204 Probability and Mechanics of Ship Collision and Grounding

Fig. 3.45 Comparison of the crushing force of the X-section obtained by the present method,
Eq. (3.102), and the finite element simulation.

Using Eq. (3.94), we get the folding length 2H ¼ 88.8 mm, and by application of
Eq. (3.102), we get the mean crushing force FX(N ¼ 1) ¼ 323.31 + 14.85 ¼ 338.2
(kN). For the following Nth fold, the mean crushing force is FX(N) ¼ 323.31 +
(3N  2)14.85 (kN).
The comparison of the present results with Amdahl and Kavlie’s simulation results
is shown in Fig. 3.45. Good agreement is found. In the analytical calculations, it is
assumed that the rupture occurs in the fold N0 ¼ 3. It is noted that both the FE analysis
and the present analytical results do not consider the effective crushing length in this
example.

3.7 Axial crushing of structural elements

3.7.1 Introduction
This section investigates the axial crushing of structural elements in ship collisions
that form the foundation for ship bow crushing analysis.

3.7.2 Axial crushing analysis of cylindrical shells

As a classical example, we first look at the axial crushing analysis of cylindrical shells,
which was firstly carried out by Alexander (1960). Fig. 3.46 shows typical folding
patterns of this type that are given by Jones (2012). The folding pattern can be axi-
symmetric (the left-hand picture, also called regular folding) or nonaxisymmetric
(the centre and right-hand pictures, also called irregular folding).
The crushing with the regular folding pattern, as illustrated in Fig. 3.47, is analysed
next to demonstrate the analysis process. The diameter of the cylinder shell is D, and
Internal mechanics of ship collision and grounding 205

Fig. 3.46 Axial crushing of cylindrical shells.

cf. Jones, N., 2012. Structural Impact. Cambridge University Press.

Fig. 3.47 Analysis models for axial crushing of cylindrical shells with a regular folding pattern.

the wall thickness is t. For one complete fold, three plastic hinges are formed. The
bending energy at the upper and lower hinges can be calculated from
π

E1 ¼ 2 M0  πD 
2
206 Probability and Mechanics of Ship Collision and Grounding

The bending energy at the middle hinge, where the diameter increases from D to
D +2H sin θ, is calculated from

ð
π=2
π

E2 ¼ 2M0 π ðD + 2H sin θÞdθ ¼ 2M0 π D  + 2H

2
0

Therefore, the total bending energy at the three hinges is

Eb ¼ E1 + E2 ¼ 2πM0 ðπD + 2H Þ (3.103)

The radial deformation at the distance s (see Fig. 3.47) can be determined from

π ðD + 2 sin ðθÞsÞ  πD 2 sin ðθÞs

εr ¼ ¼
πD D

The energy due to stretching deformation can be determined by different ways; one of
the simple methods is to calculate the change of the area between hinges:

ΔA ¼ 2 π ðD + 2H Þ2 =4  πD2 =4  2πDH ¼ 2πH 2

Thus, the energy due to stretching deformation is

Em ¼ σ 0 tΔA ¼ 2πσ 0 tH 2 (3.104)

The external work has to be dissipated by plastic energies in bending and stretching:

Fm  2H ¼ Eb + Em

Therefore, the mean crushing force is expressed as

 
πσ 0 t2 πD
Fm ¼ pffiffiffi + 1 + πσ 0 tH
3 2H

The folding length is unknown, but by minimizing the crushing force, we find
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
∂Fm πtD pffiffiffiffiffi
¼0)H¼ pffiffiffi 0:9523 tD
∂H 2 3

Finally, the mean crushing force is

pffiffiffiffiffi
Fm ¼ 6σ 0 t tD + 1:8σ 0 t2 (3.105)
Internal mechanics of ship collision and grounding 207

The above analysis assumes that the deformation is outwards. If the materials deform
inwards, a similar analysis leads to
pffiffiffiffiffi
Fm ¼ 6σ 0 t tD  1:8σ 0 t2

In reality, the cylindrical shell may deform partially outwards and partially inwards, so
the average can be taken as

Fm ¼ 6σ 0 t1:5 D0:5 (3.106)

This was obtained by Alexander (1960). If the effective crushing length is taken as
75% of the folding length, the effective mean crushing force is

Fm ¼ ð6=0:75Þσ 0 t1:5 D0:5 ¼ 8σ 0 t1:5 D0:5 (3.107)

Using the equilibrium of internal energy dissipation rate and external energy dissipa-
tion rate, the instantaneous crushing force can be derived (Amdahl, 1983). The total
bending energy rate at the three hinges is

E_ b ¼ 4πM0 ðD + H sin θÞθ_

The energy rate of stretching of the tube in the circumferential direction can be deter-
mined from
 
E_ m ¼ 2πσ 0 t H 2 cos θ θ_

The external work rate is

E_ ext ¼ F  ð2H sin θÞθ_

Therefore, the instantaneous crushing force can be expressed as

 
πσ 0 t2 D pffiffiffi H
F ¼ pffiffiffi  + sin θ + 3 cos θ (3.108)
3 sin θ H t

3.7.3 Axial crushing of conical shells

For crushing analysis of conical shells, Lehmann and Yu (1995) developed analytical
solutions. The theory is based on three straight folding elements that are connected
through plastic hinges. The analytical formulae can be reduced to formulae similar
to that derived by Alexander (1960) for cylindrical shells. For application to trans-
versely framed bulbous bow crushing analysis, the effective mean crushing force
can be determined from
208 Probability and Mechanics of Ship Collision and Grounding

Fig. 3.48 Analysis models for axial crushing of conical shells.

 
2πR d
Fm ¼ 2:09σ 0 t2 + + ðπ + 2ϕÞ tan ϕ + 1 (3.109)
d t

where t is the shell thickness, d is the frame spacing, R is the average radius at the
concerned section, and ϕ is the conic angle (see Fig. 3.48). In this analysis, it is
assumed that the folding length (2H) is confined between two adjacent frames; thus,
it can be calculated from 2H ¼ d/ cos ϕ.

3.7.4 Axial crushing of L-, T-, and X-structural elements

A fundamental theoretical analysis on axial crushing of basic elements, such as L-, T-,
and X-elements, was made by Wierzbicki and Abramowicz (1983) where the basic
folding mechanism was constructed and developed. Later, Kierkegaard (1993) further
investigated the axial crushing behaviours of these basic elements.
When a ductile plated-shell structure, for example, a boxlike structure, is subjected to
axial loads, the structure will usually be deformed in a folding pattern. The collapse mode
is a progressive folding normally starting at the contact and gradually extending until all
kinetic energy is absorbed by the structure or the applied external loads are removed.
Experimental tests were carried out by DiPaolo and Tom (2006) on axial crush con-
figuration response of thin-walled, steel box components under quasistatic testing
conditions. The folding deformation was a symmetric axial crush mode. Crush char-
acteristics were evaluated, and for each material type, the observed differences were
Internal mechanics of ship collision and grounding 209

Fig. 3.49 Crushing pattern of a box structure under axial loads.

cf. DiPaolo, B.P., Tom, J.G., 2006. A study on an axial crush configuration response of thin-
wall, steel box components: the quasi-static experiments. Int. J. Solids Struct. 43, 7752–7775.

less than 7% for maximum and minimum load magnitudes and less than 2% for the
energy absorption, displacement, and mean load quantities in both the initial phase
and the secondary folding phase cycles. The damage pattern and the load–deformation
curve for a box-shaped structure under axial loads are shown in Fig. 3.49.
During crushing of a structural element, large plastic deformations will occur pro-
vided the material has sufficient ductility and no fractures were assumed. The energy
is dissipated by the structure in mainly two ways: (1) by bending in the plastic hinge
lines and (2) by in-plane stretching of the plate fields. The energy absorption capabil-
ity depends on the structural arrangement and the material. As shown in Fig. 3.49, the
crushing forces vary with the crushing distance. This reflects the progressive forma-
tion of folds during crushing. For the ship collision analysis, the mean crushing force is
a useful parameter. A number of analytical formulae are available to predict the mean
crushing force, for example, Wierzbicki and Abramowicz (1983), Amdahl and Kavlie
(1992), Wierzbicki et al. (1993), Abramowicz (1994), Paik and Pedersen (1995), and
Wang and Ohtsubo (1997). Formulae for the effective mean axial crushing forces are
summarized in Fig. 3.50 where the half-folding length is determined from H ¼ C2/3t1/3,
210 Probability and Mechanics of Ship Collision and Grounding

Fig. 3.50 The effective mean crushing force (after taking into account the effective mean
crushing distance coefficient of 0.75) of the L-, T-, and X-sections.

where C is the flange length. Detailed derivations of the folding mechanisms can be
found in references such as Wierzbicki and Abramowicz (1983). They show that two-
thirds of the plastic energy is dissipated through deformations at stationary and mov-
ing plastic hinge lines, and the remaining one-thirds is dissipated by tension deforma-
tions that are confined in relative small areas.

3.7.5 Experimental crushing tests and analytical calculation

examples
Significant number of model tests on axial crushing of structures has been carried out
in the past, for example, Abramowicz and Jones (1984), Ku et al. (2001), Tarigopula
et al. (2006), and DiPaolo and Tom (2006). A number of model tests by DiPaolo and
Tom (2006) and Tarigopula et al. (2006) are selected here for analyses and
comparisons.

3.7.5.1 Quasistatic axial crushing tests by DiPaolo and Tom (2006)

A series of quasistatic axial crushing tests were carried out by DiPaolo and Tom
(2006). The test model is a square tube with a cross-sectional dimension of
50  50 mm with plate thickness 1.4 mm (Fig. 3.51). The material properties for the
models C2-3 and C4-3 are presented in Table 3.10 that was obtained from uniaxial
Internal mechanics of ship collision and grounding 211

Fig. 3.51 Model illustration of the axial quasistatic crushing tests by DiPaolo and Tom (2006).

Table 3.10 Material properties and result comparison of the axial crushing tests (DiPaolo and
Tom, 2006).
Model Yield stress Ultimate strength Flow stress
ID Material (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

C2-3 A36 337 365 351

steel
C4-3 A36 340 364 352
steel
Experimental result Analytical result

Model Folding length Mean force Folding length Mean force

ID 2H (mm) (kN) 2H (mm) (kN)

C2-3 44.4 23.9 29.8 21.1

C4-3 44.8 23.7 29.8 21.2

tensile tests. The analytical results and the experimental results are also presented in
Table 3.10. The analytical solution is

FL ¼ 4  3:263σ 0 t5=3 c1=3 ¼ 4  3:263  351  1:45=3  501=3 =1000 ¼ 21:1 ðkNÞ

It is seen that the analytical method underestimates the mean crushing force by 12%
and the folding length (2H) by 33%.
212 Probability and Mechanics of Ship Collision and Grounding

Fig. 3.52 Model illustration of the axial quasistatic crushing tests by Tarigopula et al. (2006).

3.7.5.2 Quasistatic axial crushing tests by Tarigopula et al. (2006)

Similar quasistatic axial crushing tests on square tubes were carried out by Tarigopula
et al. (2006). The specimens have a nominal square cross section with rounded cor-
ners, and the average dimensions of the specimens, with respect to the centreline of the
plate, are 60  60  1.2 mm. The square sections were continuously welded as shown
in Fig. 3.52. The properties of the materials were obtained from uniaxial tensile tests
(Table 3.11). The mean crushing force is calculated from

FL ¼ 4  3:263σ 0 t5=3 c1=3 ¼ 4  3:263  640  1:25=3  601=3 =1000 ¼ 36:9 ðkNÞ

Table 3.11 Material properties and result comparison of axial crushing tests
(Tarigopula et al., 2006).
Yield stress Ultimate strength Flow stress
Model ID (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

qs01, qs02, 532 748 640

qs03
Experimental result Analytical result

Model Folding length Mean force Folding length Mean force

ID 2H (mm) (kN) 2H (mm) (kN)

qs01 – 36.2 32.0 36.9

qs02 – 34.2 32.0 36.9
qs03 – 36.4 32.0 36.9
Internal mechanics of ship collision and grounding 213

Fig. 3.53 Model illustrations of axial dynamic crushing tests by Tarigopula et al. (2006).

The comparison between the analytical and experimental results is presented in

Table 3.11; very good agreement is achieved.

3.7.5.3 Dynamic axial crushing tests by Tarigopula et al. (2006)

Dynamic axial crushing tests on square tubes were also carried out by Tarigopula et al.
(2006). The specimens are similar to the above quasistatic crushing tests with a nom-
inal square cross section of 60  60  1.2 mm. The specimens were impacted by a
600 kg mass at three speeds of 5, 10, and 15 m/s. The folding patterns, which are more
complicated than the static cases, are shown in Fig. 3.53.
While it is difficult to estimate an accurate value of the strain rate in a square tube
crushing, Abramowicz and Jones (1984) have proposed that the average strain rate can
be approximated as

1 V0
ε_ ¼ (3.110)
3b

where V0 is the initial impact speed and b is the width of the cross section. They also
estimated the coefficients D ¼ 6844 (1/s) and q ¼ 3.91 in the Cowper–Symonds empir-
ical formula for steels. Then, we can estimate the dynamic effect by
 
σ 0d V0 1
¼1+ 3:91 (3.111)
σ0 3b  6844

A comparison of the dynamic effects on the mean crushing force for square tubes
between the experimental results (Tarigopula et al., 2006) and analytical results by
Eq. (3.111) is presented in Table 3.12; reasonably good agreement is found.
214 Probability and Mechanics of Ship Collision and Grounding

Table 3.12 Dynamic effect on the axial crushing force normalized to

quasistatic crushing force (Tarigopula et al., 2006).

Impact speed (m/s) Experimental Analytical

0 (static) 1.00 1.00

5 1.14 1.24
10 1.21 1.29
15 1.37 1.32

3.8 Crushing of ship bows against rigid walls

3.8.1 Introduction
This section is to study bow crushing analysis methods and maximum crushing forces
of a ship colliding to rigid walls such as bridge pylons or piers.

3.8.2 Analysis procedure for bow crushing

The most important task for ship bow crushing analysis is to determine the crushing
force, absorbed energy, and the damage extent of the bow. A simple model of a ship
bow is a plated structure that can be divided into basic structural elements, for exam-
ple, L-, T-, and X-shaped elements, or individual plating members as illustrated in
Fig. 3.54. By analysing the crushing resistance of each element and summing them
together, the total crushing resistance of the whole structure can be obtained. The
formulae commonly used for the mean axial crushing force of a structure composed
of L-, T-, and X-shaped elements or individual plates are summarized in the
following:

Fig. 3.54 A plated structure is divided into individual plates or into L-, T-, and X-shaped
elements.