Ijciet 06 09 018

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 6, Issue 9, Sep 2015, pp. 205-217, Article ID: IJCIET_06_09_018

Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=6&IType=9
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
IAEME Publication
VESSEL COLLISIONS ON BRIDGE PIERS:

SIMULATION STUDY FOR DYNAMIC
AMPLIFICATION FACTORS
Dr. Avinash S. Joshi
Research scholar, Department of Applied Mechanics,
Visveswaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India
Dr. Namdeo A. Hedaoo
Research scholar, Department of Applied Mechanics,
Visveswaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India
Dr. Laxmikant M. Gupta
Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics,
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, INDIA
ABSTRACT
In conventional analysis and design of bridges, piers are analyzed for
dead, vehicular, and earthquake forces. As a special case, an unfendered
Bridge pier may experience a vessel collision. This collision (impact) of a
barge or a ship commonly known as vessel may adversely damage the
structure. This paper presents an estimate of the Dynamic Amplification
Factor (DAF) for impact due to such vessel collisions on unfendered bridge
piers. Various geometries of piers are analyzed for forces arising from such a
collision scene considering the Indian navigational conditions. Static and
dynamic analysis of RCC wall type solid and the hollow circular piers using
the finite element method is carried out. Specially made computer programs in
MATLAB software are used for this purpose. The Dynamic Amplification
Factors for various geometries of piers with impact force applied at different
heights and angles are calculated and the results are presented in the form of
graphs.
Key words: Bridge pier, Collision, Dynamic amplification factor, Slenderness
ratio
Cite this Article: Dr. Avinash S. Joshi, Dr. Namdeo A. Hedaoo and Dr.
Laxmikant M. Gupta. Vessel Collisions on Bridge Piers: Simulation Study for
Dynamic Amplification Factors. International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology, 6(9), 2015, pp. 205-217.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=6&IType=9
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
205
editor@iaeme.com
Avinash S. Joshi, Namdeo A. Hedaoo and Laxmikant M. Gupta
1. INTRODUCTION
Impact force due to collision of vessels (ships or barges) is a reality and may
adversely damage the piers of a bridge in rivers or creeks which have navigational
channels. It has been observed, that the annual rate of ship/barge collisions with
bridges has increased from 0.5 to 1.5 bridges [1] in the period 1960 to 1980. Such a
hit results in heavy damage to the pier causing disruption to road traffic, resulting in
loss of economy in millions besides inordinate delays.
The pier is modeled using FEM techniques and is exposed to a force-time relation.
The maximum dynamic and static deflections are calculated. A dynamic amplification
factor is estimated. An equivalent static force could then be obtained by multiplying
the maximum force by the dynamic amplification factor. This will enable faster, less
cumbersome design process and at the same time ensure that the dynamic effects are
taken care off. The shape and size of the piers, the impacting vessel and the load from
the superstructure is varied to get an overall spectrum of the dynamic amplification
factors. The DAFs are presented in the form of graphs and equations.
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
2.1. Vessel size
In Western countries like the US and some European nations, the magnitudes of the
ships plying navigational channels vary from 25,000 Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT)
upwards to 400,000 DWT. Such huge liners or ships may not enter the Inland
waterways. Present work is restricted to the IS 4561-Part III, for characteristics of the
vessel and other required details. IS 4561 tabulates the DWT and dimensions of small
ships, boats or barges from 600 T down to 125 T [2].
2.2. Vessel characteristics

The characteristics of vessels plying inland waterways as stated in IS 4651 are
reproduced here. The collision force due to a 600 T and a 400 T vessel are
investigated and marked * in Table 1.
Table 1 Characteristics of vessels plying inland waterways
Capacity (T)
600 *
500
400 *
300
300
200
125
Overall
Length (m)
57
49.1
41
37.3
42
35.2
22
Overall
Breadth (m)
11.58
8.75
8.76
7.60
7.80
7.05
5.85
Overall
Depth (m)
3.05
2.50
1.94
2.44
2.70
2.25
2.20
Draught
Light (m)
0.91
0.40
0.76
0.91
0.57
1.63
0.76
Draught
Loaded (m)
2.29
1.85
1.85
2.13
1.82
0.75
1.83
2.3. Geometry of the Pier

Piers of different shapes and heights as per navigation and other requirements are
considered. Two types of piers viz., solid wall type and hollow circular tapering pier
are analyzed. Geometrical inputs are as mentioned in Tables 2 to 5. The geometries
are selected considering the present codes and recent design practices [3]. The
slenderness ratios ( are same for each type of pier ranging from 11 to 20. The height
206
editor@iaeme.com
Vessel Collisions On Bridge Piers: Simulation Study For Dynamic Amplification Factors
of the pier considered here is distance of pier top to pier base. The pier is assumed to
be fixed at the base. The inertial effects of the superstructure at the top are considered.
Table 2 Type 1 (wall type pier)
Length (m)
Breadth (m)
Height (m)
Slenderness ratio
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
39.00
46.00
11
13
15
17
20
Table 3 Type 2 (wall type pier)

Length (m)
Breadth (m)
Height (m)
Slenderness ratio
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
19.00
22.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
11
13
15
17
20
Table 4 Type 3 (hollow circular pier)

OD at
bottom
(m)
7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000
7.000
ID at
bottom
(m)
5.800
5.800
5.800
5.800
5.800
OD at
top
(m)
3.500
3.500
3.500
3.500
3.500
ID at
top
(m)
2.300
2.300
2.300
2.300
2.300
Height
(m)
Slenderness ratio
25.00
30.00
35.00
38.00
45.00
11
13
15
17
20
Table 5 Type 4 (hollow circular pier)

OD at
bottom
(m)
5.550
5.550
5.550
5.550
5.550
ID at bottom
(m)
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
OD at
top
(m)
2.500
2.500
2.500
2.500
2.500
ID at
top
(m)
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
Height
(m)
Slenderness ratio
19.00
22.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
11
13
15
17
20
2.4. Approach velocities

The vessels are assumed to be in midstream and hence velocities are higher taken as
0.5 Hs [4], where Hs is the average wave height, generally 4 m. Thus velocity is
greater than or equal to 2 m/s. A barge collision with a bridge pier is primarily an
accident; generally in such cases the navigator of the vessel looses control because of
a storm or an engine shut off and drifts freely in the stream. Considering this, the
stream velocity is 4.0 m/s adopted as the velocity of the vessel.
207
editor@iaeme.com
2.5. Eccentricity of impact

The actual collision may be at some angle, which cannot be easily estimated
beforehand. The collision angle is of 10o, 15o, 20o, 25o and 30o is considered.
2.6. Water depth

The collision force is applied at 5 m, 10 m and 15 m from the base of the pier. The
application of the force, which depends on the depth of water, is selected so as to take
into consideration quite a large number of channels. Depth of inland waterways
having navigation with depths greater than 15 m is of rare occurrence.
2.7. The Dead load reaction on the pier

Navigable channels require a minimum horizontal clearance for the ship/barge to pass
comfortably below the bridge. The navigable spans are longer than normal hence dead
load reactions on the pier are larger, say of the magnitude (1500 T to 2000 T). 2000 T
is placed over different geometries of piers as mentioned above.
2.8. Material Properties

The Piers are considered to be of Reinforced Cement Concrete with E = 5000
MPa, and poisons ratio = 0.15.
fck in
3. ESTIMATION OF THE IMPACT LOAD

3.1. Estimation of impact force
The present study is carried out for a head-on bow impact on the pier along the flow
of water [5]. The determination of the impact load on a bridge structure subjected to
vessel collision accident is complex. It depends on the characteristics of the vessel and
the bridge structure as well as the circumstances of the collision accident. Some
important parameters on which the present study is based on vessel characteristics i.e
type, size, shape and speed; geometry of pier i.e size, shape and mass and for the
collision circumstances i.e approach velocity, eccentricity of impact and water depth.
The following equation is used to assess the maximum impact force [6].
PBOW P0 EL 5.0 LL
2
1/2
PBOW P0 5EL
2.6 1/2
for E L
2.6
(1)
for E L
2.6
(2)
where
PBOW = maximum bow collision (MN)
P0 = reference collision load equal to 210 MN
L = Lpp /275 m
E = Eimp /1425 MNm
Lpp = Length of the vessel in (m)
E imp = Kinetic energy of vessel (MNm)
Using this equation the maximum or peak impact force has been established for
vessels between 500 DWT to 300,000 DWT. The formula used is based on
investigations carried out at the Great Belt Project. Using this method the impact
forces are tabulated in Table 6.
208
editor@iaeme.com
0.207
0.149
4
4
K.E. imp
MNm
1/2 m.v2
5.138
3.425
E= KE/1425
630
420
Velocity
m/s
Mass + 5%
added
mass
L= Len/275
Table 6 Impact force
Force in
MN
Force in
(T)
Depth
of
Vessel
0.004
0.002
12.837
8.889
1284
889
3
2
3.2. Mass coefficient or added mass

When the motion of a vessel is suddenly checked the force of impact which the vessel
imparts comprises of the weight of vessel and an effect from the water moving along
with the vessel. Such an effect, expressed in terms of weight of water moving with the
vessel, is called added mass. The following order of magnitude of the hydrodynamic
added mass is normally recommended [7].
Mh = 0.05 DWT to 0.10 DWT
: For Bow impacts
Mh = 0.4 DWT to 0.5 DWT
: For sideways impact.
Work is restricted to only bow impacts and hence the mass has been increased by
5% to take into account the effect of the surrounding water during collision.
3.3. The force-time relationship
Impact Force (P)
The impact force is dynamic in nature. The time history as established by Woisin. G
[7] is used. The maximum load Pmax occurs at the very beginning of the collision and
only for a very short duration (0.1 second to 0.2 second) as shown in Figure 1 and
then drops to a mean of value of Pmean 0.5Pmax. The total collision may last for 1
second to 2 seconds. The forcing function is suitably simplified without introducing
much error. The forcetime relationship used is as shown in Figure 2.
Pmax = Maximum Impact Force

P(t)= Average Impact Force
Time (t)
Figure 1 Typical vessel impact force time history
209
editor@iaeme.com
Impact Force (P)
Pmax = Maximum Impact Force
Pavg = Pmax / 2
0.2 0.3
1 sec.
Time (t)
Figure 2 Simplified force time history
4. MODELING OF PIER
To cover all the cases of static and dynamic loads, the choice of finite element has to
be made carefully. The force is applied over an area on the selected geometry of the
pier. The 3D-8 Noded, Isoparametric formulation is used for both, the wall type of
pier and the circular pier. The hollow piers have a very thick staining (0.6 m) and
hence the use of a thin shell element is not found to be suitable. Figure 3 and 4
indicate the finite element model of the piers along with the orientation.
Figure 3 Discretisation of wall type pier
Figure 4 Discretisation of hollow pier
5. CALCULATING THE DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR

(DAF)
5.1. Static domain
The force due to collision is applied as a static force to the descritised pier at the
predefined height and angle. Using the Finite element technique the static deflections
are calculated. The force applied here is the Pmax as shown in Figure 2.
5.2. Dynamic domain

The problem in the dynamic domain can be best described as a case of forced
vibration of a multiple degree freedom system. For the dynamic analysis, the
210
editor@iaeme.com
Newmark method of direct integration has been used. The forcing function is divided
into discrete time intervals t apart.
5.3. The Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF)

DAF is calculated from the results of the above two steps that is the ratio of the
dynamic displacement to the static displacement ( DAF dynamic static). The DAF is
calculated considering all the nodal displacements of the pier just above the height of
collision. The maximum ratio is considered for plotting the graphs. It was also
observed that this ratio is greatest for the nodes at the top of the pier.
6. THE NEWMARK SCHEME AND FORMATION OF THE MASS

AND DAMPING MATRICES
The pier is represented as a multiple degree of freedom system and is subjected to the
dynamic load. The equations of equilibrium for a finite element system of motion are:
M y Cy K y Pt
(3)
where [M], [C] and [K] are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices and {P t} is the
external load vector i.e. the collision force. { y }, { y } and {y} are the acceleration,
velocity and displacement vectors of the finite element assemblage.
6.1. Newmark method of direct Integration

The equations in the Newmark Integration scheme are [7]
y t t y t [(1 ) y t y t t ] t
(4)
yt t yt y t t [( ) y t y t t ] t 2
(5)
where >= 0.5; >= 0.25(0.5+) 2
6.2. Forming the Mass Matrix [M]

There are two ways of forming the mass matrix; one is the consistent mass matrix,
which is related to the volume of element through the shape function. The other is
lumped matrix, which can be taken in proportion to the area or volume of the element
at a given node. Herein the consistent mass matrix has been used. For generation of
the element mass matrix of a 3D solid element with 3 degrees of freedom for each
node mass is placed in each direction (u, v, w) for each node. Global mass matrix is
assembled from the element mass matrix.
6.3. Contribution of the dead weight of the superstructure

In the mass matrix, at the topmost nodes of the given pier configuration the dead
weight of the superstructure received (say 2000 T) is converted to mass. This enters
the pier system only at the topmost nodes. This Dead weight of the superstructure
plays a significant role in the Eigen values.
211
editor@iaeme.com
6.4. Damping
The Raleigh Damping method has been used to consider 5% damping which is the
normal practice for concrete structures. The Raleigh Damping method is found to be
suitable for the Newmark method. The two equations used are as follows
C= M + K
(6)
i2 2i i
(7)
where
i frequency for ith mode.
i damping ratio for ith mode
Damping increases as the vibration mode transgresses from the 1st mode to higher
modes. In applying this procedure to a practical problem the modes i and j with
specified damping ratios are to be chosen to ensure reasonable values for damping
ratios in all the modes contributing significantly to the response. In the present work
the damping ratio is considered to be 5% in the first mode of vibration which is
considered to increase to 7% in the 5th mode of vibration. Thus using these values the
Raleigh damping coefficients by substituting in equation 7; two equations for and
are obtained. Substituting these values along with the already established [K]
(stiffness matrix) and [M] (mass matrix) we obtain the Raleigh damping matrix [7].
The Raleigh damping matrix is evaluated with = 5% and 5 = 7% these are well
known factors for concrete.
7. PROGRAMMING
The programming for finite element method is done in MATLAB. The programs
created specially for the present work were validated before use. The Algorithm for
the program is as under:-
Main program: - Calls all subroutines. Input data.

1. Subroutine for shape functions and isoparametric formulation.
2. Subroutine for nodal co-ordinates.
3. Subroutine for support specifications.
4. Formation of the element stiffness matrix [Ke] and element mass matrix [Me].
5. Assembly of the global stiffness matrix.
6. Assembly of the global Mass matrix.
7. Subroutine for eigen values and data input for dynamic analysis.
8. Formation of the force vector for static analysis.
9. Solving F=Kxto get static displacements
10. Formation of the force vector for dynamic analysis.
11. Solving [M]{y} + [K]{y} = {P(t)} to get undamped dynamic displacements using
Newmark method.
12. Solving [M] {y} + [C] {y} + [K] {y} = {P (t)} to get damped dynamic
displacements using Newmark method.
13. Store results and calculate the DAF.
212
editor@iaeme.com
14. Repeat steps 9 to 13 for 600 t and 400 t vessels
15. Repeat steps 9 to 14 for varying angle of Impact i.e. 30o, 25o, 20o, 15o and 10o.
16. Repeat steps 9 to 15 for varying height of location of Impact i.e. 5 m, 10 m and 15 m
from base.
Steps 1 to 16 are repeated for different geometries of pier considered for this work.
8. DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYTICAL WORK

Twenty different geometries as tabulated in Tables 2 to 5 were selected for analyzing
for the collision. The slenderness ratio (=l / r) is used as a measure representing all
the three dimensions of the pier. Graphs of DAF versus slenderness ratio are plotted.
Each of the above piers is subjected to the collision force at three different
predefined heights from the base of pier. The collision force is applied at 5 m, 10 m
and 15 m from the base of the pier. In addition to the above two variations another
parameter has been introduced, that is the angle of impact. The bow collision force is
applied at an angle of 10o to 30o in steps of 5o. The angle is measured with respect to
the direction of flow of water. For a particular geometry, variation of DAF is studied
with respect to the angle of impact .
9. RESULTS
The Dynamic amplification factors versus the slenderness ratio for impact at different
heights, wall type piers and hollow circular piers with varying angles of impact are
plotted in Figures 5 to 9. The maximum values of DAF i.e. for an impact angle of 30 o
presented in the form of a polynomial equation are given in Table 8 for use in
equation 6 below
DAF C1 2 C2 C3
(8)
where, C1, C2 and C3 are given in Table 7 and are to be used as the case may be.
Table 7 Constants to obtain DAF
Applicable to
C1
C2
C3
Wall pier with impact at 5 m
0.0017
0.1096
2.7393
0.0018
0.1040
2.5472
0.0021
0.1089
2.5095
Hollow Circular pier with impact at 5 m
0.0024
0.0966
1.9964
0.0023
0.0936
1.9441
0.0023
0.0916
1.916
213
editor@iaeme.com

1.8
dyn / static
Wall pier, Impact at 5 m from base

Wall Pier, Impact at 10 m from base
1.7204
1.7

Hollow Cicrular Pier, Impact at 5 m from base
1.6323
Hollow Circular Pier, Impact at 10 m from base
1.6074
1.6
Hollow Circular Pier, Imapct at 15 m from base
1.5559
1.5202
Dynamic Amplification Factor
1.5
1.4745
1.4699
1.4
1.3775
1.3377
1.3342
1.3
1.2844
1.2605
1.2316
1.222
1.2
1.1824
1.1718
1.146
1.1
1.0804
1.0459
1.018
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Slenderness ratio
Figure 5 Dynamic amplification Vs with 5% damping & impact angle=30o

1.7
1.6611
dyn / static
1.6
1.5751
1.5733
Hollow Circular Pier,Impact at 5 m from base
1.5317
1.5
1.4875
1.4471
1.4265
1.4
1.3502
1.3152
1.3
1.3127
1.2703
1.2507
1.2111
1.2
1.2084
1.1805
1.1707
1.1357
1.1
1.0735
1.0388
1.0131
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Slenderness ratio
dyn / static
1.7
Hollow Circular pier, Impact at 5 m from base
1.6105
1.6
1.5257
1.5433
1.5
1.5101
1.4586
1.3847
1.4
1.4266
1.3259
1.2909
1.3
1.3043
1.2576
1.1941
1.2418
1.2014
1.2
1.1791
1.1697
1.1264
1.1
1.0673
1.0324
1.0086
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Slenderness ratio
214
editor@iaeme.com
dyn / static
1.6

Wall Pier, Imapct at 15 m from base
Hollow Circular Pier, imapct at 5 m from base
1.5662
1.5164
1.5
1.4819
1.4906
1.4325
1.4079
1.4
1.3473
1.3
1.3103
1.2965
1.2713
1.246
1.2336
1.1924
1.1917
1.2
1.1778
1.1688
1.1179
1.1
1.0615
1.0264
1.0044
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Slenderness ratio
dyn / static
1.6
1.5265

1.5
Wall Pier, Imapct at 15 m from base
1.4917
1.4725
1.4424

1.4083
1.4
1.3905
1.3194
1.3
1.3001
1.2893
1.2533
1.184
1.2
1.2353
1.2259
1.1895
1.1766
1.168
1.1099
1.1
1.0561
1.0213
1.0004
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Slenderness ratio
10. OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION
Figures 10 and 11 show the vibrations of a wall type and a hollow circular pier of
special significance is the nature of punching into the hollow circular pier, when
collision occurs. This particular shape of distortion is noteworthy; the result of impact
or collision on a hollow circular pier is clearly visible in Figure 11.
Figure 12 shows the response of a wall type pier and Figure 13 indicates the response
of a hollow circular pier. The undamped and damped responses can be seen. The peak
can be observed in the initial stages in the graph. As the force no longer exists the
vibrations can be seen to be about the zero deflection line. The time period of the wall
type pier is seen to be lesser than the circular pier suggesting the greater flexibility of
the circular pier over the wall type pier.
215
editor@iaeme.com
Figure 10 Displacement of wall type pier Figure 11 Displacement of hollow circular

at each time interval
at each time interval
The graph of Slenderness ratio (X-axis) versus the DAF (Y-axis) (Figure 5 to 9)
shows that as the slenderness ratio goes beyond 17 the DAF is nearly 1.00 for circular
columns while it is higher for wall type of piers. Thus slender piers may prove to be
advantageous and dynamically sound. This consideration goes in line with the general
principles advocated by structural designers of reducing the stiffness of the structure.
Figure 12 Un-damped and damped response of wall type pier
216
editor@iaeme.com
Figure 13 Un-damped and damped Response of hollow circular pier
11. CONCLUSIONS
The DAF obtained using equation 8 or from the graphs 5 to 9 will be useful to
reasonably cater for the dynamic effects of a ship collision on a bridge pier.
The circular tapering piers fare better and are generally felt to be dynamically more
efficient over the rectangular wall type of piers provided the local deformation near
the hit area is addressed.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Frandsen, A.G., Accidents Involving Bridges, IABSE Colloquium, Copenhagen,

1983, pp 11-26.
Indian Standard 4651 (Part III) 1974, Code of practice for planning and Design
of ports and Harbors, Part III Loading
Indian Roads Congress specifications for Foundations and Substructures No. 782000.
DNV Guidelines for structures exposed to ship collisions.
Ole Damgard Larsen, Ship collisions with Bridges, IABSE SED 4, pp 53-76
Woisin.G and Gerlach, on estimation of forces developed in collisions between
ships and offshore lighthouses, Stockholm 1970.
Bathe and Wilson, Numerical methods in FEM.
Prof. P.T. Nimbalkar and Mr. Vipin Chandra. Estimation of Bridge Pier Scour for
Clear Water & Live Bed Scour Condition. International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 4(3), 2015, pp. 92 - 97.
Dr. Avinash S. Joshi Dr. Namdeo A.Hedaoo and Dr. Laxmikant M. Gupta.
Transient Elasto-Plastic Response of Bridge Piers Subjected To Vehicle
Collision. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 6(10),
2015, pp. 147 - 162.
Adnan Ismael, Mustafa Gunal and Hamid Hussein. Use of Downstream-Facing
Aerofoil-Shaped Bridge Piers to Reduce Local Scour. International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology, 5(11), 2014, pp. 44 - 56.
217
editor@iaeme.com

Ijciet 06 09 018

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ijciet 06 09 018

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 6, Issue 9, Sep 2015, pp. 205-217, Article ID: IJCIET_06_09_018

VESSEL COLLISIONS ON BRIDGE PIERS:

Avinash S. Joshi, Namdeo A. Hedaoo and Laxmikant M. Gupta

2.2. Vessel characteristics

2.3. Geometry of the Pier

Table 3 Type 2 (wall type pier)

Table 4 Type 3 (hollow circular pier)

Table 5 Type 4 (hollow circular pier)

2.4. Approach velocities

Avinash S. Joshi, Namdeo A. Hedaoo and Laxmikant M. Gupta

2.5. Eccentricity of impact

2.6. Water depth

2.7. The Dead load reaction on the pier

2.8. Material Properties

3. ESTIMATION OF THE IMPACT LOAD

Table 6 Impact force

3.2. Mass coefficient or added mass

3.3. The force-time relationship

Impact Force (P)

Pmax = Maximum Impact Force

Impact Force (P)

Avinash S. Joshi, Namdeo A. Hedaoo and Laxmikant M. Gupta

Pmax = Maximum Impact Force

Figure 2 Simplified force time history

Figure 3 Discretisation of wall type pier

Figure 4 Discretisation of hollow pier

5. CALCULATING THE DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR

5.2. Dynamic domain

5.3. The Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF)

6. THE NEWMARK SCHEME AND FORMATION OF THE MASS

6.1. Newmark method of direct Integration

where >= 0.5; >= 0.25(0.5+) 2

6.2. Forming the Mass Matrix [M]

6.3. Contribution of the dead weight of the superstructure

Avinash S. Joshi, Namdeo A. Hedaoo and Laxmikant M. Gupta

Main program: - Calls all subroutines. Input data.

8. DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYTICAL WORK

Wall pier with impact at 5 m

Wall pier with impact at 10 m

Wall pier with impact at 15 m

Hollow Circular pier with impact at 5 m

Hollow Circular pier with impact at 10 m

Hollow Circular pier with impact at 15 m

Avinash S. Joshi, Namdeo A. Hedaoo and Laxmikant M. Gupta

Wall pier, Impact at 5 m from base

Wall Pier, Impact at 15 m from base

Hollow Circular Pier, Impact at 10 m from base

Hollow Circular Pier, Imapct at 15 m from base

Dynamic Amplification Factor

Figure 5 Dynamic amplification Vs with 5% damping & impact angle=30o

Wall Pier, Impact at 5 m from base

Wall Pier, Impact at 10 m from base

Wall pier, Impact at 15 m from base

Hollow Circular Pier,Impact at 5 m from base

Hollow Circular Pier, Impact at 15 m from base

Hollow Circular Pier, Impact at 15 m from base

Dynamic Amplification Factor

Figure 6 Dynamic amplification Vs with 5% damping & impact angle=25o

Dynamic Amplification Factor

Figure 7 Dynamic amplification Vs with 5% damping & impact angle=20o

Dynamic Amplification Factor

Wall Pier, Impact at 5 m from base