Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstract
Within the framework of a research programme "Tanker Safety", Germanischer Lloyd has developed a program
system for the evaluation of the absorbed plastic deformation energy in a ship-ship collision. The ultimate load
capacities of the ship structures in the areas affected by the collision are evaluated stepwise. The total collision energy
absorbed by plastic deformations of the ship structures is evaluated on the basis of the minima of the ultimate load
capacities and the corresponding penetration depths. By means of the collision energy absorbed, the collision speed
necessary to cause damage can be determined.
It is now possible to classify ships with regard to their resistance against collisions and to assign relevant class
notations.
The resistance of a ship against collision impacts is expressed by the class notation COLL with index numbers
ranging from 1 to 6. The index numbers indicate that--as compared with a non-strengthened single hull reference
ship--a critical situation is likely to occur only if the deformation energy absorbed in the collision exceeds that of the
non-strengthened reference ship by specified values.
A "critical situation" is defined by, for example, rupture of cargo tanks with subsequent spillage of cargo or water
ingress into dry cargo holds.
the spillage of cargo? The two IMO Codes for ~ , . ( m s ') = (/2 < , . m l + m f \ ) ~:2
these ships (IMO, 1983a,b) specify only that the ,,,,-;;~ (I)
cargo tanks must be located at minimum dis-
tances from the side shell depending on how and for a ship lying at pier (without taking into
dangerous the cargo is. These distances are 20% account the energy absorption by the lenders, i.e.
of the ship's breadth with a maximum of 11.5 m
for the most hazardous cargo (Type 1), and l~r(m s ') =(2Ecr/ml) 1'2 (2)
0.76 m for moderate or low hazard cargoes (Type
2 and Type 3). The distance of 20% of the ship's where ml (t) is the mass of the ramming ship
breadth is derived from IMO damage statistics, including an additional hydrodynamic mass equal
according to which some 50°/,, of all measured to 10% of the displacement, m2 (t) the mass of the
major collisions had a penetration depth greater rammed ship including an additional hydrody-
than 20% of the ship's breadth. The empirically namic mass of 40% of the displacement and
determined distance of 0.76 m is intended only as Ec,.(kJ ) the "critical energy".
a protection against "minor side damage" such as The critical energy is the sum of the amounts
may occur during towing manoeuvres in port. of energy absorbed by the structures of the two
These minimum distances alone are not a suffi- colliding vessels at the penetration depth giving
cient measure for the collision resistance of a ship. rise to a critical situation.
This applies in particular to liquefied gas carriers.
The majority of the products to be transported,
e.g. L N G or LPG, requires a Type 2G ship, for 3. Calculation by the modified Minorsky method
which a minimum distance of 0.76 m is prescribed
between the tank and the side shell. However, the The Minorsky method was used for the calcula-
actual distances in gas carriers as built vary be- tion of the critical collision energy in the earlier
tween 0.76 and 4.0m, depending on the tank studies by Germanischer Lloyd on the critical
system, the latter sometimes being protected only collision speed of ships. The energy absorbed in a
by the side shell, sometimes by a double hull. It collision by the structures of the rammed and
follows that only calculations on actual vessels ramming ships can be calculated according to
can provide a true indication of the collision Minorsky (1959) by the following formula:
resistance of a particular ship design. E(kJ) = (4.7R + 3.3) × 104 (3)
where R is a coefficient for the damaged steel
2. Critical collision speed volume.
On the basis of the collision tests carried out in
The critical collision speed is defined as the Germany a Minorsky formula modified by
impact speed of the remaining ship above which a Woisin (1976, 1979) was used, where the constant
critical situation such as cargo spillage is likely to 3.3 in the Minorsky formula was replaced by the
occur. Since the tank systems of liquefied gas expression 0.049 £ ht z, where h (m) is the height
carriers vary considerably, the critical collision of rupture aperture in the side shell and t (cm) is
speed was defined as the impact speed of the the side shell thickness.
ramming ship at which the bow of the ramming
ship just touches the cargo tank wall. Estimates of
the energy absorption of the cargo tanks of spe- 4. Calculation by the ultimate load method
cific L N G tankers have been made. The critical
collision speed is described by the following for- 4.1. General
mulae for the event of rectangular central impact
according to the conservation of momentum the- The empirical Minorsky method, particularly in
ory: for a free-floating ship, its modified form, gives satisfactory results for
M. B6ckenhauer, E.D. Egge ] Nuclear Engineering and Design 150 (1994) 397 407 399
collisions with major penetrations as the method is The program for the side of the rammed ship is
based on the evaluation of severe collisions. How- used to calculate the actual collision process in-
ever, the method has its limitations for the analysis cluding the interaction of bow and side.
of "low energy collisions" with minor penetra- Once the ultimate load distribution over the
tions. This is specially true for single-hull ships side has been finally established, the ultimate load
such as conventional oil tankers where the side capacities of bow and side can be compared.
shell is also the tank wall. The use of the ultimate If the ultimate load capacity of the bow is
load method seems appropriate here. In the 1970s, greater at a given height segment, the side of the
various researchers (Kinkead, 1979; van Beck, rammed ship is deformed to the extent of one
1976; Edinberg, 1981) started to determine the penetration step. If the ultimate load capacity of
collision energy absorption of L N G tanker struc- the side is greater, then the bow of the ramming
tures using the ultimate load method. Within the ship is deformed. As the comparison is made for
scope of a research project "Tanker Safety" spon- each height segment, the penetration depths for
sored by the Federal Ministry of Research and the bow and the side are determined over the
Technology, Germanischer Lloyd elaborated a ship's depth.
program system for the determination of the In the final stage of the program, the minima of
plastic deformation processes taking place in a the ultimate load capacities of the bow or side and
collision. This system is now solely applied when the corresponding penetration depths are used to
assessing the collision resistance of ships. calculate the kinetic energy absorbed by plastic
deformation in a collision. The associated impact
4.2. Calculation method speed can be calculated by formula (1) or (2)
from this energy quantity. Subprograms have
A program system for the calculation of plastic been set up for graphic presentation of the results.
deformation energy was set up for ship-ship colli- Forces and energies over the penetration depth
sion analysis. This program describes the "inter- can be shown as a function of the height as well as
nal collision mechanics". The basis of this the penetration of the bow into the side at various
program system is the substructure method. This times during the collision.
method is based on the principle that all areas of Fig. 1 takes the example of two colliding
the ramming and rammed ships affected by the 141 000 tdw oil tankers with a penetration depth
collision are divided into their structural compo- corresponding to the critical speed and compares
nents, e.g. plates, panels, stringers, frames, shell, the ultimate load of the components coming into
and then the ultimate loads of these components contact at the individual height segments on the
are calculated by ultimate load and buckling the- ramming and rammed ships. Only the minimum
ory. The program system consists of two parts: a of the two ultimate loads at bow or side is trans-
program for calculating the ultimate loads of the mitted.
bow structure of the ramming ship and a program The ultimate load distribution shows clearly
for calculating those of the side structure of the that bow and side have contact only in the areas
rammed vessel. of the main deck and the bulbous bow.
In the bow structure program, the ultimate load Fig. 2 shows the penetrations of the bow and
capacities of the bow structures of the ramming side profiles as the critical speed is reached.
ship are calculated for stepwise increased penetra- Dented areas are shown by broken lines. If the
tion depths as a function of their contact area outer shell is ruptured in a height segment, this is
with the rammed ship. marked with a " x " in the figure.
These ultimate loads are placed in height seg- Because of its detailed consideration of individ-
ments according to their position, so that for each ual structural components, the method is particu-
penetration depth not only the total ultimate load larly suitable for the analysis of low energy
of the bow is known but also the load distribution collisions with minor damage. The method is
over the depth of the hull. therefore suitable for determining the impact
400 M. B6ckenhauer, E.D. Egge / Nuclear Engineering and Design 150 (1994) 397 407
R T [1333 ]
12 Minorsky
q E = (4,7"RT+3,3) 104
-$ 20 I striking ship
10 ¢ '
E
bow
2~o' 4'000' 6
"6 (300 force ( kN ) calculated value
~ J
5.1. General
fmax = 2 ~ = O,16e
Fig. 4. Simplified membrane model of the shell.
As a result of the development work described
above, it is now possible to evfiluate various de-
signs of ships with regard to their collision resis-
accuracy, bearing in mind that normally the en- tance and to assign corresponding class notations.
ergy absorption of the shell relative to the total The collision resistance of a ship is expressed by
energy absorption is small, that the final result is the notation C O L L with an index number ranging
rarely influenced by the simplification. from 1 to 6. The index numbers indicate that for
Fig. 6 shows the membrane stresses in the shell the given strengthened side construction or double
at 0.4 m deformation in the centre of impact. It hull compared with a non-strengthened ship or a
can be seen that tensile stresses act in the centre of ship without double hull, a critical situation is
impact which are compensated by compressive likely to occur if the deformation energy absorbed
./CL
tensile stress
compr,stress
i "'~ [
I ~.~e -~
SYM TR TR
L -i~ :i: :!: --~_~I ~: "".>77 "i - -i- -
1
l
,,, '.. i !
, :,~,,'.,.,...:.~-.7~ 7: 77 .-
I T1
7
T1
case 4 case 3
T1 mn
.<: . . . i
_T~ . . . . . . . . !.. / /
- -L ........ .:- ~ * * *'* ~ * . . . . i* -- T2 min T2 max.
, I
7 --L --i7 --: ~ - ~ .*:: ::~ "~'~.':* * ]. - i. . Fig. 7. Draft c o m b i n a t i o n s for collision cases I 4.
560 1600 IN/ram 2]
Fig. 6. M e m b r a n e stresses in the shell. and T 2. . . . the draughts giving the most unfa-
vourable masses m~ and m 2 for calculating the
in a collision exceeds that of the non-strengthened critical collision speeds are obtained.
reference ship by specified values. The collision cases have to be calculated for
To evaluate the collision resistance, calculations both the strengthened and the unstrengthened
have to be carried out for four different collision ship. The following values for characterizing a
cases with specified varying draughts for each of ship's collision resistance have been fixed:
two different bow shapes on the ramming ship. In the characteristic ratio of the critical deforma-
- -
other words, a total of eight collision cases have tion energies of the strengthened to the un-
strengthened ship;
to be examined. The bow shapes are defined as
follows: - the characteristic critical speed.
-
1 2 1.0
2 3 1.5
3 4 2.5
4 6 4.0
5 10 5.5
6 20 7.0
gation of the cargo from the side shell, "critical Characteristic critical speed
V*r = 0.5(4.7 + 2.9) knots = 3.8 knots
situations" were defined as follows: "unstrength-
Class notation: COLL 2
ened ship" (single-hull ship), side shell ruptures;
404 M. B6ckenhauer, E.D. Egge / Nuclear Engineering and Design 150 (1994) 397 407
.fdeck
c! ,-side shell
(outer hull)
bo.om,h.,
(outer hull) l 4,0m I
C.L.
B = 57,0m i
Fig. 12. 280 000 tdw double-hull oil tanker (E3 design).
406 M. BSckenhauer, E.D. Egge / Nuclear EngineeHnE and Design 150 (1994) 397 407
Table 3
Results of calculations for various liquefied gas tankers I
r I
I
Tanker with wing tank 14.6 4.0 4 ! 1 .......
width of 4.0 m, seven Fig. 13. Some bow shape and draught combinations investi-
horizontal stringers gated.
i/ i/
'I I
tween striking a n d struck ships investigated. 6.105 ; i I
F o r the final E3 t a n k e r design a wing t a n k width
o f 4 m was chosen in c o m b i n a t i o n with a d d i t i o n a l ~. I i Y
three h o r i z o n t a l stringers. T h e a r r a n g e m e n t o f 4.1o, i',
t I
I -P"
these h o r i z o n t a l stringers i m p r o v e s the collision I
the high class n o t a t i o n C O L L 4 can be fulfilled. Fig. 14. Comparison of energy absorbing capability of origi-
The investigations o f G e r m a n i s c h e r L l o y d were nal and modified designs.
also used by I M O when establishing the new
d o u b l e - h u l l r e q u i r e m e n t s as laid d o w n in Regula- have been systematically varied. This figure shows
tion 13F o f A n n e x I o f the M A R P O L 73/78 the m e a n values o f s t a n d a r d i z e d functions o f de-
C o n v e n t i o n ( I M O , 1992). f o r m a t i o n energies a b s o r b e d in collisions, which
Fig. 15 shows the results o f collision resistance m e a n s that the calculation results o b t a i n e d for
calculations for oil t a n k e r s r a n g i n g f r o m 12 000 different b o w shapes a n d draft c o m b i n a t i o n s are
tdw to 280 000 t d w where the wing t a n k widths presented in a dimensionless form.
M. B6ckenhauer, E.D. Egge / Nuclear Engineering and Design 150 (1994) 397-407 407
uJ
1,0
I
I
I
/
I
I
/
0,8 I f
f
I
I /
0,6 I
I /
0,4
I
I
..-I"
I /
0,2 "~
/" ! I- Rupture of side shell o! single hull ships
o .... I I I I
0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,20 0,22 0,24 0,26 0,28 0,30
Penetration depth relative to ship's breadth B
Fig. 15. Standardized function of deformation energy absorbed in a collision.
This figure clearly demonstrates that double- M. B6ckenhauer, Some considerations on gas carrier safety,
hull tankers with wing tank widths ranging nor- Gastech 79 Conference, Houston, TX, 1979.
mally between 5 and 7 per cent of the ship's D.L. Edinberg, A Study of the Collision Resistance of the
LNG-Carrier "GASTOR", 1981.
breadth have an energy absorbing capability of at Germanischer Lloyd, Rules for Classification and Construc-
least 5 times that of a conventional single-hull tion, Ship Technology, Chapter 1, Section 33, 1992.
tanker. H.P. Greuner, M. B6ckenhauer, Studies of the resistance of
LNG carriers to collisions, LNG 6 Conference, Kyoto, 1980.
IMO, International Code for the Construction and Equipment
6. Summary of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, Res. MSC 5(48),
1983a.
IMO, International Code for the Construction and Equipment
Germanischer Lloyd has developed a calcula- of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, Res. MSC
tion method and a corresponding computer pro- 4(48), 1983b.
gram by means of which the complex problems of IMO, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil,
energy absorption due to deformations in a colli- Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, 1992.
IWECO, Aanvaringsexperiment uitgevoerd op een schaal-
sion can be more accurately assessed than by the model van een gastank, Report 5072080/81-82-1, July 1982.
empirical Minorsky method used hitherto. The A.N. Kinkead, A Method for Analyzing Cargo Protection
collision resistance of ships can be calculated us- Afforded by Ship Structures in Collision and its Application
ing standardized collision cases, thereby permit- to an LNG Carrier, Royal Institution of Naval Architects,
ting appropriate ship classification. 1979.
V.U. Minorsky, An analysis of ship collisions with reference to
protection of nuclear power plants, J. Ship Res. 3(2) (1959).
G. Woisin, Die Kollisionsversuche der GKSS, Jahrbuch der
References Schiffbautechnischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 70 (1976).
G. Woisin, Design against collision, International Symposium
A.W. van Beck, W. ten Cate, Collision Resistance of LNG on Advances in Marine Technology, Trondheim, 13-15 June
Tankers, TNO Report 11317/2, 1976. 1979.