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

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

Modeling and simulation system for marine accident cause investigation

S.G. Lee
Division of Naval Architecture & Ocean Systems Engineering, Korea Maritime University, Busan, Korea

S.H. Jun & G.Y. Kong

Division of Navigation Science, Korea Maritime University, Busan, Korea

ABSTRACT: Investigation of marine accident causes usually depends on the judgments of maritime experts,
based on the statements of the concerned persons in the case where there is no navigation equipment, such as AIS
and VDR. Scientific verification also has a limitation in the case of their conflicting statements. It is necessary to
develop a highly sophisticated Modeling & Simulation (M&S) system for the scientific investigation of marine
accident causes and for the systematic reproduction of accident damage procedure. To ensure an accurate and
reasonable prediction of marine accident causes, such as collision and grounding, full-scale ship collision and
grounding simulations would be the best approach using hydrocode, such as LS-DYNA, with its Fluid-Structure
Interaction (FSI) analysis technique and propulsion force for ship velocity. The objective of this paper is to
present the findings from three full-scale ship collision simulations of marine accidents, and to demonstrate the
feasibility of the scientific investigation of marine accident causes using a highly sophisticated M&S system.

1 INTRODUCTION To ensure an accurate and reasonable prediction of

It has been reported, from the statistics of marine
accidents by the Korean Maritime Safety Tribunal
(KMST) and the Lloyd’s Maritime Information Ser-
vices (LMIS), that collision and grounding accidents
compose a majority of marine accidents, as shown in
Figure 1, bringing great loss of life and property, and
hurting the ocean environment due to oil spills. Inves-
tigation of marine accident causes usually depends on
the judgments of maritime experts, based on the state-
ments of the concerned persons in the case where there
is no navigation equipment, such as AIS and VDR. Sci-
entific verification also has a limitation in the case of
their conflicting statements. It is necessary to develop
a highly sophisticated Modeling & Simulation (M&S)
system for the scientific investigation of marine acci-
dent causes and for the systematic reproduction of
what happens in marine accidents.
marine accident causes, such as collision and ground-
ing, full-scale ship collision and grounding simula-
tions would be the best approach using hydrocode,
such as LS-DYNA (LSTC 2011), with its Fluid-
Structure Interaction (FSI) analysis technique and
propulsion force for ship velocity. Several interaction
effects in the seawater are conceptualized in this highly
sophisticated M&S system, such as motion, wave mak-
ing, squeezing pressure, bank effect and realistic ship
velocity. Fracture criteria have to be suitably applied
to the ship structural damage considering strain rate
effect, together with careful investigation of damage
information.
FSI problems, such as sloshing and slamming etc.,
are conveniently simulated by moving the mesh algo-
rithm and overlap capability of the grid to structure
mesh using the Multi-Material Arbitrary Lagrangian
Eulerian (MMALE) formulation and the Euler–
Lagrange coupling algorithm of LS-DYNA code, as
shown in Figure 2. Volume Of Fluid (VOF) method

Figure 1. Marine accidents according to type (KMST Judg- Figure 2. Sketch of penalty coupling algorithm (Aquelet
ment Report 2002∼2006). et al. 2006).

39
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of highly sophisticated M&S
system for ship collision/grounding accidents.

is adopted for solving a broad range of nonlinear

free surface problems. A coupling algorithm is more
suitable for the FSI problems with very complicated
deformable structure, where fluid grid overlaps the
structural mesh (Aquelet et al. 2006, Souli et al. 2000).
Figure 3 depicts a schematic diagram of highly
sophisticated M&S system for ship collision and
grounding accidents, where external motion dynam-
ics can be treated by the FSI analysis technique, and Figure 4. Grounding test of NSWC (Rodd & Sikora 1995).
internal damage mechanics, by considering reasonable
fracture criteria with strain rate effect. In this study,
three typical full-scale ship collision simulation results
are presented to demonstrate the feasibility of the sci-
entific investigation of marine accidents using highly
sophisticated M&S system.

2 INTERNAL DAMAGE MECHANICS

1:5 scale grounding test results of NSWC (Rodd &

Sikora 1995) are usually used for the verification of
F.E. simulation capacity and fracture criteria, as shown
in Figure 4. One of grounding test models, ADH/
PD328V, was simulated using rough and fine mesh
models with failure strains from 0.20 to 0.35, as shown
in Figure 5, and material properties of ASTM 569, as
shown inTable 1. It was found that failure strain 0.3 and
0.2 were suitable for the fine and rough meshes with
ratio 12.5 and 25.0 of finite element size to thickness,
respectively (Lee 2007).

3 M&S SIMULATION OF MARINE ACCIDENT

Three full-scale collision simulations are presented;
investigation of collision accident between two ships,
collision safety assessment of high-speed passenger
ship with underwater floating object (whale), and
collision damage assessment of bulk carrier with
floating or submerged object (40 ft container box).
3.1 Investigation of collision accident between
two ships
The first example is the investigation of collision acci-
dent between striking ship (cargo ship) and struck
ship (pelagic fishing vessel). This collision accident
Figure 5. Grounding test simulation of ADH/PD328V
model.
occurred on the way of typhoon evasion. The struck
ship sank after its side bottom structure was torn away
due to the bulbous bow’s penetration of striking ship.
Figure 6 shows the damage configurations of the strik-
ing ship’s forebody, such as the forecastle bulwark, the
fashion plate and the bulbous bow, where the bulbous
bow was torn away from starboard to port side with
1.2 m size, and was also dented around bulbous bow
with 1.5 m radius quarter circle. Figure 7 illustrates
schematic damage drawings.

40
Table 1. Material properties of ASTM 569.

Property ASTM 569

Young’s modulus 3.00 × 107 ksi

Density 7.43 × 10−4 lbf-s2 /in
Poisson’s ratio 0.30
Yield stress 41.00 ksi
Ultimate stress 50.00 ksi
Failure strain 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35
Dynamic yield stress constants D = 40.4 s−1 , q = 5 Figure 9. Collision damage configuration of struck ship’s
bottom side structure under free surface.

Figure 6. Collision damage configuration of striking ship

(cargo ship).

Figure 10. Schematic damage drawings of struck ship.

Figure 7. Schematic damage drawings of striking ship.

Figure 11. Collision scenarios between two ships.

Table 2. Principal particulars of striking and struck ships

Figure 8. Collision damage configuration of struck ship’s
superstructure (pelagic fishing vessel).
Figure 8 depicts the damage configurations of the
struck ship’s side superstructure, such as the derrick
post and casing. From this damage configuration, it
was found that the forecastle bulwark of the striking
ship hit and pushed the derrick post of the struck one
at 2.75 m from the casing and that the fashion plate
also pushed the casing during the collision (The der-
rick post was cut off after salvage). Figure 9 shows the
damage configuration of the struck ship’s bottom side
structure under free surface, such as side plate in the
meal factory and bilge keel. Schematic damage draw-
ings were summarized, as shown in Figure 10, from
these damage configurations.
(unit: ton, m).
G/T Type LOA LBP Breadth Depth Draft
15,932 Striking 169.510 160.400 25.500 13.650 9.788
ship
5,680 Struck 114.630 106.300 17.600 11.300 7.200
ship
From the investigation of all collision damage
information, a collision scenario between the two
ships was sketched, as shown in Figure 11(a). Fig-
ure 11(b) depicts one collision scenario in a plan view
among several ones, considering several attack angles,
their speeds, and wind speeds and directions. Their
principal particulars are summarized in Table 2.

41
 Figure 13. Full-scale collision behavior configurations
using FSI analysis technique.

Figure 12. F.E. mesh configurations of full-scale collision

simulation using FSI analysis technique.

Table 3. Material properties of mild and high tensile steels.

Property Mild steel High tensile steel

Young’s modulus 206.0 GPa 206.0 GPa

Density 7,850 kg/m3 7,850 kg/m3
Yield stress 235.0 MPa 315.0 MPa
Ultimate stress 445.0 MPa 525.0 MPa
Failure strain 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 0.20, 0.25, 0.30
Dynamic yield stress D = 40.4 s−1 , D = 24,805.6 s−1 ,
constants q=5 q=5

Figure 12(a) shows the overall view of the F.E. mesh

configuration for the full-scale ship collision simu-
lation using FSI analysis technique without air part,
and Figures 12(b) & 12(c), the crushable fine ones of
the striking and struck ships, respectively. Mild and
high tensile steels were used for the ship structures,
as shown in Table 3, where the strain rate dependent
material of Cowper-Symonds was considered, failure
strains 0.20, 0.25 and 0.30 according to the ratio of
element size to thickness, and thickness was adjusted
according to aging and corrosion.
Figure 13 shows the overall and close views of
full-scale ship collision behavior configurations using
FSI analysis technique, and Figure 14, ship collision
damage configurations, following the collision sce-
nario of Figure 11(b). It was found that the boundary
conditions are very important in the full-scale ship col-
lision simulation during collision between the ships,
especially in the seawater.
Figure 14. Full-scale collision damage configurations
using FSI analysis technique without surrounding seawater.
The bottom side structure of the struck ship was
penetrated by the bulbous bow of the striking one, and
was torn away at around 4.0 m in length (Fr. No. 56∼Fr.
No. 50) and 4.0 m in height (between the platform deck
and the double bottom), even though the forecastle
of the striking ship extends over the bulbous bow by
1.55 m. This could have been possible due to the struck
ship being turned around by the collision of forecas-
tle with the derrick post and the pushing down of the
fashion plate to the casing in the seawater, and also
due to the attack angle 70◦ and the speeds of the two
ships and the wind, as shown in the collision scenario.

42

Figure 15. Judgment report of KMST.
Figure 16. Damage configurations of high-speed passenger
ship collision accidents.
The bulbous bow was dented by the side frame
structure and the bulkhead of the struck ship, and torn
away by the strong member, the tank top structure.
This collision scenario and damage configuration
could be confirmed by the judgment report of KMST,
as shown in Figure 15.
3.2 Collision safety assessment of high-speed
passenger ship with whale
Several collision accidents of high-speed passen-
ger ships with underwater floating objects (whales)
occurred from 2004 to 2008, as shown in Figure 16.
Some high-speed passengers were flooded due to the
fracture of the bottom, and foil & strut systems were
pulled out, and one passenger was killed with many
injured. Full-scale ship collision simulations of a high-
speed passenger ship with whales were performed
using FSI analysis technique of LS-DYNA code for
the crashworthy safety assessment of its hull, and
using local zooming analysis technique for the safety
assessment of passengers.
Since there was not enough information, such as
drawings of a high-speed passenger ship’s structure
and of its foil & strut system, collision scenarios were
established through the close investigation of ship
structure and component parts, and also through the
understanding of damage mechanisms of its hydrofoil
43
Figure 17. Sketch and F.E. mesh configuration of bow foil &
strut systems.
Figure 18. F.E. configurations of absorber and pivot.
Figure 19. F.E. configuration of high-speed passenger ship.
Figure 20. F.E. configuration of whale and foil & strut
system for collision scenario.
system. In this study principal particulars of Kobee 5
were adopted for the modeling and simulation. Fig-
ure 17 shows the F.E. mesh configurations of the bow
foil & strut systems, which generally consist of foil,
strut, king post, yoke, yoke support, absorber, actuator,
trunnion support fitting and pivot. It is very important
to figure out exactly the absorber capacity and pivot
damage performance according to impact load. The
absorber was idealized using spring and damper, as
shown in Figure 18.
Figure 19 illustrates the overall view of F.E. mesh
configurations of the high-speed passenger ship. The
whale collided with the foil & strut system, as shown
in Figure 20. The muscle and skin of the whale was
modeled using MAT_MOONEY_RIVLIN RUBBER
model. Aluminum alloys were used for the high-speed
passenger ship for light weight, and stainless steel,
for the foil & strut system except the flap, as shown
in Table 4. Principal particulars are summarized in
Table 5.
For the prediction of collision damage mechanism
of the foil & strut system, a collision simulation
of 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 ton whales with the foil pod
was carried out using diverse combinations of spring
and damper constants of the absorber. As shown in
Table 4. Material properties of aluminum and stainless
steel.

Property Aluminum alloy Stainless steel

Young’s modulus 69.0 GPa 206.0 GPa

Density 2,660 kg/m3 7,850 kg/m3
Yield stress 147.0 MPa 282.0 MPa
Ultimate stress 294.0 MPa 623.0 MPa Figure 23. F.E. mesh configuration of full-scale ship colli-
Failure strain 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 sion using FSI analysis technique.
Dynamic yield stress D = 6,500 s−1 , D = 5,860.6 s−1 ,
constants q=4 q=5

Table 5. Principal particulars of high-speed passenger ship.

Figure 24. Full-scale collision simulation response

behavior of high-speed passenger ship using FSI analysis
technique.

Figure 21. Collision simulation behavior of whale and

foil & strut system.

Figure 25. Collision damage response of high-speed pas-

senger ship with whale.
Figure 22. Collision damage behaviors of absorber and
pivot.

A full-scale ship collision simulation of a high-

Figures 21 and 22, the damage capacity of the absorber
spring and damper was estimated in the case of break-
age in the absorber and damage at the pivot between
the yoke support bottom and the trunnion support fit-
ting at the relative collision speed of the whale at 45.0
knots to the foil & strut system at a standstill. It was
found that the foil & strut system was pushed to the
bulbous bow, and then the pod collided with the ship’s
bottom plate due to the leverage of bulbous bow dur-
ing damage in the absorber and pivot. The mass of
whale was estimated at 10.0 ton, and the spring and
damper constants of the absorber, at 3.0 MN/m and
60.0 kN-s/m, respectively.
speed passenger ship in service at 40.0 knots with
a 10.0 ton whale at 5.0 knots was carried out using
FSI analysis technique, as shown in Figure 23. Figure
24 shows its overall view, and Figure 25, its collision
damage response behavior.
As the foil & strut system was pushed to the bul-
bous bow and then the foil & pod hit the ship’s bottom
structure, the bottom shell plate was torn away like in
the real accident damage. It was confirmed that this
damage to the bottom structure might be due to the
leverage of the bulbous bow during damage in the
absorber and pivot, and that the ship maintained stable
from the foil bourn state to the hull bourn one.

44
Figure 26. Interface segments for local zooming analysis.

Figure 27. F.E. mesh configuration of seats, passenger

dummies, and seat belts for local zooming analysis.

Figure 28. Collision response of passengers according to

front & middle decks, and seat belts for local zooming Figure 29. Acceleration response of passengers according
analysis. to their position in front & middle decks and type of dummy.

Local zooming analysis was performed for the

crashworthy safety assessment of passengers by set-
ting interface segments in the full-scale collision sim-
ulation, such as the front deck and the middle deck, as
shown in Figure 26. Figure 27 illustrates the fine mesh
modeling for local zooming analysis, such as decks,
chairs, and dummies with seat belts, where Hybrid III
dummy model of LS-DYNA code was used for the
passengers. Dummy B represents a sitting passenger
with a seat belt, Dummy C, a sitting one without a seat
belt, and Dummy A, a sitting one on the edge of his
seat without a seat belt.
Figure 28 shows the collision response behavior of
passengers in the front and middle decks, and Fig-
ure 29, their acceleration responses according to deck
position and dummy pattern. As expected, the accel-
eration response of Dummy B was much lower than Figure 30. Damage traces on port side shell of cargo tank.
those of Dummy A & C in the front deck. The accel-
eration responses of Dummy A, B & C in the middle 3.3 Collision damage assessment of bulk carrier
deck were almost the same as that of Dummy B in the with container box
front deck. HIC (Head Injury Criteria) is usually con-
sidered as 80 g for longer duration 200 ms in the car Damage was reported on the side shell structure of a
accidents (www.eurailsafe.net). The HIC of passenger bulk carrier due to the collision accident with a uniden-
with seat belt in the front deck and of passengers in tified floating or submerged object (a 40 ft high cube
the middle deck was under the range of this value. container box), as shown in Figure 30. There were two
From this study it was confirmed that the leverage blow point traces, ① and ②, and an inclined trace band
of the bulbous bow brought about a larger impact of between two points ① and ②, and three cracks at ③.
the foil & strut system on the ship structure and on This bulk carrier sank because of flooding through
the passenger, and led the bottom shell plate to be these cracks.
torn away and flooded. Seat belt was found to enhance For the objective verification of marine accident,
the passenger safety from the collision shock with the crashworthiness response analysis was carried out
whale in the front deck. The high-speed passenger ship between the bulk carrier and the floating or sub-
was also superior to the stability from the foil bourn merged container box using FSI analysis technique of
state to the hull bourn state. LS-DYNA code for considering their motion, wave

45
Table 6. Principal particulars of bulk carrier and container
box.

Items Bulk carrier Items Container box

Length (PP) 140.000 m Length 12,192 mm (40 ft)
Length 139.069 m Breadth 2,438 mm (8 ft)
(Scantling) Height 2,896 mm Figure 32. Parameters of container box’s position down the
Breadth (MLD) 22.860 m (9 ft 6 in) surface (a meter) and off the longitudinal centerline (b meter).
Depth (MLD) 13.000 m Self mass 2,593.6 kg
Draught (MLD) 9.611 m Max. total 30,480 kg
mass Table 7. Collision possibility of container box in broad
range.

collision collision
a (m) b (m) yes or no b (m) yes or no
draft 1.0 1.0 No 3.0 No
0.0 1.0 Yes 3.0 No
1.0 1.0 No 3.0 No
2.0 1.0 No 3.0 No
3.0 1.0 No 3.0 No
4.5 1.0 No 3.0 No

Table 8. Collision possibility of container box in narrow

range.

collision collision
a (m) b (m) yes or no a (m) b (m) yes or no
0.0 2.00 Yes 0.2 1.50 No
0.0 2.02 Yes 0.2 1.60 No
0.0 2.04 No 0.2 1.61 No
0.1 2.00 Yes 0.3 1.50 No
0.1 2.02 Yes 0.3 1.70 No
0.1 2.03 Yes 0.4 1.50 No
0.1 2.04 No 0.5 2.00 No

Figure 31. Full-scale collision simulation scenario with

container box using FSI analysis technique.

making, the effect of squeezing pressure, and the bank

effect in the surrounding seawater. A full-scale ship
collision simulation was carried out with a floating
or submerged container box in front of its bow and
off the longitudinal center line for the investigation
of their collision courses. Principal particulars of the
bulk carrier and of the 40ft high cube container box
are summarized in Table 6. In this study mild and high
tensile steels were used for the bulk carrier and the
container box, as shown in Table 3.
Figure 31 illustrates the collision scenario with full
design speed 12.0 knots of the bulk carrier, where the
stationary container box was initially located at 15.0 m
in front of the bow of the bulk carrier for considering
the ship’s wave making effect, also off the longitudinal
centerline (b meter) and below the surface (a meter),
as shown in Figure 32. In the case of the submerged
container box, its mass was balanced at a standstill
according to its depth under the free surface.
Full-scale ship collision simulation scenarios were
set up to confirm the impact possibility of the container
box at the first and second blow points, ① and ②, on the
side shell, and to figure out the crack damage at point
Figure 33. Collision response behavior of container box at
a = draft 1.0 m & b = 1.0 m in a broad range scenario.
③. In this study the first and second scenarios were
to consider broad and narrow ranges of the container
box, respectively, as shown in Tables 7 and 8.
Figures 33 and 34 show the full-scale ship colli-
sion response behaviors of a broad range scenario, and
Figures 35 and 36, those of a narrow range scenario.
Figure 37 illustrates the collision damage configura-
tions, such as stress, plastic strain and deformation, on
the side shell, and Figure 38, their collision responses
at the first blow point, such as maximum stress,
deformation and plastic strain. Their maximum stress,
plastic strain and deformation were around 250.0 MPa,
0.025 and 60.0 mm, respectively, with residual defor-
mation, approximately 40.0 mm, which means that
there was no fracture even at the first blow point.

46

Figure 34. Collision response behavior of container box at
a = 0.0 m & b = 1.0 m in a broad range scenario.
Figure 35. Collision response behavior of container box at
a = 0.4 m & b = 1.5 m in a narrow range scenario.
Figure 36. Collision response behavior of container box at
a = 0.1 m & b = 2.02 m.
Figure 37. Collision damage configuration of bulk carrier
at a = 0.1 m & b = 2.02 m.
Figure 38. Collision response of bulk carrier at a = 0.1 m &
b = 2.02 m.
47
From full-scale ship collision simulations, the float-
ing container box on the free surface could hardly
collide the bulk carrier’s bow side shell due to the wave
making effect and squeezing pressure, and submerged
container boxes, at 0.0 m∼0.1 m under the free surface
and around 2.0 m off the longitudinal center line, could
impact only on the first blow point area and sunk due
to the very small buoyancy. There was no possibility
for the second impact and on the 2nd blow point, and
also very small damage even at the first blow point
area.
4 CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Through full-scale ship collision simulations of marine
accidents using FSI analysis technique, the usefulness
of highly sophisticated M&S system was reconfirmed
for the scientific investigation of marine accidents and
for the systematic reproduction of accidental damage
procedure. This system is still being developed for
advanced simulation techniques and for realization of
rough sea state, such as waves, winds and currents.
Ship maneuvering simulation system should be joined
for comprehensive investigations.
REFERENCES
Aquelet, N.; Souli, M. & Olovsson, L. 2006. Euler–Lagrange
coupling with damping effects: Application to slamming
problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 195: 110–132.
http://www.eurailsafe.net/subsites/operas/HTML/Section3/
Page3.3.1.3.htm.
Lee, S.G. 2007. A Study on Double Bottom Structural Crite-
rion of Small Oil Tanker. Report of Ministry of Maritime
Affairs and Fisheries, Korea.
LSTC 2011. LS-DYNA User’s Manual, Version 971 R5,
Livermore Software Technology Corporation, USA.
Rodd, J. & Sikora, J. 1995. Double hull grounding experi-
ments. Proceedings of the 5th ISOPE: 446–456.
Souli, M.; Ouahsine, A. & Lewin, L. 2000. ALE formula-
tion for fluid-structure interaction problems. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 190:
659–675.