Ship Collision

Resistance to Accidental
Ship Collisions
Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 1

Norwegian Structural Steel Association
Outline
General principles
Impact scenarios
Impact energy distribution
External impact mechanics
Collision forces
Energy dissipation in local denting
Energy dissipation in tubular members
Strength of connections
Global integrity
DESIGN AGAINST ACCIDENTAL LOADS
• Verification methods
– Simplified (“back of the envelope methods)
• Elastic-plastic/rigid plastic methods (collision/explosion/dropped
objects)
• Component analysis (Fire)
– General calculation/Nonlinear FE methods

• USFOS, ABAQUS, DYNA3D…..

NORSOK STANDARD
• General
– “The inherent uncertainty of the frequency and magnitude of the

accidental loads as well as the approximate nature of the methods for
their determination as well as the analysis of accidental load effects shall
be recognised. It is therefore essential to apply sound engineering
judgement and pragmatic evaluations in the design.”

NORSOK STANDARD
• “If non-linear, dynamic finite element analysis is applied

all effects described in the following shall either be
implicitly covered by the modelling adopted or subjected to
special considerations, whenever relevant”

Recent trends:
Location sometimes close to heavy traffic lanes
AtoN North
12 nm radius
Gjøa SEMI
AtoN South

Present trend for supply vessels:
bulbous bows & increased size

The outcome of a collision may be this….

..or this….

Principles for ALS structural design
illustrated for FPSO/ship collision
Ductil e Shared-energy Strength
design design design
Energy dissipation
ship
installation
Relative strength - installation/ship
Strength design - FPSO crushes bow of vessel

(ref. ULS design)
Ductility design - Bow of vessel penetrates
FPSO side/stern
Shared energy design - Both vessels deform
Fairly moderate modification of relative strength may change the
design from ductile to strength or vice verse
SHIP COLLISION
Design principles- analysis approach
Strength design:
The installation shape governs the deformation field of the
ship. This deformation field is used to calculate total and
local concentrations of contact force due to crushing of
ship.The installation is then designed to resist total and
local forces.
Note analogy with ULS design.

SHIP COLLISION
Design principles - analysis approach
Ductility design:
The vessel shape governs the deformation field of the
installation. This deformation field is used to calculate
force evolution and energy dissipation of the deforming
installation.
The installation is not designed to resist forces, but is

designed to dissipate the required energy without collapse
and to comply with residual strength criteria.
SHIP COLLISION
Design principles - analysis approach
Shared energy design:
– The contact area the contact force are mutually dependent
on the deformations of the installation and the ship.
– An integrated, incremental approach is required where the
the relative strength of ship and installation has to be checked
at each step as a basis for determination of incremental
deformations.
– The analysis is complex compared to strength or ductility
design and calls for integrated, nonlinear FE analysis.
– Use of contact forces obtained form a strength/ductility
design approach may be very erroneous.
Grane - potential impact locations -

Collision Mechanics
• Convenient to separate into
 External collision mechanics

– Conservation of momentum
– Conservation of energy
 Kinetic energy to be dissipated as strain energy
 Internal collision mechanics

– Distribution of strain energy in installation and
ship
 Damage to installation

External collision mechanics
Central collision (force vector through centre of gravity of platform and ship)
ms v s + m p v p
Conservation of momentum vc =
ms + m p
Common velocity end of impact ms vs + m p v p = ( ms + m p ) vc
Conservation of energy 1/2 m s v 2s + 1/2 m p v 2p = 1/2 ( m s + m c ) v c2 + E s + E p
Energy to be dissipated by ship and the platform

2
v
(1 - p )
2 vs
E s + E p = 1/2 ms v s
m
1+ s
mp

External collision mechanics
Collision energy to be dissipated as strain energy
2
Compliant installations  v 
1  i 
E s  (m s  a s )v s 
(semi-subs, TLPs, FPSOs, 1 2 vs 
2 m  as
Jackups) 1 s
mi  a i
1
Es  (m s  a s )v s
2
Fixed installations (jackets)
2
2
 v 
1  i 
E s  (m s  a s ) 
1 vs 
Articulated columns 2 m z2
1 s
J
ms = ship mass
as = ship added mass
vs = impact speed
mi = mass of installation
ai = added mass of installation
vi = velocity of installation
J = mass moment of inertia of installation (including added mass)
with respect to effective pivot point
z = distance fromNORSOK
Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 pivot standard for offshore structures
point to point of contact 17
Ship collision- dissipation of strain energy
Rs Ri
Es,s Es,i
dws Ship Installation dwi
w s,max w i, max
E s  E s,s  E s,i   R s dw s   R i dw i
0 0
The strain energy dissipated by the ship and installation equals the total
area under the load-deformation curves, under condition of equal load.
An iterative procedure is generally required
SHIP COLLISION - according to NORSOK
Force-deformation curves for supply vessel
(TNA 202, DnV 1981)
50
Broad side Force – deformation

D = 10 m
40 = 1.5 m
D
curves from 1981 –
derived by simplified
Impact force (MN)
30
methods
D Now: NLFEA is available!

20 Stern corner Stern end
D = 10 m Analysis of bulbous bow
= 1.5 m
required
10
D
Bow
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Indentation (m)
Note: Bow impact against large diameter columns only

Supply vessel bow ~ 7500 tons
displacement
Dimension: Length:
L.O.A. 90.70m
Lrule 85.44m
Breadth mld 18.80m
Depth mld 7.60m
Draught scantling 6.20m

Finite element models

Material modeling
900
800
700
600
Effective stress [MPa]
500
400
300
200 Mild steel curve fit

High strength steel curve fit
100 High strength steel data points
Mild steel data points
0
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3
Plastic strain [-]
 Bow: Mild steel – nominal fy = 235 MPa, apply fy = 275 MPa

 Column: Design strength fy = 420 MPa
 Strain hardening included – relatively more for bow
Impact location 1
Max strain 12%
Bow is crushed – relatively small deformations in column

Max. column strain – 12% - at bulb location
Strain level close to rupture
Lysaker November 22-23,Column
2006 NORSOK
strain at standard for offshore location
superstructure structures is 7% 23
Force deformation curve for bow
Bulb
Bow superstructure
 The crushing force in the bulb is larger than the superstructure for the
crushing range analyzed
 The crushing force increases steadily for the superstructure
 The bulb attains fast a maximum force followed by a slight reduction
Pressure-area relation for design
 Pressure-area relation analogy with ice design is found from
collision analysis
 Provide recommendation for design against impact
pressure-area curve
40
35
30
Total
collision P=7.06A-0.7
Pressure (MPa)
25
force 20
distributed
15
over this
area 10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Area (m^2)
Plots of collision force Pressure-area relation for design

intensity
Ship collision with FPSO
• Only the side of one tank is modeled
• Three scenarios established w.r.t.
draughts
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

SHIP COLLISION
Contact force distribution for strength design of large
diameter columns
Total collision force

distributed over this
area
Area with high force
intensity
Deformed stern corner

Bow collision with braces
Can the brace be designed to crush the bow?
Medium strength bow - tube Strong bow- tube and bow deforms
undamaged

Ship
collision
with
oblique Deformation energy & Collision force
30 14000
brace 25 12000
10000
20
Energy [MJ]
Force [KN]
8000
15
6000
10
4000
Total Energy
5 2000
Total Contact force
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Deformation [mm]

Ship
collision with
brace
Deformation energy & Collision force
20 12000
18
16 10000
14
Energy [MJ]
8000
Force [KN]
12
10 6000
8
6 4000
4 Total Energy
2000
2 Total Contact force
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Deformation [mm]

Ship collision with brace
Energy dissipation in bow versus brace resistance
Fcstl. deck
Energy dissipation in bow if brace resistance R0
Contact location > 3 MN > 6 MN > 8 MN > 10 MN
1st deck Above bulb 1 MJ 4 MJ 7 MJ 11 MJ
10 m First deck 0 MJ 2 MJ 4 MJ 17 MJ
First deck - oblique brace 0 MJ 2 MJ 4 MJ 17 MJ
Between f'cstle/first deck 1 MJ 5 MJ 10 MJ 15 MJ
Arbitrary loaction 0 MJ 2 MJ 4 MJ 11 MJ
2
Brace must satisfy the 1.5
fyt D 0.5
  factor
following requirement 3
Joints and adjacent structure must be strong enough to support the

reactions from the brace.
Energy dissipation modes
in jackets
Plastic
Elastic
Plastic

Local denting tests with tubes

Yield line model for local denting
Measured
deformation

Resistance curves for tubes subjected to denting
20
18
16
14 b/D = 2
1
R/(kRc)
12
0.5
10
0
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
wd/D
1.925
2 3.5+
b Approximate
t D b w D 4 1 N 3
R/( fy ) = (22 + 1.2 ) ( d )  (1 - [1 - ] ) expression including
4 t D D 3 4 Np effect of axial force
Resistance curves for tubes subjected to denting
20
18
16
14 b/D = 2
1
R/(kRc)
12
0.5
10
0
8
Include local denting
6
4 If collapse load in bending, R0/Rc < 6
2 neglect local denting
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
wd/D

Relative bending moment capacity of
tubular beam with local dent
(contribution from flat region is conservatively neglected)

SHIP COLLISION
Plastic resistance curve for bracings
collision at midspan

Collapse model for beam with fixed ends
Ru = 1 - ( w 2 + w arcsin w w
<1
)
Ro D D D D
Ru =  w w
>1
Ro 2 D D
SHIP COLLISION
Elastic-plastic resistance curve for bracings
collision at midspan
Factor c includes the effect of elastic flexibility at ends
6,5
6
5,5
Rigid-plastic Bending & membrane
5 Membrane only
4,5 F-R
0.2
4 k k
0,3 0.1 w
0 3,5
R/ 0.5
3
R 1
2,5
2 c  0.05
1,5
1
0,5
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Deformation w
Example: supply vessel impact on brace
628
762 x 28.6 mm
= 23.3 m
508

Example: supply vessel impact on brace
10 10
Energy dissipation 1.0
Energy dissipation [MJ]

8 8
Impact force [MN]
0.8
Normalised force N/NP

6 6
0.6
USFOS
4 4 0.4
0.2
2 Simple model 2
0.0
0 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Normalised moment M/MP
Displacement [m]
Kinetic energy absorbed by brace prior to rupture: 6 ~ 7 MJ

Strength of connections
(NORSOK N-004 A.3.8)
 Provided that large plastic strains can develop in the impacted member, the
strength of the connections that the member frames into has to be checked.
 The resistance of connections should be taken from ULS requirements in
NORSOK standard for tubular joints and Eurocode 3 or NS3472 for other
joints.
 For braces reaching the fully plastic tension state, the connection shall be
checked for a load equal to the axial resistance of the member. The design
axial stress shall be assumed equal to the ultimate tensile strength of the
material.
 If the axial force in a tension member becomes equal to the axial capacity of
the connection, the connection has to undergo gross deformations. The
energy dissipation will be limited and rupture has to be considered at a given
deformation. A safe approach is to assume disconnection of the member
once the axial force in the member reaches the axial capacity of the
connection.
 If the capacity of the connection is exceeded in compression and bending,
this does not necessarily mean failure of the member. The post-collapse
strength of the connection may be taken into account provided that such
information is available.

Strength of adjacent structure
 The strength of structural members adjacent to the impacted
member/sub-structure must be checked to see whether they can
provide the support required by the assumed collapse mechanism.
 If the adjacent structure fails, the collapse mechanism must be
modified accordingly.
 Since, the physical behaviour becomes more complex with
mechanisms consisting of an increasing number of members it is
recommended to consider a design which involves as few members
as possible for each collision scenario.

Ductility limits
Ref: NORSOK A.3.10.1
 The maximum energy that the impacted member can dissipate will –
ultimately - be limited by local buckling on the compressive side or
fracture on the tensile side of cross-sections undergoing finite rotation.
 If the member is restrained against inward axial displacement, any local
buckling must take place before the tensile strain due to membrane
elongation overrides the effect of rotation induced compressive strain.
 If local buckling does not take place, fracture is assumed to occur when
the tensile strain due to the combined effect of rotation and membrane
elongation exceeds a critical value

Local buckling of tubes undergoing
large rotations
M/Mps
ov A2 (24)
1.0
ov
D/t -ratio
0.5
A5 (48)
A8 (96)
10 20 30 y
Bending moment versus rotation of beam (reproduced form Sherman 1986).
Tubes with low slenderness (~20-30) can achieve a bending moment equal to or larger
than the plastic bending moment and maintain this for a significant rotation. For
intermediate slenderness (D/t ~40 –60) the plastic bending moment can be achieved, but
local buckling takes place after some rotation. Tubes with high slenderness can not even
reach the plastic bending moment, but experiences a dramatic drop in the capacity once
local
Lysaker buckling
November occurs.
22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 45
Ductility limits
Ref: NORSOK A.3.10.1
 To ensure that members with small axial restraint maintain moment

capacity during significant plastic rotation it is recommended that
cross-sections be proportioned to Class 1 requirements, defined in
Eurocode 3 or NS3472.
 Initiation of local buckling does, however, not necessarily imply that
the capacity with respect to energy dissipation is exhausted,
particularly for Class 1 and Class 2 cross-sections. The degradation of
the cross-sectional resistance in the post-buckling range may be taken
into account provided that such information is available
 For members undergoing membrane stretching a lower bound to the
post-buckling load-carrying capacity may be obtained by using the
load-deformation curve for pure membrane action.

Tensile Fracture
Plastic deformation or critical strain at fracture
depends upon
material toughness
presence of defects
strain rate
presence of strain concentrations
Critical strain of section with defects

- assessment by fracture mechanics methods.
Plastic straining preferably outside the weld

- overmatching weld material

Y max Y h Y h
M
M
Stress Approximate stress
Strain
distribution distribution
Stress-strain distribution - bilinear material

50

45
40
k
Hardening parameter H = 0.005
35
30 Maximum strain P
Strain 
cr/Y x
25 = 50

20 = 40
= 20
15
10
No hardening
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
x/
Axial variation of maximum strain for a cantilever beam

with circular cross-section
Assumption: Bilinear stress-strain relationship
Local buckling does not need to be considered
if the follwowing conditions is met
Assumption: Membrane tension larger than compression in rotation
(NORSOK N-004)
1
 14cf f y  κ  2  3
β    β
Dt
 c1  d c   where
  235 f y
2
 c 
cf    axial flexibility factor

1 c 
dc = characteristic dimension
= D for circular cross-sections
c1 = 2 for clamped ends
= 1 for pinned ends
c = non-dimensional spring stiffness as
k   0.5  =the smaller distance from location of collision load to adjacent joint

Critical deformation for local buckling
(NORSOK N-004)
Local buckling may be assumed to occur when
 14cf f y  κ 
2 
w 1  
 1 1  
dc 2cf 
 c1β 3   c 
d  

 
For small axial restraint (c < 0.05)
2
w 3.5f y  κ 
 
d  
dc c1β 3  c 
Note: Local buckling does not necessarily imply that energy dissipation ceases complet
2
 c 
cf   
1 c  axial flexibility factor
 
dc = characteristic dimension
= D for circular cross-sections
= 1 for pinned ends
c = non-dimensional spring stiffness as
k 0.5  =the smaller distance from location of collision
Tensile Fracture
The degree of plastic deformation at fracture exhibits a
significant scatter and depend upon the following factors:
material toughness
presence of defects
strain rate
presence of strain concentrations
Welds normally contain defects. The design should hence ensure that
plastic straining takes place outside welds (overmatching weld material)

Tensile Fracture
• The critical strain in parent material depends
upon:
 stress gradients
 dimensions of the cross section
 presence of strain concentrations
 material yield to tensile strength ratio
 material ductility
• Critical strain (NLFEM or plastic analysis)

t
 cr  0.02  0.65 ,   5t : length of plastic zone

Critical deformation for tensile fracture in yield hinges
w c
 1
d c 2c f
 1  4c w c f ε cr / c1  1 
2
1  2   W  εY   κ 
displacement factor c w   c lp 1  c lp   41    
c1   3   WP  ε cr   d cr 
 ε cr  W
  1 H
ε W
c lp   
y P
plastic zone length factor
 ε cr  W
  1 H 1
ε W
 y  P
2
 c 
axial flexibility factor cf   

 1  c 
Ep 1  f cr  f y 
non-dim. plastic stiffness H 
E E  ε cr  ε y 

= 1 for pinned ends cr = critical strain for rupture
fy
c = non-dimensional spring stiffness εy  yield strain
E
kl  0.5l the smaller distance from location of collision load fy = yield strength
to adjacent joint fcr = strength corresponding to cr
dc = D diameter of tubular beams
W = elastic section modulus
= 2hw twice the web height for stiffened plates
WLysaker
= November 22-23,
plastic section 2006
modulus
NORSOK standard for offshore structures
= h
53
height of cross-section for symmetric I-profiles
P
cr = critical strain for rupture
Tensile fracture in yield hinges
Determination of H
fcr
fcr
HE HE
E E
cr cr
Determination of plastic stiffness
f
HE

Erroneous determination of plastic stiffness

• Proposed values for ecr and H for
different steel grades
Steel grade cr H
S 235 20 % 0.0022
S 355 15 % 0.0034
S 460 10 % 0.0034

comparison with NLFEM
20%
NORSOK
15%
ABAQUS fine
Strain
10% USFOS beam

ABAQUS
5% USFOS shell
0%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Displacement [m]


Ship Collision

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ship Collision

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Resistance to Accidental

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 1

– General calculation/Nonlinear FE methods

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 3

– “The inherent uncertainty of the frequency and magnitude of the

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 4

• “If non-linear, dynamic finite element analysis is applied

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 5

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 6

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 7

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 8

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 9

Relative strength - installation/ship

Strength design - FPSO crushes bow of vessel

Note analogy with ULS design.

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 11

The installation is not designed to resist forces, but is

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 14

 External collision mechanics

 Internal collision mechanics

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 15

Common velocity end of impact ms vs + m p v p = ( ms + m p ) vc

Conservation of energy 1/2 m s v 2s + 1/2 m p v 2p = 1/2 ( m s + m c ) v c2 + E s + E p

Energy to be dissipated by ship and the platform

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 16

dws Ship Installation dwi

Broad side Force – deformation

D Now: NLFEA is available!

Note: Bow impact against large diameter columns only

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 19

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 20

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 21

200 Mild steel curve fit

 Bow: Mild steel – nominal fy = 235 MPa, apply fy = 275 MPa

Bow is crushed – relatively small deformations in column

Plots of collision force Pressure-area relation for design

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 26

Total collision force

Deformed stern corner

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 28

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 29

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 30

Joints and adjacent structure must be strong enough to support the

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 32

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 33

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 34

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 36

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 37

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 40

Energy dissipation [MJ]

Normalised force N/NP

Kinetic energy absorbed by brace prior to rupture: 6 ~ 7 MJ

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 42

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 43

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 44

Bending moment versus rotation of beam (reproduced form Sherman 1986).

 To ensure that members with small axial restraint maintain moment

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 46

Critical strain of section with defects

Plastic straining preferably outside the weld

Lysaker November 22-23, 2006 NORSOK standard for offshore structures 47

Stress-strain distribution - bilinear material

Axial variation of maximum strain for a cantilever beam