Trans RINA, Vol 161, Part A4, Intl J Maritime Eng, Oct-Dec 2019
also would cause the difference of kinetic energy reduction factor. Hence, it needs to study the kinetic energy reduction factor for different types of vessel bow in the future study.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The collision between ship and rigid bridge pier is simulated in explicit finite element method to investigate the structural response and impact force. The impact forces assessed in FE analysis and several empirical formulae are also compared, which is used to revise the assessment formulae of impact force in TB requirement (TB, 2005). The main conclusions are draw as follows. 1. The histories of collision force and depth are very similar at the beginning for different impact velocity, especially for ballast load situation, which means that the stiffness of ship bow is very important for the impact force for the collision velocity under consideration. It is possible to adopt quasi static analysis to assess the impact force between the ship and bridge pier.
2. The impact forces could be caused by the both upper deck and bulb bow parts, which should be both included in the development of theoretical formulae.
3. There exist many kinds of types, bows and displacements of ship, which would influence the elastic deformation coefficient, and thus should be expressed as function of dynamic kinetic energy of various type of ship by systemic parameter analysis in the future.
4. An expression is developed for assessing the elastic deformation coefficient based on the formula of TB requirement, which
could improve the
approximating accuracy. From the comparison of results, the modified formula gives well agreement results with that in FE analysis.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work has been supported by the Natural Science Fund of China (Grant No. 51609192, 51679100), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University (2018KFYYXJJ014, 2019Ⅲ039), Excellent Dissertation Cultivation Funds of Wuhan University of Technology (2018-YS-024), Transportation Science & Technology Fund of Hunan Province (201616), Key R&D Programs of Hunan Province (2016GK2025).
6. 1.
REFERENCES
AASHTO (2007). Guide specifications and commentary for vessel collision design of highway bridges. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official.
2. ALSOS HS, AMDAHL J (2007). On the 11.
12. 13.
14. 15.
resistance of tanker bottom structures during stranding. Marine Structures, 20(4), pp. 218-37.
3. 4. 5.
BELYTSCHKO T, LIU WK, MORAN B. (2006). Nonlinear finite elements for continua and structures. Chichester JohnWiley & Sons;
(England):
CHEN GY, WANG LL (2006). Ship-bridge collisions and its Defense. China Railway Publishing Press.
CHEN GY, NI BY, LI YJ (2013). Laboratory studies of
ship-pier 6. 7. 8. 9. impact force and
comparisons between full-scale ship tests and numerical simulations. Shipbuilding of China, 54 (A02), pp. 507-516.
DU ZH (2015). Numerical simulation study for ship-bridge collision dynamic response. PhD dissertation. Chongqing Jiaotong University.
GLYKAS A, DAS P K, BARLTROP N (2001). Application of failure and fracture criteria during a tanker head-on collision. Ocean Engineering, 28(4), pp. 375-395.
HU ZQ, GU YN, GAO Z, LI, YN (2005). Fast evaluation of ship-bridge collision force based on nonlinear numerical simulation. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 4(1), pp. 8-14
IABSE (1983). International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (,). Ship collision with Bridges and offshore structures. Preliminary report, colloquium. Copenhagen, Denmark.
10.
MEIER-DὍRNBERG KE (1983). Ship collisions, safety zones, and loading assumptions for structures in inland waterways, Association of German Engineers, Report No. 496, 1-9
NORSOK Standard N-004 (2004). Design of steel structures, Appendix A, design against accidental actions;.
JONES N (1989). Structural impact. Cambridge University Press.
JONES N, WIERZBICKI T (1983). Structural crashworthiness. Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd.
JTG D60 (2004). General code for the design of highway bridge and culvert. Beijing: China Communications Press.
PAN J, HUANG SW, XU MC (2016). Numerical Analysis for Impact Force in High- Energy Ship-Bridge Pier Collisions. ASME 2016 35th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
16. 17.
PEDERSEN PT, VAISGARD S, OLSEN D (1993). Ship
impacts: bow collisions.
International Journey of Impact Engineering, 13(2), pp. 163-187.
SHA YY, HAO H (2012). Nonlinear finite element analysis of barge collision with a single bridge pier, Engineering Structures, 41, pp. 63- 76.
A-434
©2019: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
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
