Trans RINA, Vol 161, Part A4, Intl J Maritime Eng, Oct-Dec 2019 STUDY ON THE ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FORCE BETWEEN SHIP AND BRIDGE
PIER (DOI No: 10.3940/rina.ijme.2019.a4.553)
J Pan, Key Laboratory of High Performance Ship Technology (Wuhan University of Technology), Ministry of Education, China; and Departments of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Structural Engineering, School of Transportation, Wuhan University of Technology, China; S W Huang and Y F Huang, Departments of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Structural Engineering, School of Transportation, Wuhan University of Technology; M C Xu*, School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China; and Collaborative Innovation Centre for Advanced Ship and Deep-Sea Exploration (CISSE), China
SUMMARY
The bridge crossing water way is in the risk of impact by vessel, and thus it is very important to estimate the collision force for the safety of bridge. The impact force between bridge pier and vessel is investigated by numerical simulation and various empirical formulae. The collision response between a 5000t DWT bulk carrier with bulb bow and rigid bridge pier is simulated in the explicit finite element code of ANSYS LS-DYNA. The difference of the impact force between the empirical formulae and FE analysis are discussed. Based on the comparison of the results, the coefficient in the formulae is suggested for obtaining more accurate assessment of impact force.
1. INTRODUCTION
In some circumstance, the bridge pier locates in the waterway, which could be regarded as artificial obstacle in the inland navigation and would be inherently at the risk of possible impacted by the errant transport vessels. Although there exist many methods to reduce the accident of collision between the ship and bridge, it is impossible to avoid completely. In Florida, USA, a bridge beam of Sunshine Skyway Bridge was impacted by ship and fell into the water. Several similar accidences also happened in China.
In the last decades of years’ research on ship-bridge impact accidents, the principle methods to calculate ship impact force are experiment, empirical formula and numerical simulation. To quantifying the characteristics of barge impact loads, Meier-Dὅrnberg (1983) studied both static and dynamic loading by small scale (1:4.5 to 1:6) model that considered European Type barge. Zhang et al (2010) carried out some experimental studied on drop hammer laterally impacting reinforced concrete bridge pier.
But the collision test generally is performed occasionally because of high cost and the difficulty to carry out. Finite elements method could give reliable and precision result in the study of ship and bridge collision. Hu et al. (2005) used FEA software to simulate the head-on collision conditions between rigid bridge pier and vessels with various displacements, in which the relationships between impact force, crush depth and collision dissipated energy were discussed. Yuan and Harik (2008) considered the impact of multi-barge flotilla on bridge piers was also studied flotillas impact against bridge piers by FE analysis.
The numerical simulation method can give reasonable results and a visual failure procedure of the ship and
bridge. However, the large amount of effort to establish models and calculation time makes this method inconvenient. Thus, it is commonly that the empirical formulae are adopted during the design of bridge against. In recent years, many scholars proposed the relevant empirical formula method, which is manly divided into two categories: one is the fitting formula achieved according to experimental data, like the formula of Woisin
(1976), Saul-Svensson-Knott-Greiner
recommended by IABSE (1983), and requirement formula in AASHTO requirement (2007); while the other one is the formula calculated on the basis of some theoretical equations, e.g. the formulae in requirement of TB (2005) and JTG (2004), and Pedersen formula (Pedersen, 1993).
Relative to experiment and FE analysis, the formula method calculates faster, but the accuracy is yet to be assessed for the empirical terms. Wang et al (2006) and Wu (2010) investigated the basic process of ship-bridge impact by means of nonlinear finite element, comparing numerical results with various empirical formulae. Sha and Hao (2012) calculated the impact response of barge and bridge pier in FE analysis, and then proposed estimation expression of impact force. Pan et al (2016) adopted several common empirical formulae to calculate the collision force of four different bulk carriers impacting bridge piers in various speeds. From these comparisons, it was found that the impact force assessed in these empirical formulae is different with that in FE analysis in some cases.
The empirical formula method has an irreplaceable position during the design of bridge against ship impact in most of circumstance, and the accuracy should be further discussed. The impact response and forces of a 5,000t DWT bulk carrier with bulb bow are discussed according to the numerical results, which are compared with various empirical formulae. Based on the comparison results, the
©2019: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
A-427
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166
