4.4 Article

Assessing the risk of ship hull collapse due to collision

期刊

SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 335-350

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2014.993110

关键词

risk assessment; structural safety; hull collapse; collision accident; probabilistic approach; exceedance diagrams

资金

  1. Leading Foreign Research Institute Recruitment Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, Ict & future Planning (MSIP) [2013044761]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a method for assessing the risk of ship hull collapse following a collision. A probabilistic approach is applied to establish the relationship between the exceedance probability of collision and the residual ultimate longitudinal strength index. A set of credible collision scenarios which represent the entire range of possible collision accidents is selected using a sampling technique based on probability density distributions of influencing parameters. The amount and location of collision damage for selected individual collision scenarios are characterised using the LS-DYNA nonlinear finite element method. The ultimate hull girder strength of a ship with predefined collision damage is then calculated using the ALPS/HULL intelligent supersize finite element method. To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method, applied examples are given, involving collisions with a hypothetical Suezmax-class double-hull oil tanker. Based on the results, design formulations for predicting the residual strength index of damaged ship hulls are derived in an empirical manner. The examples show that the proposed method will be very useful for evaluating the risk of collapse of a ship's hull after sustaining collision damage, which may contribute to a collision risk-based design framework. Moreover, the method will be useful in rescue and salvage operations immediately after a collision by permitting a rapid assessment of the structural safety of a damaged ship.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据