Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures – Amdahl, Ehlers & Leira (Eds)

© 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00059-9

Collision tests with rigid and deformable bulbous bows driven against
double hull side structures

I. Tautz, M. Schöttelndreyer, E. Lehmann & W. Fricke

Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Hamburg, Germany

ABSTRACT: Evaluation of ship collision safety is commonly carried out with a striking ship assumed to be
rigid. This approach is in line with classic safety assessments taking a worst case scenario into account. It is
in addition to that justified because the majority of ship-ship collisions occur without significant damage at
the striking vessel. Nevertheless considering stiffness of the striking vessel might have noticeable influence
on absorbable collision energies. Safety level could be increased significantly when design of bulbous bows
is carried out also under the aspect of good crushing behaviour regarding collision load. However up to now
experimental verification of this context is missing. This paper reports about collision experiments with rigid
and deformable bulbous bows driven against double hull side structures that have been carried out on the test
facility of the Institute for Ship Structural Design and Analysis of TUHH. Actual validation status of numerical
calculations is presented based on test results also with regard to material behaviour.

1 INTRODUCTION

Experimental investigations of ship collisions that con-

sider as many mechanical effects as possible are in
general highly complex. Thus experiments usually
concentrate on the inner mechanics of one collision
partner only, whilst the other one is considered to be
rigid.
Yamada (2006) tested bulbous bows of a fishing
Figure 1. Experimental program.
ship with 500 in gross tonnages in true scale. Amdahl
(1983) scaled down and simplified bulbous bow struc-
tures as tubes with circular and elliptical cross-section.
Both authors crushed their specimen by driving them collision forces and energies as well as to material
against rigid plates. behaviour of the used steel grade.
Ship collision tests with rigid indenters driven Effect of the side structure filled with granulate
against ship like side structure models are known from is presented in a separate paper by Schöttelndreyer
Peschmann (2001) or Karlsson (2009). Compared to (2013) who compares CE-1 with CE-3 and gives
Karlsson, Peschmann used a larger test model but did additional information with regard to the material
not have laboratory conditions because his tests were behaviour of the granulate.
carried out in open air with floating models. CE-4 is scheduled for January 2013; results have
In contrast to the above mentioned publications, not been available for this paper.
experiments presented in this paper consider stiffness
of both collision partners in a series of systematic vari-
ations. Test models of bulbous bow like indenters in
2 EXPERIMENTS
rigid and deformable configuration are driven against
models of ship side structures. Side structures repre-
2.1 Collision test rig
sent a conventional longitudinal stiffened double hull
design. Stiffness of the side structures is varied by Experimental investigations presented within this
filling them up with granulates.These models are com- paper consider a right angle collision. This scenario is
bined in an experimental program with a total number well established in evaluation of ship collision safety.
of four collision tests shown in Figure 1. It has in addition to that a lot of advantages regarding
This paper focuses on the comparison of CE-1 and the execution of the tests. Experiments are limited to
CE-2. Collision test rig, models and test procedure inner collision mechanical effects caused by bulbous
are described. Results are discussed with regard to bow indentation. Ship motions are not considered.

93

Figure 2. Collision test rig – total and detailed view.
Test models that represent the interesting area of
the collision partners are scaled down with a fac-
tor of about 1:3. This scaling was chosen to provide
comparability to other experiments e.g. published by
Peschmann (2001).
Figure 2 shows the test rig of TUHH, Institute for
Ship Structural Design andAnalysis. Collision process
is carried out in vertical moving direction. The test rig
is mounted on two longitudinal girders (17 m long, 2 m
high).
Collision forces are applied by four servo-hydraulic
driven cylinders. They are mounted on the longitudinal
girders with an x-distance of 10 m and are connected
with the cross-beam. The maximum loading capacity
is 4000 KN.
The test model of the striking ship is a rotational
symmetric bulbous-bow-like indenter. It is connected
to the cross beam with z-axis as axis of rotation.
Hydraulic cylinders are limited to 400 mm regard-
ing the maximum range of displacement. Larger
displacements are realized by using appropriate
interim pieces between the bulbous bow and the
cross beam. Interim pieces are available in sev-
eral lengths and are manufactured out of a spi-
ral welded pipe with flanges (pipe according to
DIN EN 10220, external diameter: 813 mm, wall
94
thickness: 14.2 mm; flange: Ø 740/Ø 940 × 10 mm,
bolt circle: Ø 876/4 × Ø 22 mm).
The test model of the struck ship is a conventional
double hull side structure. The model area is welded
within a massive supporting frame that represents the
boundary conditions of the surrounding structure. The
model area is symmetric about all coordinate planes.
The side structure is connected on both sides in x-
direction to supports with four connection rods each.
These supports also accommodate forces in z-direction
with a total number of four pressure load cells, one on
each model corner.
Supports and hydraulic cylinders are fixed perma-
nently to both longitudinal girders. Thereby a closed
flow of forces is provided.
If not indicated otherwise all descriptions refer to
the coordinate system shown in Figure 2. Its origin is
located in the intersection point of all three symme-
try planes of the ship side structure model area. Please
note that this definition does not correspond with com-
mon naval architectural annotation of ship coordinate
systems.
The whole test rig is symmetric about x-z plane and
y-z plane.
Displacements, forces and strains are measured on
several positions of the test rig and monitored by a
multi-channel data acquisition unit with up to 118
channels (Autolog 3000 with three boards CM3410,
Peekel-instruments). Fifty five channels are used to
monitor elastic behaviour of the test rig. Fifty eight
channels are in variable use for strain gauges on the
models. The five remaining channels collect the most
important data: collision force and displacement of
the bulbous bow. The displacement is measured in z-
direction by a wire-actuated encoder with a measuring
length of 2000 mm from the aft end of the bulb to a
point fixed in space. Thus a clear measuring quantity is
gained that is independent from elastic deformations of
the test rig and from changing configuration of interim
pieces between bulb and cross-beam as well. This is
important to provide correct comparability with simu-
lations that consider neither cross-beam with cylinders
and longitudinal girders nor interim pieces. Collision
force is interpreted as the sum of the measured forces
at the pressure load cells described above.
The whole test procedure is monitored with eight
cameras from different positions. Recording of all sig-
nals is with chronological synchronism. Thus very
detailed analysing of most important incidents is
possible.
2.2 Test models – side structure
Design of the test models is derived from ship
class ConRo 220 built by Flensburger Schiffbau –
Gesellscharf mbH, Germany. The model area repre-
sents the longitudinally stiffened double hull structure
surrounding the lower hold of this RoRo-vessel.
Dimensions of the structure are described in Fig-
ure 3 and Table 1. They have been kept constant for all
four collision experiments.
 Figure 4. Detailed view on grids on outer and inner shell
plating.

Figure 3. Top view on side structure, dimensions in [mm].

Table 1. Dimensions of side structure.

Component Dimensions [mm]

Outer an inner shell t = 4 mm, Grade A

Web frames
Longitudinal frames
Model height (z-length)
Supporting frame
t = 5 mm, Grade A
two manholes, no stiffeners
HP 140x7, Grade A
900 mm
t = 20 mm, Grade A36
Figure 5. Rigid test model of bulbous bow, dimensions
in [mm].

For orientation on outer and inner shell a rectangular

grid was applied in the contact area of the indenter
(Figure 3, details: Figure 4). Edge lengths of the grid
are as follows.
X-length: 66.67 mm (1/12 × web spacing)
Y-length: 70.00 mm (1/4 × long. frame spacing)
Collision tests CE-1, CE-2 and CE-3 are addition-
ally equipped with a grid of circles. The circles are
marked with template and scriber. Thus quite accurate
measurements of diameters even in the contact area are
possible when circles become ellipses caused by large Figure 6. Test model configurations of bulbous bow.
plastic deformation. Circles with 20 mm and 50 mm in
diameter have been used according to Figure 4.
in diameter, 30 mm wall thickness. Material thickness
Consistent numbering allows clear identification of
increases smoothly in the shaped fore end up to a value
each circle and quadrant.
of 150 mm in the bulb tip. The model is fitted with sev-
eral flanges to mount it at the cross beam (flange A), to
vary the model length in the cylindrical part (flange B)
2.3 Test models – bulbous bow
and to replace the rigid tip with a deformable one
Outline of the bulbous bow is based on the geome- (flange C).
try of pre-tests with deformable bulbous bows driven Experiments with deformable bulbous bow are car-
against rigid walls described by Tautz (2010). In order ried out with a sheet metal cap, 3 mm thick, welded on
to get a rigid, rotational-symmetric indenter, the bul- a flange ring that matches to flange C. Slight differ-
bous bow was manufactured as a turning work piece ences to the geometry of the rigid tip had to be accepted
out of a forged round bar welded on a pipe 813 mm because of manufacturing reasons (Figure 6).

95

Figure 7. Adjusting the history of forces by classification
of incidents using the example of CE-1.
2.4 Test procedure and data processing
Tests are carried out displacement-controlled with
a velocity of 0.2 mm/sec. This velocity is assumed
to be small enough to regard the test procedure as
quasi static. Sample rate of the multi-channel data
acquisition unit is 2 Hz. The test is interrupted by sev-
eral unloading operations to insert additional interim
pieces between bulbous bow and cross-beam. Addi-
tional interruptions at certain loaded conditions are
carried out to visually analyse the deformed test
model, failure modes, crack pattern, etc. Each test
demands an effort of four to five working days with
all interruptions (preparation and post processing not
included).
Force displacement curves are carefully processed
regarding significant changes in the run of forces also
using extensive video-data. Thus almost every sig-
nificant change in the run of forces can be clearly
dedicated to a precise incident of the test and is
classified as follows:
– Incidents of major relevance like crack opening of
outer and inner shell, collapse of stiffeners or web-
frames.
– Incidents of minor relevance like changes in the
path of cracks, crack openings at stiffeners or other
structural elements except outer and inner shell.
– Incidents of negligible relevance like un-reloading
cycles or temporary decrease of forces caused by
interruptions of the test in loaded condition at a
fixed value of displacement.
For subsequent scientific work original test data is
adjusted by ignoring all incidents of negligible rele-
vance. Figure 7 gives an impression of this approach.
All subsequent descriptions will use adjusted curves
only.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Effect of deformable bulbous bow
The effect of a deformable bulbous bow will be
explained by a detailed description of the force-
displacement curves of CE-1 and CE-2 (Figure 8).
96
Figure 8. History of collision forces of CE-1 and CE-2.
Figure 9. Cross-section of schematically illustrated
deformed shape just before crack initiation (*) at outer shell
for CE-1 and CE-2.
Points 1: outer shell rupture occurs at an unexpected
early stage at CE-1 and is followed by continu-
ing increase of force. This early outer shell rupture
is caused by local bending around the longitudinal
stiffeners in the contact area (Figure 9). The outer
shell rupture of CE-2 occurs at a displacement about
420 mm later than in CE-1. Penetration is significantly
less sharp. Contact forces are well distributed on shell
and stiffeners.
Points 2: after crack initiation of outer shell lon-
gitudinal stiffeners reach their ultimate load after
significant increase of displacement in CE-1. Collapse
of stiffeners in CE-2 is compared to CE-1shortly after
rupture of outer shell. During the further procedure
forces are caused just by friction between bulbous bow
and parts of the side structure until reaching points 3.
Points 3: bulbous bow (or deformed parts of the
outer hull, only CE-2) comes in contact with inner hull
respectively longitudinal stiffeners of the inner hull.
Points 4 (only CE-2): local crack initiation at inner
shell occurs within the range of transversal intersection
(web/stiffener). This effect is supposed to be negligible
and seems to be avoidable by appropriate application
of collar plates.
Points 5: rupture of inner shell occurs at larger
displacement in CE-2 compared to CE-1.
Points 6: collapse of stiffeners occurs. Tests are
stopped shortly after this incident.
Regarding collision energies shown in Figure 9 it
becomes obvious that the test with deformable bulb
Figure 10. Collision energy versus displacement of CE-1
and CE-2.
(CE-2) absorbed around twice the energy of CE-1 at
the point of inner shell rupture (Point 5 in Figure 8).
Inner shell rupture occurs at significantly larger dis-
placement which would also lead to larger penetration
of the fore body over water. Thus true-scale energy
difference may differ from experiment. Energy differ-
ence at outer shell rupture is even more impressive
but should not be generalized because of the large
differences in failure mode between CE-1 and CE-2
(Figure 9).
3.2 Strain measurements at circles
Outer and inner shell of the test model is equipped
with a grid of circles that is described in chapter
2.2. All circles have been applied on the plates previ-
ous to model production. Variations in circle diameter
may occur caused by welding heat or by individual
handling of template and scriber. Thus every circle
was photographed with a measuring tape after all
welding works have been finished (photos of 20 mm-
circles in groups of four circles per photo). Subse-
quent processing of relevant photos with CAD-tools
delivered reliable values for diameters in undeformed
condition (d0 ).
According to Hasek (1973) principal strains can be
determined from measured lengths of the principal
axis of ellipses (d1/2 ) as follows:
Measurements have been carried out with a calliper
with extra fine jaws. Accuracy of measurements is
within a range of some few tenth millimetres.
For this paper only 20 mm-circles of CE-1 and CE-
2 have been processed. No significant differences in
measured strains could be observed between the tests
or the location of the circles on outer respectively inner
shell. Measured circles are classified according to their
distance to a crack in three groups: group A for circles
that are divided by a crack (84 measurements), group
B that are not divided by a crack but that are located
97
Figure 11. Strain measurements at 20 mm-circles. Division
in groups exemplary for CE-1 in the range of crack initiation.
nearby (154 measurements) and group C that are direct
neighbours of Group B (351 measurements).
The chosen grid is in general only suitable to res-
olute plastic strain distribution quite roughly. To get
more accurate information forming limit diagrams
have to be determined with additional metal forming
experiments defined in DIN EN ISO 12004. Hogström
(2009) published results of these kind of tests with
NVA steel grade, a mild steel which is also used in the
model area of the side structure (A-Grade, classified
by Lloyd‘s Register). In order to produce necking and
fracture at different strain states six different specimen
geometries were tested. Corresponding strain states at
fracture are described as points in the principal strain
space for each geometry. Necking is described by a
limiting curve based on the Bressan–Williams–Hill
criterion proposed by Alsos (2008) and fitted to the
test results by Hogström (2009).
Figure 11 shows the measured strain state at the
20 mm-circles in the range of crack initiation for CE-1
in comparison with the data published by Hogström
(2009).
Obviously measurements with the above mentioned
method are significantly smaller than those carried
out by Hogström. This can be explained by the well-
known dependency of measurements from the chosen
reference length described e.g. by Ehlers (2009).
Although the chosen method is quite rough com-
pared to optical measurement procedures it is never-
theless accurate enough to resolute decrease of strains
with increasing distance from the crack. It is suitable
to derive some statements regarding failure criteria for
FE-calculations with thin shell elements of an edge
length greater than five times the thickness:
– Strain state seems to be of negligible influence, fail-
ure strain seems to be dominated by first principal
strain in general.
– Failure strains seem to be in the range of or even less
than necking strains received with high resolution
methods (Highest measured values 29.4%, 28.2%,
27.8%).
Figure 12. Geometry of specimens for uniaxial tensile tests.

Figure 13. Determination of True Stress Strain relationship

3.3 Stress-strain relationship using the example of structural element shell (CE-1).
During manufacturing process of the models material
pieces of structural elements were retained for sub-
sequent material tests. For this paper uniaxial tensile
tests according to EN-ISO 6892-1 have been carried
out. Material pieces from shell, longitudinal stiffeners
and web frames have been tested; geometry of speci-
men is shown in Figure 12. Tests were carried out with
a MTS 810 Material Test System. Straining of the spec-
imens is measured with an extensometer 634.25F-24
(MTS) with a gage length of 50mm. Movement speed
of the machine was 0.04 mm/s. Material tests for tested
structural elements were repeated minimum five times
with small scatter. Engineering stress-strain relation-
ship was determined as arithmetic average over all tests
per structural element (ESSC-Test, see Figure 13).
True stress-strain relationship was determined
by using the power law relationship proposed by
Hollomon (1945):
Figure 14. Validation of TSSC-FEM with implicit simula-
tion of tensile test using the example of struct. elem. shell
(CE-1).

where σ is the true stress, ε is the true (logarithmic)
strain, K is the material’s strength coefficient and n is
the strain hardening exponent.
True (logarithmic) stress-strain relationship from
tensile test (TSSC-Test, see Figure 13) is used to deter-
mine material parameter K and n by a least square
fit within the range of uniform elongation. Values up
to the point when yielding is securely terminated are
disregarded for the approximation. True stress-strain
relationship for FEM-simulations (TSSC-FEM) is a
combination of TSSC-TEST in the range of yielding
and Formula (2) for larger strain values.
TSSC-FEM data was used for an implicit FEM-
calculation of the tensile test in order to check appli-
cability of the above mentioned power law relationship
also for higher strain values. Therefore a FEM-model
with solid elements was used (four elements through
the thickness).
Engineering strain was determined by plotting dis-
placements of control-nodes located on positions iden-
tical with measuring points of extensometer. Stresses
are plotted as reaction forces divided by initial cross-
section. Thus an engineering stress-strain relationship
was determined with the FEM calculation (ESSC-
FEM) that is comparable with results from tensile
tests. Good agreement was achieved for all tests; one
example is given with Figure 14.
4 NUMERICAL SIMULATION
4.1 Model description
Numerical simulations are carried out with a FE-
model whose geometry is shown in Figure 15.
Bulbous bow is represented as a rigid body driven
against the side structure with constant velocity. Shell
elements with a mean edge length of 20 mm are used.
Side structure is modelled according to design
drawings with shell elements. HP-profiles are rep-
resented as L-Profiles with appropriate moment of
inertia. Mean shell element edge length is 34 mm;

98
Figure 15. Geometry of FE-model with boundary condi-
tions (Only bulb tip is displayed for better overview).
aspect ratio is almost equal to unity in the model area.
LS-DYNA contact type “automatic single surface” is
used with a static friction coefficient of 0.23 (based on
considerations described in 4.3). Nonlinear material
behaviour is considered by LS-DYNA material type
*MAT 123 (modified piecewise linear plasticity) with
true stress strain relationships from chapter 3.3. Failure
is represented with an equivalent plastic failure strain
criteria being dependent from element edge length
l and thickness t that was proposed by Peschmann
(2001) for shell elements with a thickness less than
12 mm as follows:
Side structure is connected to supports with LS-
DYNA trusses of type 3 in order not to transmit any
moments. Supports are meshed with shell elements
(mean edge length: about 80 mm). Fixation of the sup-
ports at the longitudinal girders is considered with
boundary conditions and trusses according to Fig-
ure 15. Elastic material (*MAT 001) is defined for
supports and trusses with standard parameters for mild
steel.
All shell elements are defined with four noded
quadrilateral Belytschko-Lin-Tsay formulations
with five integration points through their thickness.
LS-DYNA Version 971/ R6.1.0 are used.
4.2 Results
Karlsson (2009) carried out collision tests with two
similar test models of a ship side structure. He achieved
a repeat accuracy of about 10% regarding the peak val-
ues in the history of forces. It is assumed that repeat
accuracy of the tests presented in chapter 2 is in com-
parable range or even worse because complexity of
the rig and the models is even higher compared to
Karlsson. Differences between calculation and exper-
iments have to be evaluated with regard to this
background.
99
Figure 16. Reaction force a) and collision energy b) of
experiment and calculation (CE-1).
Figure 16 shows reaction forces and collision
energy of CE-1 in comparison between simulation
and experiment. Although a comparably simple fail-
ure criterion is used simulation is a good match to the
experiment.
Differences in the maximum values of forces at
the point of shell rupture are significant but seem to
be acceptable with regard to repeat accuracy of the
tests and the good agreement in the History of energy.
Better correlation is assumed to be achievable with
finer meshes and more sophisticated failure models.
For example local bending that is responsible for outer
shell rupture in experiment cannot be represented by
the chosen approach.
Although some compromises are to be made with
regard to details of fracture mechanics, the simulation
is validated quite well by the experiment. Collision
energy at the point of inner shell rupture is calcu-
lated with high accuracy and is the most important
parameter in the evaluation of collision safety.
4.3 Comments on validation process
The mesh size in the model area was chosen on purpose
as coarse as described above. True-scale simulations
shall be possible based on the presented results without
excessive adaptation of the mesh acuteness. For that
reason validation of the simulation was carried out
without any changes regarding element sizes.
As a result of several calculations with different
values for the coefficient of friction it can be stated
that consideration of friction is a must. It is just negli-
gible for very small displacements previous to outer
shell rupture. Standard value of 0.1 for the coeffi-
cient of friction (steel to steel) delivered significantly
lower forces than described in Figure 16. Because
roughness of contact surfaces, which is high partic-
ularly at broken edges, the coefficient of friction has
to be increased to values of 0.23 to 0.3 to get good
correlation with test results. A value of 0.23 was cho-
sen because this was experimentally approved also by
Karlsson (2009).
Although the possibilities of the test rig allows quite
accurate positioning of the models several calcula-
tions have been carried out to check the influence of
changes regarding the first point of contact. Assum-
ing a maximum eccentricity of 10 mm bulbous bow
was positioned with values of 0, 2, 5 and 10 mm in
all possible combinations regarding positive x- and
y-coordinates. Changes in the history of forces were
found to be negligible.
5 CONCLUSION
A collision test rig and procedure for comparably large-
scaled test specimen is presented. Collision tests with
deformable and rigid bulbous bows driven against ship
side structures are described and corresponding effects
are figured out. Significant increase of about 100%
in absorbed energy is achieved with deformable bul-
bous bow compared to a rigid one. These tests are
integrated in an experimental program with a total of
four tests that will be finished in spring 2013. Numer-
ical validation of the first test has been carried out
with experimental results and additional examinations
of material strains in the plastic region. Results show
good agreement between measurement and calcula-
tion. More results are presented by Schöttelndreyer
(2013) and by the end of 2013 when research work
will be finished.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work presented in this paper was performed
within the research Project ELKOS, funded by
German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technol-
ogy (BMWi) under project no. 03SX284B.The authors
are responsible for the content of this paper and wish
to thank for supporting this project. The authors’ grat-
itude is particularly addressed to German shipyard
Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft which delivered
100
the cross-beam and two supports for the test-plant as
well as the test models.
REFERENCES
Alsos HS., Hopperstad OS., Törnqvist R. and Amdahl J. 2008.
Analytical and numerical analysis of sheet metal instabil-
ity using a stress based criterion. International Journal of
Solids and Structures 45: 2042–2055.
Amdahl J. 1983. EnergyAbsorption in Ship-platform Impacts.
Report No. UR-83-34. Trondheim: The University of
Trondheim
Ehlers S., Varsta P. 2009. Strain and stress relation for non-
linear finite element simulations. Thin-Walled Structures
47:1203–1217.
Hasek V. 1973. Über den Formänderungs- und Span-
nungszustand beim Ziehen von großen unregelmäßigen
Blechteilen. Report No. 25, Institut für Umformtechnik.
Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.
Hogström P., Ringsberg JW. and Johnson E. 2009. An exper-
imental study of the effects of length scale and strain state
on the necking and fracture behaviours in sheet metals.
International Journal of Impact Engineering 36(10–11):
1194–1203.
Hollomon JH. 1945. Trans. AIME 162: 268–290
Karlsson UB., Ringsberg JW., Johnson E., Hoseini M. and
Ulfvarson A. 2009. Experimental and Numerical Investi-
gation of Bulb Impact with a Ship Side-Shell Structure.
Marine Technology 46(1): 16–26
Peschmann J. 2001. Berechnung der Energieabsorption der
Stahlstruktur von Schiffen bei Kollision und Grund-
berührung. Dissertation. Hamburg: Hamburg University
of Technology.
Schöttelndreyer M., Tautz I., Fricke W. and Lehmann E.
2013. Side Structure filled with multicellular glass hol-
low spheres in a quasi-static collision test. Proc. of 6th
Int. Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships
(ICCGS). Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science
and Technology
Tautz I., Schöttelndreyer M., Fricke W. and Lehmann E. 2010.
Experimental Investigations on Collision Behaviour of
Bow Structures. Proc. of 5th International Conference on
Collision and Grounding of Ships; June 14–16; Espoo,
Finnland: 179–183. Ehlers S, Romanoff J. (eds).
Yamada Y. 2006. Bulbous Buffer Bows: A Measure to Reduce
Oil Spill in Tanker Collisions. Dissertation, Lyngby:
Technical University of Denmark.