Design For Dropped Objects PDF

Doc.
No: DR551
Document title : DESIGN AGAINST DROPPED OBJECTS
1 Rev 0 Issued as draft 05/05/02
NAGARAJU
PREFACE TO DRAFT EDITION
An attempt has been made to collate the various literatures and available procedures for
design against dropped objects. The design reference is written to give guidance on the
available methods and the suitable method of design of structural components to
withstand the impact of dropped objects for the topside offshore structures. Some of the
recommendations are based on the previous project experience and hence requires
further updating with new information.
Considering the literature access for individual attempt, the design reference may not be
exhaustive to cover the latest literature. Also the design practice for various operators
has been found to be differing considerably. As such this document is issued as a draft
copy to receive comments from friends and other professionals in the related field. I am
planning to update this document by end of this year after incorporating the comments
and updated information. Those who are interested in receiving the updated version are
requested to fill the attached form so that the document can be enhanced for future use.
My sincere thanks to all my friends who helped me in getting the relevant information
and literature for the preparation of this design reference.
Please note, this document is prepared on personnel basis and not related to my
present employer.
Nagaraju
Structural Engineer
Abu Dhabi Marine Operating Company
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
naveeg@yahoo.co.uk
NAGARAJU DESIGN REFERENCE DR 551/0
DESIGN AGAINST DROPPED OBJECTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5
2 LAYOUT CONSIDERATION.................................................................................. 5
3 CHARACTERISTIC DROPPED OBJECT LOADS............................................ 6
3.1 Design Accident Event And Formal Safety Assessment...................................................................6
3.2 Recommended Design Loads ...................................................................................................................7
4 IMPACT PARAMETERS ........................................................................................ 7
4.1 Impact Speed And Object Mass ............................................................................................................8
4.2 Contact Surface During Impact..............................................................................................................8
4.3 Location of Impact on Structures...........................................................................................................8
4.4 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................................8
4.5 Type of Material ..........................................................................................................................................8
4.6 Material Thickness And Strain Hardening..........................................................................................9
4.7 Mass Of Impacted Structure....................................................................................................................9
4.8 Object Stiffness............................................................................................................................................9
4.9 Object Impact Orientation.....................................................................................................................10
5 MECHANISM OF FAILURE.................................................................................10
6 DESIGN PROCEDURE.........................................................................................10
6.1 Acceptance Criteria..................................................................................................................................10
6.2 General Requirements .............................................................................................................................11
6.3 Design Philosophy.....................................................................................................................................11

6.3.1 Deck Plate............................................................................................................................................ 11
6.3.2 Laydown Platforms ............................................................................................................................ 12
6.3.3 Hatch Covers....................................................................................................................................... 12
6.3.4 Stringer Beams .................................................................................................................................... 13
6.3.5 Beams & Girders ................................................................................................................................ 13
6.3.6 Special Protection............................................................................................................................... 13
7 TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS ...................................................................................13
7.1 Design Based On Yield Line Theories .................................................................................................14
7.2 Design Based On Empirical Methods ..................................................................................................14

7.2.1 Empirical Formulae Derived from the Projectile Models and Test Models ............................ 14
draft.doc 3 of 34 05-05-02
7.2.2 Veritec Method................................................................................................................................... 16

7.2.3 Comparison of Different Technical Solutions .............................................................................. 17
8 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................19
9 TABLES...................................................................................................................20
10 FIGURES..............................................................................................................23
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 30
Deck Plate – Yield Line Method..............................................................................................................................31
Deck Plate – Veritec Method....................................................................................................................................32
Deck Plate – Norsk Method.....................................................................................................................................34
draft.doc 4 of 34 05-05-02
1 INTRODUCTION
Despite best efforts and safety procedures, accidental loading can occur. Mitigation
can be accomplished by proper facility layout and designing structures to safely absorb
energy from accidental loads. Designer has a duty to ensure that the structure has an
adequate margin of safety against a specified event and thus avoid :
• loss of life;
• environmental pollution;
• loss of assets
The impact loads can lead to structural global collapse of the main structure or punch a
local barrier type structure with potential to escalate directly or indirectly to a global
collapse of the structure.
This design reference provides the background information on the subject of dropped
objects on topsides structures and addresses the design of structures for resistance to
local events against accidental loads from material handling. The global analysis of a
structure for any consequence of progressive collapse is excluded from this design
reference.
An overview of the procedure for dropped object analysis is given in Figure 1.1. Section
2 gives the layout considerations to avoid accidents; section 3 discusses the load to be
considered for the design of structural members. Impact parameters which control the
impact energy due to the dropped object is listed in section 4; section 5 includes a
general discussion of failure mechanisms; section 6 gives the general design
procedures for typical structural components and section 7 includes the specific
technical solutions. Typical design examples illustrating the design steps are included in
Appendix.
2 LAYOUT CONSIDERATION
A proper facility layout is important to avoid accidents due to dropped objects. Following
are a few considerations for the platform layout to avoid accidents:
• Laydown areas should not be located adjacent to equipment carrying pressurised

fluids and process hydrocarbons or to essential safety systems. Where this is
unavoidable, provision for protection of the equipment from the effects of swinging
loads is to be made;
• Crane lifts over pressurised equipment or hydrocarbon containing areas are to be

restricted by the provision within the design for limit switches/locking keys to prevent
the slewing of the crane past these areas. In this way, operation of the crane over
these areas is possible under a permit system with any additional precautions which
might be required.
• The design of the crane cabs should have direct line of sight for the driver with the
load from a point from which the load is lifted to the point at which the load is set
down, whenever possible.
• The design of the cranes should specify the safe operating limits of each crane in
terms of load, lift radius, rigging and weather limitations.
draft.doc 5 of 34 05-05-02
3 CHARACTERISTIC DROPPED OBJECT LOADS
3.1 Design Accident Event And Formal Safety Assessment
Representative loads required for the structural design are determined by assessing
typical accident scenarios. Typical accident scenarios Design accidental events (DAE)
are identified through material handling studies and are confirmed through formal
safety assessment (FSA) .
A Design Accident Event is defined as an accident for which the shelter areas and
main support structure will be designed to remain partly functional such that personnel
outside the immediate vicinity of the accident can reach a safe location. DAE will most
probably result from platform crane or drilling operations. Dropped object accidents
resulting from crane operations are a major design concern due to frequency of
operation and lift height potential. Extract of typical dropped object scenarios, from
Veritec guidance (Reference 3.1) is given in Table 3.1. The lift weights and frequencies
for objects to be handled, typically drill pipe, drill collars, conductors, drilling equipment,
containers, tote tanks etc., are normally defined in the platform Material Handling Study
(MHS). Typical lifting distribution and lifting frequency as per DIM (Reference 3.2) are
given in Table 3.2.
Formal Safety Assessment (as defined in Department of Energy) will embrace the
whole spectrum of safety analysis techniques that can be brought together in a
structured framework to enhance the overall safety of offshore installations. Based on
this analysis a number of possible accident events are defined and the areas of the
platform subject to impact loads (drop zones) are confirmed.
DAE’s are selected from all the possible accident events based on an evaluation of
consequence and risk. Attention must be given to those lift operations which have a
relatively high frequency of occurrence and result in substantial impact energy. In
practice this would limit the reach/height-capacity curve (crane load chart) of the crane
whip hoist, usually limited to max. 7-8 tonnes lifting operations, depending on size of
crane and lifting radius. For determination of the drop height normal practise has been
to use the crane load chart, or max. lifting heights given by effective lifting procedures
Based on this object type and the drop height, the kinetic energy for different areas of
the platform may be calculated.
Possible side impacts on equipment from material handling operations by platform

cranes are also to be considered. There may be other accidental loading events which
are peculiar to an installation. As an example, consideration to be given to the possible
sideways impact between a platform crane boom and a tall structure (e.g. vent tower,
radio tower) during boom slewing due to failure of the automatic slew ring limit switch or
operator error. Operation of a fork-lift on an offshore facility will require special bumper.
Specific protection/mitigation measures are to be identified in the design premise when
special considerations are required.
Because of potential effect on structural arrangement and steel order, the type and
magnitude of dropped object loads should be determined as early as possible during
design so that topside facilities are arranged to maximise the effectiveness of the
module structures e.g. decks, to provide a cost effective protection system to acceptable
margins of safety.
draft.doc 6 of 34 05-05-02
3.2 Recommended Design Loads
Based on typical platform MHS and FSA the following frequencies for dropped objects
per platform crane can be deduced
Drilling/production platform 0.2 per annum
Production platform 0.01 per annum
Therefore the drilling area is the prime target for design against dropped objects
followed by the lay down areas. As per API RP 2A recommendation also, crane loading
areas and areas near the drilling rig are more likely to be subject to dropped objects.
Additional protection to be considered where required based on FSA for the module
roofs, production equipment, essential safety systems, escape routes and muster areas,
pipelines in the vicinity of the Installation and the SSIS.
Different dropped objects will be critical for different structural elements design of the
deck. Objects with small contact areas such as drill pipes or collars will govern the
design of unstiffened plate elements. Slightly larger objects will normally be critical for
the stringers, while massive objects with maximum fall energy will be most severe for
the primary girder system.
One of the following objects is generally used in design. These are :
i) Tubular impactor : Drill Collar, Weight approx. 3 tonnes for the well head areas,
Length = 9.5 m, Dia. = 241 mm (NB. at the impact surface,
O.D. = 146 mm)
ii) Cuboid impactor : Food (ISO) Containers, Weight approx. 5 and 10 tonnes,
Dimensions between 1.83x1.83x2.13m and 6.10x2.44x2.44m
For all cases a reasonable assessment has to be made on the impact energy and
particularly of a high impact energy on a small impact area as this may be critical
In addition assumptions must be made where the impact will take place. In the technical
literature (Reference 3.3) a number of equations were found which were quite favorable
if the impact was remote from the plate edge, particularly when tests were carried out on
centrally loaded plates. In order to be on the safe side it must, however, be assumed
that the dropping of a heavy item can also occur near the boundary. Impacting of the
boundary itself on the beam supporting a plate will be considered as a special case.
4 IMPACT PARAMETERS
Each dropped object impact is a one-off case since minor parameter changes for the
separate structural elements, falling object or point of impact may effect the structural
response significantly.
In summary, the following checklist of potential variables is useful (Reference 4.1)
• impact speed (or drop-height) and object mass

• contact surface during impact
• location of impact on structure (stiffness)
• boundary conditions
draft.doc 7 of 34 05-05-02
• type of material
• material thickness and strain hardening
The following variables will, in general, be of secondary importance
• mass of impacted structure

• object stiffness
• orientation of velocity
4.1 Impact Speed And Object Mass
The impact energy, E, is related to the mass of the dropped object, M, and either the fall
height, h, or the velocity at impact, Vp, as follows :
E = Mgh = ½MVp²
(Note : h is the vertical translation of the centre of gravity).
The impact speed influences the duration and shape of the load-pulse. Also the
dynamic amplification associated with the different modes of deflection will be
influenced. In cases where the load-pulse is of such a character that the impact time
coincides with the natural period of a global mode of deflection, a significant dynamic
amplification factor may occur with a corresponding increase in global energy
absorption.
The material properties will be affected by high strain rates. A significant increase in
yield stress and ultimate stress will occur for high strain rates. However, an increasing
risk for brittle fracture for relatively large crack sizes/impact marks will occur for high
impact velocities.
4.2 Contact Surface During Impact
The size of the contact area during impact influences the mode of energy absorption.
4.3 Location of Impact on Structures
The location of the most critical impact zones on the platform decks requires to be
evaluated. Generally impact at stiffer zones eg. near a girder of bulkhead, will produce
small deflections with correspondingly low energy absorption capabilities.
4.4 Boundary Conditions
The stiffness of the impacted structure is dependent upon the boundary conditions
which influence the mode of deflection and energy absorption mechanism. The
structure capacity to develop membrane action is directly dependent on the structural
detailing of the supports to the plate or beams. Supports to the impacted structure must
be capable of sustaining the reactions loads caused by the dropped object.
4.5 Type of Material
draft.doc 8 of 34 05-05-02
A number of solutions have been proposed to accommodate large impact energies on

small areas. In most cases steel plates came out quite well in the competition but for
the sake of completeness alternative solutions and their drawbacks are given as well;
High strength steel (HSS): The advantage of HSS is its high yield stress but in general
the tensile strength over yield stress and the ductility of HSS is much smaller than of
conventional steels and the welding requires more careful attention. Also the plate
strength under impact is quadratically related to plate thickness and therefore a 30%
increase in yield strength would only lead to a 15% reduction in plate thickness which
may not be worth the special efforts, where weight optimisation is secondary.
Glass Fibre Reinforces Plastic (GRP): GRP has excellent linear elastic properties but
shows a poor performance under sharp impacts. Moreover, while steel has a significant
margin between first penetration of the sharp end of the drill collar and the full and final
penetration of the whole collar this difference is not found for GRP as per Reference
4.2.
A Wood Cover: A wood cover will protect the under laying steel plate from damage
during normal drilling operations. It distributes a uniform pressure over a large area and
sharp edges will not damage the plate but cause local deformations of the wood. It was
noted, however, in the tests of Reference 4.2 that there is no additional protection to be
expected from a wood cover for the high load intensity of a vertical impact by a drill
collar.
Aluminium (plate & honeycomb sandwich): Compared to the cost of steel, the aluminium
panel cost more and requires special connections to the supporting structure. Also as
per Reference 4.2, the aluminium fails at lower energies than steel for an equivalent
weight.
4.6 Material Thickness And Strain Hardening
The thickness will affect both the local stress distribution and the material properties.
Triaxial stresses which tend to prevent penetration will occur in thick plates while thin
plates will primarily be subject to punching shear stresses during impact. Yield strength
and fracture toughness will not vary greatly for the range of plate thickness concerned
with dropped object analysis.
The material is assumed to have stress / strain properties equivalent to a rigid plastic
material. The plateau of the stress / strain curve is defined as the yield stress of the
material plus a 10% increase to account for strain hardening of the material under high
plastic strains.
4.7 Mass Of Impacted Structure
The mass of the impacted structure will influence the dynamic behaviour of the structure
and the mode of deflection.
4.8 Object Stiffness
The energy absorption within the object is very much dependent on the mode of impact
and the rigidity of the body. For an axially impacting drill collar the energy absorbed is in
the order of 4% of total kinetic energy at impact. For a container the internal energy
absorbed can amount to a significant percentage. Ordinarily, the energy absorption of
the dropped object is ignored during a first pass analysis.
draft.doc 9 of 34 05-05-02
4.9 Object Impact Orientation
Impact orientations are considered to be a function of the orientation of the object during
lifting, the nature of the release and the object’s tendency for re-orientation during the
drop. To simulate the most severe impact situation the velocity vector should be normal
to the plate surface.
5 MECHANISM OF FAILURE
Most of the failure mechanisms reported in this section are from the literature related to
projectiles hitting the target (Reference 5.1). The mass is comparatively less for
projectiles and the impact velocity is high compared to normal dropped objects
encountered offshore. However some comparison with low impact projectiles can be
drawn based on the energy comparison in Reference 4.2. The impact energy for the
targets derived based on the empirical formulae for the projectiles give comparable
results for the dropped object test results.
For projectile impact below 250m/sec, there is generally a strong coupling between local
impact and the global structural response. For thin targets the projectile may cause
bulging and dishing without any penetration of the target. Bulging is plastic deformation
in the zone of contact between target and projectile. Dishing is mainly permanent
bending deformation, which may extend a considerable distance beyond the impact
area. At higher impact energies the projectile will perforate the target. Failure
mechanisms such as plugging, petaling, radial fracture or ductile hole enlargement will
then occur.
Based on the Veritec report (Reference 3.1) penetration mechanics related to large
mass projectiles in the low velocity range occurs in two phase (transient and global
mode shape) which are separated by the time when the plate supports are activated. In
the transient phase only inertia forces are present in the plate. In the global mode phase
the supports are fully activated and the target behaves almost quasistatically. The
plugging occurs in the latter phase and at maximum force.
6 DESIGN PROCEDURE
6.1 Acceptance Criteria
It is a fundamental requirement that the structures have adequate strength and ductility
against DAE’s which may threaten operational integrity. The dropped object analysis
should therefore ensure that :
• The structure satisfies the accidental load performance criteria with a minimum
weight penalty. There is a quadratic relationship between plate thickness and impact
energy. Therefore an increase in requirement from 270kJ (a fairly common value) to
450kJ will lead to an increase in plate thickness of 30%. It may therefore be worth
reviewing this number in detail with the Client in particular to verify the practicality to
impose lift weight restrictions on vertically lifted drill collars. Another observation is
that the 7.625” drill collar is equally heavy to a 9.5" collar and when comparing the
consequences it is apparent that the smaller diameter collar is the most critical of the
two.
• Repairs to the damaged structure are neither technically nor economically
prohibitive.
• Local failures do not lead to production shut downs.
draft.doc 10 of 34 05-05-02
• The impacted structural component retards the dropped object sufficiently to prevent
total penetration and damage to underlying equipment and piping.
• Acceptable dent or penetration depths and deflection limits are met.
• Whereas local damage is acceptable, the possible initiation of progressive collapse
and unacceptable damage to primary structure to be avoided and the structure
should exhibit post impact serviceability for operational conditions pending
completion of repair work.
6.2 General Requirements
Beams subject to high impact should meet the provisions of AISC (Reference 6.1)
minimum thickness for plastic design and for compact sections. If section is not defined
as compact, deck plate to flange welds to be adequate to ensure lateral restraint of
compression flange during large deflections required to mobilise plastic hinges. Lateral
buckling requires to be checked. Beam connection welds should be full penetration to
ensure ductility. Hatch covers should be restrained from rebounding off their supports
when impacted.
The structure must behave in a ductile manner to provide energy absorption

characteristics, hence the design must provide a balance between strength and
flexibility. Joints nodes and members should be designed to maintain their full plastic
section capacity, hence;
• provide redundancy in the structure such that alternate load paths may be
developed.
• avoid dependence on energy absorbing struts with a sharply decreasing post
buckling capacity.
• avoid pronounced weak sections and abrupt changes in strength or stiffness.
• select materials with sufficient tearing and fracture toughness properties and with a
yield strength significantly lower than the ultimate tensile strength.
• design joints and members to meet ductility requirements.
• provide adequate stiffness and restraint of section out stands (webs and flanges) to
avoid local instability (i.e. flange buckling).
6.3 Design Philosophy
For design purpose, structural components can be grouped as follows :

• deck plate
• laydown platforms
• hatch covers
• stringers
• Beams and girders
• Components with special protection requirement
6.3.1 Deck Plate
Plate is the basic structural component widely used for dropped object protection.
Generally for the plate design the energy absorbed in elastic deformation is considered
draft.doc 11 of 34 05-05-02
to be small and not assessed. Also the energy associated with the rupture or tearing of
the plate is not assessed. The deck plate includes the covering on the roof of the
modules which serve as impact protection structures and wellhead panels. For deck
plates on the roof of the modules, the boundary conditions are assumed to be clamped
since continuous. The surrounding structure is assumed to be sufficient to withstand the
forces developed during the impact. In practice the boundary conditions of a steel drill
panel can be considered to be clamped wherever there is continuous support of the
panel by its neighboring panels. Along the boundary of the drill floor the boundary
condition will depend on the lateral stiffness of the edge beam. For open section this
lateral stiffness will be small but hollow sections would be able to generate a substantial
level of membrane actions in the plate. Regrettably most test data are given for plates
impacted at a distance from the boundary.
A local check should be made to ensure that rotation is limited and supports are rigid.
The supporting members must also be checked to ensure adequate strength to resist
the vertical and horizontal loads and that rotation of the member does not occur. The
plate must be adequately welded to develop membrane stresses where the design
considers the membrane action for the energy absorption.
6.3.2 Laydown Platforms
Laydown platforms are plated and designed for specific DAE’s to minimise the damage
and maximise serviceability. Typically they are designed for impact from a container or
tote tank or similar on the same basis as general decks. Supporting braces and
connections are checked to ensure they can absorb the impact reaction loads.
Consideration is given to the influence of the dynamic response of a cantilever platform
when considering total energy absorption capacity. However, the use of cantilevers to
be minimised and should, where possible, be braced or tied-back to adjacent columns
or decks.
6.3.3 Hatch Covers
Hatch covers here are referred to those used on well head areas. These are designed
to resist the impact from a drill collar which will typically govern the design. Hatch-covers
are typically simply supported along Its boundaries. Therefore no membrane action can
be developed but impact energy absorption must be generated by large deflections.
The tests in Reference 4.1 provide illustrative data on the impact resistance of hatch
covers. The following observations are of particular interest:
• if the impact takes place near the edge, the hatch cover should be designed as the
drill floor.
• if the impact is in the middle then energy absorption takes place through large plate
bending and the yield line theory can be used for the design.
In all cases jumping of the cover can be avoided by welded flat bar stiffeners around the
edges (see Figure 6.1), not by bolts. The energy absorption capacity will be increased if
the hatch is more effectively restrained at the perimeter lips thus allowing yield lines to
develop around the perimeter.
draft.doc 12 of 34 05-05-02
6.3.4 Stringer Beams
The governing cases for stringer beam design are impacting objects sufficiently large to
be caught by the grid of stringers. For smaller objects the plate is designed to withstand
the impact, therefore the combined stringer and plate does not need to be checked. For
large objects impacting more than one stringer the minimum number of stringers is used
in the energy absorption calculation.
For the analysis of the energy absorption capacity of stringers generally the upper
bound theorem of plastic theory is used. A mechanism of failure is defined based on
concentrated areas of plastic rotation, (hinges) and the rotation of the various hinges are
calculated for unit deflection under the load. The full plastic bending capacity of the
beam is considered for the assessment of the energy absorption capacity.
For some cases the stringer beam support can be assumed to be well represented by
an idealised support fixed against translation and rotation. Depending on the framing
arrangement and end fixity, plastic hinges may form at the supports as well as under the
load. The welds between stringer beam and primary and secondary or primary
structural members should be as capable of resisting the high plastic deformation as the
base metal.
The dynamic aspects of the impact are assumed to be adequately modelled by the
assumption of a quasi-static process. The surrounding structure is assumed to be
sufficient to withstand the forces developed during the impact.
6.3.5 Beams & Girders
The dropped object governing the design of beams and girders will generally be that
with the greatest impact energy. Neither punching shear failure of the flanges nor
crippling of the webs is normally critical and hence contact area is less important. The
boundary conditions for a large beam or girder are generally insufficient to provide
enough axial restraint for tension yielding to occur. The development of significant axial
force does not begin until vertical deflection is typically of the order of member depth.
This is unacceptable for large girders due to impact with piping and equipment below a
deck. Girders are designed conservatively on the basis of plastic energy absorption in
plastic hinge rotation.
6.3.6 Special Protection
Numerous special considerations may be identified during risk studies that are not
typical to many installations. Examples include impact of crane boom with other
structural components, bumper requirements for a fork lift, etc. The designs are
generally case specific and are not included in this design reference.
7 TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
The theories involved for the dropped object design of structural component varies
widely. However most of the design methods can be classified as below:
• Design based on yield line theories
• Empirical methods
draft.doc 13 of 34 05-05-02
7.1 Design Based On Yield Line Theories
The upper bound theorem of plastic theory is employed to assess the energy absorption
during the impact. A mechanism of failure is defined based on concentrated areas of
plastic rotation, (hinges) and the rotation of the various hinges are calculated for unit
deflection under the load. Generally the hatch covers, stringer and beams are designed
using the mechanism approach.
The ductility of the structural material under simple tension is guaranteed to 18 -21%
strain as per ASTM A572 (Reference 7.1). The maximum rupture deflection is
calculated as that deflection corresponding to a hinge rotation with an extreme fibre
strain of 20%. This is calculated assuming the section remains plane and the strained
length is equal to the depth. The neutral axis for the rotation is taken at the centre of the
section.
The top plate is excluded in case of beams because it is considered that the high plastic
strains resulting from the impact will lead to rapid failure of the fillet weld between beam
top flange and deck plate. To ensure serviceability of the supporting structure (trusses /
girders) the applied forces due to strain in the section is limited by limiting the hinge
rotation, and hence deflection, to extreme fibre strain of 10% in case of beams.
A typical example for energy calculation is included in Appendix.
7.2 Design Based On Empirical Methods
The local impact effects have been experimentally measured and empirical formulae
derived for penetration depth, perforation, scabbing thickness. Some of these formulae
have partial theoretical background. Most of the empirical formulae are derived for
projectiles hitting the target. Generally plated structure are designed based on these
empirical formulae.
7.2.1 Empirical Formulae Derived from the Projectile Models and Test Models
Standford Research Institute (SRI) formula
The Standford Research Institute (SRI) formula for the kinetic energy (in kJ) required to
perforate a steel target (as quoted by Neilson – Reference 3.3) is:
KE = d. u. t2 (42.7 + w / t) / 104
Where
u is the ultimate tensile strength in Pascals
w is the unsupported span of the target plate (m)
t is the target thickness (m) and
d is the missile diameter (m)
U.S. Ballastic Research Institute (BRL) formula
The U.S. Ballastic Research Institute (BRL) formula for the kinetic energy (in kJ)
required to perforate a steel target (as quoted by Neilson – Reference 3.3) is:
KE = 1.4 * 109 (d. t)1.5
Where
draft.doc 14 of 34 05-05-02
t is the target thickness (m) and

d is the missile diameter (m)
Other formulae derived from test results for drill collar impacts
Norman Ellis (Reference 4.2) gives a comparison of drop energy for different panel
sizes using different empirical formulae and is given in figure 7.1. Norman conducted a
small scale testing for dropped objects similar to drill collar and the impact energy levels
were similar to those associated with the projectiles impact. The summary of bounding
correlation for small-scale test and full-scale test are given in figures 7.2.
Based on theoretical correlation with the test results Arne Wenger (Reference 4.1) has
given the following equation for the design of impact energy with a calibration of the (∆ /
t ) ratio for different plate thickness based on the test results and the same is given in
figure 7.3.
 ∆
3
∆
2
 ∆ ∆ 
E = fy . t 2.44  − 9  + 20  − 4 In   − 9
3
 t t t t 
From a punch through analysis, the following parametric equations can be deduced,
expressed in either the yield stress or the ultimate stress of the plate material
Ep = C1 . π dd t2 Py or
Ep = C2 . π dd t2 Pu
where
C1 , C2 = constants to be established by test data

dd = nozzle diameter of collar
t = plate thickness
Py = yield stress
Pu = ultimate stress
This equation is confirmed by the results of Normal Ellis (Reference 4.2). Following
correlation can be drawn for the full-scale test results:
just penetrated E1 = 1.75 π dd t2 Py (7.1)
complete penetration E2 = 4.00 π d t2 Py (7.2)
It should however, be noted that the graph in Reference 4.2 is obtained for:
- unspecific Py or Pu of the HY8O material (with a min. spec yield strength of

Py =80 ksi = 550 MPa)
- the graph is obtained for a 7 5/8" collar and should therefore be corrected for
a 9 1/2" collar.
A comparison of the energy values from above empirical formulae is given in Figure 7.4.
However it should be noted that the empirical formulae may exceed the validity range or
may not match the test results for which these formulae are derived.
draft.doc 15 of 34 05-05-02
7.2.2 Veritec Method
An alternative design method taken from Veritec (Reference 3.1), is suitable for the
design of decks subject to very high impact forces e.g. drill decks, to resist the impact
from a dropped drill collar (which will typically govern design) or well head. However,
the Veritec method predicts very high membrane stresses, which can only be sustained
if the plate boundaries are fixed in the plane of the plate.
As explained in section 5, the failure mechanism includes a transient and a global mode
phase. An energy balance is set up, where the kinetic energy of the projectile and target
is assumed to be dissipated as strain energy during the global mode phase. The strain
energy of the plate at incipient plugging is assumed equal to the corresponding static
critical strain energy which is a function of the target geometry, support conditions and
the mechanical properties of the material.
Based on the tests carried out and the outlined model the plugging capacity of a plated
structure subjected to a flat ended dropped object is given as:
  2 r  2  2
 π  o 
h
t 
 4  d  d 
  p  p 
= 1 +
s u  
T U 0 . 4 8
p u M
 p 
 
 ρ d 3 
t p
 
where,
Tpu is the critical impact energy required for penetration of the target,
Usu is the static critical strain energy for the target
ro is the smallest distance from point of impact to plate boundary
Mp is the projectile mass
dp is the outer diameter of the dropped object
ht is the target plate thickness
ρt is the target plate density
the formula is valid for a plated structure without stringers, with the following limitations:
• Steel quality ST 52-3N or steel with a similar strain rate sensitivity
 2 r  2
π  o 
h
t
• Mass ratio 4  d  d
M  p  p
t
= ≤ 0 .7 5
M M
p p
ρ d 3
t p
• Scaled span length l t d p ≤ 1 4 .5
• Scaled target thickness h t d p ≤ 0 .2 7 0
The static strain energy Usu may be calculated by means of a non-linear finite element
program based on the actual geometry of the target and its boundary conditions or any
other available method. The detailed calculation procedure for a typical plate example is
included in Appendix.
draft.doc 16 of 34 05-05-02
The failure criteria for plugging may be based on a mean critical shear stress found from
the static test (Reference 3.1) as follows:
τ cr = f uo (0 . 4 1 • h t / d p + 0 .4 2 )
where,
fuo is the ultimate stress
The critical plugging force, Fsu, is then given by
F su = π d p h t τ cr
Neglecting the energy absorption due to elastic deflection, the static strain energy can
be approximated as
1
U su = [ F 2
su − F 2
so ]
2 k tp
Where,
Ktp is the membrane stiffness,
Fso is the mechanism force
Neglecting the second term magnitude compared to the first term, the above equation
can be approximated further as below:
2
Usu = Fsu / 2ktp
Hence the static strain energy is dependent on the plugging force and the membrane
stiffness. Above equation has been used in the Norsk standard N004 (Reference 7.2)
for the energy dissipation in the plate. However slightly different coefficients have been
used in the derivation of the plate membrane stiffness and the yield stress instead of the
ultimate stress is used in the Fsu calculation. Details of the design calculations are
included in Appendix.
The plate membrane stiffness variation with the plate span based on Veritec method is
shown in Figure 7.5. Comparison of the plugging energy and the membrane stiffness as
per Veritec method and Norsk standard is given in figure 7.6.
The experimental study in Veritec method was restricted to square plates subjected to a
central impact. However the method will apply to situations where the impact takes
place at other locations and to rectangular targets when the smallest span length lt is
less than 14.5dp. Figure 7.7 shows how the target mass Mt represented by the circular
areas, should be calculated for such cases.
The energy equation can be extended for targets with stringers, neglecting the target
mass, i.e. ro = 0. Usu is calculated based on the actual geometry. However, the critical
shear failure should be used only away from the stringers.
7.2.3 Comparison of Different Technical Solutions
Drop energy comparison for different panel thickness is given in Figure 7.8 based on the
following methods:
• Veritec method
draft.doc 17 of 34 05-05-02
• Based on the correlation in equations 7.1 and 7.2 for E1 and E2

• Yield line theory
For comparison purpose, St 52-3N material and a drill collar of 10t weight with a
diameter of 241mm (9.5”) was considered to fall at the centre of the plate span. Plates
with 1m and 2.5m spans were used for plotting the results. For the yield line theory, the
plates were considered stiffened and to be fixed all along the boundary. The plate width
for yield lines formation was assumed at four times the span, considering an aspect ratio
of 1:4. (this requires a minimum stiffness of four times the plate stiffness for the stiffened
direction of the plate).
As seen from the results, the Veritec method drop energy values are between the E1
and E2 values except for very thin plate panels. The drop energy from yield line theory
gives a higher value for thicker plates. This may be probably due to the assumption of
the yield line formation at 1:4 aspect ratio.
Hence for a preliminary design of the plate panels, following equation, which is between
E1 and E2 can be used and further checks on the adequacy can be performed by
Veritec method for detailed design.
Average Energy Ea = 2.00 π d t2 Py
draft.doc 18 of 34 05-05-02
8 REFERENCES
3.1 Veritec Report No. 88-3172 , ‘Design Against Accidental Loads’, Section 4.
‘Design Guidance for Structures Exposed to Falling Objects’, August 1988
3.2 DIM 2.17, ‘Design for material handling accidents’, Esso Production Malaysia
Inc.
3.3 Neilson, A.J.., Emperical Equations for the Perforation of Mild Steel Plates Int J.
Impact Engg. Vol. 3, No. 2, 1985.
4.1 Wenger, A., Edvardsen, C., et al. Design for Impact of Dropped Objects. OTC
4471, 1983.
4.2 Ellis, N., Perret, C.R. and Rae, K.; The Design of an Impact Resistant Roof for
Platform Wellhead Modules. OTC 3907, 1980.
5.1 HSE OTI 92 603 (BR5), ‘ Analysis of Projectiles’,
6.1 AISC, Manual of Steel Construction, 9th Edition.
7.1 ASTM A572, Standard Specification for High- Strength Low Alloy Columbium -
Vanadium Steels of Structural Quality.
7.2 NORSOK Standard N-004, ‘Design of Steel Structures’ Annex A (1998).
draft.doc 19 of 34 05-05-02
9 TABLES
Table 3.1 Typical dropped object scenarios
Table 3.2 Typical lifting distribution and lifting frequency
draft.doc 20 of 34 05-05-02
Source Operation/Activity/Structural Threat

item
Daily equipment / Inter platform Drill pipe
material handling Crane operations Drill collars
casing
drilling equipment
BOP components
Crane/trolley pallets
or trucks containers for spare parts
Helideck landings/departures
Subsea Installations general surface activity
Regular equipment/ Crane operations Drill pipe
material handling from supply ship Drill collar
casing
drilling equipment
hoses
buoys
wire drums
containers
Spare parts
filters
Overhead cranes BOP, BOP components
hatches
production trees
spool pieces
filters
Subsea installations running guide base
in drilling phase running BOP
change guidelines
install production trees
pull in operations
running TV
ROV Inspection
general surface activity
Maintenance Crane operations hatches
removal of parts
supply of parts
change out of filters
Overhead cranes hatches
removal of parts
supply of parts
change out of filters
Trolley/trucks transportation of parts
Subsea docking of tools (pipe/ROV)
installations removal of protection
in production phase removal of equipment
installation of equipment
installation of protection
maintenance vessel activity
diving bell handling
subsurface lifting
Table 3.1 Typical dropped object scenarios
draft.doc 21 of 34 05-05-02
OPERATION AREA ITEM DESCRIPTION MASS ASSUME LIFT

ACTIVITY (Tonnes) DROP FREQUENCY
HEIGHT(m)
Material Wellhead Drill pipe (30 ft. long ) 0.585 5.0 W
handling: Module Roof Drill pipe (40 ft. long ) 0.780 5.0 W
Platform and Drill Floor Drill collar 6” (30 ft. long ) 1.118 2.0 M
crane Drill collar 8” (30 ft. long ) 2.036 2.0 M
operations Drill collar 9.5” (30 ft. long ) 3.172 2.0 M
from supply
boat or drilling Conductor 30” (50 ft. long ) 8.00 5.0 M
derrick Conductor 26” (50 ft. long ) 5.00 5.0 M
operations
Casing 20” (40 ft. long ) 1.192 5.0 M
Casing 13 3/8” “ 1.296 5.0 M
Casing 9 5/8” “ 0.852 5.0 M
Casing 7” “ 0.630 5.0 M
Annular BOP Approx. 15.0 2.0 2 – 4 yr

BOP connector Approx. 15.0 2.0 2 – 4 yr
Shear-/U-ram preventer Approx. 15.0 2.0 2 – 4 yr
Guide base Approx. 15.0 2.0 1-3 ms
Christmas tree – single Approx. 4.0 2.0 1-3 ms
Christmas tree – double Approx. 6.0 2.0 1-3 ms
Regular General Roofs Glycol tote tanks Approx. 5.0 5.0 M

platform and Laydowns Lube oil tote tanks Approx. 5.0 5.0 M
crane Pallets Up to 2.0 5.0 D
operations Containers (equipment) Up to 10.0 5.0 D
from supply Food containers Approx. 5.0 5.0 D
boat . Wire drums Up to 6.0 5.0 3 – 6 ms
Pipeline pigs Up to 4.0 5.0 3 – 6 ms
Buoys Up to 23.0 5.0 3 – 6 ms
Maintenance: Horizontal pumps Up to 3.0 5.0 Y

Platform Vertical pumps 10 to 15 5.0 2 yr
crane Gas compressors Up to 25.0 5.0 Y
operations Gas turbines Up to 5.0 5.0 Y
Valves Up to 20.0 5.0 Y
Filters Up to 2.0 10.0 Y
Agitators Up to 1.0 10.0 Y
Transformers Up to 7.0 5.0 5 yr
Diesel engines 1.0 to 10.0 5.0 3 – 5 yr
Electric motors 5.0 to 10.0 5.0 3 – 5 yr
Generators 10.0 + 5.0 5– 10 yr
Heat exchanger components Up to 27.0 2.5 0.5 – 5 yr
Wellstream cooler bundle Up to 17.0 2.5 0.5 – 5 yr
D: daily, W: weekly, M: monthly, Y: yearly, ms: months, yr: years
Table 3.2 Typical lifting distribution and lifting frequency
draft.doc 22 of 34 05-05-02
10 FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Design for material handling accidents – Analysis Procedure
Figure 6.1 Typical Hatch cover edge detailing
Figure 7.1 Comparison of penetration formulae
Figure 7.2 Summary of boundary correlation
Figure 7.3 Recommended design values for ∆ / t
Figure 7.4 Comparison of energy from empirical formulae
Figure 7.5 Plate membrane stiffness variation as per Veritec
Figure 7.6 Norsk and Veritec stiffness and drop energy comparison
Figure 7.7 Calculation of target mass
Figure 7.8 Comparison of drop energy by different methods
draft.doc 23 of 34 05-05-02
DETAILED RISK MATERIAL

CRANE OPERATIONS &
ASSESSMENTS HANDLING MAINTENANCE HANDLING
STUDIES PROCEDURES
PLATFORM &
EQUIPMENT
LAYOUTS STRUCTURA
L
ENGINEERING
DEFINE ACCIDENTAL LOAD SCENARIOS &

IDENTIFY CRITICAL SERVICE AREAS THAT
REQUIRE PROTECTION
CONFIRM DROP ZONES AND

EQUIPMENT THAT REQUIRES
PROTECTION & PROTECTION
DEVICE
FOR EACH OBJECT DETERMINE:

Drop mass
Drop height
Impact energy
Object impact orientation
Impactor type
Structural component
design
(Plates, beams, etc.)
DETERMINE IMPACT LOCATION.

ASSESS IMPACTED STRUCTURE ENERGY
ABSORBTION REDESIGN
IN ACCORDANCE
No DESIGN
WITH GUIDELINES
No
IS ENERGY SHOULD
SERVICEABILITY Yes ABSORBED No OPERATIONAL
STATE ? RESTRICTIONS
ACCEPTABLE BE APPLIED?
?
Yes
DEFINE RESTRICTIONS Yes

DESIGN
ACCEPTABLE
Figure 1.1 DESIGN FOR MATERIAL HANDLING ACCIDENTS - ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
draft.doc 24 of 34 05-05-02
Figure 6.1 Typical Hatch cover edge detailing
draft.doc 25 of 34 05-05-02
Figure 7.1 Comparison of penetration formulae
Figure 7.2 Summary of boundary correlation
draft.doc 26 of 34 05-05-02
Figure 7.3 Recommended design values for ∆ / t
1000
900
Fy=350N/mm2, Fu=450N/mm2
Dd=194mm, span=1m
800
700
600
Drop energy (kJ)
500 SRI
BRL
E1
400
E2
E
300
200
100
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Panel thickness (mm)
Comparison of penetration formulas
Figure 7.4 Comparison of energy from empirical formulae
draft.doc 27 of 34 05-05-02
250000
200000
d=241mm
150000
2*Ktp (kN/m)
t=10
100000 t=16
t=25
50000
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
plate span (m)
Figure 7.5 Plate membrane stiffness variation as per Veritec
700
600
500 d=241mm, t=16mm,Mp=10t
Stiffness (kN/m/100) and Drop Energy (kJ)
400
knorsk
300 Enorsk
Kveritec
Everitec
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Hinge circle radius (mm)
Figure 7.6 Norsk and Veritec stiffness and drop energy comparison
draft.doc 28 of 34 05-05-02
Figure 7.7 Calculation of target mass
1200
E1-Just penetrated
E2-Full perforation
1000 Veritec- 1m span
Veritec - 2.5m span
yield line - 1m span
yield line -2.5m span
800
Drop energy (kJ)
D=241mm, M=10t,
600
400
200
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Panel thickness (mm)
Figure 7.8 Comparison of drop energy by different methods
draft.doc 29 of 34 05-05-02
APPENDIX
The Appendix includes the design steps involved for the plate using
• Yield line method

• Veritec method
• Norsk method
draft.doc 30 of 34 05-05-02
Deck Plate – Yield Line Method
A B
L1
a b
w x cL Stringer
c
yield lines
z o L 2
impact d
point
cL Stringer
continuous
support
1. Input Data
Yield stress, fyo = 350 N/mm2
Strain hardening factor, f = = 1.15
Maximum material tensile strain, ε = 20 %
SIZES:-
Span, L2 = 1.000 m
Width, L1 = 4.000 m (limited to 4L2)
Thickness, ht = 0.015 m
Impact distance, a = 2.000 m
Impact distance, c = 0.500 m
2. Derived Data
Modified yield stress, fy = fyo*f = 403 N/mm2
Peak hinge rotation (centre), φ = 0.400 rad
SIZES:-
Impact distance, b = 2.000 m
Impact distance, d = 0.500 m
3. Impact Energy Calculation

Plastic moment per unit length, Mp = fy * ht 2 / 4 22.64 kNm/m
Rupture deflection at point of impact = δ r = φ /(1/c+1/d)
= 0.100 m
Energy dissipation along two shorter edges = Es = Mp * L2 *( δ r / a+ δ r / b )
= 2.264 kJ
Energy dissipation along two longer edges = El = Mp * L1 *( δ r / c+ δ r / d )
= 36.225 kJ
Energy dissipation along yield lines = Ey = 2 * ( Es + El )
= 76.978 kJ
Total Energy dissipation = E = 115 kJ
draft.doc 31 of 34 05-05-02
Deck Plate – Veritec Method
Deck Plate Properties:

SIZES:-
i) Span, lt = 2.0 m (NOTE: lt <bt)
ii) Width, bt = 4.0 m
iii) Thickness, ht = 0.015 m
Steel density, ρ = 7.85 tonnes/m3
Yield stress, fyo = 350 N/mm2
Ultimate tensile stress, fuo = 450 N/mm2
Boundary condition = 2 ( Hinged = 1, Fixed =
2)
Elastic stiffness coeff. α = 0.0277 (Ref. Roark Table 26-1b for Hinged
and 26-8b for Fixed ends)
Design Criteria:
Cross sec. of loads, dp = 0.241 m

Mass of projectile Mp = 3.000 tonnes
Height of fall H = 10.000 M
Smallest distance from impact = 1.00 m
point to plate boundary
ht/dp = 0.062 < 0.270 O.K

lt/dp = 8.299 < 14.500 O.K
Mt/Mp = 0.123 < 0.750 O.K
1. Calculate The Critical Shear Stress, Tcr
tcr = (0.42 + 0.41ht/dp)fuo = 200.48 N/mm2
2. Calculate The Critical Plugging Force, Fsu
Fsu = π x dp x ht x tcr = 2276.86 kN
3. Calculate The Constant A And B
a = - exp (-2 x (lt - dp)/lt) = -0.172

b = 1/(1 – exp (-2 x (lt - dp)/lt) = 1.208
4. Calculate The Mechanism Force, Fso
Fso = 0.5 x π x fyo x ht ^2 x (1 + dp x b/lt) N/A kN ( for hinged plate )

Fso = 0.5 x π x fyo x ht ^2 x (1 + dp x b/lt - 2ab) = 193.18 kN ( for fixed plate )
draft.doc 32 of 34 05-05-02
5. Calculate The Membrane Stiffness, Ktp
Ktp = {(0.5 x π x fyo x ht)/(1 +a)^2} x {1 + 4dp/lt - 5a^2 + 4(dp^2)/lt^2}

Ktp = 16750.2 kN/m
6. Calculate The Elastic Stiffness Kte
Kte = (E x ht^3)/(a x lt^2) = 6396.7 kN/m
7. Calculate The Plate Displacemnet, Wco (@ Mechanism Force, Fso)
Wco = {Fso/(Ktp - Kte)} ln (Ktp/Kte) = 0.0180 m
8. Calculate The Final Plate Deflection (Permanent Dent Size), Wcu
Wcu = (Fsu - Fso)/Ktp + Wco = 0.1424 m
9. Calculate The Parameter, U
u = (Ktp - Kte)/Fso = 53.60 1/m
10. Calculate The Static Critical Strain Energy, Usu
Usu = (Kte/u){(exp(u x Wco)/u - Wco} + {(Ktp(Wcu - Wco)^2)/2} +{Fso(Wcu-Wco)}

Usu = 157.32kJ
11. Calculate The Critical Impact Energy (Plugging Capacity), Tpu Of The Panel
Tpu = {1+ (0.48 x p x ro^2 x r x ht)/Mp}^2 x Usu

Tpu = 176.50kJ
12. Calculate The Energy Of The Dropped Object, E
E = MpgH = 294.30kJ
Since E > Tpu Review the design
draft.doc 33 of 34 05-05-02
Deck Plate – Norsk Method
Plate Design For Impact Load (As Per NORSOK std. N004 - Dec. 1998)
Input
Plate Thickness - t 16 mm
Mass density of plate material -r 7.85 tonnes/m3
Yield strength - fy 350 N/mm2
Dia of Dropped Object - d 450 mm
Dist. Of fall from the edge - r 1000 mm
Mass of the dropped object - M 10 tonnes
Calculation
Maximum shear stress - τ = fy(0.42+0.41*t/d) = 152.10 N/mm2

Contact force - R = P*d*t*τ = 3440 KN
2
Mass of plate enclosed by hinge circle = M1 = r*P*r *t
C = -e-2.5(1-d/r)
Stiffness of plate enclosed by hinge circle = K =
=0.5*p*fy*t [ 1 + 5*d/r - 6c 2 + 6.25(d/r)2] / [1 + c ]2
Energy dissipated in plate = Es = R2 / K * ( 1 + 0.48 M1/M )
r C M1 K Es
tonnes tonnes X102 kN/m kJ
1000 -0.2528 0.3946 651.10 185.24
draft.doc 34 of 34 05-05-02

Design For Dropped Objects PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Design For Dropped Objects PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doc.

Document title : DESIGN AGAINST DROPPED OBJECTS

1 Rev 0 Issued as draft 05/05/02

3 CHARACTERISTIC DROPPED OBJECT LOADS............................................ 6

3.1 Design Accident Event And Formal Safety Assessment...................................................................6

3.2 Recommended Design Loads ...................................................................................................................7

4 IMPACT PARAMETERS ........................................................................................ 7

4.1 Impact Speed And Object Mass ............................................................................................................8

4.2 Contact Surface During Impact..............................................................................................................8

4.3 Location of Impact on Structures...........................................................................................................8

4.4 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................................8

4.5 Type of Material ..........................................................................................................................................8

4.6 Material Thickness And Strain Hardening..........................................................................................9

4.7 Mass Of Impacted Structure....................................................................................................................9

4.8 Object Stiffness............................................................................................................................................9

4.9 Object Impact Orientation.....................................................................................................................10

6.1 Acceptance Criteria..................................................................................................................................10

6.2 General Requirements .............................................................................................................................11

6.3 Design Philosophy.....................................................................................................................................11

7 TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS ...................................................................................13

7.1 Design Based On Yield Line Theories .................................................................................................14

7.2 Design Based On Empirical Methods ..................................................................................................14

7.2.2 Veritec Method................................................................................................................................... 16

Deck Plate – Yield Line Method..............................................................................................................................31

Deck Plate – Veritec Method....................................................................................................................................32

Deck Plate – Norsk Method.....................................................................................................................................34

• Laydown areas should not be located adjacent to equipment carrying pressurised

• Crane lifts over pressurised equipment or hydrocarbon containing areas are to be

3 CHARACTERISTIC DROPPED OBJECT LOADS

3.1 Design Accident Event And Formal Safety Assessment

Possible side impacts on equipment from material handling operations by platform

3.2 Recommended Design Loads

One of the following objects is generally used in design. These are :

In summary, the following checklist of potential variables is useful (Reference 4.1)

• impact speed (or drop-height) and object mass

The following variables will, in general, be of secondary importance

• mass of impacted structure

4.1 Impact Speed And Object Mass

(Note : h is the vertical translation of the centre of gravity).

4.2 Contact Surface During Impact

4.3 Location of Impact on Structures

4.4 Boundary Conditions

4.5 Type of Material

A number of solutions have been proposed to accommodate large impact energies on

4.6 Material Thickness And Strain Hardening

4.7 Mass Of Impacted Structure

4.8 Object Stiffness

4.9 Object Impact Orientation

6.1 Acceptance Criteria

6.2 General Requirements

The structure must behave in a ductile manner to provide energy absorption

6.3 Design Philosophy

For design purpose, structural components can be grouped as follows :

6.3.1 Deck Plate

6.3.2 Laydown Platforms

6.3.3 Hatch Covers

6.3.4 Stringer Beams

6.3.5 Beams & Girders

6.3.6 Special Protection

• Design based on yield line theories

7.1 Design Based On Yield Line Theories

A typical example for energy calculation is included in Appendix.

7.2 Design Based On Empirical Methods