Ship Collisions with Pile-Supported Structures—Estimates

of Strength and Ductility Requirements

Linh Cao Hoang, Prof.; Marie Lützen, Asst. Prof.; Institute of Technology and Innovation, University of Southern Denmark,
Denmark. Contact: [email protected]
DOI: 10.2749/101686612X13363929518054

Abstract overestimates the maximum collision

force when dealing with flexible struc-
This paper describes an analytical approach for design of pile-supported struc- tures. As for example seen from the FE
tures subjected to ship collisions. The main problem being addressed is how simulations in Ref. [1], the maximum
deformation of both ship and structure, in a simple way, can be taken into collision force is considerably lower for
account when determining the collision force. Such an approach will lead to more impact against a pile-supported pier
accurate calculations of the maximum collision force as compared to methods, than against a rigid wall. Second, the
which assume the impact energy to be absorbed solely by ship deformations. The equation can only be used for strength
approach described here requires knowledge about the load-deformation char- verification and sizing of members,
acteristics of the structure and the ship. A major challenge in this context is to whereas, structural ductility cannot be
establish the so-called load-indentation curves for ships. The paper demonstrates accounted for. In other words, the abil-
a principle to establish load-indentation curves, which, in a mechanically consist- ity of the structure to dissipate energy
ent way, are linked to the Eurocode collision force formula. The obtained load- (for example obtained by the use of
indentation curves have been used to develop analytical criteria for strength highly ductile reinforcement steel)
and ductility assessment of pile-supported structures. Calculations based on the cannot be utilised to verify the struc-
outlined approach show that the maximum collision force reduces significantly tural integrity.
as compared to calculations, where the deformation capacity of the structure is
disregarded. The reduction of the maximum collision force can be transformed To determine the maximum collision
into similar reduction of the required number of piles. force with account for energy dissipa-
tion by both ship and structure, one
Keywords: ship collisions; Eurocode 1; piles; piers; bridge protection structures; may use three-dimensional (3D) non-
deformation capacity; load-indentation curves. linear FE simulations as mentioned
above. It is also possible to carry out
less time consuming simulations if the
detailed 3D FE model of the ship is
Introduction in the Eurocode 1.5 This formula is replaced by a lumped mass attached
based on results of numerical simula- to a nonlinear spring to represent the
The mechanical phenomena involved tions of ships colliding with an infinite vessel characteristics.6 This approach
in a ship-structure collision event are rigid wall. For head-on bow collision,
complex and can only be analysed in the formula reads:
detail by simulation with nonlinear FE
models.1 Such an approach, however, 0,5 2,6
2,24 . Fo Edef .Ls for Edef < Ls (a)
is not suitable for many design situa-
tions. This is particularly true for the Fc =
tender and preliminary design phase,
1,6 0,5 2,6
where several structural concepts and Fo . Ls Edef + 5 – Ls Ls for Edef ≥ Ls (b)
layouts are usually considered; often in (1)
conjunction with risk analyses. To this
end, simple and design oriented meth- – –
Here Ls = Ls/Lo and E def = Edef/Eo,
ods allowing efficient parametric stud- is, however, still not suitable for para-
where Ls (also referred to as Lpp) is
ies are desirable. metric studies and risk-based designs.
the length between the perpendicu-
In practice, it is normal to design the lars and Edef is the energy absorbed Risk-based designs are usually per-
impacted structure to withstand an by ship deformation. Lo = 275 m, Eo = formed in three steps covering esti-
equivalent static collision force. For 1425 MNm and Fo = 210 MN are ref- mation of the probability of collisions,
this purpose, a number of formulas for erence values. According to Eurocode analysis of the consequences and rec-
calculation of the collision force have 1,5 Edef should be taken as the kinetic ommendations for decision-making. A
been proposed in the literature, see energy, Ekin = 0,5 mxv2, where v is the practical example of risk-based design
e.g. Refs. [2,3,4]. One of these formulas, initial speed and mx = 1,05·m is the has been demonstrated in Ref. [7]. As
proposed in Ref. [4], has been adopted mass of the ship plus 5% added mass the procedure requires consideration
representing the hydrodynamic con- of many different scenarios, a simpli-
Peer-reviewed by international ex- tribution of the surrounding water. fied model is preferable.
perts and accepted for publication Equation (1) is valid for 500 to 250,000
by SEI Editorial Board In this paper, a simple approach for
deadweight tonnage (DWT) vessels.
assessment of strength and ductility
Paper received: February 20, 2012 Although simple to use, Eq. (1) has of pile-supported structures subjected
Paper accepted: April 10, 2012 some disadvantages. First, the equation to head-on ship collisions will be

Structural Engineering International 3/2012 Scientific Paper 359

described. The approach is analytical displacements without overturning describes the relation between the
and based on force- and energy-balance rotation of the cap. force, Fstruct, acting on the pile cap and
considerations. For this purpose, load- the transverse displacement, d, of the
Only head-on bow collisions are con-
deformation relationships for struc- cap. Fstruct(d ) can, for simplicity, be
sidered. Ship–structure collisions are
tures and for ships are needed. It obtained from classical static analyses
dynamic problems of high complexity.
is demonstrated that the Eurocode thus neglecting effects of strain rate.
The collision force varies with respect
design formula (Eq. (1)) in fact may Similarly, Fship(u) describes the load-
to time and is influenced by many fac-
be used to derive explicit equations deformation relationship of the ship
tors, such as strength, stiffness and
for nominal load-deformation curves (also called force-indentation relation-
inertial properties of both ship and
of ships. This particular interpretation ship), with u being the deformation
structure. Obviously, it is necessary to
of Eq. (1) makes it possible to analyse localised in the vicinity of the impact
introduce a number of approximations
ship collisions with flexible and ductile zone. In Eq. (2), ddef and udef are the
in order to obtain a simple procedure
structures in a way that complies with deformations, at which Ekin has been
for assessment of structural strength
the Eurocode provisions. entirely absorbed. The assumption
and ductility. First, the mass of the
of constant contact between struc-
Some calculations based on the pro- structure is neglected. This means that
ture and ship implies that ddef and
posed procedure are presented. It is inertial structural resistance will not
udef are reached at the same time and
shown that the maximum collision be taken into account. Further, it is
Fstruct(ddef) equals Fship(udef). Hence,
force reduces significantly as com- assumed that the energy released for
the maximum collision force is:
pared to the results obtained from impact is entirely absorbed by deforma-
direct use of Eq. (1). The reduction of tion of the ship and the structure. Other
Fmax = Fstruct def = Fship u def (3)
the maximum collision force, which sources of energy dissipation, such as
primarily depends on the deformation damping from the surrounding water, To illustrate the outlined procedure,
capacity of the structure, can directly are neglected. Finally, the ship and the schematic variations of Fstruct(d ) and
be transformed into reduction of the structure are assumed to remain in Fship(u) have been plotted in Fig. 2. As
required number of piles. contact (idealised with a single contact indicated, the structure is assumed to
point) during the entire impact process. have a pronounced plastic behaviour
Analysis Procedure The above approximations make it when reaching its ultimate load Fu,
possible to ensure, in a very simple way, while Fship(u) increases monotonically.
Basic Assumptions force- and energy balance. For head- Graphically, the problem may be solved
The structures to be considered are on collisions, the energy released for simply by moving the level of Fmax up
vertical, reinforced concrete piles or impact is taken as the kinetic energy to the point, where the sum of the two
concrete filled steel piles supporting a prior to collision, Ekin = 0,5 mxv2. The shaded areas equals Ekin. In this way,
massive, rigid cap (Fig. 1). This struc- above mentioned Eurocode interpre- both the maximum collision force, Fmax,
tural configuration is typically used as tation of mx to account for hydrody- and the maximum structural displace-
foundation for bridge piers and pylons. namic effects is also adopted here. The ment, d def, may be determined.
Massive caps supported on piles are equation for energy balance may be It is possible by this procedure to verify
also suitable as sacrificial, protection written as: the structural safety even when Eq. (1)
structures, where the purpose is to let def udef leads to Fc > Fu. The only requirement
the piles absorb the collision energy Ekin = Fstruct d + Fship u du is that Eq. (2) must be satisfied for d def
0 0
and prevent impact on the bridge < d u, where d u represents the deforma-
(2)
itself.2,3,8 In the following, it is assumed tion capacity of the structure. Hence,
that the piles are designed to col- The right hand side of this equation ductility plays an important role when
lapse through development of plastic represents the deformation energy, the structural safety is assessed by this
hinges, while pile pull-out is not criti- which contrary to the interpretation procedure.
cal. Hence, the collapse mechanisms to in Eq. (1), covers both deformation
be considered involve only transverse of ship and structure. Here, Fstruct(d ) The concept of force- and energy bal-
ance as explained above has been
briefly mentioned as an option for
ship impact analysis in the back-
ground document to Eurocode 1 (see
Ref. [9]). What is lacking in the litera-
ture is a systematic formulation (with
emphasis on the Eurocode provisions)
of the necessary steps required for
v quantitative analyses. This will be pro-
Cap vided in the following.
Force-Indentation Curves for Ships
Ship
Piles Although not described in Eurocode 1
or in Ref. [4], nominal force-indenta-
tion curves for ships may actually be
derived from Eq. (1). To do so, the equa-
tion must first be rearranged such that
Fig. 1: Head-on ship collision with pile cap (cap supports pier or stands free as protection Edef is expressed in terms of Fc and the
structure) other parameters involved. Note that

360 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International 3/2012

 This appearance seems to be a reason-
Fship Fstruct. able approximation and can be justi-
fied, at least qualitatively. Owing to
Fu the typical design of a ship bow, the
Fmax volume of crushed steel will increase
rapidly in the beginning of the colli-
sion, which will result in a steep initial
sloop of the response curve. This stiff
u response is followed by an apparent
u def def u plastic response when the crushed
zone reaches the hull girder.
Fig. 2: Force- and energy balance based on force-indentation curve for ship (left) and
force-deformation curve for structure (right) It is noticed that contrary to Eurocode
1, the American standard AASTHO10
according to Eurocode, Edef should be Finally, by integration of Eq. (6) with in fact contains explicit formulas for
taken as Ekin in order to obtain a max- respect to u and by fulfilling the two bi-linear load-indentation curves.
imum design force. However, when available boundary conditions, the fol- These curves, however, are only valid
deriving force-indentation curves lowing bi-linear load-indention rela- for barges.
from Eq. (1), it is important to inter- tionship is obtained:
pret Edef as the accumulated deforma- 2
0,8
tion energy absorbed by the ship as , <
the deformation parameter u evolves. 1,12
This means that Fc in the rearranged Fship u = 2 2 2,8
equation may be replaced by Fship(u). s L
s
o 2, 24 , (b)
The rearranged equation, providing
Edef as a function of Fship(u), appears (7)
as follows:

2 Force-Deformation Curve
Fship (u) 1 for Structures
u < *

2, 24 Fo Ls For lateral loaded piles designed to

def ship(u ) = collapse by development of plastic
2 hinges, the load-deformation response
Fship (u) 1,6 * is usually ductile. The actual response
u
FoLs is influenced by many factors such
as soil–structure interaction, ratio
(4)
between free pile length and pile
diameter, rotational restraint at pile
Here, the force F* means the transi- cap, group actions, and so on. Various
tion point between parts (a) and (b) Note that part (a) of Eq. (7) is estab- more or less sophisticated methods
of Eq. (1). F* is calculated by inserting lished by the first boundary condition: (e.g. the p–y method) and commercial
– –
Edef = Ls2,6 into Eq. (1), which leads to Fship = 0 at u = 0. This part is valid for software packages exist for determina-
–
F* 2, 24Fo Ls1,8. For the time being, the deformations up to u = u* = Eo·(1,12 tion of the load-deformation response
–
load-indentation relationship Fship(u) Fo)−1 · Ls1,8 . At this transition point u*, of piles. In principle, any structural
is unknown. part (a) of Eq. (7) namely provides the response curve may be used in relation
same force, F*, as Eq. (1) when insert- to the approach illustrated by Fig. 2.
Now, by definition, the derivative – –
ing Edef = Ls2,6. The second boundary However, in order to obtain simple,
of Edef with respect to u must equal
condition is a requirement of continu- analytical formulas that are suitable
Fship(u), that is:
ity between parts (a) and (b) at the for parametric studies, this paper
transition point (u*, F*). This, eventu- only deals with elasto-plastic load-
Edef Fship u ally, determines the constant term in
= Fship u deformation relationships. This will in
du (5) part (b) of Eq. (7). many cases be a sufficient approxima-
The derived load-indentation relation- tion to the actual response (see Fig. 3,
Hence, when inserting the right hand
ship displays a large initial stiffness right). In the figure, Fu represents the
side of Eq. (4) into the left hand side
followed by an almost perfect plastic ultimate load of the structure (i.e. the
of Eq. (5) and performing the differen-
branch; see illustration in Fig. 3(left). pile group) and d is the transverse dis-
tiation, one will arrive at the following
placement of the cap. Transition from
differential equations:
elastic behaviour to plastic behaviour
Fship u Ls takes place at d y while d u represents
u the deformation capacity of the pile
du Eo
group.
2
Fship u Fo2 Ls *
ship u Design Criteria
u Eo
(6) Four interesting scenarios can be iden-
tified depending on the amount of

Structural Engineering International 3/2012 Scientific Paper 361

 Fship Fstruct. 0,8 2
(IIa) y
def u 2
F* 2 2, 24 Fo Ls Fo
Fu 2,8
4,6 3,6
2, 242
Fo 2, 24
u (10)
u* u
y

Fig. 3: Load-indentation curve for ships (left) and elasto-plastic load-deformation rela- def def u u y (11)
tionship for piles (right)
Now, to ensure that the structure has
sufficient strength and ductility when
subjected to a ship collision, the fol-
Fstruct. Fship Fstruct. Fship lowing criterion is imposed:

(Ib)
Fu F* Fu F* def for u ≤ *

Ekin ≤ (12)
(IIb)
def for u > *

u u
u y u* u y u* A similar criterion may be established
(Ia) (Ib) for the case where the structure is
required to remain in the elastic range.
(Ib)
This is done simply by replacing Edef
Fstruct. Fship Fstruct. Fship (IIb) (Ia)
and Edef in Eq. (12) with Edef and
Fu Fu (IIa)
Edef , respectively.
F* F* In design situations, Eq. (12) may be
used to determine the necessary capac-
ity Fu of the structure and hence the
u u necessary number of piles, when a par-
u y u* u y u* ticular pile design has been chosen (i.e.
(IIa) (IIb) when the characteristics of one single
pile has been chosen). In this con-
Fig. 4: Scenarios for energy dissipation by ship and structure text, some iterations may be needed
to account for pile group effects. On
the other hand, if the number of piles
kinetic energy released for impact (see the inelastic range (the sum of the
has been fixed, Eq. (12) can be used to
Fig. 4). These scenarios can be used to two shaded areas in each of the four
determine the requirements to the pile
answer the following important ques- graphs in Fig. 4 corresponds to the
design (i.e. strength and ductility).
tions when verifying or designing a deformation energy). For collisions
structure for ship collisions: Does the with less kinetic energy, the struc-
structure need to enter the inelastic tural response is elastic. Scenario (Ib) Numerical Example
range in order to withstand the colli- belongs to case (I) and corresponds
sion, and if so, does it have sufficient to a situation, where the structure is Numerical results are presented here
deformation capacity to absorb the in the plastic range and the deforma- in order to compare the proposed
impact energy? tion capacity of the structure is com- approach with the Eurocode collision
pletely utilised. Explanations similar force equation (i.e. Eq. (1)). The case
When performing verifications, the
to the above may be given for sce- considered could be a sacrificial pile
structural layout is normally given.
narios (IIa) and (IIb), belonging to group restrained by a rigid cap and
Therefore, Fu, d y and d u can be con-
case (II). functioning as protection structure for
sidered as known quantities. Given
a bridge pier or pylon. The exact geom-
a particular ship with length Ls, the The deformation energy for each etry is not important in this parameter
force-indentation curve may be deter- of the four scenarios can easily study. The task here is to determine
mined from Eq. (7). Hence, initially, it be obtained by calculation of the the required load capacity Fu for dif-
is possible to assess whether Fu < F*. shaded areas in Fig. 4. These are ferent sets of d y and d u. The proce-
In the following, case (I) and case (II) (Ia)
termed Edef , E
(Ib) (IIa)
, Edef (IIb)
and Edef
def dure simply involves a minimisation
correspond to the situations Fu < F* and appear as follows when Eq. (7) of Fu (for known values of d y, d u, Ls
and Fu ≥ F*, respectively. Each case
is introduced: and Ekin) subjected to the constraints
contains two scenarios of particular
in Eq. (12). The calculations can easily
interest. These scenarios are identi- 2
1 be conducted by use of a spreadsheet.
fied as (Ia), (Ib), (IIa) and (IIb) as Ia

shown in Fig. 4. Scenario (Ia) belongs 2 5,02 ⋅ Ls Fo (8) Calculations have been performed
to case (I) and corresponds to a colli- for five sets of ship data, that is, five
sion, where the kinetic energy is just combinations of ship length and mass
sufficient to make the structure enter (9) as shown in Table 1. Data for the 500

362 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International 3/2012

 Vessel size 500 1000 2000 3000 43000 Displacement pier, full utilisation of the deformation
DWT DWT DWT DWT tonnes capacity may not be accepted as this
Length: Ls (m) 41,0 53,8 69,0 78,0 204,0 could result in too large irrevers-
ible deformations. Therefore, it is
Mass: m (103 kg) 886 1650 3020 4600 43 000
not unusual in practice to require
Velocity: v (m/s) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0
the structure to be operational after
Fc (MN), Eq. (1) 15,3 24,9 39,0 48,8 255,0 impact with small ships while for larger
Table 1: Ship data from Refs.[ 1,11] ships, irreversible deformations may be
acceptable. Such differentiable design
criteria can, as already mentioned, be
1,20 (Ia)
handled by inserting either Edef and
Fu / Fc (IIa) (Ib) (IIb)
Edef or Edef and Edef into Eq. (12).
1,00
Conclusion
0,80 This paper has dealt with some of the
technical challenges involved in the
analysis and design of pile-supported
0,60
structures exposed to ship collisions.
The paper demonstrates that it is pos-
0,40 sible to develop a simple, analytical
Ls = 204 m Ls = 78 m procedure to account for the defor-
mation capacity of the structure while
0,20 Ls = 69 m Ls = 53,8 m
at the same time complying with the
Ls = 41 m Eurocode provisions to ship impact
u (m)
0,00 analyses. The main idea has been to
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40 1,60 take the Eurocode collision force for-
Fig. 5: Required load capacity vs. available deformation capacity (ship data given in Table mula and use principles of mechan-
1 and d y = 0,1d u) ics to determine the corresponding
load-indentation curves for ships. In
this way, an explicit load-indenta-
to 3000 DWT ships have been taken Ls = 204 m, for example, Fu ~ 0,7·Fc tion formula has been obtained. The
from Ref. [4] while data for the ship of when a deformation capacity of d u result, together with an elasto-plas-
43 000 displacement tonnes have been = 1,6 m is available for energy dis- tic approximation to the structural
taken from Refs. [8,11]. A constant sipation. Hence, about 30% reduc- response, has been used to establish
speed of 5,0 m/s has been assumed to tion of the maximum collision force a design and verification criterion
comply with the recommendation in is obtained in comparison with the (Eq. (12)).
the Eurocode 1. In Table 1, the maxi- Eurocode design approach. The 30%
Calculations based on data for five dif-
mum collision force Fc according to reduction can directly be transformed
ferent ship sizes have been presented.
Eurocode, that is, Eq. (1), has also been into similar percentage of saving of
Significant reductions in the maximum
shown. the required number of piles. In fact,
collision force (as compared to a direct
it can be argued that the percentage
The calculated results are shown in application of the Eurocode collision
reduction in the required amount
Fig. 5. The results have been nor- force formula) were observed for real-
of piles may be larger than just (1 −
malised with respect to Fc and plotted istic values of structural deformation
Fu/Fc) because group effects on the
versus d u in order to study the benefit capacity. For sacrificial, pile-supported
load capacity are less pronounced
gained by utilising the deformation protection structures, it is obvious to
when the number of pile reduces.
capacity of the structure. Deformation utilise the full deformation capacity
capacity, d u, ranging from 0 to 1,6 m The available deformation capacity d u of the piles. Therefore, the estimated
has been considered. Furthermore, d y is of course dependent on many fac- reduction of maximum collision force
= 0,1d u has been assumed. It may be tors. Among the important factors are can directly be transformed into simi-
shown that the ratio of d y/d u (within the rotational capacity of the plastic lar reduction of the required number
say 0–0,2) has only little influence hinges, the characteristics of the soil of piles.
on the requirement to Fu. This is so and the free length of the piles. In any
The analytical nature of the outlined
because the elastic energy only consti- case, a deformation capacity of 1,6 m
approach and the little amount of
tutes a small fraction of the total defor- is not unrealistic for sacrificial protec-
required input are judged to be an
mation energy. tion structures. In fact, as reported in
advantage when performing param-
Refs. [8,11], protection of the Rosario-
As it can be seen in Fig. 5, Fu/Fc = 1 eter studies and risk analyses. Such
Victoria bridge against impact from a
when d u = 0. This case corresponds studies usually take place in the pre-
ship with Ls = 204 m and Ekin = 453
to a rigid structure without any duc- liminary design phase, where detailed
MNm is ensured by concrete filled
tility. The entire impact energy is information is not always available.
steel piles with deformation capacity
therefore dissipated by ship defor- Hence, with limited efforts, one may
of several meters depending on the
mation as if the collision was against use the proposed procedure to identify
scour conditions.
an infinite rigid wall. It appears that the range of design parameters that
the ratio Fu/Fc reduces significantly For impact on permanent structures, are of particular interest and therefore
as d u increases. For the ship with for example a pile cap supporting a needs further detailed analyses. These

Structural Engineering International 3/2012 Scientific Paper 363

detailed analyses may include non- based on FEM simulations. J. Highway Transp. design for the Incheon bridge. Proceedings of
linear FE simulations, which are then Res. Dev. 2006; 23(2): 68–73 (In Chinese). the International Commemorative Symposium
for the Incheon Bridge, Korea, September 2009.
typically carried out in the detailed [2] Larsen OD. Ship Collision with Bridges – The
design phase, in order to verify the Interaction between Vessel Traffic and Bridge [8] Patsch A, Gerbaudo CF, Prato CA. Analysis
chosen design. The FE simulations Structures. Structural Engineering Documents 4, and testing of piles for ship impact defences.
may include analyses of other sce- IABSE: Zürich, 1993. J. Bridge Eng. 2002; 7(4): 1–9.
narios such as impact at skew angles, [3] Svensson H. Protection of bridge piers against [9] JCSS Project Team Eurocode 1.1. Background
eccentric impacts and interaction with ship collision. Steel Const. 2009; 2(1): 21–32. Document to ENV 1991-2-7, Accidental Actions
superstructure in case of collision with Due to Impact and Explosions. CEN: Brussels,
[4] Pedersen PT, Valsgaard S, Olsen D,
November 1997.
bridge piers or pylons. Spangengerg S. Ship impacts: bow collisions. Int.
J. Impact Eng. 1993; 13(2): 163–187. [10] American Association of State Higway and
Acknowledgement Transportation Officials (AASTHO). Guide
[5] European Committee for Standardization
Specifications and Commentary for Vessel
(CEN). EN-1991-1-7, Eurocode 1, Action on
The authors would like to acknowledge the Collision Design of Highway Bridges. 2nd Ed.
structures, Part 1–7: General actions—Accidental
constructive comments of Dr Henrik Gluver American Association of State Highway and
Load. CEN: Brussel, 2006.
and Dr Oliver Kübler on the work presented Transportation Officials: Washington DC, 2009.
in this paper. [6] Consolazio GR, Cowan DR. Numerically
[11] Saul R, Humpf K, Patsch A. The Rosario-
efficient dynamic analysis of barge collisions
Victoria cable-stayed bridge across the river
with bridge piers. J. Struct. Eng. 2005; 131(8):
References 1256–1266.
Paraná in Argentina and its ship impact pro-
tection system. Proceeding of 1st International
[1] Wang JJ, Yan HQ, Qian H. Comparisons [7] Hauge L, Gluver H, Klüver O, Steenfelt JS, Conference on Steel & Composite Structures,
of design formula of ship collision for bridges Jepsen J, Andersen EY. Ship impact protection Pusan, Korea, June 14–16, 2001.

Order Now @
www.iabse.org/calendar

IABSE Calendar 2013

364 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International 3/2012