@® sere conzsrons wer ABSTRACT Ship collisions with offshore platforms have been identified as one of the possibly major hazards in connection with production of hydrocarbons from offshore platforms. For analysis of probability of ship - plat- form collisions, a new approach is presented, based on computer simulation techniques. ‘This method and a summary of results to date, regarding collision with off-take tankers, are discussed in the paper. Deformation characteristics and energy ab- sorption of ship structures subject te col~ lisions, are of major importance for a pro- per prediction of the impact forces. Such investigations are included in the paper. A simplified, theoretical calculation model is outlined, based on large plastic deforma- tions on one of the sides. In this way, the relationship between impact loads and in- dentation deformations are obtained. The impact resistance of concrete as well as vteel platform main members subject to ship collision is discussed.various modes of energy absorption in the platform struc- ture are studied. Ricont tests on local denting of models of tubular members of steel platforms are described. For a concrete column the shaft stron st) with regard to punching shear failure and bending failure of shaft wall is compared with the loads Likely to be imposed ty « supply ship in sideways collision INTRODUCTION Offshore of] activities involve several typos of risks. Collisions between a chip and an offshore platform is one potential OFFSHORE PLATFORMS Olay Furnes, MSc, Principal Research Engineer, Det norske Veritas Jorgen Andahl, MSc, Research Engineer, Det norske Veritas accident that has caused considerable con- cern. In fact, a survey of major accidents occurred to offshore structures during the , Period 1970-79 indicates that collisions represent one of the more significant risk contributing situations. Although the con- sequences of most offshore collisions have been minor to date, a ship collision is po- tentially an accident of highly sericus character. ‘The event "collision" is characterized by the probability of occurrence and the in- herent consequences. These must be regarded in relation. Major collisions endangering human lives, structures and environment must have low probability, while minor impacts occurring frequently must have small conse- quences. In principle, a collision evelua~ tion should take into consideration the en~ tire class of collision events, determine the probability and consequence associated with these events, and compare these with acceptance or design criteria. However, such a procedure will be very complex and in prac- tice not very feasible. Instead, a selec~ tion of "design accidents" are defined as basis for the analysis. Jt is important to realize that the proba- bidity as well as the consequences of colli-~ sions are affected by several factors such as traffic monitoring, navigational, aids, field lay-out, platform topology, design and fendering, operational limits, size and man- ocuviubility of the vessels, mooring equip- nent ate. Consequently, an acceptable safety level with regard te ship collisions should be attained by a well balanced and adequate composition of the various preventive and protective measures available. the risk of collisions is concerned traffic may be divided into three hs far as the marinegroups: i} Authorized vesseis servicing the in- stallations ii) Tankers for offshore loading in the area 414) ALL ether kinds of by-passing ships. velop more realistic design criteria for im- pact loads. PROBABILITY OF COLLISIONS. This classification of ship traffic indicates various methods are available for predicting that the nature of causes as well as the con- the probability of ship collisions. NMI has sequences may be quite different for the various groups. The most severe potential of a collision is associated with large merchant which the colligion probability was vessels or tankers running into the instal- lation at full speed. On the other hand, the probability for this is small, thus making it rather unreasonable to design the struc~ conducted a rather extensive study related to the installations in U.K. waters /2/, in esti- mated for various categories on the basis of recorded incidents, safety zone infringe- ments, analogies with ship encounters and striking of other fixed objects (light ships, ture as being capable of directly sustaining buoys) etc. such a large collision load. ‘The most frequent type of collision is im pacts close to the platforms. Lowev.:, in most cases the consequences appear co he smal). concerning the structural safety of the in- stallation. Veritas has laid down the following guidance from authorized vessels which operate Evidently the risk of collision with by- passing vessels is closely related to the density of the traffic in the area. Platforms installed close to typical shipping routes will be more oxposed to collision. In fact, the pilots tend to use then as navigational aids, thus approaching quite close to the installations /3/. As for the particular case of tankers involved in offshore loading for the design of offshore structures against operations the accumulated experience in the ship collisions. The following cases are considered: i) Operational case in which no damage is allowed to occur ii} Accidental case where local damage is accepted, but without collapse of the platform or najor parts thereof. The size of the impacting vessels is to be determined on the basis of the size of those vessels intenovd to operate in the area, Normally a supply sessel of 2500 tons dis~ placement is used. the speed of the vessel is frequently taken as 0.5 m/s in the opera~ tional case and 1.5-2.0 m/s in the accidental case. Although the criteria for certain types of collision loads are relativel: specific, the knowledge of the structural response of the installations as well ae the impacting vessel vo this rather sparse end, Veritas hae been conducting « comprehen- to improve the sive research project in cries knowledge of impact lond:, probability of collisions and structura? behaviour as well as absorption and distriLuri impact energy. The final chjective is to de~ behaviour of the n of the initial i North Sea context is rather sparse and the majority of the methods mentioned above can- not directly be applied. Instead a new ap- proach based on simulation techniques ha been developed. The procedure has heen des- cribed quite extensively elsewhere /4/5/ and only a brief description will be made here. Obviously a complex variety of causes lead- ing to a platform/tanker encounter exists. Considerable insight may he gained hy ap- plying the fault free method. However, it is an almost impossible task to evaluate the total collision probability accuratly, taking all kinds of human and technical failures into account. Thus, when performing analysis of the probability of collisions it is roa~ sonable to consider idealized situations initially. When experience has been gainud from the idealized model, one can thence proceed with a more sophisticated model. In the present analysis it has been ay that the tanker encounters a critical fai- lure when approaching the loading buoy. Such a failure may be loss of propulsion, of rudder in the instantaneous position, blackout etc. After such failure it is as~sumed that no effort is by the crn avoid collision. The path of the tanker af te failure will be influenced by the externa) forces acting on the ship, e.g. wind, waves, and current, nosition, velocity and rudier angle at failure. These factors ean be o sidered as stochastic variables. If F is the event that a critical facture takes place and C is the event that a cci- lision between the tanker and an offshore platform occurs, the probability of unl sion is: P(e) = P (C/F) = PP) The magnitude of P (F) must be determined on the basis of experience failure data. P (C/F; is the conditional probability of collision which will be determined by simulation. By calculating (C/F) for different arrange- ments of platfcrivs relative to the buoy it is possible to choose the "best" arrangement if P (PF) can be considered invariant in this context, ‘The method is illustrated by Figure 1. A critical failure has been assumed to occur a a distance of an offshore platform. By simu~ lation and numerical integration the subse- quent path of the tanker can be determined and its intersection with the circle through the platform can be calculated. Realizing that the path is influenced by the above- mentioned stochastic parameters, the angle o} intersection (0) will be stochasts. and de- scribed by the probability density function P» - By performing repeated (Monte Carlo) simulations thi: probability density functio! can be determined as a function of the dis~ tance at failure to the loading buoy. he ecndi tie indicated Assuming the density lure can be oi pyebability of collision é y thy hatehed arca in the Fidure. toe tanker heads inte the wind vnclion of the distance at fai~ ved from the velocity pro- file of th titEur and the long-term dis~ tribution of wind. In this way it is possible te f \@ total conditional pro- babilivy ef colticion by numerical inte- gration over fu stare domain of failure distances The numeric? .irulation solves the differen: tion as described simulation pro- tial equations in /6/ using ¢ gramme GASP IV. general numericul terhmigue outlined above has used on @ number of special situations Consider the situation shown in Figure 2, where a tanker is approaching a buoy on a course very close to a platform (9 = 15°). In the figure the probability of collision, P(rjrelated to critical failure at a distanve from the buoy is shown. As one could ex- ect the collision probability has a peak he when the ship passes the platform. The curve is based on calculations carried out at a number of points each representative of 2 10 minute interval. For any wind direction 8 a similar curve can be determined. Based on such a set of curves ) Lt is possible by simple integration to com pare the probability of collision p(@) for Gifferent directions. For the situation shown ‘in Figure 2 one gots e.g. the following values: 8 | pie is? }1.7-10? 105° | 4.4-20% e igs? | ~10° Rs one would expect, these figures show that 2 course of the tanker close to the platform is more dangerous than a course farther away. nen figures such as given above are known for all wind directions 6¢[0 ;360°] and if ¢ the long-term distribution of the wind is known for the site, the relative probabili~ ty of collision P(¢|F) can be computed. In the case presented above one arrives at the following result: Pic|r) = 6-107 8 using the wind rosette probability distribu- tion of the site. / Although only the relative probability of collision can be determined by this method the simulation technique used herein seems to have promising potential. An important aspect is that it is possible to find the most favourable position of « kyny relative to the platforms. ‘The buoy rhculd, as expecy ted, be placed on the main Icovard side of the platform. However, the cptiman and safest location is much more difficvit to assess '- when there are several prevailing wind direc~ tions and many nearby platf. For such cases, analysis of the sort cutlined above are recommended.Presently Veritas is developing an inter- ective ship simulator /7/ which will provide an efficient means to include the influence by the ship pilot. Besides studying the col- lision probability, the simulator will be well suited for simutation of selected cri- tical situations with the purpose of inves- tigating manoeuvrability requirements to tankers, alternative avoidance manocuvres, time margins, requirement to tug assistance ete. 2, IMPACT ANALYSIS A consistent design for impact loads requires. @ study of the collision mechanics ful filling ~ energy conservation ~ force equilibriun ‘The kinetic energy of the impacting boat has to be transferred into elastic and plastic deformation of the ship and the platform structure itself including possible fendering. In the case of an eccentric collision some of the energy may remain as rotational kine- tic energy of the ship after the initial stages of collision. This is discussed by costa /€/,The energy conservation law may then be expressed as BL HE + Be + B, kinetic energy of the boat imnedi- ately before collision energy absorbed by the boat energy abscrbed by the platform energy absorbed by fenders rotational kinetic energy of the boat For design of an unfendered structure the worst case is o central impact which means that the line through the centre of gravity of the ship and the point of contact coin- 2 with the direction of the ship move~ nis eliminates the two last torms in thg feeding equation and inserting E,-hmv romain with fet E, b P m= mass + added mass of the chip Vo* impact velocity With known load-deformation characteristics for the boat as well as the platform, it is possible to calculate the energy absorp~ tion to maintain force equilibrium for ei ferent load levels by integrating the area below the respective curves. This procedure reveals that in a collision situation parts ef the kinetic energy of the vessel has to be absorbed as stcain energy in the cclii- ding bodies. Tie amount of energy to be a sorbed is determined by the impact geonetry characterized by the relative orientaticn of the colliding bodies and the location of the contact zone. Thus, there exists an in- finite number of possible impact situations. To consider all possibilities is not fcan- ible. Instead, it has been comion practice to study @ number of simple and idealized situations. The assumptions above are valid for colli- sions against fixed structures. In fact, some of the impact energy will be transfer- ¥ed to kinetic cneray such as vibrations in the subject structure. For collision with a floating or buoy-type structure the global motion of the structure itself may as well become significant. The amount of energy to be absorbed is given by the expression: where mp is the mass and hydzodynanic added mass of the nit structure and vp is the ve~ locity of the structure at the Instant of conpact.This formula is also valid for an articulated columi m, is replaced by 3/2? where J is the neuen’ of inertia incluaing hydrodynamic aééed inertia of the tover about the universal joint and v, is the ho- rizontal velocity of the colum®at water level. 2 is the distance from location of impact to the universal joint. The formula hes been derived on the assumption thet the effect of rnterusl forces (waves, mooring, buoyancy ferces ete) can be neglected during the inpact. bepsieing on the phase lag be~ cuoen thr veloes tis and the macs ratio, the wd will differ from that strut Eepeciclly for floating structures of @ Certain extent in the wave Girection tis my be crue. bedice have opposed vations may arise 1 Le absorbed may It appears that if the directions of wiley, where the anaunt cf cher:exceed The kinetic energy represented by the vented. The precwcany © iesderations are velad irre= spective whether the energy is absorber by elastic or plastic deformation of the bodies. So, if the ferce-deflection relationship for the type of Icading for each body involved as kewn. a hy eusy matter to estimate the maxinun lou? developing and the extent of damage. Impact ve z The kinetic ensrg is proportional to the second power of inact velocity which clear~ ly emphasizes the significance of doter- mining this masnitude with good degree of confidence Evidently ci< caznot discard the probability that a vessel may run into an installation at full speed due to negligence or lack of experience by the bricye crew. Whilst this may be a likely cause of collieion with a by- passing vessel, this possibility is judged to be much smaller for dedicated vessels (Service vessels, tankers for offshore load- ing) as the crow will be awaxe of the pre- senze of near-by platforms. Therefore it is not considered reasonable to design for the large kinetic energy of say a tanker at £ull speed. Instead the probability should be kept at a low level by defining adequate preventive measures. Various authcrs have proposed /9/10/ to take @ supply vessel, drifting sideways in a gi- ven sea state, as the design basis accident. in the steady state condition the wind and wave drift forces will be balanced by the hydrodynamic resistance forces. In addition the vessel will excert sway oscillations with the same frequency as the waves. The instantancous magnitude of the sway velocity will be normally distributed. Assuming the probability of hitting a fixed structure being proportional to the velocity, an ap- Froximate probability distribution may be derived. In Figure 4 the cumalative distribution of inpact velocity in different sea states 3. shown for 4 drifting supply ship with dis- Placement 2500 tons. & reasonable criterion is to select the velécity, associated with 5: probability of being exceeded. 1t appears Fig. 3. that @ design velocity of 2.0 responds to a sea state H \uience hes shown that this séa state fe airut the worst sea state for supply boat, typeration. If the Long term distribution of the sea states is known, the velocity y wlse be related to a lon term probabi~ ty of being exceeded. aa Obviously it is fax more complicated to de~ termine the corresponding impact velocities iu Uh. case of buoy-ship encounters, as both Structures exert motions. As previously steted the relative phase lag between the sway motions is very important. The energy that has to be absorbed may be several times greater when the vessel motion is in opposed ase with the bboy motion, compared with the in-phase motion. While it is reasonable to anticipate a relative small phase lag for the buoy type of structure, the phase jay may become greater for floating struc- tures of larger extension. IMPACT DEFORMATIONS OF SHIPS Knowledge of the deformation characteristics of ships in collision is fundamental for a proper prediction of the maximum total load as well as the dovelopment of the contact Several previous projects have dealt with the energy absorbing capacity of ships in major collisions. However, auch of the work has been directed towards the safety of nuclear vessels. An empirial correlation between resistance to penetration and energy absorption of ships was derived by Minorski /11/ However, the formula does not assess the force development during indentation and analyses of low energy cases, such as corre sponding to supply vessels in collision, showed a wide scatter. Generally more danage was created than indicated from the striking speeds reported. A promising approach to this problem was rojorted by M. Rosenblatt & Co. Inc. /12/ wito nade a comprehensive study of the struc- tural damage of tankers in minor collisions ajyiying plastic analysis methods. similar techniques Veritas has de- 4 computer programme capable of de~ ier: sing the relationships between the force 4 indentation of the ship side. ‘The calcula- vik are based on a static approach accoun- ng for plastic deformations only. It is _csaved that the hull is equally indented ire entire ship side by a infinitely f object. Thus all dynamic effects in-cluding possible flexural hull girder de flection are neglected. The impact load act- ing on the ship side is determined for vari- ous degrees of indentation aceerding to the membrane tension force of the ship side, deck and bottom and the plastic buckling load of the deck, bottom and transverse frames. Due to lack of data from real collisions the model has been compared with several scale tests with a vertical, infinitely stiff bow indenting the side of different ship models measuring the static reletion- ship between load and deformation /13/14/. Bxample of 2 load-penetration curve recorded in these experiments together with the cor- responding calculated curve ic shown in Fig. 4. The point R indicates where rupture of the ship side occurs. Beyond this point, the impact lord drops @ramatically due to disappearance of the membrane stresses in the side. Comparisons of the calculated and recorded load-penetration curves reveal that the magnitude of the impact load can be rea~ sonebly well predicted by theoretical means. However, discrepancies exist at several points. These are due to various reasons. particular there are uncertainties reqar— ing some of the predominant parameters of the theoretical model, such as the collapse load of the transverse frames, the rupture criterion and the membrane tension forces in the side. in The model as outlined above has been applied in a study with the objective of obtaining a “catalogue” of the deformation beheviour of various ships representative of thuse operating on the oil fields in the Nurth Sea. In this investigation tankers, supply vessels end Larges of various sizes aru as- sumed to be hit by a vertical, rigid cylin drical column. The three colunn Glut.ters studied are De1.5 m (typical for a jacket structure) D=10 mand 26 m (the Latter ri presenting towers of concrete forms). When interpreting the should be aware of the nodel as stated above. The force « ments should be considered ay ins.retsons on the order of magnitude. iy. ° di the results of one such caleulation. ib force-indentation relaticnshiys for uc! between the transverse frames are prescared for a supply vessel of 3200 tons displace ment and for a tanker of 128.000 dwt. Gone- rally, at initial contact, the force depend: heavily on the buckling capacity of dee bottom and transverse frames 2 (ic f the shorter! At further indentation the membrane tension forces becuue predominant in tan- kers, causing only minor deviations between stiny to the various column diameters. for the small column ianeter of D=1 rupture of the side occurs at an early stage of indentation as there is no direct contact between the col- wen and nest curse frame resulting in smaller extensicn of the plastic defor- mation. On the other hand, the indenting column diameter hccmes a more important parameter for .wpply vessels. Having a dange Of 0.6-1.8 m, 4: the curves rc. fpace frame an Ulu rect contact with cevoral frames may occur. Hence, the ccntrikution fom the membrane tension forces in the side will be small compared with the plastic buckling load of frames. Curves of the type above can he used as basis for analysing upper limits for the impact force in a selected collision situation, namely a drifting vessel in a sideways col~ lision. The impact velocities are selected according to the criteria referred to pre- viously, yielding a value of 2.2 m/s. A simplifying assumption has been made that all energy is to be absorbed by the colliding vessel. Maximum impact forces versus ship displacement are shown in Pig. 6. A typical load that may be caused by a tanker is in the range 100-200 MN, whereas the maximum col. lision lead associated with supply vessels is one order of magnitude lower (factor 1/10) Evidently the estimates of maximum load de~ pend on the uncertainties related to the nodel assumptions, material properties etc. If the distribution functions of all the pa- rameters were known, the distribution func~ tions of the maximum impact force could in principle be determined. However, the sta~ tistical properties can only be assessed with some uncertainty for some of the para— eters. The values derived for the impact force have been based on available charac~ teristic values of the parameters and on rroper enginecring judgement (Fig. 6) - These limit for the forces should, however, not ke interpreted as accurate upper and lower values, but only as bounds derived fru the assumptions made concerning the parameters. Within these limitations it is, in fact, interesting to note that the scat~ ter in impact force is relatively small com- parcd to the great uncertainties.The investiyations have se far concentrated upon Sideways cellictons, which in many ca~ ses may impose the largest impact force on the structure. However, sometimes also the intensity of the forces, i.e. the force pr. unit area, may be of concern. this may be the case when considering the punching shear strength of a concrete tower. Situations with high localized forces nay in particular occur during the early stage: of sideways colli- sion with contact at bilge or deck frame and in bow or stern collisions. These as~ pects will be emphasized in the further re~ Sinements to be made with the ship collision analysis nodel. 5. ENERGY ABSORPTION IN STEEL JACKETS So far collision studies of eteel platforms * have intxoduced several simplifying assump- tions. If the ability of resisting a possible maximum load has been of twin concern, the total kinetic energy has often been assumed to be absorbed by the ship as discussed in section 4, On the other hand the energy absorption capability of the platform itself is an important aspect and has been analysed on its own. Another extreme situation is to assume that the platform will absor= all impact energy, however, this may lead to un~ duly conservative design. Indeed, the real behaviour of the platform is between these two extreme cases. As illustrated in Fig.7 the impact energy will be absorbed by the platform in different ways, depending on the relative stiffnesses. this means energy absorption due to local deformation of the cross-section of the menher being hit, beam deformation between neighbouring joints and global bending of the entire structure. Wile the two first modes involve consider able plastic deformation the global response will be mainly elastic. local_eneray a ion As a First step in the a pact resistance uf natural to ask ciated with dofors just beneath ar sof the im stores it is neray will be asso- ion of the structure the prosinate vicinity Of the load. Excort for o number of tests Keported in /y5',ti0 dnt tation existing in the field of Ja:gend flection behaviour ected to lateral load @ nunber of have recently of steel tubes out is rather sparse. Consequent] tests with srall-s.cle tel been conducted ty vurita whe tost arrangement, shown in Fig. 9, consists of a tube specimen mounted to a stiff frame by means of four clamp at each end of the tube, providing vertical support and a small rotational restraint. The load is applied through a rigid beam across the tube and pushed by a hydraulic jack, while the deflections are monitored by electrial potensiometers. The main parameters of 1 terest are the diameter to thickness ratio of the tube and the breadth of the beam indentor. The selected parameters of the st tubes are listed in Table 1 ‘The load-deformation relationships measured during the tests are summarized in Fig. . The form of the arrived curves appear to be quite similar regardless of the breadth of the loaded area and the physical proper- ties of the tube. However, the bearing ca~ pacity increases somewhat with increasing breadth of the loading beam. ‘The load arises steeply in the initial stages of deformation, then the gradient decreases gradually until the net deflec~ tion approaches a value of about 0.7 times the radius of the tube. At this stage the tube starts deflecting like a beam. Due to Gevelopment of high axial forces there is @ stall increase in the load. Beyond this limit the axial forces became so large that the bolts failed at the supports. Fig. 10 shows that the major part of deformation is localized to the area close to the load. ‘The experimental results above can be ccm pared with a theoretical calculation pr cedure based on the theory of plasticit Provided all effects are included in the model this will yielé an upper bound pre- Giction for the load. The plastic vork is calculated for the deformed surface which is assumed bounded by a series of yicld lines. The effects included are Rotation at the yield Lincs Flattening of the surface E.tnera yield lines Tension work due te elone of generators. A rigid plastic material is sup that strain hardening is neglected. Th general the load-deflectionrelationships are cstimated fuirly we small indentation whoreax the deviation crease when the tube starts undergoing pal deformations. The latter stage ci ufo. mation may also be accounted for in a plas- tic collapse analysis when assuming been be- haviour and allowing for the change uf beam cross-sectional aeometry. fo rhs Fig. 21 summarizes the trensth pre of the tube as predicted by the tlico: forces are made non-dimensional by tor 2 D £ a Bi a7@ where £, yaeld stress, and t aid are the’ tube thickness and tube dianctur, respectively. ‘The experiments indicate that these curves can be applied for design pur~ poses. A possille design curve is suggested in the figure. At present Voritas is carry- ing out sim:lar tests with double ekin grou- ted tubes sean deformation behaviour In the initial stages of loading the hit tube will deform locally until the load Feaches a value at which the tube starts to @eflect like a beam. In this phase a con- siderable enount of energy will be absorbed, Gepending mainly on the support conditions and the strength of the actual tubular joints. The Simplest approach to the beam type of deformation Ls the three hinge mechanism in which hinges Gevelop under the load and at the supports, Tf the ends of the beams are axsally restrained the capacity of the beam WILL Sncreare considerably ax the beam under gees fimte wttections due to developount of membrane toaion forces. For centrally leaded tubvla: ean the load-carrying capa city is given iy Peat & 8 RT eng +f aresin ayo) 2a 2, & Fo 2 ptt plastic Limit lead in ben- plastic deformation of the above as thet the cris have wither zero or full axial rostrai a tyrica) jacket struc- ture at is likely that the supports provide Sem Qetermediat degre of axial restraint. Yoof tuber including in-pleiw alsplacemants The pot yt at the anftuenes <# the load is hag been studied in /16/. Hare related to the stilfness cf the supports against axial displacement represented by an eguivalent spring constant K, which may be assessed by a frame analysis of the struc~ ture. In Fig. 12 curves relating p/p, to the stiffness paraneter k = DK/TLtfy’ are shown, It appears that it is very im- jurtant to have & fair estinete of this stiffness paraneter k The @iscussion above is based on the assun- tion that the tube possesses enough rota~ tional capacity to develop a fully plastic mechanism. It is well-known that the tube may fail at a lower load level due to local buckling, ovalization or fracture at the weld. From literature reviews /17-19/ it is found that for a D/t ratio less than 35 plas~ + tic design may be applied. Above this limit this procedure may not be reliable. Since the D/t ratio of actual jacket members is in the range of 70-50 it is concluded that this problem warrants clearification. ‘The API rules prescribe D/t < 9000/ty (fy in MPA) to maintain full capacity through plastic deformation. For 9000/fy< D/t < 15200/fy only a limited plastic rotation capacity can be presumed. On the other hand, the capacity may not be exhausted if the plastic moment drops.” Restreagthening may occur in plastic tension. Although the lower collapse load is associated with a load at midspan, another question is whether the joints are able to support the load when the location of impact is close to the joints. In other words, a shear failure may be pos- sible. 1f the load transferred to the joints exceeds the capacity of the joints the amount ef energy absorbed by the beam mechanism is greatly reduced. although the stress effect at the joints is composed of both punching shear, shell bending and membrane stresses the simple concept of punching shear is wide~ ly adopted for characterizing the stress state. It is natural to apply codes developed by recognized institutions when investigating the capacity of the joints /20-22/. The nor- mal control is to ensure that the nominal Punching shear stress, Geduced fom the brace loads, does not exceed the allcwable punching shear stress derived empirically from model tests. 2 survey shows ther variovs load com binations are treated cc: ei fferently by the various codes en a Jacket tn hit pw 1 stingy vessel it will start to Gefincs aluatly Like @ea girder parti- girder, in addition to the displacements of that the leg behaves 15k | | the elements in direct contact with the iu- ally supported at both ends. in the initial pacting body and the surrounding elements. stages of loading due to the heavy inertia vn section 3 the central impact was mentio- represented Ly the deck module. At latur ned as being the worst case, in which all stages the deck takes up kinetic energy, the impact energy has to be absorbed by the making the jacket act like a cantilever and colliding bodies. However, some of the im- resulting in an increased deflection at the pact energy will be transferred into kinetic deck level. It is evident that the defstrt- eargy due to exitation of vibrations in the tion pattern, avr, wuvaates considers! -+ platform. Hence, a static approach may be from the static colution shown in Fig. id insufficient in order to determine the ener con: by absorbed in global bending of the plat~ sts of several eigenmodes. Form. the distribution of eneray dering the sais as idlustiated in fig. 15. While the Kine- In fact one is not only interested in the tic portion is Significant during the inter: energy distribution. The ability of the jac- mediate phases, it cnly amounts co about £ ket to sustain the load without collapsing of the total energy at final stage. The ana- is of main concern. Progressive collapse may lysis shows that yielding and instability be initiated by a number of elements failing failures will occur in the structural ele- due to instability,punching shear etc. + Ments surrounding the contact zone. The Such situation should be investigated by tedel adopted is obviously not able to re Fenoving failing elements and perform re- present the true behaviour of the structure analysis of the collision lead. ‘The ability at all stages. When failure occurs the of the platform to develop piastic membrane stiffness of the platform will change. Such in bracings should be verified by removing effects can only be accounted for by per- bracing exposed to collision and introduce forming non-linear analysis. plastic tension forces at the modes. Even if the platform is capable of surviving the di- Energy absorption of platforms rect collision load, subsequent envi ronmen- tal loads in severe weather conditions may It is not possible to give a general furmula xepresent a threat to the platform. The on how the energy will he distributed in amount of collision damage allowed to the the platform due to the complex variety of platform may be restricted by requirements all possible situations of collisions. to survival during the repair period. Hence, reanalysis of the platform with damaged mem- While hoth the bracings and the legs may be bors removed should also be conducted for hit by the bow und stern of the vessel, the the maximum credible storm condition during legs are the mere likely point of initial this period. contact if the rhip drifts sideways onto the platform. In the first case the contact the dynamic response of the structure depends zone will be linited. If the ship structure on the form and duration of the impact im- does not defor. too such, the effect on the | palse relative lo the natural periods of vi- platform may be cisulated by a concentrates | bration. As an illustrative example # four- load. in the latter case the contact sone legged jacket at 70 m water depth has been may sprcad alon.; the entire height of the studied. The structure hes been analysed ahip side. 1t 1s, however, Likely that the by an ordinary linear-clastic space frame initial contse= will be located to the deck wputer programme. The load input to the corner or Lilue due to roll motion and caiculation in that caused by a supply ves- thence follow uy contact along the entire "1 in sideways collision, as described in side vetion 4. The mass and impact velocity f the supply vessel is 3200 tons and 2.2 m/a.The amount af vrs gy that will be absorbed | s0 seid mass facter of 0.4 was applied. lceaily ly uctual Juckee menvers depends Nt 48 ascumed that the vessel hice the struc must of ull on zie wall thichnees of the | tue'at one corne: leg Joints which Ls locel- tubo. lor wall siicvesses in the region | ly staff due to grouting, so that the energy 20-50 mm this oner-y may be significant com- voneribution from local = and beam deforma~ pared to the tora] cullision energy. Below be neglected. this level the wai s is so amall thet the contri! 1 is novligible. on the lanic response is illustrated by a ether hard, excessive wall tickness pro- sich of the correr leg, Fig. 13, Jt appears Vides @ shell strvasta whien excceds theloads Likely to Le imposed by typical vessels Inspecting the typical dimensions of jackets, it is clear that the corner legs of medium size platform’. «ill undergo considerable plastic bending. On the other hand, if a bracing ie bir. the smaller dimensions caus+ @ predorinnt } ition of the energy to be absorbed by nvvirane tension, An indispen sible contiti-r for membrane tension forces to develop iv tiat the tubular joints pos- sss the steoreth required, The energy contribution from global bending of medium © Lo forms is significant. For deep-water platforms the dynamic magnifica- tion are anticipated to increase due to in- creasing pericds ef vibration, On the other hand, the stiffnoss of the platform will in- crease so that tne impact impulse from a ves~ induce @ small deflection. sel will only 8. 1MPAC When considering concrete gravity struc~ tures subject to ship collisions, the im pact analysis, energy considerations ana aspects of ship deformations and collision forces remain essentially similar as for fixed steel platforms. However, concrete platforms are in general more stiff and rigid as compared to steel jackets in si- nilar depths of water. ‘The strength analysis will be considered in two steps: ~ 4) local strength of the concrete wall, in contact with the colliding ship ii) global strength of the tower (piat- form) and residual strength in order to avoid progressive collapse in case of local damage Item (i) above relates to punching shear strength of the concrete wall when subject to a local impact load and, if appropriate, local Lending strength in conjunction with this. It is here of importance ta realize that a ship collision, if not minor, will result in a deformation of the ship so that the axca ef contact will not remain stant in tho course of the collision. For sideways collisions, the ship will tend to bridge across an initially punched hole tn the wall, thus possibly activating cen~ siderable reserves of local strength. In this way one must take account of the dy- humic nature of the collision situation with changing area of contact, which will also make the analysis considerably nore complex. Step (ii) entails an analysis of the global strength of the member (tower, platform etc.) when subject to a localized collision force that has to be determined 4s a function of the defermation occurring. the collision force is large enough to create local damage in the zone hit by the ship, this has to be taken into account when lysang the global strength subsequently. 4 further analysis to ensure that progressive collapse will net take place with the local damage endured, will also have to be carried out for defined storm situation until the situation can be fully restored by repair and structural strengthening. “As for the design of steel structures the energy absorbed by the deformation of the ship the fenders and the structure has to be considered. Offs.ore concrete shell struc- tures with a thickness of 0.5 m or more are stiff compared with the ship's hull and this may lead to quite serious damage to the ship before the forces have reached a criti- cal level with respect to the local strength of the concrete. Local spalling and chipping at the point of contact can hardly be avoi- ded in an unfendered zone, but the punching shear strength should be checked using de~ sign forces obtained from the impact energy analysis. ‘The local shear resistance (punching shear) may be cxpressed as the sum of the following components: Ye Vert prt Ver $025 fy BT whore Vo, is the sheer resistance due to the concrete and the longitudinal re- inforcement v,, is the shear resistance due to pre- stress or axial force! is the shear resistance provided by vhear reinforcement t is the design compressive strength of the concrete is the width and thickness of the studied member bts detailed design formulae may be found tuys Rules /22/ (Appendix D: Concrete res) or in other relevant designcedes.The punching shear strength of a number uf concrete shaft designs have been estimated either by scaling experimental results cr using the CEB-FIP Model Code for concrete structures /23/. To make a comparison pos- sible the results have been scaled to a t pical column with an internal diameter of 12 m and a wall thickness of 0,6 m using a oad factor ¥, = 1,0 and material factors Ym concrete = 1,5 and y,steel = 1,15. The results have been plotted together with force Contact zone curves for a typical supply- boat with 2500 tons displacement in Fig.16. it is seen that in the early stages of 4 col- lision, for 2 given equivalent radius of contact zone, the strength of concrete in punching shear is apparently greater than the force which the supply boat can apply, As explained earlier, the capacity of the concrete column to absorb energy in a col- lision will not be limited by a possible punching shear failure, which may be due to underestimation of the local stiffness of the boat or inappropriate shear design. For @ sideways allision, the impact force can be transferred to the undamaged part of the shaft due to the bridging of the ship structure. I£ a punching shear failure can be prevented in the early stages of a collision it scems unlikely that such a failure will occur lat- er because of spreading of the contact zone due to deformation of the ship and the rapid increase of punching shear strength with the area of contact. However, elastic theory calculatious my predict the stress in the reinforcement in the eomtact zone to reach yield or tie crete to crush. It is then necessary tu allow for inelastic deformation of the concrete, in order to calculate the energy absorption Tn the absence of a non-linrar cwyuter pro- Grane capable of analysing a cus.r« linder under radial load, esti load required to cause s loc! by lure of the column have heen = forn of yield-line of plastic Fossible, conservative ansumpt iain juve been incorporated in the pla: tir the usual waterial factor VL. included. The corresponding” fsiluce le and contact chord tengths are plctted is Fig. 16. The concrete capacity appoa: be much greater ‘than the fore. which thy Ship can apply on the same contact ares (using the ontire ship's sido) However, of course if From this analy {appears that a typi~ cal supply boat ie not strong enough &: cause a local fallure of a typical concrete column ina sideways collision, although it can cause local yielding and cracking. this concTusion is based on rather simplified calculations and needs experi- uental confirmation. Bow-0n collisions have not been invectivered in full detail, and the ivet were heavier or the ubstantial the conclusion dent. column less would reguize a: if a local failure dens not occur, an overall bending failure of the platform leg will not cecur either. scain, this relates to the particular study made here with sideways collision with a typical leg. ‘The force which the ship can apply is limited in tuo ways: firstly the ship's inertia can cause a plastic flexural hinge in the ship in a heavy collision, limiting the sideways force the column, ar. secondly, fox heavy in- Gentations the force from the ship's side will drop when the plating reaches its ultimate strain and begins to tear. Both these limits appear to be below the force necessary to cause an overall failure of the leg, unless it has been damaged fairly extensively locally. For the majority of punching shear tests performed the loading has been static and only a few used dynamic loading. The reason for this is the quasi-static nature of the collision between a ship and a rigid or little deformable body. A etudy of these tests have been made by Veritas /24/, with the main chjective to compare the punching shear strength of a curved cylindrical shell with the corresponding results from tests on flat slabs. This was performed for dif- ferent loaded areas with varying form such as quadratic, circular and rectangular with the long axis pavallell to or perpendicular to the gencrator of the cylinder. In addition to this the influence of prastressing and scale effects were investigated. results chow that the punching shear rength of cylindrical walls will increase compared with flat slabs of the same thick- hers. 2J though the various investigators tend LO une thoi own formulae for pune: ine strength, the forma proposed by veritas elove compares. favourably and include all hain effects to be considered.+ As a basis & stone SUMMARY ANU CONCE Ship collisions with *ffrhore platforms are being recognized as involving con- siderable risks which should be adequate- ly designed for and provected against. When analyzing the probability of ship colli thie iamde difficult due to the various types uf ship traffic and due to the fact that statistical data are lacking. It is therefore recommended that further work should be carried out in gathering collisien including situations of In the absence of sufficient data, veri- tas has turned to simulation studies as @ prospective method for analysing ship collision. rhis has within the framework of the general simulation pro- gramne GASP IV. This method has been used to simulate the ships path after critical failure and drifting towerds neighbouring platforms, relating to an offtake tanker servicing an offshore field with a load- ing buoy. In this way statistical data have been generated and may further be calibrated against historical data. The further work intended in this area will incorporate interactive simulation where- by the ship pilot or crew can be allowed to influence the out-of-control tanker by any means they might be in control of. done for the impact analysis this is based on the principle of conservation of enex~ gy and force equilibrium. This means that, the initial collision energy has to be absorbed by ship, platform, fender sy- stem an@ that aay remaining energy will be transformed to rotational energy in the ship and vibrations in the colliding structures. Whereas this method of ana- lysis is quite simple impressible, further work is recommended to encure that all major aspects are sufficicntly well catered for. Fur i pressure loads and other effects in hips containing Liguid, may = iderable tran- sient force cf uring the course the collision. As of lont analysis of © analysis “Lips has to be ay ye ship collisi. of collision f-re 8 - Concrete platforms of the caisss carried out. In fact, major part of our work today has been concentrating on energy absorption, indentation and stiff ness characteristics in colliding ships. Analysis methods and computer progrannes which compare favourably with kacen ~odcd tests have been established for tankurs and supply ships in sideways collisions. By this kind of analysis it is possiile to arrive at quite reasonable upper and lower bounés for the forces exerted Ly various shipS in sideways collision. The future work will be concentrating on bew end stern collisions and other hard spots which so far have not been included. Steel platforms such as f-inst. steel Jackets are vulnerable to collisions by ships out of control. Considerable work has been devoted to this aspect. The impact energy to be absorbed by the plat- form itself will be due to local damage of the hit menber, major deformation of the hit member and adjacent joints as part of the adjoining frame and thirdly, by the overall deflection of the entire platfonn which in many cases may very well be elastic. Plasticity methods have been used in assessing local impact strength of steel tubular menbers, Tests have been carried gut on steel tubes and the results can be faixly well predicted by this theory Further work is now in progress regar- ding double skin, grouted tubular nen~ bers which will have much more local impact resistance. Future work should concentrate on energy absorption in the entire member and the adjoining fra In particular it is of interest to have large scale tests carried out on models of typical cylindrical steel platfer: legs with internal stiffening ans sul to concentrated collision loads. 11 1 hoped that the method of plasticity also be adapted in order to predict !s: strength of such stiffened struccures properly type have also some vulnerability with regard to ship collisions. however, suvt!shiz: fe dove net en j sent seen to be a realistic threat as. analysis shows that it hardly is strong enough to damage existing towers cub- stantially. vhis does net preclude smal- ta der Led doje such ac local yielding of steel, a situition that can be mastered by subsequent re~ pair with Work. Mother matter is co) it vie: large ship such as a tunke: cy nt vessel at full speed. situition will involve forss An exenss of those being coneidret realistic to design for. Nevertheless it is important to know the Limiting conditions and what forces would he required in order to produce a svb- stantial G.nage to a given platforn tower. Defining this accidental situ- ation, further requirenents would he that the platform shall not sustain progressive collaps in a eubsequent and defined storm situation. As basis for anelysis of impact strength of conerate walls punching shear formulae have bees, developed by varsous investi- gators based on several test programmes. It 4s believed that the punching shear formula in comson use will predict the local strength conservatively in most eases. the tests performed so far will Rot cover the dynamic situation in that A colliding ship is Likely to bridge across an initially punched hele and thus transfur the lead to the undamaged parte of tha wall as the collision pro- cords. It is therefore recommended that further work in this area allows for the dy:iusc change of the contact indrical concrete tower listic ship collision. area for ac subject tore Lt is the intention cf Veritas to continue its already substantial work in this field. A continued project (phase II) is currently proposed to interested parties. This work, if it proceeds, will in fact cures all aspects mentioned above, and will proceed as soon as the funding has been suffi- ciently sscured.JERENCES audahl, J., Furnes, 0. et al: iuycots and Collisions Offchore, VERITAS Project Reports (1977-1980), Progress Reports 1-10. w The Risk of Ship/Platform Encounters in U.K. Waters. NMI, England 1977 (2) Batchelor, Chalk, Lewison: Survey of Shipping in the Forties Field 1978. NMI, England, 1973. a) ‘Thoft-Christensen, P.: Probabilistic Simulation of Offshore Collisions. Second Danish-Polish Matm. Progr. Seminar, Deraark 1979. Furnes, 0., Amdahl, J.: Computer Simula~ tion Study of Offshore Collisions and Analysis of s+ip-Platform Impacts. Brazil Offshor2 -79, 1979. ) Norrbin, N.8.: Theory and Observations on the Use of a Mathematical Model for Ship Manoeuvering in Deop and Confined Waters. SSPA, Publ. 68, 1971. 6) (7) Heldc:, E., Amdahl, J.: SAILSIM - A Simulator for Analysis and Risk Assess- ment of Ship Movements, ASSOPO 80, ‘Trondheim, 1980. Coste, F. Vasco: The Berthing Ship. The 8) Dock and Harbour Authority, Vol. XLV, 1964 (9) Larsen, C.M. Engseth, A.G.: Ship Collision and Fendoring of Offshore Concrete Struc~ tures. EUROPEC, London, 1978. Thoresen, C.A., Torset, O.P.: Fenders for Offshore Structures. 24th Int. Navigation congress, Leningrad, 1977. a0) Minorski, V.U.: an analysis of Ship Col- Lisions with Reference to Protection of Nuclear Power Plants. Journal of ship Research, 1959. ay (12)%. Rosenblatt § Son, Inc.: Tanker struc- tural Analysis for Minor Collisions. Dep. of Tr U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, 1975. ) Studies on Collision Protective Structure of Nuclear Powered Ships. ‘The Shipbuil- ding Research Associtation of Japan, Rep. No. 71, 1970. aay as) as) a7 as) (19) (20) (2a) (22) (23) (24) Jour. of zosen Kioakai, The Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 118, 1965. Thomas, S.G. et al: Large Deformation of Thin-Walled Circular Tubes under Transverse Loading. Part I-II, Int. Journ. of Mech. Sciences, Vol. 18, 1976 Oliveira, J.G. de: Simple Methods of Estimating the Energy Absorption Capa~ eity of Steel Tubular Nembers Used in Offshore Structures. Report 6/250, Div. of Marine Structures, NTH, Nozway, 1979. Sherman, D.B.: Teste of Circular Steel Tubes in Bending. ASCE Journ. of Struc. DiV., Vol. 102, No. St11, 1976. Discussion to /17/ ASCE, Div., Vol. 103, No. Dhalla, A.K.: Journ. of struc sR 1977. Allen, D.; Discussion to /17/ ASCE, Journ. of Struc. DiV., Vol. 103, ST7, 1977. Recommended Practise for Planning, Desig- ning and Constructing Fixed offshore Platform. API, March, 1979. Regulations for the Structural Design of Fixed Offshore Structures on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. NPD 1977. Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore Structures. Det norske VERITAS, 1977. CEB-FIP: Model Code for Concrete Structures. FIP, London, 1978. Carlin, B., et al: Offshore Fender Systems. VERITAS Report No. 77-156, 3977specinen | pin Diameter | Thickness Length | vied [preaath Ho, D t L | stress fof loading (wm) (mm) (om) f, | bear (ii/mm) | (om) ° 298 6.6 | 45.2 | 1190 | 426 | 100 2 ft 35 219.1 7.3 | 30.0 | 1340 | 328 | 100 2 : . e2 fwa] «| 200 3 . " . " ; . 50 4 . . . ~ * “| 195 ARBLE L: Prineipal data of test specimens PLATFORM: FIG, 1: Collision probability simulation model. aid A Sivvction FIG. 2 Collision probability fer a cts som. at ‘4000 ‘6000P(V> Ve), EXCEEDING PROBABILITY “ oz os. eo! FIG. 3: Distribution of supply vessel Vere Load-indentation p sige model. rig. impact velocity 20] MAX. IMPACT FORCE (MN) 3 8 200. 100 5 [eee vesset FIG. 6 pe 2345 10 20 50 100 200 SHIP DISPLACEMENT (CAPEO (0 Tony Wooee we # Wie TWOENTATION (wa relationship for a ox 4 ance, Max. impact force versus ship displacement. all energy absorbed by the ship.(GLOBAL DEFORMATION) OF LEG OVERALL DEFORMATION OF PLATFORM LOCAL DEFORMATION] (OF CROSS SECTION IOF_LEG CS a YY SE ot deflection for local denting ofFIG. 9: Test arrangenent FIG. 10: View of tubes from the loaded side Pon, Bm vrmaeurse [010-0 uaa) 10] ie stistness against axial 7 Hana pena @isplacenent at supporting : joints. sate Pee MEGA: ctimenstenal teade FIG. 12: Beam hinge loud vs. vcs} suiftness Foaticn diagram for of joint. verly Wades tubes.suet pe ony enypayo 95 oe ae ap bl ee tonp history» FIG. 13: Dynamic response of @ jacket + FIG. 14: Static resoonse of 2 corner leg. jacket corner leg. FIG. 15: Distribution of absorbed energy during impact. curves relating impact force and contact zone.