of the material,
since no dynamic characteristics are included in the
numerical models. The failure criterion for structures
subjected to dynamic loads causing large inelastic
strains is unclear.Although various failure criteria have
been proposed to simulate collisions of marine structures, most of them are validated with simple structural
elements under quasi-static loading. Thus, the numerical simulation can use a very fine mesh to initiate
fracture locally. However, in engineering practice, a
mesh size smaller than the plate thickness is not appropriate to estimate the critical absorbed energy of more
complex ship structures, such as the actual side panels. For example, the Approval Procedure Concept for
Alternative Arrangements of Cargo Vessels suggests
a failure criterion valid for mesh sizes larger than
five-times the plate thickness (Zhang et al. 2004).
In the side panel, the failure criterion is simply based
on the critical plastic strain obtained by the tensile test
simulations. This simple method, which is appropriate
to predict the impact response of simple ship structural
components subjected to lateral impact (Villavicencio
2012), manages to describe the initial fracture of the
plate and provides a good agreement with the failure
mode few instants after the maximum load. However,
the use of a finer mesh is necessary to predict the level
of the forces beyond the initial fracture of the plate.
The nonlinearities of the material cannot describe
the plastic behaviour of structures subjected to large
deformations if the boundary conditions do not represent adequately the experimental support conditions.
Although the modelling of the supports does not provide clear advantages in terms of plastic behaviour, the
representation of a part of the support simulates better
the shape of the deformation and the critical failure
mode of the specimens. For example, the definition
113
Figure 10. Force-displacement response. Fully clamped

boundary conditions.
Figure 11. Shape of the deformation at the maximum load.

Fully clamped boundary conditions.
of a fully clamped support condition provides similar force-displacement behaviour than the one given
by the proposed numerical model (see Fig. 10). These
calculations indicate that the experimental condition at
the support is very close to a fully clamped restraint.
However, the zero displacement and rotation at the
end connection of the stiffeners modifies the deformation mode of the numerical models before and after
the maximum load. The different deformation mode
predicted by the fully clamped model can be seen in
Fig. 11. It is observed that the central stiffener suffers tripping at the maximum load, as well as that the
stiffeners change the shape of the deformation due to
the full restraint at the ends. It must be mentioned that
this occurs several instants before the maximum load.
The accurate prediction of the shape of the deformation of the stiffeners is important when it is necessary
to design crashworthy ship structures. The simulation
of the fully clamped models indicates that the forcedisplacement curves do not necessarily represent the
correct plastic behaviour of the specimens.
CONCLUSIONS
The experiments and simulations of side panels serve

to identify large deformation and failure of complex
ship structures. Both plastic response and deformation characteristics are well predicted by the numerical
model. The numerical definition of the material is simpler in the quasi-static simulations since the strain rate
effect is omitted. However, the prediction of failure
requires further and elaborated work. The calibration
of the critical failure strain by tensile test simulations
should be appropriate for simple structural elements,
such as beams and plates, where the elements fail
mainly by uniaxial tension. However, the connection
of different structural elements and the additional
structural details found in complex ship structures
complicates the prediction of the plastic deformation
that the elements experience before failure.
The boundary conditions play a very important role
in terms of the deformation shape, although the forcedisplacement response is very similar. The accurate
prediction of the shape of deformation can serve to propose new structural details resulting in the improved
structural crashworthiness of the ships. It is recommended the modelling of the experimental support
conditions for all finite element simulations involving
large plastic deformations, even for those laboratory
structures subjected to quasi-static loading. It is also
advised that the definition and modelling of the supports must be visualized while the experimental work
is undertaken.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The first author has been financed by the Portuguese
Foundation for Science andTechnology, under contract
SFRH/BD/46369/2008.
The second author has been financed by a Ph.D.
scholarship from ABS, the American Bureau of Shipping. The authors are grateful to Dr. George Wang for
his initiative to promote this scholarship.
REFERENCES
Alsos, H.S.; Amdahl, J. & Hopperstad, O. 2009. On the
resistance of stiffened plates, Part II: Numerical analysis.
International Journal of Impact Engineering 36: 875887.
Cho, S.R. 2000. Numerical prediction of structural
behaviours of ships platings in side collisions. Journal
of Engineering Research 31 (2): 133144.
Cho, S.R. & Lee, H.S. 2009. Experimental and analytical
investigations on the response of stiffened plates subjected
lo lateral collisions. Marine Structures 22: 8495.
Choung, J.; Cho, S.R. & Kim, K.S. 2010. Impact test simulations of stiffened plates using the micromechanical porous
plasticity model. Ocean Engineering 37: 749756.
Dieter, G.E. 1986. Mechanical behavior under tensile
and compressive loads. Mechanical Metallurgy, 3rd ed.
p. 275295. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ehlers S. 2010. The influence of the material relation on the
accuracy of collision simulations. Marine Structures 23:
462474.
Hagiwara, K.;Takanabe, H. & Kawano H.A proposed method
of predicting ship collision damage.International Journal
of Impact Engineering 1 (3): 257279.
Hallquist, J.O. 2010. LS-DYNA Theory Manual. Livermore
Software Technology Corporation.
114
Jones, N. 1983. Structural aspects of ship collisions. Structural Crashworthiness, Chapter 11. Butterworth & Co
(Publishers) Ltd.
Liu, B.; Villavicencio, R. & Guedes Soares, C. 2012. Experimental and numerical plastic response and failure of
laterally impacted rectangular plates. In. Proc. 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Artic Engineering (OMAE 2012); Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2012; Paper:
OMAE2012-84015.
Paik JK & Pedersen PT. 1996. Modelling of internal mechanics in ship collisions. Ocean Engineering 23 (2): 107142.
Paik, J.K. & Seo, J.K. 2007. A method for progressive
structural crashworthiness analysis under collision and
groundings. Thin-walled Structures 45: 1523.
Reckling K. 1983. Mechanics of minor ship collision. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1 (3): 281299.
Villavicencio R. 2012. Response of ship structural components to impact loading. PhD Thesis, Centre for Marine
Technology and Engineering, Technical University of
Lisbon
Villavicencio, R. & Guedes Soares, C. 2012. Numerical plastic response and failure of a pre-notched transversely
impacted beam. Ships and Offshore Structures 7 (4):
417429.
Villavicencio, R.; Guedes Soares, C. 2012. Numerical modelling of laterally impacted plates reinforced by free
and end connected stiffeners. Engineering Structures 44:
4662.
Villavicencio, R.; Sutherland, L.S. & Guedes Soares, C. 2012.
Numerical simulation of transversely impacted, clamped
circular aluminium plates. Ships and Offshore Structures
7 (1): 3145.
Wang, G.; Arita, K. & Liu, D. 2000. Behavior of a double
hull in a variety of stranding or collision scenarios. Marine
Structures 13: 147187.
Wu F.; Spong R. & Wang G. Using numerical simulation to
analyze ship collision. In. Proc. 3rd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships; Izu, Japan
2004; p. 2733.
Zhang L.; Egge ED. & Bruhns H.Approval procedure concept
for alternative arrangements. In. Proc. 3rd International
Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships; Izu,
Japan 2004; p. 8796.
Zhu L. & Faulkner D. 1994. Dynamic inelastic behaviour of
plates in minor ship collisions International Journal of
Impact Engineering 15 (2): 165178.
115
A study on positive separating bulbous bow

B. Li
Deepwater Engineering Research Center, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, China
L.S. Zhang
Jiangsu Hantong Ship Heavy Industry Co., Ltd., Nantong, China
L.P. Sun
Deepwater Engineering Research Center, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, China
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to introduce a novel method for ship design against collision
accidents and to introduce a positive separating bulbous bow designed based on this method and also to study
the effectiveness of this kind of bulbous bow compared with the conventional one. In this paper, the authors put
forward a way to separate the bulbous bow from the striking ship so as to protect the cargo hold structure of the
struck ship from being penetrated by partly using high tensile steel. The more real scenario supposing that the
struck ship is navigating at a certain speed was considered. Nonlinear Finite Element Method (FEM) was used to
study the effectiveness of the positive separating bulbous bow. Two bulbous bows with the same size and shape
and one typical double hull structure in cargo hold area of a container vessel in service were modeled. One of the
bow models is a prototype of the positive separating bulbous bow with part of the shell plate replaced by plate
made of high tensile steel, and the other model is a conventional one. Collapse mechanism, force-time curve of
the positive separating bulbous bow structure was investigated and compared with those of conventional bow
structure. It is found from these investigations that the positive separating bulbous bow structure is expected to
be efficient to reduce the risk of cargo leakage in case of ship collisions, and the method of using high tensile
steel in ship collision accidents protection is reasonable.
INTRODUCTION
Bulbous bow can help to reduce a ships resistance and

thus to save the fuel consumption up to 15%. And now
it is widely used in ship building industry. However,
bulbous bow is also regarded as a threat to a struck
ship in collision accidents because it may generally
penetrate the side shell of the struck vessel, which may
cause the leakage of hazardous goods. How to avoid
the disaster results of collision accidents through the
bulbous bow design have become a focus of structure
design against collision.
Many researchers have investigated the behavior of
bulbous bow structure in collision situation. Kitamura
(2000) estimated the ultimate strength and energy
absorption capability of both conventional and buffer
bulbous bow and proposed interim guidelines on
buffer bulbous bow design. Yamada & Endo (2004)
studied the crashing mechanisms of the buffer bulbous
bow with a transverse stiffening system.
The right angle collision scenario was widely
assumed in collision simulations but many investigations of real collision accidents, e.g., Isle of Man
Ship Registry (2006), BSU (2012) and Floris et al.
(2011), reveal that the struck vessel usually has a forward velocity in a ship to ship collision, which will
lead to a different structure behavior. Kitamura (2000)

found out that bulbous bow wound bend slightly when
the struck vessel has a forward speed, though the
effects are not obvious because of the relative low
strength of the side shell compared to bulbous bow.
Yamada & Endo (2004) found out that bow would collapse in overall horizontal bending model near the root
of the bulb in an oblique collision scenario through
simulation.
The purpose of collision protection is to ensure the
intact of cargo hold and sometimes the bulbous bow
can be sacrificed. Many novel bow types concerning collision protection have also been put forward.
Cheung (1969) put forward the concept of buffer bow
design. Endo et al. (2004) proposed a bulbous bow
design by using low yield point steel to accelerate the
bow bending process in oblique collision scenarios.
Takaoka et al. (2004) studied the transverse stiffened
SEA-Arrow buffer bow and also its improvements
the SPS-SEA-Arrow structure with sandwich plates.
Tautz et al. (2010) considered removing the longitudinal structural elements in foremost part of the bulbous
bow, which would increase the bows energy absorption ability. Kitamura (1994) invented an anti-collision
bulbous bow with some openings on the shell plate of
a conventional bulbous bow.
117
Figure 1. The rupture behavior of brittle material and ductile

material.
Figure 3. The illustration of the Positive Separating Bulbous
Bow.
Table 1. The principle dimension of vessel.
Length
Breadth
Depth
Scantling draught
Breadth of double hull
Length of bulbous bow
Displacement
Figure 2. Engineering strain and stress for brittle steel

(HT690, HT460) and ductile steel (MS235).
Considering that the strength of the side shell structure is relatively low as compared to the bulbous bow,
the buffer bow may not collapse before the inner
hull structure being penetrated. And concepts that
change the construction of a bulbous bow such as
using non-watertight shell plate or remove the longitudinal structural elements may not applicable in
practical application. More effective method should
be proposed.
230 m
32 m
19 m
12 m
2.0 m
7.5 m
57000 t
Figure 3 illustrate a configuration of this bulbous

bow from this concept.
A narrow strip of shell plate made of high tensile
steel (e.g., HT690) is used to replace the plate made
of mild steel (e.g., MS235) near the root of a bulbous bow. When such a long and sharp bulbous bow
collides with another vessel, the plate made of high tensile steel would break quickly under the combination
of large compression force and shear force induced by
collision.The break behavior of HT690 has been investigated by Zhang et al. (2003). And with the motion
of the struck vessel, the bow tip can separate, which
would keep the bow tip from penetration into another
vessels cargo hold.
While at the same time, with a elastic limit of about
690 MPa, HT690 can expected to function well in
against normal environment loads.
It may prove to be a simple and cost-effective design
to prevent collision accidents.
POSITIVE SEPARATING BULBOUS BOW

3
High tensile steel like HT690 has a very high yield

point and shows a reduced plastic ductility and brittle
fracture behavior compared to mild steel (Zhang et al.
2003). Figure 1. shows the different rupture behavior for typical brittle material and ductile material.
Figure 2. shows the engineering strain and stress for
brittle steel (high tensile steel, e.g., HT690, HT460)
and ductile steel(mild steel, e.g., MS235).
As we can see from the above material curves, the
higher a materials strength, the lower the fracture
strain. That is the source of the novel bow idea.
The idea of Positive Separating Bulbous Bow is to
use the brittle fracture behavior of high tensile steel to
realize the quickly separation of the bulbous bow in a
collision accident.
COLLISION SIMULATIONS
Nonlinear Finite Element Method (FEM) was used to

study the effectiveness of the positive separating bulbous bow. Two finite element analyses were conducted
using nonlinear structural analysis code LS-DYNA.
3.1 Collision simulations

The collision scenario is assumed to be that the striking vessel with a bulbous bow collides perpendicularly
with a double hull container vessel in full loaded condition. A 4000TEU container vessel (see Table 1) is
assumed to be both the striking vessel and the struck
vessel.
118
Table 2. The velocity of the vessels in this simulation.

Velocity (m/s)
case 1
case 2
Description
Striking vessel
Struck vessel
Bow with HT690

Bow with MS235
4.5
4.5
6.5
6.5
Figure 5. Overview of the collision model and boundary

conditions.
Figure 4. Overview of the collision model with beam

elements visible.
The forward speeds of both vessels are taken into

account in this simulation as it is assumed to be a more
real collision scenario (see Table 2).
3.2
Finite element analysis
The bulbous bow in simulation case 1 is a prototype

of the Positive Separating Bulbous Bow with a strip
of shell plate made of high tensile steel HT690. The
breadth of the strip is about 300 mm that is half of the
frame spacing. Model in case 2 is an conventional bulbous bow with the strip of steel plate made of mild
steel MS235, Material properties will be discussed
later. Apart from the differences in material type, plate
thickness and the failure strain, all the other parameters
and conditions are the same for these two cases.
3.3
Finite element models
The FE model consists of two major parts: a struck

vessel with the portside of cargo hold area modeled in
detail and a striking vessel with bulbous bow modeled
in detail. The dimension of the plates, stiffeners and
holes in this FE model are precisely modeled according
to a conversional container vessel using GL Poseidon
software (POSEIDON, 2003). Figure 45 show the
collision model used in this paper.
For the striking ship, the bow structures were considered as deformable and the arrangement of holes
and stiffeners inside the bow had been modeled in
detail. Bow structures before collision bulkhead were
modeled as shell and beam elements. The strip of shell
plate where high tensile steel would be used was modeled with fine mesh (the element length was about
148 mm) and the other parts were modeled with coarse
Figure 6. Overview of the bulbous bow structures.
mesh (about 295 mm) as shown in Figure 6. The translational movements (in x and z direction) and rotational
movements of all the nodes in the center plane_B
are constrained. Nodes in collision bulkhead frame
were coupled with beam element node by using keyword: *constrained_nodal_rigid_body_ title (CNRB),
see Figure 4 and Figure 5. The configurations of the
bow structures are shown in Figure 6.
For the struck vessel, half of one cargo hold near
the mid-ship was modeled. The plates were modeled
with shell elements and stiffeners with beam elements. Only at the collision area, the mesh was refined
(about 395 mm). The translational movements (in y
and z direction) and rotational movements of all the
nodes in the center plane_A are constrained, see Figure 5. Nodes in transverse bulkhead frame were also
coupled with beam element node by using keyword:
*constrained_nodal _rigid_body_title.
119
Table 3.
MS235
Q315
HT690
Material and material properties in this simulation.

Yield stress s/MPa
Rm /MPa
Ag
235
315
690
460
505
820
0.10
0.09
0.03
MS235: mild steel with yield stress 235 MPa

Q315: high tensile steel with yield stress 315 MPa
HT690: high tensile steel with yield stress 690 MPa
Figure 7. Overview of the double hull structures.
The configurations of the double hull structures are

shown in Figure 7 below.
All the mass for the rest of the vessel were applied
using mass elements, see Figure 5. Beam elements
were used to connect the discrete mass elements for
striking vessel and struck vessel respectively see Figure 5, the cross-section area for beam element should
be large enough as to transfer the load and it was set
to be 3 m2 in this paper, See Figure 45.
The collision simulations lasted for 1.2 seconds for
both cases and the contact force between bulbous bow
and double hull structures were calculated by using
keyword:*contact_force_transducer_penalty. Structure deformations for both bulbous bow and double
hull were compared and investigated in detail.
3.4
Figure 8. Material models for MS235, Q315 and HT690.
Figure 9. Overview of the test specimen.
Materials model
3.4.1 Materials properties

Material model are important for this collision simulation as to investigate the effectiveness of high tensile
steel HT690. Therefore, the accurate material models
should be provided. The true stress-strain relationship
material models in the following form were used in
this paper (Zhang et al. 2004):
Where
Ag is the maximal uniform strain and Rm is the ultimate

tensile stress.
Three kinds of steels were used in this stimulation.
Materials and their properties were listed in Table 3.
The corresponding stress-strain curves for different
material models are calculated according to formular
(1)(3) can be seen in Figure 8.
3.4.2 Validation of the material model by analysis

In order to verify the correctness of the material models, the tensile tests according to GL rules (GL rules,
2009) have been carried out by using LS-DYNA. Failure of the element was not considered and the value
of failure strain was set to 20. The dimensions of the
specimen are showed in Figure 9.
The results of the tensile tests simulations show
that the uniform deformation before necking for high
tensile steel is larger than mild steel, see Figure 10.
The high tensile steel shows a reduced plastic ductility
and brittle fracture behavior as previously mentioned,
which may indicate that the material models used in
these collision simulations are proper and can reflect
the true behavior of different steels to some extent.
3.5 Determine the thickness for HT690
The plate where high tensile steel is used has smaller
plate thickness than the plate where mild steel is used
in order to maintain equivalent local strength.
The thickness can be determined roughly by the
ratio of the yield stress. The yield stress for HT690 is
120
Table 4. The values of uniform strain and the necking strain

for different materials (Dr. L. Zhang et al, 2003).
Element type
Material Type
Ag
Shell
MS235
Q315
HT690
MS235,Q315
10%
9%
3%
7.90%
50.39%
48.50%
37.10%
76%
Beam, Truss
Table 5. The failure strain for this FE model.
Figure 10. Force versus elongation for steel MS235 Q315

and HT690.
about 690 MPa, and the yield stress value for MS235
is about 235 MPa. The original thickness of the plate
strip is 20 mm, made of mild steel. The thickness of
the high tensile steel plate then can be determined:
t = 235/690*20 = 6.8(mm) 7(mm)
And 7 mm was used in this simulation for case 1.
3.6 Failure criteria

During the stimulation, when the effective plastic
strain reaches the predefined failure stain, the element
will be deleted from the FE model. Considering the
mesh size effect, the following definition for failure
strain was used in this paper.
where Ag is the uniform strain and e is the necking strain, t is the plate thickness and Lc is the
characteristic length for individual element.
The definition of the characteristic length Lc for a
shell element in LS-DYNA is:
where l1 , l2 , l3 , is the side length of a single shell

element, and A is the element area. = 1, for triangular shell elements and = 0, for quadrilateral shell
elements.
Material parameters are listed in Table 4.
The failure strain f which corresponds to different element material type, thickness and characteristic
length are calculated according to formula (4) and
listed in Table 5 below.
RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION
4.1 Time history of contact force

Histories of contact force component in x direction,
contact force component in y direction and resultant
contact force were showed and compared in Figure 11,
Figure 12 and Figure 13 respectively for both cases.
It was observed that before time 0.646s, the contact forces in x direction, y direction are almost the
same for both cases. The first force-peak appeared at
about 0.18s and the second force-peak appeared at time
0.646s.
Significant differences occurred at 0.646s. In case
1 where high tensile steel was used, the contact force
component in x direction dropped sharply to about
0.25 MN, and after several fluctuations tended to be
zero. The contact force component in y direction
dropped to about 27 MN, and after several significant
fluctuations went slowly down to be 15 MN at the end
of simulation.
In case 2 where mild steel was used, the contact
force component in x direction dropped obviously
to be about 15 MN, and shortly after that fluctuated
up quickly to be about 35 MN at 1.2s. The contact
force component in y direction dropped significantly
to about 10 MN, and went up to 15 MN at about 1.2s.
The history of the resultant contact force kept
almost the same from beginning to about 0.646 s for
121
Figure 11. Comparison of the contact force component in

x direction (Horizontal shear force).
Figure 12. Comparison of the contact force component in

y direction (Normal component force).
Figure 14. Deformation and effective stress distribution for

side shell in case 1 at time 0.646s.

bulbous bow in case 1 at time 0.646s.
Figure 13. Comparison of the resultant contact force.
both cases. Significant difference occurred from about

0.9 s, as can be seen from Figure 13.
4.2
Overall structure deformation
It was observed in the stimulation that before time

0.646s, the overall structure behaviors of the bow and
double hull were almost the same for both cases. The
outer shell plate ruptured shortly after the collision
took place at about 0.18s. The bow structure kept intact
with no significant damage before time 0.646s in both
cases, see Figure 1417.

Differences occurred at 0.646s.

In case 1, the strip of shell plate at heavier compression side started to collapse as indicated in Figure 15.
Shortly after the collapse, the bulbous bow broke down
and the direction of bow tip deflected rapidly. No significantly rupture of inner hull was observed during
the stimulation as showed in Figure 14 and Figure 18.
Finally the bow tip separated from the striking vessel
122




Figure 22. Extent of damaged area in case 1 at time 1.2s.

as indicated in Figure 20. The extent of damaged area

for case 1 is about 6.82 m at time 1.2s as indicated in
Figure 22.
In case 2 where mild steel is used, the inner hull
ruptured at about 0.646s as indicated in Figure 16. As
the bulbous bow was moving forward, the damage of
inner hull became even worse as showed in Figure 19.
At the termination time, the shape of bulbous bow
kept more or less intact but with some dent deformation locally in the contact area as indicated in Figure 19
and 21. The extent of damaged area for case 2 is about
8.35 m at time 1.2s as indicated in Figure 23.
Figure 24 shows the energy balance for simulation

case 1. The total energy in the Figure 24 is the sum
of kinetic energy, sliding energy, internal energy and
external energy. As can be found from the figure the
total energy is 1742 MJ equals to the total initial kinetic
energy of both vessels. Total dissipated energy at the
end of the simulation is about 231 MJ, which takes up
about 13.3% of the total energy.
Figure 25 and Figure 26 shows the history of forward velocity for striking vessel and struck vessel
respectively. The initial velocity for struck vessel in
case 2 is 6.5 m/s. After 1.2s the velocity decreases to
5.97 m/s, which accounts for about 91.8% of the initial value. The initial velocity for striking vessel was
123
Figure 23. Extent of damaged area in case 2 at time 1.2s.

Figure 26. Comparison of the velocity of the striking vessel.
Figure 24. Energy dissipating distribution for case 1 during

stimulation.
Figure 25. Comparison of the velocity of the struck vessel.
4.5 m/s. After 1.2s the velocity decreases to 3.98 m/s,

which is about 88.4% of the initial value.
DISCUSSION
According to the force versus time curves, the histories

of reaction forces for case 1 and case 2 are more or less
the same before inner hulls damage, which means that
the strip of high tensile steel can function pretty well
in normal environment loading conditions as the mild

steel.
Figure 12 shows two force-peaks of the contact
force component in y direction (Normal component
force). The reason why contact force dropped down
after the first force peak was the rupture and damage
of outer shell in both cases. The reason why the contact
force dropped down at the second force peak in case 2
was the rupture and damage of the inner hull structure,
which indicated that the bulbous bow had penetrated
into the cargo hold in case 2. But the reason why force
dropped down for case 1 was the damage of the plate
strip made of high tensile steel.
After the damage of the high tensile steel, the contact force component in x direction and the resultant
force dropped down significantly see Figure 1213.
Throughout the simulation in case 1, the inner hull
kept intact. See Figure 14,15 and 18. It suggested that
the high tensile steel had successfully protected the
inner hull from penetrated by the bulbous bow.
Figure 11 shows that after time 0.646s when the
inner hull was penetrated, the shear force in case 2
was larger than that in case 1. The explanation for that
phenomenon maybe explained like that after the bulbous bow penetrating into the cargo hold, it still kept
intact and would carry on tearing the double hull structure. As a result, the damage to the double hull from
the bulbous bow may be even worse than in case 1. It
also explained the reason why the extent of damage
area in case 2 larger then that in case 1 as showed in
Figure 22 and Figure 23.
The reason for the contact force component in Y
direction stayed at a relative high level in case 1 maybe
explained like that: though the strip of high tensile steel
was destroyed, the bow tip was still stuck between the
two vessels. As the striking vessel kept approaching
the struck vessel, the bow tip may also transfer high
contact force to the inner hull. But because of the forward velocity of the struck vessel, the direction of the
bow tip would deflect. As a result, the contact area may
increase and the contact force imposed on inner hull
would decrease. Finally, the bow tip would separate
124
with the striking vessel along with the motion of the

struck vessel as showed in Figure 20.
The changes of velocity for striking vessel and for
struck vessel are showed in Figure 25 and Figure 26
respectively. After 1.2s of simulation, the decrease of
velocity is relative small, the largest of which accounts
for about 11.6 percent of the initial value. So a constant
velocity maybe acceptable for a collision simulation.
From the energy balance showed in Figure 24, the
total dissipated energies at the end of the simulation
is about 231 MJ, which takes up to 13.3% of the total
energy. So it maybe reasonable to say attempts may
not be so effective to design a bulbous bow to absorb
collision energy.
6
CONCLUSION
This paper introduced a novel concept for ship collision protection and introduced a device named positive
separating bulbous bow designed based on this concept. The effectiveness of this kind of bulbous bow
compared to a conventional one had been studied by
using FEM. Collapse mechanism, force-time curve
were also investigated as compared to those of a conventional bow. The FEM simulation shows that the
strip of high tensile steel can rupture and can be
destroyed before the inner hull being penetrated.
At the end of the simulation, inner hull of the
struck vessel kept intact, which suggested that the positive separation bulbous bow could protect the struck
vessel from being penetrated. The result also shows
that this kind of bulbous bow can withstand the normal environment loading quite well as conventional
bow do.
REFERENCES
Bundesstelle fr seeunfalluntersuchung-BSU, Contact with
the embankment by the MV SONORO and collision
between the MV SONORO and MT SLLBERG on the
Kiel Canal (NOK) on 18 April 2010, investigation report
140/10, 2012.
Cheung, L. 1969.A soft bow for ships. European shipbuilding

3: 5253.
Endo, H. & Yamada Y. 2004. vessel having lateral bending
absorption type bow [P], JP2004314825.
Germanischer Lloyd. 2003. Tutorial for Hull Design Software
POSEIDON.
Germanischer Lloyd. 2009. GL rule & Guidelines Section II:
Materials and Welding, Part 1: Metrllic Materials, Chapter
1: Principles and Test Procedures.
Goerlandt, F. & Sthlberg, K. 2011. Comparative study of
input models for collision risk evaluation, Document No.
D_WP6_2_04.
Isle of Man Ship Registry, Collision between the Tanker
British Cygnet and Container ship Vera, Casualty Investigation Report No. CA102, 2006.
Kitamura, OU. 1994. collision energy absorption type bulbous bow structure [P], JP1994000333044.
Kitamura, O. 2000. Buffer bow design for the improved
safety of ships.Proceedings of the SSC/SNAME/ASNE
Symposium, Ship Structures for the New Millennium,
Arlington.
Yamada, Y. & Endo, H. 2004. Collapse Strength of the
Bulbous Bow Structure in Oblique Collision. 3rd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships
(ICCGS): 160171.
Takaoka,Y.; Shimoda, T.;Yagi, S.; Kumamoto, H.; Muragishi,
O.; Tornqvist, R.; Kennedy, S.J. & Brooking, M. 2004. A
Study on Buffer Bow Design for SEA-Arrow. 3rd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships
(ICCGS): 188194.
2010. Experimental Investigations on Collision Behavior of Bow Structures. 5th International Conference on
Collision and Grounding of Ships (ICCGS).
Yamada, Y.; Endo, H. & Pedersen, P.T. 2005. Numerical
Study on the Effect of Buffer Bow Structure in Shipto-ship Collisions. 15th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference (ISOPE): 604611.
Zhang, L.; Egge, E.D. & Scharrer, M. 2003. Evaluation of
Thickness Measurements of Drop Tower Tests, Germanischer Lloyd AG.
Zhang, L.; Egge, E.D. & Bruhns H. 2004. Approval Procedure Concept for Alternative Arrangements. 3rd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships
(ICCGS).
125
Calculation of a stranding scenario

B. Zipfel & E. Lehmann
Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany
ABSTRACT: One soft grounding scenario called stranding is calculated with the FE method. A cargo hold
section is modelled with shell elements and the rest of the ship is simulated with beam elements. The ground
follows the Mohr-Coulomb material model. The results are compared to a calculation with a rigid ground. The
vessel strands within the parallel midship and is subjected to the tide. Due to the water level reduction to half
draft the hydrostatic forces significantly change. The correct hydrostatic forces as a function of water level and
stranding position are applied. The ship structure collapses and elasto-plastic buckles are the predominant kind
of damage. The soil characteristics influence the collapse mode. The damage is spread more globally if the
ground is of sand. Therefore it is necessary to model the soft ground. A verification of the calculation method
is also presented.
INTRODUCTION
During soft grounding, the energy dissipation of the

structure is low. The puncture of the outer hull structure, which is a characteristic of hard grounding,
does not occur. The problem is that stranded ships
can be subjected to the tide. If the water level is
reduced, the hydrostatic forces significantly change.
The consequence can be a global damage and the
reduction of the ultimate hull girder strength (see
ISSC 2009) that can lead to the loss of human lives,
severe environmental consequences and economical
loss. Improvement of accident prevention measure is
essential to obtain the desired level of safety and protection of the ecosystems. Very few tools are available
to assess the consequences of stranding. Only few
authors describe the stranding scenario.
stergaard et al. (1988), Pedersen (1994), Lehmann
(2009) and Zipfel & Lehmann (2010, 2011) published analytical/empirical approaches to estimate the
additional bending moments and shear forces.
The publications of Simonsen & Pedersen (1995a,
1995b) and Simonsen (1997) focused on stranding
of ships at the bow. A mathematical model for calculations of loads and hull girder response during
soft grounding is derived. In Simonsen & Pedersen
(1995a, 1995b) the reaction of the ground is described.
The focus is laid on the interaction between ship and
ground. They approximated the hydrodynamic pressure forces by constant added-mass terms. The ship
hull was assumed to be rigid.
Alsos &Amdahl (2007) computed different grounding and stranding scenarios for a tanker.They modelled
three different rigid indenters, which penetrated the
ship bottom at four different locations amidships.
Reich & Rhr (2000, 2001) coupled the finite element method with the boundary element method to
calculate stranding for a midship section of a tanker.

The method was developed to compare two different constructions of the double bottom under extreme
loading conditions. The global forces are increased
until the structure starts to collapse.
All existing studies simplify one of the following
aspects: the distribution of the hydrostatic forces due
to stranding, the ground, the ship or they can only be
applied to a specific grounding position. Furthermore,
all referred methods are applied for full-bodied ships.
Due to the specific form of a ship, it is not possible to calculate the new distribution by hand without
any assumptions. This is the reason why a new method
was introduced to calculate the total bending moment,
shear force and heeling angle due to grounding for
any ship depending on the load case, the grounding
point/area and the surface drawdown (see Zipfel &
Lehmann (2010, 2011)). This method is used to control the global forces, moments and reactions in the
finite element simulation of the presented stranding
scenarios. Therefore a realistic load case can be used.
The calculations are applied for a container vessel.
Especially container vessels are endangered to experience a severe damage during stranding. They have
a low plastic reserve because of their thin-walled and
open cross sections. Cargo forces are introduced into
the bottom structure at the bulkheads. If the ship lies
on a sandbank, which is positioned in the middle of
a cargo hold, there are no significant forces from the
cargo on the inner double bottom.
1.1 Stranding scenario

Ship stranding is a very complex process. Large contact forces, collapse of hull structure and interaction
with global motions create a highly non-linear process.
127
The following scenario is assumed for the calculations. The ship runs perpendicular on a soft shoal
during high tide, which is the arrival load case.The ship
structure does not suffer significant damage between
the initial contact with the ground and the final laying position. This assumption has also been made
by Lehmann (2008), Pedersen (1994), Rhr (Rhr &
Reich 2005) and stergaard (stergaard et al. 1988).
The impulse of the contact is basically inelastic and
reduces the ships speed. The ship is stop without
damage and lies on the ground.
The plateau of the soft underground is in the middle of a cargo hold within the parallel midship. The
plateau is wider than the ships breadth. The stranded
ship is subjected to the tide. The sea surface level is
reduced in one-meter steps until a total of five meters.
The contact with the ground does not exactly coincide
with the ships centre of gravity. While the surface is
lowered, the ships draught changes and it slightly trims
about the contact point.The hydrostatic pressure forces
are redistributed. The ship loses partly its buoyancy.
The lost buoyancy forces are introduced into the hull
structure at the grounding area via bedding pressure.
The structure and the soft ground are deformable.
The contact forces between soil and structure depend
on the soil characteristics.
Table 1.
Dimension of container vessel.
Length Loa [m]

Length Lpp [m]
Breadth B [m]
Height D [m]
Design draft Td [m]
Scantling draft Ts [m]
Speed v [kn]
Double bottom height [m]
291.10
285.60
40.00
24.20
11.50
13.50
23.00
2.00
Figure 1. Stress-strain curves.
DESCRIPTION
Each water level is calculated separately. Calculations

are done with a soft and a rigid ground.
Although the problem is static, the model is solved
with LS-DYNA (LSTC 2012) with the explicit solver
because of the complex contact problem. Comparative calculations with an implicit FE program (Ansys
(2011)) revealed that the model is extremely instable
due to the contact and the widely different material
properties of sand and steel.
The FE model exists of three different element
types. A detailed shell-model of two half and one
cargo hold is generated. The whole cargo hold is modelled to exclude boundary effects. The rest of the
ship is simulated by beam-elements. The ground is
modelled with volume elements. One half of the ship
and the sandbank are modelled. Symmetry conditions
are used.
2.1 Ship
A PANMAX container vessel that was built in 2009 is
chosen for the simulation. The relevant data are given
in Table 1. The shell-model begins at 136.66 m from
aft perpendicular (AP) and is 29.69 m long. Two half
and one whole cargo hold are modelled.
The section of the vessel is simplified at this stage of
the project because the focus lays on the development
of the method. Therefore the longitudinal stiffeners are
neglected to reduce the calculation time by a coarse
mesh with a size of 0.5 m. The longitudinal girders are
divided into four elements over their height and the
manholes are rebuilt.
The material model of the shell elements is nonlinear. Strain hardening is taken into account via the
piecewise linear plasticity model (see LSTC 2012).
A stress-stain curve that is known from experiments
performed by the Institute of Ship Structural Design
and Analysis located at Hamburg University of Technology is scaled for the different yield stresses, see
Figure 1. The yield stresses are 235 (A), 315 (A32)
and 355 N/mm2 (A36).
All transverse structural elements have a yield stress
of 235 N/mm2 except for the bulkhead stiffeners. The
longitudinal coaming is built with 355 N/mm2 steel.
All other structural elements have a yield stress of
313 N/mm2 . Furthermore, the failure criterion developed by Peschmann (2001) is implemented:
where t = element thickness; and l = the element edge

length. When the plastic strain of an element reaches
the value k , the element is deleted. Because the calculation is quasi-static, the strain rate has no influence
and is therefore disregarded. All shell elements have
this failure criterion except the elements of the centre
girder that have a connection with the beam elements.
Otherwise the introduction of the global forces and
moments cannot be guaranteed. The edges of the shell
model will not be used for any analysis because of
boundary effects.
The beams represent the rest of the ship (fore and
aft body) and level with the neutral axis. They are connected with constrained equations at both ends of the
128
shell-model. The elements (Belytschko-Schwer resultant beam) are 1 m long and their moment of inertia
equals those of the real ship. The constrained equations guarantee that the cross sections remain planar
according to the beam theory. The material model of
the beam elements is ideal elastic.
Line respectively pressure loads are applied on the
beam and shell elements according to the stranding
scenario. At each meter a force equivalent to the sum
of loading, weight and buoyancy forces is generated
with a method already presented by Zipfel & Lehmann
(2010, 2011). The calculated force is distributed over
the entire inner double bottom within the shell model.
The forces are applied in the time domain. The calculation needs to be damped otherwise the model will
oscillate. A mass weighted nodal damping that applies
globally to all nodes is chosen according to Rayleigh.
The shell-model borders on the plateau of the sandbank. The thickness of the bottom plating is taken into
account to avoid initial penetration. A single-surface
contact is modelled. The advantage of this contact type
is that the shell elements cannot breakthrough each
other. If elements of the outer shell plating are deleted
elements of the double bottom have still a contact condition with the sandbank.The sandbank will not flood
the double bottom.
2.2
Ground
The chosen geometry of the sandbank is shown in

Figure 2. It represents one possible topology.
The modelled ground exceeds the ships breadth. It
is 50 m wide and has the same length (30 m) as the shell
model. The sharp edges at the plateau are rounded. The
plateau is located between 146 and 149 m forward of
AP. The bottom elements are restricted in z-direction.
The side elements have either the symmetry condition
or are allowed to move in z-direction. Thus an infinite
extension to the sides is simulated. The total height of
the sandbank is determined by weighting up the correct height versus the calculation time. An adequate
height of the sandbank is reached if no influence of the
loading is measured at the bottom elements. Vectors
representing the first main stress axis would be horizontal in the bottom elements. The calculation time
rises with increased height. Hence, test calculations
were performed for different heights. For a height of
16 m there is very little influence, only. This influence
is low compared to a height of 8 m and the calculation
time is still acceptable. Thus the sandbank height of
16 m is chosen.
For the comparative calculations with the rigid
ground the surface of the sandbank (shown in Fig. 2)
needs to be modelled. The rigid material model is used.
The compactness and patterns in the arrangement
of the particles as well as the pore size and pore
fluid distributions define the capacity of the sand.
The soft ground is of saturated sand and follows the
Mohr-Coulomb material model. The upcoming data,
equations and information about sand are taken from
Gudehus (1981), Kolymbas (2007), Lang et. al. (2007)
Figure 2. Geometry and mesh size of the sandbank.

Table 2.
Material data of saturated sand.
Mass density [t/m3 ]

G-modulus [kPa]
Poissons ratio
Angle of friction [ ]
Dilation angle [ ]
Cohesion C [kPa]
1.50
11540.00
0.30
35.00
5.00
0.10
and Witt (2008). The material data are given in Table 2.

The G-modulus depends on the depth. For simplicity
it is set to be constant over the height of the sandbank.
The sandbank is modelled with solid elements, defined
by eight nodes. The mesh is also shown in Figure 2. It
has different element sizes to save computational time.
Initial stresses in the sandbank are needed for a
correct calculation. To initialise stresses in the sand
a dynamic relaxation is done. The preload is due to
gravity. After the preloaded state of the sandbank is
achieved the normal phase of the solution is started
with the preloaded state.
RESULTS
For comparison the results with the rigid ground are

presented at first. Then the results from the calculations with the soft ground are shown. In both cases the
most extreme loading condition is chosen for presentation. Therefore only the results with an ebb tide of
5 m are discussed.
3.1 Rigid ground

Figure 3 and 4 show the deformation (1:1) and longitudinal stresses. The mesh and the ground are not
shown. In Figure 4 the whole shell model is plotted
and the scale is fitted to the maximal yield stress of
355 N/mm2 . The shell model is rotated 10 around
the x-axis to show the inner double bottom. Figure 3
shows the outer shell plating and the scale is now fitted
to the yield stress of 315 N/mm2 .
129
Figure 3. Longitudinal stress [N/mm2 ] of the shell model

(rigid ground).
Figure 4. Longitudinal stress [N/mm2 ] of the outer shell

plating (rigid ground).
The hogging bending moment is increased and a significant curvature of the hull can be seen in Figure 3.
The modelled bottom structure lies on the ground. The
predominant kind of damage is elasto-plastic buckles
that can be found all over the structure. The inner double bottom plating of the two half cargo holds and the
inner bilge plating undulate regularly. A main transverse fold appears in the middle of the cargo hold.
The fold levels with the manholes of the longitudinal girders. The fold continues into the bilge structure
(Fig. 4). At the fold the structure loses its contact with
the stiff bank due to the inward deformation. The fold
in the bottom plating is 2.02 m deep compared to a
reference node of the bottom plating at the bulkheads.
Both bulkheads are twisted. The fore bulkhead collapses between the fist and the second stringer deck.
Here elements are deleted due to high plastic strain.
Further elements, which have exceeded the failure
criterion, are deleted at the longitudinal girders in the
area of manholes. Elements of the centre girder at the
connections to the bulkhead structures and elements
Figure 5. Longitudinal stress [N/mm2 ] of the shell model

(soft ground).
Figure 6. Longitudinal stress [N/mm2 ] of the outer shell

plating (soft ground).
of the outer bilge plating in the area of the main fold

fail.
The maximal and minimal stresses are beyond
the yield stresses. The maximum tensile stress of
500 N/mm2 is at the hatch coaming. The upper side
structure reaches high tensile stresses. The maximum
compression stress of 420 N/mm2 is found in the
centre girder. High compression stresses are also found
at the bottom shell plating and around the second
stringer deck.
The total bending moment measured at 147 m forward of AP, which is the middle of the shell model,
at the end of the calculation is 3.5 E+6 kNm, see also
Figure 8.
3.2
Soft ground
In Figure 5 and 6 the same structural elements with

the same scaling are plotted as in Figure 3 and 4.
Again a severe curvature of the hull structure
appears. This time the bending line is without a sharp
130
Figure 8. Total bending moment at 147 m AP [kNm].
Figure 7. Indentation of sandbank in z-direction [m].
bend. The curvature is smaller than in the above

presented calculation. The bottom structure is completely in contact with the ground. The whole structure
collapses and elasto-plastic buckles are also the predominant kind of damage. Compared to the stiff bank
calculation the deepest buckles are spread more globally. The inner double bottom plating of the two half
cargo holds, the bulkheads and the side structure undulate regularly. A main transverse fold appears in the
outer shell plating. The fold is at the same position
as in the simulation with the rigid ground. The fold
continues into the bilge structure where a larger and
deeper buckle appears than in the rigid ground calculation. The fold in the bottom plating is 1.97 m deep. The
twist of the aft and fore bulkhead and the collapse of
the fore bulkhead are more significant as for the rigid
ground. Additionally, deep vertical buckles appear in
both bulkhead structures. Due to the twists elements
at the top of the bulkhead structure fail.
Beside the elements in the fore bulkhead at the second stringer deck, elements of the bilge plating in the
area of the fold are deleted. The bilge structure close to
both sides of both bulkheads and the structure around
the manholes of the longitudinal girders also collapse.
The maximal and minimal stresses are beyond
the yield stresses. The maximum tensile stress of
480 N/mm2 is at the hatch coaming. The upper side
structure reaches high tensile stresses. The maximum
compression stress of 430 N/mm2 is found in the
centre girder. High compression stresses are also found
at the bottom shell plating and around the first and
second stringer deck.
High stresses and deleted elements are found in
more parts of the model than in the calculation with
the rigid ground.
Figure 7 shows the indentation of the sandbank
in z-direction. Here the mesh is plotted for a better
overview.
Figure 7 reveals that the ship is pushed into the
sandbank. At the area of the bilge close to the fore
bulkhead (see black circle) the maximum displacement of 0.35 m is found. All elements of the outer hull
plating are in contact with the sandbank. The largest
displacement is at the area of the bilge radius and at
the centre girder. Figure 7 also shows that the double
bottom between the two web frames is lifted. In the

areas of the web frames an imprint can be seen. The
sand is also squeezed to the side of the ship so that
sand is piled up beside the bilge. It also piles up in the
area of the main fold and next to the centre girder.
In Figure 8 the total bending moment at 147 m forward of AP of the simulation with the rigid and the soft
ground over the calculation time is given. At the end
of the calculation the bending moment in the structure is higher if the vessel strands on a rigid bank.
The moment for the soft ground calculation is 2.6
E+6 kNm.
4 VERIFICATION
The model of the ship and the ground model are verified separately. Figures 5 to 7 show that the contact
between sand and ship is correct.
4.1 Ship
To verify the ship simulation the model with the rigid
ground is also calculated with an ideal elastic material and without the failure criterion. Apart from the
material properties the model is exactly as described
in section 2.
The bending moment, shear force and displacement
of the beam elements is compared to those gained
from a pure beam calculation (see Zipfel & Lehmann
(2010, 2011)). The bending moment, shear force and
displacement of the elastic shell model are identical to
the results of the pure beam calculation. Thus the load
application is correct.
The longitudinal stress is correctly distributed over
the ships height. Above the neutral axis there is tensile
stress and below there is compression. In the double
bottom we find the maximum compression stress and
at the hatch coaming we find the maximum tensile
stress. The maximum tensile and compression stress
equal the stress that can be calculated with the beam
theory from the pure beam calculation. Therefore the
constrained equations introduce the global forces and
moments into the shell model correctly.
131
Figure 9. Initial vertical stress v [N/m2 ] of the sand.
Figure 11. Stress-strain diagram of oedometer test.
The simulation of the chosen sand model is correct.

The use of the Mohr-Coulomb model is sufficient for
the purpose of the paper.
5
Figure 10. Oedometer test configuration.
4.2
Ground
The correct preloaded state is checked via the vertical

and horizontal stresses. They depend on the height and
the specific gravity of the sand:
In Figure 9 the distribution of the vertical stresses

v are shown after the dynamic relaxation is executed.
The stresses depend on the height of the sandbank as
equation 2 describes. The maximum stress at the bottom is not the same stress as achieved by equation 2.
The difference of 14% is accepted for the upcoming calculations since the focus is placed on the ship
structure. A reason for the difference is the constant
G-modulus in the calculations, indicated by a small
test calculation.
The material model and the use of the dynamic
relaxation are also verified via the recalculation of an
oedometer (see Fig. 10) and a triaxial test. The verification was also calculated in Abaqus. In both FE
programs the same results are achieved. In Figure 10
the geometry of the oedometer test element and the
configuration are shown.
For both tests the correct p-q-diagram, that is used
to show the soil characteristics, can be achieved. As an
example a simple stress-strain diagram of the oedometer test is shown in Figure 11. The curve starts at -10
kPa due to the initial condition. After the solution the
horizontal stresses equal the horizontal pressure that
was loaded onto the sand.
DISCUSSION
The chosen stranding scenario is the worst-case scenario for the modelled ship. The maximum global
bending moment is beyond the class permissible vertical wave bending moment, for more details see Zipfel
& Lehmann (2010, 2011). The maximum shear force is
at the same position as the maximum bending moment
in the middle of the cargo hold and has a large influence on the damage (see twist of bulkheads). No
significant cargo forces decrease the influence of the
contact force. The interaction of the contact force with
the hogging bending moment affects the longitudinal
resistance of the hull. In both presented cases (rigid
and soft ground) the ship structure collapses. Not only
the deleted elements due to the plastic strain indicate
the collapse but also the critical longitudinal stresses.
The maximal stress is 41% above the maximal yield
stress. The ship buckles and plasticises all over the
modelled structure. When the full cargo forces are
applied at the end of the calculation the cargo hold
section completely lies onto the rigid/soft ground.
The damage mode of the structure depends on the
soil characteristics. Similarities are the main fold in the
double bottom and the collapse of the fore bulkhead.
The main fold in the double bottom is similar to the
one known from the stranding of the container vessel
FOWAIRET in September 2005, see Figure 12.
In both calculations the outer hull plating fractures
at the bilge.
If the ground is rigid the bending moment and the
curvature are higher as for soft ground. Although the
cargo hold section is set on the ground the contact
forces are introduced more locally than in the soft
ground calculation. If the ground is of sand the plateau
is pushed down and the ship section completely is in
contact with the ground, earlier than in the rigid ground
calculation.Thus the contact forces are introduced over
a wider distribution.
132
Figure 12. Damaged shell plating of the container vessel

FOWAIRET after stranding.
For the purpose of this work the Mohr-Coulomb

model is sufficient. Figure 10 shows the non-linear
behaviour of the ground.The verification of the ground
model indicates that the implemented Mohr-Coulomb
material model in combination with the use of dynamic
relaxation is correct. Due to slight simplifications an
influence of the loading onto the bottom elements can
be observed. Furthermore the initial conditions differ
14% from equation 2. The calculation time is reduced
by these simplifications.The influence on the results of
the ship section is insignificant because of the extreme
loading condition in the worst-case scenario.
The collapse of the soft ground calculation is different compared to the calculation with the rigid ground.
The plateau of the ground is squeezed together and a
larger contact area is generated. The cargo hold section
completely comes to lie on the ground earlier than in
the rigid ground calculation. Thus, the contact forces
affect more structural elements. For the calculated scenarios it is not valid that the hull girder is less prone
to hull collapse if set onto a soft bank. To improve
accident prevention measure, the ground cannot be
simplified to be rigid.
The method should be improved and applied to
more scenarios to better understand stranding and
to estimate the consequences. Therefore the slight
simplifications within the model will be reduced.
All structural elements should be modelled. The Gmodulus should be a function of the z-direction and
the total height of the sandbank will be increased.
The real loading condition will be applied. Beginning with the initial floating condition, the water level
will be removed in 1 m steps. The geometry and position of the sandbank will be varied. Stranding at the
bow and aft area should be calculated. For each scenario the influence of the water level will be analysed
in detail. Improvements of the structure to survive
stranding may be envisaged.
Special focus will be placed on the influence of
the shear forces. Under normal conditions the shear
force needs to be very high to have an influence on the
bending moment. But during stranding the following
aspects change the influence of the shear force:
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

FOR FURTHER WORK
A simulation method was introduced for calculating

stranding scenarios. Neither the ship nor the ground
nor the external forces are highly simplified. All
referenced works simplify at least one of the three
factors. The method is based on true loading conditions that are gained form hydrostatic calculations (see
Zipfel & Lehmann 2010 & 2011). Global and local
forces/moments are taken into account. The external
forces and moments are not increased until the collapse
of the structure that could result in unrealistic loading
conditions.The method can be applied to any ship type.
The chosen ship is modelled as a whole. The ground
is also simulated with a well-known ground model.
The verification of the ship and ground model
shows that the method gives reasonable results. The
advantage of the method is that the local and global
damage of the structure can be examined as a function
of the soil characteristics, the position of stranding and
the ebb tide. It is also possible to simulate multiple tide
cycles.
The presented scenario underlines the importance
of research on the field of stranding and that it is necessary to model the ground with a sand material model.
The scenario ends in global damage of the structure.
The structure will be flooded, when the water level
rises again. This could additionally increase the loads
and the ship would break.
The maximum shear force due to stranding is at

the same position as the maximal change of the
bending moment. The highest values of shear force
and bending moment can coincide.
Ships have a relatively low shape factor = Mpl /Mel ,
because their cross sections are thin walled and
often open. So their cross section capacity is small.
The correlation of bending moment and shear force
is of main interest to estimate the effect of stranding
on the ultimate hull girder strength.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work was performed within the Research Training
Group Ports for Container Ships of Future Generations located at Hamburg University of Technology.
The project is financed by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG).
REFERENCES
bottom structures during stranding. Marine Structures
2007(4):218237.
ANSYS. 2011. Released 13.0 documentation for ANSYS.
Canonsburg (PA): ANSYS, Inc.
Gudehus, G. 1981. Bodenmechanik. Stuttgart: Ferdinand
Enke Verlag.
133
ISSC 2009. Committee V.1: Damage assessment after accidental events. Proceedings of the 17th international ship
and offshore structures congress, Seoul, Korea, 1621Aug
2009. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Kolymbas, D. 2007. Bodenmechanik, Brundbau und
Tunnelbau. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Kulzep, A. 2001. Verhalten von ausgeschumten Schiffsstrukturen bei Kollisionen und Grundberhrungen.
Schriftenreihe Schiffbau Bericht 609. Ph.D. thesis.
Hamburg University of Technology. Hamburg.
Lang, H.-J; Huder, J.; Amann, P. & Puzrin, A.M. 2007.
Bodenmechanik und Grundbau. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Lehmann, E. 2009. Shipbuilding. In H. Meier-Peter and
F. Bernhardt (eds), Compendium marine engineering,
pages 813892. Hamburg: Seehafen Verlag.
LSTC 2012. Ls-Dyna 971 R6.0.0 keyword manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation.
stergaard, C.; Ple, E. & Fricke, W. 1988. Das Binnenschiff
in Flumndungen. In Jahrbuch der Schiffbautechnischen
Gesellschaft 82: 134141. Berlin: Springer
Pedersen, P.T. 1994. Ship grounding and hull girder strength.
Marine Structures 1994(7): 129.
Peschmann, J. 2001. Berechnung der Energieabsorption der
Stahlstruktur von Schiffen bei Kollisionen und Grundberhrungen. Schriftenreihe Schiffbau Bericht 613. Ph.D.
thesis, Hamburg University of Technology. Hamburg.
Poseidon. 2011. Poseidon 11.0 user manual. Germanischer

Lloyd. Hamburg
Reich, M. & Rhr, U. 2000. Strukturkollaps von Doppelhllenkonstruktionen unter Extrembelastungen. In Jahrbuch
der Schiffbautechnischen Gesellschaft 94: 305318.
Hamburg: Schifffahrts-Verl. Hansa Schroedter.
Reich, M. & Rhr, U. 2001. BMBF-Vorhaben Fertigungsgerechte Gestaltung von Doppelhllen: Bauteilfestigkeit.
Simonsen, B.C. 1997. Mechanics of ship grounding. Ph.D.
thesis, Technical University of Denmark.
Simonsen, B.C. & Pedersen, P.T. 1995a. Analysis of ship
groundings on soft sea beds. In H. Kim & J. W. Lee (eds)
Proceeding PRADS 1995: 2.10962.1109.
Simonsen, B.C. & Pedersen, P.T. 1995b. Dynamics of ships
running aground. Journal of Marine Science an Technology 1995(1): 3745.
Witt, K.J. 2008. Grundbau-Taschenbuch. Berlin: Ernst &
Sohn
Zipfel, B. & Lehmann, E. 2010. Evaluation of critical
grounding incidents. Proceeding of the 5th International
Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships, Espoo,
Finland, 1416 June 2010.
Zipfel, B. & Lehmann, E. 2011: Evaluation of critical stranding incidents. Journal of ship and offshore structures iFirst
2011: 118.
134
Grounding resistance capacity of a bulk carrier considering damage

confined to the bow
Y. Qumner & C.H. Huang
China Corporation Register of Shipping, Taipei, Taiwan
ABSTRACT: This study deals with the ship soft grounding mechanics applied to a Capsize bulk carrier. In
this scenario, the ship runs aground by the bow on a smooth seabed. The grounding resistance capacity can
be evaluated considering bow damage confined ahead of the collision bulkhead. The grounding capacity is
characterized by the critical initial forward speed; if this speed is exceeded, the damage may propagate beyond
the collision bulkhead when the ship comes to rest. This study proposes a mathematical model to analyze ship
grounding and then validates the mathematical model predictions using a few ship grounding dynamic Finite
Element Analyses (FEA). Results show that the predicted critical initial speed is significantly lower than the
ship service speed. This study also presents a simplified formulation from the mathematical model to assess the
critical initial speed. This formulation was used to evaluate the bow structural strengthening required to increase
the ship grounding resistance capacity.
INTRODUCTION
An accidental grounding is a statistically nonnegligible risk in ship operation. This problem is

of great concern because of the catastrophic consequences that may occur. In the past, regulations have
been adopted to mitigate those consequences in such
a manner that they would have no immediate effect on
the safety of the ship.
The SOLAS convention (IMO 2009) provides a
double bottom arrangement for ship bottom tearing
and crushing, so that a hull split only affects the double bottom water ballast tank. In a similar manner, for
soft grounding by the bow (see Fig. 1), the collision
bulkhead limits the water ingress to the fore peak tank
and, potentially, to the adjacent double-bottom water
ballast tank.
The ship considered in this study is a Capsize bulk
carrier. This study presents an assessment of the ship
grounding resistance capacity as a function of the
collision bulkhead location. The grounding resistance
capacity is characterized by the ships critical initial

forward speed. If this speed is exceeded, the collision
bulkhead in way of the inner bottom may be damaged
causing water ingress in the No.1 cargo hold when the
ship rests. This consequence may directly endanger the
safety of the ship because it is more difficult to refloat
rapidly. Due to waves and receding tide actions, the
sectional forces in the grounded ship may then rise
significantly, leading to failures in the hull girder.
Pedersen (1994) proposed a mathematical model
to analyze ship grounding. This model allows for
the assessment of the bow final lifted distance. The
purpose was to evaluate the sectional forces in the
grounded ships hull girder and thus to investigate its
ultimate strength. Based on the Pedersen formulation,
the authors (Qumner et al. 2012) have recently presented a mathematical grounding model (MGM) that
allows for the assessment of the bow final crushing.
The purpose of this approach is to analytically evaluate the grounding resistance capacity of the ship as
it relates to the bow crushing distance. A comparison
Figure 1. Ship soft grounding by the bow.
135
with ship grounding dynamic FEAs shows that these

mathematical model predictions are optimistic. An
examination of the FEA results reveals several modifications of the mathematical model formulation, as
implemented in this study.
This study consists of four sections. The first
section presents the MGM formulation. The second
section presents a discussion of the ship grounding
FEA modeling assumptions. The third section presents
mathematical model predictions validated by comparison with FEAs. Finally, the fourth section provides
a simplified formulation of the grounding resistance
capacity. This formulation is used to evaluate the bow
structural strengthening required to increase the ship
grounding resistance capacity.
2
MATHEMATICAL GROUNDING MODEL
In (Qumner et al. 2012), a comparison of the Mathematical Grounding Model (MGM) predictions with
ship grounding FEAs shows that grounding mechanics should be divided into three phases. During these
three phases, the kinetic energy of the ship is dissipated by friction with the seabed, bow structure plastic
crushing, and trim increase. This study assumes that
the seabed is rigid so that no energy is dissipated by
seabed deformation.
2.1
Figure 2. Impulse force direction.
where = seawater density; Az = the waterplane area;

D2 = horizontal distance (see Figure 1); and R = the
equivalent radius of inertia expressed in Equation 5
as a function of ship mass (M ) and the longitudinal
metacentric height (GML ).
Equation 6 can also compute the bow lifted distance

(Uz ).
Model implementation
The entire grounding event is driven by a small

and constant increase in the ships horizontal motion
dUx . Each step i includes an evaluation forces and
motions at the bow. Thus, Equation 1 provides the total
dissipated energy (Ed ):
The bow response to crushing (Fc ) is extracted from

the nonlinear crushing FEAs presented by Qumner
et al. (2012). For these FEAs, the bow FE model quasistatically translates perpendicularly to the inclined
seabed considered rigid. Equation 2 can also compute
the bow crushing distance (Un ).
Finally, Equation 7 produces the friction force (Ff )

between the bow and the seabed using the Coulomb
friction law.
where is constant and the nature of the reaction force

normal to the ground (Fn ) depends on the grounding
phase (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3). Equation 8 computes
the sliding motion of the bow over the seabed (Ut ).
2.2 Phases 1 and 3: Bow crushing

Pedersen (1994) proposed a linear relationship linking
the ship hydrostatic response (Fh ) in C to the bow lifted
distance Uz (see Eq. 3).
where Kh = hydrostatic stiffness to the vertical displacement of the center of floatation induced by a trim
increase. Equation 4 provides the Kh formula.
During these two phases, bow crushing and friction

with the seabed dissipate kinetic energy. The friction force can be computed by Equation 7 with Fn
corresponding to the bow crushing response Fc .
During Phase 1, the horizontal motion of the ship
at the contact between the ship and the seabed must
then change to be compatible with the new kinematic
restrictions. This is the change in momentum. The
ship change of motion is driven by impulse force FI ,
as shown in Figure 2. The impulse direction () is
determined from the Coulomb friction law (see Eq. 7).
The change in momentum ends when the ship starts
sliding over the ground. The amount of energy dissipated during the change in momentum is termed
136
impact energy (Ei ), and can be evaluated from the initial and final ship kinematic conditions. The initial
kinematic condition corresponds to the ships initial forward speed. For the final kinematic condition,
Pedersen (1994) then established the expression of the
bow velocities vx , vz , and y , satisfying the momentum conservation and the condition of bow sliding.
Consequently, the energy dissipated during the change
in momentum (Ei ) is a function of the initial kinetic
energy (Ek0 ), as provided in Equations 9.
where Ki = constant derived from the equations of

momentum conservation. This constant is expressed
in terms of distances D1 and D2 (see Figure 1), the
mass (M ) and inertia (Iy ) of the ship including hydrodynamic added mass, the seabed angle () and the
coefficient of friction (). The complete expression of
Ki can be found in (Pedersen 1994).
Qumner et al. (2012) determined that a suitable
criterion to end Phase 1 should consider the moment
when half of Ei has been dissipated.
Finally, Phase 3 occurs after Phase 2 (see Section 2.3) and ends when the ship rests.
2.3
Phase 2: Sliding motion
In this phase, trim increase and friction dissipate the

kinetic energy, whereas the bow crushing stagnates.
Qumner et al. (2012) established that the friction
force should be computed by employing Equation 5
with Fn corresponding to the bow crushing response
reached at the end of Phase 1 (Fc,eop1 ). A suitable criterion to end this phase should then consider the moment
when Fh reaches the amplitude of Fc,eop1 .z.
2.4 Ship grounding capacity
For the ship considered in this study, Equation 9 shows
the energy dissipated during the change in momentum
(Ei ). For seabed angles greater than 30 , Ei is greater
than 50% of the initial kinetic energy. Therefore, this
study analyzes the grounding for angles up to 30 .
Beyond this point, the sliding motion characterizing
the grounding is significantly reduced.
The bow critical crushing distance (Un,critical ) is then
measured to the point at which the seabed contacts
the collision bulkhead (see Fig. 3a). Qumner et al.
(2012) showed that for this level of crushing, the collision bulkhead in way of the inner bottom and above
does not suffer damage.
Figure 3 shows that critical crushing is a function of
the seabed angle and of the collision bulkhead location.
During the grounding, as the trim increases the apparent angle between the bow and the seabed decreases,
resulting in smaller critical crushing.
By employing the MGM, the ships critical initial
speed has been determined in such a manner that the
critical crushing is reached when the ship rests. Figure 4 shows the grounding resistance capacity of the
Figure 3. Critical bow crushing distance.
Figure 4. Ship grounding resistance capacity.
fully loaded ship as a function of the seabed angle. The

optimistic predictions obtained in (Qumner et al.
2012) with the MGMs previous formulation have been
displayed for comparison.
The predicted critical initial speeds are significantly
lower than the ship service speed (7.5 m/s). Figure 4
shows then that the modified version of the MGM
globally predicts critical initial speed lower than the
previous formulation. However, both models provide
equivalent values for a seabed angle greater than 25 .
The deviation between the two models arises from the
different formulation of the previous version of the
MGM, which divides the grounding into two phases.
Phase 1 is identical to that presented in Section 2.2, but
it ends when all the impact energy from the change in
momentum (Ei ) has been dissipated. Phase 2 is unlike
that developed in Section 2.3, because the energy dissipation is governed by the ships hydrostatic response
(Fh ), and it ends when the ship rests. Consequently, the
quantity of energy dissipated during phases governed
by bow crushing is similar for both models. However,
the amount of energy dissipated in Phase 2 is greater
for the previous MGM, leading to a higher prediction
of critical initial speed.
The final lifted distance of the bow is less than
3m for the worst cases. Considering that the grounded
ship is in still water condition, its hull girder strength
remains sufficient.
SHIP GROUNDING FEA
This study presents a few nonlinear dynamic FEAs to

validate the accuracy of the MGM. Specifically, this
study uses finite elements to model the region of the
bow involved in plastic crushing onto the seabed. The
bow interacts with the rigid seabed and with the entire
ship. The FEAs were performed using the explicit
dynamic module of Abaqus.
137
Table 1.
Seabed angle
degree
Critical initial forward speed

m/s
10
15
20
25
30
2.66
2.88
2.94
3.05
3.33
during the grounding. In addition, the hinge at CF

includes a linear-elastic moment to model the ships
hydrostatic resisting moment (Mh ), which is derived
from Equation 3.
Finally, the mass and inertia of the ship are modeled
in CF. The mass of the ship (Mship ) includes the added
mass coefficient for surge motion (mxx ) as shown in
Equation 10.
Figure 5. Ship grounding FE-model.
3.1
Grounding FEA cases.
Bow structure modeling
The extent of the bow model is longitudinally from the

collision bulkhead to the fore end, vertically from the
base line to the third panting stringer and transversally
from port to starboard. Figure 5a presents the bow FE
model.
The model is composed of shell elements. The element thickness corresponds to the net thickness with
half corrosion reduction. The mesh size must be sufficiently fine to reproduce the folded configurations
of the stiffened panels. A mesh division of 8 elements in the width of typical panels produces a global
mesh size of 100 mm. Eventually, the model contains
approximately 114,000 nodes and 116,000 elements.
Finally, the material properties were defined based
on the rules (CR 2009). The provided material engineering bilinear stress-strain behavior was converted
into true stress-strain as per the Paik (2007) Material Model I. The stress strain-rate dependency has
been included using the Cowper-Symonds (1957)
expression.
The heave and pitch acceleration effects on the

grounding mechanics are significant during Phase 1.
To ensure that the heave and pitch acceleration forces
are consistent with the Phase 1 of the MGM, the
proposed approach scales down the mass moment of
inertia around CF (Iy,CF ) using the expression provided
in Equation 11.
3.2
where Ry = the radius of inertia; jyy and mzz = the

virtual added mass coefficient for pitch and heave
motions; and = the impulse force direction (see Figure 2), G and CF are the ship centers of gravity and
floatation, and C the point of contact bow/seabed.
Finally, the heave motion at center of gravity G is
related to the rotation around CF. Equation 13 shows
that this is included into the Iy,CF expression.
Bow model integration
First, the bow model comes in contact with the rigid

seabed. A friction coefficient () is set equal to 0.7.
The bow model is connected to the ship. During the
grounding process, the change in the ships trim is supposed to be small enough to consider that the center of
floatation (CF, see Fig. 5b) remains at the same position. Therefore, to model the pitch and surge motion in
CF, adapted boundary conditions are applied allowing
the rotation around Y and the motion in the X direction.
A master node (MN, see Fig. 5b) kinematically couples all the nodes located on the collision bulkhead
and the third panting stringer. Therefore, these two
strong members are set as undeformable in the FEA.
In MN, boundary conditions are applied to constrain
the motion of the bow in the X and Z directions.
A hinge connector links CF to MN. This hinge
allows only one rotation around Y at CF. Consequently,
the distance between CF and MN remains constant
where Kcorr = mass moment of inertia correction factor corresponding to the ratio of the constant length
linking the heave and pitch motions during the change
in momentum to the constant length defined in the
FEA between CF and C. Equation 12 provides the
expression of Kcorr . The full derivation of the expression is developed in (Qumner et al. 2012).
3.3 Ship grounding cases

This study also investigates the five grounding cases,
presented in Figure 4 using FEA. For all cases, the
ship is considered fully loaded. Table 1 lists the critical
initial forward speeds related to the seabed angles.
138
Figure 6. Kinetic energy dissipation.
4
4.1
Figure 7. Evolution of the vertical forces in C.
MGM VALIDATION WITH FEA
Table 2.
MGM formulation validation
The MGM formulation, including the criteria identifying the end of each phase, is expressed (see Section 2)
based on the evolution of the kinetic energy (Ek ) dissipation, the bow crushing response (Fc ) and the ship
hydrostatic forces (Fh ). This section presents these
physical quantities to compare the MGM to the FEA,
but only discusses the grounding case considering a
20 seabed.
Figure 6 presents the kinetic energy dissipation evolution over the grounding as assessed by the FEA and
the MGM. These results show that, the kinetic energy
evaluated by each models has a similar evolution.
For a ship pitch acceleration (y ) null, the bow
motion can be defined as purely sliding over the
seabed. This corresponds to the moment when
the change in momentum ends (Ed = Ei ). Therefore,
the criteria defining the end of Phase 1 (Ed = Ei /2, see
Section 2.2) and the end of Phase 3 (Ed = Ek0 , see Section 2.2) can be determined based on Figure 6. Finally,
for this grounding case, the FEA kinetic energy evolution is truncated before it dissipates entirely because
the critical crushing is reached before the ship comes
to rest.
Figure 7 presents the crushing and hydrostatic force
evolution over the grounding as assessed by the MGM
and the FEA. For the FEA, the bow response to crushing can be directly derived from the ground normal
reaction and the hydrostatic force is computed from
the hydrostatic moment in CF. For the MGM, the
bow response to crushing and the hydrostatic force
are evaluated as presented in Section 2.1.
The forces evaluated by the two models have similar evolutions over all three phases. In Phase 1, only
bow crushing occurs, whereas the hydrostatic force
remains small or null for the MGM. In Phase 2, the bow
crushing then stagnates and the hydrostatic force rises.
Finally, in Phase 3, the bow crushes again, whereas
the hydrostatic force stagnates or slightly decreases
for the FEA.
However, Figure 7 shows that at the end of each
phase, the ship horizontal motion as predicted by the
MGM differs significantly from that obtained by the
FEA. Indeed, the MGM predicts a ship horizontal
motion at the end of Phase 1 approximately 0.75 m
Final bow crushing.

Final bow crushing
Seabed angle
degree
MGM
m
FEA
m
FEA/MGM
%
10
15
20
25
30
0.88
1.48
2.16
2.89
3.73
0.57
1.38
*
*
*
65
94
*Critical crushing reached while the ship has not rested yet.
longer than that obtained by the FEA. This induces

an overestimate of the crushing force and a delay in
the increase of hydrostatic force. Consequently, this
significantly affects the MGM identification of the
end of Phase 2, producing a difference of approximately 2.5 m in horizontal motion compared to the
FEA. Because Phase 2 is longer in the MGM without involving additional bow crushing, more energy
can be dissipated during the grounding process, leading to optimistic predictions. This overestimation of
the grounding resistance capacity appears in the FEA,
because the bow critical crushing is reached before the
kinetic energy is entirely dissipated (see Fig. 6).
Therefore, a more precise identification of the end
of the Phase 1 would result in better accuracy of
the MGM.
4.2 MGM accuracy validation
This section presents a comparison of the accuracy
of the MGM prediction and the FEA results. Table 2
presents the final bow crushing results, as assessed by
the MGM and the FEA.
For the ship grounding cases considering seabed
angles equal to 10 and 15 , the FEA bow final crushing is less than that for the MGM. For the 10 seabed
case, the FEA final crushing corresponds to only 65%
of that of the MGM prediction. However, for the 15
seabed case, the FEA final crushing corresponds to
94% of that of the MGM value, and this precision is
considered acceptable. Therefore, for grounding cases
139
Table 3.
Energy dissipated at critical crushing.

Energy dissipated at critical crushing
Seabed angle
degree
MGM
MJ
FEA
MJ
FEA/MGM
%
20
25
30
473.9
509.5
608.1
398.7
484.9
596.0
84
95
98
Table 4.
Figure 8. Bow response to crushing on a 20 seabed.
is likely to experience (see Section 2.4). Therefore,

this section evaluates the bow structural strengthening
required to increase this capacity.
Ships initial forward speed.

Initial forward speed
Seabed angle
degree
MGM
m/s
FEA
m/s
FEA/MGM
%
5.1 Simplified formulation
20
25
30
2.94
3.05
3.33
2.69
2.97
3.29
92
98
99
This study proposes a simplified formulation to evaluate the critical initial forward speed of the ship as a
function of the collision bulkhead location. The bow
crushing response is assumed to be a linear function
whose general expression appears in Equation 15.
involving a seabed angle of less than 15 , the MGM

predictions are conservative.
The FEA final bow crushing exceeds the critical
crushing for the ship grounding cases involving seabed
angles of 20 , 25 , and 30 . The bow model extent
does not permit assessing the over crushing until the
ship comes to rest. Thus, for these cases, the MGM
predictions of the critical initial speed are optimistic.
For these three cases, the energy dissipated until
the critical crushing (see Fig. 6) could be extracted
from the FEA (see Tab. 3), and are compared to the
energy dissipated as assessed by the MGM model
which corresponds to the initial kinetic energy.
Finally, Equation 14 converts this dissipated energy
into the ships initial speed (V0 ).
Figure 8 shows that the two constants A and B can be

assessed by the linear regression of the bow crushing
response obtained by FEA.
Then, according to the MGM formulation, bow
crushing occurs during Phases 1 and 3. The grounding mechanics during these two phases are identical.
Therefore, energy dissipation during the Phases 1
and 3 (Ed1 + Ed3 ) can be expressed as provided in
Equation 16.
which, after derivation, leads to Equation 17.

with Ed = the energy dissipated at the critical crushing
(see Tab. 3).
Table 4 presents the results of this conversion. The
MGM values correspond to the critical initial forward
speed (see Tab. 1).
For the ship grounding cases considering seabed
angles of 20 , 25 and 30 , the deviation between the
MGM critical initial speed and the FEA is less than
10%. This accuracy is considered satisfactory.
These results confirm the accuracy of the MGM for
grounding cases involving seabed angles from 15 to
30 . However, a safety factor should be applied to the
bow critical-crushing distance in such a manner that, if
the MGM predictions are optimistic, they do not result
in significant over crushing.
5
For the full grounding event, the final crushing distance (Un,final ) is reached for Ed1 + Ed3 equals to the
initial kinetic energy (Ek0 ) reduced by the energy dissipated in Phase 2 (Ed2 ). Therefore, the final crushing
distance can be linked to the initial kinetic energy as
expressed in Equation 18.
with C1 = 1 + /tan
The energy dissipation during Phase 2 can be
expressed as given in Equation 19.
STRENGTHENING AGAINST GROUNDING
Previous assessments of the ship grounding resistance capacity are significantly lower than what a ship
During Phase 2, the hydrostatic force (Fh ) increases

until reaching the amplitude of the bow crushing
140
response vertical component at the end of Phase 1

(Fc,eop1 .z; see Section 2.3). These results in the expressions of the bow lifted and sliding distance during
Phase 2, as shown in Equations 2021 respectively.
Table 5.
Bow reinforcement factor.
Seabed angle (degree)

Bow reinforcement
factor (Kc)
15
2.39
20
2.51
25
2.33
30
2.28
This expression can be converted into ship initial

forward speed as a function of the final crushing
distance, as shown in Equation 28.
The reaction force normal to the ground (Fn )
is considered constant and equal to Fc,eop1 . Therefore, Equation 19 can be expressed as provided in
Equation 22.
which, after derivation, leads to Equation 23.
The crushing distance at the end of Phase 1 (Un,eop1 )

can then be derived from the expression of the energy
dissipation in Phase 1 which is similar to Equation 18,
but at the end of Phase 1, the energy dissipated corresponds to half the impact energy (Ei ) as shown in
Equation 24.
Isolating Un,eop1 results in the Equation 25.
Finally, substituting Un,eop1 (see Eq. 25) and Ed2

(see Eq. 23) into Equation 18 produces Equation 26.
where parameters C1 , C2 , and C3 necessitate gathering data regarding the seabed ( and ) and the
ship hydrostatic response to trim (Kh , see Eq. (4)).
The assessment of Ki (see Eq. (9)) requires also to
gather additional information: the distances D1 and
D2 (see Fig. 1) and the mass and inertia of the ship
including hydrodynamic added mass. The bow crushing response parameters A and B require more detailed
analyses. Alternatives to heavy nonlinear FEAs exist.
For example, Amdahl (1983) and Yang & Caldwell
(1993) proposed direct calculation methods for evaluating the bow response in the event of collision, for
which Pedersen (1993) reported good correspondence
with model testing.These approaches could be adapted
for bow crushing on an inclined rigid wall.
Finally, replacing Un,final in Equation 28 with
Un,critical enables prediction of the ships critical initial
forward speed and thus, the ship grounding resistance
capacity. The deviation between the ships critical initial speed predicted by this simplified formulation and
the MGM is less than 2%. This accuracy is considered satisfactory. This simplified formulation does not
include the trim effect on the critical crushing distance
assessment.
In conclusion, the simplified formulation of the
grounding resistance capacity is practical for implementing in the design stage because most of the parameters are easily available. This formulation should be
used only for large ships grounding on a smooth seabed
where:
the bow structure stiffening is homogeneous,

leading to a linear response to crushing, and
the ship hydrostatic response is linear for small
trim angles.
5.2 Bow structural strengthening
Isolating Ek0 yields Equation 27.
with C2 = C1 .Kh and C3 = 2C1 2 + cos2
This section presents an evaluation of bow structure

strengthening based on the simplified formulation in
such a manner that the critical initial speed corresponds to the ship service speed (7.5 m/s). The bow
reinforcement was evaluated by applying a multiplicative coefficient (Kc ) to the bow crushing response
(Fc ) (see Eq. 15). Table 5 presents the estimated bow
reinforcement factor as a function of the seabed angle.
141
For this level of grounding resistance capacity, bow

reinforcement results in a global thickness increase of
the structure by a factor ranging from 2.3 to 2.5.
Fc,eop1
Ff
Fn
CONCLUSION
This study presents a mathematical model for analyzing the soft grounding of a large ship. This model
allows evaluating ship grounding resistance capacity
characterized by the critical initial forward speed. For
the Capsize bulk carrier considered in this study, the
predicted critical initial forward speed ranges from
2.7 m/s to 3.3 m/s. This is significantly lower than the
ship service speed (7.5 m/s).
This study also investigates the grounding using
nonlinear FEAs. A comparison of results shows that
the MGM accuracy is satisfactory. However, two
potential improvements have been identified. The first
amelioration is to refine the formulation of the criterion identifying the end of Phase 1. This criterion has
a significant effect on the entire grounding process.
The second improvement is to apply a safety factor
to the bow critical crushing distance to avoid overly
optimistic predictions.
Assuming that the bow response to crushing is linear, this study also derives a simplified formulation
of the ship grounding resistance capacity based on the
MGM expression. This simplified formulation enables
the rapid evaluation of the ship critical initial speed
as a function of the bow critical crushing distance.
The critical crushing distance is determined by the
collision bulkhead location. The results show good
correspondence with the MGM predictions.
Finally, this study uses the simplified formulation
to evaluate the bow structural strengthening required
to increase the ship grounding resistance capacity to a
level corresponding to its service speed. For the considered ship, the bow reinforcement requires approximately 2.5 times thicker structural components.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A, B
Az
C
C1 , C2 , C3
CF
D1
D2
Ed
Ed1
Ed2
Ed3
Ei
Ek
Ek0
Fh
FI
Parameters of the bow linear response to

crushing
Waterplane area
Point of contact bow/seabed
Constant parameters (see Eq. 28)
Ships center of floatation
Horizontal distance from C to G
Horizontal distance from C to CF
Energy dissipated
Energy dissipated in Phase 1
Impact energy dissipated during the
change in momentum
Ships kinetic energy
Ships initial kinetic energy
Ships hydrostatic response to trim
increase
Impulse force at contact point
Fc
G
GML
Iy
jyy
Kc
Kcorr
Ki
Kh
M
Mh
mxx
mzz
R
Ry
Un
Un,eop1
Un,critical
Un,final
Ut
Ux
Uz
V0
V0,critical
vx
vz
y , y
Bow response to crushing perpendicular

to the seabed
Bow crushing response amplitude when
Phase 1 ends
Frictional force between bow and seabed
Ground reaction perpendicular to
the seabed
Ships center of gravity
Ships longitudinal metacentric height
Moment of inertia of mass around Y axis
Added mass coefficient for pitch motion
Bow reinforcement factor
Mass moment of inertia correction factor
Constant parameter (see Eq. 9)
Hydrostatic trim resisting stiffness
Ship displacement
Hydrostatic trim resisting moment
Added mass coefficient for surge motion
Added mass coefficient for heave motion
Equivalent radius of inertia
Radius of inertia of mass around Y axis
Bow crushing distance
Bow crushing distance amplitude when
Phase 1 ends
Critical bow crushing
Bow crushing when the ship comes to rest
Bow sliding distance tangent to the ground
Bow horizontal motion
Bow vertical motion
Ships initial forward speed
Ships critical initial forward speed
Bow surge velocity
Bow heave velocity
Seabed angle
Impulse force direction angle
pitch velocity and acceleration
Friction coefficient
REFERENCES
Amdahl, J. 1983. Energy Absorption in Ship-Platform
Impacts. Dr. Ing. Thesis, Report No. UR-83-84. Trondheim: The Norwegian Institute of Technology.
China Corporation Register of Shipping (CR). 2009. Rules
for the construction and the classification of steel ships.
Cowper, G.R. & Symonds, P.S. 1957. Strain-hardening and
strain-rate effects in the impact loading of cantilever
beams, Technical Report No.28, Division of Applied
Mathematics. Providence: Brown University.
IMO. 2009. The International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea.
Paik, J.K. 2007. Practical techniques for finite element modeling to simulate structural crashworthiness in ship collisions and grounding (Part I: Theory), SAOS. 2(1): 6980.
Pedersen, P.T. 1993. Ship impacts: Bow collisions, International Journal of Impact Engineering13( 2): 163187.
Pedersen, P.T. 1994. Ship Grounding and Hull-Girder
Strength, Marine Structures 7: 129.
Qumner, Y. & Huang, C.H. 2012. Critical scenario prediction of a bulk carrier subjected to soft grounding,
Proceedings of 5th PAAMES and AMEC2012, Taipei.
Yang, P.D.C. & Caldwell, J.B. 1988. Collision EnergyAbsorption in Ships Bow Structures. International Journal of
Impact Engineering 7(2).
142
Loading on stranded ships

C. Souliotis & M.S. Samuelides
ABSTRACT: Grounding accidents are usually distinguished between power grounding and stranding. During
power grounding, a ship has a forward speed with her bottom in contact with the sea bed. When stranded, a
ship rests on the sea bed, which induces transverse loading on her bottom structure. Standing may occur during
tidal action, or, as it usually happens, it follows power grounding, when the ship stops. The work reported in
the paper investigates the loading on stranded ships. The contact forces between the ship and the sea bed are
determined taking into consideration the weight distribution, the hydrostatics of the ship and the stiffness of
the bottom structure. The latter is determined using the finite element code ABAQUS and the hydrostatics are
directly related with the hull shape. Various shapes of contact surfaces, modeled as rigid bodies, are anticipated
to examine its effect on the stiffness of the bottom. The final position of the ship on the sea bed is found using
an iterative procedure.
INTRODUCTION
Being a source of sea pollution the grounding behavior

of ships is extensively investigated by research groups
all over the world. The grounding related problems that
are mostly addressed are:
The determination of the damage caused when a

ship comes in contact with the sea bed.
The design of a ships double bottom, so as to avoid
serious consequences in case of grounding.
The assessment of the damage of a ship that rests
on a sea bed.
The determination of the residual strength of a ship
that suffers grounding damage.
The probability of collapse of a stranded ship girder
that is subjected to environmental loads.
The selection of the actions that will safely refloat
a grounded vessel.
The present work addresses the first of the above

mentioned problems i.e. the determination of the damage caused when a ship comes in contact with the sea
bed having zero forward speed. In this case, the ship
moves vertically, as sea level decreases, and the sea
bed penetrates its bottom structure. The work is also
relevant to the assessment of the damage of a ship that
rests on the sea bed.
Grounding is usually distinguished between power
grounding, when a ship moves with forward speed on
the sea bed, and stranding, when it moves vertically
towards the sea bed and rests on it. There are numerous publications that address the problem of powered
grounding (see for example Nguyen et al 2011 and
Pedersen 1996). Nguyen et al (2011) suggested a

methodology to calculate the grounding forces when a
ship is subjected to grounding resistance forces as she
moves in contact with the sea bed. The procedure is
based on the equation of conservation of energy, i.e. the
initial kinetic energy equal to the deformation energy
plus the potential energy. In another study, Nguyen
et al (2011) suggested a procedure in order to identify
the sea bed topology in dynamic grounding scenarios.
At first, the stopping length of a ship that slides on the
sea bed and the final vertical contact force are determined on the basis of trim and draught. The results of
the force and energy are compared with those, related
to the contact of the bottom structure with various sea
bed shapes in order to estimate the shape of the rock
where the ship strands. Pedersen (1996) suggested a
procedure to determine the grounding force and the
final position of a ship that slides on a slope of an artificial island and subsequently to calculate the global
loads induced on the hull at her final position.
The present work investigates the loading on
stranded ships. The contact forces between the ship
and the sea bed are determined taking into consideration the weight distribution, the hydrostatics and the
stiffness of the bottom structure. The latter is determined using the finite element code ABAQUS. The
hydrostatics of the ship, which is directly related with
its hull shape, is calculated using the TribonAveva software. Various shapes of contact surfaces, modeled as
rigid bodies, are anticipated to examine its effect on the
stiffness of the bottom. The final position of the ship
on the seabed is found using an iterative procedure.
Modeling parameters are further investigated.
143
Figure 1. Midship section of the ship considered for the

simulations.
Figure 4. FE model of ship (model A). The finely meshed

impact area is shown.
Table 1.
Material parameters.
Yield Youngs
stress Modulus Density Poissons K
Material MPa GPa
t/m3
ratio
MPa n
Figure 2. Profile view of the ship considered for the
simulations.
Mild
Steel
285
206
7.85
0.3
plate
740 0.24 0
the rest of the model. The element of choice is a 4-node

doubly curved thin or thick shell of reduced integration from the Abaqus explicit library (Samuelides et al
2007, Zilakos et al 2009). The finite element model of
Model A is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 3. Geometric model of the ship. Four times the frame
spacing length (model A).
2
2.1
SHIPS MODEL
Principle characteristics
The ship considered is a 256.5 m crude oil carrier with

a midship section and a profile as shown in Figure 1
and Figure 2. The width of ship is 42.5 m, and the mean
draught is 15 m.
2.2
Mild steel is taken over the cross-section and is

assumed to have isotropic plastic properties. It is
noted that, the hull is built with high tensile steel
in the deck area but its response does not affect the
overall response of the bottom structure. Its parameters are given in Table 1. The equivalent stressstrain
relationship is represented by a modified power law
formulation which includes the plateau strain (Alsos
et al, 2009):
Structural arrangement
The part of the ship, modeled, see Figure 3, is that of

the cargo holds in the midship area, from the base line
to the main deck. The frame spacing is 4000 mm, and
two models were developed for the needs of the simulations. The ship models span over four (model A)
and five (model B) web frames in length respectively.
The model involves all the plating, the web frames,
the girders, the stringers and all its longitudinal stiffeners. The rest of the ship is simulated as rigid and hull
bending is not considered at this work.
2.3
2.4 Material and fracture
Mesh
This model yields a rather big structural system, which

sets limitations to the mesh fineness. Zones subjected
to little deformations are more coarsely meshed than
areas subjected to large deformations. This limits the
simulation time while maintaining the accuracy of
results. As a result, the element size is chosen close
to 50 mm for the impact area and close to 200 mm for
where plat = the equivalent plastic strain at the plateau

exit; and y = the initial yield stress. The strain 0
allows the plateau and power law expression to intersect at (plat , y ) and is obtained by
where K and n are material parameters. The true stressstrain curve of the material is shown in Figure 5.
Correct prediction of rupture is a key factor in
crashworthiness analysis. However, in order to provide
a cost efficient model, regarding CPU and memory
usage, the equivalent plastic strain criterion is more
attractive. The value of 0.33 is chosen for the critical
fracture strain, as obtained by the equation below.
144
Figure 6. Indenter shapes.
Figure 5. True stressstrain curve for mild steel.
where t = thickness; l = length of the elements;

eg = 0.08; and = 0.65 (Peschmann 2001).
2.5 Boundary conditions

Appropriate boundaries should simulate the actual
deformation of a real stranding scenario, although
these boundaries are not easily identifiable. This
requirement is particularly relevant for the case of a
large contact area. The width of the deformation field
will then be significant and can possibly extend to the
neighboring compartments, whose contribution must
be accounted for (Nguyen et al, 2001).
In this study, several different boundary conditions
were imposed to the model during the simulations performed. The differences in the results, where found to
be insignificant in the cone shaped rock scenarios, and
noticeable in the paraboloid shaped rock scenarios
see section 3.1 below. From this, is concluded that,
models length is adequate for simulations of grounding on a cone shaped rock while it seems to be short
in the case of a paraboloid rock.
Eventually, specific boundary conditions were chosen, whereby, the lower edges of the end sections are
simply assumed to rotate and no translations of them
are allowed. In addition, a restriction of the transverse
translation of a single node in the end of the main deck
is implemented, in order to avoid possible twist of the
model.
The two indenters shown in Figure 6 are applied at four

different locations, as indicated in Figure 7, in order
to illustrate the different behavior, which depends on
where the contact occurs. Scenario 1: Indenter crushes
on the centre girder of the ship, between two web
frames. Scenario 2: Indenter crushes on the centre
girder of the ship and on a web frame. Scenario 3:
Indenter crushes between the centre and the side girder
of the ship and between two web frames. Scenario 4:
Indenter crushes between the centre and the side girder
of the ship on a web frame.
It is to be noted that, before contact with the sea bed
occurs, the bottom structure suffers no damage. Each
rock starts penetrating the hull of the ship once the sea
level decreases due to tidal actions.
SEA BED TOPOLOGY
Figure 7. Location of grounding.
GROUNDING SCENARIOS
4.1 Location of grounding
STRUCTURAL RESISTANCE
AT GROUNDING
3.1 Shape and friction properties

The effect of different indenter shape is investigated.
For this, two rocks were modeled in order to be pushed
into the structure. One cone and one of paraboloid
shape, as shown below, which are rigid and do not
deform under the grounding action. In addition to
indenter shape, friction properties also affect the
response. In static grounding, the friction effect is
expected to be weak. In the simulations carried out,
concerning hard grounding, the standard value 0.3 has
been adopted (Alsos et al, 2007).
This section describes the response of the ships bottom

structure when subjected to grounding actions. The
focus is purely on the double bottom resistance during
grounding.
5.1 Resistance to cone
Figure 8 illustrates the resistance for the various locations of first impact. Figure 9, illustrates the response
of the ship when stranding on a cone shaped rock,
145
Figure 8. P- curves of reaction force when the bottom is

penetrated by a cone shaped rock.
Figure 10. P- curves of reaction force when the bottom in

penetrated by a paraboloid shaped rock.
as well as the rupture of the inner and the outer plating. Response in all scenarios is found to be rather
localized.
Inspection of the curves show, that there is hardly
any significant drop of the reaction force during the
penetration of the rock. This is a result of the continuous and local failures of the plating and of the structural
members from the early stages of the penetration.
Because of its shape, the indenter punctures the hull
skin with relative ease and the magnitude of the reaction forces, from the model to the top of the indenter,
is relatively low. While crushing on the centre girder
(Scenario 1 & 2) the indenter receives slightly higher
resistance from the structure due to the relatively high
stiffness of the centre girder. The only significant drop
of the reaction force is observed at Scenario 2 for
1400 mm of penetration. This is the point where the
plating of the girder fails, in its connection with the
web frame.
5.2 Resistance to paraboloid
Figure 9. Upper: Cross section deformation (Scenario 1).

Middle: Inner bottom plating rupture (Scenario 1). Lower:
Outer bottom plating rupture (Scenario 1).
Figure 10 illustrates the resistance for the various

paraboloid rock scenarios. The typical deformation of the bottom structure and the damage due to
paraboloid rock grounding is illustrated in Figure 11.
The response affects a wider region and is more influenced by the position of the indenter, in comparison
with the cone rock scenarios.
Inspection of the curves shows that a significant part
of the contact forces are initially carried by membrane
stresses in the outer bottom plating. With such a shape
of indenter, damage appears in the internal web configuration before rupture occurs at the shell plating.
Once the outer plating ruptures, the membrane forces
decrease and consequently the resistance falls significantly. Depending on the indenter position, the loss
of resistance may be as much as 48%. That happens
when the grounding is located in a low stiffness area.
It should be mentioned that, in Scenario 1, the girder
totally fails in its connection with both web frames
during penetration.As a result the stiffness of the structure at that point is sharply decreased. The difference
in fracture point appears to be insignificant, except
146
heave and pitch motion is related to the vertical rock

reaction, the hydrostatic forces and the weight distribution of the ship. This motion may be a result of low
tide phenomenon, when the ship rests in the sea bed,
in a way that she receives mainly vertical reactions.
An iterative procedure has been developed in order
to determine the equilibrium position of the ship under
the action of her weight, the hydrostatic pressures, i.e.
buoyancy and grounding loads. The aim is to find
the penetration of the rock into the double bottom,
which satisfies the equations of static equilibrium,
given the distance of the free surface from the tip of
the rock. This method is applied for several distances
between the free surface and the tip of the rock, with
the following sequence:
1. Random consideration of a mean draught, Tm , and
a trim, T. It is then straightforward to calculate
the draught at each station along the ship.
2. The displacement, , and longitudinal centre of
buoyancy, LCB, are obtained for the above flotation, through the hydrostatic data of the ship.
3. The penetration, , of the obstruction in the hull is
determined, by subtracting the draught at the location, where the rock is, from the distance between
the free surface and the tip of the rock.
4. The vertical reaction force acting from the rock to
the ship is determined from relative P- curves (see
for example Figures 9 and 11).
5. It is easily checked if static equations below hold.
6. Repetition from step (1), until the above equations

hold with an acceptable accuracy.
Figure 11. Upper: Cross section deformation (Scenario 1).
Middle: Inner bottom response (Scenario 1). Lower: Outer
bottom plating rupture (Scenario 1).
grounding in areas with absence of structural parts,

where stiffness is relatively low (Scenario 3).
The maximum strength of the outer bottom shell
and the structural resistance generally, are observed
while the rock crushes on areas with the highest stiffness (Scenario 2). Moreover, rupture of the inner
bottom plating is not observed, regardless the location of grounding for penetrations up to 3500 mm,
which is greater than the double bottom height
(hdb = 2680 mm).
However, it is noted that the analysis revealed significant stresses in the boundaries of the model, indicating
that the model is short in length for simulations with
the paraboloid shaped rock.
6
MOTION OF SHIP AGAINST THE ROCK
6.1 Iterative procedure

This section describes the motion of the ship as the
stranding progresses and the weight of the ship is balanced by both buoyancy and grounding loads. The
6.2 Illustration of the iterative procedure and

results
To illustrate the procedure, a scenario is generated
such that the ship comes in contact with the sea bed
in 166.2 m from AP (Figure 12). This non-symmetric
longitudinal location of grounding has been chosen as
more realistic. Roll is not considered, as it has been
assumed that the load is applied on the centre line of
the ship. The force penetration curve, P-, that has been
used for the application is shown in Figure 18. For the
calculation of the hydrostatics of the ship, the Tribon
Aveva software is used and Figure 13 illustrates the
designed hull of the considered ship.
For the sake of simplicity, any deflection of the hull
girder and flooding induced by fracture in the bottom
plating, are not considered.
The ship is considered at the Full Load Departure
condition in zero Trim before stranded. Figures 1417
illustrate the displacement, draught, trim and penetration of ship versus the distance of the tip of the rock
from the surface of the sea during the tidal change.
From Figures 1416 we observe a reverse of the
slope of the response curves between 12.5 and 11.5 m
of sea depth. This is the area of the widespread fracture
147
Figure 12. Longitudinal location of grounding.
Figure 16. Trim versus distance of the tip of the rock from
the surface of the sea.
Figure 13. Hull of the considered ship, designed in Tribon

Aveva.
Figure 17. Penetration versus distance of the tip of the rock

from the surface of the sea.
Figure 14. Displacement versus distance of the tip of the

rock from the surface of the sea.
Figure 18. Curve P- used in iterative procedure.
Figure 15. Draft versus distance of the tip of the rock from
the surface of the sea.
of the structure where the load from the rock to the ship
significantly drops. As a result, the displacement of the
ship increases, by the increase of its mean draught, in
order to balance, while the trim is reduced. In Figure 15, the calculated intermediate positions and the
magnitudes of the reaction forces are also pinpointed.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper investigates how the resistance to penetration, of the bottom structure of a ship, is influenced
by the shape of the sea bed and the various modeling
parameters. Further, an iterative procedure is developed, in order to estimate the loading on a stranded
ship.
The results of the study show that the cone shaped
rock punctures the hull skin with relative ease and the
magnitude of the reaction forces is relatively low. The
148
level of penetration is virtually identical to the obstructions height over the keel line. Fracture of the outer
plating takes place early due to the high concentration of strains around the indenter. Subsequently, the
response of the bottom structure is found to be rather
localized. In this case a models length, approximately
five times the penetration of the rock is proved to be
sufficient for the grounding simulations.
On the other hand the response is more extensive
in the case of the paraboloid shaped rock, and more
influenced by the location of the grounding. With such
a shape of indenter, a significant part of the contact forces is initially carried by membrane stresses in
the outer bottom plating. Internal web configuration
is damaged before rupture occurs at the outer shell.
The reaction force is substantially dropped after the
initiation of the fracture in the outer plate. The maximum resistance is observed while the rock crushes on
areas with the highest stiffness. For such simulations, a
models length approximately six times the penetration
of the rock is proved to be rather short.
An iterative procedure has been further developed
to determine the equilibrium position of a stranded
ship on the sea bed, given the distance of the sea bed
from the sea surface. The procedure considers a) the
weigh distribution of the ship, b) the hydrostatics and
c) the stiffness of the bottom structure, which is in
contact with the sea bed. In the application of the procedure carried out, the high correlation of the ships
global motion with the stiffness of its bottom structure
is proved. It is realized that, a number of uncertainties
affect the actual application of the present procedure.
These uncertainties are mainly related to the effects
that were neglected, such as any deflection of the hull

girder and possible flooding of the ships compartments. These will be thoroughly addressed in future
studies
In future study, the residual strength of a stranded
ship that is subjected to environmental loads, will be
also investigated.
REFERENCES
Alsos, H.S.; Amdahl, J. & Hopperstad, O.S. 2007. On the
resistance of tanker bottom structures during stranding.
Alsos, H.S.; Amdahl, J. & Hopperstad, O.S. 2009. On
the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, Part
II: Numerical analysis. International Journal of Impact
Nguyen, T.H.;Amdahl, J.; Leira, B.J. & Garr L. 2011. Understanding ship-grounding events. Marine Structures 24(4):
551569.
Pedersen, P.T. 1994. Ship grounding and hull-girder strength.
Peschmann, J. 2001. Berechnung der Energieadsorption der
Stahlstruktur von Schiffen bei Kollisionen und Grundberuehrungen. Dissertation, TU Hamburg-Harburg.
Samuelides, M.S.; Voudouris, G.; Toulios, M.; Amdahl, J.
& Dow, R. 2007. Simulation of the behaviour of double
bottoms subjected to grounding actions. 4th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships
(ICCGS). Hamburg: Elbe-Werksttten GmbH.
Zilakos, I.; Toulios, M.; Tan-Hoi, N.; Samuelides, M.S. &
Amdahl, J. 2009. Simulation of the response of double bottoms under grounding actions using Finite
Elements. 2nd International Conference on Marine
Structures MARSTRUCT2009. Lisbon, Portugal.
149
Plastic mechanism analysis of structural performances for stiffeners

on outer bottom plate during shoal grounding accident
Z. Yu
State Key Lab of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Z. Hu
State Key Lab of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China &
State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
G. Wang
ABS Greater China Division, Shanghai, China
Z. Jiang
Deepwater Engineering Key Laboratory, Technology Research Dept. CNOOC Research Institute, China
ABSTRACT: A theoretical model for longitudinal stiffeners on ship bottom plate during sliding grounding
over seabed obstacle with large contact surfaces (shoal grounding) is proposed. It is based on a study of the
progressive deformation process of numerical simulation results and the plastic analytical methods. Focus is
placed on establishing the characteristic deformation mechanism and identifying the major energy dissipation
pattern.
When calculating ship grounding resistance and energy dissipation, stiffeners are generally treated as the
equivalent plate thickness. It is known as the smeared thickness method. However, the collapse pattern of the
stiffeners cannot be traced during the deformation process and the structural performance predictive accuracy
may not be guaranteed. Therefore, a theoretical model needs to be established providing deep insight of the
deformation patterns with reasonable accuracy. Using the plastic analytical method, the expressions of distortion
energy composed of the plastic rolling, folding and membrane stretching are formulated, and the formulae of
subsequent grounding resistance are derived. A coupling effect with other structural components is found in the
analysis.
The numerical simulation code LS_DYNA is employed to verify the proposed method. The simulation covers a
wide range of slope angles and indentations. The proposed simplified analytical method compares favorably with
the numerical simulations. Therefore, it can conveniently lend itself for quick assessment of the performances
of ship bottom structures during sliding grounding.
INTRODUCTION
This paper is concerned with deep plastic deformation

of the longitudinal stiffeners of bottom shell during shoal grounding. This type of collapse is mostly
observed when a ship slides over seabed obstacles
with large contact surface. By understanding the deformation modes and energy dissipation pattern, the
proposed simplified analytical method helps to perform quick assessment of ship performance during
grounding accidents.
Although advanced navigational tools have been
introduced for ship crashworthiness design, ship structures are still running the risk of exposure to accidental
actions, which may result in potential economic loss,
pollutions and fatalities. The luxury liner Titanic, once
proclaimed to be unsinkable, collided with the iceberg and sank on its maiden journey, depriving of
about 1,500 peoples lives. The grounding accident of
Exxon Valdez in Alaska 1989 resulted in the pouring of approximately 40,000 tons of oil into a pristine
wilderness area, which is now still suffering from
adverse effects of the pollution. (Hong & Amdahl
2008). These disasters caused great public sensations
and more rational safety regulations were demanded to
enhance the sailing safety and protect the environment.
Great efforts have been put into understanding
ships structural response over the past several decades.
Many innovative concepts and methods have been proposed and used in ship-design procedures. Generally,
approaches for structural analysis may be classified
into four categories: experimental methods, empirical
151
Figure 1. Seabed topology with reference to bottom sizes

(a) rock; (b) reef; (c) shoal (Alsos and Amdahl, 2007).
methods; simplified analytical methods; nonlinear

numerical simulation methods.
Simplified analytical methods are considered one
of the most appropriate means for quick assessment of
ship performance during collision and grounding, and
also for ship crashworthiness design in the preliminary stages. Wang (Wang 1997) predicted the strength
of a ship hull in the event of grounding by considering
four primary failure modes. Vaughan (Vaughan 1980),
Ohtsubo and Wang (Ohtsubo & Wang 1995) Simonsen
and Wierzbicki (Simonsen & Wierzbicki 1997) Zhang
(Zhang 2002) have all contributed substantially to
identification and development of theoretical models
for ship structures subjected to accidental loads. The
simplified analytical methods are superior with respect
to providing insight into the governing deformation
process. They are capable of predicting the response
with reasonable accuracy.
During ship grounding accident, the seabed topology plays an important role in determining the structural deformation. Alsos and Amdahl (2007) defined
three types of seabed indenter, namely rock, reef
and shoal as shown in Figure 1. Unlike grounding with sharp obstacles, shoal grounding (grounding on the large contact surfaces) is more likely to
degrade the global hull-bending capacity significantly
and eventually trigger the collapse of the hull girder,
causing hazardous consequences (Hong & Amdahl
2010). Therefore, the shoal grounding accident calls
for a more profound understanding of the governing
structural collapse mechanisms.
The stiffeners play an important role in supporting the plating to global loads and lateral pressures,
and providing considerable strength to resist grounding actions. The effect of the stiffeners is generally
considered by means of the smeared thickness method,
where the stiffeners are smeared onto the plate. This
approach greatly simplifies the calculating process.
The effectiveness-ratio factor k in Paiks smeared
method (Paik 1996) depends on the type of stiffeners
and the grounding scenario. It greatly affects the predictive accuracy of calculating results and this factor is
often taken as 1.0 for simplicity. However, Hu (Hu &
Amdahl 2011) found that Paiks smeared method with
k equal to 1.0 may underestimate the role of stiffeners
during the shoal grounding accident. Additionally, the
collapse pattern of the stiffeners cannot be traced
during the deformation process.
The present work is undertaken to meet the need
for accurate predictions of the mechanics of stiffeners during ship shoal grounding. It provides a
Figure 2. The grounding scenario of the stiffened bottom

plate.
Figure 3. The deformation pattern of stiffeners during

sliding.
comprehensive description of the deformation mode,

energy dissipation pattern and structural resistance of
stiffeners on the outer bottom plate when the ship slides
longitudinally during grounding.
A comprehensive numerical analysis using the code
LS_DYNA, covering a wide range of slope angles and
indentations, is carried out to verify the procedure.
The proposed simplified analytical method will lend
itself for assessment of the performance of ship bottom structures during shoal grounding, for example in
conjunction with the preliminary design stages.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The shoal grounding process of an unstiffened double bottom tanker was analyzed by Hong (Hong &
Amdahl 2010). But in practice ships plating is stiffened. Typically, a double bottom structure consists of
three components i.e. longitudinal girders, transverse
floors and the bottom plate with stiffeners.
The grounding scenario of the stiffened bottom
plate is illustrated in Figure 2. The other components
are removed for visualization purposes. As the rigid
indenter travels in the longitudinal direction, the stiffener produces a steady deformation pattern. It rolls
along the front surface of the indenter. Unlike the situation of a simple plate, the height of the stiffener,
Hs , is much larger than web thickness, t. During the
rolling process, the stiffener web exhibits a disorganized deformation state (see Figure 3) and folds to
varying degrees with respect to Hs , which is difficult
to model and analyze.
From simulations of the deformation process, it is
observed that, as the indenter slides along the bottom structures, a few small humps on the stiffener
152
Based on the observations of the FE simulations,

several assumptions are made:
1. As the stiffeners are welded on the bottom plate
they will deform simultaneously with the plating
and maintain a stable deformation process.
2. The stiffened plating forward of the tip of the indenter conforms to the front surface of the indenter.
3. The irregular folding energy dissipation concentrates on the formation of a periodical merged big
hump. Then, the deformation spreads along the
stiffener plate into the ultimate disorganized state
but energy does not exchange with the outside
environment.
Figure 4. The deformation process of the stiffener.
SIMPLIFIED ANALYTICAL METHOD

FOR ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY
DISSIPATION BY STIFFENERS
ON THE OUTER BOTTOM PLATE
The grounding scenario of the stiffened shell plating

is presented in Figure 2. The stiffener flange, which is
the shell plating, has been discussed by Hong (Hong &
Amdahl 2010). Major attention is hereby placed on the
grounding performance of the stiffener web, and the
energy is mainly dissipated through three modes:
Figure 5. Periodicity exhibited in the deformation process.
1. Plastic rolling in contact with the front surface of

the indenter.
2. Membrane stretching
3. Plastic folding of the stiffener plate.
According to the upper-bound theorem, the rate of
work for the external loads can be equaled to the rate
of internal energy dissipation.
Figure 6. The plastic rolling process at the contact surface

between the stiffened plate and indenter.
There are two internal dissipation patterns:
plate are created and spread along the stiffeners like

waves in the wake of a boat. It is interesting to find
that, when the crushing distance reaches a certain
value, the humps will merge into a big one and then
spread again into the ultimate disorganized deformation pattern (see Figure 3). The deformation process
is presented in Figure 4. This deformation pattern is
observed to be periodic with a length of (see Figure 5):
Equation 2 can be separated into two parts, representing the rate of bending and membrane energy
dissipation:
where D = indentation; and = slope angle of

indenter.
Due to the friction effect, membrane stretching at
the second roller consumes considerable distortion
energy (see Figure 6). The friction effect also affects
the yielding condition at the second roller, which
makes the plastic rolling energy consumptions at the
two rollers differ.
plastic bending due to folding and rolling

membrane stretching due to friction
The material is assumed to be rigid perfectly plastic. Conventional metals used for construction exhibit
some work hardening, which is taken into account by
choosing a flow stress 0 , which is above the initial
yield stress y but below the ultimate tensile strength
u . In the following discussion, 0 is taken as the average value of the two parameters, i.e. 0 = (y + u )/2.
(Cerup Simonsen & Ocakli 1999)
The plastic moment capacity for a unit stiffener web
strip is
153
Figure 7. Bending deformation of half a cone on the

stiffener.
Figure 8. Grounding at the first roller.
And the plastic axial force is
where h = stiffener height; and A = sectional area of a

stiffener web section.
3.1
Then, the irregular plastic folding energy in a cycle

length is obtained by an integral of the half circle
section as:
Energy dissipation at the first roller
Energy dissipation in the first roller is first considered.

There are mainly two contributors: plastic rolling, and
irregular plastic folding deformation.
The plastic rolling is considered a significant deformation pattern for stiffeners, because it consumes a
fairly large proportion of the total energy dissipation.
The rate of energy dissipation of a stiffener web with
unit width for the plastic rolling at the first roller can
be established as:
where M0,1 = fully plastic bending moment per unit

width of the stiffeners; v = velocity of indenter; and
R = rolling radius.
When the crushing length is L, the energy dissipated
by a single stiffener with the web thickness, t, through
plastic rolling is obtained as:
The stiffener plate ultimately exhibits an irregular

folding state as shown in Figure 3. The ultimate disorganized folding deformation is a result of distortion
energy transferred from the periodically merged hump
which is generated at the first roller. The hump is
observed to be half a cone in Figure 7 and the cycle
length is given by Eq. 1. No stretching occurs at the
first roller, so both the lower and upper line of the web
is constant in length. When the stiffener web bends
about the indenter, the upper portion of the stiffener
web will bulge (see Figure 8). The radius r of the top
half circular base of the cone is derived as:
where M0,2 = fully plastic bending moment of the

stiffener plate per unit height; and t = stiffener web
thickness.
3.2 Energy dissipation at the second roller
The energy dissipation process at the second roller consists of two parts, i.e. plastic rolling and membrane
stretching.
In a shoal grounding situation, the contact force
is large yielding substantial friction resistance. Conversely, the friction resistance affects the energy dissipation of the stiffeners through membrane stretching.
The bending moment capacity is reduced by the presence of the axial force. A coupling effect exists
between the bottom structures and the stiffened web.
The rate of energy dissipation for a stiffener web
with unit width can then be expressed as:
where N = force for one single stiffener where the total

axial force is equally distributed to all the deformed
stiffeners:
where n = number of stiffeners involved. it should be

emphasized that N shall in no circumstances be larger
than N0 . If N > N0 , then N /N0 is set as 1. Ffriction is the
axial frictional force and is the frictional coefficient.
P is the total grounding forces due to plasticity normal
to the contact surface (see Figure 6).
154
When the crushing distance is L, the energy dissipated

of a stiffener with a web thickness, t, at is obtained as:
The irregular plastic bending is assumed to be periodic and the corresponding energy E1,2 is derived.
The crushing distance L is taken as the cycle length
(i.e. Lc = D/sin), and the total energy dissipated of a
stiffener in one cycle is obtained as:
Figure 9. The ultimate yielding curve of stiffeners at the

second roller.
Because of the axial horizontal forces, the stress

distribution in the ultimate limit state has changed. The
axial force and the bending moment are converted to
the dimensionless parameters as follows:
The ultimate yield criterion expressed in a parametric form is given by
The ultimate yield surface is shown in Figure 9

(Cerup Simonsen & Ocakli 1999). It consists of two
parabolic curves. Q, q are expressed in terms of the
general stress and the strain rate vector is normal to
the yield surface.
The normality criterion is expressed as
3.3 Determination of the rolling radius R

It is crucial to determine the rolling radius R. It is
supposed to be governed mainly by the dimensions of
the indenter. Hong & Amdahl (2008) did not derive
an analytical expression, instead an empirical method
was recommended by comparing predictions of the
distortion energy for different R values with those
of numerical simulations. In Hus verification work
(Zhang 2002), R was determined by measuring the
rolling radius based on the real indenter dimensions. In
both cases, R was assumed constant. This may have little influence because the R related energy term is small
compared to the energy dissipated by the whole bottom structure. However, considering the bottom plate
stiffeners only, the R values may affect the predictive
accuracy significantly.
The rolling radius R varies greatly with the indenter slope angle but it is seldom influenced by the
indentation magnitudes. A semi-analytical expression
is proposed:
It is obtained on the basis of a comparison with the

numerical simulations. Results are compared with the
numerical simulations for an indentation of 0.4H in
Figure 10. It shows that two energy curves agree well
when the rolling radius is estimated with Equation 21.
3.4 Grounding resistance

Then, u can be related to , the rate of rotation.
Substituting Eq. 16, 17 into Eq. 10, the rate of energy

dissipation per unit stiffener web width is derived as:
The total energy dissipation is calculated based on the

deformation of the bottom structures and the plastic
mechanism involved. It is mainly dissipated by the
horizontal and vertical resistance. The internal force
FH,plasticity (the horizontal resistance due to plasticity)
and FV,plasticity (the vertical resistance due to plasticity)
are directly related. Therefore, the energy dissipation
process can be expressed as:
155
Table 1.
Principal dimensions of the double bottom tanker.
Item
Value (m)
Length between perpendicular

Scantling breadth
Scantling height
Scanting drought
Length of one hold
265.0
42.5
22.0
16.5
32.0
Figure 10. The distortion energy when the experienced R is

assumed.
Figure 11. Relative motion of bottom plate and indenter for

friction factor calculation (Hong 2011).
Based on the balance on forces in the horizontal

direction as shown in Figure 11, FH is derived as:
The g(, ) in Eq. 25 was proposed by Ohtsubo and

Wang (Ohtsubo & Wang 1995) in the plate tearing
model for bottom raking in dealing with the friction
effect.
Then, Fv is obtained as:
where FH and Fv are the horizontal and vertical

resistance, respectively.
4
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PROPOSED

SIMPLIFIED METHOD AND NUMERICAL
SIMULATIONS
Figure 12. The nonlinear finite-element model of a double

bottom tanker.
A double bottom shuttle tanker is chosen for the

comparison with scantlings as listed in Table 1. The
finite-element model used in the numerical simulations with the code LS_DYNA is shown in Figure 12.
The seabed topology shoal, which is represented
with a rigid, flat indenter, slides along the doublebottom with a velocity of 5 m/s. An elastic-plastic
material with a yielding stress of 355 MPa is assumed.
The model is restrained with all six degrees of freedom fixed. Thus, ship motions are not considered. A
static friction coefficient of 0.3 is used. The height of
the indenter Hi is 2.68 m. The stiffener model has web
thickness t = 16 mm and height Hs = 400 mm. Please
refer to Hu (Hu, Amdahl & Hong, 2011) for more
details on numerical simulations.
A total of 21 analysis cases were defined as presented in Table 2. The slope angle of the indenter is
assigned as 20deg, 30deg, 45deg, 60deg, respectively.
For each slope angle, the indentation magnitude ranges
from 10%90% of the double bottom height, and at
most 9 groups of indentation magnitudes are adopted.
4.1
The simplified analytical method for the stiffeners

is compared with numerical simulation when the
ship slides over seabed obstacles with large contact
surfaces.
Determination of total grounding force

due to plasticity P
It should be noted that the total grounding force due

to plasticity P, in Eq. 12 is unknown. It represents the
total grounding force due to plasticity normal to the
156
indenter surface by the entire bottom structures with

the plated stiffeners included. It largely depends on the
bottom structure arrangement and the topology of the
seabed. P is needed to calculate the grounding force
of the stiffeners, conversely the energy dissipated by
the stiffeners contributes to P. This paradox causes the
Table 2. Case definition for the grounding performance of
stiffeners.
Model
(deg)
D (m)
D/Hi
M 21
M 23
M 24
M 29
M 31
M 32
M 33
M 34
M 35
M 36
M 37
M 38
M 39
M 41
M 43
M 44
M 49
M 61
M 63
M 64
M 69
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
45
45
45
45
60
60
60
60
0.268
0.804
1.072
2.412
0.268
0.536
0.804
1.072
1.34
1.608
1.876
2.144
2.412
0.268
0.804
1.072
2.412
0.268
0.804
1.072
2.412
10%
30%
40%
90%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10%
30%
40%
90%
10%
30%
40%
90%
coupling effect. A strategy is introduced to tackle this

problem.
In the proposed method, N is by no means larger
than N0 , so it can be deduced that:
It is found that energy dissipated by the term related

to the parameter P is relatively small. For an indentation of 0.1H, the proportion is less than 5%. Even
when the P related term is maximized, the proportion
can never exceed 1/3. Further, the energy dissipated by
the stiffeners is even smaller compared to the energy
dissipated by the whole bottom structure.
Consequently, it is relevant to temporarily neglect
the energy dissipated related to P. Instead, the energy
of the whole bottom structure is used to calculate the
approximate value of P (set P related energy term as 0
for the first iteration), and then substitute the approximate P value into Eq. 20. This process is repeated until
the energy dissipated by the stiffeners is obtained analytically with acceptable accuracy. A flow diagram of
the procedure is shown in Figure 13.
In order to verify the proposed simplified analytical
method without the interference from the accuracy of
P, the total grounding force based on the numerical
simulation is given as an approximation of P (total
grounding force due plasticity) in Table 3, which is
relevant according to Eq. 27. The listed values below
will be put into the calculation in the next section.
Figure 13. The flow diagram for simplified method of the stiffener web.
157
Table 3.
tance P.
Calculated results of the total grounding resis-
Table 4.
Comparison of the distortion energy.

The distortion energy (kJ)
Model
M 21
M 23
M 24
M 29
M 31
M 32
M 33
M 34
M 35
M 36
M 37
M 38
M 39
M 41
M 43
M 44
M 49
M 61
M 63
M 64
M 69
Horizontal
resistance
2.1E+04
3.7E+04
4.5E+04
8.1E+04
2.1E+04
3.0E+04
3.8E+04
4.5E+04
5.3E+04
6.3E+04
7.1E+04
7.7E+04
8.3E+04
2.5E+04
4.6E+04
5.5E+04
1.1E+05
2.7E+04
4.9E+04
6.1E+04
1.2E+05
Vertical
resistance
4.2E+04
5.4E+04
6.4E+04
1.0E+05
3.0E+04
3.8E+04
4.5E+04
5.4E+04
6.4E+04
7.6E+04
8.5E+04
9.1E+04
1.0E+05
2.7E+04
3.3E+04
4.1E+04
7.3E+04
2.8E+04
3.0E+04
3.7E+04
7.4E+04
Model
simplified
method
numerical
simulation
error
M 21
M 23
M 24
M 29
M 31
M 32
M 33
M 34
M 35
M 36
M 37
M 38
M 39
M 41
M 43
M 44
M 49
M 61
M 63
M 64
M 69
5.5E+04
6.0E+04
6.4E+04
7.5E+04
8.0E+04
8.3E+04
8.7E+04
9.2E+04
9.9E+04
1.1E+05
1.2E+05
1.2E+05
1.2E+05
1.2E+05
1.3E+05
1.4E+05
1.7E+05
1.6E+05
1.7E+05
1.9E+05
2.3E+05
4.6E+04
6.3E+04
6.3E+04
7.4E+04
6.2E+04
8.2E+04
8.6E+04
8.9E+04
9.3E+04
1.0E+05
1.1E+05
1.1E+05
1.2E+05
8.2E+04
1.5E+05
1.6E+05
2.1E+05
9.3E+04
1.8E+05
1.9E+05
2.4E+05
19.6%
4.8%
1.6%
1.4%
29.0%
1.2%
1.2%
3.4%
6.5%
10.0%
9.1%
9.1%
0.0%
46.3%
13.3%
12.5%
19.0%
72.0%
5.6%
0.0%
4.2%
P (KN)
4.7E+04
6.5E+04
7.8E+04
1.3E+05
3.7E+04
4.8E+04
5.9E+04
7.0E+04
8.3E+04
9.9E+04
1.1E+05
1.2E+05
1.3E+05
3.7E+04
5.7E+04
6.9E+04
1.3E+05
3.9E+04
5.7E+04
7.1E+04
1.4E+05
develop into the fully plastic range, and some part may
even be excluded in the deformation process. The corresponding energy dissipated is thus largely reduced
compared to that of other indentations.
Figure 14. The comparison of the distortion energy of

stiffeners during sliding.
4.2
Results comparison
The grounding process has been analyzed numerically. The results of numerical simulations are compared to the prediction using the simplified analytical
method. The energy dissipation curves are compared
in Figure 14. The comparisons of distortion energy for
all the simulation cases are summarized in Table 4.
Relative error applied in Table 4 is defined in
Equation 28.
Good agreement is obtained for all the simulation

cases except for the cases with an indentation of 0.1
Hi . This is mainly because the material is assumed to
be fully plastic for the simplified method. However,
0.1Hi = 0.268 m is smaller than the stiffener height
Hs 0.4 m. As a result, part of the stiffener plate cannot
CONCLUSIONS
A theoretical model for stiffeners on the bottom plating

during the shoal grounding accident is proposed. It is
based on a careful study of the progressive deformation
as found by numerical simulations. Three deformation
modes are observed: plastic rolling, irregular folding
and membrane stretching, where plastic rolling consumes substantial distortion energy, while the irregular
folding contributes little. The irregular folding energy
is assumed to concentrate on the periodically created
hump. The friction effect is considered. By using plastic theory, the expressions for energy dissipation and
grounding resistance are formulated. The formulae
compare favorably with the FE analysis results. It is
noticed grounding energy for cases with an indentation of 0.1Hi is overestimated. This is mainly because
the stiffener height Hs is larger than the indentation D
such that the deformation may not be fully developed.
The rolling radius R greatly affects the predicting
accuracy during sliding. It is mainly governed by the
slope angle of indenter and is less affected by the
indentation magnitude. A semi-analytical expression
for R is proposed, which gives good agreement with
results from finite element analysis.
158
A coupling effect with the whole bottom structure

is found when dealing with the deformation of stiffeners. The axial force due to friction changes the yielding
conditions of plastic rolling at the second roller. This
effect explains well the role the indentation depth
plays in the energy dissipation process.
The theoretical model presented is capable of predicting the grounding resistance of stiffeners during
sliding grounding. It may be used as an efficient tool
for fast and reliable assessment of the damage during collision and grounding events. It may also be
applied in preliminary design of stiffener arrangement
for optimum crashworthiness.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was financially supported by China Offshore Technology Center, ABS Great China Division, and Foundation of State Key Lab of Ocean
Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
(Grant No. GKZD010056-12), all of these supports
are gratefully acknowledged by the authors.
REFERENCES
Alsos, H.S. & Amdahl, J. 2007. on the resistance of tanker
bottom structures during stranding. Marine Structure
20 (4) October 2007: 218237.
Cerup Simonsen, B. & Ocakli, H. Experiment and theory on
deck and girder crushing. Thin-Walled Structures 34 (3)
July 1999: 195216.
Hong, L. & Amdahl, J. 2008. Plastic mechanism analysis of

the resistance of ship longitudinal girders in grounding and
collision. Ships and Offshore Structures 3(3) September
2008: 159171.
Hong, L. & Amdahl, J. Rapid assessment of ship grounding
over large contact surfaces. In: Proceeding of 5th International Conference on collision and grounding of ships;
2010. June 14th16th, Espoo, Finland, 2010.
Hu, Z.; Amdahl, J. & Hong, L. 2011. Verification of a simplified analytical method for predictions of ship groundings
over large contact surfaces by numerical simulations.
Marine Structures 24: 436458.
Hu, Z. & Amdahl, J. 2011. A study on The Effect of Plate
Stiffeners of Double Bottom During Ship Grounding with
Large Contact Surface, OMAE 2011.
Ohtsubo, H. & Wang, G. An upper-bound solution to the
problem of plate tearing. Journal of Marine Science and
Technology 1995 1: 4651.
Paik, J.K. 1996. On Qusai-Static Crushing of a Stiffened
Squared Tube. Journal of Ship Research.
Simonsen, B.C. & Wierzbicki, T. 1997. Plasticity, fracture and
friction in steady state plate cutting. International Journal
of Impact Engineering 19(8): 66791.
Vaughan, H. 1980. The tearing strength of mild steel plate.
Journal of Ship Research 24(2): 96100.
Wang, G. 1997.A simple method for predicting the grounding
strength of ships. Journal of Ship Research.
Yang, G. & Shu, X. Plastic mechanics. China construction
materials industry press: 146.
Zhang, S. 2002. Plate tearing and bottom damage in ship
grounding. Marine Structures 15: 10117.
159
A simplified approach to predict the bottom damage in tanker grounding

M. Heinvee & K. Tabri
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology,
Tallinn, Estonia
M. Krgesaar
Department of Applied Mechanics/Marine Technology, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
ABSTRACT: A simplified formula to evaluate the grounding force and the longitudinal extent of structural
damage in tanker groundings is derived in the paper. The formula is derived based on numerical simulations.
First, a set of grounding accidents are simulated numerically for tankers of different dimensions-120, 190 and
260 m in length. The simulations are conducted for five different penetration depths and for several rock/ground
topology. Thus, the numerical simulations provide a response of different structural configurations to different
combinations of penetration depth and bottom topology. Average horizontal grounding force is analysed and
presented through the pressure acting on the contact surface between the rock and the ships double-bottom. It
is shown in the paper, that this pressure can be described as a function of rock size and a constant depending on
the ship size. Simplified equations are derived for the average contact force and the longitudinal length of the
penetration. Comparison to numerical simulations reveals that such a simplified equation is capable of describing
the grounding force for penetration depths larger than 0.5 m i.e. for the scenarios, where significant structural
damage occurs.
INTRODUCTION
The paper seeks for a simple formula for a rapid prediction of grounding damage of double hull tankers. Such
simplified formulation could be used in risk analysis
studies where there are no specific information regarding the structural arrangement of ships and the main
available parameters are the main dimensions of the
ships.
Several simplified models have been developed
to describe a ship grounding accidents. The models
either base on a simplified closed form expressions
(Simonsen et al, 2009; Hong & Amdahl, 2012) or
on numerical simulations (Alsos & Amdahl, 2007).
Precise numerical simulations hardly suit to risk analysis studies as the simulation of a single scenario will
take several hours. On the other hand, simplified models are often limited to a certain sea bottom topology
or to ships structural configuration. Moreover, often
the methods require that to some extent the damage
mechanics are prescribed: for example, the description
of contact energy is based on the fracture propagation
in the bottom plating.
Paper aims to derive a simple formulation based on
small number of parameters that describe the structural resistance of a tanker in a grounding accident.
The principle of the simplified approach is presented
in Figure 1. The approach is similar to Ehlers & Tabri
(2012), where such combined approach was presented
for the analysis of ship collisions. The simplified
formula is derived based on a number of numerical

grounding simulations. Three double-bottom tankers
of different length are included in the analysis-120,
190 and 260 m in length. Each tanker is analyzed for
five different penetration depths and for four different
rock sizes. First, numerical simulations are conducted
in displacement controlled manner as the aim of the
numerical analysis is to study structural resistance
alone. Analyses provide the contact force time-history
for each grounding scenario. As here our aim is to
evaluate the extent of damage, we concentrate on the
horizontal grounding force as a main energy absorbing
mechanism. Based on these time histories the average
horizontal contact force is evaluated. Evaluating the
average horizontal grounding forces for all the scenarios for a certain ship gives as a result a set of curves
that describe the dependency of the average grounding
force as a function of penetration depths and the rock
size.
Other grounding simulation models such as
GRACAT for example, are not included in the analysis as they require rather detailed presentation of the
ship structure.
These curves are normalized with respect to the
contact area between the rock and ship double-bottom
providing a contact pressure that acts on the rock. Pressure dependence on the rock size, penetration depth
and ship size is analyzed in the paper. It is shown in
the paper that the pressure as a function of penetration
depth and the rock size is similar for all the ships, only
161
Figure 1. Principle of the simplified approach.
its magnitude depends on the actual ship size. Once the

pressure acting between the ship and the rock is know
from a simple relation, the horizontal grounding force
can be evaluated as a product of this pressure and the
rock dimensions. Furthermore, knowing the ship mass
and the velocity, a simple equation can be derived for
the longitudinal extent of the damage. It is shown in
the paper, that such a simplified approach can provide
a rapid estimation of horizontal structural resistance
when compared to the numerical simulations.
NUMERICAL GROUNDING SIMULATIONS
This chapter presents an overview of numerical

grounding simulations. The principled of numerical modeling and the post-processing of the analysis
results is given.
2.1
FE models of tankers
Three double hull tankers with different dimensions

are modeled. The cross-sections with the main structural dimensions are given in Figure 2 and in Table 1.
Hereinafter we use superscripts T120, T190 and T260
to denote the tankers. If the superscript is replaced by
i, it means that the description is common to all three
ships.
Typical ship-building steel with yield stress of

235 MPa is used in the analysis. True stress-strain
curve is presented in Figure 4. Only the double bottom
structures are modeled in detail. The longitudinal and
transverse bulkheads are left out from the analysis to
maintain the conservative nature of the approach. The
transverse bulkheads would result in rapid increase of
the grounding resistance as could be seen from the
numerical analysis presented by AbuBakar & Dow
(2012), for example.
The corresponding finite element models are presented in Figure 3. The structure is modeled using
quadrilateral Belytschko-Lin-Tsay shell elements with
5 integration points through their thickness. The prevailing element-length in the double-bottom structure
was around 5075 mm to properly account for the
non-linear structural deformations.
Standard LS-DYNA hourglass control and automatic single surface contact (friction coefficient of
0.3) is used for the displacement controlled grounding
simulations. The rigid rock first moves to a required
penetration depth and continues to move at constant
penetration depth along the ship at a constant velocity
of 10 m/s. The nodes at the forward and aft end of the
models are fixed.
The possible material failure is modeled using the
thru thickness criteria, often referred to as Germanischer Lloyd criteria (Lehmann et al, 2001). This criterion establishes an element thickness and dimension
162
Table 1. Main dimensions and parameters of tankers used

in numerical simulations.
Parameter/Tanker
T120
T190
T260
Length [m]
Breadth [m]
Depth [m]
Double-bottom height [m]
Outer plating thick. [mm]
Tank-top thick. [mm]
Girder spacing [m]
Floor spacing
120
16
8
0.8
10
11
2.6
2.2
190
24
16
1.2
13
13
3.0
3.5
260
32
18
1.6
15
15
3.2
4.0
Figure 3. Finite element model of a tanker.
Figure 4. True stress-strain curve for S235 steel.
where g is the uniform strain and e is the necking

strain, t is the plate thickness and le is the individual
element length. It is commonly recommended that the
ratio le /t is not less than 5 for shell element. The values
of uniform and necking strain achieved from thickness
measurements related to the calculated stress states
given in [3] are 0.056 for the uniform strain and 0.54
for the necking strain in the case of shell elements.
Figure 2. Tanker cross-sections.
2.2 Grounding scenarios

dependent critical thickness strain after which an element is removed from the simulation. To evaluate the
critical thru thickness strain at the moment of fracture,
an empirical criterion is presented by (Lehmann et al,
2001):
The numerical simulations are conducted for five different penetration depths and for several rock/ground
topologies. The penetration depth d is defined as the
relative distance between the tip of the rock and the
ship bottom, see Figure 8. Different rock sizes are
selected with the purpose to determine rock size effect
to structural resistance. Numerical simulations were
conducted with four different rock sizes covering the
range from sharp rock to blunt shoal-type rock.
163
Table 2.
a [m]
We use the average horizontal grounding force to

present the outcome of a numerical simulation with a
single output value. This value is obtained as an average of the grounding force evaluated over the time
where constant penetration depth has been reached;
see the constant horizontal line in Figure 6. For brevity,
hereinafter when referring to contact force and contact
pressure the average contact force and average contact
pressure are considered if not stated otherwise.
These average force values are presented as a function on penetration depths in Figure 7 with the ship
and the rock size as variables. As expected, larger
ships result in higher contact force. The rocks A and
B cause parabolic force increase for tankers T120
and T190, while forces induced by rocks C and D
increase linearly. For largest tanker T260, horizontal
force increases linearly with all the rocks as the inner
hull is penetrated later.
The grounding force decreases as the bottom plating is thorn open. As the height of the double-bottom
increases with ship length, the inner hull fractures later
for larger ships resulting in more linear behavior for
the average force. Since the double-bottom is highest
in the case of tanker T260, then the inner is thorn later
and the force-penetration curve remains linear for high
penetration depths. However, it can be concluded that
the contact force can be considered proportional to the
penetration depth in all the simulated scenarios.
Rock size parameters.

rock A
rock B
rock C
rock D
12
24
Figure 5. Different rocks used in the simulations.
Figure 6. Numerical simulations: horizontal contact force

as a function of time.
The shapes of all the rocks are given through a

polynomial equation as
where the parameter a defines the actual size of the

rock, which values for different rocks sized are given
in Table 2. The rocks are depicted in Figure 5.
With each rock, five penetration depths were simulated 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 m. Thus, the
total number of numerical simulations became to
3 4 5 = 60.
2.3 Grounding force in numerical simulations
The numerical simulations provide a response of
different structural configurations for different combinations of ship draft and bottom topology. Typical
outcome of a simulation is information regarding the
contact force and the description of damage.
We concentrate on the horizontal grounding force,
which typical time-history is presented in Figure 6.
CONTACT PRESSURE AS A FUNCTION

OF ROCK AND SHIP SIZE
To be able to express the grounding resistance conveniently it should be expressed with minimum number
of variables. Average horizontal grounding force presented in Figure 7 includes the contribution from
ship structural configuration, rock size and penetration
depth. To reduce the number of unknowns, it is more
convenient to express the resistance through pressure
rather than force.
Therefore, here the aim is to derive an equation
that gives pressure acting on a contact surface by
including rock and ship sizes as independent variables.
Such equation would make it possible to find pressure
and thereby also the corresponding horizontal contact
force with minimal effort. Furthermore, if the contact
force is known, the longitudinal extent of the bottom
damage can be evaluated. Figure 7 revealed that the
relation between the contact force and the penetration
depth is nearly linear. Moreover, for most of the scenarios the contact force increases together with the
rock size. To study these dependencies and to be able
to separate the effects of the structural configuration
from those of the increasing contact area, we divide
the contact force with the contact area i.e. evaluate the
contact pressure. Direct contact between the rock and
the bottom structure is within the height hdb of the double bottom. For the sake of simplicity, we define the
contact area A as a projection of the contact surface
to YZ plane, see Figure 8. With the shape of the rock
164
Figure 8. Cross-section of a ship during grounding.
For hdb , equation 3 can be rewritten to:
The contact pressure can now be evaluated from
Figure 7. Average contact force as a function of penetration

depth.
defined with equation 2 the contact area A within the

double-bottom can be evaluated as
Applying equation 6 on the force values presented

on Figure 7 gives the discrete pressure values p as a
function of the penetration depth and the rock size.
These pressures are presented on Figure 9. On each
graph, four pressure-penetration curves are drawn,
each corresponding to a certain rock. Two patterns
can clearly be recognized from pressure distributions.
With lower penetration depths the pressure value is
significantly higher compared to larger depths. With
the penetration depths larger than 1.0 m the pressures
remain almost constant.
This pattern becomes even more obvious when
presenting the pressure as a function of rock size
parameter a, see Figure 10. The figure reveals that
when disregarding penetration depth 0.5 m the pressure value is almost constant with respect to the
penetration depth and depends only on the rock size
parameter a. For these higher penetration depths the
pressure as a function of rock size can be approximated with a polynomial. Moreover, the shape of the
polynomial appears to be similar for all three ships
while its magnitude differs. The function describing
this uniform shape and the parameter describing the
magnitude can now be evaluated.
For that we collect all the pressure points pi from
Figure 10, excluding those for = 0.5 [m] and present
them in Figure 11a. The polynomial regression lines P i
are drawn for each ship i using these pressure points.
To derive the uniform shape we normalize the pressures pi and present them in Figure 11b together with
the corresponding regression lines. For each ship i the
165
Figure 9. Pressure as a function of penetration depth.
Figure 10. Pressure as a function of rock size parameter

a [m].
166
Table 3. ciT values.

Tanker
ciT
T120
T190
T260
1.42 106
1.44 106
1.92 106
To scale the P to proper magnitude corresponding

to the actual ship (Figure 11a), it has to be multiplied by a coefficient ciT describing the ships structural
resistance, thus it becomes:
For each ship, the coefficient ciT is evaluated as a ratio

between the areas under the curves P i (a) and P(a), i.e.
For different ships the ciT values are presented in

Table 3.
Figure 11. Pressure (a) and normalized pressure (b).
normalization pressure pinorm is evaluated as an average pressure corresponding to the smallest rock size
(a = 3) as follows:
and denominator refers to the number of pressure

values and hidb is the double-bottom height of the ship i.
Since these normalized regression lines in Figure 11b match relatively well, they can be presented
via uniform regression line P that is fitted through all
the normalized pressure values and takes the following
shape:
SIMPLIFIED GROUNDING DAMAGE

PREDICTION FORMULA FOR
DOUBLE-HULL TANKERS
Given the contact pressure, equation 9, the response

surface describing the grounding force can now be
presented as a function of penetration depth, ship and
rock size. This formulae can derived as a combination
of independent mathematical functions, each presenting the influence of a certain variable. These variables
are ship main dimensions, ship mass, velocity, penetration depth and the structural configuration of the
ship. Such simplified formula can be used to conduct,
for example, a risk analysis, when the ship types, main
dimensions and the grounding scenarios are known.
First, the expression is derived for horizontal
grounding force FHi which depends on the pressure
P i acting on contact area A as follows
where functions A and P i are given with equations 4,

5 and 9. Substituting these into the equation 11, takes
horizontal force FH to the following form
167
In grounding analysis one of the main aims is to evaluate the length of bottom damage. For simplicity the
ship motions except the surge are ignored and the
kinetic energy of the ship is transformed to the work
done by the grounding force. Comparing this work to
the kinetic energy of the tanker, the length of damage
ldam can be evaluated as:
where is ships displacement, ax is non-dimensional

surge added mass and v is ships speed. Replacing
equation 12 into equation 13, we can derive a formula for the damage length as a function of rock size
parameter a, ships double-bottom height hdb , parameter ciT , rock penetration depth , surge added mass ax
and ships speed v as
5 VALIDATION OF SIMPLE FORMULA

In order to assess the applicability of equation 9 and 12,
horizontal force FH is here calculated with equation 12
and compared to the numerical simulations. The comparison is shown in Figure 12 where in each graph
FH is presented for a certain rock size. It reveals that
FH is under-predicted for penetration depths smaller
than 1.0 m and slightly over-predicted for penetrations
higher or equal to 1.0 m. Obviously this is caused by
previous exclusion of pressure values at penetration
depths of 0.5 m. However, as it can be seen from the
figures that for penetrations 1.0 m equation 12 predicts FH with good accuracy and thus can be applied
to equation 13 for evaluation of grounding damage
length.
6
CONCLUSIONS
Simplified formulas to evaluate the grounding force

and the longitudinal extent of structural damage in
tanker groundings were derived in the paper. The formulas were derived based on the contact pressure
acting on a grounding ship. The contact pressure as a
function of penetration depth, rock and ship size were
derived based on numerical simulations.
Comparison to the numerical simulations showed
that derived simplified approach describes horizontal grounding force well for penetration depths above
0.5 m. For smaller penetration depths the force is under
predicted. Therefore, the approach should be further
developed to account for the mechanisms associated
with smaller penetration depths, such as tearing of the
Figure 12. Comparison of horizontal forces.
168
bottom plating. Furthermore, a simplified criterion has

to be derived to predict the size of the damage opening.
For example, this would allow to provide the input for
the assessment of oil outflow.
To increase usability of derived simplified formulas for practical use the following improvements are
still to be made. The parameter cT that characterizes
ship structure and thus its structural resistance is evaluated only for three ships analysed in the paper, which
limits the application of the derived formulas. Therefore, in order to evaluate cT for any similar type of
ship, a function is to be developed that would allow
to evaluate cT based on few main parameters defining the ship structure. Furthermore, the formulas are
derived without any transverse or longitudinal bulkheads, thus presenting a lowest possible contact force
level. This would assure conservative approach, but for
more precise evaluation of contact force, the effect of
the bulkheads is to be included.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research work has been financially supported
by Estonian Science Foundation (grant agreement
ETF8718), European Social Fund (grant agreement

no. MJD110) and by Central Baltic Interreg IV A program through MIMIC project (Minimizing risks of
maritime oil transport by holistic safety strategies).
This help is here kindly appreciated.
REFERENCES
AbuBakar, A. & Dow, R.S. 2012. Simulation of Ship
Grounding Damage using the Finite Element Method. Int.
J. Solids and Structures, accepted manuscript.
Alsos, H. & Amdahl, J. 2007. On the resistance of tanker
bottom structures during stranding. Marine Structures 20:
218237.
Ehlers, S. & Tabri, K. 2012. A combined numerical and
semianalytical collision damage assessment procedure.
Hong, L. & Amdahl, J. 2012. Rapid assessment of ship
grounding over large contact surfaces. Ships and Offshore
Structures 7(1): 519.
Lehmann, E.; Egge, E.D.; Scharrer, M. & Zhang, L. 2001.
Calculation of collisions with the aid of linear FE models.
PRADS.
Simonsen, B.C.; Trnqvist, R. & Ltzen, M. 2009. A simplified grounding damage prediction method and its
application in modern damage stability requirements.
169
Residual ultimate longitudinal strength grounding damage index diagram

of a corroded oil tanker hull structure
D.K. Kim, H.B. Kim, X.M. Zhang, J.K. Paik & J.K. Seo
The Ship and Offshore Research Institute (Lloyds Register Foundation Research Centre of Excellence),
Pusan National University, Busan, Korea
ABSTRACT: In this study, the development of the R-D diagram taking into account the time-dependent
corrosion wastage effect is presented. The R-D (Residual strength Damage index) diagram was proposed by
Paik et al. (2012) and is an innovative method relating to safety assessment for damaged structures; its feasibility
has been confirmed by a previous study concerning double hull oil tankers under grounding damage. Generally,
as a result of corrosion, the structural capacity of ships and offshore structures should be decreased in parallel
with the operational period. Therefore, an Aframax class double hull oil tanker that has sustained grounding
damages and also corrosion with a time-dependent corrosion wastage model (13 years, 19 years and 25 years (Net
scantlings specified by CSR)) applied to gross (new-built) scantlings is analyzed by the ALPS/HULL progressive
hull girder collapse analysis program. Based on the obtained results, the time-dependent R-D diagram is produced
and compared with the original R-D diagram. Finally, for practical purposes, empirical formulas based on timedependent R-D diagrams are proposed to evaluate the residual ultimate longitudinal strength of the corroded
Aframax class double hull oil tanker under grounding damage. The proposed time-dependent R-D diagrams will
be useful for assessing the first-cut safety evaluation for a ship that has sustained grounding damages under
different operational periods.
INTRODUCTION
Common Structural Rules (CSR) specify 25 years of

operating life (IACS 2006a, b) for double hull oil
tankers and bulk carriers. During the operating period,
ships and offshore structures are continuously exposed
to age-related damage such as corrosion, fatigue cracking and localized dents. In addition, accidental damages caused by collision, grounding, drop object, fire
and explosion, etc. may also occur unexpectedly.
As one of the age-related damages, corrosion occurs
generally on metallic structures and numerous studies have been carried out to investigate the corrosion
damage (in-service damage) and its effects on structural capacity (Paik et al. 2004, Jiang & Guedes Soares
2012). In addition, accident related problems are one
of the challenging issues related to loss of life, property damage and environmental pollution. Recently,
Paik et al. (2012) proposed an innovative method to
evaluate the safety of damaged structures; the R-D
(Residual strength Damage index) diagram. The feasibility of the proposed method has been identified in
the previous study by applying the method to the gross
(new-built) scantling of double hull oil tankers with
grounding damages.
However, corrosion damage will affect the metallic structure by decreasing the structural strength in
parallel with the time of the operational life. Thus,
the idea of a time-dependent Residual strength versus
Damage index (R-D) diagram is brought up to obtain
more accurate results. Therefore, the effect of timedependent corrosion wastage on the residual ultimate
strength performance of the grounded Aframax class
double hull oil tanker is investigated based on the previously proposed R-D diagram. The time-dependent
R-D diagram is expected to have the capability to
accurately predict the residual strength of a structure sustaining accident-related damage. Meanwhile,
it is also capable of taking into account any level of
corrosion damage associated with its service life.
Figure 1 shows the procedures for obtaining the
ultimate limit state (ULS) based structural condition
assessment by using the R-D diagram. This figure
also shows the summarized contents with applied
examples (red box) of the present study.
2 TARGET STRUCTURE
Nowadays, operating double hull oil tankers can be categorized into five classes of tanker based on the ships
deadweight, length, breadth, draught etc. These consist of Panamax class, Aframax class, Suezmax class,
Very Large Crude Oil Carrier (VLCC) class and Ultra
Large Crude Oil Carrier (ULCC) class. In this study,
the Aframax class double hull oil tanker was applied
as shown in Figure 2. The target ships mid-ship principal dimensions are listed in Table 1. The corresponding
ships are designed following Common Structural Rule
(CSR) (IACS 2006a).
171
Figure 1. Flow of present study in terms of ultimate limit state based structural health monitoring assessment for damaged
structures and applied examples (red colour).
Carriers since April 2006 (IACS 2006a, b) and provide

rational corrosion addition values based on 25 years
design life as shown in Figure 3a. The IACS (2006a,
b) suggests uniform corrosion addition for each structural member. There exists various types of uniform
corrosion models such as the CSR model and the
time-dependent corrosion wastage model (Paik et al.
2003a, b, 2004). In terms of corrosion wastage and its
application, numerous studies have been carried out
by researchers (Melchers 2005, Melchers and Wells
2006, Guedze and Melchers 2008, Guedes Soares
et al. 2008).
Figure 2. Mid-ship configuration of target structure with

principal dimensions.
Table 1.
Principal dimensions of target structure.
Length O.A.
Length B.P.
Breadth
Depth
239.0 m
233.0 m
43.8 m
21.0 m
Ds
Vs
Cb
F.S.
13.9 m
15.3 knot
0.84
4.28 m
*Note: Ds = scantling draught, Vs = scantling speed,

Cb = block coefficient, F.S. = frame spacing.
DAMAGE IDENTIFICATION
3.1 Aged-related damage Corrosion damage

At the design stage of ships and offshore structures,
a corrosion margin is added to the relevant structural
members so that there will be no loss in the Rule scantlings due to corrosion damage. Common Structural
Rules (CSR) have been applied to OilTankers and Bulk
3.1.1 Corrosion damage amount

In this study, a time-dependent corrosion wastage
model, which can provide a more accurate figure for
annual corrosion wastage, is applied as shown in Figure 3b. Paik et al. (2003a) proposed time-dependent
corrosion wastage models according to a coating life of
5 years, 7.5 years and 10 years, with two types of corrosion rate average and severe level. In this study, a 7.5
years coating life with severe levels of time-dependent
corrosion wastage model is applied to double hull oil
tankers.
The design life of double hull oil tankers is assumed
to be 25 years specified by IACS (2006a, b) and
Aframax class double hull oil tankers with gross
scantlings at (new-built, from 0 to 7.5 years), 13 years,
19 years and 25 years were analysed.
Table 2 gives the cross-sectional properties for each
corrosion scantling of the target structure based on the
time-dependent corrosion wastage model as shown in
Figure 3b (Paik et al. 2003a).
The effects of the corrosion model (CSR and
time-dependent corrosion wastage model) on ultimate
longitudinal bending moment behaviour of the Aframax class double hull oil tanker are compared and
illustrated in Figures 4a and 4b. For the comparison
172
Figure 3. Examples of uniform corrosion models for

double hull oil tankers.
Table 2. Hull cross-sectional properties of the target ships
considering time.
S.M. (m3 )
Ship
type
Scantlings or A
ages
(m2 )
Aframax
class
double
hull
oil
tanker
New-built
(Gross)
(0 to 7.5 yrs)
13 yrs
19 yrs
25 yrs (Net)
I
(m4 )
Deck
N.A.
Bottom (m)
5.847 413.049 33.332 43.259
9.548
5.420 386.229 31.351 40.147

4.954 356.897 29.190 36.743
4.489 327.460 27.030 33.328
9.620
9.713
9.825
Figure 4. Comparison results of relationship between ship

age and ultimate longitudinal strength under vertical bending
moments.
3.2 Accident-related damage Grounding
*Note: A = hull cross-sectional area, I = moment of inertia,

S.M. = section modulus, N.A. = neutral axis position above
the baseline.
purpose, two types of TDCWM are employed such

as average corrosion rate model (10 years coating life)
and severe corrosion rate model (7.5 years coating life)
(Paik et al. 2003)
This comparison is made to verify the applicability
of the time-dependent corrosion wastage model with a
coating life of 7.5 years. It is apparent that the ultimate
longitudinal bending moment behaviour of the applied
time-dependent corrosion wastage model with coating
life of 7.5 years has a good agreement with that of the
CSR corrosion addition (IACS 2006a). This confirms
the suitability of applying the corrosion wastage model
on the ultimate bending moment of the corresponding
structure.
In the case of grounding accidents, various research

has been carried out in terms of hull girder strength
(Paik et al. 1998, Pedersen 1994, Luis et al. 2009),
structural design (Paik et al. 2003) and risk assessment (Guedes Soares & Teixeira 2001). Some recent
studies on grounding accidents can also be referred to
(Samuelides et al. 2009, Pedersen 2010, Nguyen et al.
2011).
Recently, Paik et al. (2012) proposed an innovative method to estimate the residual structural strength
by using the R-D diagram. The applicability of this
method has been verified by an applied example on
a diagram between the ultimate longitudinal strength
versus grounding damage index for double hull oil
tankers.
In this study, the same procedures are applied to
establish the R-D diagram for a grounded Aframax
class double hull oil tanker.
173
The summarized general procedures for developing the R-D diagram are as follows (Paik et al.
2012).
I. Definition of ship structure characteristics
II. Characterization of damage parameters
III. Selection of damage scenarios by using the sampling technique and probabilistic identification of
damage parameters
IV. Definition of damage index for selected damage
scenarios
V. Calculation of residual strength for selected
damage scenarios
VI. Development of the R-D diagram
The details can be referred to Paik et al. (2012).
3.2.1 Grounding damage amount
Characterization of damage parameters and
Selection of probable grounding damage by
using sampling technique
The characteristics of the target ship structure were
already determined as shown in Figure 2. The characterization of the grounding damage associated with the
residual ultimate longitudinal strength can be defined
in terms of the location and extent of the grounding
damage. This includes the possible grounding damages of a ship during the operating time. Based on
this, four probability density distributions for x1 , x2 ,
x3 (IMO 2003), and x4 (Paik et al. 2012) are employed
to create grounding damage scenarios. The details of
the four grounding damage parameters are presented
as follows (Paik et al. 2012).
Figure 5. Definition of correction factor (Paik et al. 2012).
Table 3.
Hog
Sag
Calculated correction factors based on Figure 5.

Gross
(07.5 years)
13 years
19 years
Net
(25 years)
0.6714
0.3278
0.6185
0.3068
0.6010
0.2953
0.5381
0.2657
defined the GDI as shown in Equation 1. Figure 5.

shows the method for definition of correction factors.
x1 grounding location in the direction of the ships

beam.
x2 height of rock penetrating into the bottom of
the hull in the direction of the ships depth.
x3 breadth of the bottom of the rock at the elevation
corresponding to the ships baseline and breadth of
the tip of the rock.
x4 angle of the rock.
Although a large number of possible damage scenarios may be relevant, it is not practical to consider
all of them; the efficient LHS sampling technique (Ye
1998) is applied to select the probable scenarios.
The comparison between the suggested probability
density function of grounding damage guidance and
the applied results (bar chart) for an Aframax class
double hull oil tanker are presented in Paik et al. (2012)
and IMO (2003).
Calculation of grounding damage index for each
scenario
After the selection of the damage scenarios, the
grounding damage index (GDI) should be defined to
develop the residual strength versus damage index diagram (R-D diagram). At the same time, a residual
ultimate longitudinal strength analysis of each selected
damage scenario is also performed. Paik et al. (2012)
where, AD_OB is the area of the outer bottom reduced

by grounding damage, AI_OB is the initial area of the
outer bottom, AD_IB is the area of the inner bottom
reduced by grounding damage, AI_IB is the original
area of the inner bottom, and = IB /OB = correction
factor.
The calculated correction factors based on Figure
5. are shown in Table 3. Table 4 gives the fifty grounding damage indices (GDI) values of four different
corrosion scantlings based on Equation 1.
4
DAMAGE MODELING AND CALCULATION

OF RESIDUAL ULTIMATE STRENGTH
4.1 Damage modelling

In the case of damage modelling, the element removal
method for grounding damage and the element thickness reduction method for corrosion damage is used.
4.2 Calculation of residual ultimate strength
Various analysis methods including experimental, analytical and numerical methods were developed during
the last century for the purpose of evaluating the
174
Table 4.
Calculated grounding damage indices.
0 to 7.5 years
(New-built
or Gross)
13 years
scantlings
scantlings
19 years
scantlings
25 years (Net)
scantlings
S.N. Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
Hog
Sag
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
0.085
0.539
0.067
0.035
0.737
0.035
0.667
0.208
0.596
0.073
0.259
0.101
0.059
0.102
0.043
0.147
0.376
0.037
0.081
0.562
0.691
0.119
1.108
0.266
0.013
0.237
0.510
0.962
0.185
0.079
1.298
1.006
0.125
0.316
0.343
0.168
0.749
0.188
0.101
0.260
0.141
0.558
0.181
0.661
0.058
0.417
0.035
0.588
0.109
0.180
0.096
0.539
0.067
0.035
0.920
0.035
0.667
0.240
0.744
0.088
0.273
0.101
0.059
0.103
0.049
0.147
0.376
0.038
0.082
0.562
0.692
0.139
1.126
0.266
0.013
0.237
0.504
0.963
0.185
0.079
1.607
1.018
0.126
0.316
0.403
0.169
0.760
0.188
0.101
0.260
0.142
0.558
0.209
0.661
0.059
0.429
0.035
0.753
0.108
0.191
0.085
0.539
0.067
0.035
0.725
0.035
0.667
0.207
0.586
0.073
0.256
0.101
0.059
0.103
0.043
0.147
0.376
0.038
0.082
0.562
0.692
0.118
1.107
0.266
0.013
0.237
0.305
0.963
0.185
0.079
1.277
1.006
0.126
0.316
0.339
0.169
0.748
0.188
0.101
0.260
0.142
0.558
0.180
0.661
0.059
0.417
0.035
0.578
0.108
0.179
0.097
0.539
0.067
0.035
0.912
0.035
0.667
0.239
0.738
0.088
0.269
0.102
0.060
0.104
0.049
0.148
0.377
0.038
0.082
0.562
0.692
0.138
1.126
0.266
0.014
0.237
0.540
0.963
0.186
0.080
1.591
1.018
0.127
0.317
0.400
0.170
0.760
0.189
0.102
0.261
0.142
0.559
0.208
0.661
0.059
0.429
0.035
0.746
0.108
0.174
0.085
0.539
0.067
0.035
0.719
0.035
0.667
0.206
0.581
0.072
0.254
0.102
0.060
0.104
0.044
0.148
0.377
0.038
0.082
0.562
0.692
0.117
1.107
0.266
0.014
0.237
0.498
0.963
0.186
0.080
1.267
1.006
0.127
0.317
0.338
0.170
0.748
0.189
0.102
0.261
0.142
0.559
0.179
0.661
0.059
0.418
0.035
0.573
0.108
0.099
0.096
0.539
0.067
0.035
0.876
0.035
0.667
0.234
0.708
0.085
0.262
0.103
0.060
0.104
0.050
0.149
0.377
0.039
0.083
0.563
0.693
0.135
1.124
0.266
0.014
0.237
0.521
0.964
0.186
0.080
1.528
1.017
0.127
0.318
0.388
0.171
0.759
0.190
0.103
0.261
0.143
0.559
0.203
0.661
0.059
0.429
0.035
0.714
0.108
0.190
0.085
0.539
0.067
0.035
0.702
0.035
0.667
0.204
0.567
0.071
0.251
0.103
0.060
0.104
0.044
0.149
0.377
0.039
0.083
0.563
0.693
0.116
1.106
0.266
0.014
0.237
0.489
0.964
0.186
0.080
1.237
1.006
0.127
0.318
0.333
0.171
0.748
0.190
0.103
0.261
0.143
0.559
0.177
0.661
0.059
0.417
0.035
0.558
0.108
0.178
0.098
0.539
0.067
0.035
0.951
0.035
0.667
0.245
0.769
0.091
0.279
0.101
0.059
0.102
0.049
0.147
0.376
0.037
0.081
0.562
0.691
0.142
1.128
0.266
0.013
0.237
0.566
0.962
0.185
0.079
1.660
1.018
0.125
0.316
0.413
0.168
0.761
0.188
0.101
0.260
0.141
0.558
0.213
0.661
0.058
0.430
0.035
0.780
0.109
0.192
clarify the accuracy and conformance of the ISFEM.

Based on the benchmark study outcomes, this study
only focuses on the application of ALPS/HULL (progressive hull girder collapse analysis program) based
on ISFEM. It gives reasonable accurate analysis results
with efficient computational costs.
Using the ALPS/HULL progressive hull girder
collapse analysis program, the residual ultimate longitudinal strength of selected fifty grounding damage
scenarios is analysed. More details of theALPS/HULL
program theories and modelling techniques can be
found in Hughes & Paik (2010).
5
DEVELOPMENT OF R-D DIAGRAMS FOR

THE SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF CORRODED
TARGET STRUCTURES
Until now, the following items have been considered

to establish the R-D diagrams for a corroded Aframax
class double hull oil tanker subjected to grounding
damages.
Annual corrosion wastage (time-dependent corrosion wastage)

Selection of probable grounding damage by using
sampling technique
Grounding damage index for each grounding
damage scenario
Residual ultimate longitudinal strength analysis
5.1 Conventional R-D diagrams by considering
corrosion scantlings
strength capacity of ships and offshore structures.

Nowadays, numerical methods such as Non-Linear
Finite Element Method (NLFEM), Idealized Structural Unit Method (ISUM), and Intelligent Supersize
Finite Element Method (ISFEM) are mainly applied to
the structural analysis due to the efficiency improvement. Previously, a benchmark study of various analysis methods (ALPS/HULL 2012) was performed to
Figures 6a to 6d show the R-D diagrams and empirical

formulas obtained by curve fitting for each corrosion
scantling based on the calculated results. Generally,
residual ultimate longitudinal strength performance
under hogging bending moment shows more sensitivity than that under the sagging bending moment due
to the influence of grounding damages.
Figures 7a and 7b show the comparison results of
the R-D diagram considering the time-dependent corrosion effect. It can be seen that the corrosion damage
may affect the structural capacity of the Aframax class
double hull oil tanker with grounding damage. These
results are useful in identifying the effect of corrosion
damage on the residual ultimate longitudinal strength
of the grounded Aframax class double hull oil tanker.
However, it should be noted that this data does not
have the capability of estimating the results for a different year except for the years corresponding to the
four applied corrosion scantlings.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop the timedependent R-D diagram to more accurately evaluate
the residual strength of the damaged structure.
5.2 Development of time-dependent R-D diagrams
The three parameters of GDI, time and residual ultimate longitudinal strength are applied to establish the
175
Figure 7. Comparison results of R-D diagrams considering

the each corrosion scantling.
time-dependent R-D diagrams as shown in Figures

8(a) and 8(b) and empirical formulas are given in
Equations 2a and 2b.
From the obtained time-dependent R-D diagrams,
the condition assessment of the grounded Aframax
class double hull oil tanker during any operation time
can be easily determined by defining the grounding
damage index (damage location with amount) and
associated operating time (year).
5.3 Additional useful information
Figure 6. R-D diagrams for the each corrosion scantling of

Aframax class double hull oil tanker.
A simplified use of the time-dependent R-D diagrams

is suggested in this part.
Firstly, the empirical formulas to determine the
correction factor () for the corresponding operating
time are formulated as shown in Figure 9 based on the
results of Table 3.
In normal practice, the amount and location of the
damage are identified by divers after the grounding
damage incident. However with the application of
GDI, this amount and location can be easily calculated
using Equation 1. Then, the residual ultimate longitudinal strength can be evaluated using Equations 2a
and 2b.
176
Figure 8. The time-dependent R-D (Residual ultimate longitudinal strength grounding Damage index) diagrams.
The obtained time-dependent R-D diagrams

(empirical formulas) will be useful for salvage plans
and the safety assessment of corroded Aframax class
double hull oil tanker structures that were involved in
a grounding damage incident.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Figure 9. Obtained time-dependent R-D (Residual ultimate

longitudinal strength grounding Damage index) diagrams.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this study, the necessity of applying the timedependent wastage for the development of the residual
strength grounding damage index (R-D) diagram is
investigated.
From the obtained results, the difference between
gross scantling (previously developed R-D diagram)
and other R-D diagrams is identified (approximately,
13 years = 7.1 to 8.0% difference, 19 years = 14.8 to
16.6% difference, 25 years = 22.4 to 24.7% considering the intact condition).
Furthermore, this study also proposed the timedependent Residual ultimate longitudinal strength
versus grounding Damage index (R-D) diagram for
the Aframax class double hull oil tanker.
The present study was undertaken at the Lloyds Register Foundation (LRF) Research Centre of Excellence,
Pusan National University, Korea. Lloyds Register
Foundation supports the advancement of engineeringrelated education, and funds research and development
that enhances safety of life at sea, on land and in the
air. Also, the authors are pleased to acknowledge Miss
E. Mccaig, LR London, for her valuable discussions.
REFERENCES
ALPS/HULL. 2012. A computer program for progressive collapse analysis of ship hulls. MD (USA): DRS Defense
Solutions, Advanced Marine Technology Center. (www.
proteusengineering.com, www.maestromarine.com).
Gudze, M.T. & Melchers, R.E. 2008. Operational based corrosion analysis in naval ships. Corrosion Science 50(12):
32963307.
Guedes Soares, C. & Teixeira, A.P. 2001. Risk assessment
in maritime transportation. Reliability Engineering &
System Safety 74(3): 299309.
177
Guedes Soares, C., Garbatov, Y., Zayed, A., Wang, G.

2008. Corrosion wastage model for ship crude oil tanks.
Corrosion Science 50(11): 30953106.
Hughes, O.F. & Paik, J.K. 2010. Ship structural analysis
and design. New Jersey (USA): The Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers.
IACS. 2006a. Common structural rules for double hull
oil tankers. London (UK): International Association of
Classification Societies.
IACS. 2006b. Common structural rules for bulk carriers.
London (UK): International Association of Classification
Societies.
IMO. 2000. SOLAS/2 Recommended longitudinal strength,
MSC.108(73), Maritime Safety Committee. London (UK):
International Maritime Organization.
IMO. 2003. Revised interim guidelines for the approval of
alternative methods of design and construction of oil
tankers Marine Environment Protection Committee of
the Organization by Resolution MEPC 110(49). London
(UK): International Maritime Organization.
Jiang, X. & Guedes Soares, C. 2012. Ultimate capacity of
rectangular plates with partial depth pits under uniaxial
loads. Marine Structures 26(1): 2741.
Luis, R.M., Teixeira A.P., Guedes Soares, C. 2009. Longitudinal strength reliability of a tanker hull accidentally
grounded. Structural Safety 31(3): 224233.
Melchers, R.E. 2005. The effect of corrosion on the structural
reliability of steel offshore structures. Corrosion Science
47(10): 23912410.
Melchers, R.E., Wells, T. 2006. Models for the anaerobic
phases of marine immersion corrosion. Corrosion Science
48(7): 17911811.
Nguyen, T.H., Garre, L., Amdahl, J., Leira, B.J. 2011.
Monitoring of ship damage condition during stranding.
Paik, J.K., Amdahl, J., Barltrop, N., Donner, E.R., Gu, Y.,
Ito, H., Ludolphy, H., Pedersen, P.T., Rohr, U., Wang, G.
2003. Collision and grounding Final Report of ISSC V.3.
August 1115. San Diego (USA): International Ship and
Offshore Structures Congress.
Paik, J.K., Kim, D.K., Park, D.H., Kim, H.B., Kim, M.S.
2012. A new method for assessing the safety of ships
damaged by grounding. International Journal of Maritime
Engineering 154(A1): 120.
Paik, J.K., Lee, J.M., Hwang, J.S. and Park, Y.I. 2003. A timedependent corrosion wastage model for the structures
of single/double hull tankers and FSOs/FPSOs. Marine
Technology 40(3): 201217.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Yang, S.H. 1998. Residual
strength assessment of ships after collision and grounding.
Marine Technology 35(1): 3854.
Paik, J.K., Lee, J.M., Ko, M.J. 2004. Ultimate shear strength
of plate elements with pit corrosion wastage. Thin-Walled
Structures 42(8): 11611176.
Pedersen, P.T. 1994. Ship grounding and hull-girder strength.
Marine Structure 7(1): 129.
and grounding analysis procedures. Marine Structures
23(3): 241262.
Samuelides, M.S., Ventikos, N.P., Gemelos, I.C. 2009.
Survey on grounding incidents: Statistical analysis and
risk assessment. Ships and Offshore Structures 4(1):
5568.
TSB. 2011. Statistical summary marine occurrences
2011. Gatineau (Canada): Transportation Safety Board of
Canada
Ye, K.Q. 1998. Orthogonal column Latin hypercubes and
their application in computer experiments. Journal of the
American Statistical Association 93(444): 14301439.
178
Towards an integrated approach to collision and grounding damage

assessment
E. La Scola
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
G. Mermiris
Brookes Bell LLP, Glasgow, UK
ABSTRACT: Although the safety record of maritime industry has been constantly improving during the past
decades accidents that challenge public outcry and hurt the image of shipping industry still happen. In response
to this situation a substantial amount of effort has been devoted in de-risking ships during the design process.
However, the highly competitive nature of the industry and the constant exposure of ships to the marine environment enforce the need for managing the residual risk of ships during their operational life. This requirement
paves the way for the development of a comprehensive methodology that will take into account all the stages of
an accident between its route causes and the aftermath of it. In this manner, efficient and cost-effective strategies
pertaining to prevention and mitigation measures can be established. The objective of this paper is to outline a
methodology for structural damage assessment with particular emphasis to collision and grounding accidents,
and to elaborate on the constitutive elements of it by (i) utilising existing work in the respective areas, and
(ii) highlighting the weaknesses that prohibit comprehensive treatment of the underlying phenomena.
INTRODUCTION
At an age where the attention of society is rapidly

attracted to any disaster related to commercial or
leisure activity at sea, accidents of any scale and
size leave the lights of publicity only after they hurt
the maritime industry at large. Despite the fact that
the safety record of the industry has been continuously
improving, Graham (2010), the expectations from the
society have reached unprecedented levels. In direct
response to this situation consistent steps have been
taken towards the measurement and prevention of the
risk associated to the most hazardous aspects of a ships
operational life (primarily collision, grounding, fire
and structural failure).
This has been achieved by integrating risk analysis
in the conventional ship design process. That is, by following the Risk-Based Design methodology, Vassalos
(2009). The outcome of this is the de-risking of the new
ship by setting in place cost-effective measures during
the early design stage, where alternative versions of
the design can be defined easily and efficiently. The
applicability of this approach has been demonstrated
in the case of highly sophisticated and complex ships
(Figure 1).
However, despite the obvious benefits offered to the
industry by such a process a part of risk remains due
to the very nature of shipping operations and constant
exposure to the hostile sea environment. It is this residual risk that needs to be addressed during operation
Figure 1. F-N curve of the Oasis of the Seas for collision

and fire in comparison to world fleet of cruise ships, FSA
Cruise Ships (2008).
by a suitably developed methodology that will facilitate a systematic and comprehensive decision-making
process both in nominal and emergency situations.
Considering that collision and grounding accidents correspond approximately to 35% of total losses
between 1996 and 2010 (Figure 2), the need to understand the governing phenomena of these two events
has increased during the past couple of decades. During this period numerous studies have been undertaken
with the aim to develop a rational procedure for
analysing such casualties for the most pertinent ship
types and damage scenarios. However, a methodology
of sufficient breadth that would be able to take into
account the variety of factors dominating these events
has yet to appear in the literature.
179
Figure 2. Total losses between 1996 and 2010 for all vessels
types over 500 GT, Graham (2010).
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this paper is to establish a methodology that will enable the assessment of structural
vulnerability following the occurrence of a collision or
grounding event and the ensuing progressive structural
degradation of the hull girder.
In particular, the work presented in the following
pages aims to (i) consolidate existing developments
and research results in a systematic manner, and
(ii) highlight the areas where deeper understanding
should be pursued with respect to the above accident
types and their consequences.
Finally, it should be stressed that complementary
elements of the process like the human element and
systems performance are addressed but fall outside
the scope of this paper. Integration of these elements
to the process will be reported in the near future.
3
METHODOLOGY
In response to the need for a methodology with sufficiently broad scope to cover the range between route
cause events and final outcomes, the process outlined in Figure 3 is introduced. The emphasis of this
approach is placed on the identification of the constitutive elements that will rationalise the overall process,
the nature of the models that should be deployed in
every step, and the quantification of the uncertainty of
the obtained results.
3.1
Methodological elements
In order to rationalise the modelling and analysis of

collision and grounding accidents the operational conditions and profile of the ship under consideration
should be addressed. This element of the methodology will provide information about speed, direction,
loading condition, density and composition of the
surrounding traffic and bathymetric information.
This set of data will define not only the external
dynamics, Zhang (1999), before the occurrence of
the accident but also will contribute to the triggering
events that can lead to collision and grounding. The
latter element is directly related to human element,
systems failure, or both.
Figure 3. Flow chart of the proposed methodology.
The combination of the above two elements signifies the assessment of the structural damage extent.
That is, the way the available impact energy dissipates
in the structure is defined by modelling the internal
mechanics, Zhang (1999), of the process.
The final element of the methodology is the assessment of the damage propagation in the time domain
and as a function of the loading condition of the ship
and variation of the environmental conditions in the
area of the accident, Kwon (2012).
3.2 Mathematical models
Acknowledging the complicated nature of structural damage and the progressive hull degradation it
becomes evident that comprehensive understanding
of the damage consequences can be achieved only
with detailed simulations of the incurred structural and
hydrodynamic aspects. However, the time-consuming
nature of numerical methods (FEA and CFD) in terms
of modelling, processing and post-processing prohibits their routine application, where decisions need
to be made in short time intervals (either during design
or operation).
Notwithstanding this situation, it has become evident that on the basis of a comprehensive set of detailed
numerical simulations a set of parametric models
should be derived (e.g. response surfaces, FSA Cruise
Ships (2008)) that would allow fast and accurate implementation in multiple accidental scenarios and their
variations. The drawback is that such models would
have narrow application, e.g. they will be applicable
to a specific ship type and size only. The remedy to this
is a detailed development programme that would result
in a library of models that can be readily deployed for
a wider selection of accidental cases.
3.3 Uncertainty management
Accommodating the complicated nature of the damage assessment when collision or grounding occurs
180
Figure 4. Collision breach size and penetration distributions

following Monte Carlo sampling of the parametric model
developed in Mermiris (2010).
implies that the level of uncertainty of the results is

known. That is, confidence by the wider industry in
this methodology will be built on the basis of understanding the level of assumptions made during the
modelling process, the possibility to feed real data
directly in the calculations (e.g. AIS information),
and the presentation of the findings in a manner that
accounts for the inherent uncertainty (in terms of mathematical modelling and accuracy of input data) of the
process from the outset, Kwon (2012). For this reason, probabilistic modelling is deemed necessary in
this context (Figure 4). That is, the shape and type
of the obtained probabilistic distributions can account
for the requested uncertainty quantification. Moreover, the pre-requisite of parametric models lends itself
very conveniently to this need as a similar approach
with numerical modelling would be impossible.
4
OPERATIONAL PROFILE
Taking into consideration the operational profile or the

operating conditions of the ship at the time of a collision or grounding accident is a fundamental aspect of
the proposed methodology. The operating conditions
refer both to features and operational state of the ship
itself and its crew, and the surrounding environment.
In the former case, the state of the systems onboard
(in terms of nominal or faulty condition), the performance of the crew are the focus aspects. The latter case
is concerned with the environmental conditions (wind,
wave and current), the topography and bathymetry of
the area of operation and the traffic density and composition. All these aspects are briefly discussed in the
following sections.
4.1 Human element

Undisputedly the performance of the crew is a definitive factor in the occurrence or avoidance of accidents
at sea. Extensive studies have addressed the issue but
only recently the maritime industry has started adopting cross-disciplinary aspects, where engineering and
psychology have joined forces, FAROS and HORIZON, in order to understand the circumstances under
which the crew performance becomes detrimental to
the safety of the ship.
Figure 5. Bathymetric map of Europe (www.newportgeo

graphic.com).
4.2 Hardware and machinery

The nominal operation of the onboard systems guarantees successful delivery of goods and services of a ship.
However, in unfavourable combinations of traffic and
environmental conditions faulty operation of critical
systems (e.g. rudders) can lead to collision or grounding events. In cases like these systems modelling,
Guarin et al. (2011), is necessary in order to identify the critical damages that can lead to catastrophic
events.
4.3 Environmental conditions
All aspects of the marine environment that can affect
both the occurrence of an accident (e.g. fog) and its
development (e.g. changes in wave height that result in
variation of the hydrodynamic loading on the damaged
hull) should be taken into account.
4.4 Topography and bathymetry
The geographical location of the operational area
affects the requirements for steering (e.g. in narrow
waterways), defines the traffic density and determines
the available space for emergency manoeuvres in order
to avoid collision or grounding.
In a similar way bathymetric maps can illustrate the
land that lies underwater in the respective operational
area (Figure 5) and provides information related both
to water depth and the seabed material, i.e. rock, sand,
clay, etc. Such input rationalises the analysis of the
grounding accidents, reduces uncertainty in the input
data, and facilitates more meaningful results in the
context of real situations.
181
4.5
Surrounding traffic
Identification of the direction, the speed, the size,

the type and loading conditions of the ships moving
in the surrounding area provides the necessary input
to the assessment of collision damages, especially in
cases where alternative scenarios (in terms of striking
angels, impact speeds, damage locations, etc.) need to
be assessed.
5
EXTERNAL DYNAMICS
In order to assess the damage size and penetration

when two vessels collide on each other or on a rigid
body a full understanding of the dynamics between
the two bodies is required. The problem of interactive
failure of one/two deformable and fracturing bodies is addressed by first principles (i.e. energy and
momentum conservation) for the definition of the ship
motion.
The kinetic energy of the vessels is converted to:
Elastic energy dissipated by vibration at the area of

contact;
Plastic energy dissipated by deformation, fracture
and momentum transfer;
Thermal energy dissipated by friction through
contact
The collision and grounding cases are elaborated
separately in the following sections.
5.1
Collision
Once the lateral side of the struck ship is impacted by

the bow of the striking ship the process is controlled
by momentum transfer between the two ships. Initially
the available collision energy is dissipated at contact
and consequently through the internal structure, longitudinal stiffeners, hull plating, and decks of the struck
ship.
The kinetic energy of the structure from the initiation of the collision until rest is calculated with the
formulation presented in Zhang (1999). Three local
coordinate systems (on the striking ship, the struck
ship and the impact point) are shown in Figure 6. By
analysing the motions and impulses around the impact
point, the absorbed kinetic energy is derived in both
the longitudinal and transverse directions relative to
the struck ship. In the present methodology the expressions for the absorbed energy are derived uncoupled
from internal mechanics.
The total energy loss in the point of contact is
expressed as the sum of the energies lost in longitudinal
and transverse direction:
Figure 6. The coordinate system used for analysis of

ship-ship collisions, Zhang (1999).
The coefficients D , D , K , K account for the ship

masses, the strike location, the collision angle, and the
added mass coefficients in surge, sway and yaw (0)
and (0) are the relative longitudinal and transverse
velocities between the two ships just prior to impact.
In equation (1) it is assumed that the two ships attach
together after impact. Whether this is the actual case
or sliding takes place is determined by the ratio of
transverse to longitudinal force-impulses at impact. If
this ratio exceeds the coefficient of static friction, it is
assumed that the two ships slide. The impulse ratio at
impact is assumed constant for the entire process.
5.2 Grounding
The energy balance principle is also applied for the
case of grounding. The analysis takes into consideration the impact process and interaction between a large
stationary body (seabed) and a ship travelling through
shallow water. In this case the analysis requires information about the structural configuration of the bottom
of the vessel and the mechanical properties (form a
geological point of view) of the underwater pinnacle.
Grounding is governed by greater ambiguity than
collision due to the uncertainty associated to the
seabed in terms of angle, size and hardness of the rock,
the number of rocks, and the initial contact points with
the ship bottom.
In order to assess the structural damage in this
case, a simplified version of the model presented in
Pedersen (2010) is adopted (Figure 7). The factors
controlling the modelling are the striking ship speed,
added mass and the angle of the slope of the ground/
rock surface.
The grounding event is addressed in two interdependent phases. During the first phase the ship is subjected
to an impulse caused by the sudden contact with the
ground. Since it is assumed that the hull is a rigid
body this impulse leads to such rapid deceleration that
after the impact the ship has a set of surge, heave and
pitch velocity components which are compatible to the
motion of the contact point along the sloping bottom.
In the second phase the ship is sliding with continuous contact with the ground. The kinetic energy that
becomes available at the end of the first impulse phase
is transformed into potential energy and friction due
182
Figure 8. Bezier surface of a tanker bow with the control

polygon (right) and turned by 25 (left).
Figure 7. Bow at initial impact with the seabed, Pedersen

(2010).
to the contact between the ground and the ship as the

ship moves up on the sloping bottom. The final kinetic
energy after grounding (i.e. the available amount of
energy to cause structural damage) is the difference
of the energy available after the first impact and the
energy available after the second phase.
where EIk is the kinetic energy after the first impact, Fz

the vertical contact force, z the vertical displacement,
Ff the horizontal contact force and u is the sliding
distance on the slope.
The intention of the present work is to adopt a generalized form of equation (2) and address the contact
forces and the energy absorbed for different seabed
types This requirement is set by the fact that alternative ground morphologies and engineering properties
would result to different mechanisms to convert the
initial kinetic energy into structural damage of various
lengths, breadths and penetration sizes.
6
INTERNAL MECHANICS
The objective of this stage is to assess the structural

damage due to collision or grounding. The approach
adopted in both cases will be based on the principle of
energy conservation. That is, when external loads are
applied to a deformable structure, the rate of application must be equal to the incremental energy dissipated
in the structure in all forms, namely elastic, plastic,
rupture and heat (through friction).
(ii) A bluff body colliding with a stiffened panel will

cause less damage than a sharp body of equal mass
and speed.
Based on these two facts the radii of curvature at the
contact point of the striking body has been proposed in
Mermiris (2010) as a measure of sharpness, which in
combination to the available kinetic energy will define
the potential extent of damage. Also, this approach
can accommodate the collision at angles other than
90 to the side of the struck ship, which is a better representation of reality. The model is based on
the assumption that the bow of the striking ship is
a non-deformable body. The striking bow geometry
is modelled with Bezier surfaces in parametric form,
which allow the calculation of the radii of curvature at
the contact points (stem and bulb) for various collision
angles (Figure 8).
Once obtained the radii of curvature are used as
direct input to the definition of the parametric surface of the side shell with the explicit consideration
of indentation or penetration in order to address the
phenomenological observations mentioned above.
The accumulation of strain energy of the struck
panel is calculated for an orthotropic plate with varying rigidity in the two directions of stiffening. The total
strain energy is expressed as the combination of the
bending and membrane strain energy for large strains
presented in equation (3). As expected, the higher the
available collision energy is the more dominant the
membrane energy becomes.
6.1 Collision
The collision damage assessment is based on two
phenomenological observations:
(i) The damage shape and size between the striking
bow and the side shell panels of the struck ships
are geometrically compatible, and
where Vs is the bending strain energy, Vmem the

membrane energy, N the membrane forces, and w
the indentation or penetration. The name coined for
this model is CRASED and the preliminary results
compare favourably with past accident statistics from
183
Figure 10. SIF variation for bottom damage case, Kwon

et al. (2011).
Figure 9. Preliminary benchmarking of model presented in

Mermiris (2010) (CRASED) with historical data presented
in Technical University of Denmark (2001) (HARDER).
Technical University of Denmark (2001), (Figure 9).

More details can be found in Mermiris & Vassalos
(2010).
in relation to the mode of deformation before and

after fracture occurrence.
b) Rupture: When the plate ruptures changes in the
mode of deformation and the energy-dissipating
mechanism are introduced A major challenge is to
develop a simplified method, similar to Jones &
Birch (2006) for calculating the necessary energy
to cause structural damage.
6.2 Grounding
Despite the attention that grounding has received over

the years a sufficiently comprehensive model has not
been established in the literature yet. One suggestion
in this direction would be to develop such a modelling
process on the basis of the correlation between the
properties of the pinnacle (in terms of material and
geometry) and the damage at the bottom of the ship.
The following factors should be taken into consideration:
The assessment of the damage location and size are

followed by the survivability analysis of the ship in
terms of the time interval for the hull girder to break
as a function of the environmental conditions during
this period. The methodology adopted in this case is
presented in Kwon (2012).
When the damaged ship is flooded the loading
introduced by the water ingress and egress from the
damaged compartment and the environmental forces
contribute to the deterioration of the hull strength by
inducing crack propagation until the residual strength
of the ship is unable to sustain the applied load.
The progressive growth of damage is addressed
as crack propagation by the Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) and Paris Law. The fracture
behaviour is modelled in with the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) for the calculation of the strain
energy release rate, and, in turn, the calculation of
the stress intensity factors (SIF), (Figure 10). Finally,
the residual strength of the damaged ship is based
on moment-curvature relationship of stiffened panels,
Smith (1977).
The output of the simulation (for a given wave
record) is presented in Figure 11 for a tanker ship
with initial bottom damage. The shape of the curve
indicates the areas where the damage growth is stable and unstable. The respective periods indicate the
available windows for safe intervention (e.g. rescue
operations) or identification of safe haven and voyage
planning. Although this set of calculations is conducted in deterministic mode, i.e. for a given a wave
record and damage size and location, they can also
The structural configuration of the bottom of the

ship in terms of arrangement, scantlings and construction material;
The geometrical shape of the pinnacle;
The mechanical properties of the ground (from geological point of view) considering that an infinitely
strong pinnacle would be unrealistic; and
Upon contact between the vessel bottom and the
seabed, the impact response will involve continuous
changes (damage) in the geometry of the structure
with primary effects on the bottom stiffened panels
and the web frames of the ship.
On the basis of the above, the new model should
account for the inherent uncertainty of the involved
grounding parameters (size, shape, mechanical properties and location of the pinnacle) from the outset.
Moreover, care should be taken with the following two
aspects:
a) Friction:The contribution of friction has been highlighted in Simonsen (1997), and with particular
attention to the orientation of the contact surface
184
STRUCTURAL VULNERABILITY
REFERENCES
Figure 11. Crack propagation over time and subsequent

actions in a hypothetical tanker accident with bottom damage.
be performed in a probabilistic manner, where uncertainty for various input parameters can be taken into
consideration.
8
CONCLUSION
A methodology for assessing the structural survivability of a damaged ship due to collision and grounding is
presented in this paper. The intention is to consolidate
existing and ongoing developments when available,
and to highlight the gaps of the process in order to
provide the basis for rationalised decision-support in
the design or operational phase of a ship.
The methodology considers all the elements of the
process ranging between the operational profile of the
ship up to time duration for extensive hull strength
deterioration and the total failure of the hull girder.
The immediate next step in this development is to
consider a parametric model for grounding in similar
manner to the one presented for collision. This work
will be reported to the research community in the near
future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial support of the KTP project 8206 to the
first author is greatly acknowledged.
DISCLAIMER
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and under no circumstances should they be
interpreted as the opinion or position of Brookes Bell
LLP on the subject topic.
FAROS Human Factors in the Ship Design Methodology,

Framework Programme 7 of the European Commission,
http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/105337_en.html.
FSA Cruise ships, MSC 85/17/1, submitted by Denmark,
2008.
Graham, P. 2010. Casualty and world fleet statistics as
at 31/12/2010. International Union of Marine Insurance
(IUMI), www.ingenierosnavales.com/uploaded/2010%
20%20CasualtyandWorldFleetStatistics.pdf.
Guarin, L.; Douglas, A. & Cichowicz, J. 2011. Assessment
of Ship Systems Capabilities in Accordance with New
SOLAS Requirements for Safe Return to Port. Proceedings of the Design and Operation of Passenger Ships
Conference, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
HORIZON Research into effects on cognitive performance
of maritime watch-keepers under different watch patterns, workloads & conditions, with reality usage of ships
bridge, engine & cargo control simulators, Framework
Programme 7 of the European Commission, http://cordis.
europa.eu/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=proj.document&
PJ_RN=11065767.
Jones, N. & Birch, R. S. 2006. Low velocity perforation
design of metal plates. Structures Under Shock and Impact
IX, WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, Vol. 87:
pp. 179186
Kwon, S. 2012. A Risk-Based Ship Design Approach to Progressive Structural Failure. PhD Thesis, Department of
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University
of Strathclyde.
Kwon, S.; Vassalos, D. & Mermiris, G. 2011. Progressive
Structural Failure and Residual Strength of Damaged
Ships. Proceedings of the Damaged Ship Conference,
The Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
Mermiris, G. 2010. A Risk-Based Design Approach to
Ship-Ship Collision. PhD Thesis, Department of Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of
Strathclyde.
Mermiris, G. & Vassalos, D. 2010. Damage Stability Making
Sense, Proceedings of the 11th International Ship Stability
Workshop; Wagenigen, the Netherlands.
Pedersen, P.T. 1994. Ship Grounding and Hull-Girder
Strength. Marine Structures 7, pp. 129.
Simonsen, B. 1997. Ship grounding on rock-I Theory. Marine
Structures 10, pp. 519562, 1997
Smith, C.S. 1977. Influence of Local Compression Failure on
Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of a Ships Hull. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Practical Design
in Shipbuilding (PRADS): 7379.
Technical University of Denmark. 2001. Damage Distributions, Report No.: 2-22-D-2000-01-4, Harmonisation of
Rules and Design Rationale (HARDER), GRD1-199910721.
Vassalos, D. 2009. Risk-Based Ship Design, in Risk-Based
Ship Design: Methods, Tools and Applications, Chapter 2,
edited by A. D. Papanikolaou, Springer, 2009
Zhang, S. 1999. The Mechanics of Ship Collisions, PhD
Thesis, Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore
Engineering, Technical University of Denmark.
185
Towards more rational design of ship structures against collisions

S.R. Cho
School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Korea
J.M. Kim
Hyundai Heavy Industries, Korea
Y.H. Kim
Sungdong Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Co., Korea
J.S. Lee
M.I. Roh
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
ABSTRACT: In rational ship structural designs, not only the ultimate and fatigue limit states, but also the
accidental limit state should be properly considered. However, in many cases, when determining the arrangements
and scantlings of a ships structural members, the accidental collision loadings are not considered in the structural
design. In the rules of the relevant classification societies, accident collision scenarios are not specified, and
only the extent of damage due to collisions and groundings are provided. Therefore, structural designers are
presented with difficulties when considering accidental limit states.
A probabilistic approach is desirable for more rational design. However, in order to perform this type of approach
in actual designs, many scenarios are required, and the uncertainty in the prediction of the occurrence probability
of each scenario seems very high. In this study, however, in order to realize a scenario-based approach for ship
structural designs against collision, the characteristics of a double-hull tanker in terms of collision resistance are
provided based upon rigorous parametric study results. For the numerical calculations of this parametric study, a
commercial package was employed. Prior to the parametric study, the numerical method was substantiated with
the collision test results of this study.
INTRODUCTION
Research on ship collision problems has a more than

50 year history, and many numerical and analytical and
a few experimental investigations have been reported
in the open literature. However, there have been few
published studies directly related to guidance of ship
structural designs against collision.
In actual ship collision conditions, the colliding
velocity and mass of the striker and the colliding
angle and location can be studied by a probabilistic approach. However, in order to use a probabilistic
approach in actual ship structural designs against collisions, many scenarios are required. Furthermore, the
uncertainty in predicting the occurrence probability
of each scenario seems very high. Therefore, it seems
highly likely that, in order to consider the collision
accidental limit state in the actual structural designs,
a more practical approach should be provided.
Taking into account the difficulties in using a

probabilistic approach, a scenario-based approach
may be more practical in realizing ship structural
designs against accidental collisions. When adopting a
scenario-based approach to design, selecting the accidental collision design scenarios and minimizing the
number of scenarios to be analyzed in the design are
both crucial factors.
In aiming to providing collision resistance characteristics with which any design guidance can be developed, a rigorous parametric study using the ABAQUS
commercial package was performed. Prior to conducting the parametric study, a numerical method
was substantiated using the collision test results for
double-hull side structures.
After substantiating the analysis method with test
results, a rigorous parametric study was first performed with a small-scale double-hull side structure
so that the collision resistance characteristics of the
187
Table 2.
Material properties of test models.

model DH-1
model DH-2
Position
Y
T
E
Y
T
E
(MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
Upper plate
Lower plate
Girder
Side wall
305.0
292.1
281.4
276.3
377.8
366.1
363.3
360.8
220.3
211.3
204.7
206.9
301.3
293.8
281.4
276.3
373.8
366.3
363.3
360.8
208.8
202.1
204.7
206.9
Figure 1. Dimensions of the double-hull side structure

models (unit: mm).
Table 1. Plate thicknesses of the double-hull side structure
models.
Thickness (mm)
Position
model DH-1
model DH-2
Upper plate
Lower plate
Girder
Side wall
1.83
1.88
1.99
1.96
1.88
1.88
1.99
1.96
small-scale structure could be applied to actual fullscale structures. The outer plate thickness and the
girder thickness and height were considered as geometric parameters.The mass and velocity of the striker,
the struck location, and the striker header shape were
included as parameters for the collision conditions.
A parametric study with an actual VLCC doublehull side structure was also conducted. The applicability of the smearing technique was investigated with
the collision design scenario proposed in this study.
The effects of the striker header size and impact location on the response were investigated. The occurrence
of fractures in the outer plate was compared in terms
of the stiffened plate structure and the corresponding
smeared plate one.
2
2.1
impact tests were performed with drop heights of 2.66

and 2.00 m, corresponding to initial impact velocities
of 7.22 and 6.26 m/s, respectively.
COLLISION TESTS ON DOUBLE-HULL

SIDE STRUCTURES
Dimensions of the test models
Two nominally identical models were fabricated for

the tests, and their dimensions are shown in Fig. 1. The
thicknesses of the models are summarized in Table 1,
and the material properties obtained from the tensile
tests are presented in Table 2.
2.2
Figure 2. Collision testing frame with a double-hull side

structure in position.
Collision testing machine
The collision testing machine with a model in the testing position is shown in Fig. 2 together. The header of
the striker was a knife-edge type with a header length
of 550 mm. The mass of the striker was 400 kg. Two
2.3 Test results

Collision test conditions and the maximum permanent
depth of dent are summarized in Table 3. An image of
the shape of model DH-1 after collision testing, which
shows clear hinge lines, is presented in Fig. 3.
A cross-sectional image of model DH-2 after collision testing is presented in Fig. 4. As can be seen
in the figure, areas of deformations in the girders are
confined to near the top plates, while the other parts
remained straight. This finding could be very helpful
in developing analytical procedures to predict damage
to double-hull side structures.
188
Table 3. Test conditions and the maximum permanent depth

of dent.
Table 4. Comparison of the numerically and experimentally

obtained maximum depths of denting.
Striker
Maximum depth of dent (mm)
Model
mass
(kg)
velocity
(m/s)
Max. permanent
depth of dent (mm)
DH-1
DH-2
400
400
7.22
6.26
55.9
42.8
Model
experiment
numerical
DH-1
DH-2
55.9
42.8
63.9 (+14.3%)
49.1 (+14.7%)
Figure 3. Model DH-1 after collision testing.
Figure 5. Numerical results of collision testing of model

DH-1.
Figure 4. Cross-sectional image of model DH-2 after collision testing.
3
3.1
Figure 6. Numerical results of collision testing of model

DH-2.
PARAMETRIC STUDIES WITH

SMALL-SCALE MODELS
Substantiation of numerical analysis
A comparison of the numerically and experimentally

obtained maximum depths of denting is summarized
in Table 4. The numerical predictions are greater than
the test results by about 14.5%. A little bit more accurate predictions seem desirable. However, a consistent
tendency can be observed.
An image of the numerical collision testing results
of model DH-1 is presented in Fig. 5. When comparing
this result with that of the experimental result shown
in Fig. 3, no significant differences can be seen.
An image of the numerical collision testing results
of model DH-2 is presented in Fig. 6. As can be seen
in the figure, the result of the numerical simulation is
quite similar to that of the experiment shown in Fig. 4.
However, in the tested model, the girder remained very

straight with the exception of the region near the top
plates. In contrast to that, in the numerically predicted
model, flexural deformations can be seen even in the
other parts of girders.
As mentioned previously, a little bit more accurate
predictions seem desirable. However, considering the
uncertainties in the collision tests, the accuracy and
reliability of the numerical analysis method employed
in this study could be acceptable for parametric study.
3.2 Effects of changes in design parameter on
collision responses
Having substantiated the method of the numerical
analysis with test results, parametric studies were
189
Table 5. Effects of upper plate thickness on permanent

deformation.
Upper plate
thickness
(mm)
Permanent
deformation
(mm)
1.88
4.0
6.0
49.1
35.4 (27.9%)
29.1 (40.8%)
Figure 8. Effects of upper plate thickness on the collision

force-deformation relationship.
Table 6. Effects of girder thickness on permanent
deformation.
Girder
thickness
(mm)
Permanent
deformation
(mm)
Figure 7. Effects of upper plate thickness on deformation

history.
performed to investigate the effects of changes in

the design parameters on the collision responses of
double-hull side structures. Not only the scantlings
and the structural arrangement, but also the collision
conditions were considered, and the following design
parameters were considered:
Girder
height
(mm)
Permanent
deformation
(mm)
(1) Effects of upper plate thickness

The thickness of the upper plate of model DH-2 was
1.88 mm, which was increased to 4.0 mm and 6.0 mm
for the comparison study. The permanent lateral deformations of the three thicknesses are given in Table 5.
When the thickness of the upper plate was increased
to 4.0 mm and 6.0 mm, the lateral deformation was
decreased by 27.9% and 40.8%, respectively.
The deformation histories are compared in Fig. 7.
When the upper plate thickness is increased to 6.0 mm,
a reduced and earlier peak of deformation can be seen,
together with a more vivid elastic vibration in the final
stage.
The effects of upper plate thickness on the collision
forcedeformation relationships are depicted in Fig. 8,
where the collision is non-dimensionalized by Y ab
(a and b are the whole length and whole breadth of the
5.0
7.0
49.1
14.37 (70.7%)
10.54 (78.5%)
Table 7. Effects of girder thickness on permanent

deformation.
upper plate thickness

girder thickness
girder height
striker mass
collision velocity
struck position
striker header shape
The scantlings and collision test conditions of

model DH-2 were adopted as the basis of the parametric study.
1.99
175
250
325
50.6 (+3.1%)
49.1
49.7 (+1.2%)
upper plate, respectively) and the deformation by the

upper plate thickness. As can be seen in the figure, the
relationship is quite moderate for the original thickness
of 1.88 mm. However, when the thickness is increased
to 6.0 mm, the relationship shows a sharp peak in the
very early stage, followed by vibrant changes.
(2) Effects of girder thickness
The permanent deformations obtained for three different girder thicknesses are presented in Table 6. When
the girder thickness is increased to 5.0 mm and 7.0 mm,
the permanent lateral deformations are reduced by
70.7% and 78.5%, respectively.
(3) Effects of girder height
The original girder height, 250 mm, was changed to
175 mm and 325 mm, and the corresponding permanent deformations are presented in Table 7. Interestingly, when the girder height was 175 mm, the
permanent lateral deformation increased by only 3.1%.
190
Table 8.
Effects of striker mass on permanent deformation.
Striker
mass (kg)
Permanent
deformation
(mm)
400
600
800
49.1
68.6 (+39.7%)
86.0 (+75.2%)
Figure 10. Effects of striker mass on the collision

Table 9. Effects of striker velocity on permanent
deformation.
Striker
velocity
(m/s)
Permanent
deformation
(mm)
Figure 9. Effects of striker mass on deformation history.
6.26
7.22
8.32
49.1
63.9 (+30.1%)
86.0 (+55.4%)
When the girder height was increased to 325 mm, the

deformation increased by 1.2%. It is likely that the
increase in the deformation is due to computational
error. Based upon the calculation results provided here,
it can be concluded that the effects of girder height on
lateral deformation are negligible.
(4) Effects of striker mass
The effects of the striker mass on the response of the
double hull side structure were also investigated. The
permanent lateral deformations for different striker
masses are summarized inTable 8.As can be seen in the
table, when the striker masses are increased to 600 kg
and 800 kg, the permanent deformations increase by
39.7% and 75.2%, respectively.
The deformation histories when the striker masses
are 400 kg, 600 kg, and 800 kg are presented in Fig. 9.
Notably, when the striker mass increases, the peak
deformation and separation time of the striker with
the impacted structure is increased.
The collision force and deformation relationships
are shown in Fig. 10. As be seen in the figure, somewhat interestingly, the collision forces are nearly the
same irrespective of the striker mass. However, the
unloading points are different depending on the striker
mass.
(5) Effects of striker velocity
The effects of collision velocity on the permanent lateral deformation of the double-hull side structure are
summarized in Table 9. As can be seen in the table,
when the collision velocities increase to 7.22 m/s and
8.32 m/s from 6.26 m/s, the permanent deformations
increase by 30.1% and 55.4%, respectively.
Figure 11. Effects of striker velocity on deformation

history.
The deformation histories are shown in Fig. 11.

Unlike the case of variation in striker mass, the separation times are not changed, but for higher collision
velocities, the peak deformation increases. The collision force and deformation relationships are depicted
in Fig. 12. The relation shapes are similar regardless of the collision velocities, and only the unloading
deformations vary with collision velocity. Even with
changes in the collision velocity, the change in the
stiffness of the impacted structure can be negligible.
(6) Effects of struck position
The struck positions investigated are 245 mm, 415 mm
and 608 mm from the left edge of the double-hull side
structure. The first case of 245 mm from the left edge
is the location of the left longitudinal girder.
191
Table 11. Effects of striker header tip roundness on permanent deformation.

Striker header
tip roundness
(mm)
Permanent
deformation
(mm)
R10
R170
R340
R510
49.1
47.5
45.1
42.8
Figure 12. Effects of striker velocity on the collision

Table 10. Effects of struck position on permanent

deformation.
Struck position
from left edge
(mm)
Permanent
eformation
(mm)
245
415
608
16.42 (66.6%)
50.7 (+3.3%)
49.1
Figure 14. Analyzed model with a hemispherical striker.
Figure 13. Effects of struck position on deformation history.
The effects of the struck position on the permanent

deformations are summarized in Table 10. In the case
in which the striker collided on the left longitudinal
girder (the 245 mm case), the permanent deformation was reduced by 66.6%. However, the permanent
deformation differences are negligible in the cases in
which the striker collided between the two longitudinal
girders (the 415 mm and 608 mm cases).
The deformation histories are provided in Fig. 13.
As can be seen in the figure, in the case in which
the striker collides at the point of the left longitudinal girder, the meaningful response period is very
short. However, in the case in which the striker collides
between the two longitudinal girders, the responses are
nearly identical.
(7) Effects of striker header shape

In order to investigate the effects of striker header
shape on double-hull side structures damage, the
radius of the striker header edge was changed from
10 mm to 510 mm. The permanent displacements are
summarized in Table 2. It can be seen that when the
radius becomes larger, the permanent displacement
is reduced. When the radius becomes larger the high
stressed regions propagated towards the boundaries of
the model. Therefore, a wider area can contribute to
dissipation of impact energy.
In real situations, the objects that can cause damage to struck ships include bulbous bows. However,
the shapes of bulbous bows vary between ships. A
common yet easy-to-model shape is a hemispherical
striker. Numerical computations were performed in
order to investigate the structural responses of doublehull side structures subjected to lateral collision with
strikers having hemispherical headers. The analyzed
model with a hemispherical striker is shown in Fig. 14.
A comparison of permanent displacements with
hemispherical and knife-edge strikers with varying
striker masses is shown in Table 14. As can be seen
in the table, the permanent displacements with hemispherical strikers are larger by about 16% on average.
Interestingly, the outer and inner shells were fractured at 4.0 tons and 8.0 tons, respectively, which are
the same fracture masses of the knife-edge striker.
Although concrete conclusions cannot be drawn from
these results, this is a promising result in terms of
standardization of striker headers.
192
Table 12. Effects of striker header shape on permanent

deformation.
Striker mass (ton)
Displacement Hemisphere 186.6

271.1
333.1
402.9
(mm)
(+21%) (+15%) (+11%) (+16%)
Knife edge 153.6
236.3
300.0
346.7
Figure 16. Effects of smearing on the cross-sectional structure after damage with a hemispherical striker (a) stiffened
plate model (b) smeared model.
Table 13.
Effects of smearing on permanent displacement.

Permanent displacement (mm)
Figure 15. Proposed collision scenario.
4
4.1
PARAMETRIC STUDIES WITH ACTUAL

SHIP MODELS
Collision scenario proposed
The collision scenario proposed in this study is shown

in Fig. 15. In the proposed scenario, only the doublehull side structure between the upper deck and the
lowest horizontal girder of the struck ship is considered
in order to simplify the analysis, and a rigid hemispherical nose cylinder replaces the striking ship. The
proposed scenario was adopted for a parametric study
with an actual ship model.
4.2 Actual ship model and smearing technique

A double-hull VLCC midship plan (ISSC, 2000) and
the structural design practices of ship yards were
utilized to setup the model analyzed in this study.
In order to achieve more accurate structural analyses, the stiffeners need to be included in the numerical
models. However, due to the requirements of computational efficiency, many researchers adopt a smearing
technique in mass impact analyses including collision and grounding accidents. Equivalent membrane
smearing is known to be suitable for collision and
grounding problems where the membrane action is
dominant compared to that of bending. In equivalent
membrane smearing, the equivalent thickness can be
obtained by equation (1).
Striker type
Stiffened plate
(1)
Smeared
(2)
Ratio
(1)/(2)
Hemisphere
Knife edge
1833
1387
1862
1399
0.985
0.992
where As is the total cross-sectional areas of the stiffeners, Ap is the total cross-sectional area of the plates,
and B is the breadth of the whole plate.
In this investigation, two types of strikers, knifeedge and hemisphere type, were considered, along
with variations in stiffener size. The mass and collision velocity of the striker was assumed to be 4000
tons and 3.0 m/s, respectively. The effects of smearing
on the stress flow pattern are shown in Fig. 7, which
illustrates the case in which a hemispherical striker is
used. As can be seen in the figures, in the stiffened
plate model, high stress regions are spread over the
model, while in the smeared model, high stress occurs
at the web stiffeners and girders.
The effects of smearing on the cross-sectional shape
structures after being damaged with a hemispherical
striker are shown in Fig. 16. As can be seen in the figures no apparent differences were observed between
the plastically deformed stiffened plate model and
that of the smeared model. The effects of smearing
on the permanent displacement of the stiffened plate
are shown in Table 13 for both hemispherical and
knifeedge strikers. As can be seen in the table, the
differences are less than 2% for both cases.
4.3 Parametric studies
(1) Effects of striker header size
In order to investigate the effects of striker header
size on the response of the struck doublehull stiffened structures, the diameter of the hemisphere was
193
Table 14.
Effects of smearing on permanent displacement.
Table 15. Effects of collision impact location on permanent

displacement.
Striker
diameter (mm)
Permanent
displacement (mm)
Difference
Impact location
point A
point B
3120
6240
9360
1253
1056
943
+18.7%
11.7%
Displacement(mm)
1862
1687
Figure 17. Collision impact location effects.
assumed to be 6240 mm as reference. For the other

cases, the diameters were reduced by 50% and
increased by 50% from the reference to 3129 mm
and 9360 mm, respectively. The mass and collision
velocity were assumed to be 2000 tons and 3.0 m/s,
respectively.
The effects of striker size on the permanent displacement are summarized in Table 14. As can be seen
in the table, when the size of the hemispherical striker
is reduced by 50%, the permanent displacement is
increased by 18.7%, while the permanent displacement is reduced by 11.7% when the size is reduced
by 50%.
(2) Effects of impact location
The location of the collision impact depends on the
relative draft and longitudinal location of the striking
and struck ships. However, it is necessary to investigate the effects of impact location on the structural
response of the struck ship. Two locations were chosen for this study: (a) a point at the center of the model
on plate between two girders, which is designated as
point A, and (b) 6120 mm from the left edge and
6640 mm above the lower edge of the model on the
conjunction point of the girder and web, which is designated as point B.The two locations are illustrated in
Fig. 17. In this analysis, the mass and collision velocity
of the striker were assumed to be 4000 tons and 3.0 m/s,
respectively, and smeared models were adopted.
The maximum permanent displacements for the two
collision impact locations are given in Table 15. As
can be seen in the table, when the striker impinges on
point A, i.e., the center of the model, the maximum
permanent displacement is larger than that of point
B by about 9.4%. However, the maximum permanent
displacement is not the only quantity by which the
severity of damage can be judged.
Figure 18. Effects of smearing on the occurrence of fractures in the outer plate (a) fractured stiffened plate model with
a striker mass of 6000 tons (b) fractured smeared model with
a striker mass of 6500 tons.
(3) Occurrence of fractures in the outer plate

It is important to provide information regarding the
occurrence of fractures in plates. In this study, the
occurrence of fractures in the outer plate was investigated with the collision velocity of 3.0 m/s used in
the other experiments, but with an increased striker
mass. Both the stiffened plate and smeared models
were considered.
When the mass of the striker was 6000 tons, the
outer plate was fractured in the stiffened plate model,
while the outer plate was fractured when the striker
mass was 6500 tons in the smeared model.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The findings of the investigations using the small-scale

model can be summarized as follows:
194
When the thicknesses of the upper plate and the

girder thicknesses the deformation can be reduced
significantly. However, the collision force can be
increased. When considering the weight efficiency,
an increase in girder thickness is the better choice.
Surprisingly, an increase in girder height provides
negligible change in permanent lateral deformation.
When the striker mass increases, the peak deformation and the separation of the striker with the
impacted structure increases.
When the collision velocity increases, the tendencies of the deformation history and collision
force-deformation relationship are nearly the same
as those of the striker mass.
If the striker collides with the double-hull side

structure between two longitudinal girders, the
response of the struck structure is nearly the same.
However, if the striker collides at the longitudinal girder, the meaningful response time and the
permanent lateral deformation can be reduced.
The findings of the investigations with an actual
VLCC ship model can be summarized as follows:
As shown in the results of this study the effects
of smearing on the permanent displacements of
stiffened plates can be negligible from a structural
design viewpoint, especially in the initial design
stage. However, in considering the occurrence of
fractures in the outer plate, the smearing technique
could increase the critical mass of striker by about
10%.
Provided that the mass of the striker remains the
same when the striker size is reduced by 50%, an
increase in the permanent displacement could be
about 20% for the structural model investigated in
this study.
Depending on the collision impact location, the
structural responses can be noticeably different.
Therefore, in developing structural design guidance
against collisions, several critical impact locations
should be considered.
REFERENCES
Cho, S.R. & Park, J.Y. 2010. Scale effect on the plastic
deformation of unstiffened plates subjected to collision
loads. Proc. of Annual Autumn Meeting, the Society of
Naval Architects of Korea: 2122. Changwon, Korea.
Choung, J.M.; Shim, C.S. & Kim, K.S. 2011. Plasticity and
Fracture Behaviors of Marine Structural Steel, Part I:
Theoretical Backgrounds of Strain Hardening and Rate
Hardening. Ocean Engineering 25(2): 134144.
Cowper, G. R. & Symonds, P. S. 1957. Strain hardening
and strain rate effects in the impact loading of cantilever
beams. Technical Report no. 28, Brown University to the
Office of Naval Research under contract no. NR-562(10).
Min, D.K. & Cho, S.R. 2012. On the fracture of polar class
vessel structures subjected to lateral impact loads. Jour. of
SNAK 49(4): 281286.
Park, B.W. & Cho S.R. 2006. Simple design formulae for
predicting the residual damage of unstiffened and stiffened plates under explosion loadings. Int. Jour. of Impact
Engineering 32(10): 17211736.
Simonsen, B.C. & Ocakli, H. 1999. Experiments and thory
on deck and girder crushing. Thin-walled structures 34:
195216.
Wang, G. & Ohtsubo, H. 1997. Deformation of ship plate
subjected to very large load. Proc. of 16th Int. Conf. on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 2: 173180.
Yokohama, Japan.
Zhang, L.; Egge, E.D. & Bruhns, H. 2004. Approval procedure concept for alternative arrangements. Proc. of the 3rd
Int. Conf. on Collision and Grounding of Ships: 8796.
Izu, Japan.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was carried out as a collaborative research
project with ClassNK, including financial support.
195
Structural safety assessment of ship collision and grounding using

FSI analysis technique
S.G. Lee, T. Zhao & J.H. Nam
Division of Naval Architecture & Ocean Systems Engineering, Korea Maritime University, Busan, Korea
ABSTRACT: Structural safety assessment was performed for the collision and grounding accidents of specialized ship structure and its cargo drums. To ensure reasonable and reliable safety assessment, realistic full-scale
ship collision and grounding simulations were carried out, using Fluid-Structural Interaction (FSI) analysis
technique of LS-DYNA code and propulsion force instead of ship velocity in simulation, and several important
features could be realized, such as motion, wave making and interference effects. Diverse scenarios were tried for
the conservative safety assessment, and cargo container boxes and drums were also loaded inside the cargo hold
of struck ship. The specialized ship was found to be superior to the crashworthiness of ship collision due to the
wide double side hull space. There was no damage in cargo drums, and container boxes also greatly contributed
to the crashworthiness of side structure. Contrary to the void condition simulation of grounding simulation, more
realistic grounding response behaviors, such as jumping and sway around the rock, could be realized according
to the load condition, rock height and position using FSI analysis technique.
INTRODUCTION
Structural safety assessment was performed for the

collision and grounding accidents of specialized ship
structure and its dangerous or/and high-valued cargo
drums. Its special feature is wide double side hull
space, 3.19 m, for the enhancement of side crashworthiness with regular double bottom height, 1.25 m.
To ensure reasonable and reliable safety assessment,
realistic full-scale ship collision and grounding simulations were carried out, using Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) analysis technique of LS-DYNA code
(LSTC 2011) and applying propulsion force instead
of velocity to the ship in simulations.
Because of very large impedance of sea water compared to that of air, ship can float and move against
several types of resistances in the surrounding sea
water. Wave making resistance is a major one and this
wave also has an effect on the motion of other ships
or floating bodies. Interference effects also occur in
the sea water between ships or floating bodies, such as
squeezing pressure during approaching each other, and
bank effect during passing away each other. Squeezing
pressure would be expected a little bit depending on
the attack angle during collision between ships.
The general FSI analysis could be conveniently
performed by the moving mesh algorithm and the
overlap capability of grid to structure mesh using the
Multi-Material ALE (Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian)
formulation and the EulerLagrange coupling algorithm of LS-DYNA code. The Volume Of Fluid (VOF)
method is adopted for solving a broad range of nonlinear free surface problems, and the coupling algorithm
is suitable for the full-scale ship collision and grounding simulations using FSI analysis technique with
overlap of fluid grid to ship structures (Aquelet et al.
2006, Souli et al. 2000).
Contrary to air or void condition in the full-scale
ship collision and grounding simulations, initial velocity could not be applied to ship because of large
resistance in the sea water, and constant velocity, also
unrealistic because of loss of kinetic energy during
contact to ship or rock, and of squeezing pressure partially. Since ship in service could not stop immediately
right after stopping engine or propeller, and maneuvering (operating) speed would be usually kept for a
while. Iceberg in the current was also treated by the
current force in the full-scale ship collision simulation
(Lee et al. 2010 and 2011).
Interim results for the structural safety assessment
of specialized ship and two types of cargo steel drums
were presented (Lee et al. 2012). After the full-scale
collision simulations were performed with diverse collision scenarios of two large striking ships, DWT
10,500 and 35,000 ton tankers, using FSI analysis
technique and applying propulsion force to ships, two
cargo drums inside container box were estimated for
their safety assessments using full-scale ship collision
simulation, loading them in shell guide of cargo hold
at the most severe collision scenario.
Full-scale ship collision simulations were again carried out with diverse collision scenarios of five striking
ships and thirteen types of container boxes and drums,
updating FSI analysis options and modeling of cargo
container boxes, drums and fluid. Full-scale grounding
simulations of the specialize ship were also perform
197
Table 1. Principal particular of striking and struck

(grounding) ships (unit: ton, m).
DWT
Type
LOA
LBP
500
Coastal fishing 56.07 49.6 8.8 3.84 3.45

vessel
1,000 Deep sea
70.57 60.6 12.3 5.00 4.50
fishing vessel
3,700 General cargo 102.70 93.0 14.0 7.00 5.20
ship
10,500 Oil product
115.00 107.0 18.2 10.70 8.15
tanker
35,000 Oil tanker
182.00 174.5 27.4 17.60 9.80
2,600 Specialized
78.60 71.0 15.8 7.30 4.00
ship
with diverse grounding scenarios using FSI analysis

technique and applying propulsion force to ship. In this
study, structural safety assessment of the specialize
ship are represented in the case of the most severe collision scenario, and according to the diverse grounding
scenarios. The safety assessment of cargo containers
and drums and their contributions to the hull structure
are also demonstrated.
COLLISION AND GROUNDING SCENARIOS
Table 1 shows the principal particular of five striking

and one specialized struck (and/or grounding) ships
for the full-scale ship collision and grounding simulations. Ballast and full load conditions were considered
for all striking ships in the collision scenarios and for
the specialized ship in the grounding ones, and just
full load condition, for the specialized ship in the collision scenarios. The struck ship was considered at a
standstill and in service. Maximum design speed was
applied to all striking, struck and grounding ships, and
diverse collision and grounding scenarios were tried
for the conservative estimation of structural safety
assessment of specialized ship and cargo drums. Collision scenario of striking ship bow collision to struck
ship side structure was only considered in this study.
Thirteen types of container boxes and drums were estimated for their safety assessments using full-scale ship
collision simulation, using FSI analysis technique and
loading them in shell guide of cargo hold with the most
severe collision scenario.
It is well known that bulbous bow structure is usually considered as strong part of striking ship, and
that side structure, weak one of struck ship. Even
though the center of gravity of struck ship is located
around at the bulkhead between the 3rd and 4th cargo
holds, striking ship was tried to collide to cargo
hold between bulkheads in perpendicular collision
scenario. Bulbous bow structure of DWT 10,500 and
35,000 ton tankers in full load condition could not be
collided to the side structure of struck one in even full
load condition.
Figure 1. Collision scenario of DWT 35,000 ton striking

ship in ballast condition with 80 degree in service (Case 3).
The 1st and 2nd scenarios were perpendicular collisions of the striking ships to the side structure of
struck one at a standstill and in service, respectively.
The 3rd scenario was oblique collisions of the striking
ships with acute attack angles, such as 80, 75, 70, 60
degrees, to the side structure of struck one in service.
Striking ship was collided to the center of the 3rd cargo
hold side structure in the 1st collision scenario, and to
the side structure between the center of the 3rd cargo
hold and rear part of the 2nd one depending on the
striking ship size and attack angle in the 2nd and 3rd
scenarios for more severe damage of the struck side
structure.
Three grounding scenarios were considered for the
rock position, such as center at the longitudinal line,
3.0 m and 3.75 m off the longitudinal one, and for the
rock height, such as 1.75 m and 2.0 m from the bottom
of grounding ship. Container boxes and drums were
not loaded in the cargo hold in every collision and
grounding scenario.
There was no fracture damage in the side inner hull
of struck ship by the collision scenarios of DWT 500,
1,000, 3,700 and 10,500 ton striking ships in ballast
and full load conditions and DWT 35,000 ton striking
one in full load condition, and also in the bottom inner
hull by the grounding scenarios of three rock positions
and two rock heights.
In this study, full-scale ship collision simulation
responses of DWT 35,000 ton striking ship in ballast condition are shown in four cases without loading
container boxes and drums in the cargo holds, where
Case 1 is a collision scenario with 90 degree attack
angle to struck ship at a standstill, Case 2, 90 degree
in service, Case 3, 80 degree in a service, and Case 4,
60 degree in service. It was found that the most severe
fracture damage in the side inner hull occurred in
the collision scenario Case 3 with 80 degree attack
angle. Full-scale ship grounding simulation responses
are also typically illustrated with grounding scenarios of grounding ship in full load condition with rock
height 2.0 m and two rock positions, center and 3.0 m
off the longitudinal center line.
Figures 1 and 2 depict the collision (Case 3) and
grounding scenarios, including fluid (sea water and
198
Figure 3. F.E. configuration of grounding specialized ship

and rock.
Figure 2. Grounding scenario of specialized ship in full load

condition.
air) model, where fluid model was decided for the

enough space of ship motion and from the fluid
boundary pressure reflection.
Thirteen types of container boxes and drums were
estimated for the structural safety assessment in the
collision scenario Case 3 with the most severe damage
in the side inner hull of struck ship after loading them
in the shell guide of the cargo hold. Two types of steel
drums and six types of concrete ones were loaded in
the five types of container boxes with combination
of loading drums into container boxes. In this study,
among thirteen types of container boxes and drums,
five ones were typically treated, such as four types of
container boxes, one type of steel drum and three types
of concrete ones.
GROUNDING AND CARGO MODELING
Figure 3 shows the finite element (F.E.) configurations of the grounding ship and the rock, where bottom
structure of the grounding one was modeled by the
crushable deformable ones. Five types of container
boxes and drums (Cases 59) are shown in Figures 4
and 5 with four types of container boxes, one type of
steel drum and three types of concrete ones. Container
box, CB1, was produced in one body with 12.0 mm
thin shell plate, frames and cover, and CB2 and CB3,
separately by frames and strong body with 50.0 mm or
70.0 mm thick plate and cover, respectively. Container
box, CB4, was made of frames and cask with 145.0 mm
thickness. Steel drum, DC1, was reinforced by beams
Figure 4. F.E. configuration of container boxes and drums.
199
Figure 7. Grounding test of NSWC (Rodd and Sikora 1995).
Figure 5. F.E. configuration of drums.
Figure 6. F.E. configuration of shell guide with container

boxes in cargo hold.
instead of ring frames of cover and bottom, and folds,

as shown in Figure 5(a), and concrete ones, DC2,
DC3 and DC4, by reinforcing bars, as shown in Figure 5(b)(d). Minimum mesh size, around 30.0 mm,
was used for the container boxes and drums. Figure 6 shows the F.E. configuration of shell guide with
container boxes in cargo hold.
Four node Belytschko-Tsay shell element and eight
node constant stress solid element were usually used,
and beam element was also adopted for the small size
stiffener or its flange with truss element for reinforced
bar in drum. While automatic_surface_to_surface
option was used for the ship-to-ship or ship-to-cargo
contact algorithms, automatic_single one, for the
whole members of each ship or cargo itself ones.
analysis of ship and cargo collision problem. Strain

rate dependent material of Cowper-Symonds model
in LS-DYNA code might be suitable for the collision
and grounding simulations, and failure strain should be
also determined by the ratio of finite element size to its
thickness in the crashworthiness analysis when shear
fracture model was adopted for the fracture criterion
(Lee 2007).
1:5 scale grounding tests of NSWC (Rodd and
Sikora 1995) are usually used for the verification
of F.E. simulation capacity and fracture criterion, as
shown in Figure 7. One of test models, ADH/ PD328V,
was simulated using rough and fine mesh models with
failure strains from 0.20 to 0.35, as shown in Figure 8,
and material properties of ASTM 569, as shown in
Table 2. It could be found that failure strain 0.3 and
0.2 are suitable for the fine and rough meshes with
the ratios 12.5 and 25.0 of finite element sizes to their
thicknesses, respectively (Lee 2007).
In this study, mild and high tensile steels were
used for ship structure, cargo container box and
steel drum, and their material properties are summarized in Table 3. Strain rate dependent material of
Cowper-Symonds was considered and failure strains
0.20, 0.25 and 0.30 according to the ratio of element size to its thickness. Material type MAT_159
(MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE) was used for the concrete of cargo drum using default material properties
of normal strength concrete with eroding option
for its fracture. Material type MAT_027 (MAT_
MOONEY_RIVLIN_RUBBER) was used for rubber,
and SD400 6 model, for reinforcing rod.
5
4
COLLISION SIMULATION USING FSI

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
FRACTURE CRITERION
It is well known that fracture criterion and material

properties are very important in the crashworthiness
Figure 9 typically shows the collision response behavior of DWT 35,000 ton striking ship in Case 3, where
striking ship collided to the front of its 3rd cargo hold in
200
Figure 9. Collision response behaviors of Case 3.
Figure 10. Collision responses of Case 3.

Figure 8. Grounding test simulation of ADH/PD328V
model (Lee 2007).
Table 4.
Table 2.
Case
Service
condition
Attack
angle
Dent
depth (m)
Rupture
area (m2 )
1
2
3
4
standstill
service
service
service
90
90
80
60
0.90
2.15
2.95
1.10
1.23 2.93
2.75 5.75
Material properties of ASTM 569.
Property
ASTM 569
Youngs modulus
Density
Poissons ratio
Yield stress
Ultimate stress
Failure strain
Dynamic yield stress constants
3.00 107 ksi

7.43 104 lbf-s2 /in
0.30
41.00 ksi
50.00 ksi
0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35
D = 40.4 s1 , q = 5
Table 3.
Material properties of mild and high tensile steels.
Property
Mild steel
High tensile steel
Youngs
modulus
Density
Yield stress
Ultimate stress
Failure strain
Dynamic yield
stress constants
206.0 GPa
206.0 GPa
7,850 kg/m3
235.0 MPa
445.0 MPa
0.20, 0.25, 0.30
D = 40.4 s1 ,
q=5
7,850 kg/m3
315.0 MPa
525.0 MPa
0.20, 0.25, 0.30
D = 24,805.6 s1 ,
q=5
Damage states in side inner hull of Cases 14.
service at 80 degree attack angle. Collision responses

of lateral velocity, kinetic and internal energies of
striking and struck ships are illustrated in Figure 10.
It was found that struck ship started moving laterally up to around 2.0 knots before collision due to the
interference effect between two ships, and that internal
energy of struck ship was larger than that of striking
one. A lot of kinetic energy of striking ship was lost
compared to internal energy of two ships, which would
be stored in the internal and kinetic energies of fluid
contrary to the void condition simulation.
Damage configurations in the side inner hull of
struck of Cases 14 are compared with each other, as
shown in Figure 11, and their damage states are summarized in Table 4, where the largest rupture occurred
in the side inner hull in Case 3.
201
Figure 11. Damage configurations in side hull of struck

ship.
SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF CONTAINER

BOXES AND DRUMS
Full-scale ship collision simulation in Case 3 was carried out again for the structural safety assessment
of cargo container boxes and drums of Cases 59.
Figures 1216 illustrate the damage configurations
of side inner hull, cargo container boxes and drums,
together with inner energy responses of only struck
ship without cargo and only cargo compared with that
of total one of struck ship, where their internal energy
responses of cargos are shown in Figure 17.
As shown in Figures 1216, fracture damage in the
side inner hull of struck ship was greatly reduced to
a small rupture by the crashworthiness of container
boxes and drums. It could be found that damage patterns were different according to the types of container
box and drum. While one body container box, CB1,
with thin shell plate was dented locally and torn away
in the shell plate and frame, strong square body ones

and cask, CB2CB4, had damage in frames except
body. The first column of container box, CB1, at the
side inner hull was damaged by the bulbous bow of
striking ship because of its weak stiffness, and there
was no effect to next column container boxes. Several container boxes were affected by the bulbous bow
of striking ship because of its strong body and weak
frames. Steel drum was just dented with no fracture,
202
Figure 18. Grounding response behaviors in full load condition with rock position center.
Figure 19. Grounding response behaviors in full load condition with rock position 3.0 m off.
and just one type of drum, concrete DC2, was broken

at the bottom and side with no damage inside, as shown
in Figure 14(e).
Since very small mesh size of cargo container boxes
and drums made a very huge computational time, simulation was terminated after guaranteeing enough their
maximum damages. As shown in Figures 12(b)16(b)
and 17, the internal energy of cargo was very small
compared to that of struck ship. The responses of cargo
containers and drums in Cases 59 could be inferred
from the damage aspects and column movement numbers of container boxes, which also affected the rupture
damage states of side inner hull and internal energy
responses of struck ship. Rupture damage in the inner
hull was reduced differently according to the damage
patterns of cargo container boxes and drums. From
this study, container boxes of Case 5 and 8 according
to steel and concrete drums could be recommended
for the superior crashworthiness, respectively. Anyway, it could be estimated that container boxes and
drums contributed greatly to the crashworthiness of
side structure of struck ship in the case of the most
severe collision scenario, Case 3.
Figure 17. Internal energy responses of cargos in Cases

59.
GROUNDING SIMULATION USING FSI

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
Figures 1819 illustrate the grounding response

behaviors of the grounding ship in full load condition,
with the most severe grounding scenarios, such as
203
Figure 20. Grounding response in full load condition with

rock position center and 3.0 m off.
rock height 2.0 m and two rock positions, center and

3.0 m off the longitudinal center line. Their grounding
responses, such as collision force, kinetic and internal
energy, are also shown in Fig. 22.
Contrary to the void condition simulation, more
realistic grounding response behaviors of the grounding ship, such as jumping and sway around the rock
under the self weight of grounding ship, could be found
depending on the load condition and rock height and
position using FSI analysis technique. A little bit different grounding responses, such as collision force
and energy, occurred between the rock positions in
full load condition after the first rock colliding. There
was no damage in the inner hull of grounding ship in
any grounding scenario in this study except very small
stress concentration in the inner bottom hull in the case
of full load condition with rock height 2.0 m and center position. This might be due to the double bottom
structure with good combination of longitudinal and
transverse girder members.
8
CONCLUSION
Structural safety assessment was performed for the

collision and grounding scenarios of specialized ship
and its cargo. To ensure reasonable and reliable
safety assessment, realistic full-scale ship collision
and grounding simulations were carried out, using FSI
analysis technique of LS-DYNA code and propulsion
force instead of velocity in simulations.
There was no fracture damage in the side inner side
hull of DWT 2,600 ton specialized ship as struck ship,
except DWT 35,000 ton striking ship in ballast condition to struck one in service at 90 and 80 degree
attack angles, and also no damage in the inner bottom
hull of specialized ship as grounding one, even rock
height 0.75m above inner bottom hull under full load
condition.
Contrary to the void condition simulations, more
realistic collision and grounding response behaviors
could be found in the surrounding sea water, in that

striking ship moved laterally before collision, and a lot
of kinetic energy of large size of striking ship might
be transferred to the fluid energy, which would give
a reasonable collision speed response after collision
in addition to the loss of internal energy to the struck
ship. Realistic grounding response behaviors of the
grounding ship was also observed, such as jumping and
sway around the rock under its self weight, depending
on its load condition, rock height and position.
Through the full-scale collision simulation of cargo
container boxes and drums loaded inside the cargo
hold of struck ship using FSI analysis technique, it was
found that their crashworthiness capacities and damage patterns could be relatively well figured out with
their energy dissipations, and their structural safeties
would be assessed with high reliability. Container
boxes and drums in shell guide also contributed greatly
to the crashworthiness of side structure of struck ship,
and no damage occurred in the drums, except damage
only in the bottom and side of square concrete drum
with no damage in its inside even in the very serious
collision scenario.
It could be confirmed that this specialized ship
might be superior to the severe collision scenarios due
to the wide double side hull space. In the future study,
some verification works on the collision and grounding simulations should be performed for the enhancement of their reliability, using FSI analysis technique.
REFERENCES
Aquelet, N.; Souli, M. & Olovsson, L. 2006. EulerLagrange
coupling with damping effects: Application to slamming
problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Lee, S.G. 2007. A Study on Double Bottom Structural Criterion of Small Oil Tanker. Report of Ministry of Maritime
Affairs and Fisheries, Korea.
Lee, S.G.; Lee, J.H.; Nguyen, H.A. & Nam, H.J. 2010. Crashworthy Safety Assessment of Container Ship and Mobile
Harbor at Mooring. Proceedings of the Annual Autumn
Meeting, SNAK, Changwon, Korea. October 2122 2010:
13561367.
Lee, S.G. & Nguyen, H.A. 2011. LNGC Collision Response
Analysis with Iceberg Considering Surrounding Seawater,
ISOPE 2011. Proceedings of the 21st International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Maui, Hwaii,
USA, June 1924 2011, 1: 11281135.
Lee, S.G.; Nam, J.H.; Kim, J.K.; Zhao, T. & Nguyen, H.A.
2012. Structural safety assessment of ship collision and
grounding using FSI analysis technique, ISOPE 2012.
Proceedings of the 22nd International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Rhodes, Greece, June 1722
2012, 4: 753762.
LSTC 2011. LS-DYNA Users Manual, Version 971 R5,
Livermore Soft Technology Corp., USA.
Rodd, J. & Sikora, J. 1995. Double hull grounding experiments, Proceedings of the 5th ISOPE: 446456.
Souli, M.; Ouahsine, A. & Lewin, L. 2000. ALE formulation for fluid-structure interaction problems, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 190:
659675.
204
Ship-ice collision analysis to define ice model according to

the IACS Polar Rule
M.J. Kwak, J.H. Choi, O.J. Hwang & Y.T. Oh
Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co., LTD, Korea
ABSTRACT: Nowadays, the exploration and development of Arctic region are getting more active than ever
before due to the increasing demands for oil and gas supplies. There is a need for large crude oil tankers to
transport the oil that will be produced from these far northern locations. For the safety of hull structure, the
interaction between ship and ice is a critical issue to be settled for the safe sailing in Arctic region. However
the behaviors of a sea ice are very complicated to define reliable mechanical model since there are various
characteristics corresponding to its age and temperature. Recently, unified the IACS Polar Rule was released
to provide standard design guidance for Arctic Vessel. Despite that, many research activities are performed to
define ice mechanical properties for reliable ship-ice collision analysis. For reliable ship-ice collision analysis,
the definition of mechanical properties of ice is very important. In this study, ship-ice collision analyses were
performed to find the proper ice model which can describe ice failure feature such as crushing and flexural
phenomenon and resultant contact force complying with design ice force of IACS Polar Rule.
INTRODUCTION
Vast reservoirs of oil and gas are expected to be

exploited in the Russian Arctic region including the
Barents, the Pechora and the Kara Sea. There is a need
for large crude oil tankers to transport the oil that will
be produced from these far northern locations. Therefore, the interests for arctic vessel have been increased
recently. However, sailing in the Arctic area is more
difficult than in the mild climate area since there are
many things to overcome, such as ice load and cold
temperatures.
Many engineering activities had been carried out
to predict reliable ice load based on clear definition of the ice features for Arctic vessels. But they
reached slightly different conclusion on design method
because they do not have a standard rule. Finally, unified the IACS Polar Rule was released to provide
standard design guidance. In the IACS Polar Rule, the
ice load that links with collision scenario of glancing
ice is defined.
Many ship owners are worrying about hull safety
due to ship-ice collision as accidental event and requiring reliable assessment of ship-ice collision analysis
considering dynamic effect although Arctic Rules provide the design methods. For reliable ship-ice collision
analysis, the definition of ice mechanical properties is
very important. In IACS Polar Rule, the crushing and
bending modes of ice failure are considered to simplify
the failure phenomenon of sea ice.
DSME conducted some engineer activities to
understand the IACS Polar Rule in the view point of
hull structure (Kwak et al. 2009) in which the method
Figure 1. Analysis methods for determination of ice model.
for structural assessment of 107k DSME STD Arctic

Tanker considering the ice collision was suggested by
the ultimate limit sate and in addition, by some numerical simulation in time domain. However, it was found
that there still remains some difference from IACS
Polar Rule.
In this paper, works achieved form previous studies were more highlighted. In performing the collision
analysis to find the ice mechanical properties based on
IACS Polar Rule, two simulations were conducted as
shown in Figure 1.
In 1st simulation, rigid hull structure & ice collision analysis was performed to find ice model which
can describe ice failure feature such as crushing and
flexural phenomenon and resultant contact force complying with design ice force of IACS Polar Rule since
205
Figure 2. Design scenario of IACS Polar Rule.
hull deflection was ignored to calculate ice load in

IACS Polar Rule. After determined ice model, flexible
hull structure & ice collision analysis was additionally performed to evaluate response of ice and hull
structure.
Before ship-ice collision simulation, non-linear
analysis was conducted to verify accuracy of hull
structure against ice load considering plastic limit
state.
2 THE DEFINITION OF ICE MODEL

The Polar Rule bases the ice loads on a specific design
scenario. The design scenario is a glancing collision on
the shoulders of the bow as shown in Figure 2. The ice
load is derived from the solution of an energy based on
collision model, where kinetic energy equation is equal
to ice crushing energy. This means that hull structure is
assumed as rigid structure. This theory was supported
by various studies, including numerical method, model
test, ship trial and experiment data, Daley (2000).
And the parameters, such as ice thickness, ship
speed, hull form, are considered based on class level,
and these are described in the IACS Polar Rule.
The rule scenario is strictly valid only for the bow
region, and for the stern of double-acting ships. In
order to produce a balanced structural design, loads
on other hull areas are set as a proportion of the bow
area by using empirical hull area factors (AF). The ice
load is derived for an oblique collision on the bow.
The ice load model assumes a Popov type of collision. The force is found by equating the normal kinetic
energy (left side in Eq. (1)) with ice crushing energy
(right side in Eq. (1)) as shown below:
where = normal ice penetration; Fn = normal force;

Me = effective mass; and Vn = normal velocity.
The maximum force can be found by equating the
normal kinetic energy with the energy used to crush
the ice. The ice crushing force cannot exceed the force
required to fail the ice in bending. The combination of
Figure 3. Design load cases.
angles, ice strength and thickness determine the force

limit due to bending as shown in Eq. 2.
where hice = ice thickness m; f = ice flexural strength

MPa.
In this paper, ice model was defined to include
above mentions.
STRENGTH VERIFICATION
Before ship-ice collision analysis, accuracy of hull

structure was verified through the non-linear analysis.
In the IACS Polar Rules, the design methods are
based on plastic capacity of the plate and stiffeners
along with a conservative design loads. For example,
there should be two load cases considered for transverse frame in the ice belt, which are symmetric load
case and asymmetric load case to design the ship structure against ice load, Kendrick & Daley (2000), IACS
(2007).
Symmetric loading states that ice load is applied at
mid-span and the second load case is reflecting that
the load is concentrated at the end of frames. Figure 3
shows the cases of symmetric and asymmetric load
case.
The limit state in the IACS Polar Class Rule represents a capacity comparable to that labeled mechanism 1 that called design limit state in Figure 4. Prior
to mechanism 1, the load-deflection curve is essentially linear and follows the slope of the original elastic
trend. Yielding occurs well before mechanism 1. This
is followed by the expansion of the plastic zone, during
which stress redistribution takes place. Further along
this curve, additional mechanisms can occur, including
buckling and fracture as shown at mechanism 2.
This mechanism was validated through the comparison study between experiment results and nonlinear
analysis, Kendrick & Daley (2000), Daley et al. (2007),
Kwak et al. (2009) .
206
Figure 4. Structural behavior mechanism.

Figure 6. Load & deflection curve for nonlinear analysis.
considering corrosion margin. The details of structure

members are given below:
Shell plate = 37 mm
Transverse frame = 500 35 mm
Longi.-stiffener = 1100 31 + 275 31 mm
Figure 5. FE model and boundary condition for nonlinear

analysis.
Table 1.
Ice load Information.
Patch
Value
Unit
Width of patch
Height of patch
Area
Force
Patch pressure
4.328
0.675
2.863
19.200
6.720
m
m
m2
MN
Mpa
For boundary condition, aft end of the FE model

was constrained longitudinally and symmetric condition was applied to centerline elevation due to the half
model. Also, the connections of deck and main frame,
deck and shell plate were constrained vertically.
The nonlinear FE analysis was performed using
load patch in Table 1.
As a result of the analysis, load deflection curve
was obtained as shown in Figure 6. The ice patch load
in Table 1 is found at around mechanism 1 described
in Figure 3. It means that the bow structure has enough
strength under ice load defined in the IACS Polar Class
Rule.
4
3.1
Nonlinear analysis
DSME STD Arctic Tanker (107k) was selected as

target vessel. The hull structure of target vessel was
initially designed based on CSR rule for the open sea
operation and the IACS Polar Rule (PC4) for the Arctic
operation. In this paper, strength verification against
ice load was only mentioned.
The ships main dimensions are shown below:
Length = 250 m
Breadth = 44 m
Draft = 14 m
Block coefficient = 0.8
To carry out the strength analysis for bow structure (Figure 5), the ice patch load was calculated
based on the IACS Polar Rule (PC4) and the ice load
information is as shown in Table 1.
Transverse frames were added to reinforce the bow
area against ice load in initial design stage. The thicknesses of structures in FE model are net-scantling
SHIP-ICE COLLISION ANALYSIS
Actually, the ship-ice collision analyses done before

were conducted in DSME, Han et al. (2008) to evaluate
the hull safety and CCS of LNGc against the ice load
but these analyses were not based on IACS Polar Rule.
In this paper, two ship-ice collision analyses with
level ice were performed using MSC.Dytran based on
IACS Polar Rule after strength verification of target
vessel.
At first simulation, collision force obtained from
the numerical simulation was compared with design
ice load and properties of ice were iteratively adjusted
in order to derive proper mechanical property of ice
which can describe the ice failure feature and proper
ice load. Also, responses of hull structure and ice were
evaluated at second ship-ice collision analysis.
4.1 Assumption
For these analyses, some concepts and assumption
were reflected to save effort and conduct the analysis
effectively.
207
Since time step size is usually controlled by the

smallest element size over all elements in the shipice collision simulation using explicit code, such as
MSC.Dytran, the modeling of ship and level ice is
very important for stable computation. In these analyses, the microscopic failure for ice was ignored since it
needs the very small size element that can require too
small time step. Actually, mesh size of ice will affect
the ice failure mode under ship-ice collision. However,
the simulation of microscopic failure is not critical
for the calculation of collision force and therefore
macroscopic ice failure mode was only applied.
Based on MSC handbook, MSC (2006), 106 time
step is recommended for explicit simulation. In these
analyses, the mesh size was set such that time step is
more than 106 level in this analysis.
Also, the partial FE model for bow structure and
ice was used to avoid too much analysis time due to
the unnecessary element. Besides, to reflect the real
situation, the ice model and bow structure was given
symmetric boundary condition.
The mass of ship included added mass factor (1.1)
to take into account surrounding fluid effect in bow
collision.
And the level ice thickness was 3.5 m and collision
velocity was 2.5 m/s according to the background of
class factor in the IACS Polar Rule (PC4).
4.2
Figure 7. The simulation model for bow structure (rigid) &

ice.
Table 2. The values for calculation of ice load.
Content
Symbol
Value
Ice pressure (at 1 m2 ) [MPa]

Ship mass [kton]
Ship velocity [m/s]
Shape coefficient (minimum)
Po
ship
Vship
fa1
fa2
fa3
2.45
126.5
2.5
0.29
0.19
0.6
Collision analyses
Sea ice has various characteristics by age and temperature and its behavior is very complicated to describe
mathematically. At present the failure mechanism of
ice is not fully understood and not clearly defined. The
crushing and bending mode of ice failure are considered to simplify the sea ice failure mode in the IACS
Polar Rule. The ice characteristics were considered
according to the IACS Polar Rule for the ship-ice collision in this study. In the IACS Polar Rule, flexibility of
hull structure is not considered to derive the ice load.
Therefore, in this numerical simulation, there were two
types of collision cases as below.
1st Simulation: Rigid bow structure and ice
(Without flexibility of hull structure)
2nd Simulation: Flexible bow structure and ice
collision analysis (Responses of hull structure
and ice).
The rigid bow structure and ice was used to identify
the appropriate mechanical properties of ice reflecting
failure phenomenon, which was validated by comparison with collision force defined by the ICAS Polar
Rule.
The elastic behavior of ice should be characterized
by moderate anisotropy and its mechanical property
varies widely depending on age, salinity and temperature. However, ice material was assumed to be isotropic
for this numerical simulation. Elastic modulus and
Poissons ratio are 6.25 GPa and 0.33 respectively.
Also, as a failure criterion of ice, the compressive
stress of 8 MPa was used based on ISO 19906, ISO
(2010). However, the values of elastic modulus, failure stress and yield stress were adjusted to meet the
collision force defined the IACS Polar Rule formula
in the collision analysis between rigid bow structure
and ice. These re-defined mechanical properties of ice
were used to evaluate response of hull structure and
ice in collision analysis between flexible bow structure
and ice.
4.2.1 Rigid bow structure & ice
As described above, the rigid bow structure & ice
collision analysis was performed to find the proper
mechanical properties of ice which can make similar
collision force to that calculated by the IACS Polar
Rule.
The rigid bow structure model was used, as the
absorbed energy of hull is ignored in the calculation
of ice load in the IACS Polar Rule. Figure 7 shows the
rigid bow structure and ice FE model.
Ice load defined in the IACS Polar Rule was calculated to consider the crushing and flexural failure
of ice and the rule formula of ice force was as shown
below:
In Equation 3, the values to calculate ice force are

as shown in Table 2.
The crushing force is 28.9 MN when fa1 is used for
calculation of ice load in Rule. The fa2 is flexural term
208
Table 3. Analysis cases for calculating crushing force.
Cases
Elastic modulus
(MPa)
Failure stress
(MPa)
A
B
C
D
6250
625
625
6250
8
8
45
400
Figure 9. Results of crushing forces for analysis cases.
Figure 10. Contact geometry during collision with an ice

edge.
Figure 8. The description of calculation for normal force.
Table 4. The values for contact geometry parameters.
and fa3 is the limiting case of the crushing equation.

In the IACS Polar Rule, the minimum value (0.19) is
used to calculate the final ice force (18.9 MN), which
means that ice force depends on the combination of
crushing and flexural term and calculated ice load will
be limited by flexural failure.
Firstly, the collision analysis between rigid bow
structure and ice was conducted to investigate crushing
term only. To find the appropriate mechanical property
of ice only for crushing force, some analysis cases
were carried out with adjusting the elastic modulus
and failure stress of ice as shown in Table 3.
Collision force should be transformed into normal
force in order to compare with IACS Polar Rule since
the collision force from FE result was calculated in the
direction as shown on Figure 8.
As shown on Figure 9, the ice force is increasing
with time since contact area is widened gradually. The
ice load for Case C and Case D were above the ice force
defined in rule formula. According to the IACS Polar
Rule, normal penetration depth () can be calculated
using Eq. (4) and Eq. (5) below which is about 1.5 m,
and the normal speed of ship is 0.74 m/s according
to rule formula. Therefore, the flexural phenomenon
will occur within 23 second. Figure 10 shows the
contact geometry and parameters which were applied
in Eq. (4) and Eq. (5). Also, Table 4 shows values of
contact geometry parameters.
Symbol
Value
Unit
W
H
5.77
3.32
1.45
60.32
90
m
m
m2
deg
deg
where W = Width of the nominal contact area;

H = Height of the nominal contact area; = Normal
penetration depth; = normal frame angle; and
= Ice edge angle.
It was assumed that the flexural failure occurred in
approximately 3 seconds considering the initial gap
between ship and ice and reduced velocity due to collision. The properties corresponding to Case C were
selected to consider crushing failure of ice.
As a second step of the analysis, the very small truss
elements between solid elements of ice were used to
consider the flexural failure. The solid element which
had the mechanical property of Case C was locally
crushable during the ship-ice collision, and global flexural phenomenon of ice which breaks the connection
of solid elements could be simulated by truss element
simultaneously due to collision force on the contacted
209
Figure 13. The FE model for Hull structure (Flexible

material) & Ice.
Table 5.
Figure 11. Simulated ice failure mode (Crushing & Flexural
Failure).
Ship
Ice
Total
FE model data.
Type
Element NO.
Node NO.
Shell
Beam
Solid
Truss
102590
5938
34270
26133
142798
100880
62964
163844
Rupture strain depending on the steel grade for the

bow structure was determined as below, NTS (2004):
Mild
HT 32
HT 36
0.2 (20%)
0.167 (16.7%)
0.15 (15%)
Also, Cowper-Symonds rate enhancement formula

was used to consider strain rate as follows:
Figure 12. Comparative ice forces of two ice models.
area. Figure 11 shows the broken ice due to crushing

and flexural phenomenon.
Some parameters such as failure strain or yield
stress for truss element were adjusted, but elastic modulus of truss element was same as the solid element.
The analysis results are shown in Figure 12.
4.2.2 Flexible bow structure & ice
To investigate the hull structure response (bow structure) during the ship-ice collision, flexible bow structure that includes the strain rate and plastic property
was used.
where D and P = Constant in the Cowper-Symonds

enhancement formula.
The applied values of D and P are 40.4 and 5 for
mild steel, and 3200 and 5 respectively for HT steel.
The ice model from the rigid bow structure & ice
was used to perform this simulation as well.
FE model for target vessel was constructed by
3-node or 4-node shell element and beam elements.
As described above, only half of the bow structure was
modeled but mass of ship was fully applied in order to
realize the kinematic energy of the whole ship.
The FE model and data for collision analysis are
shown in Figure 13 and Table 5.
In this collision analysis, ice force is a little
different from the rigid bow structure-ice collision
analysis. It may be inferred that different structure
response between rigid and flexible structure occurred
as the flexible structure can absorb the kinematic
energy. Therefore, the collision force from the flexible
bow structure-ice collision was lower than rigid bow
210
Figure 14. Comparison rigid bow structure & flexible bow

structure (contact force).
Figure 16. Relationship between pressure and contact area.
Figure 15. Results of plastic strain & deformed shape.
structure-ice collision analysis as shown in Figure 14.

Also, flexural failure of ice does not occur.
As a result, the failure strain appeared at the shell
plate as shown in Figure 15 since the patch area was
smaller than rule patch. The patch size was about 2.1 m
deep and 3.4 m wide in approximately 3 seconds after
the collision in this simulation and the size of rule
patch defined the IACS Polar Rule is 3.31 m deep and
5.75 m wide as shown in Table 4. It means that the pressure applied to the structure of ship in this simulation
was larger than Rule value in the light of similar collision force but smaller patch size. Figure 16 shows the
comparison results of relationship pressure & contact
area between simulations and Rule.
As shown in this figure, loading per area in simulation of flexible bow structure is much higher than
that of the Rule value. Accordingly, to define ice model
based on IACS Polar Rule, it was one of key points that
relationship between pressure and contact area should
come close to IACS Polar Rule.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, the mechanical properties of ice were

investigated to determine the ice model using the rigid
bow structure based on IACS Polar Rule.
By the determined ice model from the collision
analysis between ice & rigid bow structure based
on IACS Polar Rule, the ice failure modes such as
crushing and flexural failure could be described and,
resultant contact force, which is well complied with
design ice load of Rule could be obtained.
However, in the collision analysis for flexible bow
structure & ice, unacceptable failure strain computed
on bow structure, even though the hull structure had
been verified by non-linear FE analysis mentioned in
section 3. Besides, as shown in Figure 16, the loading
per area above the design load of Rule was computed.
Accordingly, to define ice model based on IACS
Polar Rule, it was one of key points that relationship
between pressure and contact area should come close
to IACS Polar Rule.
In the evaluation for structural & ice response analysis based on FEA, the ice mechanical property should
be defined considering not only collision force but
also penetration depth which had an effect on relationship between pressure & area in performing ship-ice
collision simulation complying with the IACS Polar
Rule.
REFERENCES
Daley, C. 2000. Background Notes to Design Ice loads:
Memorial University.
Daley, C.; Hermanski, G.; Pavic, M. & Hussein,A. 2007. Ultimate Strength of Frames and Grillages Subject to Lateral
Loads an Experimental Study: Faculty of Enginnering, Memorial University, Institute for Ocean Technology,
NRC, BMT Fleet Technology Limited, 10th International
Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other
Floating Structures Houston, Texas.
211
Han, S.; Lee J.Y.; Park Y.I. and Che J. 2008. Structural
Risk Analysis of an NO96 membrane-type Liquified
Natural Gas Carrier in Baltic Ice Operation. Journal of
Engineering for the Maritime Environment 222 Part M:
179194.
International Associate of Classification Societies (IACS),
Requirements concerning POLAR CLASS, IACS,
2007.
International Organization for Standardiztion (ISO), ISO
19906, ISO, 2010.
Kendrick, A. & Daley, C. 2000. Derivation and use of
formulations for framing design. AMARK Inc., Daley
R&E.
Kwak, M. J.; Choi, J. H.; Park, J. H. & Woo, J. H.

Strength Assessment for Bow Structure of Arctic Tanker
(107k) under Ship-Ice Interaction. Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co., LTD, RINA ICSOT
2009.
Kwak, M. J.; Park J. H.; Choi J. H. and Woo J. H. 2009.
Ultimate Strength Analysis of Stiffened Panel Subject to
Ice Load, Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering
Co., LTD, The Society of Naval Architects of Korea.
MSC, MSC.Dytran Users Guied, MSC Software, 2006.
Norwegian Technology Center (NTC), NORSOK STANDARD N-004, NTS, 2004.
212
On the plastic and fracture damage of polar class vessel

structures subjected to impact loadings
D.K. Min & Y.M. Heo
Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co. Ltd., Ulsan, Korea
D.W. Shin, S.H. Kim & S.R. Cho

University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Korea
ABSTRACT: Recently the possibility of the commercialization of the Northern Sea Route becomes visible
and the development and production of arctic and subarctic oil and gas fields are enlivened. Many investigations
have been performed and reported on the structural characteristics of polar class vessels. Despite of the higher
possibility of collision with ice floes, the structural behaviors under impact loadings at low temperature of
those vessels have not yet drawn many attentions. In this study a series of experimental investigations were
performed. Firstly, tensile tests were conducted using a cold chamber at room and low temperatures for the
steel materials for outer shell of polar class vessels. Secondly, collision tests were carried out at room and low
temperatures for single frame structures made of DH36 steel material. A knife edge type striker was dropped
down onto single frame structures invoking plastic deformations. Lastly, collision tests were also performed
on single frame structures with notches and fractured at room and low temperatures. The fracture experiments
of single frame structures revealed that the steel structure under low temperature condition fractures at much
lower strain than that under room temperature condition despite the same stress states at both temperatures.
Numerical investigations were also performed employing the Johnson-Cook shear failure model to simulate the
fractured single frame structures. Quite reasonable agreements have been achieved between experimental results
and numerical predictions. In conclusion, the material properties on low temperature condition are essential to
estimate the fracture characteristics of steel structures operated in the Northern Sea Route
INTRODUCTION
There have not been many studies on structural damage assessments in collisions between a ship and ice
floes and ship-to-ship collisions at low temperature.
Recently, Ehlers and stby (2012) studied the collision
resistance of ships exposed to sub-zero temperature.
However, most researchers employ A grade mild or
high tensile steel for shell plating and its material
properties at room temperature in their studies even
though IACS Polar Rule requires D or E grade steels
for the vessels to navigate in ice-infested polar water.
Even many researchers still consider the plastic process (plastic strain hardening) as perfect plastic or
bilinear isotropic. It might be because the studies on
the material properties of D and E grade steels have
not been available in the previous studies.
In this study tensile tests were conducted at room
temperature and low temperature for D and E grade
steels. And true stress-strain relations are presented
by introducing Bridgmans necking correction formula
which can take triaxial state of stresses after the onset
of diffuse necking into consideration.
When it comes to fracture criteria of steel structures, the shear fracture model has been commonly
introduced by many researchers. In the shear fracture model the fracture strain is assumed to be a
constant. However, different criteria are adopted in
numerical analyses even for the same materials. It
is the result of characteristics of the constant shear
fracture model that does not explain stress triaxiality
(the ratio of hydrostatic stresses and von Mises equivalent stresses) governed by the geometric shapes of
structures.
Therefore, the global objective of this study is to
obtain plastic and fracture characteristics of steels
which are used for polar class vessels, to improve the
reliability of numerical analyses based on the obtained
plastic and fracture characteristics, and to investigate
objective criteria for the steel structure made of D and
E grade steel.
For this purpose, drop impact loading to ships typical single frame structures made of DH36 steel has
been applied. Some of the single frame structures were
experimented at room temperature and the others at
low temperature.
213
Figure 2. Geometry of round specimen [mm].
Figure 1. Illustration of necking of a rod.
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF STEELS
2.1 True stress-strain relation

Hollomon (1945) developed the stress-strain relation
in terms of strain hardening exponent (n) and strength
coefficient (K), expressing as,
where p is plastic strain.

It is said that the extension of specimen is not
uniform any more when the tensile load reaches a maximum and after onset of necking. The onset of necking
makes it impossible to determine a uniaxial true stressstrain relation because the state of stress changes to a
complicated condition of triaxial stress.
Thus, to obtain the true stress-strain relation after
necking, Bridgman proposed the necking correction
formula considering triaxial state of stresses after
onset of diffuse necking. Bridgman gave the equivalent
uniaxial stress as,
where a,av is average axial stress; a is radius at a minimum cross section; and R is the radius of curvature
at a minimum cross section as shown in Figure 1. The
radius of curvature(R) can be obtained by the formula
(3) that Le Roy (1981) proposed.
2.2
Experimental application
Tensile tests were conducted at low temperature and

room temperature for the steel materials which are
used for outer shell of the vessels making transit
through the polar regions. The materials tested are
DH32, DH36 and EH36.
37 round tensile specimens are machined as shown
in Figure 2. A 200 KN universal testing machine was
employed for the tensile tests. For the tensile testing
Figure 3. Specimen setup in cold chamber.
at low temperature, a cold chamber, see Figure 3, has

been installed in the universal testing machine. Before
the testing the minimum radius of each specimen was
measured and it was also taken at the moment of fracture after completing the testing in order to obtain true
fracture strain of each specimen.
2.3 Evaluation of test data and determination
of the equivalent true stress-strain curves
The mean values of yield stress, tensile stress, strain
hardening exponent (n) and strength coefficient (K)
are given in Table 1.
True fracture strains are obtained by using the measured minimum radius of the specimens before and
after the testing and are indicated in Table 2. Average
true stress-strain relations are formed by the equation (1) and then equivalent true stress-strain curves
by Bridgmans necking correction formula, which are
presented in Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6. From the
results of the testing, it is noticed that the yield stress
increases approximately by 10 to 13 percent at 30 C
and by 13 to 19 percent at 50 C while the tensile
strength increases about 9 percent at 30 C and 11 to
14 percent at 50 C, in comparison with those at the
room temperature.
214
Table 1. Material properties of DH and EH steel at several

temperatures.
Material
DH32
DH36
EH36
Temp.
( C)
Y
(MPa)
T
(MPa)
K
(MPa)
RT
30
50
RT
30
50
RT
30
50
376
452
426
385
425
448
395
443
442
524
625
572
552
599
572
517
564
573
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.20
0.21
0.23
0.16
0.16
0.18
892
1084
989
930
1021
1049
830
885
930
Table 2. True fracture strain.

Material
Temp. ( C)
True fracture strain (f )
DH32
RT
30
50
RT
30
50
RT
30
50
1.24
1.17
1.14
1.20
1.18
1.04
1.70
1.65
1.52
DH36
EH36
Figure 5. True stress-strain relation of GL-DH36 steel at

various temperatures.
Figure 6. True stress-strain relation of GL-EH36 steel at

experiment at low temperature and room temperature.

Strain rate effect on the plastic response of the structure
to impact loadings has been also examined by finite
element analysis.
3.1 Drop test to ships single frame
Figure 4. True stress-strain relation of GL-DH32 steel at

PLASTIC DEFORMATION OF A SINGLE

FRAME STRUCTURE SUBJECTED TO
COLLISION LOADINGS
The vessels navigating in ice-infested regions are subject to repeatitive collision with ice floes, level ice or
iceberg. In this chapter the plastic behavior of a single frame structure has been investigated through the
Drop test equipment consists of drop test frames, a

rigid striker having a knife edge, an electromagnet, a
sensor to measure the drop speed of a striker and a data
processing unit as shown in Figure 7.
The maximum drop height is 3,050 mm, the weight
of the rigid striker 400 kg and the capacity of the electromagnet 1.5 ton. The single frame structures were
fabricated from DH36 steel. The geometry of the single frame structure is shown in Figure 8. Total five
models were made, three of which were used for the
experiment at low temperature. To cool the test model
down a cold chamber was prepared and filled with dry
ice and ethanol as shown in Figure 9. The test model
215
Table 3.
Drop test scenarios.
Model
Drop height
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
Contact Vel
(mm/s)
Temp
( C)
RT-1
LT-1
LT-2
RT-3
LT-3
1278
1292
1295
1502
1503
400
400
400
400
400
5005.0
5032.2
5038.0
5425.8
5427.6
RT
30
50
RT
50
Figure 10. Overall view of deformed shape.
Figure 7. Drop test equipment.

Figure 11. Attached labels for Photo Modeler Scanner.
Table 4.
Figure 8. Geometry of test model.
Deflection of test models.
Model
Permanent Deflection
at mid-point (mm)
Temp
( C)
RT-1
LT-1
LT-2
RT-3
LT-3
46.1
43.54
38.99
52.1
47.03
RT
30
50
RT
50
3.2 The results of experiments

The labels on the deformed structure (Figure 10) have
been attached as shown in Figure 11 and then coordinates at each label were picked from the photo taken
by using Photo Modeler Scanner. The read maximum
deflections at the mid-point of each test model are presented in Table 4. The test models have shown more
deflection at room temperature by 6% and 18% than
those at 30 C and 50 C, respectively.
As indicated in chapter 2, both yield strength and
tensile strength are increased at low temperature,
which results in the decreased permanent deflection
compared to that at room temperature.
Figure 9. Test model in cold chamber.
was kept in the cold chamber for at least two hours to

set the uniform temperature of the specimen.
The temperature was monitored in real time through
thermocouples fitted on the test model.
Drop test scenarios are summarized in Table 3.
3.3 Finite element analysis

The plastic behaviors of the structures which are
under dynamic impact loadings is known to be mainly
216
Table 5. Material constant for Cowper-Symonds constitutive equation.
Figure 12. True stress-strain curves of DH36 at several

strain rates (Choung et al., 2011).
depending on the plastic hardening and strain rate.

However there is a variety of opinions concerning the
strain rate.
But, the research by Nemat-Nesser and Guo (2003)
and Choung (2007) indicated that the high tensile steel
for ship and offshore structure is not sensitive to the
strain rate. In this study the strain rate effect on the
structure at room temperature and low temperature has
been investigated through the finite element analysis
of the drop test model according to the test scenarios.
To achieve this, true stress-strain data obtained in
chapter 2 was applied to FE model, and CowperSymonds dynamic plastic hardening constitutive
equation (equation (4)) was employed to consider the
strain rate effect.
where p is dynamic yield stress, Ys static yield stress

Yd equivalent strain rate and Dcs and qcs are material
constants of Cowper-Symonds equation.
In equation 4, material constants, Dcs and qcs , were
picked up from the research by Lee (1983), Paik
(1999) and Lim (2005). In addition, they were also
drawn out from the experiment performed at room
temperature and low temperature, 40 C, by Choung
(2011) as shown in Figure 12. The material constants
used for the analysis are presented in Table 5. The
finite element analysis has been carried out for both
Author
Dcs
qcs
Reference
Lee
Paik
Lim
Choung
355
3200
Eq. (5)
38607.6 (RT)
53808.1 (40 C)
5
5
5
4.73 (RT)
5.1 (40 C)
Lee (1983)
Paik (1999)
Lim (2005)
Choung (2011)
Figure 13. Deflection history of the test models.
Figure 14. Comparison of deflection history of RT-1 model

with material constants of Cowper-Symonds proposed by
several authors and derived from tensile test: Strain rate-EXP.
is the numerical analysis result when applying the strain rate
obtained from the experiment by Choung.
cases of being with strain rate and without it by using

ABAQUS/Explicit.
The deflection histories are presented in Figure 13
and Figure 14 and the maximum deflections are summarized in Table 6 showing the results with strain
rate, without strain rate and from the experiment as
indicated in Table 5.
From Figure 13 and Table 7. It is evaluated that
the analysis results without considering the strain
rate are in agreement with the experiment except for
LT-2 test model. Therefore it is concluded that the
strain rate effect can be neglected when the plastic
217
Table 6. Maximum deflection from the experiment and

numerical analysis (Unit: mm).
Model
Lee
Lim
Neglect
Paik
Temp
Exp.
RT-1
RT-3
LT-1
LT-2
LT-3
44.3
49.7
41.6
40.3
45.7
46.6
51.6
44.0
42.4
47.2
46.7
51.7
43.7
42.5
47.3
45.8
50.8
42.3
42.0
46.7
RT
RT
30 C
50 C
50 C
46.1
52.1
43.5
39.0
47.0
Table 7. Material constants of Johnson-Cook failure model

presented by Tornqvist and Choung.
Author
Material
d1
d2
d3
Tornqvist
Unknown
0 : 348 MPa
EH36
0.28
4.40
2.26
0.501
4.116
2.117
Choung
Figure 15. Comparison of material constants of JohnsonCook model proposed by Tornqvist and Choung.
response of the structure made of high tensile steel is

under investigation. In case of LT-2 model, the striker
was hit about 20 mm off the midpoint of the test model.
So, it was likely to be less deflected.
Figure 16. Test model installed on the test jig.

Table 8. Label and dimension of models as measured before
the drop test.
Test model
Upper plate thickness
Stiffener thickness
RT1-4
RT2-2
RT4-3
LT1-3
LT2-2
LT3-4
10.00
10.03
10.07
10.02
10.00
10.04
10.01
10.02
10.05
10.03
10.05
10.02
ON THE FRACTURE OF A SINGLE FRAME

STRUCTURE SUBJECTED TO IMPACT
LOADS
In this chapter the single frame structures with a notch

were fractured by applying drop impact loadings at
both room temperature and low temperature. JohnsonCook shear failure model has been introduced to
simulate the fractured single frame structures.
4.1 The earlier studies on the material constants of
Johnson-Cook shear failure model
Johnson-Cook (1985) defined the failure strain as
0.2, respectively. Choung (2011) carried out tensile

testing with notched round specimens machined from
EH36 steel and presented the material constants.Those
values are indicated in Table 7 and Figure 15.
As shown in Figure 15, the steel structure under
lower stress triaxiality should be in a state of higher
strain to a point where the structure experiences
fracture.
4.2 Fracture test
where d1 , d2 , and d3 are material constants, H is

hydrostatic stress and eq equivalent stress.
Tornqvist (2003) obtained the material constants
for Johnson-Cook failure model by performing an
experiment and numerical analysis on the steel whose
initial yield stress, strength coefficient and plastic
strain hardening exponent are 348 MPa, 850 MPa and
6 test models were fabricated from DH36 steel (see

Figure 16). The geometry of the models is the same as
that in chapter 3 except that it has a notch around the
midpoint of the single frame structure.
The thickness of the test models were measured
before the test and named as indicated in Table 8. RT
stands for room temperature and LT low temperature
(50 C). RT1-4 model was not properly fabricated in
accordance with the provided drawing because there
was severe lateral thermal deflection when cutting the
stiffener from the steel. For that reason RT1-4 was
218
Figure 18. Stress Triaxiality Failure Strain relations.
Figure 17. Closeup photography of cracks for test models.

Table 9.
Crack length from the upper end of round notch.
Model
Crack length (mm)
RT1-4
RT2-2
RT3-3
LT1-3
LT2-2
LT3-4
14.0
24.5
20.0
30.0
30.0
22.0
Figure 19. Numerical analysis for the drop fracture experiment at room temperature.
used for calibration of the analysis results prior to the

experiment, which showed the fracture occurred with
the striker released at 1.2 m height. Figure 17 shows
the cracks on each test model and crack length measured from the upper end of round notch is presented
in Table 9.
It was not sure if LT3-4 model was tested at the
intended temperature because the thermocouples did
not properly work. Therefore, RT1-4 and LT3-4 have
been excluded from the evaluation of the test results.
Crack length was about 22.0 mm in average at room
temperature and 30.0 mm at 50 C.
4.3 Finite element analysis
To obtain material constants of Johnson-Cook failure
model try and error method was used. As seen in chapter 2, true fracture strain of DH36 steel is much higher
than that of EH36 steel. Therefore, Stress Triaxiality
Failure Strain curve which Choung (2011) presented
for EH36 steel has been moved down on the left (see
Figure 18) and then material constants was calculated
for each curve moved.
Figure 20. Numerical analysis for the drop fracture experiment at low temperature (50 C).
The calculated material constants were applied to

finite element analysis. This process was repeated several times until the analysis could realize the crack
discovered in the experiment. Figure 19 and Figure 20
are the results of finite element analysis for both room
219
Table 10. Material parameter d1 , d2 , d3 of Johnson-Cook

shear failure model for DH36 steel.
Temperature ( C)
d1
d2
d3
Room temperature
50 C
0.169
0.111
1.484
1.015
3.292
3.791
Figure 21. Stress Triaxiality-Shear Failure Strain curve for

Johnson-Cook failure model od DH36.
temperature and low temperature which simulate the

crack length well. Hereby, the material constants of
Johnson-Cook failure model for DH36 steel have been
found and presented in Table 10 and Figure 21. However, the general applicability of the Johnson-Cook
failure model properties presented in this paper needs
to be verified by further studies.
5
CONCLUSIONS
The material properties of DH32, DH36 and EH36

steel have been obtained through tensile tests at room
temperature, 30 C and 50 C. Yield stress and tensile stress increase at the lower temperature. True
stress-strain relations, taking triaxial state of stresses
after the onset of necking into consideration, are presented by introducing Bridgmans necking correction
formula.
The effect of temperature on the structural behavior
has been experimentally and numerically investigated.
Drop tests were carried out for single frame structures
fabricated from DH36 steel, which is used for outer
shell of the vessels navigating in the polar regions.
The temperatures of the single frames were set to
30 C, 50 C and room temperature. The deflection
around the mid-point of the single frame was measured and simulated by finite element analysis. Strain
rate effect on the plastic structural behavior has been
investigated and turned out that the strain rate effect
can be neglected. It has been noticed that the permanent deflection at lower temperature was reduced due
to a temperature hardening of material.
The single frame structures with a notch were fractured at room temperature and low temperature by a
striker with knife edge which was dropped at the 1.2 m
height. Johnson-Cook shear failure model has been
introduced to simulate the fractured single frame structures. Through several numerical analyses, fracture
strain-stress triaxiality curves at both room temperature and low temperature are presented based on the
extracted material constants for Johnson-Cook failure model. It is expected that the fracture strain-stress
triaxiality curves can offer objective fracture criteria for the assessment of structural fractures of polar
class vessel structures fabricated from DH36 steel. The
fracture experiment of single frame structures revealed
that the structure on low temperature condition fractures at much lower strain rate than that on room
temperature condition.
In conclusion, it is essential to get the exact material
properties on low temperature condition to accurately estimate the fracture characteristics of the steel
structures operated in the Northern Sea Route.
REFERENCES
Bridgman, P.W. 1952. Studies in Large Plastic Flow and
Fracture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Choung, J.M. 2007. On the Fracture Criteria of Steels for
Marine Structures Subjected to Impact Loadings. Ph.D
Thesis, University of Ulsan.
Choung, J.M.; Shim, C.S. & Kim, K.S. 2011. Plasticity and
Fracture Behaviors of a Marine Structural Steel, Part III:
Technical backgrounds of fracture. Ocean Engineering
and Technology 25(2): 92100.
Ehlers, S. & stby, E. 2012. Increased crashworthiness due to
arctic conditions The influence of sub-zero temperature.
Hollomon, J.H. 1945. Tensile Deformation. Trans. AIME 162:
268.
Lee, J.W. 1983. On the Optimization Design of Soft Bow
Structure. Proc. of the 2nd Internal Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units: 429435.
LeRoy, G.; Embury, J.D.; Edwards, G. & Ashby, M.F. 1981.
A Model of Ductile Fracture based on the Nucleation and
Growth of Voids. Acta Metallurgica 29: 15091522.
Lim, J.H. 2005. Study on dynamic tensile tests of auto-body
steel sheet at the intermediate strain rate for material
constitutive equations. PhD KAIST.
Nemat-Nasser, S. & Guo, W.G. 2003. Thermomechanical Response of DH-36 Structural Steel Over a Wide
Range Of Strain Rates and Temperature. Mech. Mat. 35:
10231047.
Paik, J.K. & Chung, J.Y. 1999 A basic study on static and
dynamic crushing behavior of a stiffened tube. KSAE
Transactions 7(1): 219238.
Tornqvist, R. 2003. Design of Crashworthy Ship Structures.
PhD Thesis, Technical University of Denmark.
220
Review of existing methods for the analysis of the accidental limit

state due to ice actions
E. Kim & J. Amdahl
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
ABSTRACT: Assumptions affect design. Limited standards regulate fixed and floating offshore structures in
Arctic regions. Arctic conditions will test the limits of technology. Accidents cannot be completely avoided and
absolute safety does not exist. There is a growing interest in advancing methods for design, including damagetolerant design. This study is motivated by the lack of clear, structured information available for the Accidental
Limit State (ALS) design of fixed and floating offshore structures operating in Arctic and cold regions. A review
of existing methods for predicting structural damage due to offshore structure (or ship) collisions with ice masses
has been performed. Additionally, this paper reviews ISO 19906 Arctic Offshore Structures regarding the ALS
design for conditions of abnormal environmental events (icebergs and ice floes). The ultimate goal is to contribute
to increased safety of the design of ships and offshore structures operating world-wide in iceberg-prone areas by
analysing the available state-of-the-art methods. This paper is a review of the available literature and should not
be considered as a comprehensive analysis of the existing ALS design methods for structures under ice actions.
INTRODUCTION
The topic of ice/structure collision is not novel, and

the scientists have developed different tools and methods to address the problem. However, problems with
fundamental research remain. For example, long ago,
ice-crushing strength was found to depend upon many
parameters (i.e., temperature strain rate, the degree of
confinement and contact, shape of indenter, etc.; see,
for example, Daley (1984), Matsuishi et al. (1984),
Arockiasamy et al. (1984)). However, even after 27
years, the criteria for ice crushing have not been
completely established.
Arctic regions have received a great amount of
attention and are a hot topic for debates. Rising human
demands and climate change have resulted in increased
northern developments. A new boom in drilling in the
Arctic is expected in the near future, and marine traffic
is rising in the Arctic areas in response to the thinning
and receding polar ice caps. Arctic conditions will
test the limits of technology, and there is a growing
interest in advancing methods for design (including
damage-tolerant design).
What did we learn from the accident on April
15th, 1912, when the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg
and sank? Despite the development of global positioning systems, on-board radar, satellite photos and
aircraft patrols, accidents involving ships and offshore
structures continue to occur. In the last ten years, 28
collisions have occurred between ships and offshore
platforms on the Norwegian continental shelf (PSA,
2010). For ships operating in the Arctic and other cold
regions, design against accidental ice actions is not

explicitly required. With an Ultimate Limit Strength
(ULS) approach, operational conditions that prevent
serious damage to the structure are typically established. However, accidental ice actions may cause
significant deformations of the cargo holds, harm
the environment and lead to the loss of lives and
assets. Several ice-strengthened ships were known to
have suffered extensive damage after colliding with
growlers or floes of multi-year ice (see Koehler and
Jorgensen, 1985). Figure 1 shows recent photographs
of the ice damage to the ship.
According to Hill (2006), 57 incidents with vessels
involving icebergs have occurred over 25 years. On
December 31, 2012 the mobile offshore drilling rig
Kulluk ran aground, which indicates that accidents
cannot be completely avoided, and that absolute safety
does not exist.
Methods for analysis of structures subjected to
accidental actions should receive more scientific
attention, especially for the structures operating in
Arctic waters, where each accident will generate a
strong resonance in the media.
This study is motivated by the lack of structured
information available for Accidental Limit State (ALS)
design of structures operating in Arctic and cold
regions.
A review of the existing knowledge on predicting
structural damage due to ship (or offshore structure)
collisions with icebergs (and ice floes) was performed.
Furthermore, ISO 19906 Arctic Offshore Structures
was reviewed regarding ALS design for conditions
221
Figure 1. Examples of ice damage to the ship hull: (a) bow

of the Zelada Desgagns, damaged by ice (CBC news, 2012);
(b) bow of a cargo vessel with a Lloyds 100 A1 Ice Class
1A damaged in ice en route to Iqaluit, Nunavut (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2012).
of abnormal environmental events (icebergs and ice

floes).
The paper attempts to generalise the available data
for analysis of the ALS due to ice actions. The
review focuses on methods that utilise the limit energy
approach (i.e., the kinetic energy of the ice feature/marine structure limits the ice action). The paper
does not address design criteria or the choice of representative abnormal level ice events (ice feature,
shape/size, velocity, stormy conditions, etc.). Studies
focusing on the design of ice platforms (man-made
islands) were omitted.
Figure 2. Characterisation of design principles depending

on the distribution of energy dissipation in the ice mass and
the structure.
overall goal for the design of the structure against accidental loads is to prevent an incident to develop into
an accident disproportional to the original cause.
ForALS design two conditions are usually assessed:
(i) The ALS condition which represents the structure during the accidental event. The ability of the
structure to resist accidental (abnormal) events is
investigated. Damage to the structure may occur
as a consequence of an accidental event.
(ii) The post-ALS (or damaged) condition. The structures resistance to overturning or progressive
collapse is analysed in the damaged condition
under exposure of environmental actions with a
certain return period.
2 ALS DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Damage to structures caused by ice floe impacts was
reported in 1852 when one of the old spillway crib
dams on the Muskingum River, Ohio was destroyed
due to impact with floes during ice passage (see
Korzhavin (2002)). According to Moan (2009), the
requirements dealing with progressive structural collapse emerged in the early 1970s after the Ronan Point
ApartmentTower accident in London on May 16, 1968,
when a gas explosion resulted in partial progressive
collapse of the building. Standards and guidance have
been developed for the design of structures against
accidental loads. Additional discussion on the history
of the concept, called accidental limit state design,
which was adopted for the offshore structures in
Norway is provided by Moan (2009).
Fixed and floating offshore structures operating in
Arctic and other cold regions are regulated by a limited number of standards. The recommended practice
DNV-RP-C204 is applicable to all types of floating and fixed offshore structures made of steel and
proposes design requirements to maintain the loadbearing function of the structures during accidental
events. However, DNV-RP-C204 can only be used for
the purpose for which it was prepared (i.e., ship collisions, dropped objects, fire and explosions) and cannot
be directly extrapolated to the conditions of abnormal environmental events (e.g., iceberg and isolated
ice floes impacts). The same ALS design philosophy
adopted for ship collisions in DNV-RP-C204 may be
used to design against conditions of abnormal environmental events. According to DNV-RP-C204, the
Three design principles may be applied to the design

of structures to resist accidental collisions with ice features depending on the relative strength of the structure
and ice, including strength design, ductile design and
shared-energy design, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Strength design implies that the structure exhibits
a strength exceeding the crushing/failure strength of
the ice, which causes the ice to dissipate most of the
collision energy and causes little plastic deformation to
the structure. This principle is approximately identical
to the conventional ULS design (see NORSOK N-004
(2004)). Strength design may be a relevant option in
certain cases, but in most cases, it will be an overly
conservative and costly solution.
Ductile design implies that the ice feature is considered to be infinitely rigid and all the energy must be
dissipated by the impacted structure. Structures properly designed according to ULS principles (actions
with a return period of 100 years) exhibit relative
strength similar to the lower bound for strength design
as indicated by the dashed red vertical line (the farthest right dashed line) in Figure 2. When structures
are subjected to actions with a return period of 10,000
years, the larger ice strength will move the design
point to smaller values on the x-axis and may cause
the structure to respond according to ductile design
principles (i.e., the structure dissipates most of energy,
as indicated by the ALS_1 label). If the collision
energy is dissipated with moderate damage to the
222
structure (e.g., no penetration of cargo tanks or buoyancy compartments essential for hydrostatic stability)
and satisfactory residual strength, the ALS acceptance
criteria may be satisfied. The shape of the ice feature
must be assumed for these calculations, but no widely
accepted calculation procedure exists. The shape of
the ice feature can vary significantly, and it is easy
to select a shape that does not comply with the ALS
acceptance criteria.
Shared-energy design implies that both the ice
feature and the structure will undergo significant
deformations. At any instant, the weaker structure
will deform. In practice, the actual relative strength
of ice with return periods of 10,000 years and 100
years causes sheared-energy design to be a likely
response mode for ice collisions, as indicated by the
ALS_2 label. Analysis according to shared-energy
design principles is challenging because the mechanical properties of both the ice and the steel must be
modelled. For ductile design, the shape of the ice feature is an important issue. However, the most extreme
ice shapes will be eliminated, because the structure
will crush local ice protrusions and shape the ice
feature to some degree.
To demonstrate the relevance of the design principles in Figure 2, consider the following example.
The structure designed according to ULS principles
must be classified in the strength domain (see label 1
in Figure 2). The ice strength corresponding to ALS
increases and may push the relative strength between
the structure and the ice feature into the ALS_2 region
(see label 2 in Figure 2). Additionally, the structural
strength may be reduced because a growler may strike
areas outside the ice-reinforced region. The additional
reduction of strength moves the relative strength value
further left into the ALS_1 region (see label 3 in
Figure 2).
Independent of the design principle, the major
uncertainties result from the characterisation of the
ice properties and the assumptions made for the local
and global ice shape.
3
METHODS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The review presented in this section is limited to the

methods for analysis of ALS due to ice actions only.
All the methods may be divided into three main
categories: analytical methods, numerical methods
and empirical methods. In ISO 19906 (2010), a list
of relevant limit-energy full-scale global ice data is
provided. Frederking et al. (1990) described mediumscale indentation tests, including the results from a
flexible indenter. Timco (2011) summarised all the
available data related to ice floe impacts on structures.
3.1 ALS in ISO 19906

ISO 19906 Arctic Offshore Structures is the
most recently published standard. For structures in
Arctic and cold regions, ISO 19906 requires a design
based on both extreme-level (EL) and abnormal-level

events (AL), which include ice actions arising from
extreme-level ice events (ELIE) and abnormal-level
ice events (ALIE). Climate change considerations are
recommended.
ISO 19906 refers to ALS as abnormal (accidental)
limit state and requires structures to be designed for
adequate reserve capacity and energy dissipation capability to achieve ALS. The ALS design condition for
ice should consider abnormal-level ice events (ALIE).
Local and global actions must be considered. Icebergs and ice island impact events with annual probability of occurrence between 105 and 103 with high
consequences are recommended for consideration as
ALIE to ensure adequate reliability of the structure.
Non-linear methods may be used for the analysis of
ALS. For ALS, some structural damage is allowed.
Provisions in ISO 19906 state that components are
allowed to behave inelastically (i.e., design resistance
may be exceeded) if there is sufficient ductility and
if the overall structural design is robust and provides
alternative load paths to distribute and resist the action
effects and dissipate the energy. The design is based
on a combination of static reserve strength, ductility and energy dissipation to resist ALIE conditions.
Damaged stability calculations must include the effect
of ice accumulation. The expected effects of icing must
also be considered in ALIE analysis. Action combinations for each environmental action must be derived
by considering each EL and AL representative value
of the action in turn, as the principal action.
Principal AL actions arising from large icebergs or
isolated ice features must be accompanied by companion EL actions such as actions from wind, wind-driven
currents, tidal and background currents, waves and
swells.
Confirmation that the ice failure process is modelled correctly should also be performed in any model
test programme. Local ice actions must also be based
on relevant full scale measurements or established theoretical methods. In ISO 19906 the list of relevant limit
energy full-scale global ice data is provided. As mentioned in ISO 19906, most of the relevant field data
were obtained from experiments with relatively small
ice features (hundreds to several thousand tonnes). The
data were obtained from experiments in which the
impacted structure remained intact during the tests.
If the structure were allowed to deform, the contact
surface would no longer be flat. The structure may
become concave and encompass the ice. The majority
of experimental data are measured for flat or convex
contact surfaces. It is difficult to use these data for
ALS scenarios in which the structure may be damaged
due to ice actions.
For example, the accidental situations for floating
structures must be addressed in accordance with ISO
19904-1.
ISO 19906 recommends the consideration of different structural shapes, orientations and profiles for
the structure and topsides to resist iceberg actions.
Depending on the assumptions made for analysis of
223
Figure 3. The major parameters and assumptions affecting the analysis of the ALS condition due to abnormal ice actions;
the approaches and assumptions behind the integrated analysis of ship/ice collision proposed by Liu (2011) are highlighted in
grey.
ALS, the results may depend on the shape, orientation

and profiles of the iceberg. No clear recommendations
regarding the choice of iceberg shapes are provided in
ISO 19906. However, the design contact area must be
based on the local structural configuration; the size and
location of the local contact areas must be selected to
ensure that the most critical cases are addressed.
3.2 ALS in the literature
The literature review showed that the assumptions
for the analytical methods for the ALS due to ice
actions can be classified into eight basic categories
(Figure 3). The figure addresses only methods that
can be used to investigate the ability of the structure to
resist accidental (abnormal) ice events. In the literature
deterministic methods received more attention than
probabilistic approaches. For example, Fuglem et al.
(1991 and 1999) presented a probabilistic method for
estimating global iceberg collision loads for offshore
structures. Fuglem et al. (1991) analysed spherical
icebergs impacting a vertical column, and eccentricity was not considered. The maximum force during a
collision was determined using a two-step procedure.
First, the maximum penetration and contact area were
estimated based on the average ice-crushing pressure.
Second, the contact area from step one was multiplied by the peak pressure chosen randomly from a
distribution derived from medium-scale indentation
tests.
Jordaan et al. (1993) proposed a probabilistic

method based on the maximum pressure of a given
event (or event-maximum method) to model local ice
pressures.
Taylor et al. (2010) focused on the estimation of
local ice pressures from ship-ice interaction data. The
authors described a methodology that can be used
to estimate local ice pressures corresponding to a
given exceedance probability. The authors provided
also expressions to account for the effects of exposure,
the frequency of ice impacts, the interaction duration
and the position of the panel on the structure.
3.2.1 Assumptions of the action effect
When designing a structure, assumptions made for the
analysis of ALS (Figure 3) should be consistent with
the likely consequences of the accidental event (ALIE)
considered. According to Nessim et al. (1984), for a
floating structure these consequences could include
the following:
(i) significant deformation of the mooring system,
offset of the structure from the target position and
damage to the marine risers as a result;
(ii) local damage, including progressive collapse; and
(iii) loss of stability caused by breakage of the mooring lines (or flooded compartments).
Depending on the level of ice actions, the ALS
analysis may be divided into methods focusing on
(i) the global processes of interaction (i.e., studying
224
Figure 4. Ice collision scenarios corresponding to the different contact geometries in Figure 3.
ice/structure motions and stability; see Daley (1984),

Grace (2011)) and (ii) local processes, for example,
calculating the total collision force and stress distribution along the hull; see e.g., methods used by
Swamidas et al. (1983), Aldwinckle and Lewis (1984)
and Liu (2011).
3.2.2 Assumptions of the contact geometry
Four typical contact geometries may be distinguished
(see Figure 3).
In Figure 4, various ice/structure interaction scenarios are presented. The scenarios correspond to the
different contact geometries listed in Figure 3:
A Contact between two initially flat surfaces. For
example, this type of contact occurs during a collision between a floating (or fixed) offshore structure
and a tabular ice feature.
B Contact between an initially flat surface (structure)
and an initially convex ice surface, such as a bergy
bit (or growler) colliding with the side of the ship.
Note that ice features are considered that are sufficiently large to represent a threat to a vessel or an
offshore structure and that are sufficiently small to
escape detection and management system.
C Contact between an initially convex surface (structure) and an initially flat ice surface, such as a
collision between a large tabular iceberg and one
of the legs of an offshore platform or a head-on
ship collision with a massive ice floe. The width of
the structure is small compared with the size of the
iceberg. In Aldwinckle and Lewis (1984) a head-on
collision with an ice wall was considered.
D Contact between two initially convex surfaces,
including collisions between structures and ice
masses similar in size (e.g., the diameter of the
structure is similar to the ice feature).
3.2.3 Assumptions of iceberg shape
Examples of ice shapes used for ALS are shown in
Figures 5 and 6.
Nesterov (2010) performed nonlinear analyses of
structural deformations for a collision between a cylindrical ice feature (H = 6 m, R = 25 m, 10,603 tons) and
a ship on circulation.
The ice action was characterised as 23.3 MPa of

pressure uniformly distributed over an area 1.26 m
wide and 2.79 m high (for detailed description of the
collision scenario see Nesterov (2010)).
A spherical iceberg was considered by Brown and
Daley (1999). In Tangborn et al. (1998), an iceberg
was modelled as a solid cube. Mravak et al. (2009) and
Gagnon (2007) used prismatic ice shapes with rounded
edges while Lee and Nguyen (2011) used a cubic ice
mass. Gagnon and Wang (2012) used a block type
ice mass with a spherical protrusion, as shown in
Figure 7.
For comparision, the realistic iceberg and bergy bit
shapes based on actual measurements are shown in
Figures 8a and 8b, respectively.
3.2.4 Assumptions of energy dissipation
Depending on the assumption of the distribution of the
energy during the accidental event, three basic methods might be distinguished: strength approach, ductile
approach and shared-energy approach, as discussed in
Section 2.
The studies by Popov et al. (1967), Korzhavin
(2002), Matskevitch (1997a, 1997b) and Daley (1999)
may be considered as the strength approach. Povov
et al. (1967) considered inelastic of ship/ice floe
impacts. The ice floe was considered to be circular
at the water plane and elastic deformations of the ship
side and the ice were neglected.
Matskevitch (1997a and 1997b) studied eccentric
iceberg impacts and derived a model to calculate the
forces on the rigid structure. Force-penetration curves
for ice are needed for the calculations. Korzhavin
(2002) proposed a method to calculate the loads on the
supports of bridges and hydraulic engineering structures due to ice floe impacts. The method neglects the
possibility of plastic structural deformations.
Noble et al. (1979) developed a mathematical model
that simulates interaction between selected portions of
the ship hull and ice features. The ship was considered to be a solid body (6DOF), and the ice floe was
assumed to be circular and comparable with the ship in
size. For the ice floe, only surge and sway motions were
considered. The model consisted of two parts including a motion model and an impact load model. The
calculation of the impact load was based on the model
presented by Popov (1967). The ice-crushing strength
(in pure-crushing failure mode) was held constant over
the entire contact area and throughout the collision.
Matsushi et al. (1984) proposed a finite-element
based method considering elastic bending and shearing deflections of the hull girder with the rigid body
motions of the ship. The authors considered head-on,
inelastic collisions between the ship and the ice floe
(circular disc). Only the ice-crushing failure mode was
assumed without considering plastic deformation of
the ship.
The approach of Cammaert and Tsinker (1981) and
Greshunov (1986) related kinetic energy dissipation
to the progressive crushing of ice. Deformation of the
structure was neglected.
225
Figure 5. Example of iceberg shapes for ALS analysis (from Han et al. (2008)).
Figure 6. Example of iceberg shapes used in shared energy ALS analysis by Liu (2011).
Jebaraj et al. (1988) used a finite-element procedure to study the load on the hull of the ship during
an impact with ice floes. The hull of the ship was
considered to be a rigid indenter impacting the ice.
The flexibility of the shell plating of the hull in direct
contact with the ice was considered using empirical
coefficients. The ice failure was modelled using the
Tsai-Wu criterion.
Aldwinckle and Lewis (1984) utilised a ductile
approach.A head-on collision was considered in which
the iceberg was modelled as a rigid vertical wall. A
ductile approach was also presented in a study by Suh
et al. (2008) in which the icebergs had conical, spherical and cubical shapes and were modelled as rigid
bodies.
A study by EPOA (1971) is an example of a sharedenergy approach. The purpose of the study was to
determine the maximum size of a growler that may
be allowed to strike the hull of the drillship without
causing damage. Spherical and ellipsoidal shapes of
the ice floe (or growler) were assumed for these calculations. Impact at right angles to the ship side was
assumed. The energy dissipated within the ice and due
to deflection of the ship hull was considered.
Cammaert et al. (1983) described the development of three dimensional iceberg/structure interaction models incorporating plastic deformation of the
iceberg, elastic/plastic deformation of the structure,
platform excursions and flexibility of the mooring
system but did not include an example calculation.
Wang et al. (2008) developed a global, non-linear,
finite-element model for analysis of ship/ice floe collisions. The hull structure was considered to be a
deformable body (elastic-plastic constitutive model),
and the ice material was modelled as a crushable body,
including failure criterion.
The shared-energy approach may be direct or indirect (see Figure 3). In the direct approach, the structural deformations and motions are derived using a
fluid/structure/interaction technique (FSI) developed
by Lee and Nguyen (2011), Lobanov (2011) and
Gagnon and Wang (2012). In the indirect approach,
one portion of the kinetic energy is dissipated due to
relative motion of the ice/structure (outer mechanics),
and another portion of the energy is dissipated due
to ice/structure deformations (internal mechanics).
Koehler and Jorgensen (1985) divided the problem into
two parts: the simulation of the local damage process
226
finite-element analysis of the ice/structure interaction is performed assuming the constitutive

behaviour of the ice and the steel material. The
internal mechanics is coupled with the external
mechanics via the demand for energy dissipation. During the integrated analysis, the structural
resistance depends on the physical and mechanical properties of the ice and the ship. The energy
dissipation capacity of the structure, IE(s), is a
function of the energy dissipation capacity of the
ice, IE(i).
(ii) Segregated analysis. The available kinetic energy
(or demand for deformation energy) is dissipated
as the internal energy of the ice, IE(i) and the
internal energy of the structure, IE(s). IE(i) is
calculated assuming the rigid structure and IE(s)
is calculated assuming the rigid ice mass (Equation 1) (e.g., see Swamidas et al. (1983)). They
described the mechanism of interaction as follows: when a bergy bit collides with a moored
semisubmersible, part of its kinetic energy is
absorbed by rigid body rotation (in pitch and roll
only) of the semisubmersible, and elastic/plastic
deformation of the impacted and other parts of
the semisubmersible. Another part is dissipated
by rigid body rotation (pitch and roll only) of
the bergy bit and local crushing and splitting of
the bergy bit, and the rest by the linear/nonlinear
deformation of cables.
Figure 7. Global and local ice shape used by Gagnon and

Wang (2012).
Figure 8. Measured iceberg and bergy bit shapes: (a) iceberg

from McKenna (2004) and (b) below-water contours of the
bergy bit in Ralph et al. (2008).
and the simulation of the motions of the ship and ice

feature during the collision.
For the indirect approach, two analysis techniques
exist:
(i) Integrated analysis. See Liu (2011). First, the
energy to be dissipated as strain energy in the
ice and the structure is determined using external
mechanics considerations. Second, a non-linear,
Kitami et al. (1984) and Nawata et al. (1984) evaluated bergy bit collision with a semisubmersible drilling
unit was. The relationships between load and deflection of the bergy bit were derived using indentation
tests. The load-deflection relationship of the structure
was computed from the results of simplified elastoplastic analysis. The equations of motions were limited
to the water plane. A tabular iceberg was considered.
The crushing strength of the bergy bit was assumed to
be constant over the area throughout the impact.
Kierkegaard (1993) studied ship collisions with
icebergs and compared collision strength from headon scenario with expected ice strength. The collision
strength was calculated assuming right-angled headon collision against a rigid object (an iceberg), and the
expected ice strength was derived using the pressurearea relationship proposed by Sanderson (1988).
The numerical model of Foschi et al. (1996) considers the energy dissipation through local structural
collapse using an assumed relationship between the
applied force and the additional iceberg penetration
due to structural damage.
Daley and Kim (2010) considered the work done
during plastic deformations of the structure using an
energy balance (Equation 1). The deformation energies of the structure and ice were found by integrating
the force over the structural deformations and ice
deformations, respectively. To estimate the structural
indentation energy, the elastic response was ignored,
and a finite-element model was used to establish
227
the simplified relationship. The model evaluates the

absorbed energy and permanent deformation of the
structure with an elastic-plastic response including linear strain-hardening. The ice load was described as
a point load. For the calculation of the ice-crushing
energy, the force-indentation relationship was derived
using a process pressure-area relationship.
3.2.5 Assumptions of problem size
The Popov et al. (1967) collision model considers
that a central collision problem may be reduced to
a one-dimensional problem viewed in the direction
of the impact. In the reviewed literature, different
one-, two- and three-dimensional problems are considered. For example, Daley (1984) considered a head-on
impact between a ship and a large ice floe. A two
dimensional problem was formulated (surge, heave
and pitch motions were considered). The problem formulation also includes three vertical-bending modes
of the vessel.
3.2.6 Assumptions of structural deformation
Two approaches can be used to assess structural deformations during and after an abnormal ice event:
simplified and direct approaches. In the simplified
approach, the structural deformations are calculated
using plastic methods of analysis (e.g., see Kitami et al.
(1984), Arockiasamy et al. (1984) and Koehler and
Jorgensen (1985)). In the direct approach, the constitutive behaviour of the material is derived from
standardized testing procedures and used in the calculation of structural deformations (e.g., see Liu (2011)
and Lee and Nguyen (2012)).
3.2.7 Assumptions of the ice crushing model
In the methods that allow energy dissipation due to ice
deformation, compression (crushing) failure is commonly assumed. Several different ice-crushing models
can be found in the literature. The models can be categorised according to the assumption of ice pressure
(crushing strength) variation during the impact.
1. p = const; A = f(t). The ice-crushing strength (or
the effective crushing pressure) is constant over
the contact area throughout the collision event. The
contact area changes according to the local iceberg
and structure shapes at contact. Noble et al. (1984)
and Korzhavin (2002) considered the impact with
a rounded/angular-edge ice floe and structural profile, respectively. They assumed the ice-crushing
strength to be constant over the area throughout the
impact.
2. p = const; A = const. The pressure is constant over
the contact area, which is also considered to be constant. This assumption was widely used in the early
1980s for type C contact geometry (pt. 3.2.4)
3. p = f(x, y); A = const. The pressure is non-uniform
over the contact area, while the contact area is
constant throughout the interaction (e.g., see the
method in ISO 19906 section A.8.2.5.5 local ice
pressure combinations).
4. p = f(t); A = const. The pressure is uniformly distributed over the area and varies in time, while the
contact area remains constant (e.g., see the local
model for static analysis of Wang, et al. (2008);
Nesterov (2010) and Daley and Kim (2010)). In
Daley and Kim (2010), the pressure was replaced
by a point load.
5. p = f(x, y, t); A = f(t). The ice contact pressure is a
spatial and temporal function, and the contact area
varies with time. In the literature, the pressure evolution with time p = f(t) is often referred to as a
process pressure-area relationship, and a pressure
distribution p = f(x, y) is referred to as a spatial
pressure-area relationship. Few studies have considered the process and spatial pressure variations
during collisions. The studies are based on nonlinear, finite-element methods (e.g., see Liu (2011),
Gagnon (2007) and Lee and Nguyen (2011)). Quinton et al. (2012) developed and used numerical
algorithms to allow pressure changing in both space
and time to be applied to a structure. Only limited
full-scale experimental data are available in which
the pressure variation is measured with good spatial
resolution.
6. p = f(A); A = f(t). This is the most commonly used
assumption. The pressure is constant over the area
but decreases with increasing contact area. The
contact area varies throughout the collision depending on the local shape of ice and structure at
contact. Matskevitch (1997a) used linear pressurearea dependency. and extended the study to a
non-linear relationship (Matskevitch, 1997b). For
example, the pressure-area dependency in the form
of p = CAx (C, x = coefficients) is accepted for
the local ultimate limit-state design in ISO 19906
(2010).
Appolonov et al. (2011) studied different design
models to describe ice failure by local crushing. The
considered models include: (i) a hydrodynamic model
of solid-body impact against ice or Kurdumov-Kheisin
model, (ii) an empirical model based on the pressurearea relationship and (iii) the dynamic ice failure
model. Detailed description of these models and the
underlying assumptions are presented in Appolonov
et al. (2011).
In addition to the methods and assumptions discussed previously, several studies have addressed
hydrodynamic aspects of iceberg/structure interaction. For example, McTaggart (1989) studied various
hydrodynamic aspects of iceberg collisions with a
large structure and incorporated the finding into a
probabilistic model for assessing iceberg collision
events.
3.3 Numerical challenges
While earlier studies used semi-analytical approaches,
numerical algorithms are now being developed for
iceberg/structure interaction problems. Non-linear,
finite-element methods are widely used for the collision scenario between marine structures and ice
228
features, and continuum models for the ice material are

developed. The following aspects of continuum modelling must be considered. The grain size of steels is on
the order of several micrometers 150 m) Schino and
Kenny (2003), while the grain size of iceberg ice is on
the order of several millimeters (260 mm) Gagnon
and Gammon (1995). According to Elvin (1996), at
least 230 grains are needed to homogenise the elastic
properties of polycrystalline ice in two dimensions.
This requirement causes a fundamental problem; a
lower bound on the finite element size is needed to
ensure that the continuum mechanics are accurately
described and, an upper bound is required to ensure
that the finite element model closely approximates a
physically meaningful solution. For the contact surface
regions (deformable ice and steel parts), most contact
algorithms introduce additional limitations to the mesh
size of both the ice and the steel.
Numerical approximations of fractures (especially
for ice) and contact forces together with a finiteelement meshing technique are critical for local analysis of ALS. Experience with state-of-the-art numerical
algorithms available for modelling ice fracture is not
sufficient for the shared-energy approach. Additional
testing procedures should be developed to validate of
the particular material models.
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work is part of several investigations conducted
within the SAMCoT (Sustainable Arctic Marine and
Coastal Technology) Centre for Research-based Innovation and the AMOS (Centre for Autonomous Marine
Operations and Systems) Centre of Excellence. Special thanks are extended to Prof. Torgeir Moan for
valuable discussion regarding the ALS design philosophy and to Ann-Johanne Bjrgen for great assistance
with the literature included in this study.
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
For better interpretation of the ISO 19906 regarding

ALS design, the coupling between the different ISO
standards must be improved.
In ISO 19906, the design procedure for the accidental limit state due to ice conditions is not clear
and should exhibit a better structure. For example, in
the section for floating structures, ISO 19906 refers
to the provisions in ISO 19904-1 in which accidental
actions from ice are not considered. Furthermore, accidental events may be assumed to occur independently
of extreme environmental design situations.
Future work related toALS due to ice actions should
focus on the inclusion of state-of-the-art numerical
simulations of fracture in the numerical models for
shared-energy analysis. The goal should be to increase
the precision of predicting the distribution of collision energy between the deformations of the structure
and the deformations of the ice depending on the
local/global ice shape and structural arrangement.
5
while realistic iceberg and bergy bit shapes are nonconvex and have local ice protrusions. The recent
development of the NURBS-Enhanced Finite-Element
Method (NEFEM), which is a new and efficient technique to exactly treat curved boundaries in a finite
element context, may enhance the consideration of various non-symmetrical local and global iceberg shapes
in the collision scenario.
Although ALS is one of the critical limit states (i.e.,
its violation can directly result in loss of human life,
environmental damage and loss of the structure) more
focus has been dedicated to ULS considerations in
the scientific community. To date, there have been
no direct, full-scale measurements of ice forces on
structures that deforms plastically under the ice load.
SUMMARY
This paper provides information that can be used to

make decisions regarding the methodologies for the
analysis of ALS due to abnormal ice actions.
The global ice shape is usually chosen arbitrary
or is based on the worst-case scenario or statistical
measurements. In the methods that allow energy dissipation due to ice deformation, compression (crushing)
failure is commonly assumed. The selected ice shapes
are mostly simple, axisymmetric geometrical forms,
REFERENCES
Aldwinckle, D.S. & Lewis, K.J. 1984. Prediction of structural damage, penetration and cargo spillage due to ship
collisions with icebergs. Proc. of the 3rd International
Conference on Icebreaking & Related Technologies, May
1618, Calgary, Canada.
Appolonov, E.M.; Didkovsky, A.V.; Kuteinikov, A.M. &
Nesterov, A.B. 2011. Improvement in design models for
ice load evaluation under vessel impact against ice. Ships
and Offshore Structures 6(3): 249256.
Arockiasamy, M.; El-Tahan, H.; Swamidas, A.S.J.; Russell,
W.E. & Reddy, D.V. 1984. Semisubmersible response to
transient ice forces. Ocean Engineering 11(5): 463490.
Brown, R. & Daley, C. 1999. Computer simulation of
transverse ship-ice collisions. PERD/CHC Report 9-79
prepared for National Research Council of Canada.
Cammaert, A.B. & Tsinker, G.P. 1981. Impact of Large Ice
Floes and Icebergs on Marine Structures. Proc. of 6th
International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions; Quebec, Canada, 2731 July
1981.
Cammaert, A.B. & Tsinker, G.P. 1981. Impact of large ice
floes and icebergs on marine structures. Proc. of 6th
International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering
under Arctic Conditions 2: 653662.
Cammaert, A.B.; Wong, T.T. & Curtis, D.D. 1983. Impact
of icebergs on offshore gravity and floating platforms.
Proc. of 7th International Conference on Port and Ocean
Engineering under Arctic Conditions 4: 519536.
CBC News. 2012. Ice damages hull of sealift ship near
Iqaluit.
Daley, C. & Kim, H. 2010. Ice collision forces considering
structural deformation, Proc. of ASME 29th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE2010), paper OMAE2010-20657.
229
Daley, C. 1999. Energy based ice collision forces. Proc. of

the 15th International Conference on Port and Ocean
Engineering under Arctic Conditions; Espoo, August
2327.
Daley, G. 1984. BAFFIN A dynamic ship/ice interaction model. Proc. of the 3rd International Conference
on Icebreaking & Related Technologies; Calgary, May
1618.
DNV-RP-C204. 2010. Design against accidental loads.
Recommended practice, Det Norske Veritas.
Elvin, A.A. 1996. Number of grains required to homogenize elastic properties of polycrystalline ice. Mechanics
of Materials 22: 5164.
EPOA 1971. Iceberg impact effects on drillship. Eastcoast
Petroleum OperatorsAssociation, Research project report
no. 4 by FENCO and German & Milne.
Foschi, R.; Isaacson, M.; Allyn, N. &Yee, S. 1996. Combined
wave-iceberg loading on offshore structures. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 23: 10991110.
Frederking, R.; Jordaan, I.J. & McCallum, J.S. 1990.
Field tests of ice indentation at medium scale Hobsons
Choice ice island, 1989. Proc. of the 10th International
Symposium on Ice; Espoo, August 2023.
Fuglem M.; Muggeridge, K. & Jordaan, I. 1999. Design
load calculations for iceberg impacts. Offshore and Polar
Engineering 9(4): 298306.
Fuglem, M.K.; Duthinh, D.; Lever, J.H. & Jordaan, J. 1991.
Probabilistic determination of iceberg collision design
loads for floating production vessels. Proc. of IUTAMIAHR Symposium on Ice-Structure Interaction: 459482.
St. Johns, Canada.
Gagnon, R.E. & Wang, J. 2012. Numerical Simulations of a
Tanker Collision with a Bergy Bit Incorporating Hydrodynamics, a Validated Ice Model and Damage to the Vessel.
Cold Regions Science and Technology 81: 2635.
Gagnon, R.E. 2007. Results of numerical simulations of
growler impact tests. Cold Regions Science and Technology 49: 206214.
Gagnon, R.E. & Gammon, P.H. 1995. Characterization and
flexural strength of iceberg and glacier ice. Journal of
Glaciology 41(137): 103111.
Grace, I.M. 2011. Analytical and experimental investigations
of ships impact interaction with one-side barrier. PhD
Thesis, Wayne State University, Detroit, USA.
Greshunov, E.M. 1986. Collision of large floating ice feature
with massive offshore structure. Waterways, Port, Coastal
and Ocean Engineering 112(3): 390401.
Han, S.; Lee, J.Y.; Park, Y.I. & Che, J. 2008. Structural risk
analysis of an NO96 membrane-type liquefied natural gas
carrier in Baltic ice operation. Journal of Engineering for
the Maritime Environment 222: 179194.
Hill, B. 2006. Ship Collision with Iceberg Database, Banff,
Alberta.
http:/ /www.cbc.ca / news / canada / north / story / 2012 /07/26/
north-sealift-ship-damage.html, retrieved on 25.01.2013.
ISO 19904-1 2006. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Floating Structures Part 1: Monohulls, semisubmersibles and spars. International Standardization
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
ISO 19906. 2010. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries
Arctic Offshore Structures. International Standardization
Jebaraj, C.; Swamidas, A.S.J. & Jones, S.D. 1988. Dynamics
of ship/ice interaction. Proc. of International Conference
on Technology for Polar Areas (Polar Tech) 1: 89100.
Jordaan, I.M.; Maes, M.A.; Browne, P.W. & Hermans,
I.P. 1993, Probabilistic analysis of local ice pressures.
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

115: 8389.
Kierkegaard, H. 1993. Ship Collisions with Icebergs. PhD
Thesis, Denmark Technical University.
Kitami, E.; Fujishima, K.; Taguchi, Y.; Nawata, T.; Kawasaki,
T. & Sakai, F. 1984. Iceberg collision with semisubmersible drilling unit. Proc. of IAHR Ice symposium:
4553.
Koehler, P.E. & Jorgensen, L. 1985. Ship impact analysis.
Proc. of 4th Symposium Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering: 344350
Korzhavin, K.N. 2002. Action of Ice on Engineering Structures. Books for business, New-York Hong-Kong, USA.
Lee, S.G. & Nguyen, H.A. LNGC collision response analysis with iceberg considering surrounding seawater. Proc.
of 21st International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, June 1924, Hawaii, USA.
Liu, Z. 2011. Analytical and Numerical Analysis of Iceberg
Collisions with Ship Structures. PhD Thesis, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
Matskevitch, D.G. 1997a. Eccentric impact of an ice feature:

linearized model. Journal of Cold Regions Science and
Technology 25: 159-171.
Matskevitch, D.G. 1997b. Eccentric impact of an ice feature:
non-linear model. Journal of Cold Regions Science and
Technology 26: 5566.
Matsushi, M. Ikeda, J.-I., Kawakami, H. and Hirago, M. 1984.
Ship-Ice floe collision Analysis considering the elastic
Deflection of Hull Girder. Proc. of the 3rd International
Conference on Icebreaking & Related Technologies, May
1618, Calgary, Canada.
McKenna, R.F. 2004. Development of iceberg shape characterization for risk to Grand Banks installations,
PERD/CHC Report 2073, Canada.
McTaggart, K.A. 1989. Hydrodynamics and Risk Analysis
of Iceberg Impacts with Offshore Structures. PhD Thesis,
The University of British Colombia.
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012. Ice Navigation in Canadian Waters. http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/
folios/00913/docs/ice-navigation-dans-les-galces-eng.pdf,
retrieved on 25.01.2013.
Moan, T. 2009. Development of accidental collapse limit
state criteria for offshore structures. Structural Safety
31(2): 124135.
Mravak, Z.; Rudan, S.; Tryaskin, V.; Coache, D.; de
Lauzon, J. & Dudal, A. 2009. Iceberg collision with offshore unit. Proc. of the 20th International Conference
on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions,
paper POAC09-140.
Nawata, T.; Sakai, F.; Imakubo,Y.; Kawasaki, T. & Taguchi,Y.
1984. Iceberg Collision for Semi-submersible Drilling
Unit.
68: 135146. (In Japanese)
Nessim, M.A.; Murray, A.; Maes, M.A. & Jordaan, I.J.
1984. Risk analysis methodology for mobile offshore units
operating in ice-fested waters. Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Icebreaking & RelatedTechnologies.
Calgary, May 1618.
NORSOK N-004 2004. Design of steel structures,

Appendix A: Design against accidental actions. Standards,
Norway.
230
Popov, Y.N.; Faddeev, O.N.; Kheisin, D.E. & Yakovlev, A.A.

1967. Strength of ships navigating in ice, Sudostroenie
Publ. House: Leningrad, (in Russian).
PSA, 2010. Trends in risk level in the petroleum activity. Summary report by Petroleum Safety Authority,
Norway.
Quinton, B.W.T.; Daley, C.G. & Gagnon, R.E. 2012.
Response of IACS URI ship structures to real-time fullscale operational ice loads. Proc. of International Conference on Performance of Ships and Structures in Ice, paper
ICETECH12-125.
Ralph, F.; McKenna, R. & Gagnon, R. 2008. Iceberg characterization for the bergy bit impact study. Cold Regions
Science and Technology 52(1): 728.
Sanderson, T.J.O. 1988. Ice mechanics. Risk to offshore
structures, Graham and Trotman Inc., USA.
Schino, A.D. & Kenny, J.M. 2003. Grain size dependence
of the fatigue behaviour of a ultrafine-grained AISI 304
stainless steel. Materials Letters 57: 31823185.
Suh. Y.; Ito, H.; Chun, S.; Han, S.; Choi, J. & Urm, H.
2008. Ice collision analyses for membrane tank type LNG
carrier. Journal of Ship and Ocean Technology 12(1):

3544.
Swamidas, A.S.J.; Arockiasamy, M. & Reddy, D.V. 1983.
bergybit impact forces on a moored semisubmersible.
Proc. of 7th International Conference on Port and Ocean
Engineering under Arctic Conditions 4: 591619.
Tangborn, A.; Kan, S. & Tangborn, W. 1998. Calculation of
the size of the iceberg struck by the oil tanker Overseas
Ohio. Proc. of 14th International IAHR Symposium on
Ice; Potsdam, USA, July 2731.
Taylor, R.S.; Jordaan, I.J.; Li, C. & Sudom, D. 2010. Local
design pressures for structures in ice: analysis of fullscale data. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering 132: 031502-17
Timco, G.W. 2011. Isolated Ice Floe Impacts. Cold Regions
Wang, B.; Yu, H.C. & Basu, R. 2008. Ship and ice collision
modeling and strength evaluation of LNG ship structure.
Proc. of ASME 27th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, paper OMAE200857134.
231
A particle swarm optimization-based procedure to obtain a crashworthy

ice-classed LNG tanker
S. Ehlers
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Dept. of Marine Technology, Trondheim, Norway
ABSTRACT: Offshore activities and shipping in arctic regions are increasing significantly due to the vast
amount of natural resources found in the high north. One of the upcoming activities is the production of liquefied
natural gas (LNG) atYamal and its ship-based transport to Europe and the US or to the Far East. The LNG tankers
required for this transport task need to be able to withstand the harsh environmental conditions of the high north
including ice impact. Furthermore, the consequences from accidental impacts with other vessels, such as ice
breakers, passing vessels in narrow channels or berthing tugs, can be severe due to the deflection limits of the
containment system, the sensitive Arctic environment and the lack of repair yards. Hence, the structure needs
to be designed to withstand such accidental loads to the extent that is economically feasible or required by
rules and regulations. Therefore, this paper presents a particle swarm optimization-based procedure to obtain
a crashworthy ice classed LNG tanker. The procedure will utilize a selected arctic material, which will further
improve the collision resistance at sub-zero temperature. As a result, the LNG tanker scantlings optimized for
local impact will be presented and compared to a standard rules based concept to identify the potential gain in
collision resistance.
INTRODUCTION
The melting ice cap at the arctic sea makes way for
new shipping routes and the exploration of the undiscovered oil and gas resources in areas inaccessible in
the past due ice coverage. One of the upcoming activities is the production of liquefied natural gas (LNG)
at Yamal and its ship-based transport to Europe and
the US or to the Far East. Thus, the LNG tankers must
be able to operate under harsh arctic conditions and
thereby to comply with the expected ice loading. Wang
et al. (2008) studied the latter with the finite element
method for a selection of load cases with the conclusion that the strength of the steel structure of membrane
type LNG carrier is sufficient under the design ice
loads. However, the risk of collisions with such vessels may lead to severe catastrophes and certainly vast
economical losses due to the down time and repair cost.
Collision accidents account for about 20 per cent
of all serious accidents and thereby present a significant risk in the maritime transport environment (IMO
1999 to 2003). Hence, various efforts are undertaken
to reduce this risk, e.g. active and passive safety measures. Certainly, it would be the most cost-effective
solution to reduce the collision probability. However,
the eventual unforeseen event will occur and, then it
is up to the ship structure to withstand the deformation energy prior to failure of the containment system.
Hence, the scope of this article is to identify an LNG
side structure with increased crashworthiness suitable
for arctic conditions.
Novel ship side structures have been studied initially by Klanac et al. (2005) and lately by Ehlers
et al. (2012) as well as Ringsberg & Hogstrm (2012).
Therein, novel sandwich types of steel structures are
investigated under crashworthiness, which typically
show a very good behavior concerning deformation
and energy absorption. However, their shortcoming is
the need to integrate them into conventional hull structures, i.e. connect them to conventional web frames.
This fact hindered their commercial development at
present except for inland waterway ships and barges
(van de Graaf et al., 2004). Therefore, Ehlers (2010)
presented a procedure to obtain conventional crashworthy side structures using non-linear finite elementbased collision simulations and structural optimization
in the conceptual design phase. Additionally, in compliance with arctic conditions, respectively sub-zero
temperature, Ehlers and stby (2012) introduced an
arctic material with superior fracture behavior under
low temperature and identified its potential influence
on the crashworthiness.
Consequently, this article will present an optimization-based procedure to identify a crashworthy side
structure for an LNG tanker with ice-class compliance,
see Figure 1. As part of the optimization procedure,
the production cost as well as the repair cost following an accident will be assessed besides the structural
weight and the energy absorption capacity. Furthermore, the procedure will utilize exemplary selections
concerning the vessel to be analyzes, the optimization algorithm, the collision scenario, the collision
233
Figure 1. LNG optimization procedure.
simulations, the material modeling as well as the

production and repair cost assessment. Consequently,
the discrete results, i.e. the optimized LNG scantlings, presented in this paper are selection specific.
Nonetheless, since the presented selections are following earlier simulation, the resulting crashworthy
concept will be compared to a rule-based concept presented by Krgesaar and Ehlers (2010), which is now
strengthened in compliance with the design ice load
condition.
2 THE PARTICLE SWARM
ALGORITHM-BASED PROCEDURE
A crashworthy conceptual design is a lightweight
design that performs well in a collision scenario and
fulfills the operational requirements. In other words, it
is the design with the highest Energy per Mass (E/M)
ratio; see Ehlers (2010a). This E/M ratio serves as a
comparative unit for the optimization procedure and
is further combined with the production cost, C, thus
leading to the following optimization formulation
where we search for a vector of variables x =

(x1 , . . . , x164 ) that maximizes the design objective
f (x) = (E C)/M, as well as satisfying the design constraints gi (x). R is the penalty factor, which helps to
generate feasible solutions from marginally infeasible
solutions and thereby allows the algorithm to progress
also from the infeasible side. The length of x arises
from the 41 strakes found in the cross-section, see
Figure 1, with four variables each; see Table 1. Alternatives satisfying the constraints are called feasible
alternatives. Furthermore, the design objective is only
assessed for the feasible alternatives and otherwise set
to zero. For a feasible alternative, E will be assessed

for a collision scenario with the nonlinear finite element method; M and C are known as a function of
x. The choice of this single objective comprising the
three characteristic and conflicting measures arises
from the fact that this tends to describe the physical target behavior of the structure best. Further, it
does not identify alternatives at the extreme ends of
the objective space, i.e. lightweight structure at high
cost and low energy, du to the relative representation.
In order to assess the design constraints, the conceptual design alternatives under one characteristic
service loading condition are evaluated to comply with
classification societies rules. Therefore, the global
response is calculated with the coupled beam method
according to Naar et al. (2004). The local response
of reach strake under hydrostatic loading is calculated
with a uniformly loaded beam model. For the subsequent strength check this local response is added to the
global hull girder response. Each strake, see Figure
1, is checked for eight standard failure criteria concerning: plate yielding and buckling, stiffener yield,
lateral and torsional buckling, and stiffener and web
flange buckling, see DNV 2000 and Ehlers (2010a).
Additional crossing over criterion according to Hughes
et al. (2004) is used to ensure controlled panel collapse due to extensive in- plane loading. Altogether
287 failure criteria are calculated for each design
alternative and the characteristic service loading condition. These criteria are confronted with the response
through the adequacy functions, effectively describing
optimization constraints. Adequacy is considered as a
non-linear normalization function between the structural capacity of some structural element i, ai (x), and
a loading demand acting on it, bi (x), as proposed by
Hughes et al. (1980)
This function results with values ranging between 1

and 1. Zero delimits the feasible alternative with positive adequacy values from the infeasible, having a
negative adequacy value.
In order to maximize the above-defined design
objective this paper follows the particle swarm
algorithm-based optimization for high-strength steel
structures presented in detail by Ehlers (2012) and is
herein adopted to include ice class compliance and arctic materials. In general, a particle swarm optimization
(PSO) algorithm is a population-based optimization
technique developed by Kennedy & Eberhart (1995).
Unlike a Genetic Algorithm (GA), a PSO does not
have genetic operators such as crossover and mutation. The PSO particles update themselves with the
internal velocity and they have an in-built memory. As
a result, only the best particle of a PSO forwards its
information to the other particles. Hence, it is a oneway sharing mechanism, which only looks for the best
solution. As a result, the particles tend to converge to
234
Table 1.
Table 2.
PSO parameters.
Swarm size
Number of generations
Inertia at start
Dynamic inertia reduction factor
Number of rounds to improve solutions before
the inertia is reduces
50
60
1.4
0.8
3
LNG tanker particulars.
Length between perpendiculars

Moulded breadth
Depth
v (design)
Unloaded draft
Unloaded P
Loaded draft
Loaded P
310.0 m
50.0 m
27.4 m
19 kn
5m
23 MW
13 m
27 MW
the best solution quicker than the population of a GA.

The nature of the PSO algorithm is continuous, however, discrete design variables are achieved by simply
rounding the values to the nearest allowable value.
Optimization starts from a feasible initial population and by updating the population of each generation
the algorithm searches for the optimum. Further PSO
parameters for this study are given in Table 1 and they
are found based on best practice experience.
2.1 The collision scenario
The example scenario involves a striking and a struck
ship colliding at a 90 angle. This is the most severe
collision condition because all the collision energy is
available for structural deformations (Ehlers & Tabri,
2012). The striking LNG ship is assumed to be rigid
and its bow collides with the struck LNG ship, see
Table 2, of the same type. Furthermore, two principal
striking positions are considered, namely the unloaded
and loaded draft, see Figure 3, over which the collision simulation response is averaged. Furthermore,
Figure 3 includes an assumed temperature distribution
to account for arctic, respectively sub-zero, temperatures. The studied LNG is a minimum ballast water
concept with a profound V shaped bilge section, which
will be in contact with the striking bulbous bow and
affected by the ice strengthening. Furthermore, the
relatively fragile containment system of the LNG ship
has an assumed deflection limit of 4 mm/m, which
will be considered during the optimization. The total
of four variables per strake together with their discrete
values are shows in Table 3.
The current requirement for the NSR is an equivalent ice class of 1A at the minimum; hence, following
the FSICR we check the compliance of the structure
according to 1A. This results in minimum scantlings
for both drafts as a results of two critical ice patch loads
to be applied at each draft applied over the webframe
spacing with a height of 0.3 m for the loaded and
unloaded draft respectively, see Table 2. Ehlers (2012)
presented the optimization of this LNG without ice
strengthening and found a optimum plate thicknesses
between 20 and 22 mm for strake 15 and 19 if crashworthiness is considered as well as HP profiles in the
range of HP220x10 to HP340x14 for the optimized
spacing. In the current study, the ice load inclusion
results in a minimum plate thickness of 22 mm and
an HP-profile of the dimensions 200 9 for the upper
bound of the frame spacing. Hence, these minimum
requirements for the thickness and frames will be
used as lower bounds in order to comply with the ice
class 1A.
Figure 2. Strake definition used in the optimization.

Table 3.
Discrete strake variables.
Thickness [mm]
Amount of stiffeners
10,1129
1,217
Stiffener type
HP100 6, HP120 8, HP140 8, HP160 8,
HP180 10, HP200 10, HP220 10, HP240 10,
HP260 12, HP280 12, HP300 12, HP320 13,
HP340 14, HP370 13, HP400 16, HP430 15
2.2 The crashworthiness simulations

The solver LS-DYNA version 971 is used for the
collision simulations. The ANSYS parametric design
language is used to build the finite element model
for the LNG cross-sections with variable structural
235
Figure 3. Vertical striking locations and assumed temperature distribution.
Figure 5. Material properties for SZT (Ehlers & stby,

2012).
Konter et al. (2004). The results of interest from these

crashworthiness simulations are the absorbed energy
at the defined deflection or fracture limit at the inner
hull as well as the corresponding deformed mass.
2.3 Material modeling
Figure 4. FE-model of the LNG tanker.
dimensions; see Table 3 and Figure 2. The web of the

HP-profiles is discretized with shell elements whereas
beam elements are used for the flange to result in
the desired sectional properties. The three dimensional
parametric model is built between two transverse bulkheads, see Figure 4, and the translational degrees of
freedom are restricted at the plane of the bulkhead
locations, for details on the parametric modelling see
Ehlers et al. (2008). The remaining edges are free. The
structure is modelled using four noded, quadrilateral
Belytschko-Lin-Tsay shell elements with 5 integration points through their thickness. The characteristic
element-length in the contact region is 150 mm to
account for the non-linear structural deformations,
such as buckling and folding. Standard LS-DYNA
hourglass control and automatic single surface contact
(friction coefficient of 0.3) is used for the simulations; see Hallquist (2007). The collision simulations
are displacement-controlled. The rigid bow is moved
into the ship side structure at a constant velocity of 10
m/s. This velocity is reasonably low so as not to cause
inertia effects resulting from the ships masses, see
The collision simulation uses the element lengthdependent local strain and stress relation until fracture
according to Ehlers & Varsta (2009) and Ehlers (2009).
This element length-dependent material relationship
is identified on the basis of optical measurements for
room temperature. Furthermore, the employed constant strain failure criterion is justified due to the
close ranges of triaxiality at failure (Ehlers, 2009)
and is found to reliably predict the crashworthiness
of ship side structures also under arctic conditions
(Ehlers, 2010b and Ehlers & stby, 2012). Furthermore, Ehlers & stby (2012) extended this material
relationship to be applicable for sub-zero temperature (SZT). Therein, Ehlers & stby introduced an
arctic material, which shows the typical increase in
yield stress, Lders plateau and ultimate strength with
decreasing temperatures as found in standard (std.)
materials as well as an increase in failure strain, see
Figure 5. Hence, the arctic material will be utilized
according to the assumed temperature distribution
given in Figure 3 using the material relationship presented in Figure 6. The failure strain and element
length relation, see Figure 6b, is implemented in the
ANSYS parametric design language model generation
via material 24 of LS-DYNA (Hallquist, 2007), which
allows failing elements to be removed at the critical
strain.
2.4 Production- and repair cost
The steel structure production cost of each alternative
is calculated with a cost module according to Rigo
(2001) and Rigo (2003). The cost is based on a simplified calculation of labour and material costs. The
236
Table 4.
Correction coefficients for laborious repair areas.
Fore Peak, aft Peak and Ballast Tanks

Cargo Tanks and Engine rooms
Single curves plates
Holland profile
Oil and oily tanks
Plate thickness other than 10 mm
Arctic material
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
exclude staging, tank cleaning, testing the tanks and

access work. Coating is also a separate job.
The repair cost for the different collisions scenarios
can be calculated for the obtained deformed ship side
structure using the world average price of 5.5 USD/kg
and the correction factors from Table 4 according to
The material is considered deformed if plastic

strains occur within the corresponding finite element.
Furthermore, it is assumed that 25% of additional steel
needs to be replaced during the repair. The final repair
cost does not include the downtime and dry-docking,
staging and coating costs.
3
Figure 6. Local material relation (a) and element-length
dependent failure strain (b) for std. and arctic material at
SZT (Ehlers & stby, 2012).
calculated cost is calibrated referring to the cost of a

straight stiffened panel using unitary production costs
of the yard. The production cost is calculated as a sum
of three components:
Material cost includes raw material cost for the

plate and stiffeners. The arctic material is assumed to
increase the material cost by 10 per cent. Cost of consumables consists of the costs from welding (energy,
gas, electrodes and provision for equipment depreciation). Labour cost is based on the workload for surface
preparation and welding.
As consequences of the LNG ship collision, the
resulting cost to repair the deformed and ruptured
side structure is assessed. The steel replacement in a
shipyard is assessed as a unit price of steel processed
(USD/kg) for flat plates with correction factors for
more laborious areas (Romanoff et al. 2007).
Typical world average repair prices for per kg steel
is 5.5 for quantities of 60 kg to 20 tons. Laborious areas
are subjected to certain correction coefficients (Ccorr );
see Table 4. These steel processing prices include
material, workmanship, lighting and ventilation, but
RESULTS OF THE OPTIMIZATION
The progression of the objective best and the corresponding mass, cost, energy and repair cost during
the optimisation is shown in Figure 7. The results are
given in percentage values with the rule-based concept
using std. material at ambient temperatures according
to Krgesaar & Ehlers (2010) including ice strengthening as a basis. It can be seen that the optimization was
able to reduce production cost marginally as well as the
mass of the optimized structure by almost 5%. Hence,
the utilization of arctic materials does not represent
a conflict with weight reductions and cost reductions
for the present case. Furthermore, the repair cost shows
a decrease for the best solution to almost 50% when
compared to the rule-based initial design alternative.
The latter becomes possible due to the utilization of
arctic material, which exhibits superior properties at
SZT compared to std. material. However, since this
gain assumes the extreme temperature distribution presented in Figure 3, the actual gain in most operational
conditions will be less, because the temperature will
be higher. However, the repair cost is at all times lower
then the repair cost of the rules based concept, which
clearly identifies the benefit from adopting this procedure. The best global solution was found in generation
31, leading to a very good convergence of the results
within 60 generations. Additionally, Figure 8 visualized the strong tendency of the PSO to converge with
all particles to the objective best solution. These convergences can be seen from generation 31, were the
global best alternative is found initially, and consecutively more particles tend to this solution reaching
237
Figure 7. Progression of the objective best and the corresponding mass, cost, energy and repair cost during the
optimisation.
Figure 9. Resulting crashworthy concept using arctic

material.
Figure 8. Development of percentage of optimum global

best solutions per generation.
49 out of 50 particles in generation 60. Thus, the presented procedure and the choice of PSO parameters,
see Table 1, are considered sufficient to indicate the
possibilities to obtain a crashworthy LNG tanker.
The resulting objective best concept is shown in Figure 9, which could further undergo a harmonization
in terms of plate thickness steps and stiffener spacings. The rule-based concept is shown in Figure 10.
The rule-based concept is characterised by the fairly
equal distributed steel across the frame section, thus
no specific crashworthy features exist with respect
Figure 10. Rule-based concept.
238
to side impact. The identified crashworthy concept

redistributed the steel away from the deck and bottom
structure towards the side. Furthermore, the crashworthy concept increased the stiffener size at the impact
location while decreasing the plate thicknesses. The
latter allows for a stiff backbone, i.e. framing, which
absorbs more energy until the critical deflection limit
of the containment system is reached without fracture at the shell. Furthermore, the local increase in
stiffness results in a smaller extent of damage, i.e.
spread of plastic deformations, which reduce the repair
cost to half when compared to the rule-based concept. Additionally, the identified crashworthy concept
is marginally less expensive to build as well as approx.
4% lighter. Hence, the optimized concept can not only
absorb more energy in a collision event while costing less to repair, but it costs less then the rule based
concept and allows for an increased cargo capacity.
Consequently, the employed optimization procedure
is able to identify the target objective and fulfil the
constraints sufficiently. Additionally, the elements of
the presented procedure; see Figure 1, can be adopted
to consider the desired scenarios, hull structures and
colliding bow shapes and stiffnesss. Thus the results
presented in this chapter are strictly valid for the
explicitly described collision scenario and parameters
only.
4
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This paper presented the optimisation procedure for

crashworthiness of an ice-strengthened LNG tanker
using a particle swarm algorithm and the nonlinear
finite element method. The contents of this procedure are presented and can be extended to include
additional criteria or analyses steps if desired. The
LNG tanker with a strict deflection limit of the inner
hull, due to the containment system, was optimised
for crashworthiness utilizing arctic material. The latter combined with the redistribution of steel towards
the collision locations allows for reduced production
cost and a reduction in weight as well as an increase
in absorbed energy while reducing the repair cost after
a collision significantly. Hence, it can be said that the
presented optimisation results indicate the potential to
build cheaper and safer ships at the same time.
REFERENCES
Det Norske Veritas. 2000. Rules for ships, Part 3, Ch. 1,
section 14, Buckling control.
Ehlers, S. 2012. A particle swarm algorithm-based optimization for high-strength steel structures. Ship Production
and Design 28(1): 19.
Ehlers, S. & Tabri, K. 2012. A combined numerical and
semi-analytical collision damage assessment procedure.
Ehlers, S.; Tabri, K.; Romanoff, J. & Varsta, P. 2012.
Numerical and experimental investigation on the collision
resistance of the X-core structure. Ships and Offshore

Ehlers, S. 2010. A procedure to optimize ship side structures
for crashworthiness. J Eng. Mar. Env. 224: 112.
Ehlers, S. 2010b. The influence of the material relation on
the accuracy of collision simulations. Marine Structures
23: 462474.
Ehlers, S. 2009. Strain and stress relation until fracture for
finite element simulations of a thin circular plate. ThinWalled Structures 48(1): 18.
Ehlers, S. & Varsta, P. 2009. Strain and stress relation for nonlinear finite element simulations. Thin-Walled Structures
47(11): 12031217.
Ehlers, S.; Klanac, A. & Krgesaar, M. 2008. A design procedure for structures against impact loading. Jahrbuch
Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft, Springer.
Hallquist, J.O. 2007. LS-DYNA. Keyword Users Manual,
Version 971, Livermore Software Technology Corporation.
Hughes, O.F.; Ghosh, B. & Chen, Y. 2004. Improved prediction of simultaneous local and overall buckling of stiffened
panels. Thin-walled Structures 42: 82756.
Hughes, O.F.; Mistree, F. & Zanic,V. 1980.A practical method
for the rational design of ship structures.Ship Res 24(2):
10113.
IMO. 1999. International Maritime Organisation. Casualty
statistics and investigations:Very serious and serious casualties for the year 1999. FSI.3/Circ.2, 2001; Available
at: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_
id%3D5397/2.pdf, accessed on: 4 Aug 2008.
Kennedy, J. & Eberhart, R. 1995. Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings, EEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks,
Piscataway: 19421948.
Klanac, A.; Ehlers, S.; Tabri, K.; Rudan, S. & Broekhuijsen, J.
2005. Qualitative design assessment of crashworthy structures, Proceedings, Int. Maritime Association of Mediterranean: 461469.
Konter, A.; Broekhuijsen, J. & Vredeveldt, A. 2004. A quantitative assessment of the factors contributing to the
accuracy of ship collision predictions with the finite element method. Proceedings 3rd Int. Conf. Collision and
Grounding of Ships, Japan: 1726.
Krgesaar, M. & Ehlers, S. 2010. An Assessment Procedure
of the Crashworthiness of an LNG Tanker Side Structure.
Ship Technology Research 57(1): 5064.
Naar, H.; Varsta, P. & Kujala, P. 2004. A theory of coupled
beams for strength assessment of passenger ships. Marine
239
Rigo, P. 2003. An Integrated Software for Scantling

Optimization and Least Production Cost. Ship Technology
Research 50: 126141.
Rigo, P. 2001. Least-Cost Structural Optimization Oriented
Preliminary Design. Ship Production 17(4): 202215.
Ringsberg, W.J. & Hogstrm, P. 2012. Comparison and
assessment of the crashworthiness of three innovative
side-shell structures: The X-Core, Y-Core and corrugated
panel structures. Proceedings of the ASME 2012 31st Intl.
Conf. on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Romanoff et al. 2007. Catalogue of the Selected Methods

to Solve the Structural, Production and Operation Issues
Affecting Design of 3 Application Cases. EU IMPROVE
project Deliverable 2.6.
Wang, Bo.; Yu, H.; Basu, R.; Lee, H.; Kwon, JC.; Jeon,
BY.; Kim, JH.; Daley, C. & Kendrick, A. 2008. Structural
Response of Cargo Containment Systems in LNG Carriers
under Ice Loads. ICETECH. Banff, Alberta, Canada.
240
Drop tests of ice blocks on stiffened panels with different

structural flexibility
E. Kim, M. Storheim, J. Amdahl & S. Lset
R. von Bock und Polach

Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
ABSTRACT: Drop tests of freshwater ice blocks with masses of approximately 100 kg, 600 kg and 700 kg on
stiffened steel panels were conducted at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and at
Aalto University. The stiffened panels exhibited different structural flexibility and plane dimensions of 1.1 m
1.1 m. The focus was on studying the kinetic energy dissipation during the impact and on investigating the impact
characteristics of the stiffened panels. This paper presents a detailed description of the drop tests and the major
findings from the experiments along with a preliminary data analysis. The experiments indicate that the tested
ice exhibited a large capacity for energy absorption. During collision, most of the collision energy was dissipated
within the ice block with little or no plastic deformations in the stiffened panel. The results presented in this paper
demonstrate the importance of confinement conditions on the energy-absorption capacity and its importance in
calculating the ice-structure collision scenario.
INTRODUCTION
The interest in offshore drilling in the Arctic is increasing. Offshore structures and ships operating in Arctic
waters need to be designed to withstand ice actions.
The features and characteristics of ice in the various
offshore regions vary significantly and result in numerous loading scenarios and limiting conditions that need
to be considered in the design. The possibility of accidental collisions between potential ice features and
ships or offshore installations has drawn considerable
attention after the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg and sank
on April 15th, 1912.
According to the International Standard ISO 19906
(2010), the accidental limit state (ALS) design condition for ice-structure interactions must include
abnormal-level ice events (ALIE). ALIE corresponds
to an annual probability of exceedance of 104 . For
Arctic conditions, the intention of the ALS design is to
ensure that a structure is able to sustain a worst-case
ALIE and maintain structural integrity for a sufficient
period of time, under environmental conditions (i.e.,
loads with annual probability of exceedance of 102 ).
ALS represents structural damage as a consequence of
ALIE that alter the safety of the structure, personnel
and environment.
During ALIE, structural damage characteristics and
the behaviour of the damaged structure depends on the
collision scenario (i.e., the demand for dissipation of
kinetic energy, ice failure mode, ice strength, local ice

shape at contact, global shape of ice feature, structural
strength, etc.). Methods based on full-scale data are
preferred; however, knowledge concerning the level
of damage after a collision with an ice mass and the
circumstances leading to the damage are limited and
cannot be directly used to design offshore structures
and ships operating in icy waters.
Different approaches have been applied to analyse ice collisions (e.g., EPOA, 1971; Cammaert &
Tsinker, 1981; Curtis et al., 1984; Nawata et al., 1984;
McTaggart, 1989; Kierkegaard, 1993; Daley, 1999;
Lee & Nguyen, 2011; Liu, 2011; Lobanov, 2011;
Gagnon & Wang, 2012). The approaches are based
on the principle of energy conservation similar to the
method used by Korzhavin (2002). In his work the
ice load was predicted for the impact of an isolated
ice floe with a vertical bridge pier. Earlier works used
mostly semi-analytical formulations. A good overview
of the available empirical data was presented by Timco
(2011).
The mechanics of ice collisions with a structure is
rather complex. During a collision, both the structure
and the ice can undergo significant deformations and
damage. The behaviour of an ice mass during collision
is not completely understood, and due to the complex
heterogeneous behaviour, simplified ice material models are often used for collision scenarios (e.g., Gagnon
& Wang, 2012; Liu et al., 2011). The necessity of
241
modelling damage and failure of ice and steel materials for ALIE causes additional challenges because a
physically-realistic method to predict damage and failure is still being developed. No commonly accepted
state-of-the-art procedure exists today.
The major uncertainties originate from the characterisation of the ice properties and the assumptions
made for the local and global ice shape. According
to Elvin (1996), at least 230 grains are needed to
homogenise the elastic properties of polycrystalline
ice in two dimensions.This causes a fundamental problem because a lower bound on the finite element size
is needed to ensure that the continuum mechanics are
accurately described, and an upper bound is required to
ensure that the finite element model closely approximates a physically meaningful solution. Moreover, for
the contact surface regions (deformable ice and steel),
most of the contact algorithms introduce additional
limitations to the mesh size of both the ice and the
steel. Due to the lack of experimental data related
to simultaneous deformations of the ice and structure, it is uncertain how to validate numerical models
corresponding to ALIE for ALS.
With this in mind, laboratory experiments of accidental collisions between ice blocks and a floating
structure were conducted at Aalto University (Aalto)
in connection with the HydraLab IV FP7 project and
the Sustainable Arctic Marine and Coastal Technology
Centre (SAMCoT). The purpose was to verify state-ofthe-art methods for the analysis of deformations of ice
and steel structures (for more details, see Kim et al.
(2012b)). In the experiments, a stiffened panel was
mounted onto a moored structure and impacted with
an approximately 1.0 ton ice block at speeds of 1 and
2 m/s. In the experiments, the focus was on the simultaneous deformations of the ice and the structure. Two
drop tests were conducted at Aalto. The intention of the
test was to remove the hydrodynamic aspects present
in the moored-structure tests. Prior to the accidental
collision experiments, three drop tests were conducted
at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The impacted panels were similar to the
panels used at Aalto.
The study focused on the energy dissipation mechanisms during the drop tests and on the impact characteristics of the stiffened panels. This paper presents a
detailed description of the drop tests and the major
findings from the experiments. A preliminary data
analysis is also discussed. The information presented
in this paper is invaluable for planning experiments
of the ice-structure-interaction scenario in which
both the ice and the structure undergo significant
deformations.
2
2.1
EXPERIMENT
Ice sample preparation
The ice samples were manufactured using a mix of

water and commercially available crushed ice pieces.
Figure 1. Photographs of ice used during the experiments:

(a) and (c) crushed ice pieces used at NTNU and Aalto,
respectively; (b) and (d) thin sections of ice at NTNU and
Aalto, respectively; the thin sections of ice were photographed
between two sheets of polaroid material.
Figure 2. Representative ice blocks; black arrows indicate

the direction of impact; in (b) and (c), the grid lines are 0.15 m
apart.
The pieces of crushed ice (Figures 1a and 1c) were purchased from a third party. The crushed ice pieces that
were 110 mm (Figure 1a) and 1040 mm (Figure 1c)
were used for ice sample preparation at NTNU and
Aalto, respectively. Additionally, to facilitate specimen
handling, a metal rod was frozen into the ice.
The samples were grown in the cold room, which
was maintained at approximately 20 C. Moulds with
partly flexible edges were used to allow thermal expansion of ice during freezing. The moulds were filled
with crushed ice and water, which was pumped in
through hoses at the mould bottom to minimise the
risk of trapped air. The moulds had dimensions of
0.8 0.6 0.4 m and 1.2 1.0 0.9 m at NTNU and
Aalto, respectively.
The manufacturing procedure resulted in ice
microstructures as shown in Figures 1b and 1d.
Once an ice sample was completely frozen, it was
removed from the mould and cut into the desired
shape. Examples of produced ice blocks are shown
in Figure 2.
The grain sizes of ice the samples used in the
drop tests at NTNU and Aalto were approximately 1
2 mm (see Figure 1b) and 210 mm (see Figure 1d),
respectively. Figure 1 shows that the grain size of the
produced ice depends on the type of the underlying
crushed ice (i.e., the third-party manufacturing process
of the crushed ice).
242
Figure 3. Photograph of a stiffened panel with the main

structural components.
Table 1.
Figure 4. Inhomogeneous yielding of mild steel with the

corresponding engineering stress-strain curves for 2 mm and
4 mm thick specimens; the capacity of the testing machine
was limited to 25 kN, and the engineering strains were limited
to 10%.
Characteristics of test panels.
Panel
Material
tp ts tf (mm)
P1 (NTNU)
P2 (Aalto)
P3 (Aalto)
S235
S235
S235
424
222
444
At Aalto, the ice samples exhibited an average

density of 900 kg/m3 and unconfined compressive
strength of 0.90 MPa in brittle-like failure mode. The
ice was tested at a temperature of 0 C and at an average
loading speed of approximately 17 mm/s.
The reported strength value was obtained by dividing the maximum load at failure by the sample
cross-section area. The brittle-like failure mode was
characterised by a sharp decrease of the load after
ice failure. For comparison, the crushing strength of
polycrystalline ice at 0 C (10 mm grains) in the brittle
range is 0.94 MPa (Michel, 1978).
2.2 Stiffened panels

The stiffened panels used in this study exhibited inplane dimensions of 1.1 m 1.1 m. The plates were
stiffened with six flat-bar stiffeners 0.15 m in height
with 0.15 m spacing and two flat-bar frames 0.15 m
in height with 500 mm spacing (Figure 3). Additionally, two L-profiles were welded to the plate, as shown
in Figure 3, and acted as supports (rigid boundaries)
during the tests. Characteristics of the test panels are
shown in Table 1.
Tensile tests on steel samples were performed to
predict the behaviour of the stiffened panels. Tensile
specimens were prepared in accordance with the DNV
Rules (2011). The same steel was used to manufacture
the panels at Aalto. For each coupon type, the samples
were prepared and tested parallel and normal to the
rolling direction. The obtained stress/strain curves are
presented in Figure 4.
Figure 5. Photographs of the experimental setup at NTNU

(a) and Aalto (b) with an ambient temperature of approximately 3 C.
2.3 Experimental setup

Figures 5a and 5b show the experimental setups at
NTNU and Aalto, respectively. The stiffened panel was
placed on the top of the wooden pallets as shown in
Figure 5 without additional constraints. At Aalto, the
panel was held in position using four weights (total
1,594 kg) (see Figure 5b). At NTNU, a two-sheet Fuji
Prescale Film (FPF) was used to record normal stress
distribution over the contact area (Figure 5a).
Furthermore, the drop tests were recorded using
a FASTCAM-APX high-speed video (HSV) camera.
The recording speed was 1500 frames per second with
1024 512 resolution at NTNU.
243
Table 2.
Summary of the drop tests.
Test
no.
Drop Kinetic
height energy
Panel (m)
(kJ)
Max. length
of dent
(mm)
Max. depth
of dent
(mm)
1c
2c
3s
4c
5s
P1
P1
P1
P2
P3
not visible
not visible
150
600
750
not visible
not visible
8
13
8
1.1
1.6
3.0
0.5
3.0
1.1
1.6
3.0
3.5
17.7
c,s
crushing and splitting ice failure modes, respectively.

visual observation in relation to the stiffener spacing.
Figure 6. Structure of FPF.
At NTNU, the ice block shown in Figure 2a was

dropped onto the panel P1 from heights of 1.1 m, 1.6 m
and 3 m. The drop height was measured as the clearance between the panel and the ice block. The mass
of the ice block was measured before and after the
drop test. At Aalto, an ice block weighing 706 kg (Figure 2b) was dropped onto a 2-mm thick panel P2 from
a height of 0.5 m, and the ice-block of 601 kg (Figure 2c) was dropped onto a 4-mm panel P3 from the
height of 3.0 m. Table 2 summarises the test conditions
and the main results.
Five drop-tests were conducted. The kinetic energy
reported in Table 2 is the kinetic energy of the ice
block immediately before the impact. The maximum
length of the dent in the panel and the maximum depth
of the dent (see Table 2) were estimated based on the
measured deflections of the plate. The measurements
were performed before and after each drop test. To
measure the deflections, a plunger-type dial gauge was
used.
2.4
Pressure measurement
FPF indicates the applied pressure differences as a

red colour density variation. FPF is composed of an
A-Film which is coated with a micro-encapsulated
colour-forming material and a C-Film coated with a
colour-developing material (see Figure 6). The size
of the micro-capsule and the strength of its walls are
a function of the applied pressure. The volume of
the colour-forming material and the colour-developing
material determines the colour density. The microencapsulated colour-forming layer was designed to
react to pressures in the range 2.5 10 MPa with accuracy 10% (FUJIFILM Instruction Manual). The minimum measurable area was 0.1 mm2 , and the minimum
measurable pressure application speed was 1.0 ms.
The FPF was cut into the desired rectangular shape
and placed over the impacted panel. To avoid sliding of
the A-film along the C-film during testing, two sheets
were bonded together with adhesive material outside
Figure 7. Sequence of images extracted from high-speed

video recording showing drop test no. 1; the time interval
between each frame is 0.67 ms.
the measurement area. Besides, FPF was also attached

to the impacted panel using the tape.
3
RESULTS
An image sequence from the ice-panel interaction

during drop test no. 1 is shown in Figure 7.
The HSV showed that the ice-crushing process continued for at least 16 ms at an average speed of 1.0 m/s.
The speed was 45 times lower than the speed of the
ice immediately before the impact (4.6 m/s). The average crushing speed (1.0 m/s) was calculated as the
ice-crushing distance, u, divided by the duration of
the crushing event, t, (t = 0.016 s was taken from
HSV).
Two characteristic modes of failure may be distinguished, including crushing and splitting modes
(Figure 8). The observed failure modes are indicated
in Table 2.
Figures 9a and 9b are a close-up view of the ice
damage zone after test nos. 1 and 5, respectively.
3.1 Ice pressure
In Figure 10, a pressure distribution map at the end
of test no. 1 is plotted using data obtained from the
FPF. For test no. 1, the measurements of the FPF
were processed using a method similar to the method
described in Kim et al. (2012c). Pixel values were
244
Figure 8. Representative frames of ice-crushing (a) and

splitting (b) modes obtained during test nos. 1 and 3,
respectively.
Figure 10. Pressure distribution map for test no. 1; the plane
dimensions are shown in mm, and the pressure is shown
in MPa.
The image file was processed in Matlab to determine

the average pixel value corresponding to the colour
density. Pressure-colour density data were converted
to the pressure-pixel value relationship,
where x = pixel value and pfilm = pressure in MPa.

The pressure map in Figure 10 reflected the events
shown in Figure 7 and the contact surface in Figure 9a.
The average pressure on the measured contact area
with a local pressure of 2.5 MPa < pfilm < 10 MPa,
was approximately 10 MPa. The presence or absence
of high-pressure zones during the ice crushing event
shown in Figures 7 and 10 could not be confirmed due
to FPF limitations.A better method to record the distribution of contact pressures could incorporate several
FPFs of different sensitivities stacked vertically, as
performed by Kim et al. (2012c).
3.2 Panel deformations
Figure 9. Ice damage after drop test nos. 1 (a) and 5 (b);
black arrows indicate freshly-formed splitting cracks, and
white arrows indicate crushed and extruded ice; in Figure 9a,
the ice-plate contact surface exhibits a grimy appearance;
in Figure 9b, the dashed line indicates the position of the
metal rod, which was frozen into the ice to facilitate specimen
handling.
converted to the actual pressure levels, pfilm using

Equation (1). The equation was derived using the
standard momentary pressure vs. colour density curve
and the colour sample provided by FUJIFILM. The
colour sample was scanned and saved as an image file.
The level of damage for each test panel is shown in

Table 2. The maximum extent of damage was achieved
in test no. 5. Figure 11 shows plate deformations for
test no. 5. Figure 12 shows plate deflections after test
no. 5. The last figure was obtained by plotting the
measured deflections in 3D space using Matlab.
The maximum length of the dent in Figure 11
is 750 mm (which is five times the spacing of the
stiffeners), and the maximum depth is 8 mm.
4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Energy of the process
An ice-structure interaction consists of two mutually influenced response mechanisms: an ice response
245
Figure 11. A photograph of the plate damage after test no. 5.
Figure 12. Plate deflections after test no. 5; the circles indicate measured values; arrows indicate the locations, where
the measured deflections may contain a contribution from
the plate handling after the test.
mechanism and a response mechanism of the structure. The response mechanism of ice (or structure)
is a collection of elementary processes. The response
mechanism of ice consists of a rotation of the block,
local elastic, viscous and plastic deformations of the
ice, internal ice damage and fragmentation (crushing failure mode). The response mechanisms of steel
structures consist of elastic and, to the extent required,
plastic deformations.
To further understand the ice response mechanism
during collision, the energy involved in the elementary
processes can be evaluated. The energy balance can be
written as:
Ekin = the kinetic energy of the ice block immediately before impact (see Table 2); Ecr = energy
dissipated within the ice block; Ebc = energy dissipated through flexibility of the wooden supports;
Erot = energy dissipation due to rotation of the ice
block during collision; Eplatedef = energy dissipated in
the steel structure. Energies Ecr and Eplatedef depend on
the different energy-absorbing mechanisms activated
during the interaction event.
4.1.1 Energy dissipated within the ice block
All the calculations in this section refer to drop test
no. 1. For this test, it was possible to obtain a rough
estimate of the energy involved in the fragmentation process. Energy dissipation Erot and Eplatedef were
neglected because the impact direction passed through
the centre of gravity of the ice mass, and after the
impact, there were no permanent plate deformations.
For the case of the crushing failure mode in Figure 8a, it is possible to calculate the total energy
dissipation within the ice using the following methods.
Method I. The energy dissipated during crushing
failure mode will be dissipated by different energyabsorption mechanisms: (i) internal deformations,
(ii) formation of cracks, (iii) formation of fine powdery
ice particles from bulk ice and (iv) friction between
fragmented surfaces and between the ice and the panel.
During the crushing failure mode, the formation of
fine ice particles can be seen in Figure 8a. The energy
dissipation during the formation of these ice particles
can be estimated by multiplying the surface energy by
the total surface area created, similar to that performed
by Jordaan & Timco (1988).
The predominant cause of energy dissipation is
assumed to be the formation of fine powdery ice particles from the bulk ice. The size of both the crushed
zone and the ice fragments in the zone may be estimated from HSV records and photographs taken during the experiment. Considering spherically-shaped
ice fragments of 2 mm in diameter, it is possible to
predict the energy that is dissipated within the ice
block, Ecr as:
where Gs = energy required to create a new crack

surface of unit area; ris = radius of crushed particle;
Vcr_total /Vis = total number of fragments (total crushed
volume divided by the volume of a single particle). The
effect of porosity was not included in the calculations.
The assumed particle size corresponds to the grain size
of the ice in Figure 1b.
Gs = 0.8 J/m2 was measured by Timco & Frederking (1986) and was used by Jordaan & Timco
(1988) to assess the crushing energy during the indentation tests on level ice sheets. Michel (1978) reported
Gs = 0.109 J/m2 , and Schulson & Duval (2009) estimated Gs ranging between 0.1380.218 J/m2 . The
energy Ecr was calculated using different values of Gs
found in the literature. Calculated Ecr values vary in
the range between 0.73 and 5.33 J (see Table 3). Note
that Ecr is the energy dissipated in pure free-surface
production.
Method II. Another method for estimating the
total energy dissipation within ice is based on the
assumption of the pressure-area relationship:
where u = crushing (penetration) distance; A = contact

area A = f(u); p = contact pressure. Tests have shown
that during ice crushing against a rigid surface the contact pressure varies over time and over the contact area.
246
Table 3.
4.1.2 Energy dissipated within the wooden supports

All calculations in this section refer to drop test no. 1.
In Equation (2) the energy dissipated through the flexibility of the wooden supports was determined using
the following considerations:
Crushing energy calculation for test no. 1.
Parameters
Value
Total mass, kg
Ice density, kg/m3
Volume, m3
Particle radius, mm
Number of particles
Total surface area, m2
Gs, J/m2
Crushing energy, J
2
900
0.0022
1
530516
6.7
0.1090.8
0.735.33
(i) a linear force-displacement relationship,

(ii) the work required to stop the ice mass can be
expressed as:
Fbc = the peak force at the wooden supports;

ubc = the vertical displacement of the impacted
panel. The vertical displacement of the impacted
panel P1 was 1015 mm (HSV data). The value of
Fbc was assumed to be the same as the ice impact
force F in (4), corresponding to a pressure-area
relationship (5) and equal to 73 kN.
* the difference between the ice mass before and after the
impact
For simplicity, the following assumptions have been

made:
(i) At every penetration distance, the pressure is
constant over the contact area.
(ii) Pressure decreases with increasing area:
Equation (5) was derived by Kim et al. (2012b)
using experimental data on confined freshwater
and multiyear ice (Figure 14) at two different
scales.
(iii) There is a linear relationship between the contact
area, A, and the penetration distance, u.
where c = 0.364 m was obtained from the experimental data (FPF).
In (7), the ice crushing distance, u 0.0167 m

was obtained from experimental data (HSV).The
ice impact force F = p A corresponding to
Equation (5) was 73 kN.
Using the upper bound of the pressure-area relationship p = 5A0.46 and the lower bound p = 0.51A0.46
found in Kim et al. (2012b), the energy dissipation was
found to be in the range between 3.44 kJ and 0.35 kJ.
The lower bound estimate of energy Ecr appears to be
more similar to the actual value of energy dissipated
due to ice crushing in test no. 1.
The ice impact force corresponding to the upper
bound and the lower bound pressure-area relationship
was 316 kN and 32 kN, respectively. Another method
for estimating the ice impact force is to use the FPF
data:
The energy dissipated due to flexibility of the

supports was 0.370.55 kJ.
4.1.3 Energy dissipated in the steel structure
From the data collected during test nos. 25, it was not
possible estimate the ice-crushing energy as for test
no. 1. However, for test nos. 4 and 5, it was possible
to estimate the energy dissipation due to deformations of the panel. The estimation was based on the
simplified non-linear static analysis presented in Kim
et al. (2012b). A rising uniform pressure distributed
over an area of 0.325 0.75 m was applied to the test
panel in Figure 3, and L-profiles were not included in
the simulations. The calculations were performed with
ABAQUS v6.92 using S4R shell elements of approximately 25 25 mm. Mild steel S235 was modelled
using data obtained from the tensile tests (Figure 4).
The effect of welds and initial imperfections was not
considered. The dissipated energy in the structure was
calculated for the deformed state (Figure 13a) closest
to the measured deformations (Figure 13b).
The results of the calculations are summarised in
Table 4.
Based on the results in Table 4 and considering the
energy balance, Equation (2), most of the collision
energy (approximately 7080%) was dissipated within
the ice block, and approximately 2030% was dissipated within the structure (including panel deformations and flexibility of the supports). The calculation
example in Section 4.1.1 (Method II) shows that the
pressure-area relationship p = 3.2A0.26 derived using
data from confined ice at two different scales can be
used for predicting the energy dissipation within the
ice during the drop test.
4.2 The effect of internal stresses
In (8), a constant value of pfilm = 10 MPa was used.

This value corresponds to the pfilm distribution in
Figure 10.
We attempted to directly observe fracture evolution

in ice during the tests using HSV records. Only the
outward appearance of the failure phenomena can
be observed because of the opacity of the ice. As
the failure process progressed, the pulverised/extruded
247
Figure 14. Log-log plot of pressure vs. area for confined

and unconfined ice; the flexible indenter resembled a ships
side-structure (data from Daley, (1994)).
Figure 13. Dents on the steel plate (plate thickness of

4 mm): (a) calculated dents assuming uniform pressure distribution; (b) measured dents; the pressure distribution during
the test is unknown; all dimensions are in millimetres.
Table 4.
Energy of the process.
Available
Energy dissipated Energy dissipated
Test kinetic energy within the ice
within the structure
no. Ekin (kJ)
Ei (kJ)
Es (kJ)
1
4
5
1.1
3.5
17.7
0.353.44
unknown
unknown
0.370.55
0.6
1.2
ice influenced the visual observations. The response

mechanism of ice in test nos. 1, 2 and 4 was compressive failure and in test nos. 3 and 5, the failure
mechanism was axial splitting and shear.
The crushing energy of 0.735.33 J obtained in
Section 4.1.1 using (3) is three orders of magnitude
smaller than the total collision energy involved in the
process (1.1 kJ). Similar observations were made by
Jordaan & Timco (1988), who reported a total energy
for crushing of 6 mJ and an estimated total energy of 8
J for ice crushing using force-time series. The authors
contended that the viscous extrusion process (a mechanism for the clearing of crushed ice) was the major
energy-absorbing process during indentation by flat
indenters (see Jordaan & Timco (1988) for a detailed

discussion).
In our test, the process of ice fragmentation started
due to intense stress conditions. Calculations indicated that the production of new free surfaces did not
originate from the major energy-dissipation mechanisms for the crushing failure modes in Figure 8a.
For example, the fine ice particles formed would eject
outward from the surface. In the calculations (Section
4.1.1, Method I), the energy absorbed by the ice particles moving out of the surface was not considered.
In addition, when the ice block strikes the plate, the
ice material at the ice/plate interface is under triaxial
stress with the hydrostatic component largest near the
centre of the contact area. The ice failure mechanism
(or the energy-absorption mechanism) will depend on
the stress state that arises due to complex loading (or
boundary conditions).
The effect of internal stresses is illustrated by an
example in Figure 14, which compares the available
experimental data from the ice indentation tests of
Masterson & Frederking (1993), Wells et al. (2007)
and Kim et al. (2012a) (tests with rigid indenters) and
Daley (1994) (test with the ice wedge vs. the flat flexible indenter) with drop test no. 1 and the unconfined
compressive strength of the ice. The truncated square
is the point corresponding to the distribution of the
pressure over the contact area at the end of drop test
no. 1. This point was obtained using the pressure distribution map in Figure 10. Despite the differences in
scale, as shown in Figure 14, the data point agreed
very well with laboratory-scale ice indentation tests
under confinement (process pressure-area data) and
medium-scale ice indentation field-tests (process
pressure-area data).
Furthermore, data from the uniaxial compressive
tests on standard prismatic ice samples including
small 5-mm-width ice-cubes and large (1015)-mm
ice-cubes are also shown in Figure 14. These ice
samples were extracted from the ice blocks at Aalto.
Pressure values were calculated as the maximum force
divided by the cross-sectional area. Local pressures in
248
Figure 14 are the maximum local pressures registered

by the tactile pressure sensor during unconfined uniaxial compression tests at Aalto. Figure 14 shows that
the pressure values for unconfined tests (uniaxial compression) are lower than the values for the indentation
tests (rigid and flexible indenters) at similar contact
areas.
There are two main reasons for the decreased values:
1. The compression tests were conducted at 0 C. The
ice samples were close to the melting point and
exhibited lower strength than ice used in laboratoryscale indentation tests conducted at lower temperatures.
2. The uniaxial test data corresponded to the failure
of ice under low or no confinement, while the ice
during indentation tests was confined and exhibited
higher resistance.
Additionally, it is possible to estimate the ice
strength, , using the expression of Johnson & Nevel
(1985) and compare the value with the empirical
compressive strength of ice.
2. The maximum structural damage was achieved at a

kinetic energy level of approximately 18 kJ. Maximum length of the dent in the 4-mm-thick panel was
750 mm (five times the spacing of the stiffeners),
and the maximum depth was 8 mm.
3. The importance of internal stresses (or local confinement) for an ice-structure collision scenario is
outlined.
4. The calculation example shows that the pressurearea relationship, p = 3.2A0.26 , which was derived
using data from laterally confined ice at two different scales, can be used to predict the energy
dissipation within the ice during the collision case
described.
The information presented in this paper is valuable for planning experiments of the ice-structureinteraction scenario in which both the ice and the
structure undergo significant deformations during the
interaction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The level of is plotted in Figure 14 as the dashed

line.
Calculations in Section 4.1 and the data presented
in this section highlight the importance of internal
stresses on the crushing process during the collision
event.
To summarize, for an ice-structure collision scenario, the ice-structure response mechanism and the
resulting interaction (collision force, contact pressure
distribution, etc.) will mainly depend on the local ice
shape, the plate/stiffener arrangement at the contact
zone, the mechanical properties of the ice and the
structure and the velocity in relation to the size of
the ice block. If the ice velocity is high and the ice
mass is relatively small, the energy-absorption capacity of the ice will be mainly governed by the global ice
shape. If the ice velocity is low enough in relation to
the global size of the ice block, the energy-absorption
capacity of the ice is a function of local confinement
(or a stress state) of ice at the contact zone. Local confinement of ice at the contact zone is influenced by
the local ice shape at contact, the flexibility and structural arrangement of the impacted structure, which
complicates realistic analysis of collision scenarios.
5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Drop tests were conducted using laboratory-grown

freshwater ice blocks and stiffened steel panels of varying characteristics. Based on analysis of the tests, the
following findings can be summarized.
1. Drop tests indicate that the major part of the collision energy (70%80%) was dissipated within the
ice with no or little plastic deformations in the 4 mm
panel.
The work in this publication was funded by the Sustainable Arctic Marine and Coastal Technology Centre
(SAMCoT, WP4). Additionally, the drop tests at Aalto
University were conducted in connection with the
HydraLab IV FP7 project. Special thanks are extended
to Frode Gran for the arrangement of the equipment
for the tests at Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU) and to Roar Schjetne for the
arrangement of the equipment and the performance
of tensile tests on steel at NTNU. The authors would
like to thank Panu Sainio, Pentti Tukia, Juha Alasoini
and Teemu Rintapiv for invaluable technical assistance in conducting the tests at Aalto University. The
greatest thanks are extended to Prof. Sren Ehlers for
the valuable discussion concerning this work.
REFERENCES
Cammaert, A.B. & Tsinker, G.P. 1981. Impact of Large Ice
Floes and Icebergs on Marine Structures. Proc. of 6th
International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions. Quebec, Canada, 2731 July
1981
Curtis, D.D.; Cammaert, A.B.; Wong, T.T. & Bobby, W. 1984.
Numerical Analysis of Impact of Small Icebergs on Semisubmersibles. Proc. of 3rd Specialty Conference Cold
Regions Engineering, Northern Resource Development.
Edmonton, Alberta, 46 April 1984.
Daley, C. 1994. MSI Ice Loads Data: Compilation of Medium
Scale Ice Indentation Test Results and Comparison to
ASPPR. Report by Daley R&E to National Research
Council of Canada
Daley, C.G. 1999. Energy Based Ice Collision Forces. Proc.
of the 15th International Conference on Port and Ocean
Engineering under Arctic Conditions. Helsinki University
of Technology, Finland, August 1999.
DNV Rules for Classification of Ships/High Speed, Light
Craft and Naval Surface Craft, Part 2, Chapter 1, General
requirements for materials, 2011.
249
Elvin, A.A. 1996. Number of Grains Required to Homogenize Elastic Properties of Polycrystalline Ice. Mechanics
of Materials 22: 5164.
EPOA 1971. Iceberg Impact Effects on Drillship. Eastcoast Petroleum Operators Association Research Project
Reports, Project no. 4, submitted by H.R. Kivisild.
FUJIFILM. Pressure Measuring Film. Instruction manual.
Tokyo, Japan.
Gagnon, R.E. & Wang, J. 2012. Numerical Simulations of a
Tanker Collision with a Bergy Bit Incorporating Hydrodynamics, a Validated Ice Model and Damage to the Vessel.
Cold Regions Science and Technology 81: 2635.
ISO 19906. 2010. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries
Arctic Offshore Structures. International Standardization
Johnson, R.C. & Nevel, D.E. 1985. Ice Impact Structural
Design Loads. Proc. of the 8th International Conference
on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions
2: 569578. Norssarssuaq, Greenland.
Jordaan, I. & Timco, G.W. 1988. Dynamics of the IceCrushing Process. Journal of Glaciology 34: 318326.
Kierkegaard, H. 1993. Ship Collisions with Icebergs. PhD
Thesis, Denmark Technical University.
Kim, E.; Golding, N.; Schulson, E.M.; Lset, S. & Renshaw, C.E. 2012a. Mechanisms Governing Failure of
Ice Beneath a Spherically-shaped Indenter. Cold Regions
Science and Technology 78: 4663.
Kim, E.; Storheim, M.; Bock und Polach, R. & Amdahl, J.
2012b. Design and Modelling of Accidental Ship Collisions with Ice Masses at Laboratory-Scale. Proc. of the
31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 16 July 2012.
Kim, H.; Daley, C. & Ulan-Kvitberg, C. 2012c. Reappraisal
of Pressure Distribution Induced by Ice-Structure Interaction Using High-Precision Pressure Measurement Film.
ICETECH12-114
Korzhavin, K.N. 2002. Action of Ice on Engineering Structures. Books for Business New York Hong Kong,
USA
Lee, S.G. & Nguyen, H.A. 2011. LNGC Collision Response

Analysis with Iceberg Considering Surrounding Seawater. Proc. of 21st International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference. Hawaii, 1924 June 2011.
Liu, Z. 2011. Analytical and Numerical Analysis of Iceberg
Collisions with Ship Structures. PhD Thesis, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
Liu, Z.; Amdahl, J. & Lset, S. 2011. Plasticity Based Material Modelling of Ice and its Application to Ship-Iceberg
Impacts. Cold Regions Science and Technology 65(3):
326333.
Lobanov, V.A. 2011. Numerical Evaluation of Ice Vessel Convenience. Strength.
12 (52) (In Russian)
Masterson, D.M. & Frederking, R.M.W. 1993, Local Contact
Pressures in Ship/ice and Structure/ice Interactions, Cold
Regions Science and Technology 21: 169-185.
McTaggart, K.A. 1989. Hydrodynamics and Risk Analysis
of Iceberg Impacts with Offshore Structures. PhD Thesis,
The University of British Colombia.
Michel, B. 1978. Ice Mechanics. Quebec, Canada.
Nawata, T.; Sakai, F.; Imakubo, Y.; Kawasaki, T. & Taguchi,
Y. 1984. Iceberg Collision for Semi-submersible Drilling
Unit.
68: 135146. (In Japanese)
Schulson, E.M. & Duval, P. 2009. Creep and Fracture of Ice.
Cambridge University Press, New York
Timco G.W. 2011. Isolated Ice Floe Impacts. Cold Regions
Timco, G.W. & Frederking, R.M.W. 1986. The Effect of
Anisotropy and Microcracks on the Fracture Toughness
(KIC ) of freshwater ice. Proceedings of the 5th International Offshore mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Symposium. Tokyo, Japan, 1317 April 1986.
Wells, J.; Jordaan, I.; Derradji-Aouat, A. & Bugden, A. 2007.
Laboratory Investigation of the Fracture Behaviour of
Polycrystalline Ice with Embedded Monocrystals Phase
I. Report TR-2006-25. Institute for Ocean Technology,
National Research Council, St. Johns, NL.
250
Risk analysis for offloading operations in the Barents,

Pechora and Caspian seas
N.G. Popov, L.G. Shchemelinin & N.A. Valdman
Krylov State Research Centre, St. Petersburg, Russia
ABSTRACT: The paper addresses the safety issues related to the interaction of shuttle tankers and offloading
terminals in the Barents, Pechora and Caspian seas during shipment of liquid hydrocarbons from offshore fields.
The results of risk assessment analysis are given including collision and impact accidents, grounding of tankers
maneuvered and loaded by the side of offshore structures and offloading buoys with consideration of specific
cases: Prirazlomnaya platform, offshore terminals and berths in the Northern Caspian Sea. The paper discusses
a package of measures for avoiding the accidents or eliminating their after-effects.
INTRODUCTION
Prospective developments in the offshore systems

designed for processing & transportation of the liquid hydrocarbons are associated with the needs of
the RussianArctic shelf (Prirazlomnoe,Varandei-Sea),
offshore fields in coastal waters of Timan-Pechora
province and Ob-Taz region and in the Northern
Caspian Sea (see Figs 1,2). The estimated volumes of
oil shipments by sea will reach 1824 m tons annually,
including 6.06.5 m tons from Prirazlomnoe, 812 m
tons from Timan-Pechora province, and 45 m tons
from the fields in the Ob-Taz bay.
The shipping routes and offshore structure sites
are located in the harsh climatic environment with
Figure 1. Offloading buoy in the Northern Caspian Sea.
extremely cold winter temperatures. There are in these

conditions ice floes, icebergs, extreme wave and wind
conditions, fogs and restricted visibility, polar nights,
combinations of very shallow and very deep waters as
well as fragile ecosystems.
Significant volumes of cargo transportation against
the background of technical, administrative, financial
and economic challenges impose specific requirements. These requirements are related to the safety
and risk reduction to meet the rigorous regulations
for minimum negative impact on arctic seas environment as well as to ensure reliable and continuous cargo
deliveries.
The marine structures as well as liquid hydrocarbon
carriers and offshore supply vessels are operating on
the Russian shelf. Its unique and sophisticated designs
Figure 2. Oil offloading from Prirazlomnaya platform in the

Pechora Sea.
251
Figure 3. Shuttle tanker.
require the comprehensive risk analysis which is quite

often fails to be full and sufficient.
During developing the projects of marine objects
and marine operations (platform Prirazlomnaya, terminal Varandei, road complexes in the Barents,
Pechora, Kara and Caspian Seas) the important role is
assigned to an estimation of safety and risk, especially
ecological risk.
Since the development of offshore fields is considered as a high-risk activity due to environmental
hazards, there is a need for a more scrupulous analysis
of the risks of accidents and environment pollutions.
The paper reviews the constituent parts of such analysis in initial stages of projects in application to the
most frequent accidents of collisions and grounding
(up to 2/3 of all reported accidents) that may cause
spillage of oil or oil products in the areas with low
natural biological self-cleaning levels and result in
long-term contamination of sea water and bottom sediments. Ships collisions and contacts with offshore
platforms is one of the main causes of platform damage. These accidents occur due to the following factors
(or their combination): human factor (45%), failures of
on-board machinery or systems (33%), environmental
factor (22%). The risk assessment of structural damage in collisions shall be taken into account in the
structural strength of structures.
2
2.1
OIL SPILLAGE RISK ANALYSIS:

FPSO/TANKER OFFLOADING CASE
Risk assessment for FPSO/tanker offloading
case
Let us consider the risk assessment methodology

using the case study of tanker/FPSO interaction during
berthing and offloading at the Caspian Sea terminal.
The oil spillage risks after collision of a shuttle
tanker (ST) with FPSO (see Figs. 3,4) is assessed based
on the energy criterion for early design evaluation of
the critical kinematic parameters of the ship and regulation of the tanker maneuvers during berthing and
offloading operations.
Tables 1 and 2 contain the main data of tanker and
FPSO.
The safety analysis considers the accident scenarios with the minimum structural damage energy for
ST and FPSO (as low as it is practically possible).
Figure 4. FPSO/tanker offloading schematic diagram.
Table 1.
Main data of shuttle tanker.
Characteristic
Description
Classification
KML3 [1]1
A1 oil carrier
129.3
16.5
6.8
4.98
1800
168
9380
6620
10
11
Length OA, m
Beam moulded, m
Depth, m
Draft loaded, in sea water, m
Main engine output, kW
Thruster output, kW
Displacement at load-line, t
Deadweight, t
Speed, loaded, kn
Crew, persons
Cargo tanks
number
capacity, m3
Table 2.
10
7582
FPSO main data.
FPSO
Deadweight
000 t
Length
m
Beam
m
Depth
m
Crew
persons
28
132
32
15.7
25
The minimum structural damage energy is understood

as the magnitude of the energy that corresponds to
the minimum strain at penetration in the construction
before a through-thickness breach occurrence.
252
Table 3. Values of f and t.
Structures
Focsle Upper
Bulk- Bulk- Bulkdeck deck Platform head head head
t, cm
1.0 0.8
f , cm
38.4 38.4
f + 0.2At
80.5 72
(f + 0.2At) 387.5
Figure 5. Scheme of variation of forces in process of ST

bow damage.
Based on the energy minimization principle two

dangerous cases with potential oil spillages were identified among possible collision accident scenarios:
1. Normal impact of shuttle tanker bow against FPSO
side.
2. Impact of ST side against FPSO end.
In the first case the following ST displacement
conditions are considered:
loaded D11 9380 tf;
ballast D12 6700 tf;
light D13 3400 tf;
and in the second case only the loaded displacement
is considered; the design width of the tankers double
side structure is b1 = 1200 mm.
2.2 Normal impact of shuttle tanker ST on FPSO

When the shuttle tanker bow impacts the FPSO normally to its side, before the through-thickness side
breach is made the collision kinetic energy is transformed into the energy causing damage to:
tankers bow up to the collision bulkhead;
FPSO side structure up to the inner side.
The highest force Pmax in the process of collision is

obtained from buckling calculation for the bow shell.
The cyclic force is further spent on damaging the deck
grillages, and the average P is essentially lesser than
Pmax .The distribution of forces during the bow damage
of the shuttle tanker under consideration is given in
Fig. 5, where Pmax 1900 tf, and P = 760 tf.
The presented P value was obtained from the analysis of numerous collision cases and analytical &
1.0
18
60
1.0
18
60
0.8
18
51
experimental studies on deformation of flat ship grillages made in accordance with the Rules of the Russian
Maritime Register of Shipping (Russian Maritime
Register of Shipping. 2012. Rules for the equipment
of sea-going ships).
In consideration of critical importance for the environment a more detailed analysis was performed to
check the average accident force Pand total energy of
ST bow damage.
The average force P is calculated from the formula
corresponds to the experimental data (Nesterov 1984):
where T = 3200 kg/cm2 yield strength of material;

A = 210 cm web-frame spacing; t thickness of grillage under consideration, cm; f beam cross-section
area, cm2 .
The values f and t assumed on the design data basis
are given in Table 3 .
Finally, the average force P was found to be P =
740 tf.
The minimum work F of ST bow damage is
estimated as:
here 1 = 4.1 m the minimum distance between
bow structure and the collision bulkhead (technical
documentation for tanker).
In this case the length of dent in the FPSO side is
L = 6.5 m, its depth is 2 = b2 = 2.0 m. Given this dent
size it may well be assumed that at such collision the
shuttle tanker will at least damage:
One longitudinal member (platform or side
stringer),
One transverse member (web frame or transverse
bulkhead).
The bow deformation energy is spent on:

Collapsing the shell formed by the stem, sides and
collision bulkhead in the process of buckling under
compressive forces;
Damage of decks, platforms and bulkheads
between stem and collision bulkhead.
0.8
30.4
64
Let us estimate the energy absorbed in the damage

of FPSO double side structure assuming that the average scantlings of the above structural (longitudinal &
transverse) members are about t = 12 mm.
The resistance coefficient RT according to
Minorsky (Volkov & Kodatsky. 1971) is:
Hence the minimum work to damage the FPSO side

structure is (Minorsky. 1958):
253
Table 4.
Tanker
condition
Critical
speed, kn.
Thus in accordance with the above equations for RT

and F (3) u (4) the energy absorbed in damage is:
Estimated critical speed of shuttle tanker.
Light
Ballast
Loaded
13.1
9.4
8.0
Here the critical speed v shall be estimated using the

added mass coefficient 1.4, hence by equating:
Based on the obtained minimum work required to produce the maximum allowable damage of ST and FPSO
structures up to a through-thickness breach the critical
speeds of shuttle tanker are estimated.
The ships kinetic energy E with taking into account
the added mass factor of water, equal to 1.1, is:
where v speed, m/s; D ST displacement under

consideration; g = 9.81 m/s.
By equating the values:
we obtain the critical speeds of collisions for different

ST displacements.
Table 4 presents the results of ST critical speed
calculations.
The calculations show that at the full speed of vessels and observation of safety speed ranges (Russian
Maritime Register of Shipping. 2012. Rules for the
classification) the shuttle tanker under consideration
is safe in terms of oil spillage risks during interaction
with the FPSO of given design.
2.3
Impact of loaded shuttle tanker side against

FPSO. Local structural strength assessment
The impact of shuttle tanker side against FPSO is

assumed to be caused by waves or current at failure
of ships main engine because otherwise we should
consider contacts of ships rather than impacts or
collisions.
The maximum possible speed of collision is estimated based on the tanker specifications for sea state
5 H3 = 2.6 m (H3 the wave height of 3% probability
of exceedance):
Let us estimate the energy absorbed in damage of

ST double side structures until oil leakage using the
method of Minorsky (Minorsky. 1958).
Breach depth
1 = b1 = 1.2 m,
Breach length
L = 2.4 m.
Damage of:
Upper deck
t = 16 mm,
Platform
t = 14 mm,
Web beam and web frame t = 14 mm.
where
we obtain the critical collision speed of about

v = 2.5 m/s, which is much higher than the maximum
possible collision speed.
These estimates confirm that the local structural
strength of ST and FPSO is sufficient to ensure the oil
spillage safety of this transportation and offloading
system.
2.4 Impact of loaded shuttle tanker side against
FPSO. Global structural strength assessment
When the shuttle tanker impacts with her side on FPSO
at a sub-critical speed the ship side is dented without through-thickness breach. Formally in this case
the local strength of the tanker side in terms of energy
absorption and oil leakage accident can be considered
as sufficient. However, this conclusion would not be
quite correct if not confirmed by the analysis of global
ship strength in damaged condition.
Such assessment meets with certain difficulties
because the classical theory of ship structures does not
allow us to simultaneously obtain closed-form solutions to the problems of local and global strength, i.e. to
take into account the reduced hull sections and corresponding changes in the global strength characteristics
of the hull. For this reason it is common practice to estimate the global strength using the force criterion based
on the allowable hull deformation. In accordance with
this approach the maximum bending moment at impact
My is:
where L = 123.2 m ship length, and the value of P

(see Fig.5) is found as the average value in the process
of ST side deformation
Hence, My 64400 tm.

The impact section modulus W includes given
minimal thickness S with account of longitudinal
stiffeners:
254
deck S = 18 mm,
bottom S = 16 mm,
inner bottom S = 10 mm,

outer sides S = 14 mm,
inner sides S = 10 mm,
distance between outer side and inner side
b1 = 1,2 m.
Table 5. Characteristics of breach in the hull of FOIRP Prirazlomnaya made by collision with shuttle tanker versus at
from the wave height.
Wave height of 3%
probability of
exceedance, h
The ST hull width in the section subject to maximum deformation due to impact is B = 15.3 m,
while the value of the resistance moment is W =
3.2 m3 .
The maximum impact stress is determined as:
m
Characteristics
Mean period of motion T, s
Impact design speed, m/s
Breach length, m
Breach depth, m
Relative duration of
tankers dangerous
clearances, /T
which is about 70% yield stress of material. It is

required to add to this value the stress from ST hull
sagging in calm water of about
7.6
3.2
7.5
4.0
8.2
3.5
7.9
4.5
9.0
3.8
8.6
4.9
9.4
4.0
9.5
5.3
0.0
83
0.1
95
0.2
67
0.3
19
The total stress from the ST side/FPSO impact is

determined in way of the bilge strake:
It is the maximum permissible value obtained on

the basis of as-built scantlings. If an average wear of
hull longitudinals reach 20%, the impact against FPSO
may break the tanker hull.
Assuming the maximum uniform corrosion rate of
0.2 mm/year, the minimum safe lifetime of the shuttle tanker operations with FPSO is estimated to be
approximately 10 years.
The analysis indicates that the ST and FPSO hull
structures have sufficient energy absorption capacity
in collision, which practically excludes the possibility
of through-thickness hull breach and oil leakage in this
case.
After 10 years of service it is required to survey
tankers, measure residual scantlings, and check the
residual hull strength.
2.5 Tanker and platform collision risks

Let us consider the above-discussed methodological
approach in application (2.12.4) to another case:
tanker operation by the side of the Fixed Offshore
ice-resistant platform (FOIRP) Prirazlomnaya.
The feasibility studies considered the following
accident scenarios:
oss of control. Normal impact of tanker against the
FOIRP side.
Combination of strong wind gusts with changing directions and current causing errors in tanker
approach maneuver. Angled or tangent impact
against the side depending on the performance of
thrusters and skills of the ship crew.
Figure 6. FOIRP Prirazlomnaya view and schematic

diagram.
Moored ship with no control. Accidental contact at

plane rotation of ship hull. Ship impact on IRSOP
side with subsequent station keeping.
The design tanker/FOIRP collision energy is
E1 = 6 MJ at the impact speed of 2 m/s as per recommendations of Det Norske Veritas.
The maximum length and depth of breach in the
FOIRP side and its position with respect to the waterline (for the case when the tanker bow phase under
ship motions coincides with that of the ship translational motion) are given in Table 5. Fig.6 presents the
FOIRP view and schematic diagram, the FOIRP main
data are given in Fig.6.
In Table 5 the designed penetration depth of the
shuttle tankers fore end during its collision with
FOIRP at waves of various intensity is given.
When estimating the vessel movement the sea-state
spectra typical for the Barents Sea were used (Russian
Maritime Register of Shipping. 2003. Reference data).
Fig. 7 represents the case when the tanker bow penetrates into the FOIRP hull without damaging the oil
storage structures. In this case the energy absorption
E2 is more than 31 MJ (lower limit). The design deflection of shell plating of FOIRP at the obtained values
of E1 and E2 is estimated to be on average as 0.6 m.
255
Figure 7. Limiting position of loaded and ballasted tanker

with respect to FOIRP during collision.
Table 6.
Figure 8. Shuttle tanker, deadweight 70 000 t.
Main data of FOIRP Prirazlomnaya.
Overall
height
Caisson
height
Lower
part of
caisson
Upper
part of
caisson
Characteristic
Value
141
24.3
126 126
102 102
From the analysis of the above data it follows that

the situation described above is only possible in sea
state 8, and such high waves have not been observed
in the waters around the Prirazlomnaya site (Russian
Maritime Register of Shipping. 2012. Rules for the
classification), therefore collision with tanker will not
result in oil leakage from FOIRP.
The displacement of a standby icebreaker is significantly less than that of the tanker; hence a collision
with the icebreaker should not cause oil leakage from
FOIRP either.
Since the bow design of LU 6 class ships is more
robust than the FOIRP side, even a head-on collision
with FOIRP will not damage the tanker hull to the
extent resulting in oil leakages.
Side impacts of oil-loaded tanker against FOIRP
during shifting of tankers moorage or departure from
the platform are practically impossible, because these
maneuvers shall be executed by the tanker with FOIRP
on the windward side so even in case of tanker propulsion and/or steering failures the ship will be drifted by
wind away from FOIRP.
The FOIRP/tanker collisions with catastrophic
effects (oil storage damage with oil spillages) may
occur at the simultaneous combination of the following
factors:
Inadequate assessment of environmental situation
by ship crew (unacceptable conditions for the
maneuver like high sea states);
Wrong ship handling by crew (unacceptable speed
in safety zones of FOIRP).
The probability that these factors will coincide is
practically very low and estimated at <106 .
Thus, the studies lead to the following conclusions:
Collisions of ships with FOIRP have no practical
risk of catastrophic oil spillages;
Figure 9. Multi-purpose supply icebreaker.
Collisions of tanker with FOIRP at the assumed

impact speeds will not cause breaches and the
residual dent in FOIRP shell will be small.
GROUNDING
3.1 Risk assessment of ship grounding at FOIRP

Another factor raising the risk of accidents during
berthing of ships at offshore gravity-type platforms
is sea bed scour caused by jets of ship propellers.
This problem was investigated for FOIRP Prirazlomnaya. Berthing of a large-size tanker and a
supply ship (multi-purpose icebreaker) was considered (see Figs 8,9). The main data of ships are given
in Table 7.
The studies were conducted in the shallow-water
basin of the Krylov State Research Centre. The basin
was fitted with a model of fine-sand sea bed. A model
of the FOIRP Prirazlomnaya was put on the sea bed
and a ship model was brought to the platform (Fig. 10).
In accordance with the tanker loading procedure the
ship was to be moored to the platform bow first and
then the propellers were run astern to provide required
tensioning of the mooring and loading lines in the process of offloading. The tanker model was outfitted with
two models of Azipod units, and it was connected
to the platform model with a line whose tensioning
was measured with a special-purpose dynamometer.
Fig.10 shows a general view of the tanker and platform
models.
The icebreaker model was moored to the platform
stern first.
256
The sea bed profile was measured using a specially

developed sonar system. This system was mounted on
the towing carriage of the basin to survey the sea bed
profile in several parallel sections. The results were
processed by computer providing the sea bed profile
picture. Fig. 11 gives an example of the sea bed record.
Fig. 12 is a photo of the sea bed after water drainage.
The studies indicate that:
same location. The actual time of sedimentation

ridge formation at sequential loading of tankers
will be much greater because the sediments are
redistributed by propeller jets acting in different
Sea bed erosion and sediment formation occur

starting from the tankers ballast draft of T = 89 m;
The soil washed out from scour pit form a ridge of
sediments moving to the ship bow and approaching
the platform;
The time of sediment ridge formation (up to limiting draft) should be analyzed in terms of the total
time spent for loading a number of tankers at the
Figure 11. Record of sea bed profile showing effects of

tankers propeller jets.
Figure 10. View of Tanker & FOIRP models.
Figure 12. Sea bed profile photo showing effects of tankers

propeller jets (water drained).
Table 7. Tanker & Icebreaker main data.

Tanker
Characteristic
Icebreaker
loaded
ballast
Length on waterline. LWL , m

Beam on waterline. B, m
Draft midship. TM , m
Displacement. V, m3
Wetted surface. S, m2
Propulsion
Rated power. Ps, kW
Propeller diameter. D, m
Max. thrust of propulsive units.
Temax , t
Thrust to tension mooring lines.
TeHat , t
Water depth at platform site. H, m
Clearance between ship bottom
and sea bed = H TM , m
Mooring line length, m
95.33
19.0
8.0
9480
2555
AZIPOD
27500
4.2
242.7
34.0
13.61
89756
13229
226.1
34.0
9.48
58872
10584
AZIPOD
28500
5.6
172.2
200
60
11.2
19.2
5.59
10.0
80
257
9.72
Figure 13. Sediment ridge height versus propeller operating

time and mooring line tension force in the reference case
( = 0 ) at loaded draft.
directions during tanker positioning, and also the

tanker draft is changed during the loading process;
Waves have small effect on the pit size and sedimentation ridge height: in the model tests the pit
lengths in sea state 6 increased by 1015%, while
the ridge heights were practically the same. It was
found that waves often smoothed the sedimentation profile but had no effect on the estimated ridge
heights in general;
Tanker position with respect to the platform has
little effect on the general situation. The platforms
screening effect shifts the maximum ridge height
to the zone between the tanker and the platform;
Water blinding with dust particles of d 0.1 mm
due to soil wash-out in calm water can be felt within
2530 km of the platform and will be particularly
strong in the initial operating phase, in waves this
distance can be significantly increased.
Also, the studies show that the height of sedimentation ridges produced by tankers propeller jets reaches
its maximum when the tanker has no sufficient underkeel clearance. Actually, it means that there is a risk of
tanker grounding.
In further studies recommendations were given on
how to reduce the propeller effects on soil around the
gravity-type structures.
It is found that the ridge heights are significantly
reduced when propulsion units are turned through 20
with respect to the ships longitudinal axis.
Figs. 13 and 14 show the ridge height versus duration of propeller operation and line tension force for
the case when propulsion units are turned through 20
and for the case when these are not turned.
Important practical results were obtained from the
model tests with tanker positioning near the scour pit
and sediment ridge formed by propellers of the previously loaded ship. It was found that a large part of
sand back filled the previous pit. A likely reason for
this is that the kinetic energy generated by propeller
jet is not sufficient to lift the washed-out soil above a
certain height.
Fig. 15 shows the sea bed profile record of this
experiment.
Figure 14. Sediment ridge height versus propeller operating time and mooring line tension force in the case when
propulsion units are turned through = 20 at loaded draft.
Figure 15. Sea bed profile after sequential loading of two

tankers with astern running propellers. The second tanker is
shifted one hull-width and turned through 20 with respect
to the first tanker. Angle of propulsion units: 20 .
3.2 Risk assessment for damage of platforms

rock dike
The multi-purpose supply icebreaker model was tested
to find damage-free conditions for platforms stone
dike under exposure to propeller jets. The icebreaker
was moored stern first to the platform at a distance
of 10 m from the wall measured over the free surface.
The propeller jets were directed to the platform.
During tests the rotational speed of rudderpropellers propellers, the thrust of each rudderpropeller and total pull of propulsion devices were
recorded. Observation of granite backfill behaviour
was conducted by means of an underwater video
camera.
The condition of granite backfill near the platform
after all test cycles is presented in Fig. 16.
The studies indicated that in berthing operations
of the icebreaker at up to 80% propulsion power the
propeller jets will cause no damage to the granite dike.
The test results indicate that:
258
The lowest deformations of soil foundation are

caused when Azipod-type units are turned through
20 so that propeller jets are directed away from the
CL plane (sideways).
The sediment ridges formed due to tankers propellers are not wide and can be easily eroded by
propeller jets from supply vessels which may be
Figure 16. View condition of granite backfill near the

platform after all test cycles.
involved in the operations as and when required

(based on the monitoring of the soil condition at
the platform foundation).
At the ballast draft with the initially non-eroded soil
base the ridge height is growing twice slower than
at the loaded draft. However, the maximum ridge
height at the same thrust is not much different in
both cases. Therefore, it is not advisable to limit the
tanker draft by taking less oil weight.
Scour pits formed due to tanker propeller jets have
no effect on the platform stability on soil.
A mound of washed-out sand may form after some
time due to displacement of light soil fractions of
soil by water. The water depth changes will be small
with no effect on the operating conditions of supply
vessels around the platform.
Operation of multi-purpose supply icebreakers at
80% propulsion power will not cause any deformations in the rock dike.
environment protection. Spillages of oil and oil products are considered to be the most disastrous accidents
during offloading and transportation operations. The
statistics of the recent 3040 years indicate that the
number and scale of oil spillage accidents tend to
decrease demonstrating the efficiency of measures
undertaken to improve the tanker fleet performance
and enhance the safety of marine operations. The paper
presented the results of risk assessment analysis undertaken in the environmental impact studies of offshore
processing and transportation systems designed for the
shelf of freezing seas. Based on these studies the necessary and adequate measures were taken for avoiding
accidents, environment pollution, mitigation of accident after-effects as well as enhancement of safety
during tanker operations by the side of offloading
buoys and transshipment terminals.
REFERENCES
Minorsky, V.U. 1958. An analysis of ship collisions with reference to protection of nuclear power plants. Journal of
Ship Research. 8.
Nesterov, A.B. 1984. Study of efficiency of structural protection of board during emergency collision of vessels.
Questions shipbuilding. 40: 4652.
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping. 2003. Reference data
on the climate of wind and waves in the Barents, Okhotsk
Sea and Caspian Sea. St. Petersburg: RMRS.
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping. 2012. Rules for
the classification, construction and equipment of mobile
offshore drilling units and fixed offshore platform. St.
Petersburg: RMRS.
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping. 2012. Rules for the
equipment of sea-going ships, Rules for the cargo handling
gear of sea-going ships. Load-line rules for sea-going
ships. St. Petersburg: RMRS.
Volkov, N.N. & Kodatsky, S.B. 1971. Design features of
nuclear-powered ships. L.: Sudostroenie.
CONCLUSIONS
The growing volumes of oil and oil products shipments underline the urgency of safety issues including
259
Safe jacket configurations to resist boat impact

A.W. Vredeveldt & J.H.A. Schipperen
TNO, Delft, The Netherlands
Q.H.A. Nassr & C.A. Spaans

Heerema Fabrication Group Engineering, Zwijndrecht, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT: The paper describes how high energy crashworthiness with respect to ship collisions of a jacket
can be predicted through explicit finite element analyses. The classical issue of the material models is discussed.
In addition the topics of global jacket dynamics and the definition of failure are discussed. The structural
arrangement of the jacket in relation to colliding ship shapes is touched upon. The paper starts with a brief
discussion on ship impact energy probability distributions. Finally some recommendations are given for further
research.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Formal safety assessment

The right to play, both from an economic and a societal point of view, of any enterprise, is granted when
it is demonstrated that associated risks are acceptable.
Usually this is achieved through complying with prescriptive regulations issued by authorities. This only
works when ample technical evidence exists. When
technologies are applied which are at the forefront
of engineering, such evidence does not exist. In such
cases a first principles approach is required which
draws from both imagination and sciences. A convenient guidance for such an approach is a Risk
Assessment (HSE 2006), in shipping often referred to
as a Formal Safety Assessment (FSA). Figure 1 shows
a typical result of such an assessment.
This example refers to the annual frequency of an
offshore jacket collapse, initiated by various causes.
An intuitive interpretation of this figure is: if one
would install 250000 jackets there will be one (1)
structural collapse caused by hydro carbon fires every
year. Likewise a yearly collision caused structural collapse would happen with one (1) out of 840000 jackets.
These figures are based on records of incidents with
equipment and systems from the past, statistics of
ship movements near the jacket translated into impact
probabilities, meteorological records of the area, seismological records of the area and structural analysis
dealing with uncertain loads and uncertain structural
response. As can be seen collisions between ships and
jackets cannot be ruled out and are therefore further
investigated. This paper describes how such an investigation can be done. Much of what is being dealt with
in this paper can be found in generic terms in a recommended practice on accidental loads, issued by DNV
(DNV 2010).
Figure 1. Typical annual impairment probabilities, loss of

load bearing capacity. (source: Lilleaker Consulting a.s.)
Figure 2. Typical supply ship in North sea area. (source:

Myklebust Verft a.s.)
1.2 Ship collisions with jackets

The main purposes of jackets are, besides supporting
the topside, supporting and protecting conductors and
risers. A jacket in the North Sea will stand in water
depths varying from 40 m140 m. A typical ship supplying offshore platforms in the North Sea is shown in
Figure 2.
It has a length of around 90 m, with a displacement of 7500 tonnes. This size is typical for the
Northern North Sea; other common sizes are 2500
tonnes (Southern North sea) and 5000 tonnes. She will
261
Figure 4. Typical PDF passing distances.
Figure 3. Different jacket framing configurations at ship

impact location.
sail at 16 knots. The platform will typically be visited 20 times per year. This number follows from the
logistics by the operator. During each visit there is a
collision probability, which is estimated from reported
incidents. There are also passing ships which may collide with the platform when they are too far off course.
Ship sizes and impact speeds determine the required
energy levels to be withstood.
Analyses are normally based on point load scenarios. However it is more realistic to evaluate the
ship shape/dimensions in relation to the jacket configuration. Quite arbitrarily, the bow/stern of the ship
pictured in Figure 2 are chosen as reference shapes.
Parts of the vessel, like bulbs or sterns can penetrate
the jacket and can hit risers and conductors. See Figure
3 where a single set of diagonals (upper picture) has
been replaced by a double set (lower picture) in order to
increase crashworthiness with respect to ship impact.
The best way of justifying certain configurations is
demonstrating, through probabilistic assessments that
the probability of unacceptable damage is below an
allowable maximum (platform dependant and based
on QRA).
A value often used is p < 104 (NORSOK N-004).
For reference purposes it is noted that the probability
of a US citizen being killed in a car accident at the
10-4 level (NSC 2012).
2
2.1
PROBABILITIES
Collision probabilities
The probability of a ship at collision course is based

on an assumed normal distribution of passage distances (Figure 4, info obtained from Lilleaker based on
shipping lane data) with the mean value and standard
deviation taken from observations.
With the jacket at position 0 in the graph (i.e. collision) and having a width as indicated by the boundaries
(see insert), the collision probability equals the area
below the probability density function, between both
jacket boundaries.
Figure 5. Collision location involving conductors.
2.2 Collision energies

From ship passage observations, ship sizes and speeds
can be determined or estimated. Ship speeds and sizes
can be associated with a kinetic energy, available to
inflict damage, which can be used to derive probability density functions for kinetic energies, available
to inflict damage. Unfortunately one needs to rely on
expert opinions with regard to the velocity reduction
of the ship when involved in a collision, because of
last minute corrective actions.
2.3 Collision location
In case of a jacket structure, the collision location is
important because of differences in vulnerability. An
example is the location where conductors are present.
Figure 3 and Figure 5 (arrow) show such a location
where the conductors are behind a vertical bracing.
The probability of this location being impacted with a
collision energy exceeding a given value equals:
With PEkinconloc the probability of a jacket being struck

at a connector location by a ship with an energy exceeding a given level, PEkin the probability of a jacket being
struck with energy exceeding a given level and Pconloc
the probability of a jacket is struck at a given location.
These probabilities can be treated independently
hence the multiplication.
262
Figure 7. Typical plastic stress strain curve.
Figure 6. Typical impulsive dynamic response.
3
3.1
MECHANICS
Collision dynamics
The impact capacity of the jacket structure can be calculated in two ways; impacting with a constant velocity
or impacting with an initial velocity. Impacting with a
constant velocity is preferred as the impacting object
will continue to push the structure until failure occurs
which, from a calculation point of view, saves time as
only a single run is required. It is noted that in such an
approach global platform dynamics are discarded.
Topside dynamics of the most common jacket type
(four legs) are normally negligible. However excitation of the jacket in one of its natural frequencies can
occur depending for example on the collision location,
and must be evaluated. This can be done by checking
the topside dynamics with an impacting run with an
initial speed that is determined from the energy levels
and impacting ship mass which the jacket structure is
required to withstand.
Performing the calculation with an initial speed
means that the impacting object will be slowed down
by the impacted structure until it comes to stand still
and eventually bounces back driven by the elastic
energy accumulated in the impacted structure (kinetic
energy being transformed in potential energy and back
again into kinetic energy).
With respect to non traditional jackets, i.e. tripods
and mono-piles, this becomes a different story as the
system will globally respond dynamically. In such
cases the ratio of duration of the collision to the natural period of the jacket becomes important, as shown
in Figure 6. This figure shows the maximum dynamic
response versus the ratio of impact duration (assuming
a half sine shape) and natural period. In such cases calculating with a constant impact speed can hide part of
the dynamic response and will yield incorrect results.
For this type of structure, calculating with initial speed
is a necessity to catch the topside and system dynamics
during the simulation correctly.
This latter initial velocity approach implies that
several runs are required in order to determine the
energetic failure level of the structure.
3.2
Materials; plasticity and fracture modelling
In order to obtain a realistic material behaviour,

the material definition is modelled with an elastic
Figure 8. Failure strain vs element size/thickness ratio.
trajectory followed by a piecewise linear isotropic

hardening mechanism. For an S460 material this is
shown in Figure 7. The other properties are: density
7850 kg/m3 ,Youngs modulus 210 109 N/m2 , Poissons
ratio 0.3 and yield stress 460 106 N/m2 . Explicit finite
element codes are capable of modelling fracture initiation and propagation. In general, an element will be
deleted when a strain exceeds a critical value.
The actual fracture strains are based on plate thickness reduction measurements which were done by
Germanischer Lloyd (on actual collision damages) and
TNO (on crash specimen) (Lehmann, 2002). Due to
computational limits, finite elements tend to be chosen
too large to describe localisation of plasticity (necking). As a consequence the critical strain depends on
the chosen element size, as shown in the equation
below:
where f = failure strain; g = uniform strain; e =

necking strain; and and t/le = plate thickness element
size ratio. Typical values for g and f are 0.02 and
0.65 (NORSOK 2004) or 0.056 and 0.54 (ADN 2011).
Figure 8 shows the failure strains versus element
size/thickness ratio for both cases.
These values have been validated for steel qualities with a yield at 235 MPa and a fracture strain of
22% and can be used for steel qualities up to a yield
of 355 MPa. When other steel qualities are used, especially steel with lower fracture strains, a knockdown
factor is used of frac steel used /22. For offshore jackets
frac steel used is based on the minimum required fracture strains as specified in NORSOK for resp. S355
material and S460 material (typically used in such
structures), 10% and 15% respectively.
263
Figure 10. General arrangement.
4
Figure 9. Plastic strains and failure of an element at a node
where a plastic hinge is formed.
The element size at impacted locations where fracture occurs must have an element size of at least
5 t, with t the material thickness in order to have
a correct failure formulation (Lehmann 2002). Figure 8 illustrates why. At values smaller than 5, the
curve becomes steep, implying large changes of f
caused by small deviation of t/le . It is noted that criteria related to element size in explicit finite element
(crash) analyses, differ in principle from those related
to implicit finite element analyses. In crash analysis plastic strains are considered the ruling parameter
rather than stresses. The biggest issue is the fracture
criterion being dependent on the element size.
In the FE analysis, the failure strain is translated
into an element thinning criterion for element killing.
3.3
EXAMPLE FOUR LEGGED JACKET
4.1 General arrangement

A four legged jacket is taken as an illustrative example.
The frame is modelled in such a way that it represents
the overall structure, i.e. with all legs, and braces (Figure 10). The topside is not modelled but catered for by
a solid mass at its cog, attached to the top of the jacket
structure through rigid connections.
4.2 Scenarios
Scenarios are chosen in such a way that they may lead
to potentially hazardous consequences. The weaker
locations in the jacket, where focus was placed on both
the relative likelihood of contact and the vulnerability
of ultimately hitting hydrocarbon conductors, are the
main selection criteria for impacting locations. Obviously collisions with legs may trigger global collapse
(not further discussed in this paper).
Failure criteria
Some failure criteria are laid down in the requirements

as set by authorities in their design guidelines. Such
guidelines are formulated in order to prevent that an
incident (impact) develops into an accident with disproportional consequences. For a jacket this means
that the probability of progressive collapse and environmental disasters must be reduced to an acceptable
level. For ship impact this means that the probability of
collision damage which impairs the structure to such
an extent that it collapses, should be acceptably low.
Failure criteria can be divided into two categories.
Global criteria, which in general can potentially lead
to a catastrophic event (progressive collapse of the
structure or a major oil/gas spill) and local failure of
elements of the structure.
Global criteria for a jacket, can be translated into criteria for the maximum dent size in the leg (e.g. < 25%
of leg diameter, conservative requirement according
to API regulations).
For braces and structural nodes, the local failure
criteria translates into local material rupture of the
first element (Figure 9) assuming the triggering of full
rupture. It is noted that this is conservative since the
loss of a brace will usually not lead to any immediate
catastrophic failure of the structure.
Other criteria are excessive accelerations in the
topside and fracture of conductors.
4.3 Calculation models crash

Both jacket and vessel are modelled with full shell
elements. The formulation used in this example is the
partially integrated Belytshko-Tsai variant. This is a
4 node shell element featuring 5 integration points
across the element thickness.
For the jacket, shell elements are used for which
the element sizes are sufficiently small in the areas
of interest, i.e. the collision areas. A finite element
(FE) model of a representative colliding ship is defined
as a rigid body. It is noted that this is a conservative approach, since deformable bows of suppliers may
absorb a significant amount of energy of as much as
11 MJ (section 3.5.3 of DNVs recommended practice on design against accidental loads (DNV 2010)).
With a rigid bow, all energy will be dissipated by the
impacted structure. In the FE models of the jacket, legs
are constrained at sea bed level (fixed). The conductors
are modelled in the impact zone, and are constrained
for vertical displacements at their ends. Before running the time domain analysis (calculating explicitly),
an implicit pre-run is done to obtain the correct stress
levels due to gravity loading in the jacket.
The nodes of the bow structure are constrained in all
directions, except translation in the sailing direction of
the ship. Most analyses are done at constant velocity. A
check is done on possible global dynamic response by
264
Figure 11. Calculated contact force.

Figure 13. Typical CPDF collision energies (source: Lilleaker Consulting a.s.).
The probability of bracing fracture, i.e. absorbed

energy equalling 21.8 MJ, equals 0.0003. This is above
the maximum allowable value of 0.0001 and hence
redesign is required (not further included in this paper).
Figure 12. Calculated crash energies.
an additional impact calculation with an initial velocity

and a realistic ship mass.
4.4
Results crash calculations
A typical calculation result is shown in Figure 11,

which shows contact force versus penetration when a
bracing is struck. The calculation starts with switching on gravity prior to the actual crash calculation.
Including gravity is necessary for a correct estimate
of failure strains and associated energies. Including
gravity in the calculation pre loads the structure,
which results in a realistic approach of the loading
condition of a jacket during a ship impact. The topside
behaviour is simulated more realistically, usually predicting lower energetic values related to progressive
collapse of the topside or the legs. For braces however, this can result in higher failure energies, as braces
which are loaded in compression have to be pulled in
tension in order to reach tension failure strains.
Figure 12 shows the associated energy absorption.
After a penetration of 2.12 m an element tears (according to the element thinning criterion) which is also
visible in the contact force curve (Figure 11).
4.5
4.5.2 Connectors fracture

As mentioned in section 4.3, a colliding bow may
absorb typically 11 MJ. Under the assumption that the
jacket will not absorb any energy during the collision
in way of the conductors, it can be stated that 11 MJ
is the minimum amount of energy that is absorbed in
this scenario. From Figure 13 it follows that the annual
probability of exceeding this energy is equal to 0.0023.
The actual probability will be lower because not all
collision contacts will be in way of the conductors. It
is assumed that the probability of collision location is
uniformly distributed along the circumference of the
platform at the elevation where it can be struck, as
indicated by the arrow in Figure 5. If more detailed
information on the distribution of striking locations,
e.g. due to preferred access directions, is known, this
can be accounted for in a similar manner.
Let us assume there are four unprotected conductors, each with a width of 0.762 m. This gives a striking
range of 4 0.762 = 3.048 m. The length of all striking locations, i.e. the circumference equals 129.2 m.
When assuming a uniform probability density distribution of the striking locations, the probability of a collision on the conductors becomes 3.048/129.2 = 0.024.
The combined probability of ship bow-conductor
impact follows from the previous paragraphs and is
equal to
This is below the maximum allowable probability

of 0.0001.
Probabilities
4.5.1 Bracing failure

Element failure occurs when 21.8 MJ is absorbed.
With the reasoning on probabilities from section 2
and the energy absorbing capacities from the crash
calculations, failure probabilities can be calculated.
Figure 13 (source: Lilleaker Consulting a.s.) gives
the joint collision probabilities for all vessels which
may impact the jacket.
CONSIDERATIONS
Following the approach as described in this paper, several jackets have been analysed. From the results some
interesting considerations with respect to the jacket
layout and configuration are worth mentioning.
265
Figure 14. Modified bracing configuration.
5.1
Legs
Jacket legs are in general large diameter, thick and

strong members possessing significant capacity to
resist collision. The major issue for impact on jacket
legs is the impairment of the structure not leading
to progressive collapse or damage that would imply
structure removal.
5.2
Braces
Failure of braces during impact occurs normally after

a plastic hinge is formed at the impacted location and
the brace-brace or brace-leg joints, after which the
braces are loaded in tension. Loading in this direction is favourable for plastic utilisation of the bracing
material. This type of brace failure is characterised by
a relative high amount of energy being absorbed by the
braces. Any redesign of the configuration in which a
shorter brace is used will not improve the structure, as
a shorter brace implies that in most cases plastic hinges
will not have the opportunity to be formed, and usually
the shorter brace will fail on shear, see for example the
configuration in Figure 14.
Generally, the loss of a brace will not lead to a catastrophic event from a structural integrity point of view.
Braces can have besides their structural function, in the
collision area the function of protection of for example
conductors. The ship may in certain cases not come to
a complete stop before it hits a conductor.
5.3
Conductors
Conductors are generally characterized as long and

flexible members. The conductors are at risk of severe
damage if the bulb of ship can pass through the jacket
frame. Hence, the design of conductor against collision should be considered if fracture in conductors may
occur. It is noted that conductors will have the tendency
to deflect away from the impacting object during collision. Even when not flexing away from the colliding
body, due to their long spans, they still have the capacity to deflect substantially before rupture, allowing the
jacket structure to absorb impact energy.
5.4
CONCLUSIONS
It is quite feasible to follow a statistical approach

towards ship collision with jackets. Collision energy
absorbing capacities can be compared with ship collision energy probability density functions, in order
to determine collapse probabilities. Based upon this
approach a guideline for the jacket configuration and
layout can be proposed during the design process in
order to reduce the probability of impairment of the
structure. This can for example be achieved by adding
additional protective braces, or relocation of risers and
conductors during the design process.
It has been demonstrated that it is possible to
conduct meaningful ship jacket impact calculations.
Ignoring global jacket dynamics can be justifiable,
however jacket natural frequencies need to be checked
against impact durations.
The conductors are at risk of severe damage if the
bulb of ship can pass through jackets frame. Hence,
the design of conductor against collision should be
considered if fracture in conductors may occur. Furthermore, the bulbs of ships may vary considerably
with respect to relative size, shape and longitudinal
position. This should be taken into account when the
results of the specific analyses are evaluated.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge Heerema Fabrication Group
for their permission to use results from calculation
which were done on some of their projects and Lilleacker Consulting a.s. for their permission to draw
from information provided by them.
REFERENCES
ADN 2011. European Agreement concerning the international Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways,
ISBN 978-92-1-139138-1, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe.
DNV 2010. RP C204. Design for accidental loads.
HSE Information sheet. Guidance on Risk Assessment for
Offshore Installations, Offshore Information Sheet No.
3/2006, Health and Safety Executive.
Lehmann, E. & Peschmann, J. 2002. Energy absorption by the
steel structure of ships in the event of collisions. Marine
Structures 15.
NORSOK N-004, Design of steel structures, Revision 2,
October 2004.
NORSOK N-003, Actions and action effects, Edition 2,
September 2007.
NSC2012, http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Picture%20Library/
News/web_graphics/Injury_Facts_37.pdf
Impact energies passing ships
Actual impact speeds associated with off course passing ships are now estimated by nautical experts. It
would be much better if those could be derived from
real near miss (radar) observations.
266
Collision between a spar platform and a tanker

T. de Jonge & L. Laukeland
AkerSolutions, Oslo, Norway
ABSTRACT: In this paper, collisions between a tanker and a spar platform are studied. A closed form solution
for the energy that has to be dissipated for a head-on collision is derived. It is shown that the spars behavior is a
combination of the formulas for an articulated column and a compliant installation as given in DNV-RP-C204.
An analytical solution method is also given for the energy that has to be dissipated plastically for ships that
collide with an offset. The energy that has to be dissipated is given as a function of collision angle (or offset
distance) and friction coefficient.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
In the earliest design stages of an offshore structure,
the choice between different floater and fixed platform concepts has to be made. To make a fair trade-off
between these concepts, one has to have a good apprehension of the requirements of a number of disciplines.
For the structural discipline, a solid understanding of
the different ultimate and accidental failure types is
necessary.
One of these failure types is a collision between offshore platforms and ships. For offshore structures, it is
customary to consider collisions with supply vessels
and tanker vessels that visit the platform to collect
oil. The former have little displacement between 5
to 10 ktons, whereas the latter may have displacements between 100 to 200 ktons. This paper deals with
collision between a tanker and a spar.
Nowadays, advanced detailed numerical simulations can be made to optimize a certain design concept
for collisions.These analyses are quite time consuming
and results from these calculations depend heavily on
the chosen input and detailed design. In addition, the
analysis often becomes so complicated that only insiders can judge the results. Simple analytical models are
therefore still very useful.
1.2 Spar platform
A spar is a high and slender, deep draft offshore structure. The hull consists of a hard tank around the water
line, a soft tank at the bottom and a midsection (cylindrical or truss structure). During a collision, the hard
tank will be hit. Normally, the hard tank is cylindrically shaped and split up in compartments. A top-side
is placed on top of the spar hull. Spars are designed

such that the center of buoyancy is above the cog and
they are therefore unconditionally stable.
Typically a spar is held in place by a number of
mooring lines, but in deep water it can move sideways over considerable distances without breakage
of these mooring lines. Most often the fairleads of
the mooring lines are attached at an elevation very
close to that of the cog and in most cases the effect
of the mooring lines can be disregarded for collision
analyses.
A good description of spars including an overview
of the currently installed spars is given in Chakrabarti
2005.
1.3 External dynamics
For collisions, it is customary to distinguish between
external and internal dynamics. External dynamics is
concerned with the rigid body motions and it specifies
how much energy has to be dissipated. Internal dynamics determines how the energy is dissipated and it is
concerned with the local processes of structural deformation and damage. For head on collisions closed form
expressions exist for the amount of energy that has to
be dissipated. DNV-RP-C204 distinguishes between
fixed platforms, compliant platforms and articulated
columns. For a compliant installation, these expressions take into account that after a collision, ship and
platform have equal velocity. The higher the weight of
the platform, the higher the amount of energy that has
to be dissipated. Spar platforms are typically heavier
than other floaters. Considering them both as compliant installations, would not lead to a fair trade-off.
Below it is shown that the fact that a spar can rotate
out of plane has a considerable effect on the amount
267
elevation become equal, which leads to the following

condition:
Solving these equations, we get the following

expressions for the velocities after the collision:
Figure 1. Head on collision.
of energy that has to be dissipated in the case of tanker

collision.
EXTERNAL DYNAMICS FOR HEAD

ON COLLISIONS
2.1
Notation
Notation:
ma =
aa =
mb =
ab =
vao =
va1 =
vb1 =
b =
R=
Ib =
=
2.2
The energy before, Ko , and after the impact, K1 , are

given by the following expressions:
The dissipated energy, Ea , is the difference between

these two quantities. Inserting the expressions for
velocities, we find:
Mass of ship
Added mass coefficient of ship
Mass of spar
Added mass coefficient of spar
Initial velocity of ship
Final velocity of ship
Final velocity of spar c.o.g.
Final Angular velocity of spar
Distance of platform c.o.g. to point of impact
Moment of inertia of spar around horizontal
axis including added inertia.
Radius of gyration of
platform = sqrt (Ib /mb )
The last term in the denominator can be rewritten,

using the radius of gyration of the spar, , to make
influences more clear:
Calculation
We consider a collision between a ship and a spar as

shown in Figure 1. We assume that the collision is
completely inelastic. The impact will cause a horizontal velocity of the spar and an angular velocity around
its centre of gravity. Momentum and angular momentum will be conserved during the collision. This leads
to the two following equations:
The two bodies will lose contact when the velocity

at the top of the bow of the boat and the spar at the same
This term is in the order of one, in case that the mass

of the boat is in the order of the mass of the platform
and R is in the order of the radius of gyration. In that
case, considerable amounts of kinetic energy will be
put into pitch movement of the spar.
The expression for the energy to be dissipated has
great resemblance with the specified formulas in the
DNV-RP-C204. In case that we set the platform mass
to infinite, the formula reduces to DNV-RP-C204 formula 3.3 for an articulated column (apart from a
small term due to the added mass of the ship). In
case that we set R = 0, the formula reduces to DNVRP-C204-formula 3.1, representative for a compliant
installation. The spar therefore behaves as a combination of an articulated column and a compliant
installation.
268
Table 1. Energy that has to be dissipated for spar and

compliant installation.
vbo
Ko
Dissipated energy Ea (MJ)
(m/s2)
1.0
2.0
3.0
(MJ)
72
286
644
Spar
28
113
253
Compliant
53
211
474
Figure 2. Collision with offset.
3.2 Analysis method

2.3
Example
As an example we consider a tanker with a total mass

of 130 ktons and an added mass coefficient of 0.1. The
spar is a cylindrical body with a radius of 20 m and a
draft of approximately 160 m. Radius of gyration of
the spar (including added mass effects) is 70 m and its
cog is positioned 80 m below the waterline and point
of impact is 10 meters above the waterline. Spar mass
is 200 ktons and added mass coefficient is taken as 1.0.
Note that the topside is a part of the spar and included
in its mass and inertia. Three different initial velocities
of the boat of 1, 2 and 3 m/s are considered. Results are
given in Table 1. The corresponding number is given
for a compliant installation based on DNV-RP-C204formula 3.1.
3
3.1
The expressions on page 10 and page 11 of Zhang 1999

for the accelerations of the contact point now become
(for the simplified case):
R equals the vertical distance from the centre of

gravity to the point of impact. This leads to the following replacement of the coefficients on page 21of
Zhang 1999.
EXTERNAL DYNAMICS FOR COLLISIONS

WITH AN OFFSET
Introduction
In reality the ship will not always collide head-on, but

with a certain offset as shown in Figure 2. In that
case, the boat will displace transversely to one side
and the spar opposite. This behaviour is analogous to
the behaviour of two ships that come in collision. An
excellent PHD was written on the mechanics of collision between two ships by Zhang in 1999 (available
online). In this thesis, an analytical procedure for calculating the collision energy loss and impact impulse
of ship collisions is developed. The involved ships may
be any type of vessels with no limitation on ship size,
impact velocity, impact location or striking angle. Collisions including glancing blows are also included. The
analysis is limited to motions in the sea plane.
The main difference here is that the spar is not rotating in the water plane but out of it. The formulas given
in this PHD only need a slight alteration to cover the
case of collision between a tanker and a spar.
In our analysis we will consider the ship as a slender
beam and the simplified formulas given by Zhang on
page 26 may be used. (Note that herein it is assumed
that the radius of gyration of the ship is equal to a quarter of the length of the ship). In that case the shape of
the bow does not appear in the relations that determine
the energy that has to be dissipated, but only the collision angle. The relation between the offset and the
collision angle depends on the shape of the bow of the
ship as treated in Paragraph 3.4.
3.3 Calculation scheme

The following formulas from Zhang 1999 are used:
2.15, 2.21, 2.22, 2.18, 2.25, 2.26 and the coefficients
on page 26 with the changes given in formulas 9 and
10. The following calculation scheme is used:
1. Calculate the coefficients on page 26 with the
changes as given above.
2. Calculate the coefficients for formulas 2.9 and 2.10
on page 12
3. Calculate effective friction coefficient according to
formula 2.15
4. Determine whether stick (effective friction coefficient < friction coefficient) or slip occurs.
5. Calculate energy that has to be dissipated
Stick: Calculate Energy in and direction with
formulas 2.21 and 2.22 and add together.
Slip: Calculate Energy in and direction with
formulas 2.25 and 2.26 and add together.
3.4 Offset
The offset depends on the shape of the bow. In this
paper we will assume a simple parabolic shape as
shown in Figure 3.
269
Figure 3. Collision with offset, s.
Figure 5. Dissipated energy as a function of collision offset.
Figure 4. Dissipated energy as a function of collision angle
3.5
Examples
Figure 6. Simple finite element model for ship collision.
The same example data is used here as in Section 2.3.

Width of the boat is 44 meters, added mass of the ship
in transverse and longitudinal direction are taken as 1
and 0.1 respectively and added inertia is taken 0.21.
Initial velocity of the ship is 2m/s.
Calculations were made for friction coefficients of
0, 0.3 and 0.6. Dissipated energy as a function of collision angle is given in Figure 4 and in Figure 5 as a
function of the offset.
Hand calculations are added in appendix B. In these
calculations, the collision angle is 45 degrees and
friction coefficient is 0.3.
4
4.1
FINITE ELEMENT CALCULATIONS

Simple models
A set of FEM calculations was made on a simple

model with only three nodes, one beam element, a
rigid contact plane and two mass and inertia elements.
An explicit non-linear analysis was made with the
computer program Abaqus. The same parameters were
used here as in the examples from Section 3. Implementation of added directional mass is rather difficult
in explicit analyses and therefore added mass was not
taken into account for the ship for the comparison presented here. Section properties of the beam element
Figure 7. Comparsion of dissipated energy with hand calcs

and numerical calculations.
were taken such that they are representative for the

boat. Material of the boat was tuned such that the analysis is almost entirely plastic. The Abaqus input file
is given in Appendix A. A comparison of the analytical and the FEM calculations is given in Figure 7 for
the case of a friction coefficient of 0.3. Very good
agreement is found between analytical and numerical
270
calculations. Note that the influence of the added ship

mass is very small as can be seen by comparing figures
4 and 7.
4.2
Full model simulations
The calculations presented above were made as part of

a study for a spar platform (with different dimensions).
The simple model presented in the previous paragraph
was used to investigate the influence of anchor lines
and a number of other features. Detailed simulations
with the ship and spar modeled as deformable models were also made. All these calculations confirmed
the validity of the hand calculations. The Abaqus
input format with ship and spar as an assembly of
interacting parts is particularly suitable to do analysis with additional features of increasing detailing and
complexity.
5
5.1
Chakrabarti S.K, 2005, Handbook of offshore engineering,

Vol_I, ISBN 978-0-08-044568-7.
DNV-RP-C204, January 1999.
Zhang S. 1999. The mechanics of ship Collisions, PHD, TU of
Danmark, ISBN 87-89502-05-1. (http://www.fvm.mek.
dtu.dk/upload/institutter/mek/fvm/pdf/phd_afhandlinger/
1999/sz.pdf)
APPENDIX A ABAQUS INPUT FILE
DISCUSSION
Risk analysis
In offshore structure design, collisions are studied as a

part of an overall risk analysis. A spar hull outperforms
alternative concepts in a number of aspects. Firstly, as
shown above, the rotation of the spar during collision
reduces the energy that has to be dissipated. Secondly,
the hull of a spar has a comparatively small width
and an increase of width usually leads to increased
collision risk. Thirdly, the circular shape of the spar
hull implies that the energy that has to be dissipated decreases rapidly as a function of offset. All
these aspects have to be taken into account for a fair
comparison between concepts.
5.2
Disadvantages
The effect of the spar rotation during a collision may

lead to high accelerations of the topside. For the flare
tower, these accelerations may become the critical load
case.
The spar topside is in general wider than the hull,
hence the risk exists that the tanker bridge collides with
the topside.
5.3
Discussion
A simple calculation method was presented to calculate the energy that has to be dissipated during a
collision between a spar platform and a ship. It was
found that it is important to take the rotation of the
spar into account. Typically, a spar platform will outperform other floater or jacket structures with respect
to collision with tankers.
REFERENCES
Abaqus Version 6.11 Manual, Dassault Systmes Simulia
Corp., Providence, RI, USA.
271
APPENDIX B HAND CALCULATIONS
Energy for Sticking case
:=45 deg
:=0.3
e:=0.0
Specify collision angle

Friction coefficient
Coefficient of restitution:
0 = plastic, 1 = elastic
V:=2.0 ms
Initial velocity of ship in
x-direction (axial)
Added mass coefficient of ship in
aax :=0.1
x-direction (axial)
aay :=1.0
Added mass coefficient of ship in
y-direction (transverse)
ja :=0.21
Added moment of inertia coefficient
(in water-plane)
ma :=130 ktons Mass of ship
ab :=1.0
Added mass coefficient of
platform (spar)
R:=90 m
Distance from Spar cog to
point of impact
:=70 m
Radius of gyration of spar
(including added inertia)
mb :=200 ktons Mass of spar
Energy for Sliding case
Determine total energy
272
Ship collisions against wind turbines, quays and bridge piers

P.T. Pedersen
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
ABSTRACT: Analytical procedures are presented for analysis of the external dynamics of ship collisions
against bottom supported flexible as well as rigid offshore structures such as wind turbine structures, quays and
bridge piers.
Based on the principles of conservation of momentum and energy algebraic expressions are derived for the
maximum values of collision forces and energy released for local crushing. The expressions are derived for
arbitrary impact locations and they are well suited for application in risk analysis procedures. Numerical results
show that for piled towers the structural flexibility plays an important role for reduction of the structural damage.
For gravity based foundations it is shown that provided some limited foundation displacements can be allowed
then the requirements to the shear sliding force capacity can be reduced significantly.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this work is to present tools for response

calculations to be applied in connection with ship collision risk assessment of different types of bottom
supported offshore structures. The main focus will be
on offshore wind turbine structures, however, the procedures are also relevant for bridge piers and harbor
structures.
Collision risk analyses are to be carried out as part of
Environmental Impact Analyses (EIA) for wind farms
and bridges spanning over navigational channels. In
collision risk analyses it is customary to distinguish
between three conditions: Operational, Accidental and
Catastrophical.
Here the Operational condition includes impact
loads expected to occur during normal operation such
as loading and unloading.
The Accidental condition includes impact loads
from ships up to and including the expected size of
the service vessels which can be drifting out of control against the offshore turbine structure with a speed
of 2 m/s (Dai et al. 2012). The structural design basis
for offshore wind turbines is normally concentrated on
collision loads from these service crafts since statistics
from the offshore oil industry show that they are by far
the largest contributors to the number of accidents.
The Catastrophic conditions are major impacts by
large ships from the passing traffic. See Biehl and
Lehmann (2007) and Amdahl and Holms (2011).
When the probability of the occurrence of ship collisions is known the next step in any rational risk
assessment procedure is an investigation of the consequences of collisions, see Pedersen (2002 & 2010).
Figure 1. Typical wind turbine structure foundation

methods.
In the present paper we shall present some analytical

elements of a procedure for calculation of the
consequences in the form of crushing forces, crushing
energy and displacements of various bottom supported offshore structure given that an Operational or
Accidental ship collision has taken place.
We shall first present a consistent time simulation procedure in order to study the mechanics of a
ship collision against a flexible, pile supported offshore wind turbine placed in relatively deep water, see
Figures 1a and b. Guided by these simulation results
we shall then describe an analytical procedure based
on momentum and energy considerations. The resulting algebraic equations are well suited to be part of
a Monte Carlo risk analysis procedure where a large
number of scenarios need to be considered.
273
In the second part, we shall consider offshore structures on more shallow water where the foundations are
concrete gravity caisson foundations. See Figure 1c.
These foundations have quite high masses and for
the global behavior they can be considered to be
rigid. Again analytical expressions for the response
will be derived and numerical results presented. The
procedure will also be exemplified by an analysis of
an incidence where a ship collided head-on with a
concrete break water structure.
SHIP IMPACT ON FLEXIBLE WIND

TURBINE STRUCTURES
In this section we shall first present numerical results

from a consistent numerical analysis procedure which
is based on a time domain solution of the governing
equations. The merits of this procedure is that it accurately models the dynamic response of the offshore
structure and the time variation of the hydrodynamic
pressure forces which act on the ship hull during
the collision. The disadvantage of this method is that
as a part of a risk based design process it is too
cumbersome.
Therefore, guided by the simulation results a set
of algebraic equations are derived which can model
ship impacts against flexible offshore structures with
an accuracy which is sufficient for application in risk
analyses.
The procedures to be presented follow derivations
in Pedersen & Jensen (1991), and Pedersen & Zhang
(1998).
2.1 Time simulation procedure

During a ship collision with an offshore structure
the most significant motions will be in the water
plane. Figure 2 shows a coordinate system with origo
amidship in the centerline, with an x-axis oriented
longitudinally positively forward, with a y-axis transversely to the port side, and a z-axis positively upwards
from the striking ship. Surge, sway and yaw motions
are denoted u,v and r, respectively. The longitudinal
position of the center of gravity is denoted xg .
Newtons second law for the horizontal motions
of a ship with mass Ms and mass moment of inertia
Iz = R2s Ms , can be written as:
The external forces X, Y, and moment N acting on

the ship during a collision are dominated by collision forces (X C , Y C , N C ) and hydrodynamic pressure
forces (X H , Y H , N H ) to such an extent that we can
neglect other forces.
Figure 2. Striking ship forces and displacements.
The hydrodynamic pressure forces acting on the

hull can be expressed as:
Here the terms with constant coefficients express

the hydrodynamic pressure forces at infinite frequency
when the free surface effects are absent. The memory
effects caused by the generation of waves are taken
into account by the convolution integrals.
Introducing Equations 1 and 2 into the equations of
motion generated by a finite element analysis model
for the wind turbine structure a set of non-linear time
domain equations of motion can be obtained for the
impact scenario. See Sourne (2007).
To illustrate the basic mechanics of a ship collision against a wind turbine structure we can consider
a 5 MW turbine placed on 40 m water depth with a rotor
diameter of 125 m, a rotor mass of 130 t, nacelle mass
260 t, a hub height of 90 m above the water surface,
and a tower mass of 350 t. This structure is impacted
by a ship with a displacement of 2500 t drifting sideways into the tower with a speed of 1 m/s in a direction
normal to the ship surface with the collision contact
point amidship. The calculation procedure follows the
procedure described in Pedersen and Jensen (1991).
For this case Figure 3 shows how the collision forces
Fc and the acceleration u n of the nacelle varies during
the collision. It is noted that the response behavior can
be separated into two phases.
274
Figure 3. Collision force, acceleration of nacelle, total

energy, and energy spent for local crushing of ship and tower.
That is, a Phase I where the collision force builds

up to maximum value and where the displacement of
the nacelle is still relatively small see Figure 4a, and
a Phase II where the velocity of the nacelle decreases
to zero, and where the energy transferred to the wind
turbine structure is stored as global bending energy in
the tower, see Figure 4b.
Since the total energy, i.e. kinetic plus deformation energy of ship and wind turbine, Etot , is found
to be nearly constant with time t it can be concluded
that the memory effects represented by the convolution
integral in Equation 2 can be neglected. The primary
reason for this is that the impact time is very small for
this type of collision. It is also seen that the magnitude
of the acceleration of the nacelle and rotor is largest
during Phase II when the tower is moving back from
the maximum nacelle deflection.
From Figure 3 it is seen that the energy spent for
local crushing of the ship and the tower, Eship , is
reduced when the flexibility of the turbine structure
is taken into account. For the present example the
energy absorbed by crushing is only about 45% of
the energy absorbed in case of a rigid structure. For
other impact locations where part of the initial kinetic
energy is spent for rotation of the colliding vessel similar reductions due to the flexibility of the structure is
found.
2.2 Simplified collision mechanics
Figure 4. Ship swaying into a flexible wind turbine

structure.
Figure 5. Simplified 2-D model of vessel impacting a

flexible wind turbine structure.
assumed to be perpendicular to the ship surface, with

slope , at the collision point (xc ,yc ), see Figure 5.
The numerical analyses in Section 2.1 shows that
it is sufficient to assume that the effect of water pressure on the hull surface of the colliding ship can be
approximated by the added mass at infinite frequency,
i.e. the mass of the ship, Ms, and constant added mass
coefficients mxx = Mxx /Ms , myy = Myy /Ms for surge
and sway motions, respectively and, similarly, j as the
added mass coefficient for yaw motions. That is, in
ship coordinates we have the following equations of
motion:
For risk analysis purposes time simulation procedures

are not very efficient. For this reason we shall in the
following present some algebraic expressions based on
conservation of momentum and energy for estimation
of the structural response of a flexible offshore structure subjected to ship impact. The impact force Fc is
275
In addition we shall assume that the mass of the

wind turbine structure can be represented by a generalized mass Mn at the position of the nacelle. See
Figure 5. With these assumptions the impact behavior
of the 2-D model of the wind turbine structure can be
represented by the elastic stiffness relations:
Utilizing that the impact impulses at the collision

point and at the nacelle scales like the forces we get:
At the end of the crushing phase, i.e. Phase I, the

velocity of the ship and the collision point at the tower
are equal and by differentiation of Equation 4 we then
have:
here k are generalized stiffness coefficients, Fc is
the collision force between the vessel and the tower
structure, Fn is the transmitted force acting on the generalized nacelle mass Mn , uc is the displacement of the
collision point on the tower and un is the displacement
of the nacelle.
Denoting the displacement of the ship at the collision point us the interaction relation between the ship
and the tower at the contact point is taken as:
From Equations 7 and 10 we find the velocity of

the nacelle at the end of phase I as:
In the ship coordinates the loss of momentum can

be expressed as:
Based on Equation 3 the acceleration u s at the point
of impact on the ship can be expressed as:
where the mass correction Ds due to eccentricity and

added mass effects is given by:
From these expressions and Equations 9 and 11 we

find the velocities of the colliding ship at the end of
phase I as:
For non-central collisions the impact impulse from

the ship can be expressed as:
where V0 is the initial impact velocity.

From the numerical simulation results in section 2.1
it is seen that during the initial phase I of the collision
the displacement un of the nacelle is small. For this situation Equation 4 show that the shear force transferred
to the generalized nacelle mass can be approximated
by:
The deformation energy which is spent by local

crushing of the wind turbine tower and the colliding
ship in addition to the global deformation energy of
the wind turbine tower is determined as the difference
between the initial kinetic energy of the ship before
impact and kinetic energy of the vessel and the nacelle
after the end of Phase I:
276
Here the initial kinetic energy of the colliding

vessel is:
and from Equation 11 the kinetic energy of the nacelle

and wings at the end of phase I is found as:
Finally, after some algebra the kinetic energy of

the colliding vessel at the end of phase I can be
expressed as:
Using Equations 4 and 5 the energy stored as elastic

energy in the tower structure is found as:
and the energy spent for local plastic crushing of ship

and tower as:
That is, we can determine the maximum collision

force at the end of Phase I as:
2.2.1 Numerical examples

As a first numerical example of we can consider the
above described collision case where a 2500 tons displacement vessel ways with a speed of 1 m/s into the
pile supported wind turbine tower with contact point
amidship. For this case the simplified procedure predicts a maximum collision force equal to 5.75 MN
where the numerical simulation procedure gave 5.85
MN. At least this example shows that a simplified
procedure like the one outlined above seems to have
sufficient accuracy to be included in a risk based procedure provide the probability distribution of the impact
energy of the colliding vessels is not too severe.
To explore the effect of the flexibility of the wind
turbine tower on collision forces we can as a second
example consider a service vessel, Lpp = 40 m and
width B = 9.4 m and a displacement of 500 t, which
collides with a speed of 2 m/s against a 5 MW wind turbine tower installed on 20 m water depth. The impact
Figure 6. Ratio between energy spent for local crushing of

ship and/or tower and the kinetic energy of the ship prior
to impact for a rigid tower and for the flexible wind turbine
tower for different contact locations along the ship hull.
speed of 2 m/s is chosen because many offshore rules

specify standard impact scenarios related to supply
vessels impacting with a speed of 2 m/s. The collision
direction is all cases assumed to be perpendicular to
the ship side, i.e. with a collision point at the forward
perpendicular (FP) the collision is simply head on.
Figure 6 shows that in order to have a proper estimate of the consequences of a given collision scenario
it is important to take into accounts the impact location
as well as the effect of the flexibility of the wind turbine
tower structure. For instance, the maximum collision
force for the case where the ship sways into the structure with contact point amidship is 7.1 MN in the case
of a stiff structure and only 4.3 MN when the actual
tower stiffness is taken into account. The reason for the
increased crushing energy for collisions at FP is that
for this position the collision is a head on collision.
GRAVITY SUPPORTED FOUNDATIONS
Gravity supported offshore wind turbines, bridge piers

and break waters and quays are often held in place
without drilling or anchoring. The base consists of a
concrete or steel container, which is positioned on the
seabed. The container is then filled with sand or rocks
and kept in place by gravity.
Much research has been presented on numerical and
analytical analysis procedures for the outer dynamics
of ship-ship collisions, ship collisions against floating
offshore structures and ship collisions against flexible offshore steel structures. But apparently much less
effort has been devoted to develop a rational procedure
for analysis and design of the seemingly less complicated situation where ships collide against a relatively
solid block of concrete foundation.
277
In the following we shall describe a simplified procedure for such a capacity calculation where part of the
initial kinetic energy of the striking ship and the surrounding water has to be spent on structural damage
to the ship, local crushing damage to the foundation,
and sliding of the integrated wind turbine structure.
To illustrate the proposed procedure we shall
assume that the plastic crushing force P associated
with the relative displacement between the striking
ship and the center of gravity of the foundation is
constant. For sideway collisions this is can be a reasonable approximation. Similarly, we shall assume that
the shear sliding force, F, between the sea bed and
the wind turbine foundation can be considered constant. If P < F the impact will not cause any global
displacement of the wind mill structure and the available kinetic energy will be spent on local crushing.
Therefore, let us here assume that P > F.
We shall again restrict the derivation of the governing equations to situations where we can neglect forces
perpendicular to the impact direction, i.e. the impact
direction is assumed to be perpendicular to the ship
hull surface.
For the time interval, 0 t t0 , where t0 is the
time where the ship velocity u s equals the velocity of
the wind turbine foundation structure u c , we have the
following simple relations for the ship acceleration,
velocity and displacement:
Then the absorbed plastic crushing energy is found

as:
where
is the initial ship kinetic energy available for structural

damage.
If we consider the energy balance which expresses
that the initial kinetic energy, Ekin , must be equal to the
energy absorbed by crushing of structure, Ea , plus the
energy used to move the wind mill structure a distance
dmax :
we find the maximum sliding distance as:
here Ds is given by Equation 6.

Similarly, we have for the foundation:
3.1 Numerical examples

where Mw
denotes the mass of the foundation and wind

turbine structure plus the added mass effect of soil and
water. The time t0 is determined from the condition that
u s (t0 ) = u c (t0 ), i.e.:
or
The maximum crushing distance is given by:
3.1.1 Gravity foundation collision

Let us consider a numerical example where the wind
turbine foundation is a concrete gravity caisson foundation consisting of a base plate, chambers with a
centerpiece shaft and an ice-cone which is introduced
to reduce ice loads. See Figure 7. The foundation has
a footprint of 17 m 17 m, a central shaft diameter of
4.25 m and an empty weight of 1300 t. The foundations
are secured in place by the use of approximately 1400 t
of ballast stones in the bottom cells and approximately
300 t as scour protection such that the total mass,
i.e. structural mass plus soil and hydrodynamic mass
equals 3000 t. The shear resistance of the foundation
is taken as 15 NM in the transverse direction.
It is assumed that a drifting vessel or a vessel out
of control collides against the wind turbine foundation
with a speed of V0 = 2 m/s. The total mass of the ship is
in this example assumed to be 10 000 t and the collision
force is taken to be constant and equal to 20 MN.
278
Figure 7. Ship impact against a rigid wind turbine foundation with sliding resistance F.
Figure 8. Sliding distance of foundation dmax as function

of ship impact location.
Figure 9. Ratio between energy absorbed for crushing Eship

(Equation 14) and the total available kinetic energy Ekin
(Equation 15).
For this example Figure 8 shows the foundation displacement as function of the impact location along the
hull of the vessel. The outlined calculation procedure
shows that for a central midship impact the crushing
of the ship structure together with local crushing of
the foundation structure will have to absorb 38%, see
Figure 9, of the available kinetic energy for damage,
see Equation 15, and the remaining part of the energy
will be spent in sliding of the structure. The maximum
sliding distance is estimated to be dmax = 1.16 m for a
central collision amidship.
It is seen that provided a limited transverse motion
of the foundation is acceptable the allowable collision
loads can be increased significantly above the sliding
force for the foundation. Figure 8 also shows that it
is important to take into account the actual collision
impact location.
3.1.2 Ship impact against a breakwater
In order to illustrate another application of the algebraic expressions the analysis of an incident will
be presented where a containership during harbor

maneuvers collided against a breakwater.
The ship with a displacement 95 000 t collided head
on with a speed of about 5 knots against a caisson
which was part of a breakwater. As a result of the
incident the bulbous bow of the ship was crushed a
distance of 2.8 m. Since the scantlings of the bulbous
bow were available it was possible to make an estimate
of the force deflection relation for plastic crushing of
the bow using a simplified rigid-plastic model based
on some assumed folding mechanisms, see Amdahl
(1983) and Yamada & Pedersen (2008). The average
crushing force was determined as 65 MN.
The mass of the caisson with gravel ballast was
about 16 000 tons and during the incident this caisson
was displaced about 0.80 m. Unfortunately, no information was available on the local crushing forces and
crushing distances on the underwater concrete caisson
structure. The estimate of the global caisson shear friction force F was based on pure Coulomb sliding of the
weight of the caisson with an assumed coefficient of
friction equal to 0.4. The added mass coefficient for
the caisson was in the calculations taken as 0.5.
For an initial speed of 5 knots at the moment of
contact then the above outlined calculation procedure showed that the ship structure together with the
local caisson structure will have to absorb 87% of
the available kinetic energy in plastic deformation and
crushing. The remaining part of the energy had to be
spent in sliding of the caisson. The sliding distance
was by this simplified calculation procedure estimated
to be dmax = 0.65 m and around 100 MJ was used for
crushing of the caisson.
If the crushing force is increased slightly to 66 MN
then the displacement of the caisson is increased to
0.88 m.
There are a number of uncertainties associated with
the calculations presented above. Some uncertainties
are related to the in-data: Ship speed, the weight of
caisson, the coefficient of friction and the total lack
of knowledge of the local indentation of the caisson
structure.
Nevertheless, based on the available knowledge
these rough calculations show that it is not unlikely that
the collision between container vessel and the break
water resulted in a displacement of the caisson around
0.80 m.
CONCLUSIONS
Measured by number most ship collision accidents

take place in or near harbors and many offshore windmill parks and bridge structures are being built near
waterways with considerable ship traffic. Therefore,
procedures are needed for rational design of such
bottom supported structures.
In the present paper we have first described procedures for consequence analysis of ship impacts against
flexible wind turbine structures. A numerical time simulation procedure is briefly described. The merits of
279
this procedure is that it accurately models the dynamic

response of the flexible offshore structure and the time
variation of the hydrodynamic pressure forces which
act on the ship hull during the collision. The disadvantage of this method is that as a part of a risk based
design process it is too cumbersome.
Therefore, guided by numerical simulation results
and based on the principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy some simple algebraic
expressions are derived for the maximum values of
the collision forces. These formulas are well suited for
Monte Carlo simulations to be carried out as part of
an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Numerical examples show that for reliable response
results it is important to take into account the actual
impact location along the ship hull girder and also the
flexibility of the offshore structure.
In the second section of the paper a procedure is
described for analysis of the less complicated situation
where ships collide against a relatively solid block of
concrete gravity foundation. It is shown that provided
some small foundation displacements can be allowed
then the requirements to the maximum collision forces
to be resisted of the struck foundations can be reduced
significantly as compared to the more primitive design
methods where the foundation resistance force is simply determined such that it is higher than the design
ship collision force.
Amdahl, J. & Holms, T. 2011. High energy ship collisions

with jacket supported offshore wind turbines. Int. Conf.
on Computational Methods in Marine Engineering. Eds.
Era, Ornate, Bergan and Kvamsdal, CIMNE, Barcelona.
Biehl, F. & Lehmann, E. 2007. Collisions of Ships with Offshore Wind Turbines: Calculation and Risk Evaluation.
Proceedings 4th Int. Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships: 55- 62. Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft.
Dai, L.; Ehlers, S.; Rausand, M.; & Utne, B.U. 2012. Risk
of collision between service vessels and offshore wind
turbines. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, ISSN
0951-8320, 10.1016/j.ress. 2012.07.008.
Pedersen, P.T. & Jensen, J.J. 1991. Ship impact analysis for
bottom supported offshore structures. Advances in Marine
Structures II, Elsevier Applied Science: 276295.
Pedersen, P.T. & Zhang, S. 1998. Impact Mechanics of Ship
Collisions. Marine Structures 11: 429449.
Pedersen, P.T. 2002. Collision Risk for Fixed Offshore Structures Close to High-density Shipping Lanes. Journal of
Engineering for the Maritime Environment, Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 216 Part M1:
2944.
and grounding analysis procedures. Marine Structures 23:
241262.
Sourne, H.L. 2007. A ship collision analysis program based
on super element method coupled with large rotational
ship movement analysis tool. Proceedings 4th Int. Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships: 131138.
Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft.
Yamada,Y. & Pedersen, P.T. 2008.A Benchmark Study of Procedures for Analysis of Axial Crushing of Bulbous Bows.
Marine Structures 21(23) 257293.
REFERENCES
Amdahl, J. 1983. Energy Absorption in Ship-platform
Impacts. PhD. thesis, Department of Marine Technology,
The University of Trondheim. Report No. UR-83-34
280
Experimental and numerical investigations on the collision between

offshore wind turbine support structures and service vessels
S.R. Cho, B.S. Seo, B.C. Cerik & H.K. Shin
ABSTRACT: This paper addresses damage on semi-sub tripod offshore wind turbine (OWT) support structures
subjected to collision with service vessels. Dynamic impact tests were performed on fifteen tubular braces joined
with two chords while changing dimensions, impact velocity, striker mass, impact location and local temperature.
After the impact tests, the local denting and the overall bending damages of tubular members were measured.
Numerical analyses were also performed and good agreement with test results is achieved. The effects of design
parameters on the extents of damage, the effect of impact location and low temperature were assessed.
INTRODUCTION
Tubular structures are widely used as chord and bracing members of fixed and floating offshore structures
including offshore wind turbines. Based on wind blade
design skill and installation experience from onshore,
recently, the trend of wind turbine industry is switched
to offshore. Since offshore wind power has many
advantages, such as wide installation area and regular
strong wind, many countries and companies are interested in this field. So far, numerous OWTs have been
installed, and many companies plan to install a great
number of offshore wind farms until 2020.As the number of offshore wind farms increases, the probability
of collision between ships and OWTs also increases.
Recently, this risk has been highlighted by Dai et al.
(2012).
Most of the reported collisions with service vessels
can be categorized as minor collision. A minor collision will result in repairable local damage of the structure and probably will not call for cease of operation. In
order to efficiently design the offshore structure considering minor collisions optimizing building/repair
costs can be objective. For this purpose it is necessary
to be able to predict the probability of minor collisions,
the probable extents of damage due to minor collisions
and the residual strength of the damaged structures
as a basis for repair decisions. So far many research
agencies have actively carried out research on collision accidents. European countries already carried out
SAFESHIP project (den Boon et al., 2004) to prevent
collision accidents in the wind farm site. The classification societies also issued design guidelines about
OWT for the safety of structures based on projects
such as GL Wind Energy (Biehl and Lehmann, 2007).
Especially, DNV standard DNV-OS-J101 (DNV, 2011)
provides design recommendations with respect to collision between ships and OWT structures considering
the accidental limit state.
In this study, the results of comprehensive dynamic

impact tests on tubular brace members joined to two
chords on each end are presented. The aim of the
tests is to provide more realistic information about
local denting deformation of tubular wall at the impact
location and overall bending deformation of tubular
as a beam under lateral impact. The brittleness in
tubular members in arctic conditions is also shown
by performing impact tests at low temperature. The
results of impact tests along with available test results
from literature are correlated with numerical analyses
performed using commercial finite element analysis
package ABAQUS/Explicit.
DYNAMIC IMPACT TESTS
2.1 Dimensions of the test models

With careful experimentation the scale models provide
convenient and economical way of getting insights
of their full-scale counterparts under dynamic impact
loading. The experimental models in this study were
designed as components of actual tripod type support structure to identify the deformed shape and the
extent of damage when subjected to lateral load from
support vessels. The experiment models had H-shape
consisting of one brace and two chords. In actual
offshore structures tubular members with D/t ratio
ranging 20 to 60 are generally used. Based on this
fact, the dimensions of experimental models were also
selected within this range of D/t ratio. In total, eighteen pipes were utilized to fabricate fifteen test models.
The models having same chord dimensions but different dimensions for brace are conveniently designated
as OWT-model name. LT is used to designate the
models tested at low temperature. The impact kinetic
energy was varied by changing the striker mass and
drop height. The mean values of dimensions of the test
281
Table 1. The dimensions of the test models and striker

properties.
Table 3. The results of the tensile tests.
Model
L
mm
D
mm
t
mm L/D D/t
Drop
Striker height
type
mm
OWT-A2
OWT-A3
OWT-B2
OWT-B3
OWT-C1
OWT-C2
OWT-C3
OWT-D1
OWT-D2
OWT-D2-LT
OWT-D3-LT
OWT-E1
OWT-E3
OWT-F2
OWT-F3
Chord
1286
886
1286
886
1686
1286
886
1686
1286
1286
886
1686
886
1286
886
1300
76.3
76.3
89.1
89.1
114.3
114.3
114.3
76.3
76.3
76.3
76.3
89.1
89.1
114.3
114.3
114.3
3.22
3.36
3.56
3.66
3.96
3.98
4.02
1.85
1.85
1.86
1.85
2.03
2.10
2.10
2.08
4.05
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
16.9
11.6
14.4
9.9
14.8
11.3
7.8
22.1
16.9
16.9
11.6
18.9
9.9
11.3
7.8
11.4
23.7
22.7
25.0
24.3
28.9
28.7
28.4
41.2
41.2
41.0
41.2
43.8
42.4
54.4
54.9
28.2
1004
1402
1202
1405
1010
1208
1408
1203
1000
1405
1204
1002
1404
1402
1415
Table 2. The dimensions of tensile test coupons.
12 B
25
Parallel
length
mm
Radius
of edge Thickness
mm
mm
About 50 About 60 Over 15 Original

thickness
models, which were surveyed before the tests, striker

types and drop heights in each test are given in Table 1.
2.2
Material properties of the test models
The material properties were obtained from quasistatic tensile tests. The tensile tests were performed
according to KS B 0801 (KS, 2007). According to
KS standard, when the diameter of tubular member
is between 50 mm and 170 mm, for tensile test 12B
tensile coupon should be used. The shape of tensile
test coupon is shown following Fig. 1.
In Table 2, the dimensions of the tensile test coupons
are given. The results of tensile tests are given in Table
3 in terms of yield stress and ultimate tensile stress.
2.3
Yield stress
MPa
Ultimate tensile stress

MPa
A-series
B-series
C-series
D-series
E-series
F-series
375.7
377.4
360.9
363.7
394.1
344.7
423.6
410.8
419.2
408.1
447.8
405.2
Table 4. The properties of strikers.
Figure 1. 12B Tensile test coupon in KS standard (KS,

2007).
Width Gage
(w)
length
Coupon mm
mm
Model
Striker
Mass
kg
Wedge radius
mm
Wedge angle
degree
A
B
295
460
14.5
12.5
90
90
the brace by releasing a rigid V-shaped wedge striker

from a predefined height using a drop-test collision
machine. The drop-test collision machine is capable
of releasing strikers having 1 ton mass and 7 m/s
impact velocity. This procedure will result in significant impact energy as in the case of real ship-OWT
collisions.
During the impact tests the ends of chords were
considered as fixed. In order to sustain fixed condition
with constraints on rotation and axial sliding, the ends
of the two chords were gripped by clamps and rubber
pads and both sides of the clamp were bolted. In the
tests two types of rigid wedge-shape strikers, whose
properties are given in Table 4, were used.
The experimental setup before performing the tests
is shown in Fig. 2.
Generally, when the tubular members are subjected
to lateral loading, two kinds of plastic damage will
occur. First, local denting by direct impact loading
causes circular cross section of the impact region
deformed in a way that the surface of the shell becomes
flattened with semi-elliptical shaped deformed zone
longitudinally. Second, out-of-straightness occurs as
result of overall bending. The deformed profile of
tubular showing denting and out of straightness is
given in Fig. 3.
Local denting and overall bending damages are
evaluated accordingly:
Local denting damage:
Experimental setup and results
Non-dimensional local denting damage:
Overall bending damage:
The simulation of the damage process was achieved

in the tests by means of a dynamic impact applied to
282
Figure 4. Arrangement of strain gauges.
Figure 5. Damaged profiles of models (a) OWT-A2 and

(b) OWT-D1.
Figure 2. Experimental setup for dynamic impact test.
region, but also the damage at the joint region was

considered. As Visser (2004) states, when the strength
of joint part is weak, before absorbing all the impact
energy, fracture can occur at the joint region. To gain
insights into the stress concentration which occurs at
the joint, strain gages are attached at the both joint
regions. The configuration of grid and strain gage is
given in Fig. 4. In Fig. 4, a line corresponding to 180
is upper part of tubular and the midpoint on the line is
collision spot. These strain gauges enabled monitoring
the dynamic response of models.
(1) Mid-length impact tests
Figure 3. Local denting and out of straightness.
Non-dimensional overall bending damage:
where Do is the outer diameter of the tubular before

impact Dmin is the minimum diameter after impact L
is the tubular length and Rd is the distance between
the plastic neutral axis and the bottom after impact. In
order to measure the damage after impact, the grid with
20 mm 20 mm and 40 mm 40 mm were drawn at
the impact region and elsewhere, respectively. Strain
gauges were attached around the impact region. In
these experiments, not only the damage at the impact
At first stage, among the test models eight of them

were tested considering the striker hitting the model at
the mid-length, center of brace. In these models, above
mentioned local denting and overall bending damages
were clearly observed, proving that the boundary conditions provided did not affect the response of brace
members abnormally. The damaged and undamaged
shapes of the impact region are shown in Fig. 5. The
regions with removed paint are the locations where the
strain gauges were attached.
By observing the response of the test models it was
recognized that the local denting took place before
the overall bending was initiated and accompanied by
some additional local denting. Also, elastic flexural
vibrations of damaged models right after the impact
were observed by checking the strain history.
(2) Eccentric impact tests
The collision might occur not only at the mid-length
but also at the other locations of the tubular members.
283
Figure 6. Chord-brace joint of OWT-E3 model after impact.

Figure 7. Test model OWT-D2-LT in cold chamber.
For the latter case, the concern is not only the local
denting and overall bending response of tubular member but also the local strength at the welded joints.
If brace fails at the joint it cannot absorb the impact
energy anymore. Due to overall bending high tension forces at joints can cause fracture or compressive
stresses can lead to local crippling at the joint. Four
models were tested by impacting away from midlength of tubular, near to the brace-chord joint. Out
of four models, fracture occurred only at the joint of
OWT-E3 model. The crack on the brace-chord joint of
OWT-E3 model is shown in Fig. 6.
From this figure it can be inferred that the fracture
occurred along the welding line. Along the total length
of welding line, which is 310 mm, the length of crack
is 157 mm. It means the crack extended to about 50%
of circumference. When striker collides the brace near
the joint, due to the membrane action, the end of brace
is in tension at upper cross-section and the brace fails
by fracture of material close to the welds. At the impact
region there were large denting and out of straightness
along length but fracture at impact location was not
observed.
(3) Impact tests at low temperature
Northern Sweden and Finland with good wind conditions are attractive sites for offshore wind turbine
installation. However, for safe operation in arctic conditions, the effects of low temperature should be
considered at design stage. Two collision tests at low
temperature were performed to study the low temperature brittleness in tubular members. These two models
were impacted by striker at the 200 mm from the center. The models were kept in cold chambers filled with
dry ice and ethanol for a certain time roughly at 80 C
as shown in Fig. 7.
The temperature histories were measured with five
thermocouples attached on the test models. Before
the impact test the cold chamber was removed and
as soon as the temperature of the model became
50 C the striker was released. The arrangement of
thermo-couples is given in Fig. 8.
The temperature histories measured by five thermocouples are given in Fig. 9.
Figure 8. Arrangement of thermocouples.
Figure 9. Time history of temperature measured by each

thermocouple.
It is known that at low temperature, although the

stiffness and the yield strength of steel increases, little
plastic deformation occurs before fracture (Min and
Cho, 2012). Thus brittle type fracture takes place by
rapid crack propagation and very small strain energy.
This fact obviously results in lower energy absorbing
capacity under impact. In Figs. 10 and 11, the cracks
at chords of test models OWT-D2-LT and OWT-D3LT, respectively, are shown which clearly indicates
the brittle fracture. This conclusion was confirmed
by carefully checking the shell cross-section at crack
where no reduction in thickness was observed.
For all the test models the damages were measured
by vernier calipers and height gauge at the location
of maximum indentation. From the results it was concluded that the extents of dents are much affected by
D/t ratio and L/D ratio has significant effect on out of
284
Table 6. Model geometries and material properties of

tubular test models of Cho (1987).
Figure 10. Crack in Model OWT-D2-LT after impact.
Model
L
mm
D
mm
t
mm
Yield
stress
MPa
Youngs
modulus
MPa
A3
A4
B1
B3
C1
C2
C3
C4
D1
D2
D3
D4
E3
F2
G1
G2
H1
H2
1400
1000
1400
1000
1000
1000
1400
1400
1400
1000
1400
1400
1400
1000
1000
1400
1400
1400
50.88
50.89
50.86
50.92
50.97
50.91
50.86
50.85
50.91
50.98
50.91
50.90
50.91
50.90
50.95
50.92
50.90
50.92
1.23
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.2
1.21
1.21
1.21
2.05
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.04
2.02
472
472
491
482
441
441
441
441
480
480
485
485
467
425
429
429
431
421
200000
200000
205000
204000
232000
232000
232000
232000
211000
211000
210000
210000
221000
222000
200000
200000
216000
212000
Figure 11. Cracks in Model OWT-D3-LT after impact.

Table 5. The damage measurements and experimental conditions for each model.
Model
Depth Out-ofof dent straightness Impact

mm
mm
location Temperature
OWT-A2
OWT-A3
OWT-B2
OWT-B3
OWT-C1
OWT-C2
OWT-C3
OWT-D1
OWT-D2
OWT-D2-LT
OWT-D3-LT
OWT-E1
OWT-E3
OWT-F2
OWT-F3
26.75
30.75
31.55
35.30
25.25
31.00
34.25
39.75
40.25
49.25
52.00
40.55
58.05
59.00
65.00
81.00
67.25
65.30
57.00
47.25
44.75
27.75
143.75
91.00
131.13
71.25
35.17
59.75
57.75
48.25
C
C
O
C
C
C
O
C
C
O
O
C
O
O
C
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
50 C
50 C
RT
RT
RT
RT
numerical predictions of damage. In these experiments

runway and sliding wedge-shape striker were used to
induce dynamic impact damage. Boundary conditions
were simple-supported at both ends. The dimensions
and material properties of each test model are given in
the Table 6.
Numerical analyses were carried out using
ABAQUS/Explicit finite element package. The physical model was meshed using S4 element which is
4-node doubly curved shell element with reduced integration and hourglass control. The striker was modeled
as a rigid surface. A surface-to-surface contact was
defined between striker and tubular. Since the exact
tensile test results were not available, true stress-plastic
strain values were obtained by implementing constitutive equations given by Zhang et al. (2004) as
follows:
Note: C: Center, O: 200 mm off from center, RT: Room

temperature.
straightness. The damage measurements and experimental conditions for each model are summarized in
Table 5.
3 VALIDATION OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
Prior to performing numerical analysis of the test models in current study, the tubular models tested by Cho
(1987) were analyzed in order to validate the numerical tools by checking the accuracy and scattering in
where Rm is ultimate stress, e is the base of natural

logarithm, Ag is the strain corresponding to Rm . In this
constitutive equation, if the ultimate stress is known,
the strain hardening equation will be easily obtained.
Strain rate effect was also considered using the wellknown equation by Cowper and Symonds (1956) as
given below.
285
Table 7.
(1987).
Numerical analysis results of test models of Cho
Pred/Exp
Model
dd
mm
do
mm
dd
do
A3
A4
B3
C1
C2
C4
D2
D3
D4
F2
F3
G1
G2
H2
3.59
5.30
3.40
2.91
9.09
6.45
7.49
6.32
9.35
1.64
1.51
1.94
1.72
2.53
2.93
3.11
1.50
1.29
10.42
9.90
6.70
9.00
17.58
1.91
4.56
2.08
3.84
8.08
Mean
COV(%)
1.026
1.151
1.213
1.456
0.874
0.948
1.208
1.193
1.027
0.783
1.256
1.144
0.955
0.792
1.073
17.9
0.710
0.886
0.885
1.142
0.696
0.823
1.141
1.157
0.849
0.958
1.652
1.200
1.129
1.334
1.040
25.2
Figure 12. Impact region of model OWT-A2 in numerical

analysis.
where material constants D and p, as for the mild steel,

were assumed as 40.4 and 5, respectively.
According to DNV-OS-C401 (DNV, 2010), nondimensional out-of-straightness of intact tubular
should be less than 0.0015. Out of all test models, four
models with non-dimensional overall bending damage
value smaller than 0.002, that is not considerably damaged models were discarded. Thus, the results of the
remaining fourteen models are presented in Table 5.
According to the results, the mean values of bias for
the overall bending and local denting damages, which
are evaluated as the ratio of numerically predicted
value to experimentally obtained one, are close to unity
and thus acceptable. However, the scattering in numerical prediction marked by COV (non-dimensionalized
standard deviation) values is considerably high. This
might be the result of inaccurate modeling of material properties as well as uncertainties in dynamic
impact experiments. Nevertheless, taking into account
all these facts numerical tools were considered reliable
and accurate for further analyses.
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TEST

MODELS
Numerical analyses of the test models in current study

were performed under same assumptions and using the
same methodology given above. First, local denting is
evaluated as the vertical distance between deflection of
upper wall and bottom wall of tubular shell at impact
location. Overall bending can be obtained from the
deflection of cross section plastic neutral axis. The
damaged OWT-A2 model is shown in Fig. 12.
Numerical analyses provided much more detailed
information about the response of tubular under
dynamic impact. It was observed that the impact location has the major plastic deformation in terms of local
Figure 13. Cracks at joint of test model (left) and numerical

model (right).
denting while the global response as overall bending causes high stress concentration at joints. Overall
bending due to mass impact can be considered similar
to the response of beams under localized impulsive
loading. Also, high strain rates ranging from 60 to
80 s1 were observed as localized at impact location.
Numerical analyses on the eccentric impact tests
were also performed. Shear fracture criteria with a
value of 0.4 was used as fracture criteria. As shown in
Fig. 13, in case of OWT-E3 model which failed with
fracture at the joint, damaged shapes of experiment
and numerical model are similar.
In numerical analysis of low temperature impact
tests in modelling of brittle fracture difficulties were
encountered. The ductile shear failure model with
decreased shear fracture criteria did not provide any
fracture with cracks observed in experiments. Further investigation is required for modelling the brittle
cracking and failure in steel structures at temperature
lower than the brittle-ductile transition temperature. In
Table 8, the results of numerical analyses are given and
compared with experimentally obtained values.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Through comprehensive experimental and numerical

studies detailed information about the impact response
of tubular members joined as H-shaped brace-chord
structure were obtained. Experimental studies covered not only tubular members hit at mid-length but
also eccentric impact and low temperature effects. It
286
Table 8.
dynamic response of tubular members under mass

impact through parametric studies. For instance, different striker shape and residual strength analyses
should be undertaken.
Numerical analysis results of test models.

Pred/Exp
Model
dd
mm
do
mm
dd
do
OWT-A2
OWT-A3
OWT-B2
OWT-B3
OWT-C1
OWT-C2
OWT-C3
OWT-D1
OWT-D2
OWT-E1
OWT-E3
OWT-F2
OWT-F3
24.04
36.70
34.86
39.56
26.26
38.69
49.36
51.81
41.01
35.17
74.69
78.43
86.19
56.95
76.31
67.75
59.43
30.38
46.23
28.75
140.30
76.75
66.36
76.51
68.51
64.39
Mean
COV(%)
0.899
1.193
1.105
1.121
1.040
1.248
1.441
1.303
1.019
0.867
1.287
1.329
1.326
1.168
15.1
0.703
1.135
1.067
1.043
0.643
1.033
1.036
0.976
0.843
0.710
1.281
1.186
1.335
0.999
21.9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the New & Renewable
Energy of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology
Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the
Korea government Ministry of Knowledge Economy
(No. 20124030200110).
REFERENCES
was observed that the major part of plastic deformation takes place as local denting while overall bending
response is similar to the response of a beam by singular load. The latter response results in high stresses
at joints when the impact loading is close to joint and
this may result in fracture.
In low temperature impact tests the brittle type fracture at joints was observed. It was verified that at
low temperature the material behavior changes significantly and energy absorbing capacity reduces. It
is highly recommended that this fact should be considered in design in arctic conditions. Further study
for inclusion of material properties at low temperature in numerical analyses is necessary. Especially for
the brittle failure of steel at low temperature numerical modelling has to be properly established before
making premature conclusions.
The experimental results were used to substantiate
the numerical simulations. Good agreement between
numerical analysis and not only current but also earlier experimental tests was found. It was concluded that
the numerical solution gives a good understanding of
general response of tubular members. Particularly, the
localized denting response, energy absorbing capacity, stress concentration at joints and localized high
strain rates were underlined. Further studies with
verified numerical tools can give more insights in
Biehl, F. & Lehmann, E. 2007. Collisions of Ships with Offshore Wind Turbines: Calculation and Risk Evaluation.
Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Collision
and Grounding of Ships: 5561. Hamburg, Germany.
Cho, S.R. 1987. Design approximations for offshore tubulars
against collisions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow.
Cowper, G.R. & Symonds, P.S. 1957. Strain hardening and
strain rate effects in the impact loading of cantilever
beams. Technical Report No. 28, Brown University to the
Office of Naval Research under contract No. NR-562(10).
Dai, L.; Ehlers, S.; Rausand, M. & Utne, I.B. 2012. Risk
of collision between service vessels and offshore wind
turbines. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 109:
1831.
Den Boon, H.; Just, H.; Hansen, P.F.; Ravn, E.S.; Frouws, K.;
Otto, S.; Dalhoff, P.; Stein, J.; Van der Tak, C. & Van Rooij,
J. 2004. Reduction of ship collision risks for Offshore wind
farms-SAFESHIP. European Wind Energy Conference &
Exhibition. 2225, November, London, UK.
DNV, 2010. Fabrication and testing of offshore structures,
DNV-OS-C401.
DNV, 2011. Design of offshore wind turbine structures, DNVOS-J101.
KS, 2007. KS B 0801 Test pieces for tensile test for metallic
materials. Korean Agency for Technology and Standard.
Min, D.K. & Cho, S.R. 2012. On the fracture of polar class
vessel structures subjected to lateral impact loads. Jour. of
SNAK 49(4): 281286.
Visser, W. 2004. Ship collision and capacity of brace members
of fixed steel offshore platforms. HSE Research Report
220, Health and Safety Executive.
Zhang, L.; Egge, E.D. & Bruhns, H. 2004. Approval procedure concept for alternative arrangements. Proceedings
of the 3rd international Conference on Collision and
Grounding of Ships: 8796. Izu, Japan.
287
Ultimate strength of an intact and damaged LNG vessel subjected to

sub-zero temperature
S. Ehlers
Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
S. Benson
School of Marine Science and Technology, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
K. Misirlis
Wolfson Unit MTIA, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
ABSTRACT: The natural resources found in arctic regions are the driver for growing offshore activities and
shipping in the Arctic Ocean. Furthermore, the advantages of the shorter connection between Europe and the
East through the Northern Sea Route (NSR) result in increased arctic transit traffic. Ship structures used in arctic
conditions need to resist low temperature at an equal safety level as required for the non-arctic shipping zones.
Therefore, this paper analyses the ultimate strength of an intact and damaged LNG vessel subjected to sub-zero
temperature (SZT) due to cold climate. The cold climate results in a temperature gradient between the keel and
the deck. This temperature influence is included by explicitly characterizing the material properties down to
90 degrees Celsius. Therefore, the material characteristics of standard ship building steel are compared to a
more suitable arctic material which exhibits superior properties with decreasing temperature. A ship collision
simulation introduces damage to the hull girder and thereby allows for a comparison between the ultimate strength
of an intact and a damaged hull girder. The simulations are carried out for an example scenario of an LNG vessel
transporting gas from Yamal to Europe or the East. Furthermore, a simplified method is used in order to calculate
the ultimate strength based on the individual panel contributions, both for the intact and damaged conditions. As
a result, the sensitivity of the hull girder ultimate strength safety level to the materials temperature is assessed.
INTRODUCTION
Offshore activities and shipping in the arctic region is

expected to increase significantly over the next decade
due to the vast amount of natural resources located
in the high north and the disappearing multi-year
ice-coverage. The latter makes way for the utilization of new transport routes previously inaccessible
due to the heavy year-round existence. Thus, less ice
provides new opportunities for shipping, leading to
more intense and rapid development of arctic-related
technologies. Det Norske Veritas (2010) expects 480
container ship trans-arctic voyages annually by 2030.
Therefore, arctic transport and operations will continuously subject structures to harsh environmental
conditions. One aspect of interest, which is exceptional
to polar operations, is sub-zero temperatures (SZT).
Structural solutions and materials need to be able to
cope with this cold climate on a safe level. Consequently, ships need to be able to withstand the iceinduced loading and low temperatures, which result in
additional challenges concerning fracture. The latter
becomes especially crucial if a collision accident takes
place between two vessels. However, accidental events
such as ship collisions are not addressed by these regulations even though they account for about 20 per cent
of all serious accidents (IMO 1999 to 2003). Consequently, they present a significant risk for the maritime
transport environment, which is especially vulnerable
in the high north.
In this paper the consequences of a tanker transporting liquefied natural gas (LNG), from Yamal to the Far
East or to Europe and the US along the northern sea
route (NSR), in terms of crashworthiness and ultimate
strength are assessed considering the influence of SZT;
see Figure 1. General ice-load compliance calculations
of an LNG tanker have been carried out by Wang et al.
(2008) using the finite element method for a selection of load cases with the conclusion that the strength
of the steel structure of membrane type LNG carrier
is sufficient under the design ice loads. However, the
risk of collisions with such vessels may lead to severe
catastrophes and certainly to vast economical losses
due to the down time and repair cost. Therefore, this
paper presents the influence of collision consequences
in terms of residual ultimate strength and compares the
findings to the intact condition. Due to the criticality
of the cargo, this work addresses the question whether
289
Figure 1. Yamal peninsula and possible west and east bound

trade routes (source: Google earth).
Table 1.
LNG parameters.
Length between perpendiculars

Moulded breadth
Depth
v, desing
unloaded draft
unloaded P
loaded draft
loaded P
310.0m
50.0 m
27.4 m
19 kn
5m
23 MW
13 m
27 MW
Figure 2. Scantlings definition and cross-sectional dimensions for the LNG tanker.
an LNG is especially prone to failure following a collision accident or not and thereby contributing to the
safety regime of arctic transport.
2 THE LNG TANKER
2.1
General particulars
The LNG tanker concept is based on a V-shaped hull

which eliminates the need for ballast in good seaway
conditions, see Figure 1 and Claes and GuillaumeCombecave (2009). This reduced need for ballast
contributes to a reduction of transport of invasive
species and minimizes the need for ballast water heating in arctic conditions. The main parameters for the
studied LNG tanker are given in Table 1.
The vessel is designed for two drafts, one loaded
and one unloaded, whilst incorporating the minimum
ballast feature. At loaded draft, the vessel can pass
through most inshore sections along the NSR while
the unloaded draft does not restrain the navigational
area of the vessel (along the NSR). The width of 50 m
is certainly wider than the current icebreaker width
of 30 m, but similar to the Ribero del Duero Knutsen,
which is the first approved 1AS LNG tanker for the
Yamal terminal. Should she require icebreaker support, than two icebreakers operating side-by-side will
be required to create a wide enough channel.
2.2 The containment system
LNG tankers require a special double hull-based containment system to store and insulate the cargo tank to
keep the natural gas liquefied. This containment system isolates the hull structure further from the low
temperature. Two different tank systems have been
developed, a self-supporting storage system and a
membrane type. The LNG tanker analysed in this
case study has a membrane type containment system. According to the manufacturer (Gaztransport &
Technigaz SAS) such containment system remains
fully functional if the inner hull deformation does not
exceed 4 mm/m. For the bulkhead spacing of 40.5 m
found in the LNG tanker analysed, the total deformation limit is 162 mm. This limit will be used to
terminate the collision simulation and to assess the
residual strength.
2.3 The ice-load compliance

The studied LNG tanker shall serve the Yamal LNG
terminal in the arctic sea, and thus needs to withstand the expected ice loads under the assumption of
icebreaker support. In this sense, the current minimum requirement for the Northern Sea Route (NSR)
is an equivalent ice class of 1A. Therefore, the minimum required scantlings are checked according to
ice class 1A following the Finnish Swedish Ice Class
Rules (FSICR). Therefore, for each draft a critical ice
patch load is applied over the webframe spacing with
a height of 0.3 m. For the studied LNG tanker and the
loaded and unloaded draft the thickness requirements
for the affected shell plating is 22 mm. The adjacent
HP-profile is required to be of the dimensions 200 9
for the given frame spacing (2700 mm).
290
Figure 4. FE-model of the LNG tanker.

Figure 3. Assumed temperature distribution and horizontal
striking locations for the full load and ballast conditions.
3.2 The crashworthiness simulation

3 THE COLLISION AND ULTIMATE
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT
The following analyses have been undertaken to provide an assessment of the ultimate strength under two
collision scenarios:
1. Collision damage assessment of the standard (std.)
material tanker for both striking locations
2. Collision damage assessment of the arctic material
tanker for both striking locations
3. Ultimate strength assessment of the tanker in intact
condition with both material models
4. Ultimate strength assessment of the tanker in damaged condition with both material models
An explicit nonlinear finite element analysis
(NLFEA) is used for the collision damage assessment. The ultimate strength assessment of the tanker
in intact and damaged conditions is attempted using
two numerical methods: NLFEA and the Smith progressive collapse method (Smith 1977). A description
of the analysis techniques employed for both the collision assessment and the ultimate strength assessment
now follow.
3.1 The collision scenario
The most severe collision condition according to
Ehlers & Tabri (2012) is used for the conservative structural consequence assessment. This scenario
involves similar ships where the striking ship collides
with her rigid bulbous bow into the amidships of the
struck ship at a 90 angle. Furthermore, the two principal operational drafts, namely the unloaded and loaded
draft, result in two striking positions to be considered,
while the longitudinal striking location is assumed to
be between webframes in both cases, in the middle of
the cargo hold. Additionally, the influence of the arctic
conditions, namely the SZT, is assumed to result in a
temperature distribution of the outer shell as given in
Figure 3.
The solver LS-DYNA version 971 R5 is used for the

collision simulations while ANSYS is used as a preprocessor to build the finite element model according
to the mainframe section given in Figure 2. The model
extents in longitudinal direction over two transverse
bulkheads (see Figure 4) and the translational degrees
of freedom are restricted at the plane of these bulkheads. The remaining edges are free. The structure is
modelled using four noded, quadrilateral BelytschkoLin-Tsay shell elements with 5 integration points
through their thickness. The characteristic elementlength in the contact region is 150 mm to account for
the non-linear structural deformations such as buckling and folding of the plating. Standard LS-DYNA
hourglass control and automatic single surface contact
(friction coefficient of 0.3) is used for the simulations; see Hallquist (2007). The collision simulations
are displacement-controlled. The rigid bow is moved
into the ship side structure at a constant velocity of
10 m/s. This velocity is reasonably low so as not to
cause inertia effects resulting from the ships masses;
see Konter et al. (2004).
3.3 Material modelling

The element length-dependent local strain and stress
relation until fracture according to Ehlers and Varsta
(2009) and Ehlers (2010) is used for the crashworthiness simulations. This element length-dependent
material relationship is identified on the basis of optical measurements for room temperature. Hence, in
order to account for arctic conditions, i.e. SZT, Ehlers
and stby (2012) extended this material relationship
while introducing an arctic material which shows the
typical increase in yield stress, Lders plateau and ultimate strength with decreasing temperatures as found
in standard materials as well as an increase in failure strain; see Figure 5. Hence, this article shows
the resulting structural crashworthiness and ultimate
strength for SZT for standard and arctic materials
using the material relation and failure strain shown in
291
3.4
Figure 5. Material properties for SZT (Ehlers and stby,

2012).
As demonstrated by the 2012 ISSC Committee Ultimate Strength, NLFEA is increasingly being used in
research studies to evaluate the strength of a hull girder
in longitudinal bending (Paik et al 2012). However,
the use of NLFEA to complete a longitudinal bending
study requires a rigorous consideration of the nonlinear geometric and material properties of the hull,
including welding distortions and residual stresses.
ABAQUS 6.10 was used to complete some preliminary bending analyses of the intact girder. A first
attempt was made to convert the original LS-DYNA
model used in the collision simulation into a suitable
format for a longitudinal bending analysis. However,
issues with translation of the material and sectional
properties between the two programs meant this was
impracticable for the time constraints of the present
study.
Therefore, recourse was made to a direct model
build of the hull girder model in ABAQUS using the
procedure detailed by Benson et al (2012). Average
levels of welding residual stress and initial imperfections are input directly into the finite element mesh.
This has previously been shown to have an appreciable effect on the ultimate strength prediction using
NLFEA.
It is hoped that future work from the authors
will succeed in producing a more complete study
of bending strength for both the intact and damaged
conditions.
3.5
Figure 6. Local material relation (top) and element-length

dependent failure strain (bottom) for std. and arctic material
at SZT (Ehlers and stby, 2012).
Figure 6. These strain-rate independent material relationships are implemented into LS-DYNA using the
ANSYS parametric design language and the modified
piecewise linear plasticity model 123 of LS-DYNA
(Hallquist, 2007).
Ultimate strength assessment NLFEA
Ultimate strength assessment Smith method
The Smith progressive collapse method (Smith 1977)

is an established approach to determine the ultimate
strength of a prismatic hull girder section placed under
combinations of pure longitudinal bending moment.
The method is described in detail by Dow (1984) and
is a recommended approach to determine ultimate
strength in many class society rules including IACS
CSR.
This study utilises an extended progressive collapse program, ProColl (Benson 2012), which has
been developed to predict both overall and interframe
buckling modes for an intact hull. In this study only
the interframe progressive collapse capability is used
which reverts to a standard Smith method approach.
This was considered appropriate because the transverse framing of the gas carrier is relatively stocky
and is expected to fail interframe.
The assumptions of the method include that bending
is resisted by the longitudinally continuous structure
only, and buckling occurs interframe. The hull cross
section of interest is divided into discrete elements
which are assumed to act independently. Usually each
element comprises a single stiffener with attached
plating. Each element is assigned a load shortening
curve which represents the nonlinear behaviour of
the element under an in-plane load. Assuming the
cross section remains plane, the method calculates
the bending moment curvature response incrementally,
292
updating the position of the neutral axis at each increment to account for the nonlinear load-shortening of
the elements. The method can be adapted to determine
the damaged strength of a hull girder by removing
elements which have either ruptured or excessively
deformed. Load is controlled through application of
either increments of curvature or bending moment.
This means the method is able to account for the rotation of the neutral axis if the damaged cross section
is asymmetrical. Note that in this paper all analyses were completed through application of curvature
increments, and only the dominating bending moment
component is then presented.
This is a very straightforward approach, but also
rather simplistic with a number of limitations.
The assumption that elements act independently
means that it can often be difficult to accurately
determine the appropriate elements to remove. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine the strength effect
on elements immediately adjacent to the damage hole
that is created by element removal. Some studies have
applied knock down factors to load shortening curves
but, inevitably, the determination of the damage extent
is subjective and based on visual inspection of the
damage.
Another limitation of the Smith method in determining intact and damage strength is the assumption
of interframe failure. Even when intact, stiffened panels can buckle with an overall mode shape (Benson et al
2011). This phenomenon may be even more relevant
when considering a damaged stiffened panel, especially where the damage extends over several frame
spaces as in the present studies. Damage to transverse
frames and the change in boundary conditions on a
panel caused by a hole is likely to introduce different
bucking modes to the structure.
4
4.1
Figure 7. Resulting deformations from the crashworthiness

simulations.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Crashworthiness simulations
The results of the crashworthiness simulations, see

Figure 7, in terms of the force versus penetration
curves and energy versus penetration curve are shown
in Figures 8 and 9, respectively.
The presented curves show the penetration of the
bow into the side structure and they end when the
global deflection limit of the containment system is
reached. It is noticeable in both figures that the loaded
draft results in a higher crashworthiness until a penetration of approx. 1.75 m is reached, which is when
the unloaded draft starts to result in a higher crashworthiness. Furthermore, it can be seen that only the
loaded draft collision is sensitive to the choice of
material, because the arctic material results in a significantly higher collision force between 1.2 and 1.4 m.
However, the unloaded draft results in a 50% higher
collision force and 30% higher energy until the critical displacement limit of the containment system is
reached.
Figure 8. Force versus penetration curves for LNG

collision.
4.2 Intact ultimate strength

A comparison of the intact bending moment strength
of the hull girder using NLFEA and ProColl is shown
in Figure 10. Both techniques are repeated for two
material models: the first (labelled PC1) with standard material properties (no temperature effects) and
the second (labelled PC2) including the material properties due to SZT (with temperature effects) as shown
in Figure 3.
The results show reasonable correlation in terms
of their prediction of the bending stiffness of the
girder and the ultimate strength. The increased yield
strength due to the low temperature material model
has a minimal effect on the initial bending stiffness
of the hull and a relatively minor beneficial effect
293
Figure 9. Energy versus penetration curves for LNG

collision.
Figure 11. ProColl damage models loaded (top) and

unloaded (bottom).
Figure 10. Progressive collapse curves for vertical
bending Intact girder.
on the ultimate strength. Both the NLFEA and ProColl analyses show a similar magnitude of increased
strength. The effect is slightly more pronounced for
positive bending moment (bending in sag) for which
the majority of the temperature affected material is
placed in compression.
4.3
Damaged ultimate strength
For the damaged hull analysis only the temperature

affected model is considered. Furthermore, due to the
implications described in section 3.4, only ProColl
analyses are presented here. The damage extent was
defined through inspection of the damage simulation
models. The cross section represents the damage of the
frame space in line with the centreline of the impacting
ship, where greatest rupture and deformation occurs.
Elements are removed throughout the rupture zone and
also where the out of plane deformation of distorted

elements is considerable. All remaining elements are
assumed to be unaffected by the collision and are
assigned the same load shortening curves as for the
intact analysis. The sketches in Figure 11 demonstrate
the simplified damage extent and the position of the
vertical and horizontal neutral axes which is affected
by the asymmetry of the cross section.
Figure 12 compares the intact bending moment
curve with the two damaged cases. These results are
computed by incrementing vertical curvature, allowing the post collapse behaviour to be modelled. Horizontal curvature is constrained. The asymmetry of the
hull means that a horizontal bending moment is present
in the damage cases. However, the magnitude of the
horizontal bending is an order lower than the vertical
and thus has a negligible effect on the results.
The results show that the damage has a very minor
effect on the ultimate strength and stiffness of the section. Despite the cross section area reducing by 6%
in both damage cases, the drop in ultimate strength is
294
Figure 12. Ultimate strength under a vertical bending

moment.
Table 2.
bending
Figure 13. Ultimate strength under a horizontal bending

moment.
ProColl ultimate strength results in vertical
Ultimate strength
(Sag)
Ultimate strength
(Hog)
MNm
% from
base
case
ID
MNm
% from
base
case
PC1-Intact
PC2-Intact
PC2-loaded
damage
PC2-unloaded
damage
29.5
31.0
30.1
95.2
97.1
31.7
32.2
31.1
98.4
96.6
29.5
95.2
31.2
96.7
between 3% and 5% for all cases tested; see Table 2.

This is probably because the damage occurs near to
the horizontal neutral axis of the ship, thus damaging
the area of the section which has least effect on the
vertical bending strength.
Equivalent results under horizontal bending
moment, shown in Figure 13, demonstrate a much
larger drop in strength when the hull is damaged.
Both damage cases produce very similar results with
a drop in strength of 20% and 23% in sag and hog,
respectively.
Interaction curves, plotted in Figure 14, show the
ultimate strength of the hull under any combination
of bending moments. It is clear that the damage has
a greater effect under certain bending moment directions, with the largest drop in strength occurring for
horizontal bending in both directions. Note that the
interaction curve has been produced by running the
progressive collapse analysis with increments of bending moment, rather than curvature as before. This
ensures that the ratio of applied horizontal and vertical
bending remains constant throughout each simulation.
Figure 14. ProColl interaction diagrams.
Analyses terminate when the ultimate strength about

either axis reaches the peak, whereupon the maximum
bending moment about both axes is recorded.
All results in this paper present the application of
pure bending moment only. The effect of shear, which
is not accounted for in the Smith method, is not investigated. The presence of shear may further reduce the
global bending moment capacity for the damaged ship.
5
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has investigated structural consequences

from the collision of a tanker transporting LNG
travelling through the northern sea route in terms of
crashworthiness and ultimate strength. The effect
of sub-zero temperatures on the material properties
of the structure was considered. A collision simulation
295
was completed using NLFEA to compare the energy

absorption characteristics of the structure. Loaded and
unloaded drafts were considered which affected the
vertical position of the impacting vessel. The effect of
the ruptured hole on the damaged ultimate strength was
then assessed using a simplified progressive collapse
method.
The collision simulation showed that the arctic
material has a moderately beneficial effect on the
crashworthiness characteristics for the loaded draft
condition, but only a very minor effect on the unloaded
draft. Furthermore, the energy characteristics between
the two drafts are considerably different. Thus, the
position of the vessel in relation to the colliding object
is an important characteristic.
The ultimate strength analyses indicate that, when
considering vertical bending moment, the effect of the
damage hole is relatively insignificant. This is because
the damage occurs near to the neutral axis of the
cross section. A much larger effect is observed when
applying horizontal bending moments. The use of the
temperature affected material model shows a relatively
minor beneficial effect on ultimate strength. This can
be accounted for in both NLFEA and the simplified
progressive collapse method.
It must be noted that the analyses use a simplified
method to predict the progressive collapse behaviour
and do not take into account various factors that may
further influence the ultimate strength value such as
the residual stresses imparted into the hull. Further
comparisons to equivalent NLFEA of the damaged
hull in longitudinal bending would provide additional
quantification of these effects.
REFERENCES
Benson, S. 2011. Progressive collapse assessment of
lightweight ship structures. PhD Thesis, Newcastle University, UK.
Benson, S.; Downes, J. & Dow, R.S. 2011. A comparison
of numerical methods to predict the progressive collapse of lightweight aluminium vessels. In: Proceedings of
11th International Conference on Fast SeaTransportation,
Honolulu, Hawaii. ASNE.
Benson, S.; Downes, J. & Dow, R.S. 2012. An automated
finite element methodology for hull girder progressive
collapse analysis. In: Proc. 13th International Marine
Design Conference. Glasgow.
Claes, L. & Guillaume-Combecave, J.L. 2009. An innovative
LNG Carrier. EU IMPROVE Conference, Dubrovnik.
Det Norske Veritas. 2010. Shipping across the Arctic Ocean.
A feasible option in 20302050 as a result of global
warming?, Position Paper 04-2010.
Dow, R.S. 1997. Structural redundancy and damage tolerance in relation to ultimate ship hull strength. Advances
in Marine Structures 3.

Ehlers, S. & Tabri, K. 2012. A combined numerical and semianalytical collision damage assessment procedure. Marine
Ehlers, S. 2010. The influence of the material relation on the
462474.
Ehlers, S. & Varsta, P. 2009. Strain and stress relation for nonlinear finite element simulations. Thin-Walled Structures
47(11): 12031217.
Hallquist, J.O. 2007. LS-DYNA. Keyword Users Manual,
Version 971, Livermore Software Technology Corporation.
Konter, A.; Broekhuijsen, J. and Vredeveldt, A. 2004. A
quantitative assessment of the factors contributing to the
accuracy of ship collision predictions with the finite element method. Proceedings 3rd Int. Conf. Collision and
Grounding of Ships. Japan: 1726.
Paik, J.K.; Amlashi, H.; Boon, B.; Branner, K.; Caridis,
P.; Das, P.; Fujikubo, M.; Huang, C.H.; Josefson, L.;
Kaeding, P.; Kim, C.W.; Parmentier, G.; Pasqualino, I.P.;
Rizzo, C.M.; Vhanmane, S.; Wang, X. and Yang, P. 2012.
Report of Committee III.1 Ultimate Strength. In: 18th
International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress.
Rostock.
Smith, C.S. 1977. Influence of local compressive failure on
ultimate longitudinal strength of a ships hull. In Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures. In:
International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships
and Other Floating Structures. Tokyo.
Wang, Bo.; Yu, H.; Basu, R.; Lee, H.; Kwon, JC.; Jeon, BY.;
Kim, JH.; Daley, C. and Kendrick, A. 2008. Structural
Response of Cargo Containment Systems in LNG Carriers
under Ice Loads. ICETECH. Banff, Alberta.
296
Ultimate strength of damaged hulls

C. Pollalis & M.S. Samuelides
ABSTRACT: The Goal Based Standards define that Classification Rules for Design and Construction of
Ships must provide provisions, which guarantee a reasonable level of residual strength after damage that results
from collision, grounding and flooding. As current Classification Rules do not cover this requirement, there
are numerous recent and on-going studies addressing this problem. Finite element is a powerful tool that may
be employed for the assessment of the ultimate strength of intact and damaged ships hulls. The most common
practice for such an analysis is to use an explicit FE code and to apply a rotation to the hulls cross-section(s) in
order to determine a moment-curvature relationship. However, in the case of damaged hulls such a procedure
needs to be adapted in order to account for the rotation of the neutral axis and the simultaneous action of vertical,
horizontal and torsional moments. The paper presents an investigation regarding the influence of modeling
parameters on the ultimate strength, as determined using general FE codes. The procedure is tested against
published experimental results related to intact hulls and it has been extended to predict the ultimate strength of
damaged hulls. The sensitivity of the results on boundary conditions is investigated. The rotation of the neutral
axis and the bi-axial bending are studied to identify their effect on the reduction of the ultimate strength with
respect to the intact hull.
INTRODUCTION
The residual strength of a ships hull after collision,

grounding, flooding is an issue of recent consideration by the IMO (2009) and IACS (2012). Tier II.5
of Goal Based Standards (IMO 2009) state that ships
should be designed to have sufficient strength to withstand the wave and internal loads in specified damaged
conditions such as collision, grounding or flooding
and residual strength calculations should take into
account the ultimate reserve capacity of the hull girder,
including permanent deformation and post-buckling
behaviour. These requirements that relate to the residual strength are not covered by the rules currently in
force and the effect of structural damage on the hull
girder capacity resulting from collision or grounding
is not assessed in the present form of CSR.
In 1995, ABS published guidelines for assessing
the structural redundancy for tankers and bulk carries (ABS 1995a, 1995b). The guides provide op-tional
criteria related to the residual strength in damaged condition of hulls for Oil or Fuel Oil Carriers, Bulk or Ore
Carriers, combination carriers and Container Carriers,
which when satisfied by a vessel, she is assigned with
the notation RES. The assessment is based a) on hypothetical damage side or bottom damages (see Figure 1);
b) on the calculation of the applied bending moment
as a linear combination of the design still water and
design wave bending moment in hogging and sagging
and c) on the elastic section modulus of the damaged
cross section. The assessment covers both the bending
Figure 1. Assumed damaged section as a result of collision

ABS (1995b).
strength and the shear strength of the damaged crosssections. The aim is to eliminate, or at least minimize
the risk of a major oil spill or loss of ship due to a postaccident collapse or disintegration of the hull during
tow or rescue operation, when a ship gets damaged as
a result of a collision or grounding accident.
Paik et al. (1998) and Wang et al. (2002) developed
relative fast procedures to identify the possibility of
297
hull girder failure after collision and grounding damage. The procedure of Paik et al. (1998), which can be
used for the prediction of the residual strength in the
early design stage, was applied to the residual strength
assessment of a PANAMAX bulk carrier after collision
and grounding damage.
Many authors have used an iterative-incremental
method frequently mentioned Progressive Collapse
Method to calculate the ultimate strength of a
ships hull at both intact and damaged state, which is
based on the principles of the Smith method. Gordo
et al. (1996) compared the accuracy of the momentcurvature curve based on the PCM with various experimental and numerical results. They also attempted
to apply PCM method on asymmetrically-sectioned
problems by considering cross sections of tankers and
container carriers with heeling angles.
Non-linear finite element codes are recently extensively used for the assessment of the ultimate strength
of both intact and damaged hulls. The method offers
many possibilities as it allows the modeling of complicated geometries, it may capture various buckling
modes and interactions between the structural elements of the hull, it can represent localized or more
uniform thickness diminution and initial imperfections
and it may be used for the assessment of the residual
strength of non-symmetric cross sections.
However the use of a non-linear finite element code
for the assessment of the ultimate strength of intact as
well as damaged hulls involves difficulties as well as
uncertainties as to the results that are obtained. The
present paper reports on an on-going re-search work
aiming in the investigation of the effect of parameters
of FE modeling and FE simulation on the results. In
particular the work addressed the effect of boundary
conditions, solver and material properties. In order to
obtain some confidence in the modeling procedure,
the results of simulations of relevant tests performed
by two different research groups were compared with
the experimental measurements.
2
2.1
SIMULATION OF EXPERIMENTS
Simulation of tests of Saad-Eldeen et al. (2010)
As a first step of the investigation of the effect of

modeling parameters and in particular of the mesh
size, boundary conditions and solver on the simulation, the present work simulated the tests reported by
Saad-Eldeen et al. (2010). A box girder with length,
breadth and depth of 1400 mm, 800 mm and 600 mm
respectively (see Figure 2), was subjected to four point
bending using a hydraulic jack. The dimensions of this
girder are presented in Table 1.
The aim is to determine the appropriate modeling parameters and to investigate if the simulation
produces results that correlate well with the experimental results when the test is simulated through the
application of rotation to the end sections rather than
forces as in the four point bending test that has been
Figure 2. Model of box girder, Saad-Eldeen et al. (2010).
Table 1. Details of structural components of models tested

by Saad-Eldeen et al. (2010).
Structural member
Dimension (mm)
Deck plating
Port Side plating
Starboard Side plating
Bottom plating
Stiffeners
Web frames
Brackets
4,09
3,95
3,85
3,75
FB 25 4,35
50 50 6,14
80 100 3,91
performed. The way to apply the rotation is by coupling the edge nodes fore and aft with a control point
that is rotated around the horizontal axis. The simulations were performed with 4-node, reduced integration
mesh, consisting of 10 mm square elements. Simulations with 4-node full integration, 5 mm square
elements did not produce any significant difference
in the results but required a relative higher capacity
of RAM. Thus, it has been concluded that the 10 mm
reduced integration elements provide a reliable combination of precision and RAM memory requirement.
As it concerns the definition of boundary conditions,
the only degrees of freedom left free are the rotation
around the horizontal axis on both control points and
the translation along the longitudinal axis of the one
control point to eliminate axial reaction forces. From
the investigation using various boundary conditions,
it was found that neither the restrictions of the rotation around the vertical and longitudinal axes nor the
restrictions of the translation along the transverse and
vertical axes affect the results. It is noted that due to
symmetry it was expected that the restrictions of the
above mentioned rotations and the translation along
the transverse axis not to have an influence on the
response. The material of the specimen was mild steel
and it has been assumed to be elastic, perfectly plastic
with yield stress of 245 MPa.
In order to determine the deformation pattern and
stress field under static equilibrium, we opted for the
use of the implicit version of ABAQUS in combination
with the Riks solution algorithm.
298
Figure 3. Bending moment versus curvature: comparison

of measurements and numerical results.
Figure 5. Sections of tested specimens by Kuo et al. (2003).
Figure 6. Side view of tested specimens by Kuo et al. (2003).
Figure 4. Neutral axis displacement of symmetric crosssection.
Table 2. Material properties of specimens tested by Kuo

et al. (2003).
The numerical results and the results from the tests

in terms of applied bending moment vs. curvature are
shown in Figure 3. The numerical results are obtained
in terms of bending moment vs. rotation and the
abrupt changes that appear in the respective curve
are attributed to the differentiation of the rotation to
express the bending moment versus the curvature. As
we can see from the Figure 3, we have attained almost
the same value of ultimate strength with the experiment using the FE. However, there is also a great
difference after deck collapse. This might be caused
due to the lack of the brackets in our model and the
difference in method of load application between the
experiment and the simulation. We can also notice that
the curve produced by the experiment has a starting
point that differs from O(0, 0). This happens because
the experimental structure has an initial displacement
of u = 0.9 mm due to the weight of the equipment.
The vertical translation of the neutral axis because
of the plastic region which appears at the deck plating and stiffeners can be shown in Figure 4. The total
translation of the axis is 0.321 m 0.142 m = 0.179 m.
Plate thickness
mm
Yield stress
MPa
Youngs mod.
GPa
Poisons
ratio
3.05
4.25
5.60
293
269
321
211
212
211
0.277
0.281
0.289
The dimensions of the specimens are shown in Figures 56 and the material properties and thicknesses in
Table 2. The four different models of midship sections
portray a simplified Tanker (MST), a Double bottom
Tanker (MST), a Containership (MSC) and a Bulk Carrier (MSB). The results of the simulations together
with the experimental results and the numerical predictions from Saad-Eldeen et al. (2010) are shown in
Table 3. As we can see, the results obtained by the simulation conducted in this present work show in most
cases a better correlation with the experimental results,
compared to the theoretical predictions presented in
Kuo et al. (2003).
2.2 Simulation of tests of Kuo et al. (2003)

The procedure of simulation that has been followed
for the tests of Saad-Eldeen et al (2010) has been also
ap-plied for the simulation of the tests reported by Kuo
et al. (2003).
RESIDUAL STRENGTH AFTER COLLISION

DAMAGE
Following the simulations of the bending response

of the intact specimen, it was attempted to perform
simulations on a model of the specimen, which was
299
Table 3. Tests of Kuo et al. (2003): Measurements and theoretical predictions.

Description of test
(see Figure 5)
(1): Test
ton-m
(2): Beghin
ton-m
(3): Kuo
et al. ton-m
(2)/(1)
(3)/(1)
(4): FE
ton-m
(4)/(1)
MST-1 sag/hog (5)

MST-2 sag/hog (5)
MSD- sagging
MSD- hogging
MSB- sagging
MSB- hogging
MSC- sagging
MSC- hogging
94.5
58.8
60.5
85.5
49.1
68.5
113.5
88.0
110
58.9
97.3
97.3
86.6
86.6
104.2
104.2
109.95
58.97
97.96
97.96
88.03
88.03
103.9
103.9
1.164
1.001
1.608
1.138
1.764
1.264
0.918
1.184
1.163
1.003
1.619
1.146
1.793
1.285
0.915
1.181
105.2
68.3
74.15
90.4
62.2
81.31
103.98
95.56
1.113
1.162
1.226
1.057
1.267
1.187
0.916
1.086
(1): test measurements.

(2) & (3): theoretical predictions from Kuo et al. (2003).
(4): from FE simulations.
(5): The plate thickness of MST-1 and MST-2 is 4.25 mm and 3.05 mm respectively (see Table 2).
Figure 7. Collision damage at end bay.

Figure 9. Moment versus rotation for damaged girder.
Damage breadth (assuming that the ship hull collided with a ships bow of 30 degrees angle):
h tan = h tan 30 0.14 m
Damage length = longitudinal distance between
two successive web frames = 0.400 m.
Figure 8. Collision damage at central bay.
assumed to be damaged as a result of a collision. Two

damage scenarios were investigated: For the first scenario the damage was considered at one of the end
bays (edge damage) and for the second at the central
bay (central damage). Illustrations of these two different scenarios can be seen in Figures 7 and 8. The
dimensions of the damage are as follows:
Damage height (see Figure 1): h = 0.40 D = 0.40

0.600 m = 0.24 m (from the deck)
Figure 9 shows the ultimate strength for the damaged box girders in comparison to the ultimate strength
in intact condition. The red color curve corresponds to
the edge damage, the blue color curve to the central
damage and finally the green color curve corresponds
to the intact state curve. As it may be seen, the residual
strength, i.e. the ultimate strength in damaged condition, is higher when the damage is at the end bay in
comparison with the damage at the center bay. This
is attributed to the fact that one end section of the
damaged length is close to the cross section, where
rotations are applied and which is kept undeformed
during the application of rotations. Figures of both
intact and damaged box girders can be seen in Figures
10, 11 and 12. As we can notice, the main failure mode
is buckling of the deck plating. Buckling and tripping
of the upper stiffeners is also observed. Severe plastic strain can be noted at the middle section Figure 12
300
Figure 10. Undamaged structure: Stress contour.
Figure 11. Undamaged structure: Strain contour.
Figure 13. Collision damage at central bay: translation and

rotation of Neutral Axis.
Table 4. Calculation of angles of rotation: cross-section at
the middle of the damage length.
Inc. 9
Inc. 11
Inc. 13
Inc. 16
Inc. 24 (Mmax )
Figure 12. Collision damage at central bay: Rotations

around vertical axis.
indicates that there is no bending around the vertical

axis-horizontal bending.
When an asymmetric section is subjected to bending moment, the Neutral Axis does not only translate
but it is also rotated. The final position of the Neutral
Axis is determined by the inclination of the vector of
the moment with respect to the principal axes of the
cross-section. However, as the cross sections within the
damaged length may not behave uniformly, the translation and rotation of the Neutral Axis may differ from
section to section. For the case studied, the position
of the Neutral Axis can be shown in Figure 13 for the
cross section at the end and the middle of the damaged
tan 1 = 0.0581
tan 2 = 0.0579
tan 3 = 0.0556
tan 4 = 0.0556
tan 5 = 0.0557
1 = 3.27
2 = 3.32
3 = 3.18
4 = 3.18
5 = 3.19
length respectively and at various level of rotation of

the cross-sections. Inc 24 corresponds to the point of
maximum bending moment. Figure 13 refers to the
case of central damage. As we can notice from Tables
4 and 5, where the rotation of the Neutral Axis is calculated, the rotation at the end of the damage length is
lower in relation to the rotation of Neutral Axis at the
middle of damaged length.
As it concerns the boundary conditions, rotations
were applied about the transverse horizontal axes, and
the longitudinal and vertical displacements were let
free along the respective axes. In the case of the damage in the center bay, runs were also performed with the
301
Table 5. Calculation of angles of rotation: cross-section at

the end of the damage length.
1 = 1.80
2 = 1.82
3 = 1.85
4 = 1.75
5 = 1.73
tan 1 = 0.0314
tan 2 = 0.0318
tan 3 = 0.0322
tan 4 = 0.0305
tan 5 = 0.0302
Inc. 9
Inc. 11
Inc. 13
Inc. 16
Inc. 24 (Mmax )
Table 6. Values of ultimate and residual strength.
Case
Maximum
Bending
moment BM
(kN-m)
Rotation at
max BM
Ratio of
max. BM
over BM
of intact
Intact
Damage mid bay
Damage end bay
595.5
389.7
418.7
0.0026
0.0020
0.0024
1
0.655
0.703
Table 7.
Figure 14. Intact cross-section of tanker.
Main particulars of the tanker.
Length OA
Length BP
Breadth
Depth
Draught
264.68 m
256.50 m
42.50 m
22.0 m
15.0 m
Figure 15. FE model of intact tanker between wed-frames.
rotations about the vertical axis of both cross-sections

being constrained. In this particular case the difference
of the residual strength was negligible, approximately
2%. In the case of the damage at the end bay the reaction forces were approximately 50 kN. A comparison
of the ultimate and residual strength can be seen in
Table 6.
ULTIMATE AND RESIDUAL STRENGTH

OF A TANKER
Oil transportation with tankers involves environmental risks because of contact accidents. A tanker that is
damaged as a result of a collision, must have the necessary residual strength to survive and not cause an
extended environmental pollution.
In this section, we present the results of the determination of the ultimate strength of a tanker in intact
and damaged condition using FEA. The damage shape
and size we simulated, is that proposed byABS (1995a)
(see also Figure 1). The longitudinal span of the damage covers the distance between two successive web
frames. The ship modeled has main particulars presented in Table 7. The material is A-36 steel for the hull
plating and decks and bottom and double bottom stiffeners and mild steel elsewhere. Figures of the intact
and damaged midship section at the ABAQUS.cae
environment are shown in Figures 14 to 17.
Figure 16. Damaged cross-section of tanker.
During preliminary simulations employing the

implicit version ABAQUS, in the case of the intact
tanker, we noticed a sharp fall of the strength after
entering into the elastic-plastic region. This led to a
disability of the implicit method to converge at a certain solution. Therefore, we applied the problem using
the explicit method. The total simulation time was
set equal to two seconds with a time increment of
1E-006 second. Within the simulation time the rotation applied was set to 0.003 rad. The element shape
and size is 100 mm square element for l = 4000 mm
model longitudinal span.
302
Figure 17. FE model of damaged tanker between

wed-frames.
Figure 19. Material model.
Figure 18. Bending moment versus rotation for tanker.
As it concerns the boundary conditions of the intact

ship hull, we apply the same as those applied in the
case of the intact box girders (see sections 2.1 and
2.2), i.e. the simulation was performed by imposing
rotations around the control points, the longitudinal
translation was let free at one control point and all the
other degrees of freedom were restricted.
For the damaged hull, we conducted a study to
investigate how the boundary conditions affect the
residual strength of the hull. Initially, we simulated the
ships bending with the same boundary conditions we
used for the intact structure. In subsequent simulations
a) an end section was let free to rotate about a vertical
axis, and b) an end section was let free to rotate about
the vertical and additionally about the horizontal axis.
The bending moment vs. rotation curves that have
been obtained from the different simulations do
not illustrate any significant difference. The bending moment versus rotation curve of the intact and
damaged hulls are shown in Figure 18. From the
simulations the ultimate strength of the intact hull
was found to be equal to 9.55 GNm and the residual
strength of the damaged hull equal to 7.77 GNm.
A further aspect that has been investigated is the
effect of the material model on the results. The results
presented for the tanker so far were obtained with a
material having the true-stress strain curve presented
in Figure 19. Figure 18 further includes a bending
Figure 20. Model of damaged tanker: Displacement of

Neutral Axis.
moment versus rotation curve that was obtained using

an elasticrigidly plastic material.
From Figures 18 and 19 it is observed that when the
material has hardening the resistance of the ships hull
after yielding is higher while in case of a non-hardened
material there is a sharp drop of its strength. Finally we
notice that at about = 0.005 rad of rotation, the curves
of damaged non-hardened midship section is found
above the curve of the intact non-hardened curve.
Finally it has been checked if the ultimate and residual strength is higher than the design bending moment
of the ship. Considering that the design wave bending moment is calculated equal to 5.08 GN m and
the maximum permissible sagging bending moment
in still water equal to 407,000 t m or 3.99 GN m,
the design bending moment is 9.07 GN m. The value
is less than the ultimate strength but higher than the
residual strength for the damage case considered.
CONCLUSIONS
The paper addresses the ultimate strength of a ships

hull in intact and damaged condition, the latter being
303
frequently described as residual strength. The simulations to obtain the ultimate and residual strength were
performed using the widely used FE code ABAQUS.
As far as the intact hull is concerned, the hulls were
modeled with 4 node, reduced integration shell elements with length over thickness ratio between 2.5
and 5. In a small scale model the implicit version of the
FE code resulted in an ultimate strength that compared
well with the ultimate strength that was measured in the
tests. Regarding the boundary conditions, the restriction of rotation around the vertical and longitudinal
axes and the translation along the transverse axes, may
simulate the state of pure bending without generating
any other reaction moments or reaction forces apart
from the vertical bending moment.
From the simulations of the damaged structures,
we concluded that in the case of the box girder and the
tanker that have been investigated, it was not important
to let the rotation round vertical and longitudinal axes
free. The conclusion is based on the comparison of
the bending moment vs. rotation curves obtained from
the simulations and the level of the ultimate strength.
Further tests should be performed in other cases in
order to investigate if such a behavior is observed with
larger damages and to assess the level of the reaction
moments about the longitudinal and transverse axes.
A further issue that has been investigated is whether
an implicit code may converge to a static solution. This
was not a problem when using the implicit code for
the case of the box girders. However, in the case of a
real ships hull, due to its sudden loss of strength, the
implicit code did not converge and the explicit version of the code was used. An explicit method could
converge to the static solution if a relatively long time
period is set for the response. However, this leads to

an increase on the total CPU time and needs considerable more computational power. Further work is being
performed to investigate if explicit and implicit codes
produce comparable results, or otherwise if the explicit
code may produce a static solution in the post-ultimate
strength region.
REFERENCES
ABS. 1995a. Guide for the Assessing Hull Girder Residual
Strength for Tankers. Houston, Texas.
ABS. 1995b. Guide for the Assessing Hull Girder Residual
Strength for Bulk Carriers. Houston, Texas.
Saad-Eldeen, S.; Garbatov, Y. & Guedes Soares, C. 2010.
Experimental Assessment of the Ultimate Strength of a
Box Girder Subjected to four-point Bending Moment.
PRADS2010. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Gordo, J.M. & Guedes Soares, C. 1996. Approximate method
to evaluate the hull girder collapse strength. Marine
IACS 2012. Draft Harmonized CSR for Industry Review.
IMO. 2009. Goal Based New Ship Construction Standards
Report of the Working Group MSC 86/WP.5. International
Maritime Organization.
Kuo, H.S. & Chang, J.R. 2003. A simplified approach to
estimate the ultimate longitudinal strength of ship hull.
Journal of Marine Science and Technology 11(3): 130
148.
Paik, J.K.; Thayamballi, A.K. & Yang, S.H. 1998. Residual
strength assessment of ships after collision and grounding.
Wang, G.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, H. & Peng, H. 2002. Longitudinal strength of ships with accidental damages. Marine
304
Longitudinal strength assessment of damaged box girders

S. Benson, M. Syrigou & R.S. Dow
Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
ABSTRACT: The residual ultimate strength of a damaged ship can be an important criterion to assess in
the immediate aftermath of an accident where the hull is ruptured or excessively distorted. This is particularly
essential when the continuous stiffening of the longitudinal hull girder is compromised. The corresponding loss
in longitudinal strength may mean the damaged ship is at risk of experiencing excessive bending moments to
cause collapse of the hull girder. Reliable and quick numerical approaches to assess damage ultimate strength,
such as the Smith progressive collapse method, are thus essential for recoverability and survivability decision
making in the event of an accident. However, established methodologies are not necessarily accurate in determining the longitudinal strength of a vessel with severe damage extending over several frame spaces. Therefore,
this paper investigates the use of the progressive collapse method to assess the strength of several box girder
models with different levels of ruptured damage applied. The girders are analysed using the Smith method and
compared to equivalent nonlinear finite element analyses. The area and location of the damage is systematically investigated to show the effect of both the transverse and longitudinal extent of the rupture. These are
compared to the Smith method, where only transverse damage extent can be represented. As a result, the requirements for further development of extended progressive collapse methodologies which can account for damage
will be discussed.
INTRODUCTION
It is important to ensure that the ultimate strength

of a hull girder is sufficient to withstand extreme
combinations of wave induced longitudinal bending
moment. Analyses to estimate the ultimate strength
are a requirement during the design of a new ship
and also may be undertaken to check the residual ultimate strength of a vessel in service. For an ultimate
strength calculation it is usual to assume that a hull
girder acts equivalent to a beam girder, with bending
moment resisted by the longitudinally effective structure including the shell plating, stringers and other
continuous structure. A failure of the hull girder under
primary longitudinal bending moment is usually precipitated by buckling in the compressed portion of
the cross section. Hence the assessment of ultimate
strength must account for the nonlinear behaviour of
the structure under in plane compressive loads.
The ultimate strength of a ship can be compromised if the longitudinal structure is damaged through
accidental or deliberate impact with a foreign object.
Examples include a collision with another vessel and
grounding on a rock in shallow water. Therefore, the
residual ultimate strength of a damaged ship can be an
important criterion to assess in the immediate aftermath of an accident where the hull is ruptured or
excessively distorted. In particular, an estimate of the
residual strength may be important for recoverability
assessment including decisions regarding evacuation

and escape.
The ultimate strength of an as-built ship can be
estimated using several numerical approaches with
varying levels of sophistication. A common method,
recommended by classification society rules such as
IACS CSR, is an incremental approach following the
procedure often known as the Smith method (Smith
1977). This is an efficient and relatively straight forward method which has been established within the
marine industry for several decades. Even simpler
empirical based approaches, such as the Paik-Mansour
equation (Paik et al. 2011), can be used as a first estimate of ultimate strength. A more computationally
intensive approach is to employ a general purpose nonlinear finite element method (NLFEM). This requires
development of an appropriate mesh of the girder
geometry including all the parameters that may affect
the nonlinear behaviour of the structure under bending moment. Whilst computationally expensive and
perhaps unrealistic for real time support of a damaged
vessel, NLFEM is increasingly being used for research
purposes and is often used to validate equivalent
simplified methods.
Both the Smith method and NLFEM can also be
used to estimate the damaged strength of a ship. The
applicability of each method depends on the extent of
the damage and how this affects the inherent simplifications that must be made in the numerical simulation.
305
This paper shows the applicability of both methods to

a relatively simple box girder structure with different
sized cut-outs to represent rupture damage.
BACKGROUND
2.1 Hull girder ultimate strength assessment

The ultimate strength of a hull girder characterises
the capacity of the longitudinally effective structure in
resisting global bending moment. A detailed analysis
of the bending capacity of a hull will usually attempt to
determine a relationship between bending moment and
curvature. A bending momentcurvature plot demonstrates the nonlinear progression of buckling in the
structure up to and beyond the ultimate strength point.
Both the progressive collapse method and NLFEM
produce a deterministic estimate of applied bending
moment as a function of curvature. The peak of the
resulting bending momentcurvature relationship is
then taken to be the ultimate strength of the hull
girder. It must be noted from the outset that both
methods can only produce an estimate of ultimate
strength, and that this measure is subject to significant uncertainty. Any nonlinear structural prediction
tool must include assumptions related to the material
characteristics, physical distortions, residual stresses
and boundary conditions. Because of the complexity
of the structure, recourse must be made to statistical
representations of material properties, imperfection
magnitudes and so on. The variation of these parameters may have a significant effect on the ultimate
capacity of the girder. Progressive collapse results,
including those in this paper, are normally presented as
single curves, with no indication of the level of uncertainty inherent in the result, for example by giving an
indication of an upper and lower bound answer within
a prescribed confidence level. Future research to better quantify the uncertainty in progressive collapse
analysis would be valuable, to give a better appreciation of how to interpret progressive collapse results
and measure correlation between different numerical
studies.
2.2 Progressive collapse methods

The simplified progressive collapse method, often
known as the Smith method, is a well-established simplified approach to determine the ultimate strength of
a prismatic hull girder section placed under combinations of pure longitudinal bending moment.
The method first discretises a cross section of the
ship, usually at or near amidships, into appropriate
elements. Usually each element comprises a single
stiffener with associated attached plating. The nonlinear structural behaviour of each element under
in-plane loads is then formulated, taking into account
the initial imperfections, residual stresses and any secondary load effects, such as lateral pressure, where
appropriate.
Once the behaviour of the discretised elements has

been defined, the method follows an incremental procedure to determine the moment-curvature response
under combinations of vertical and horizontal bending.
This procedure is detailed in numerous papers (Dow
1997) and is a recommended approach to determine
ultimate strength in class society rules, including IACS
Common Structural Rules (CSR) where it is known as
the incremental-iterative approach.
The standard interframe Smith Method is based on
three core assumptions (Smith 1977):
Plane sections remain plane

Panel buckling is wholly interframe
Individual elements act in isolation to resist in plane
loads
ProColl, a progressive collapse program developed

at Newcastle University, is used in the current study.
ProColl uses the Smith method formulations originally
proposed by Dow (Dow 1997) and has been further
developed to account for both overall (compartment
level) and interframe buckling modes (Benson et al.
2011). Although specifically developed to account
for the collapse modes of lightweight structures built
from aluminium alloy, ProColl is a general purpose
program and is equally suitable for predicting the
strength of conventional steel hulls and box girders.
Both interframe and compartment level analyses are
completed in the present study. Therefore a summary
of the extended progressive collapse approach is given
below. More complete details regarding the extended
method can be found in other papers by the authors
(Benson et al. 2011; Benson 2011).
The extended method removes the assumptions of
interframe buckling and independence between elements. The cross section of interest is first discretised
into elements in the same manner as for the interframe
approach. However, each element is also assigned to
a representative orthogonal stiffened panel definition.
For example, each plate and stiffener element making
up a regular stiffened deck are defined as separate elements but are also assigned to the same panel set,
which describes the overall properties of the panel
including the number of longitudinal stiffeners, number of transverse frames and the dimensions of the
frames. These panel sets are distinct from the discretised elements they have no physical presence in the
cross section.
Once the section is defined, comprising numerous
plate and stiffener elements grouped into panel sets,
the extended method is executed.
Firstly, the load shortening behaviour of each
panel set is calculated following a semi-analytical
orthotropic plate method, which is described in further detail by Benson et al. (2010). The semi analytical
method derives a non-dimensionalised load shortening curve for each panel. The effect of imperfections,
residual stresses and specific material properties are
accounted for within the semi analytical formulations.
The method is able to predict both overall and interframe buckling of a panel depending on which mode
306
dominates. The algorithm achieves this by progressively increasing the number of frames and repeating
the calculation process. Thus the orthogonal panel
load shortening curve may differ significantly from
the equivalent interframe curve.
The derived load shortening curve for each panel is
allocated to all the elements assigned to that panel. The
progressive collapse analysis solver is then invoked.
This follows the formulations as described by Benson
et al. (2011). The base formulations are essentially the
same as the standard progressive collapse approach.
However, the assumption that buckling is wholly interframe is no longer applied because the load shortening
curve includes both interframe and gross buckling
modes of the equivalent orthogonal panel.
ProColl is able to calculate both the standard interframe and extended progressive collapse behaviour of
a girder using the same fundamental approach. An
interframe analysis is completed using the same procedure as described above but with the number of
frame spaces set to one. This reverts the prediction of
load shortening curves to interframe, thus producing a
standard progressive collapse analysis. The extended
progressive collapse option is invoked by including the
number of frame spaces, which are normally set to the
number of frame spaces between adjacent bulkheads,
i.e. a single compartment.
Henceforth, in this paper, the standard progressive collapse method is referred to as the interframe
method, whilst the extended progressive collapse
method is referred to as the compartment method.
2.3
Nonlinear Finite Element Method (NLFEM)
The application of NLFEM to determine the ultimate

strength of a hull girder has been increasingly used in
the research community, primarily as a validation of
equivalent simplified methods but also in its own right
to determine the effects of different load combinations
on ultimate strength.
The setup of an appropriate NLFEM model for
hull girder ultimate strength analysis requires detailed
knowledge of the geometric distortions, heat affected
zones and residual stresses which are present in the
as-built structure. The imperfections inherently vary,
and must therefore be modelled by statistical representations. The structure may be sensitive to the
magnitude and distribution of the imperfections, and
thus the results from the analysis must be interpreted
within this context. Several research papers have
described techniques for using NLFEM for large scale
ultimate strength analyses of ship sections (Benson
et al. 2012b; Kippenes et al. 2010; Amlashi & Moan
2008).
From an analysis perspective, NLFEM requires
considerable computer time both in setting up and
solving the discrete model. Elements must be sized
sufficiently small to represent the local structure
including stiffeners and plating adequately. The element mesh for an entire hull girder is therefore large.
Methods to introduce residual stresses and geometric
distortions often need to be applied external to the

FEM software, adding a further layer of complexity to
the setup process.
2.4
Effects of damage
The term damage, through either intentional or accidental means, encompasses a wide range of scenarios
for a ship structure, including localised damage to a
single plate or stiffener through to severe damage of
a large portion of the hull girder. In the present study,
we consider damage which may be caused through
collision, grounding, hydrodynamic impact or intentional explosion loading if the ship is attacked. In any
event, the extent of the damage on the shell plating
around the impact zone is considered extensive enough
to have a significant effect on the global strength of the
girder.
The extent and type of damage due to an unintended
impact load may vary considerably depending on the
severity of the impact and how the impact energy is
absorbed by the structure. In some cases, damage to a
ship may cause rupture or severe deformation of the
shell plating in the impact zone. However, in other
cases, damage may be less severe; an impact load may
cause deformation of the plates and stiffeners but with
no rupture. In the former case, it can be considered that
the ruptured structure becomes completely ineffective
at resisting in-plane load. In the latter case, such an
assumption may be overly conservative. The damaged
plating is likely to still retain some residual strength;
although reduced from the intact value. In both cases,
the damage is likely to reduce in severity with increasing distance from the impact zone. The impact is also
likely to induce large stresses in the area around the
impact zone, which can also then significantly affect
the in plane strength of the plates and stiffeners.
2.5
Estimating damage strength with section

modulus or area
A simple approach to account for the loss in strength

due to damage effects is to recalculate either the area
or the section modulus of the girder for a section
through the damage region. The damaged area is simply removed from the cross section and the modulus (or
area) is then recalculated and compared with the intact
value. Thus the ultimate strength could be evaluated
as directly proportional to the section modulus. Programs such as HECSALV/POSSE follow this simple
approach to give an immediate assessment of damage strength. The approach is only able to deal with
2D cross sections and thus frame damage cannot be
accounted for.
If using the cross section area (A) as a reference, the
expression to estimate the damaged bending moment
strength would be:
307
If using the section modulus (SM), the expression

to estimate the damaged bending moment strength
would be:
In both cases, the intact bending moment must be

calculated using another method. In the present study
the intact bending moment predicted by the interframe
Smith method is used.
2.6
Representation of damage in the progressive

collapse method
Both the interframe and compartment progressive collapse method can be used directly for the estimation of
damage strength, i.e. with no modification to the core
formulations. However, the ability to represent damage within the method has certain limitations which,
as will be demonstrated in the results section of this
paper, can inhibit the reliability of the approach to predict the residual ultimate strength. In particular, the
behaviour of the portion of the cross section placed
under compressive load may be altered significantly
by the presence of damage, which is difficult to capture
accurately in the simplified method.
A damaged zone is introduced by either removing
elements entirely, representing rupture of the shell,
or modifying the load shortening properties of elements which are judged to have been damaged. The
damage is therefore assumed to extend throughout
the length of the section. For the interframe method,
this assumption dictates that damage affects the entire
frame bay. For the compartment method, the damage is assumed to extend the entire length of the
compartment. These assumptions may be limiting for
representing the actual effect of damage.
The assumption that elements act independently
means that, whilst this is a relatively simple procedure, it can often be difficult to accurately determine
the appropriate elements to remove. Furthermore, it
is difficult to determine the strength effect on elements immediately adjacent to the damage hole that
is created by element removal. Some studies have
applied knock down factors to load shortening curves,
but inevitably the determination of the damage extent
is subjective and based on visual inspection of the
damage.
For the interframe method, the damage zone is
necessarily limited to a single frame space. Thus,
the interframe method may not properly account for
damage extending over several bays. Furthermore, if
damage extends over several frame spaces, the loss of
the transverse frame support to the remaining elements
is not accounted for. Therefore, a cut-out, such as is
shown in Figure 1, can only be represented as an interframe phenomenon. The loss of continuity of the two
central transverse frames is not easily accounted for.
The compartment method is, at present, also relatively limited in its representation of damage. If
Figure 1. Panel with cut-out. The areas assumed to be

damaged for a progressive collapse analysis are highlighted.
damage is confined to a small area, such as the cutout from the example panel illustrated in Figure 1, the
effect of the damage on the load shortening behaviour
of the remaining panel structure can only be represented rather simplistically. Firstly, if the elements
in the damaged zone of the cross section are removed,
the cut-out is then automatically assumed to extend
the entire length of the compartment. However, as can
be seen in Figure 1, this means that the remaining
structure in the damaged zone (i.e. within the central
rectangle of the diagram) must be assumed to have no
effect on the strength of the panel. This is equivalent to
using a damage shadow projecting from the ruptured
region.
Furthermore, the estimation of the load shortening
behaviour of the remaining elements in the panel (i.e.
the elements in the two outer rectangles in Figure 1)
becomes difficult. In the present study, it is assumed
that the undamaged elements have identical load shortening behaviour as the equivalent intact panel. This
therefore assumes that the damage zone has no effect
on the adjacent elements. In reality, the load shortening
behaviour of the panel as a whole may be fundamentally altered by the presence of damage. For example,
the damage will change the support conditions at the
edges of the hole which could potentially alter the
buckling mode of the remaining structure. In particular, damage to one or more transverse frames may
fundamentally decrease their support, with a higher
potential for overall buckling modes to dominate the
collapse characteristics of the panel.
The implementation of a more comprehensive treatment of damage within the simplified progressive
collapse method is an on-going effort of the authors.
Therefore, the treatment of damage within the progressive collapse method is expected to be advanced
considerably and is hopefully to be developed in future
publications by the authors.
2.7 Representation of damage in NLFEM
NLFEM has been used extensively for the simulation
of damage events in many engineering fields. Explicit
solvers enable crash analyses such as ship collision
and grounding to be modelled with some confidence.
However, the entire simulation is numerically intensive and does not lend itself to multiple parametric
analyses investigating the effects of damage extent.
A simpler approach is to represent rupture damage
308
Figure 4. Transverse frame dimensions for both box girders.
were taken to be double the longitudinal size, as shown

in Figure 4.
Figure 2. Small box dimensions.
3.2 NLFEM modelling
Figure 3. Large box dimensions.
with an equivalent hole, or cut-out, which is relatively

simple to develop in a finite element model. The cutout approach is adopted in this study and is explained
further in the next section.
METHODOLOGY
This paper compares the results from both NLFEM

and simplified progressive collapse analysis of several
box girders with parametric changes in rupture damage
extent. The methodology is now presented.
3.1
Box girders
Two representative box girders were defined. The

dimensions of the box girders were carefully chosen to
produce representative panels with typical slenderness
parameters used in UK naval vessels. The material is
steel with yield stress of 245 MPa andYoungs modulus
210 GPa. Standard tee bar stiffeners, with dimensions
equal to an Admiralty long stalk (ALS3), are used
throughout both girders. Stiffeners are spaced 600 mm
apart. The top and bottom flanges are specified with
plate thickness 8 mm, giving a b/t ratio of75 and
slenderness ratio, , of 2.6 (where = b/t Y /E).
The side flanges are specified with a thicker plate of
10 mm, giving a b/t ratio of 60 and of 2.1. Sketches
of the overall dimensions of the box are shown in
Figures 2 and 3.
The size of the transverse frames can be important
when considering both overall and interframe buckling
modes. For this study, the transverse frame dimensions
ABAQUS CAE was used for all finite element analyses. The general modelling approach follows the
methodology described in Benson et al. (2012b),
which describes a robust process for generating a mesh
model suitable for a progressive collapse analysis. The
mesh includes statistical average levels of initial
imperfections and residual stresses caused by welding at the plate-stiffener intersections. Only a brief
summary of the imperfections is included here for
brevity, a more detailed description of the methodology used to model imperfections can be found in the
above reference.
Imperfection of the plates, stiffeners and panels
comprise multi-mode Fourier half sine wave distribution to incorporate a realistic distortion with critical
buckling mode shapes. The unstiffened plate spans
are modelled with an initial imperfection amplitude
of wopl = 0.12 t. The imperfection shape is a combination of a single half wave and a square half wave
(where the half wave length is equal to the plate width),
with 80% and 20% of the total imperfection amplitude respectively. Imperfection of the stiffeners and the
panel column imperfection are also introduced using
a similar approach, with side imperfection amplitude,
wos = 0.002a and column imperfection amplitude,
wos = 0.001a.
A tensile residual stress zone is included in all
NLFEM models (except where noted in the results
section). Residual stress is modelled by assigning an
initial stress condition to appropriate section points in
the mesh. The zone extends 25 mm from each weld
joint over the plates and the longitudinals, with stress
vector in the longitudinal direction only. The tensile residual stress is assumed to equal 95% of yield
(233 MPa). A uniform, self-equilibrating, compressive
stress is calculated and assigned to the areas of structure outside the weld zone. The compressive zone is
assumed to only extend into the stiffener webs.
The small box was modelled with 5 bays and the
large box with 7 bays. Imperfection is only introduced
into the central bays to ensure buckling nucleates away
from the boundaries. Boundary conditions to induce a
pure longitudinal bending moment over the girder are
specified as shown in Figure 5. Note that the reference
point in Figure 5 is not required to be positioned on
the neutral axis of the box. The instantaneous neutral
309
Figure 5. Example NLFEM model with elliptical cut-out

representing damage, showing boundary conditions at each
end.
axis is calculated automatically by ABAQUS at each

increment.
When modelled without damage, the box girders
are referred to as intact. Damage is represented by
a simple cut-out from the otherwise intact structure,
as shown in Figure 5. Details of the cut-out extents are
described in the results section of this paper.
A mesh convergence study was carried out and an
appropriate mesh element length of 50 mm chosen.
Both static-implicit (Riks arc length) and dynamicexplicit solvers were tested for their suitability and
robustness. Load must be applied slowly in the explicit
analysis to minimise dynamic effects and produce an
equivalent quasi-static result. This means the computation time is longer than the equivalent Riks analysis. However, results were found to correlate closely
between the two solvers, although some issues with
convergence were occasionally found to occur for the
Riks solver, resulting in analyses either terminating
or the load direction reversing. Therefore, the explicit
solver was used in place of Riks for the instances where
convergence difficulties were found.
3.3
ProColl modelling
ProColl utilises a simple interface to run interframe

and overall progressive collapse analyses. The girder
is represented by a cross section, which is subdivided
into appropriate elements. In this study, each plate and
stiffener was modelled as a separate element. The regular construction of the box girders means that only two
load shortening curves are required, one for the top and
bottom flanges and the other for the side flanges.
Damage is modelled by removing the plate and
stiffener elements consistent with the maximum width
wise extent of the cut-out. Where the cut-out extends
over part of a plate element, the element size is adjusted
to make an accurate cut-out size.
4
4.1
RESULTS
Intact cases
Bending moment curvature plots for the intact small

and large box girder are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7
respectively.
Figure 6. Small box girder, intact, vertical bending

momentcurvature relationship.
Figure 7. Large box girder, intact, vertical bending

momentcurvature relationship.
The small box was analysed with and without residual stresses to demonstrate its effect on the collapse
behaviour. Comparing the two NLFEM results, it can
be seen that including residual stress has a minimal
effect on the ultimate strength of the box but has a
relatively significant effect on the bending stiffness.
Thus, the box with residual stress is effectively more
flexible than the equivalent with no residual stress.
This finding is important to point out not only
because it affects the intact case, but also because it
is potentially a relevant and significant factor which
could affect the behaviour of the box when damaged.
An actual impact scenario causing rupture is inevitably
going to cause severe residual stress in the damaged
area. Another study (Benson et al., in press) has indicated that the region immediately around the ruptured
hole is predominantly stressed in tension, with the
remaining structure placed in a smaller compressive
equilibrating stress. This is then shown to have a significant effect on the strength of a box girder. Thus, the
results in this study for damage cases must be viewed
with a degree of caution, as they may not be truly
representative of actual damage.
The ProColl result for the small box girder predicts
an almost identical ultimate strength and predicts a
bending stiffness quite similar to the NLFEM results
up to the collapse point. The ProColl analysis predicts
identical bending moment behaviour in overall and
310
Figure 9. Bending momentcurvature, NLFEM, with different transverse cut-out extents.

Figure 8. Sketch of transverse cut-outs in the central bay to
represent damage, B = 4800 mm and 12600 mm for the small
box and the large box respectively.
interframe modes, indicating that collapse is entirely

interframe. ProColl also predicts a smooth collapse
behaviour, demonstrated by a shallow transition from
the pre collapse stiffness to ultimate strength and then
post collapse. This is more akin to the residual stress
NLFEM result, and is expected because the ProColl
load panel shortening curves are formulated assuming
average levels of imperfection and residual stress.
The large box post collapse behaviour is also similar
for both analysis methods. The ProColl result indicates that the box fails with an overall collapse mode.
Therefore, the compartment method result is a more
appropriate representation of the box girder collapse
behaviour.
4.2
Figure
10. Bending
momentcurvature,
ProCollInterframe, with different transverse cut-out extents.
Small box transverse damage extent
All analyses presented in this paper show damage at

the centre of the girder. Further work by the authors is
continuing to investigate asymmetrical damage and the
suitability of the simplified methods to predict these
effects.
Five NLFEM analyses were undertaken with a systematic variation in the extent of the transverse cut-out,
as shown in Figure 8. The longitudinal extent was kept
constant at 1440 mm (30% of the box width). The
smallest cut-out modelled was a crack of 64 mm
width. The width was chosen to be equivalent with
the mesh size used in the NLFEM analyses. All other
cut-outs were modelled as ellipses, with length proportional to the width of 1/3, 2/3, 1 and 2 times the
cut-out width respectively.
Bending moment curvature plots for the NLFEM
analyses of the crack, circle and ellipse 3 are shown in
Figure 9. The plots from equivalent ProColl analyses
are given in Figure 10.
The results are predominantly similar between
the two methods. As expected, the ultimate strength
reduces significantly as the hole extent is increased.
The bending stiffness is also reduced, which is demonstrated by the shallower gradient of the curve prior to
the ultimate strength being attained. In ProColl, the
Figure 11. Example NLFEM plot for the ellipse 3 model

post collapse, displacement magnification 5.
undamaged elements behave identically whether there

is a damage zone or the box is intact. Therefore, apart
from the change in initial stiffness, the general forms
of the curves are identical. The NLFEM results show
that the curves for the larger damage extents flatten
out compared to the intact result. This suggests that
the behaviour of the elements close to the cut-out have
slightly changed behaviour. A plot of a buckled box
girder in Figure 11 shows that the collapse is entirely
interframe.
A plot of the ultimate strength as a function of
the transverse damage extent is shown in Figure 12.
The plot compares the NLFEM and ProColl results
together with the simple direct calculation methods
using the ratio of damaged to intact cross section area
and section modulus.
311
Figure 12. Ultimate strength as a function of damage width.
It can be seen that, whilst the area ratio method

over predicts the ultimate strength, the section modulus ratio method closely tracks the ProColl results. The
discontinuities in the curve are a result of the cut-out
reaching a longitudinal stiffener, which causes a relatively large drop in area for a small increase in hole
extent.
The comparison between ProColl and NLFEM
shows a significant difference when a very small
damage is introduced. As expected, removing a very
small amount of cross section has a minimal effect
on the ProColl result. However, it has a fairly significant effect on the NLFEM analysis, with the ultimate
strength dropping by approximately 6%. After this initial drop, the gradient of the NLFEM relationship is
similar to ProColl. This suggests that, whilst buckling
of the top flange remains interframe, the fundamental
behaviour of the panel changes due to the presence
of the damage. This includes changes to the boundary conditions of the panel due to the presence of the
damage.
4.3
Figure 13. Sketch of longitudinal cut-outs in the central bay

to represent damage, small box only.
Figure 14. Bending momentcurvature, NLFEM and ProColl, different longitudinal cut-out extents.
Small box longitudinal damage extent
Analyses were also undertaken for a parametric

series of cut-outs where the longitudinal extent was
increased, as shown in Figure 13.
The results, plotted in Figure 14, show that, for the
small box, the longitudinal size of the cut-out has a
minimal effect on the ultimate strength. The ProColl
result compares reasonably with the NLFEM, with
a larger ultimate strength predicted for the reasons
explained in the previous section.
4.4
Large box transverse damage
The transverse cut-outs for the large box girder are the
same proportional size as for the small box as shown
in Figure 8.
The results from NLFEM and ProColl compartment
method are shown in Figures 15 and 16 respectively.
The ProColl curves show a similar pattern to the small
box girder results, with the curve shape relatively
unaffected by the presence of damage. Therefore, the
transition over the peak remains relatively sharp. However, the NLFEM curves show that, with damage
Figure 15. Bending momentcurvature, NLFEM, with different transverse cut-out extents.
present, the collapse curve is significantly shallower

than for the intact case.
As has already been shown for the intact results, the
ProColl overall analysis predicts lower strength than
the interframe method, indicating some influence of an
overall collapse mode. This is reflected at all levels of
damage extent, as can be seen in the plot of Figure 17.
This shows a similar pattern to the small box girder,
312
Figure 16. Bending momentcurvature, ProColl (compartment method), with different transverse cut-out extents.
Figure 19. Bending momentcurvature, NLFEM, different
longitudinal cut-out extents.
Figure 17. Ultimate strength as a function of damage width.

Figure 20. Example NLFEM plot for Ellipse 3 model post
collapse. Displacement magnification 5.
NLFEM plot in Figure 20 shows the bucking pattern

at collapse for the Ellipse 2 result. This highlights the
combination of interframe and multi-frame nucleation
of the buckling. It can be seen that whilst buckling
has nucleated into the central bay, an overall mode is
also present stretching across the entire length of the
cut-out.
Figure 18. Sketch of longitudinal cut-outs in the central bay

to represent damage, large box only.
with an initial sharp drop in strength predicted by the

NLFEM results.
4.5
Large box longitudinal damage
The longitudinal cut-outs for the large box girder are

as shown in Figure 18.
The resulting load shortening curves, presented in
Figure 19, show a similar ultimate strength for all
cases studied, although the ultimate strength does
drop slightly as the cut-out length increases. The only
noticeable difference in the results is the reduced stiffness of the cases with larger cut-out sizes. The 3D
CONCLUSIONS
This study has presented the results from equivalent finite element and simplified progressive collapse
analyses for two box girders subject to various degrees
of damage. Damage is represented by simple cut-outs.
The findings show that, whilst the progressive collapse method makes good agreement to the equivalent
finite element results when the girders are intact, the
damaged results show some significant differences.
In particular, the strength of the girder with a very
thin crack along the centreline of the compressed
flange shows a sharp drop in strength when analysed
using NLFEM. In comparison, the progressive collapse result shows only a slight drop in strength. Apart
from this discrepancy, the results then show a similar
relationship between ultimate strength and the size of
the transverse cut-out extent. The sharp loss in strength
can be attributed to the change in boundary conditions
caused by the presence of a damage cut-out. This is
unaccounted for in the simplified progressive collapse
method.
313
The results of this study must be viewed with

caution in their representation of an actual damage scenario. Rupture damage of the extent studied here will
cause a variety of complicating effects which have the
potential to significantly affect the ultimate strength
capacity of the girder.
Firstly, the rupture is unlikely to form a neat hole
such as is represented by a cut-out. The extent of the
structure which becomes completely ineffective is difficult to assess. Furthermore, some structure adjacent
to the hole will be distorted but still contribute to
the longitudinal strength. It is much more difficult to
properly assess this for an equivalent simplified analysis. Inevitably, a conservative estimate of the damage
extent would be a prudent approach to take.
Secondly, an impact causing rupture will impart
a significant degree of residual stress into the structure, with high levels of stress concentrated around
the rupture area. This may have a significant effect on
the ultimate capacity. Presently, simplified methods
cannot account for these effects.
It is hoped that future research in this area will further understanding as to how damage should be treated
in equivalent simplified progressive collapse analyses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was performed under an Office of Naval
Research grant. The authors would like to thank ONR
for their continuing support of this work.
REFERENCES
Amlashi, H.K.K. & Moan, T. 2008. Ultimate strength analysis of a bulk carrier hull girder under alternate hold
loading condition A case study: Part 1: Nonlinear
finite element modelling and ultimate hull girder capacity.

Benson, S. 2011. Progressive collapse assessment of
lightweight ship structures. PhD Thesis, Newcastle University, UK.
Benson, S.; AbuBakar, A. & Dow, R.S. in press. A comparison of computational methods to predict the progressive
collapse behaviour of a damaged box girder. Engineering
Structures.
Benson, S.; Downes, J. & Dow, R.S. 2010. A semi analytical method to predict the ultimate strength and collapse behaviour of orthogonally stiffened panels. In: 11th
and Other Floating Structures. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil:
COPPE/UFRJ.
Benson, S.; Downes, J. & Dow, R.S. 2011. A comparison
of numerical methods to predict the progressive collapse of lightweight aluminium vessels. In: Proceedings of
11th International Conference on Fast SeaTransportation.
Honolulu, Hawaii. ASNE.
Benson, S.; Downes, J. & Dow, R.S. 2012. An automated
finite element methodology for hull girder progressive
collapse analysis. In: Proc. 13th International Marine
Design Conference. Glasgow, UK.
Dow, R.S. 1997. Structural redundancy and damage tolerance in relation to ultimate ship hull strength. Advances
in Marine Structures 3.
Kippenes, J.; Notaro, G.; Amlashi, H. & Steen, E. 2010. Ultimate strength of cape size bulk carrier under alternate
hold loading. In: 11th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures. Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil: COPPE/UFRJ.
Paik, J.K.; Kim, D.K.; Park, D.H.; Kim, H.B.; Mansour,
A.E. & Caldwell, J.B. 2011. Modified Paik-Mansour
Formula for Ultimate Strength Calculations of Ship Hulls.
In: Advances in Marine Structures, Hamburg, Germany.
CRC Press.
Smith, C.S. 1977. Influence of local compressive failure on
ultimate longitudinal strength of a ships hull. In Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures. In:
and Other Floating Structures. Tokyo, Japan.
314
The analysis and comparison of double side skin crashworthiness

A.Y.F. Gong & J.X. Liu
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, Hubei, P.R. China
B.S.M. Xiao & N. Wang

China Classfication Society, Rules and Research Institute, Wuhan, Hubei, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: The collision damage characteristic of inner and outer shell structure of double side skin ship
is discussed in detail by simplified analysis method as per the crashworthiness test result on the basis of scaled
stiffened plate model, and the collision damage characteristics of inner and outer shell structure are comparably
analyzed. The research indicates that, for the inner and outer shell structures, some distinct differences exist
in the progressive damage process and damage pattern (mode) though their crashworthiness capacities are not
apparently different. These conclusions provide certain guidance to the design of reinforcement of side structure
of double side skin vessels.
INTRODUCTION
With the increase of ship speeds and the total number of ships sailing at sea, collisions and grounding
accidents seem inevitable. Liberia oil tanker EXXON
VALDEZ leaked 108 million gallons of crude oil due
to its grounding at US Alaska sea area on 24th March
1989. This disaster led to the legislation of Oil Pollution Act (1990), which requires all oil tanks navigating
in US maritime region should utilize double side skin
structure by the year 2015 to prevent collision and
grounding. Therefore, the Crashworthiness characteristics of double side skin structure are one major part
in ship collision research field (Hu Z.Q. et al, 2005).
In the past few decades, researchers around the
world have completed numerous theoretical work, test
investigation and numerical analysis, and great progresses are achieved (Wisniewski et al, 2003; Sren
et al, 2010; Hu Z.Q. et al, 2011). In terms of the performance of ship, the side stiffeners of double side skin
ship are arranged inside double hull. As a result, the
collision conditions of striking ship bulbous bow and
stiffened inner and outer shell plates of struck ship
are not identical. For the outer shell stiffened plate,
the bulbous bow firstly collides on shell plate. As for
the stiffened inner shell plate, the bulbous bow firstly
collides on stiffeners. Hence, to identify the collision
damage characteristic differences of inner shell and
outer shell structure of double side skin ship is a valuable research point to which has not had any literature
to be published as far.
This paper starts with the crashworthiness model
test of inner and outer shell structure of double side
skin ship to explore the collision damage characteristic in detail. Then simplified method proposed by
literature (Zhuang K.T. et al, 2011) is employed to analyze the model of stiffened plates of inner and outer
shells. The results show that the resistance obtained
by the simplified analytical method is close to the
mean values of the resistance curves obtained by tests.
Some meaningful conclusions are obtained. These
conclusions could provide the certain guidance to the
design of reinforcement of side structure of double hull
vessels.
CRASHWORTHINESS TEST OF INNER

AND OUTER SHELL STRUCTURE
OF DOUBLE SIDE SKIN SHIP
Scaled models of inner and outer shell structure are

as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The plate length
and width is 1200 mm and 1000 mm, respectively. The
thickness is 3.6 mm (actual thickness). The stiffeners
are spaced equally apart. The stiffeners are flat bar
70 4.4 mm. The 4-FB has stiffeners spaced 240 mm
apart. The diameter of spherical indenter simulated as
bulbous bow is 500 mm. Model boundaries are welded
to a strong frame to simulate a rigid clamped boundary
condition. Figure 3 presents the engineering strainstress curve of plate and stiffeners, respectively.Table 1
presents the yield stress y , the fracture stress b , the
average plastic flow stress 0 (0 = 12 (y + b )), and
the fracture strain u from the shell plate material and
stiffener material.
The test device general plan of scaled inner and
outer shell structure model is illustrated as Figure 4.
The objective of the test is mainly to attain the collision
force-indentation curve (P-w0 curve).
315
Figure 1. Scaled outer shell structure model diagram.
Figure 2. Scaled inner shell structure model diagram.
Due to the limitation of the stroke range of the

hydraulic jack, unloading had to be conducted after
about 160 mm deformation, before the experiment was
continued. Fristly, the external compressive load P
increases gradually from 0 until a prescribed value, say
700 kN. The plate is then unloaded slowly to 0, then
the second loading is followed. The external compressive load P increases gradually from 0 until the plate
failed by rupture.
2.1
Experimental result of outer shell plate model
Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrates collision forceindentation curve (P-w0 curve) and energy absorptionindentation curve (E-w0 curve, which is obtained by
integrating forceindentation curve) of outer shell
plate model. Figure 6 is the fracture photo of outer
shell. It can be seen in Figure 7 that the collision
damage of stiffened shell plate is firstly the relatively
obvious transverse deformation occurred at area of
middle two stiffeners, then deformation of whole panel
becomes bigger with the increase of indentation depth
until the shell panel fracture arises. The fracture point
is at the stiffener welding seam in way of middle area.
2.2
Experimental result of inner shell plate model
Figure 8 and Figure 9 illustrates collision forceindentation curve (P-w0 curve), and energy
Figure 3. Engineering strain-stress curve of plate and

stiffener.
absorption-indentation curve (E-w0 curve) of stiffened

inner side shell plate model. Figure 10 is the fracture
photo of inner shell plate. As can be seen in Figure 10,
once the spherical indenter contacts the stiffeners on
316
Table 1. The mechanical properties of model materials.

Structural
members
y
(MPa)
b
(MPa)
u
(%)
Shell plate
Stiffener
312
255.5
467
396.5
22.5
24.4
Figure 6. Energy absorption-indention curve for outer shell

structure.
Figure 4. The experimental setup: illustrates the rigging

(rig, hydraulic jack and test component).
Figure 5. Forceindentation curve for outer shell structure.
shell plate, the stiffeners go into the lateral extrusion

deformation stage (Fig. 10a), which is same as the
corresponding early flat stage of P-w0 curve shown
in Figure 8. And when the spherical indenter contacts the inner shell plate, its P-w0 curve is similar to
that of stiffened outer shell plate. The collision force
approximately indicates a linear relation with indentation depth. The fracture of stiffened inner shell plate
structure model firstly occurs at the end of middle two
stiffeners (Fig. 10b), subsequently occurs at inner shell
Figure 7. Indentation of outer shell.
plate middle area of long edge boundary of stiffeners (Fig. 10c). The corresponding maximum collision
force and indentation depth are 840 KN, and 181.4 mm
respectively.
317
Figure 8. Forceindentation curve for inner shell structure.
Figure 9. Energy absorption-indention curve for inner shell

structure.
3.1
SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF
CRASHWORTHINESS OF INNER AND
OUTER SHELL STRUCTURE
Crashworthiness analysis of outer shell
structure
The theoretical calculation method proposed by literature (Zhuang K.T. et al, 2011) is utilized for the simplified analysis of outer shell structure model subjected
to the collision of spherical indenter. The basic perception of this simplified analysis method is to firstly
confirm the global damage model and gradual damage
process of side structure of single hull ship, then calculate the energy absorption of each single component
(shell plate and stiffener), and finally accumulate each
energy absorption number to obtain general energy
absorbed by side structures. The premise of rationality
of this simplified analysis method is that the collision
damage model of side structures is merely global damage. The experimental and numerical results of shell
plate subjected to the collision of spherical indenter
shows that the deformation of shell plate is basically in
Figure 10. Indentation of inner shell.
axial-symmetric state before fracture failure. In addition, boundaries of shell plate usually are supported
by the strong components. Therefore it is reasonable
to regard the shell plate as a clamped circular plate
in ship collision analysis. This greatly simplifies the
collision analysis of shell plate. Fig. 12 indicates the
geometry model for outer shell structure collided by
318
Figure 13. Definition sketch of simplified analysis model

for stiffeners of outer shell plate.
where a0 is half width of short edge of the plate,

a0 = 500 mm; w0 is the transverse deformation at
the time that rupture of outer shell plate occurs,
w0 = 152 mm; and R is the radius of spherical indenter, R = 250 mm.
Substituting the w0 , R and a0 to Equ. (1), then can
be obtained. Substituting value to Equ. (2)
for outer shell structure.
where t is the plate thickness. Then maximum collision

force value P0 can be obtained at the time that rupture
of outer shell plate occurs, P0 = 791 kN.
The energy formula E0 can be derived by integrating
the collision force P with indentation
Then the plastic deformation energy absorbed by

outer shell plate can be obtained, E0 = 57 kJ.
Figure 12. Simplified analysis model for outer shell.
spherical indenter. The radius of the sphere is R and

R1 is the radius of spheical indenter at middle two
stiffeners.
3.1.1 The collision force and energy absorbed by
outer shell plate
Figure 12 indicates the simplified analysis geometry
model for outer shell. The problem is considered to be
axis-symmetric and the deformation is described in a
(w, r)-coordinate system where w and r are the vertical
and the radial coordinates, respectively. The rotational
angle of the plate at the clamped end is . The plate is
in contact with the indenter from the center to point B.
The vertical punch force is P0.
According to the geometrical relation of Fig.12, the
plate midpoint deflection can be written as (Wang Ge
et al, 1998; Zhuang K.T. et al, 2011):
3.1.2 The collision force and energy absorbed by

stiffeners of outer plate structure
Figure 13 indicates the simplified analysis geometry
model for stiffeners of outer shell structure. The rotational angle of the stiffener at the clamped end is 1 .
The radius of the sphere is R1 . The vertical punch force
is P1 .
According to the geometrical relation of Fig. 13,
the stiffener midpoint deflection can be written as
As per the geometry relation of outer shell stiffener

structure, the radius of spherical indenter at middle
two stiffeners is R1 = 219.3 mm, half-length of stiffeners is L = 500 mm. When outer shell plate comes
to a rupture, the transverse deformation of middle
two stiffeners is w1 = 121.3 mm and thus 1 can be
obtained.
Substituting 1 to the collision force Equation (5)
319
Figure 14. Comparison of force-indention curve.
Figure 15. Comparison of energy absorption-indention

curve.
where N0 is the plastic membrane force of a stiffener, N0 = 0 F; and F is the area of stiffener. Then the
collision force of stiffener can be obtained, P1 = 51 kN.
The energy formula E1 can be derived by integrating
the Equ. (5) with indentation w
Table 2. Comparison of outer shell plate model theoretical

calculation and test results.
Then the plastic deformation energy absorbed by

of stiffener can be obtained, E1 = 3 kJ.
Outer shell
model plate
Collision
force P
(kN)
Indentation
w0 (mm)
Energy
absorption
E(kJ)
Experiment results
Simplified method
880
893
152
152
59
63
3.1.3 Outer shell structure collision calculation

The collision force of outer shell structure can be
written as:
The plastic deformation energy absorbed by outer

shell structure can be calculated by:
Figure 14 and Figure 15 illustrates collision force

indention curve and energy absorptionindention
curve by simplified analysis of outer shell structure
model. It can be seen that the agreement between the
simplified method and the experiment result is good.
Table 2 shows the comparison of experiment results
and simplified analysis results that rupture of outer
shell plate model occurs. It can be seen that there has
very small differences.
3.2
Crashworthiness analysis of inner shell

structure
The collision damage of inner shell structure model

mainly consists of two stages. First stage is the contact of spherical indenter and stiffeners, which causes

for inner shell structure.
lateral deformation of stiffeners. Second stage is contact of spherical indenter and inner shell plate, which
causes global deformation of inner shell structure. Figure 16 indicates the geometry model for inner shell
structure collided by spherical indenter.
3.2.1 First stage analysis of inner shell structure
The first stage collision damage of inner shell structure under striking of spherical indenter is the extrusion deformation (lateral deformation of stiffener) of
middle two stiffeners. To simplify the analysis, the
calculation model at this stage is simplified to be a cantilever rectangle plate which bears linear load. When
the collision force reaches limit load PL of cantilever
rectangle plate, end section of plate will enter plastic
flow stage (form plastic hinge line). Middle two stiffeners become lateral deformation under the action of
limit load PL Since the simplified assumption of flow
320
stress is employed, the force-indention curve at this

stage is to be a straight line. Plastic bending-moment
M0 of stiffener end section is calculated by formula (7)
where h is stiffener thickness; and 2L is stiffener

length.
Limit load PL is calculated by formula (8)
where l is the height of stiffener.

Therefore, the collision force that two middle two
stiffeners bear at the end of first stage can be obtained
P11 = 47 KN. In accordance with geometry relation,
the indentation depth of first stage is 39.3 mm and
the energy absorbed by stiffener can be obtained,
E11 = 2.185 kJ.
Figure 17. Comparison of force-indention curve attained by

inner shell plate test and simplified analysis.
3.2.2 Second stage analysis of inner shell structure

When spherical indenter touches inner shell plate, the
collision damage deformation of stiffened inner shell
plate goes into second stage. The collision analysis of
this stage is same as that of outer shell structure.
3.2.2.1 Inner shell plate calculation
In accordance with the model test result and geometry
relation, the first stage indentation depth is 39.3 mm;
therefore, the indentation depth that inner shell plate
starts rupture is:
Then, collision force of inner plate can be obtained

by Equation (2), P0 = 733 KN.
The energy absorbed by inner plate can be obtained
by Equation (3). E0 = 56 KJ.
3.2.2.2 Stiffener calculation
As per the geometry relation of stiffened shell plate
model, the indenter radius at middle two stiffeners
is R1 = 219.3 mm. When shell plate occurs rupture,
transverse deformation of middle two stiffeners is
w1 = R1 (R w0 ) = 111.4 mm.
Then, collision force of stiffener can be obtained
by Equ. (5), P1 = 47 kN. The energy absorbed by
stiffener can be obtained by Equ. (6). E1 = 3 KJ.
3.2.3 Inner shell structure collision calculation
The collision force of inner shell structure can be
written as:
Figure 18. comparison of energy absorption-indention

curve attained by inner shell plate test and simplified analysis.
Table 3. comparison of inner shell plate model theoretical
calculation and test results.
Inner shell
plate model
Collision
force
P (KN)
Indentation
w0 (mm)
Energy
absorption
E (KJ)
Experiment results
Simplified method
840
874
181
181
59
64
Figure 17 and Figure 18 illustrates collision force

indention curve and energy absorptionindention
curve by simplified analysis of stiffened inner shell
plate structure model. It can be seen that the experiment results are consistent to simplified calculation
values. Table 3 shows the comparison of test result and
simplified analysis result that rupture of inner shell
plate model occurs. It can be seen that there has very
small differences.
4
The plastic deformation energy absorbed by inner

shell structure can be calculated by
CONCLUSION
Through the results comparison between experiment

results and simplified analysis, it is identified that the
simplified analysis method utilized in this paper is able
321
edge boundary rupture is mainly owing to the

stiffener end cracks caused by the superposition
of axial stretching deformation and local bending deformation of stiffener end, and the cracks
rapidly expand to stiffener root and furthermore
result in the rupture of connected inner shell plate.
to provide reasonable prediction for the crashworthiness of side structure of double hull ship. In addition,
for the inner and outer shell structures, they do not
have big differences in crashworthiness performance
but have some distinct differences in gradual damage
process and damage model aspects.
(1) In the aspect of gradual damage process of stiffened plate, for outer shell structure, the stiffeners
still remains plane bending state after it goes
into large deformation stage, and the collision
force has an approximately linear relation with
indentation depth. As for inner shell structure,
it encounters two different stages. Firstly spherical indenter contacts stiffeners, which lead to
lateral extrusion deformation of stiffeners; thus,
the force- deformation curve of stiffened shell
structure reveals its flat characteristic at initial
stage. When spherical indenter contacts inner shell
plate, stiffened shell structure goes into global
deformation stage, and the subsequent collision
damage characteristic is basically identical to that
of stiffened outer shell structure.
(2) In the aspect of eventual damage model of stiffened plate, the inner and outer shell structures
have relatively big difference. For outer shell structure, the rupture happens at welding seam close to
middle area. As for inner shell structure, the rupture happens at boundary of long edge. The long
REFERENCES
Hu, Z.Q. & Cui, W.C. 2005. Review of the researches
on the ship collision mechanisms and the structural
designs against collision. Journal of Ship Mechanics 9(2):
131142.
Wisniewski, K. & Koiakowski, P. 2003. The effect of selected
parameters on ship collision results by dynamic FE simulation. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 39:
9851006.
Ehlers, S. 2010. The influence of the material relation on the
462474.
Hu, Z.Q. & Amdahl, J. 2011. Verification of a simplified
analytical method for predictions of ship groundings over
large contact surface by numerical simulations. Marine
Zhuang, K.T.; Liu, J.X.; Liu, Y.D. & Yan, F. 2011. Analysis
on the Crashworthiness Behavior of Ship Stiffened Plate.
Chinese Journal of Ship Research 6(3): 1620.
Wang, G; Ohtsubo, H. & Arita, K. 1998. Large deflection of
a rigid-plastic circular plate pressed by a sphere. ASME
Journal of Applied Mechanics 65: 533535.
322
A methodology for comparison and assessment of three crashworthy

side-shell structures: The X-core, Y-core and corrugation panel structures
J.W. Ringsberg & P. Hogstrm
Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Shipping and Marine Technology,
Division of Marine Design, Gothenburg, Sweden
ABSTRACT: Enhanced maritime safety with respect to a structures crashworthiness requires an innovative
process which involves methodology that is reliable for its purpose and task. In numerous research projects, new
innovative side-shell structures have been proposed and assessed in contrast to conventional side-shell structure
designs with respect to their crashworthiness properties. The assumptions made between papers vary and also
the selection of analysis method and evaluation criteria. In the current investigation, a methodology that has
been verified against small and large scale structure experiments is utilised to make an in-depth comparison and
assessment (by means of experiments and nonlinear finite element simulations) of three promising innovative
side-shell structures referred to as the X-core, theY-core and the intrusion-tolerant corrugated panel structures; all
of them have been presented separately in the literature before. The objective is to make independent comparison
of the three concepts against a typical reference double-hull side-shell structure and challenge their structural
designs with respect to energy absorption, penetration depth at fracture of the inner barrier during a bulb-impact
loading condition, weight and manufacturing cost. It is concluded from the investigation that there is not one
candidate who is superior to the others. Hence, the structures have to be further developed or trade-offs have to
be made depending on the indented functionality of the structure and risk for collision related to e.g. distribution
of likely collision angels.
INTRODUCTION
Todays research on maritime safety has a lot to do with

risk assessment and management. Different actions
can be taken to reduce the risk of ship loss as a consequence of ship-to-ship collisions: traffic separation
of fairways, development of crashworthy double-hull
side-shell structures, or a combination of the two.
According to Pedersen (2010), the most cost-effective
way to reduce this risk is to decrease the probability
that collision and grounding events occur. This can
be achieved by separation of fairways, increased vessel traffic service (VTS) activity and more efficient/
alternative navigational aids. Today, these actions are
continuously implemented in the shipping industry,
but are they enough in the long term? The answer to
this question is probably no, a fact that has already
been observed and taken care of in the car industry
several decades ago.
The car industry strives towards a zero vision of
no casualties in the traffic. In order to fulfil and reach
this target, research within the areas of safer and more
effective road traffic planning, continuous improvements and new developments of passive and active
safety systems in cars, can only become successful
if there is an interaction between all of them. As an
example, if there is a malfunction in the traffic planning system for a specific traffic situation that leads
to a collision, the passive and active safety systems in

the car are the final barriers that should ensure that
there are no casualties. The same reasoning can also
be applied in shipping and motivate a more extensive
use of crashworthy double-hull side-shell designs.
Statistics on accidents and incidents related to collision and grounding shows that the number of reported
events has increased slightly during the last decade
(Lloyds Register 2011). The reasons behind this are
not fully outlined. It is likely that several factors contribute, such as the increase in number of vessels
used in operation (higher traffic density) as well as
stricter demands from customers and cargo owners
on raised profitability leading to tighter schedules.
Another factor may be the implementation of new technical equipment on the ships bridge that is intended to
act as an aid and support but instead leads to mistakes
during handling, as studied by Ltzhft (2004).
1.1 Objective of current study

A numerical methodology developed by the authors in
previous work is presented and used to compare and
assess the performance of three crashworthy side-shell
structures during impact/collision loading conditions;
see Hogstrm et al. (2009, 2011). It is based on material science and marine structural engineering and it
323
Figure 1. Energy dissipation and relative strength of two

colliding ships.
has been verified in small and large scale structure

laboratory tests; hence, it is considered reliable for
use in this study where only numerical simulations
are carried out and presented.
A reference double-hull side-shell structural design
is described and compared to three alternative crashworthy structures proposed in the literature. The motivation for the selection of these structures is presented
together with the criteria used to compare their performance and characteristics. For each structure, explicit
finite element (FE) simulations of a bulb-indentation
small-scale structure experiment carried out on the
reference structure are presented; see Karlsson et al.
(2009) for details concerning the experiments. Parameter studies are presented and modeling aspects are
discussed.
REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURES
The definition of a crashworthy structure is the ability of the structure to protect its occupants and cargo
during an impact. When used in a ship structure, it
should minimize the damage opening of the inner
barrier/side-shell or ultimately result in no opening
at all during collision or grounding so that the watertight integrity of the vessel is maintained. According
to Standards Norway (2004), such a structure can
intuitively be designed according to two different
approaches, illustrated in Figure 1, based on in which
of the two ships in the collision the major part of
the initial kinetic energy is dissipated into structure
deformation and fracture. This relation depends on the
relative strength of the two parties.
The current work takes the perspective of the struck
ship that is hit by a given bow section. It should be
noted that today, the strength design that relates to
designs where the bow takes the major part of the collision energy, say more than 90%, are very rare and
hardly exist. Hence, in the current study, strength
design is used only to define a side-shell design that
remains as intact as possible and makes the striking
ship take up more energy from the collision, in comparison with a ductile design side-shell in which almost
all energy is dissipated through large-scale deformations while the watertight integrity is maintained. The
purpose of the current study is to compare and assess
these design approaches in relation to a traditional
reference design, which is considered here to be a

shared-energy design.
There are several investigations in the literature that
present crashworthy structures that may be suitable
for implementation in commercial ships, see among
others ISSC (2006), Karlsson (2009), Klanac et al.
(2005), Paik (2003), Paik et al. (2009), Rubino et al.
(2010) & Tautz (2007). This investigation assesses
and presents an objective and systematic analysis of
a selection of very promising structures found in the
literature that can be classified to follow either the ductile design concept, or the strength design concept. The
outcome of the study should serve as a guide demonstrating the pros, cons and potential of the approaches
to the increasing crashworthiness of ship double-hull
side-shells that are compared.
Most of the structures presented in the literature
follow the strength design philosophy, i.e. the structure should absorb as much energy as possible without
allowing for large-scale deformation and intrusion of
the striking bow. In ISSC (2006), a review of crashworthy structures that represent this design philosophy
was presented by the collision and grounding committee, including the well-known X- and Y-core structure
designs. A corrugated side casings design was also discussed; however, Rubino et al. (2010) have shown that
its performance is inferior to both the X- and Y-core
structures.
The alternative ductile design philosophy is to allow
the double-hull side-shell structure to absorb as much
energy as possible by allowing for large-scale deformation and large intrusion of the striking bow. As
large-scale deformation and intrusion of the striking
bow through fracture of the outer side-shell is allowed
for, the contact area of the striking bow section against
the struck ship is increased and the energy dissipation is distributed to large parts of the structures. The
inner side-shell structure is designed to separate from
the web frames, which further delays/prevents full
intrusion of the inner side-shell. Tautz (2007) proposes a modification of the web frames by cutting
holes in them, which should relieve the inner side-shell
plating by a zipper-like separation by a sequential
rupture where the web frames are weakened by these
holes. Karlsson (2009) presents a double-hull sideshell structure where the inner side-shell is substituted
with a corrugated plate. The basic idea is that the inner
side-shell is intermittently welded to the web frames.
Once this plating separates from the web frames, the
corrugated panel is free to unfold and a large intrusion
depth of the striking bow section should be required
to achieve a rupture of the entire double-hull design.
STRUCTURES FOR COMPARISON
The results from the literature review on different

concepts for crashworthy structures served as a motivation for the selection of four structures for further
investigation. Figure 2 shows the different double-hull
side-shell designs that are described briefly in this
324
Figure 2. (a) Reference structure, (b) corrugated inner

side-shell structure, (c) X-core structure, and (d) Y-core
structure.
Figure 3. Illustration of design of weak connection points

(indicated) between web frames and corrugated plating.
section: (a) a reference structure, (b) a corrugated inner

side-shell structure, (c) the X-core structure, and (d)
the Y-core structure. Details about material modelling,
structure elements dimensions, etc., are presented in a
later section of the current study.
of the web should occur before the welds fracture; see

experimental tests of welded tensile test coupons in
Karlsson (2009).
3.1
3.3 X-core structure
Reference double-hull side-shell structure
The reference structure, shown in Figure 2(a), is a

conventional double-hull side-shell structure used, for
example, in RoPax vessels.This structure has been presented in detail in Hogstrm et al. (2011) & Karlsson
et al. (2009) who have analysed its characteristics using
explicit finite element analyses and experimental testing carried out on two similar structures. Because
of the detailed documentation of this structure, it is
appropriate as a reference structure in the current
investigation.
3.2
Corrugated inner side-shell structure
Karlsson (2009) proposed a corrugated inner sideshell structure that follows the ductile design concept,
see Figure 1. In Karlssons investigation, promising
results with respect to energy absorption capacity compared to a conventional structural design is presented.
Hence, it was of interest to compare it to some strength
design structure concepts and challenge all structures against five evaluation criteria, see the following
section.
The corrugated inner side-shell structure used in
the current study, shown in Figure 2(b), is similar to
the structure presented in Karlsson (2009). The outer
side-shell is a conventional stiffened plated structure
made of normal steel grade, while the inner side-shell
is made of a corrugated plate made of high-strength
steel. In case of a collision, the corrugated plate is
designed to release from its supporting web frames
and unfold in order to maintain watertight integrity,
thereby being able to withstand a larger bow intrusion
depth. The attachment points (weld joints) between
the corrugated plate and the web frames is a key element for the performance of the structure; these joints
should break before the corrugated plate does, allowing it to unfold. In the design proposed by Karlsson
(2009), this was accomplished by intermittent welded
points between the corrugated plate and the web frame
as illustrated in Figure 3. The strength of the welded
joints were designed so that fracture of the welds will
not occur during a collision, instead, material rupture
The X-core structure concept is a strength design.

Because of its shape, see Figure 2(c), there is less largescale deformation of the structure, and bow intrusion
depth, in contrast to the reference and corrugated structures before fracture of the inner side-shell occurs.
The current investigation does not involve aspects of
welding methods used for the manufacturing of this
type of structure. This has been discussed by, among
others, Ehlers et al. (2010).
In the literature, there are alternative designs proposed for the X-core structure. They differ when it
comes to the thickness of the structural elements, type
of welds, selection of materials and corrugation angle;
see Ehlers et al. (2010), Klanac et al. (2005) & Odefey
(2011). In this investigation, the dimensions of the
X-core structure proposed by Ehlers et al. (2010) were
used as a basis, with an angle of the corrugated plates
of 52 , for comparison with the other structures. However, these dimensions were scaled as follows. The
plate thickness of the outer side-shell of the reference
and corrugated structures are similar in the current
study.To enable a comparative and realistic assessment
of the X-core structure against these structures, the
outer side-shell thickness is scaled to match the thickness of the corresponding plating structures. The same
scale factor is applied on all other structure dimensions to have a consistent adjustment of the dimensions
of the X-core structure elements; see Figure 7(a) for
details. The material used here is similar to the material
used in the reference structure.
3.4 Y-core structure
The Y-core structure, shown in Figure 2(d), follows
the same design philosophy as the X-core structure, the
strength design. The corrugated plate closest to the
inner side-shell has been replaced by vertical plates in
order to save weight. Naar et al. (2002) & Rubino et al.
(2010) present the usefulness of the Y-core structures
for several load cases. There are also some differences
in the definition of the structures dimensions such
as the corrugation angle which is between 45 (Naar
325
et al. 2002), and 60 (Klanac et al. 2005) resulting in

a different performance for each structure.
In the current investigation, it was decided to make
the Y-core structure design based on the X-core structure design. Hence, the corrugation angle used here
is 52 and the lower corrugated plate (inner side-shell
part) is replaced with vertical plates. Note that the current corrugation angle, the other dimensions of the
corrugation and distance between outer and inner plating all are within the range of what has been proposed
in the literature; see Klanac et al. (2005), Naar et al.
(2002) & Rubino et al. (2010).
Figure 4. Material behaviour and the governing parameters

for the elastic, plastic, damage initiation (DI) and damage
evolution (DE) parts.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Table 1.
Four criteria are used to assess the four structures:

Intrusion depth: the distance measured from the
first contact point of the striking bows bulb on the
outer side-shell to the same point on the bulb when
it has stopped.
Energy dissipation: the capacity of a structure to
absorb energy. Here, the energy absorption is evaluated both until the first point of fracture of the inner
side-shell and the total energy dissipation when the
kinetic energy of the striking bow section is zero
(i.e. it has stopped moving).
Weight: the weight of base and welding material.
Manufacturing cost: material, labour and other
fabrication costs.
The intrusion depth and energy absorption criteria intend to give a measure of how crashworthy the
structures are in comparison with each other. The
weight and manufacturing cost criteria indicate, either
alone or together with the other criteria, the potential and economic benefit of investing in crashworthy
structures in the construction of new ships.
5 A COMPARISON OF STRUCTURES
ON AN EXPERIMENTAL SCALE
To evaluate the conceptual structures, a small-scale
representative double-hull side-shell structure that is
well-known and verified through experiments carried
out by Karlsson et al. (2009) is used. This section
presents a comparative investigation of the structures,
which have dimensions similar to the size of the experimental test structure. The comparison is carried out
by explicit FE analyses of the four structures shown
in Figure 2, and the results are evaluated against the
experimental test results in Karlsson et al. (2009).
The modelling of the reference structure, and also
the corrugated structure, is made in accordance with
recommendations in Karlsson (2009) & Karlsson et al.
(2009). First, an overview of general modelling aspects
is presented. Concerning the X- and Y-core structures, there are aspects concerning the modelling that
are more open for interpretations. These aspects are
studied in steps. Thereafter, a study is presented on
Material parameters used in the models.
Parameter
NVA steel
High strength
steel
Youngs modulus, E (GPa)

Poissons ratio,
Yield stress, y (MPa)
Hardening coeff., K (MPa)
Hardening exponent, n
Necking strain, n (%)
Fracture strain, f (%)
210
0.3
290
616
0.21
21
31
210
0.3
755
1 250
0.15
14
26
weld modelling for the X- and Y-core structures and

the relative weight and manufacturing costs of all
structures.
5.1 FE models and boundary effects
The explicit FE simulations in the current study are
carried out using the software Abaqus/Explicit (2007).
The solid half-spherical indenter used in the experiments in Karlsson et al. (2009) is represented as a rigid
body that has a constant displacement rate, both in the
experiments and in the FE simulations. Throughout
the FE model, the general contact condition in Abaqus
is used together with Coulombs law and a (kinetic)
friction coefficient of 0.3.
The modelling of the material behaviour for the different stages of the deformation of the NVA steel grade
material (DNV 2007) used in the simulations is shown
in principle in Figure 4. In all models, the NVA steel
material is used, except in the corrugated inner (lower)
plate in the ductile design concept where high-strength
steel is used. It was found that there is a slight discrepancy between the steel grade used in Karlsson et al.
(2009), and in Hogstrm et al. (2011). Hence, in the
small-scale structure model, the same material parameters as in Karlsson et al. (2009) were used in order to
match the experimental results. The material parameters, obtained through experiments in previous work,
see Hogstrm et al. (2009) & Karlsson et al. (2009)
for the NVA steel, and Karlsson et al. (2009) for the
high strength steel, are given in Table 1.
The pre-necking behaviour of the material is represented as linearly elastic followed by a plastic region,
326
Figure 5. The side-shell structure used in the bulb-structure

impact test (mm) in Karlsson et al. (2009).
modelled as non-linear isotropic hardening through an

exponential law. Damage is modelled through a criterion for damage initiation (DI) at an equivalent strain
the Shear failure criterion in Abaqus (2007) with a
subsequent bilinear law for damage evolution (DE),
which compensates for the element size dependence
on fracture strain; for details in the material modelling, see Hogstrm et al. (2009). The definition of
final failure in the small-scale model is when the first
element in the lower plate reaches full damage and
is removed, corresponding to the loss of watertight
integrity through a breach of the inner side-shell of
a ship.
The experimental structure in the experiments in
Karlsson et al. (2009) had the outer dimensions of
length width height = 1.50 1.09 0.31 m, see
Figure 5. However, initial FE simulations of the
X- and Y-core structures with the same length
width height dimensions as the experimental structure showed a significant influence from boundary
conditions, i.e. these structures require larger dimensions in the FE simulations in order to avoid influence
from boundary conditions. Hence, the FE models
of all four structures were increased in size to get
rid of influence from boundary effects: the final
length width height = 3.00 3.00 0.31 m.
The results from experiments presented in Karlsson
et al. (2009) show that during the tests there was some
elastic deformation of the reinforcing frame that supported the structure. Unfortunately, the required larger
dimensions of the FE models of the structures made it
difficult to obtain a scaled-up reinforcing frame with
properties similar to the one designed in Karlsson et al.
(2009). Instead, the boundary conditions were set as
fixed on the circumference of the structures.
Figure 6 shows four different indenter reaction
force-displacement curves: (i) experimental results
from Karlsson et al. (2009), (ii) an explicit FEA
made on the Karlsson et al. (2009) reference structure with the reinforcing frame, i.e. length width
height = 1.50 1.09 0.31 m, (iii) an explicit FEA
made on the Karlsson et al. (2009) reference structure
without the reinforcing frame but with fixed boundary
conditions, and (iv) a scaled-up structure with dimensions of length width height = 3.00 3.00
0.31 m (see Figure 2) with fixed boundary conditions.
The results in the figure show that there is good agreement in trends between all four curves. Hence, it was
Figure 6. A comparison between indenter reaction

force-displacement results from the experiment carried out
in Karlsson et al. (2009), the FE representation of it and
the scaled-up, similar structure used in the current study;
BC = boundary condition. Indenter displacement is zero
when it is in contact with the upper/outer plate.
Figure 7. The X-core structure design used: (a) NO WELDS

as modelled by Odefey (2011), (b) WELDS as modelled by
Ehlers et al. (2010) and (c) indenter impact positions.
deemed satisfactory to use the scaled-up structure

as the reference in the comparison of the various
structure concepts.
5.2 Weld modelling

The references in the literature on the X- and
Y-core structures (Ehlers et al. 2010 & Odefey 2011)
show different approaches to modelling these structures by finite elements. Especially the representation
and modelling of the welds offers some alternatives.
Several engineering approaches to weld modelling are
found in, among others, Alsos et al. (2009), Ehlers
et al. (2010) & Karlsson (2009). Many of these choose
not to represent the welds with the motivation that the
welds rarely are the weak point in the case of impact
loading it is, rather, the plates that break. This was
observed in the experiments by Karlsson et al. (2009),
and is the reason for the welds not being specifically
studied or included in the FE models of the reference
and corrugated structures.
However, for the X- and Y-core structures, the joining of the core plates with the outer plates is studied
more thoroughly. Two commonly used approaches,
illustrated in principle in Figure 7, are discussed in
the literature. In one of the approaches, the weld joints
327
Figure 9. Results from simulations on X- and Y-core structures on an experimental scale: absorbed energy-indenter
displacement results. +28% denotes simulations with added
weight.
Figure 8. Absorbed energy-indenter displacement from the

different weld modelling approaches and different impact
points: (a) X-core structure and (b)Y-core structure. The lines
correspond to the markings of the indenter locations indicated
for each structure in Figure 7(c) for the NO WELDS model
and for the WELDS model.
are omitted in the model. Instead, the section thickness in the model where the plates are parallel is the
sum of the thicknesses of the plates. This approach,
from now on referred to as NO WELDS, is illustrated in Figure 7(a), and is used by Klanac et al.
(2005) & Odefey (2011). In the other approach, shown
in Figure 7(b), the X-core corrugated plates have been
connected to the outer plates with weld seams modelled as beam elements between the nodes in the shell
meshes of the plates. These beams have the same plastic hardening behaviour as the surrounding material;
however, with a failure strain of 0.1 a value taken from
Ehlers et al. (2010), who based it on tearing tests for
weld joints. This model is in the following referred
to as X-core WELDS. The gap between the shell
elements of the parallel plates is set to the sum of
half of the thicknesses with one millimetre added so
that the shell elements will not overlap. These modelling approaches have also been studied for theY-core
structure where the corrugated plate is attached to the
upper plate. Figure 7(a) presents the dimensions of the
X-core structure used in the current study: corrugation
angle = 52 , t1 = 5 mm, t2 = t3 = 3 mm, c1 = 240 mm,
c2 = 50 mm and h = 305 mm.
For the X- andY-core structures, their performances
with the two approaches for modelling of the welds in
the FE model have to be evaluated considering where
on the structure the indenter impacts, see Figure 7(c)
for an example. The results in Figure 8 show for the

X- and Y-core structures the absorbed energy-indenter
displacement curves. In Figure 8(a), the results show
for the X-core structure that for both weld modelling
approaches, the energy absorption may exceed that of
the reference. It is, however, not possible to determine
which type of weld modelling that is to be favoured.
Thus, no distinct conclusion can be drawn on which of
these modelling approaches that offer the best results.
In addition, in Figure 8(b), none of the results for the
Y-core structure exceed the reference structure in terms
of final energy absorption and none of the results
exceed the corresponding X-core results. However,
there is a trend that the NO WELDS model, even
though being ruptured earlier then the WELDS model,
it is able to withstand slightly more energy.
6 WEIGHT AND MANUFACTURING COST

The weight and manufacturing cost of each experimental scale structure (see Figure 2) was calculated.
The results are presented in Table 2, and are used as
comparative values in the discussions of the structures.
The cost analysis is made in accordance with the model
suggested by Rahman & Caldwell (1992). The cost is
largely related to the material weight of each structure, considering also the total length and weight of
the welds.
Based on the calculated weights, a study was carried out on the effect of deducting 28% of weight by
reducing the plate thicknesses in the X-core structure
so that it weighs as much as the Y-core and reference
structures. Also, the effect of increasing the weight
of the Y-core structure with 28%, by increasing the
plate thicknesses and thus making it as heavy as the
X-core was studied. The results of these modifications
are shown in Figure 9.
Reducing the material in the X-core structure
reduces the structures capacity to absorb energy, as
is seen in a comparison between curves (ii) and (iv) in
Figure 9. On the other hand, increasing the plate thickness of the Y-core structure, curve (iii) in Figure 9,
328
Table 2. Weight and manufacturing cost of the structures.

Parameter
Reference Corrugated X-core Y-core
Weight (kg)
Relative weight
Manufact. cost ()
Relative cost
1030
0%
977
0%
774
25%
750
23%
1315
+28%
1163
+19%
1044
+1%
910
7%
makes it initially stiffer and able to withstand more

energy in the initial phase of the deformation. However, in the latter part of the deformation history, when
the structure is severely buckled, its ability to take up
energy decreases so that it ends up being able to withstand less energy than theY-core structure with thinner
plates curve (v) in Figure 9. Klanac et al. (2005)
showed that, for structures of equal weight, the Y-core
performs better than the X-core. However, the results
presented here show that which of the X- and Y-core
structures that are able to withstand the most energy
is highly dependent on the geometry and relative plate
thickness, since there is no clear trend between the two
weights studied. It can also be noted that the best performance of the current structures is achieved when
the dimensions suggested by Ehlers et al. (2010) &
Odefey (2011) are used.
7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The choice of dimensions of the different structures

in this study does not necessarily present the optimal
design of the different design solutions; instead, this is
left for future work. Figure 10 presents a summary of
the results from explicit FE simulations from each of
the experimental scale structures that reach the highest energy absorption, see previous sections for more
details.
In relation to the reference structure, both the
X-core and the corrugated structure are able to absorb
more energy, but the X-core structure has less indenter displacement. The energy absorption of the Y-core
structure does not exceed that of the reference structure. In a choice between the X- and Y-core structures,
the X-core structure is able to withstand more impact
energy before it ruptures. Moreover, the results presented gave no clear conclusion on which weld modelling approach to recommend for use for the X-core
structure. Hence, in future work, it is motivated and
also deemed worth the effort in large-scale analyses
of ship-to-ship collisions to design two large-scale
X-core structures: one WELDS and one NO WELDS
alternative. It is of interest to investigate how the
two types of weld modelling approaches differ due to
variation in the collision angle to the struck side-shell.
The curves (ii)(iv) in Figure 10 follow the trends of
the reference curve (i), but with exceptions related to
each structure.The X-core structure has a peak towards
the end of its deformation history at an indenter displacement of 0.35, originating from the resistance to
Figure 10. Results from experiments and FE simulations

of the ship-like experimental structures: (a) indenter reaction
force-displacement and (b) absorbed energy-displacement.
deformation of the inclined plates in the lower corrugated plate. It is the unfolding of these inclined
plates in the X- and Y-core structures that gives large
resistance to deformation, and also the reason for the
horizontal extent of the damage being more local in
these structures. It also explains the peak in the deformation history of the Y-core structure around 0.25 m
displacement of the indenter: the outer/upper corrugated plate has unfolded, and at this point, it is stretched
before it breaks. Once the indenter has penetrated the
corrugated plate in the Y-core structure, there is minor
residual capacity of the structure to absorb energy during the latter part of the deformation; the vertical plates
are relatively weak.
CONCLUSIONS
A reference side-shell structure was compared to conceptual structures: strength design structures, X- and
Y-core structures, and one ductile design structure, the
corrugated inner side-shell structure. The structures
were assessed against four criteria: intrusion depth,
energy dissipation, weight, and manufacturing cost.
It is shown that there is great potential for mitigating the consequences of a collision between ships
by replacing todays conventional side-shell structures
with a more crashworthy structure. As a result, it is
possible to increase the ability of the ship to protect
its occupants and cargo by being able to maintain its
watertight integrity during impact.
Explicit FE simulations of an experiment on a
small-scale ship-like structure impact were carried
out to validate the FE modelling approach, followed
329
by a systematic parameter analysis of the structures

properties related to the four assessment criteria. The
influence of modelling of welds based on different
assumptions using two approaches was also addressed.
From the small-scale structure analyses, it was found
that the strength design X-core structure performed
better than the Y-core structure in terms of energy
absorption. However, it was not possible to rule out one
of the weld modelling approaches used in the X-core
structure.
In analyses on the small-scale structure, the Y-core
concept was also assessed but came out short in the
comparison with the X-core structure. However, this
structure concept has benefits in terms of weight and
manufacturing costs in relation to crashworthiness and
deserves further study.
REFERENCES
Alsos, H.S.; Amdahl, J. & Hopperstad, O.S. 2009. On
the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates. Part
II Numerical analysis. International Journal of Impact
Engineering 36(7): 875887.
Dassault Systmes. 2007. Abaqus version 6.7 documentation. Analysis users manual. Vlizy Villacoublay, France:
Dassault Systms.
DNV [Det Norske Veritas]. 2007. Rules for the classification
of ships and/high speed, light craft and naval surface craft.
Part 2, Chapter 1-2. Hvik: Det Norske Veritas.
Ehlers, S.; Tabri, K.; Romanoff, J. & Varsta, P. 2010.
Numerical and experimental investigation on the collision resistance of the X-core structure. Ships and
Offshore Structures (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.
2010.532603).
Hogstrm, P.; Ringsberg, J.W. & Johnson, E. 2009. An experimental and numerical study of the effects of length scale
and strain state on the necking and fracture behaviours in
sheet metal. International Journal of Impact Engineering
36(1011): 11941203.
Hogstrm, P.; Ringsberg, J.W. & Johnson, E. 2011.
Survivability analysis of a struck ship with damage
opening influence from model and material properties uncertainties. Ships and Offshore Structures 6(4):
339354.
ISSC [International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress].
2006. ISSC Committee V.1: collision and grounding. In
P. Frieze & A. Shenoi (eds), the 16th International Ship
and Offshore Structures Congress, Southampton, 2025
August 2006. Dorchester: Dorset Press.
Karlsson, U. 2009. Improved collision safety of ships by
an intrusion-tolerant inner side shell. Marine Technology
46(3): 165173.
Karlsson, U.; Ringsberg, J.W.; Johnson, E.; Hoseini, M. &

Ulfvarson, A. 2009. Experimental and numerical investigation of bulb impact with a ship side-shell structure.
Klanac, A.; Ehlers, S.; Tabri, K.; Rudan, S. & Broehuijsen, J.
2005. Qualitative design assessment of crashworthy structures. In C. Guedes Soares, Y. Garbatov & N. Fonseca
(eds), the International Congress of International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean (IMAM), Lisboa,
2630 September 2005. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Lloyds Register. 2011. World casualty statistics 1999-2010.
London: Lloyds Register Fairplay Ltd.
Ltzhft, M. 2004. The technology is great when it works
maritime technology and human integration on the ships
bridge. Doctoral thesis, Department of Management and
Engineering, Linkping University, Linkping, Sweden.
Naar, H.; Kujala, P.; Simonsen, B.C. & Ludolphy, H. 2002.
Comparison of the crashworthiness of various bottom and
side structures. Marine Structures 15(45): 443460.
Odefey, M. 2011. Simulation of collisions between RORO
vessels with improved double-hull designs. MSc thesis, Department of Shipping and Marine Technology,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. Report No. X-11/258.
Paik, J.K. 2003. Innovative structural design of tankers
against ship collisions and grounding: a recent state-ofthe-art review. Marine Technology 40(1): 2533.
Paik, J.K.; Park, J.H. & Samuelides, E. 2009. Collisionaccidental limit states performance of double-hull oil
tanker structures: pre-CSR versus CSR designs. Marine
Technology 46(4): 183191.
and grounding analysis procedures. Marine Structures
23(3): 241262.
Rahman, M.K. & Caldwell, J.B. 1992. Rule-based optimization of midship structures. Marine Structures 5(6):
467490.
Rubino, V.; Deshpande, V.S. & Fleck, N.A. 2010. The threepoint bending of Y-frame and corrugated core sandwich
beams. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences
52(3): 485494.
Standards Norway. 2004. NORSOK standard N-004, Design
of steel structures. Revision 2, October 2004. Lysaker:
Standards Norway.
Tautz, I. 2007. Predetermined breaking points in a ships
double hull, an innovative design concept to enhance collision safety. In: E. Lehmann & F. Biehl (eds), the 4th
International Conference on Collision and Grounding of
Ships (ICCGS) 2007, Hamburg, 912 September 2007.
Hamburg: Elbe Werksttten GmbH.
330
Crashworthiness study of LPG ship with type C tanks

S. Rudan, B. Acic & I. Viic
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval
Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
ABSTRACT: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) carriers are ships with distinct
characteristics: they carry liquefied gas either pressurized, refrigerated or both at the same time, and have
special cargo containment systems of various type and complexity. In particular, type C tanks are independent
tanks of spherical and cylindrical shape, designed and built as conventional pressure vessels. Corresponding,
relatively low utilization of hull volume makes a single hull design of such ships common and a question of
their crashworthiness arises. A typical LPG ship was considered and nonlinear FE method applied in the present
crashworthiness study. A variety of parameters, such as impact location and collision speed, are altered and
their effects in collision are studied. The application of space-saving sandwich hull structure was proposed and
analyzed in the attempt to improve the concerned ship performance in the collision event.
INTRODUCTION
The world economy growth is directly followed by the

need for additional energy resources. Among them,
natural and petroleum gasses may be distinguished
since they are available in large volumes and are
environment friendly in general. They are commonly
supplied worldwide via land pipelines and over the sea
in liquefied and/or pressurized state by LNG and LPG
ships. The advantages of seafaring gas transport are,
among others, a possibility to avoid the crisis situation
in countries that share a pipeline, transport to largest
distances and easy diversification of transport routes.
Due to that, a fleet of LNG and LPG ships is constantly increasing. Current gas shipping fleet consists
of: LNG carriers 370 in service and 42 on order,
LPG fully refrigerated 240 in service, LPG semipressurized/full-refrigerated 320 in service and 70
on order, LPG fully pressurized 532 in service and
71 on order. It may be also worth mentioning that average deep sea fleet ship is 19 year old and that LNG and
LPG ships age may be assumed to fit this number.
Although there are certain differences in transporting LNG and LPG gasses, both types of ships share
complex design and onboard technology, as well as
increased safety measures during the transport and
manipulation with cargo. Of the particular interest
in this article are LPG ships with independent type
C cargo tanks, (GL, 2008). Since these tanks are
not structural tanks they are designed according to
pressure vessels building rules. Type C tanks contain pressurized liquefied gas with pressures ranging
from 2 to 18 bars. Since they bear the working pressure, as well as vacuum-like condition during cargo
discharge, they are typically of cylindrical, spherical

or bi-lobe design. At the same time, liquefied gas is
cooled at 48 C (LPG) and up to 104 C (ethylene).
A particular saddle-type structure is used to support
the independent tanks and, at the same time, minimize
the thermal effects due to tank and environment temperature differences. Due to the mentioned reasons,
hull utilization is poor in LPG ships with type C tanks.
This issue is addressed by careful design of tanks. Special spherical and torispherical tank heads are designed
to maximize tank volume and the careful design of
such structures is particularly important in the case of
bi-lobe tanks. At the same time, commonly single hull
structure is employed to save additional cargo space in
comparison with double hull solution. Other than this,
C tanks LPG ships are of modest size and common
design including double bottom structure.
Both LPG and LPG ships have excellent safety
record as no significant accident is recorded since the
beginning of ocean gas transportation in 1958, by the
USA vessel Normati. Since that time, the number of
LPG ships is in constant increase as well as the worldwide sea going traffic in general. This correlates with
the increasing risk of marine accidents and collision in
particular. It may be assumed that single hull ship, such
as LPG ship type in concern, is not an optimal crashworthy structure in the case of direct side collision. In
addition, type C tanks are membrane structures having
very low, if any, resistance to bending so their rupture
may be expected in the case of worst-case collision
scenario.
At the same time, advancement in technology provided a number of alternative solutions to the standard
ship structure design. Particularly, different sandwich
331
structures are proposed as space-saving solution for

hull side structure, having in addition a very good
crashworthy property (Klanac et al. 2005). Due to
the accentuated cargo space requirement, a novel, low
profile, laser-welded sandwich structure arise as an
interesting alternative to type C tanks LPG ship classic
hull design. In this article, a comparison between classic and novel sandwich hull side will be made through
typical scenario collision analysis.
Table 1. Two ship in collision particulars.

Parameters
LPG ship
Ferry
Length over all

Ship weight
Mass of the cargo
Displacement (at 1.025 t/m3 )
Draft aft
Draft fore
Middle draft
Ship center of gravity height
Ship center of gravity by length
114.89
3607 t
2148.6 t
5755.6 t
4.85 m
4.59 m
4.71 m
4.31 m
63.74 m
128.13 m
5757 t
6889 t
6889 t
5.25 m
5.30 m
5.28 m
8.388 m
61.082 m
SHIP COLLISION SCENARIO
Ship collision is a rather frequent marine accident,

ranging from a minor collision with another ship or
other structure to a severe incident with significant
damage on ship, environment pollution and, in the
worst case, human casualties. Collisions occur due to
various reasons such as negligence and a system malfunction. The collision risk is increased in heavy traffic
areas, such as narrow passages, bays, in the vicinity of
harbors etc. Worldwide, and in closed seas in particular, the imperative of fast and economical delivery of
goods and people leads to natural grouping of ships
on optimal routes, which are often intersecting and so
increasing the risk of collision even more.
Ship collisions, as well as other marine accidents
statistics, are usually reported by the official bodies in
the particular country. In addition, statistics may cover
vessels ranging from fishing and leisure boats to the
commercial fleet vessels. Therefore, obtaining relevant data may be a complex task. European Maritime
Safety Agency presented marine accidents statistics
in and around EU waters in (EMSA, 2010). Through
years 2007 to 2010 a total of 1192 collisions were
recorded, making approximately 43% of all marine
accidents in that period. This fact alone points out the
need for crashworthy analysis of present and future
ship structures if collisions cannot be prevented, at
least their consequences should be as low as possible.
Traditionally collision analysis is decoupled into
external mechanics and internal mechanics. The former considers global ship motions, while the latter
considers localized structural response at the location
of impact. By recent advances in software both effects
may be coupled in a single, fully non-linear analysis in
time domain. The finite element method and explicit
analysis is commonly used for that purpose.
Following collision scenario is considered in this
article: motionless Type C tank LPG ship (struck ship)
is being hit amidships at the right angle by the similar size ferry (striking ship). Striking ship sailing
speed is 16 knots. Both struck and striking ship main
particulars are listed in Table 1. LPG deadweight is
approximately two times less than a ferry, while displacement is much closer, being 5755 t for the fully
laden LPG and 6889 t for the light loaded ferry.
Two different structures of LPG amidships are
considered: classic single hull and laser-welded type
sandwich hull structure.
Figure 1. LPG ship with type C bi-lobe tank cross section

at the saddle support section.
LPG SHIP AMIDSHIPS STRUCTURE
LGP ships, containing nonstructural tanks of type C,

are designed to maximize cargo space while taking
into account specific cargo requirements. Hull cross
section of the struck ship, at the location of the saddle
support, is presented in Figure 1. The main deck, single hull and double bottom may be observed around
the bi-lobe tank. A bi-lobe tank is comprised of two
incomplete cylindrical tanks that are joined along the
longitudinal bulkhead. The bulkhead compensates the
membrane forces from the cylindrical part of the structure. Below the bi-lobe tank a saddle support structure
is present, connecting tank with ship double bottom
and side structure.
The application of steel sandwich structures in shipbuilding is already considered in the scientific community with great interest (Klanac et al. 2009, Romanoff
2011, Hogstrm and Ringsberg 2013). However, due to
332
Figure 4. FE model of a struck LPG ship.

Figure 2. Sandwich structure.
Figure 3. Sandwich plate thickness.
space-saving demand, only very thin sandwich structure is applicable to LPG ships. A novel, laser-welded
sandwich solution may be acceptable alternative to
classic single hull structure due to its advantages
(Romanoff et al. 2007, Jelovica et al. 2012). Due to
precision welding, thin sandwich plates may replace
standard, thicker single hull plating without adding
significant amount of additional weight and possibly improving the crashworthiness of ship structure.
Production technology, though, is out of the scope of
this article and will not be considered.
Figure 2 indicates the main particulars of the sandwich plate introduced in the struck ship starboard
hull amidships, where: a b c = 22 7 0.1 m and
s = 0.145 m. Figure 3 presents the thicknesses of the
sandwich plate components which were chosen to
match as close as possible the amount of steel on
classic structure, where: t1 = t2 = t3 = 6 mm.
Figure 5. Fine mesh FE model of struck ship classic

structure.
In this way amidships masses are calculated automatically from the finite element properties. Ballast state
is considered, with empty cargo tanks.
A fine mesh detail of the classic structure in the
collision zone at the amidships starboard is presented
Figure 5. It extends between two saddle supports
including two additional frames on each side. The fine
mesh area is approximately 22 7 meters (length
height).
A fine mesh detail of the novel structure in the collision zone is presented in Figure 6. The sandwich
structure is replacing hull shell between saddle supports, from upper tank to double bottom. The frames
STRUCK SHIP MODEL
Commercial finite element software LS-Dyna, version ls971_d_7600, is used for setting up the collision
model. The collision model contains both ships and
takes into account hydrodynamic forces to certain
extent. Struck ship consists of three parts, Figure 4.
Two parts, fore and aft par, are modeled as rigid structures represented with ships outer shell only. Their
masses are modeled by concentrated mass elements
constrained to corresponding rigid parts. Third is the
middle part of the ship and it is modeled using elastoplastic material representing Grade A steel behavior.
Figure 6. Fine mesh FE model of struck ship sandwich

structure.
333
Figure 7. Classic (left) and sandwich (right) cross-section

of the struck ship.
Figure 9. Struck ship hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces.
Figure 8. Classic and sandwich structure connection at the

location of saddle support (all upper elements are removed).
are now missing, but longitudinal girder and web frame

knuckles remain.
Struck ship cross-section for both classic (left) and
sandwich structure (right) is presented in Figure 7.
It should be noted that sandwich structure is partially curved near the double bottom which may be
technologically demanding in production.
Figure 8 presents connection of the sandwich structure with a strong saddle support in detail. Upper ship
structure is removed for the sake of the clarity of
display. No additional brackets or other stiffening elements are added along sandwich-to-classic structure
connection zone.
The model is supported by hydrostatic and hydrodynamic load as presented in Figure 9. Vertical, i.e.
hydrostatic nodal forces, acting along the model bottom, have a constant value and are in equilibrium with
the mass of the ship middle part.
The side nodal forces, acting in negative-y direction
and are defined twice. Two control nodes, one at the
fore and one at the aft model peak, are used by the
software to evaluate average ship velocity and acceleration. The first set of nodal forces is proportional
to the evaluated ship velocity while the second set of
nodal forces is proportional to evaluated ship acceleration. Both sets of nodal forces are acting along the
Figure 10. Boundary conditions z-constrained edges.
ship side, Figure 9 (down) and represent the resistance

of water due to ship motion during collision.
In the above expressions: is water density, VY is

the velocity of the reference node, A is the area accepting node velocity related force, is displacement and
ACCY is the acceleration of the reference node. In
addition, Fv value is increased deliberately by 1.5 in
the attempt to model water resistance in more realistic
way. In this way the resistance of the hull not subjected
to nodal forces is taken into account. This however is
not further elaborated here.
The model boundary conditions are illustrated in
Figure 10. Sides of the ship middle part i.e. fore bulkhead and aft open section are constrained from moving
334
Figure 11. Striking ship model.
in z-direction. In this way, minor difference between

mass and hydrostatic force is compensated through
reactions in boundary nodes. At the same time, all
six degree of freedom of nodes in collision zone and
middle ship part in general are unconstrained. Fore
and aft peak concentrated masses are constrained from
moving in z-direction.
STRIKING SHIP MODEL
Striking ship model is presented in Figure 11. Model

consists of 3D bow model generated using plate
elements and 1D hull model generated using beam
models. Spring elements are used to model nonlinear hydrostatic forces. They support the model
through balance of model mass and vertical hydrostatic (spring) forces when gravity load is applied.
In this way heave and pitch motion of the model is
allowed. Although this is not of main concern here, the
model is prepared in this way to study heave and pitch
motions in a different collision scenarios. Detailed
description of the model can be found in (Srdelic and
Rudan 2011).
The striking ship model is subjected to nodal forces
that accelerate the model to a collision speed just
before the impact. Since lower spring nodes are constrained to follow the y-direction movement of the
upper nodes, it was not possible to constrain the striking ship nodes with initial velocity condition. Then
the model is released to perform collision due to
inertial movement. Within this scenario the hydrodynamic resistance due to a model movement is not
modeled and bow nodes are restricted from moving in
z-direction. The hydrodynamic resistance of the striking ship has no effect on the collision but may have
effect on global motions of the ships afterwards.
COLLISION PARAMETERS
Both model share some collision parameters.

All the plate elements are modeled using *MAT_
PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY material model
while all the beam elements are modeled using
*MAT_SIMPLIFIED_JOHNSON_COOK material
model. The later is used as it is one of the few
elastic-plastic materials applicable to resultant beam
formulation used in model. Termination time set for
the analysis was 5 seconds.
Figure 12. Grade A steel true stress-strain curve.
Since various element size is implemented in both

models, an average element size is detected for both
coarse and fine mesh and the Peschmann failure criteria is adopted for each corresponding part. The
Peschmann and other failure criteria is critically analyzed in (Ehlers et al. 2008). Average deformation
before failure was found to be 0.13, while ranging
from 0.09 for the largest to 0.285 for the smallest elements. Grade A steel true stress-strain curve is applied,
Figure 12.
Both models consists of beam elements (BelytschkoSchwer resultant beam formulation), shell elements
(Belytschko-Tsay formulation), concentrated mass
elements and discrete elements (springs). Striking
model is generated in Femap preprocessor and then
converted to LS-Dyna analysis model. Struck ship
model was generated within SESAM software for the
purpose of the long-term fatigue analysis and was converted to LS-Dyna analysis model. Both fine mesh
models embedded into global struck model, classic
and sandwich structure, were generated using Femap
preprocessor and assembled in LS-Prepost prior to
analysis.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Two non-linear FE analyses are performed in LS-Dyna

for the same collision scenario: one with classic single
hull and one for sandwich hull structure on struck ship.
Top view on ships position at time instances t = 0 s,
t = 2.16 s and t = 5 s are presented in Figure 13 (left
to right). Only a part of the struck ship is presented.
Situation on Figure 13 is typical for both analyses.
Approximately at time instance t = 2.16 s maximum
penetration of the striking ship bow is achieved.
During the rest of the simulation, up to t = 5 s,
kinetic energy of the striking ship is transferred to the
global motion of the struck ship. At the end of simulation both ships are still moving, although slowing
down due to forces described by equations (1) and (2).
Analysis of the hydrodynamic effects is outside of the
scope of this article but will be studied in detail as a
part of the future work.
Figure 14 (up) presents damage on the classic hull at
t = 2.15 seconds and sandwich hull (down) at t = 2.16
seconds. The von Mises stress field is presented. It
335
Figure 13. Ships position at t = 0 s, t = 2.16 s and t = 5 s

(from left to right).
Figure 16. Comparison of resultant force.
Figure 14. Comparison of damage classic structure (up)

and sandwich structure (down).
Figure 17. Collision situation at t = 2 s in cross section view.
Figure 15. Comparison of kinetic energy change.
can be noticed that hull stiffness is insufficient to prevent significant damage of the ship side in both case.
However, sandwich structure is able to withstand collision with less damage, although not by large margin.
The major difference is that sandwich structure has
very big number of interconnected structural elements
which consume additional energy during tearing and
can remain connected even at small undamaged area.
This does not change the fact that penetration is significant in both cases, significantly reducing bending
capacity of the struck ship.
Figure 15 presents comparison of kinetic energy
for two collision scenarios. It may be noticed that total
kinetic energy is being absorbed faster by deformation
of sandwich than classic hull structure.
At the time instance t = 2 s the ratio between kinetic

energies is approximately 1.2 indicating 20% higher
strain energy absorption by a sandwich than a classic
structure.
Figure 16 presents resultant force during the contact. Although the peak force is of similar value, a
better resistance to tearing of the structure is present
in the case of sandwich structure, as expected, and can
be noticed as steeper force increase at the beginning
of collision.
Figure 17 presents cross section in collision situation at t = 2 s when sandwich structure is present. At
this moment maximum penetration is achieved and
then both ships continue to move in the direction of
striking ship movement, with a slow but steady loss
of common velocity, due to action of nodal forces
applied on the struck ship. The hydrodynamic resistance applied in this way roughly models inertial
forces proportional to ship displacement mass and
water resistance forces proportional to ship side projected area. It remains to study this in detail in further
research. It may be noticed that cargo tanks didnt
fail during collision, see also Figure 18. Striking ship
damage is not significant and possible reason for that
336
Single parts should not contain element with significant difference in size as only one failure criterion
per part is possible.
The contact between large and small finite elements is sensitive with respect to the failure criteria
applied.
Figure 18. Plastic strain and maximum damage of bi-lobe

tank at t = 2.16 s.
is that the Peschmann criterion is applied with difficulties if elements vary in size significantly with a single
LS-Dyna part.
Figure 18 presents maximum damage on bi-lobe
tank at t = 2.16 s. Although plastic deformation of the
tank is significant there is no rupture in the structure.
8
CONCLUSION
Non-linear FEM analysis of collision is now a widely

applied method for evaluation of structural crashworthiness and comparative analysis of different structural
solutions. A particular collision scenario is defined to
evaluate the application of a novel sandwich structure
in an LPG ship hull in comparison with common single
hull design. The results indicate that crashworthiness
may indeed be increased by the application of thin,
laser welded sandwich structure but not to an extraordinary level. Some 20% decrease in kinetic energy
during collision indicates higher energy absorption by
the sandwich structure. In addition, the total damage
of the novel hull is less pronounced due to the
many structural interconnections within the sandwich
structure grid.
The Peschmann failure criterion was applied to all
parts in both ship structures. The plastic deformation of the bow was found to be lower than expected.
The application of the failure criterion was already
recognized as a problem in literature, and here the
conclusions from the study experience are listed:
The finite element mesh should be carefully planned

when modeling for collision analysis. Due to variation in dimensions of elements only their average
size may be considered in the application of the
failure criterion. The transition from small to large
elements should occur far from the collision zone.
The present collision model combines elements of

external dynamics and internal mechanics and may
be considered as a state-of-the-art model, excluding fluid-structure interaction (FSI) models. Further
improvements of the collision model, in particular
water resistance modeling, may provide better insight
into collision event. Even so, parametric analysis of the
present model might answer the following questions:
to what extent sandwich structure may be improved to
increase crashworthiness in economical way, will the
internal tanks be damaged in collision up to rupture,
can the ship roll during collision be captured realistically. The answers to these questions remain for the
future study.
REFERENCES
Germanischer Lloyd, Rules for Classification and Construction, I Ship Technology, 1 Seagoing Ships,
6 Liquefied Gas Tankers, 2008.
Ehlers, S.; Broekhuijsen, J.; Alsos, HS.; Biehl, F. & Tabri, K.
2008. Simulating the collision response of ship side structures. A failure criteria benchmark study, International
Shipbuilding Progress 55: 127144.
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), Maritime
Accident Review 2010.
Hogstrm, P. & Ringsberg, JW. 2013. Assesment of the
crashworthiness of selection of innovative ship structures.
Ocean Engineering 59: 5872.
Jelovica, J.; Romanoff, J.; Ehlers, S. & Varsta, P. 2012.
Influence of weld stiffness on buckling strength of laserwelded web-core sandwich plates. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 77: 1218.
Klanac, A.; Ehlers, S.; Tabri, K.; Rudan, S. & Broekhuijsen, J.
Qualitative design assessment of crashworthy structures,
Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of the
International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean,
IMAM 2005. Maritime Transportation and Exploitation
of Ocean and Coastal Resources 1: 461469
Klanac, A.; Ehlers, S. & Jelovica, J. 2009. Optimization of
crashworthy marine structures. Marine Structures 22 (4):
670690.
Romanoff, J.; Remes, H.; Socha, G.; Jutila, M. & Varsta, P.
2007. The stiffness of laser stake welded T-joints in webcore sandwich structures. Thin-Walled Structures 45 (4):
453462.
Romanoff, J. 2011. Interaction between laser-welded webcore sandwich deck plate and girder under bending loads.
Thin-Walled Structures 49 (6): 772781.
Srdelic, M. & Rudan, S. 2011. Non-linear FEM study of
a ship grounding. Proceedings of Fourth conference on
marine technology, in memoriam of the academician
Zlatko Winkler, Rijeka: 107120.
337
Study on influence of striking bow strength to the side structure

during ship collision
K. Liu
State Key Lab. of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China
Y. Zhang & Z. Wang

School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology,
Zhenjiang Jiangsu, China
ABSTRACT: The problem about ship collision is the hot point of the ship mechanics. However, due to the
complexity of the problem during ship collision, the striking ship was often appropriately simplified during
analyzing the collision performance in order to save computational resources and improve the computational
efficiency. In fact, the simplifications of striking bow will have certain effect on the calculation results. This
paper focuses on the influence of striking bow strength to the collision capabilities of struck structures. The
quantitative comparison analysis was performed for striking with different bow strength. The results show that
the different strength of actual bows take effects to the collision performance of the struck structures, the bigger
of the strength , the lower of the limited penetration, the higher of the collision force, the more of the energy
absorption at the same penetration.
INTRODUCTION
With the continued development of the worlds shipping industry, water transportation becomes increasingly busy, collision and grounding accidents have
always occurred, which often results in disastrous
consequences such as damaged hull structures, cargo
leakage, environmental pollution, casualties and so on
(Wang, 2000; Yamada, 2006). Therefore, the protection during ship collision has attracted more and more
attention of governments in the world. In recent years,
the study on ship collision has become a hot focus
all over the world. Now, researches on this problem
mainly focused on the two aspects, they are collision performance and crashworthy design. In fact,
the two are closely related. The former is the foundation which is focus on the damage characteristics
and energy absorption mechanism, while the latter is
the target which mainly helps the struck ship improves
the crashworthiness. Many scholars have carried out
numerous studies on collision performance (Wang,
2002; Kim J Y, 2000), proposed a variety of crashworthiness structures (Wang and Zhang, 2008, 2007,
2002, 2001; Urban, 2003), which greatly improved the
crashworthiness of the ship structure. However, due to
the complexity of the problem during ship collision,
the striking ship was often appropriately simplified
during analyzing the collision performance in order to
save computational resources and improve the computational efficiency. These simplifications of striking
bow are certainly useful, but they will have certain
effect on the calculation results. Therefore, this paper

focuses on the influence of striking bow strength to
the collision capabilities of struck structures through
changing the strength of striking bulbous bows.
2
DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLISION

SCENARIO
2.1 Collision scenario

The collision scenario is chosen a 159,000 DWT
VLCC impacted by a 176,000 DWT bulk carrier with a
bulbous bow. The impact velocity is 10 m/s and impact
angle is 90 .
2.2
Collision scheme
In order to analyze the influence of the striking bow

strength to the crashworthiness of struck ship, the striking bow is defined as five structures with different
materials and plate thickness, calculating their crushing strength and then takes them as bulbous bows to
impact the stroke ship.
Figure 1. Finite element models.
339
Structural collision simulations were performed

using the commercial code MSC/DYTRAN, version
2010. We used PATRAN 2010 to build the finiteelement models. The structural material is marine low
carbon steel, and the mechanical properties of the
material (Table 1) used in the finite element models
are obtained from the references (Wang, 2000) which
obtained from in-house quasi-static tensile tests carried out on material of marine low carbon steel. The
cowper-symonds model is selected as material model,
and considering the material strain harden effect.
3
3.1
bulbous bow with a certain velocity. The bulbous bow

and rigid wall are using 4-node quadrilateral shell element, the heavy hammer is using 8-node hexahedral
element. The end of the bulbous bow connected to the
rigid wall.
Figure 4 shows the inner structures of the bulbous
bow. There are transverse frames, a longitudinal bulkhead and a platform. In order to make the striking
CALCULATION ON THE CRUSHING

STRENGTH OF STRIKING BULBOUS BOWS
Crushing strength calculation
The theoretical study often neglects the influence

of the load-deformation curve and uses the average
crushing force Pm because of the loaddeformation
curve showing a repeating morphology, the total axial
displacement greatly exceeds the displacement corresponding to the first load peak. In order to avoid
the human error, the Pm is solved by the deformation
energy Ek divided by the crushing depth s, that is:
Figure 2. Bulbous bow collision experiment (Yamada,

2006).
The equivalent strength of the bulbous bows m can

be calculated by the average crushing force Pm and the
average area A which calculated from the total section
area divided by the length of the bow, that is
Figure 3. Finite element model of bulbous bow.
3.2
Calculation on the crushing strength of

different bulbous bows
According to the experimental methods provided by

the reference (Yamada, 2006), finite element numerical simulation method is applied to study on the
crushing performance of different bulbous bows and
get the equivalent strength.
Figure 2 shows the bulbous bows crushing experiment (Yamada, 2006), and FE model corresponding to the experimental model (Yamada, 2006) was
re-created by the present authors as shown in Figure
3. The model uses a rigid heavy hammer crushing the
Table 1. The main factors of materials in simulation.
Poisson
ratio
Critical
strain
Yield
stress
MPa
0.3
0.16
235
Elastic
modulus
GPa
206
Parameters of
strain rate
D
40.4
5
Figure 4. Inner structures.
340
bulbous bows have different strength, 4 bulbous bows

are built and they are same in the structural size but
different in the plate thickness and yield stress. Table 2
shows the material parameters.
Table 2.
Material parameters of different bulbous.
Striking
bows
Outplate
mm
Bulkhead
platform
mm
Frames
mm
Yield
stress
MPa
Bow A
Bow B
Bow C
Bow D
12
16
20
24
10
14
18
22
8
12
16
20
235
275
315
355
3.3 The crushing strength of the

bulbous bows
Figure 5 and figure 6 are the crushing forces and
crushing deformation of different strength bows. It
can be found that when crushed by the heavy hammer, the response of the bows is unstable; the loaddeformation curves show a kind of morphology which
have repeated and irregular cycle changed. The buckling mode of the bows is a axisymmetric mode, and
the buckle is formed from the upper end, and then
propagated down.
On the basis of the formula (1), (2) and loaddeformation curves, the equivalent strength of 4
different striking bows are got, they are given in
Table 3.
Figure 5. Collision force of bulbous with different strength.
341
Figure 6. Deformation of bulbous collision (Photos from

Yamada, 2006).
Figure 8. The limited penetration-strength curve.
Table 3. The equivalent strength of 4 different striking bows.
Bows
Bow A
Bow B
Bow C
Bow D
m (MPA)
1.42
2.45
3.58
5.03
using an added mass 0.04 times of total ship mass by

increasing density of elements of ship rearward part in
this paper.
4.1 Limited penetration
Figure 7. FE model of inner structures of striking ship bow.
4 THE COLLISION PERFORMANCE OF SIDE

STRUCTURES UNDER DIFFERENT
STRENGTH OF BOWS
The limited penetration is defined as the penetration

when the inner side plate of the struck structure began
to rupture. Figure 8 shows the relationship between
the limited penetrations and the equivalent strength of
the striking ship bows. It can be seen from the figure:
1. with the increase of bow strength the limited penetrations decrease. This is because that the more of the
strength, the less of the relative strength of the struck
structures, and they are easier to be damaged; 2. The
bow strength has a great impact on the limited penetration, when m = 1.42 MPa, the striking bow is crushed
and the struck structure hasnt be damage d, while
m = 5.03 MPa, limited penetration is 2.89 m; 3. The
limited penetrations of the struck structures impacted
by striking bows B,C,D are very close. It indicates that
when the strength of striking bows increasing to a certain extent, it will not do obvious effect on the struck
structures. So, when it exceeds a certain range, it can
be used as a rigid.
4.2 Collision force
This part, the 4 bulbous bows with different strength

will be applied to the striking ship, to study on the collision performance of side structures under the different
strength of striking bows. Figure 7 shows the finite element model. The boundary condition of the struck side
structure is fixed of the four edges and considering the
influence on the striking ship motion from the water.
When the striking ship normally collides, it only moves
in longitudinal direction. The influence on the ship
motion from the water is relative little and depicted
Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the relationship between

the collision force and the strength of the different
striking bows. Figure 9 shows the collision force at the
limited penetrations; we can see that with the increase
of the strength of the striking bow, the collision force
decreased continuously. This is related to the limited penetrations; the stronger of the striking bow, the
less of the limited penetrations, and the collision area
reduce d. Figure 10 shows the collision force when
the penetration is 2.8 m. It can be seen that with the
increase of the strength of striking bows, the collision
force increasing constantly. It is not contradictory to
342
Figure 9. Curve of collision force-strength at the limited

penetration.
Figure 11. Structure energy absorbing-penetration curves.
structural damage deformation thereby affecting the

overall energy absorption of the structure. To carry
out structural crashworthiness design should take the
actual striking bow angles into account.
CONCLUSIONS
Through comparing and analyzing the limited penetration, collision force, and energy absorption of the
struck side structures under the striking of bulbous
bows with different strength, the main conclusions are
as followings:
Figure 10. Curve of collision force-strength at the penetration of 2.8 m.
the figure 9.At the same penetration, the stronger striking bow can make more s rious damage to de struck
structures, so the collision force increased.
4.3
Energy absorption
Figure 11 shows the relationship between energy

absorption of struck side structures and collision penetrations under the striking bows with different strength.
We can see from the figure that the stronger of the striking bow the more of the energy absorption at the same
collision penetration. With the increase of the collision
penetration, the difference becomes more obvious.The
difference mainly caused by the different strength of
the striking bows. When the strength of the bow is
less, it will deform in the collision process, and then
the area and the degree of the components involved in
damage deformation became more, so the struck structures can absorb more energy. It illustrated that the
contact area is one of the important factors that affects
1) With the increase of bow strength the limited penetrations decrease, but when the strength of striking
bows exceeds a certain range, the striking bow can
be used as a rigid.
2) The contact area is one of the important factors
that affect the collision force and the structural
damage deformation thereby affecting the overall
energy absorption of the structure. To carry out
structural crashworthiness design should take the
actual striking bow angles into account.
REFERENCES
Cho, S. & Lee, H. 2009. Experimental and analytical investigations on the response of stiffened plates subjected to
lateral collisions. Marine Structures 22: 8495.
Endo, H. & Yamada, Y. 2002. Model test on the collapse
strength of the buffer bow structures. Marine Structures
15: 365381.
Huatao, J. & Yongning, Gu. 2003. Discussion on Buffer
Bulbous BOW-Influence of Bow Curvature on Ship
Collision. Shipbuilding of China 44(2): 2532.
Jones, N. 1989. Structural Impact. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
343
Kazeminezhad, M. 2009. A comparison of low carbon steel

and AlMg alloy sheets in quasi-static tearing collisions.
Materials and Design 30: 13331336.
Kim, J. & Wook, L. 2000. On the structural energy absorbing system for double hull tanker; Proc. of the 7th
International Marine Design Conference: 305312.
Peroni, L.; Avalle, M. & Belingardi, G. 2009. Comparison of
the energy absorption capability of crash boxes assembled by spot-weld and continuous joining techniques.
International Journal of Impact Engineering 36:498511.
Tabri, K.; Broekhuijsen, J.; Matusiak, J. & Varsta, P. 2008.
Analytical modeling of ship collision based on full-scale
experiments. Marine Structures 22:4261.
Urban, J. 2003. Crushing and fracture of lightweight structures: Technical University of Denmark.
Wang, Z. 2000. Study on Damage Mechanism in Ship
Collisions and Structural Crashworthiness. Shanghai:
Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
Wang, Z. & Yongning, Gu. 2002. Study on Behavior of
Double-Sided Structure of VLCC in Collisions. Shipbuilding of China 43(3): 5863.
Wang, Z. & Zhang,Y. 2008. Single Hull Ship Structure Crashworthy Design Based on Sandwich Panel. Shipbuilding of
China 49(1): 6065.
Wang, Z. & Zhang, Y. 2007. Study on Crashworthiness
of Honeycomb Sandwich Panel under Lateral Dynamic
Load. Journal of Jiangsu University of Science and
Technology 21(3): 15: Natural Science Edition.
Wang, Z. & Yongning, Gu. 2002. A crashworthy type of double hull structure of VLCC. Journal of Ship Mechanics
6(1): 2736.
Wang, Z. &Yongning, Gu. 2001. A crashworthy side structure
for single-hull LPG carrier. Ship Engineering (2): 1214.
Yagi, S.; Kumamoto, H.; Muragishi, O.; Takaoka, Y. &
Shimoda, T. 2009. A study on collision buffer characteristic of sharp entrance angle bow structure. Marine
Yamada, Y. 2006. Bulbous Buffer Bow: A Measure to Reduce
Oil Spill in Tanker Collisions. PhD thesis, DTU.
Yamada, Y. & Pedersen, P. 2008. A benchmark study of procedures for analysis of axial crushing of bulbous bows.
344

Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures contains the latest
research results and innovations presented at the 6th International Conference on
Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures (Trondheim, Norway, 1719 June 2013). The book comprises contributions made in the field of numerical and
analytical analysis of collision and grounding consequences for ships and offshore
structures in various scenarios, such as narrow passageways and arctic conditions
including accidental ice impact. A wide range of topics is covered:
- Recent large-scale collision experiments
- Innovative concepts and procedures to improve the crashworthiness of ships and
offshore structures
- Ship collisions with offshore renewable energy installations
- Residual strength of damaged ship structures as well as mitigation measures for
the consequences of such accidents
- Statistical analysis of collision and grounding incidents to analyse and predict the
probability of their occurrence
- Developments concerning rational rules for structural design to avoid collisions
- Grounding actions comprising the use of general risk assessment methodologies
E. Kim
Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures contributes significantly

to increasing the safety and reliability of seaborne transport and operations, and
will be useful to academics and engineers involved in marine technology-related
research and the marine industry.
Amdahl
Ehlers
Leira

Jrgen Amdahl
Sren Ehlers
Bernt J. Leira
an informa business

Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures-2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures-2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collision and Grounding of Ships

and Offshore Structures

Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures contributes significantly

Collision and Grounding of Ships

COLLISION AND GROUNDING OF SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

This page intentionally left blank

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLLISION AND GROUNDING

Collision and Grounding of Ships

ISBN: 978-1-138-00059-9 (Hbk + CD-ROM)

Feasibility of collision and grounding data for probabilistic accident modeling

Bridge crossings at Sognefjorden Ship collision risk studies

An improvement on a method for estimating number of collision candidates between ships

Modeling and simulation system for marine accident cause investigation

Development of vessel collision model based on Naturalistic Decision Making model

Evaluation of the fendering capabilities of the SPS for an offshore application

Response of a tanker side panel punched by a knife edge indenter

A study on positive separating bulbous bow

Calculation of a stranding scenario

Loading on stranded ships

A simplified approach to predict the bottom damage in tanker grounding

Towards an integrated approach to collision and grounding damage assessment

Towards more rational design of ship structures against collisions

A particle swarm optimization-based procedure to obtain a crashworthy ice-classed LNG tanker

Safe jacket configurations to resist boat impact

Collision between a spar platform and a tanker

Ship collisions against wind turbines, quays and bridge piers

Ultimate strength of damaged hulls

Longitudinal strength assessment of damaged box girders

The analysis and comparison of double side skin crashworthiness

A methodology for comparison and assessment of three crashworthy side-shell structures:

Crashworthiness study of LPG ship with type C tanks

This page intentionally left blank

Feasibility of collision and grounding data for probabilistic

(VTS) violation and incident reports. Other potential

The purpose of accident modeling is to learn more

with ice, contact with other floating object, contact

Data fields in the DAMA accident database.

in-depth analyses of the marine accidents in Finland,

Before EMCIP, from the year 1990 to 2010, the marine

Table 2. Data fields in HELCOM accident database. The

3 ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS

*of the collisions with another vessel.

an external factor, or another factor is coarser than the

reports. However, the utilization of text mining is a

4.2 VTS violation and incident reporting

ForeSea is an anonymous and voluntary experience

CASE STUDY: FEASIBILITY OF

Table 3. Information fields of the Finnish VTS violation

Table 4. Information fields of the Finnish VTS incident

Details of the incident

referring to a similar factor or cause might vary, which

In order to avoid problems from taxonomy differences,

Table 5. The number of cases in the dataset and the number

Table 6. The number of cause types within cause categories

Figure 1. A part of the BN model structure learned from

detailed cause categorization and a possibility to report

performs with unseen data. Log-likelihood score is

the amount of data compared to the complexity of

of the cases more than one cause had been reported.

This paper has examined a few potential sources of

Darwiche, A. 2009. Modeling and reasoning with Bayesian

Finland: Finnish Transport Safety Agency. Trafin

Bridge crossings at Sognefjorden Ship collision risk studies

L. Skorpa, S.J. Hillestad & J. Veie