4.6 Article

Analysis of structural crashworthiness of double-hull ships in collision and grounding

Journal

MARINE STRUCTURES
Volume 76, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2020.102898

Keywords

Ship structure; Collision; Grounding; Structural damage; Finite element simulation; Statistical data

Funding

  1. National Key Technologies Research & Development Program [2017YFE0118000]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51709212]
  3. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia -FCT) [UIDB/UIDP/00134/2020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A conceptual design framework is proposed for evaluating the crashworthiness of double-hull structures by simplifying input parameters. Four typical collision and grounding scenarios are considered, analysing ship structural damage and energy absorption under accidental loadings.
A conceptual design framework for collision and grounding analysis is proposed to evaluate the crashworthiness of double-hull structures. This work attempts to simplify the input parameters needed for the analysis, which can be considered as a step towards a design-oriented procedure against collision and grounding. Four typical collision and grounding scenarios are considered: (1) side structure struck by a bulbous bow, (2) side structure struck by a straight bow, (3) bottom raking, (4) bottom stranding. The analyses of these scenarios are based on statistical data of striking ship dimensions, velocities, collision angles and locations, as well as seabed shapes and sizes, grounding depth and location. The evaluation of the damage extent considers the 50- and 90-percentile values from the statistics of collision and grounding accidents. The external dynamics and internal mechanics are combined to analyse systematically the ship structural damage and energy absorption under accidental loadings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available