Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Assessment of a Ships Performance in Accidents

Ge Wang, John Spencer, Yongjun Chen


American Bureau of Shipping, Houston

ABSTRACT: This paper reviews the state-of-the-art research on collision and grounding. It focuses on the three issues that a standard for design against accidents needs to address: definition of accident scenarios, evaluation approaches, and acceptance criteria. Accident scenarios may be created through surveys of historical data, consulting experts opinions, or performing risk analysis. Structural crashworthiness of ships, oil outflow performance, and residual strength of damaged ships can be estimated using simple formulae, simplified analytical methods, or non-linear FEM techniques of different complexity. Performance of a ship in an accident can be measured by energy dissipation, penetration depth, quantity of oil outflow or residual hull girder strength. Acceptance criteria should be established on extensive comparative studies, and provide a means for balancing numerous variables in order to achieve an optimal solution.

1 INTRODUCTION Collision and grounding accidents continue to occur in spite of continuous efforts to prevent them. With the increasing demand for safety at sea and protection of the environment, it is of great interest to be able to predict an accident, assess its consequences and ultimately minimize the damage of an accident to ships and the environment. A broad spectrum of issues related to collisions and groundings has been investigated. The advances in technology enhance the understanding of this complex problem. Research has been yielding results of practical importance in the following areas: statistics of accidents (Card 1975, Bjorneboe et al. 1999), frameworks for assessing performance of ships (Amdahl et al. 1995, Daidola 1995, Brown et al. 1996, Sirkar et al. 1997), development of evaluation approaches (Wierzbicki et al. 1992-1999, Wang et al. 1996, Simonsen 1997, Paik et al. 1999, Pedersen et al. 1999), evaluations of consequences (Pedersen 1994, Michel et al. 1996, Wang et al. 2000b), comparisons of structural performance of different designs (Kitamura 199, Chen 1999, Tikka et al. 2000). This paper reviews the state-of-the-art of the related research and summarizes the literature published recently. It surveys those publications that may be incorporated into the framework of a standard for design against accidents.

2 STANDARD FOR DESIGN AGAINST ACCIDENTS OF COLLISION AND GROUNDING Damage from an accident may be to the vessel or to the environment. The potentially costly consequences to property, material, environment, related industries, and in public perceptions have been the driving forces of development of standards for design against accidents. 2.1 Three basic issues A standard for design against accidents must include the following three items: definition of accident scenarios, procedures for evaluating consequences and, criteria for approval or acceptance of a design. Whether a design is acceptable or not is judged by examining if the consequences of the design for a set of accident scenarios falls within a specified acceptance range using the specified (or recommended) evaluation procedures. Accident scenarios define the situations which have unfavorable influences on the safety of ships and/or the environment. These scenarios should represent situations that are as close as possible to those encountered by real ships. Probability of occurrence for each scenario should be taken into account. In addition to the worst cases with small likelihood, cases that are likely to happen but have moderate or small influences should also be considered. Evaluation approaches may be simple calculation formulae, or simplified analytical methods. In some

cases, established engineering practice may be used or recommended instead, where the standard specifies basic requirements for consistency in evaluation. Evaluation procedures should be based on physics or mechanics of the phenomenon. Hull structures must be properly modeled. The damage process needs to be realistically simulated. The methods should be applicable to different designs and cover different accident scenarios. The criteria for approving a design provide a means to balance numerous variables in order to achieve an optimal solution by defining limits to damage extent, oil outflow, residual strength of the damaged ship, and/or stability reserve. Environmental risk should be properly considered, and variations in ship structural design should be accounted for. The format of the criteria may be deterministic, probabilistic, or semi-probabilistic. 2.2 Casualty operations The function of a ships structural system can also be viewed from the standpoint of casualty performance. In case of a casualty, the main objectives of operations are to rescue crews and passengers, maintain the integrity of the ship, prevent or minimize cargo loss, and protect the environment from spilled cargo such as oil. From the standpoint of casualty, the primary considerations for structures are: resistance to the accidental loads, sufficient residual strength, adequate stability, and containment of cargo from spilling. Performance standards for regulating ship design relating to casualty operations, though difficult to develop, have been accepted by the international maritime community. Advancing technology in structural crashworthiness provides a basis for combining this new technology with oil outflow and stability characteristics to develop a performance standard for tanker design. 2.3 Performance-oriented standard The majority of Rules and Regulations are prescriptive, generally conservative and rigid. Performance-based criteria allow for greater design flexibility, and offer more freedom for innovative designs and optimization of vessels while maintaining safety and pollution performance. IMO has established guidelines for approving alternative tanker designs which provide a probabilistic method to assess the oil outflow performance of tankers in accidents. Since its publication, some deficiencies have been recognized, with proposals for new or improved standards: Brown et al. (1996, 2000), Pippenger et al. (1996),

Sirkar et al. (1997).

3 DEFINITION OF ACCIDENT SCENARIOS Accident scenarios define the events to be considered in design. A clear definition includesa set of typical accident scenarios, anda probability for each accident scenario. Accident scenarios and the occurrence probability may be determined through the following three approaches: statistics from historical data, expert opinions, and risk analysis. Ideally, accident scenarios (including the associated probability of occurrence) can be defined based on statistics from past accidents. When comprehensive historical data is not available, experts opinions gained from successful and unsuccessful experiences are regarded as valuable resources. Publications in the public domain are one good source for obtaining experts opinions. Situations that were investigated are generally those which are viewed as significant and should be prevented. The risk analysis approach has emerged as a very powerful tool recently. With this approach we can identify the significant risk contributors, which help to identify the accident scenarios of primary importance. 3.1 Historical data Surveys of historical accident data include: Minorsky (1959), Card (1975), IMO (1995), Bjorneboe et al (1999), Kite-Powell et al. (1999). Unbiased statistics are the most reliable sources for identifying typical and critical accident cases. The available statistics suffer from inconsistencies and incompleteness. There is a paucity of historical data that can be used in recreating accident scenarios. Conditions surrounding an accident such as ship speed, ships loading condition, environment condition and so on often are not clearly recorded. Still, a major effort remains to build up a database of collision and grounding accidents. We should always keep in mind the following aspects so that we can minimize the danger of misinterpretation of historical data: Statistics are based on past experience. They may not reflect present situations. Statistics from cases with damage may penalize designs which have been able to resist such damage.

In view of these concerns, combining limited historical data with risk analysis techniques and experts opinions provides a better basis to determine realistic and critical accident scenarios. 3.2 Experts opinions: grounding Depending on the sea floor conditions, grounding incidents may be classified as: grounding on sloping sea floor, and grounding on protruding rocks. The sea floor conditions are of paramount importance. It is essential that the set of accident scenarios should cover sharp rocks and shoals extending over the entire ship breadth. Major concerns for grounding on a sloping bottom are hull girder loads (longitudinal bending and shearing); primary considerations for grounding on rocks are damage to hull, oil outflow and residual hull girder strength. In order to define grounding scenarios, the following inputs are needed (SNAME Ad Hoc Panel #6): ship speed, loading condition, collision location, draft and trim, sea floor condition, grounding location, water depth, and tide. 3.2.1 Grounding speed and tide Commercial ships sail mostly at two speeds, a maneuvering speed and a cruising speed. A ships speed in grounding likely will be around these two speeds. To account for the uncertainties of grounding speed, reasonable distributions may be assumed with the mean value equal to the maneuvering speed and the cruising speed. Publications regarding grounding speed include: Rawson et al. 1998, Bjorneboe 1999. If a ship runs aground in high tide in a receding tide, the ship will suffer higher hull girder loads because of losing substantial buoyancy. The damage to bottom structure worsens, and longitudinal bending moment and shear forces become larger. Investigations on tidal changes and the influences on a ships performance include: Okumoto (1986), Michel et al. (1995). 3.2.2 Grounding on sloping sea floor A typical grounding event can be divided into two phases. In the first phase, the ship is subjected to an impulse caused by the sudden contact with the ground. The impulse may be assumed to be com-

pletely inelastic. In the second phase, the ship is sliding with continuous contact with the sloping sea floor. The kinetic energy not spent by the end of the first phase becomes potential energy, applied to friction in the contact surface between the ground and the ship, and deformation of the sea bed if the sea floor is soft, i.e., sand or clay. Publications of grounding on a sloping sea floor include: Pedersen (1994), Simonsen & Pedersen (1995), Sterndorff and Pedersen (1996), Simonsen et al. (1997, 1998). A sloping sea floor may be defined as an inclining plane. The soil-hull interaction is characterized by a coefficient of friction, and a permeability coefficient of soil or rock. 3.2.3 Stranding Stranding is a situation where a ship comes to rest upon a seabed. Seabed reactions are primarily perpendicular to the ship bottom. A stranding induces damages to the ship bottom and additional bending moment and shear to the entire hull girder which may exceed the design capacity of the hull. Underwater obstructions vary in geometry and size. Nevertheless, rigid cones have been used extensively to simulate a stranding situation. It is believed that a cone shaped rock represents a wide range of grounding events. A cone is simple geometry. It needs only two parameters to define a rock: the spreading angle and the tip radius of the nose. Publications using conical rock models include: Arita et al. (1985), Kitamura et al. (1985) , Arita and Aoki (1985), Rodd and Phillips (1994), Vredvelt and Wevers (1995), Amdahl et al. (1995), Mizukami et al. (1995), Kitamura (1996), Kuroiwa (1996), Simonsen (1997, 1998), Paik et al. (1999), Wang et al. (2000a). There is a tendency in published research to concentrate on the worst case scenarios, namely, sharp rocks. It reality, this may be a small likelihood. Investigators intend to initiate rupture in the bottom shell at small penetration. A much more common case is stranding on relatively flat seabed or blunt rocks, though these are often ignored. Recent research demonstrates that the shape of the obstruction has a significant influence on the mode of deformation and the energy absorption of the ships bottom: Amdahl et al. (1995), Wang et al. (2000a).

A generic conical cone with varying geometrical parameters may be used for many different stranding conditions, ranging from sharp rocks with small likelihood to a flat seabed with higher possibility. 3.2.4 Raking Raking is a situation when a ship runs onto protruding rocks for a distance before it is stopped. Reactions from the rocks are along the longitudinal direction of the ship. A raking accident may leave long gashes to the ships bottom, leading to outflow of oil from breached tanks. Wedges have been regarded as a rational model for seabed rocks. Parameters for defining a wedge are spreading angle, inclination and tip radius. Different types of rock may be simulated by changing these geometrical parameters. Publications using wedge-shaped rocks include: Woisin (1979), Jones et al. (1987), Lu and Callidine (1990), Wierzbicki et al. (1993), Astrup (1994), Paik et al. (1997), Woisin (1979), Wierzbicki et al. (1983), Ohtsubo and Wang (1995), Simonsen (1997), Zhang (1999). 3.3 Experts opinions: collision The information for defining collision scenarios include (SNAME Ad Hoc Panel #6): ship speed, collision angle, loading conditions, draft and trim, and striking bow geometry. Ship collision can be further classified into two categories: side collision, when a ships side is rammed by another ship or when the ships side bumps a fixed structure such as a platform, and head-on collision, when the ships bow collides with a large stationary object or another ship. 3.3.1 Collision speed As with grounding, collision speed may be around a maneuvering speed and a cruising speed, and distributions of the collision speeds may be assumed, similar to grounding speed. 3.3.2 Cargo loading conditions Tankers generally have two distinct loading conditions: full load condition and ballast condition. Both conditions should be taken into account in a collision

analysis. The accident scenarios include combinations of different draughts of the two ships involved. Publications in which different cargo loading conditions of ships are investigated include: Bochenhauer et al. (1995), Sajit (1999), Chen (2000). 3.3.3 Side collisions A ramming bow may be modeled as wedges, which is a good assumption for conventional ship bows. The shape of a wedge needs the smallest set of parameters to define a ship bow: spreading angle, the wedge length, and the tip radius. A much-refined model for conventional ship bows may be a half pyramid defined by stem angle (in vertical plane), spreading angle (on waterline plane) and breadth. Publications on collision using refined models or wedges for striking bows are: Akita et al. (1972), MeDermott et al. (1974), Nagasawa et al. (1977), Zhu (1990), Ueda et al. (1995), Zhang (1999), Chen (2000), Brown et al. (2000). Statistics show that about 40~50% of all vessels have bulbous bows. Modern seagoing merchant vessels have bulbous bows that are fitted in conjunction with fine hollow waterline entrance to achieve minimum resistance for speed and length. Bulbous bows may be idealized as conical strikers (similar to grounding) for a collision. Much-refined models for bulbous bow are elliptic parabola, or real shapes. Cones of varying geometrical parameters are representative of many different bows corresponding to different sizes of ships. Refined bow models are more realistic, but more difficult for analysis. Publications on collision with bulbous bows include: Suhara et al. (1970), Arita et al.(1985), Ito (1992), Paik et al. (1999), Lee et al. (1999), Zhang (1999), Kitamura (2000). As with grounding, it has been demonstrated that the energy absorption of a double hull in a collision is quite different for different bow forms: Wang et al. (2000a). The geometry of the striking bow has a direct influence on the behavior of the struck ship. It is essential that the set of accident scenarios should cover small to large vessels having different bows.

3.3.4 Head-on collision A ship may collide head on with bridge piers, offshore platforms, or icebergs. Usually, bow collisions can be idealized as head-on collisions with rigid objects. Publications about head-on collision include: Hagiwara et al. (1983), Pedersen et al. (1993), Kierkegaard (1993), Paik et al. (1994), Ohtsubo et al. (1995), Lehman and Yu (1995), Wang et al. (2000a), Wierzbicki et al. (1992-1999). 3.4 Risk analysis A risk analysis identifies expected hazards to ships, human beings, and the environment. Results of a risk analysis can aid in finding critical accident scenarios that may jeopardize the safety of ships and the environment. A risk analysis may include the following steps: hazard identification, criticality ranking, consequence assessment, and risk reducing measures. Publications related to risk analysis include: Fujii et al. (1974), Pedersen et al. (1993), Gluver and Olsen (1998), Urban et al. (1999). 4 EVALUATION APPROACHES There are a variety of approaches for assessing different aspects of an accident. Some predict the occurrence probability of accidents; some calculate the structural response in an accident, some deal with the oil outflow following an accident; some analyze the residual strength of a damaged hull; and some assess the consequences of an accident on the environment or incurred costs. These methods differ in methodology, in theory, in complexity of calculation, and in the cases to which they apply. This section reviews the publications related to the following topics: damage extent in an accident, oil outflow, and hull girder strength Normally the total problem is divided into two parts: external mechanics, which deals with the energy released for dissipation in damaged structures and the impact impulse of a collision or grounding, and

internal mechanics, which deals with the strength or resistance of ship structures in an accident.

4.1 External mechanics of an accident The external mechanics can be solved by numerical solution of the equations of motion or by an integrated approach where conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum during the impact is used to derive analytical expressions for the dissipated energy. Published papers on external mechanics include: Pedersen et al. (1981, 1998), Simonsen (1997), Sajit (1999), Paik et al. (1999), Suzuki and Ohtsubo (2000). Tools include: diagrams in a form that can be used without performing detailed calculations. closed-form expressions for the energy released for crushing and the impact impulse, and special programs to compute simultaneously the rigid body ship motions and the structural damage of both striking and struck ships. 4.2 Internal mechanics of an accident The internal mechanics involved in ship collision and grounding accidents is complex, and involves deep collapse, large plastic deformation, fracture and friction. A broad spectrum of methods has been developed for the analysis of internal mechanics as a result of recent extensive research. Generally, these methods can be grouped into four categories: simple formulae, simplified analytical methods, simplified finite element methods, and non-linear FEM simulations. They differ in the complexity of modeling and calculation efforts. At one extreme (simple formulae) the calculations are easiest. Towards the other extreme, non-linear FEM, the accuracy and reliability of calculations improve, while the required time to perform the calculation increases substantially. 4.2.1 Simple formulae Simple formulae generally calculate the energy absorption of a ship in an accident, and provide easy and quick estimation of the global structural performance of ships. Published literature regarding simple formulae or correlation includes: Minorsky (1959), Hagiwara et al.(1983), Akita et al.(1972),

Kuroiwa(1996), Reardon and Sprung (1996), Suzuki et al. (1999). These formulae correlate empirically the energy absorption with the volume of the damaged ship structures. They are applicable when the considered vessel is similar to the vessels used in the calibration of these formulae. Simple formulae can also be derived through extensive theoretical analyses: Pedersen et al. (1999), Wang et al. (1995, 1999). They are more rational in mechanics, and they retain the advantages of simplicity in expression. These new simple formulae are quick in calculations and easy to incorporate in a systematic evaluation system where many aspects have to be included. 4.2.2 Simplified analytical methods A designer may need more detailed information about the behavior of individual structural components, in addition to the global energy absorption capacity of the vessel (Ohtsubo et al. 1997). Simplified analytical methods generally capture the characteristics of a damage process, and employ theoretical formulae for structural components. They provide insights at both global and local levels which are more advanced tools designers can use for analyses. Published simplified analytical methods for internal mechanics include: McDermott et al. (1974), Yang and Caldwell (1988), Wierzbicki (1992-1999), Pedersen et al. (1993), Suzuki and Ohtsubo (1995, 2000), Wang et al. (1997, 1998, 1999, 2000a), Simonsen (1997), Zhang (1999), McGee et al. (1999), Chen (2000). These newly developed methods have been applied to a wide spread of accident situations which include: head-on collision on rigid walls, ship-ship collision, ship platform collision, ship-bridge collision, bottom raking, and stranding. Simplified analytical methods generally use the concept of structural crashworthiness which is a proven practice in the automobile industry. Developing such a method consists of the following major steps: identify primary damage patterns of structural components according to observation of actual damage,

develop idealized theoretical models and derive theoretical formulae to capture the main features of the damage patterns, establish global models for the entire damage process of the hull, and combine the global damage models with formulae for individual structural components. The identified failure modes characterizing the behavior of ship plates in collision or grounding include: cutting or tearing (Wierzbicki et al. 1983, Wang et al. 1997, Paik et al. 1997), concertina tearing (Wierzbicki et al. 19921999), folding (Wang et al. 1997, Simonsen 1997), crushing (Wierzbicki 1983, Ohtsubo et al. 1995), ruptured plate (Wang et al. 2000a), and membrane stretching (Wierzbicki et al. 19921999, Yu 1996, Zhang 1999). In addition to these failure modes, relevant topics include: initiation of rupture (Wierzbicki 1992-1999, Zhu and Atkins 1998, Woisin 1998), and boundary condition for the influence of adjacent structures (Woisin 1999, Kitamura 1999) 4.2.3 Simplified FEM Simplified FEM programs use a coarse mesh or a super-element approach. They are not so complicated as non-linear FEM simulations and the costs of analysis are reasonable. Recent programs use the structural damage models to calculate the strength of plates in the large plastic deformation range, and combine the analytical models for structural components and the conventional finite element approach. Publications include: Bockenhauer et al. (1995), Ito (1992), Paik et al. (1999). This group of approaches is between non-linear finite element analyses and simplified analytical methods so far as the modeling labor and calculation time are concerned. 4.2.4 Non-linear FEM It has been demonstrated that non-linear FEM simulations are reliable and very detailed. Powerful special-purpose FEM packages such as DYNA3D, DATRAN and PAM account for large deformation, contact, non-linearity in material properties, and rupture. Published investigations using FEM simulation techniques include: Amdahl et al. (1995), Kitamura (1996, 2000) , Kuroiwa (1996). Cases that have been analyzed include:

large scale model tests, real case collision accidents, and real case grounding accidents. FEM simulation requires a massive effort both in terms of modeling and computer power. The cost of this analysis is often prohibitively expensive. 4.3 Oil outflow The International Maritime Organization (IMO 1995) has established a probabilistic methodology for evaluating the oil outflows from a damaged tanker. The intensive calculations may be simplified using rational approaches while keeping the same assumptions for damage extents and similar methodology for oil trapped in double bottom. Publications for investigating the oil outflow performance of tankers include: Michel et al. (1997), Sirkar et al. (1997), Tikka (1998), Samuelides (1999). 4.4 Hull girder strength A ship may collapse after an accident because of inadequate longitudinal strength. The hull girder section modulus is a well-accepted parameter measuring the longitudinal bending strength. Practically, hull girder section modulus can be used to quantify the hull girder strength in case of an accident. Hull girder ultimate strength is a better indication of the bending strength, and can be calculated using special purpose programs (Yao et al. 1991), or simple formulae (Paik et al. 1998), or non-linear FEM packages (Kitamura 1996). Investigations of residual hull girder strength of damaged hulls include: Paik et al. (1995, 1998), Zhang et al. (1996), Cui et al. (2000), Wang et al. (2000b, 2001). 5 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Performance of a ship in an accident can be measured by: kinetic energy dissipated in damaged structures, penetration depth in an accident, quantity of oil outflow, and/or residual hull girder strength. Acceptance criteria may be: minimum distance of cargo containment from the shell,

ship speed above which a critical event (breaching of cargo containment) happens, allowable quantity of oil outflow, and/or minimum values of section modulus or ultimate strength of hull. A design should demonstrate: Cargo tanks/holds are not breached in an accident so that there will be no danger of pollution. Or, if the cargo tanks are breached, the oil outflow following an accident is limited ; and/or The ship has adequate residual hull girder strength so that it will survive an accident and will not break apart, minimizing a second chance of pollution. Acceptance criteria should be established on extensive comparable studies in which many different designs, including successful and unsuccessful designs, established and innovative designs, are analyzed and compared. Studies of performance of many different designs include: Kitamura (1996), Michel (1997), Sirkar (1998) Tikka (1998), Chen (1999), Sajit (1999), Lutzen et al. (2000), Brown et al. (2000), Wang et al. (2000b). These comparative studies are good basis for establishing acceptance criteria. Acceptance criteria impose restrictions on the engineering designs and operations to keep the consequences of adverse events below some limits. Some restrictions amount to a loss of benefit both to the society and to the individual owners. It is desirable if some rational principals could be established which could support optimization of designs and operations. The format of the acceptance criteria may be deterministic, probabilistic, or semi-probabilistic. Criteria may be a set of deterministic rules indicating acceptable safety, or some given limits to the probability of occurrence of adverse events, or some specified bounds on the probability of consequences.

6 CONCLUSIONS This paper reviews the state-of-the-art of recent researches on collision and grounding from three aspects: definition of accident scenarios, evaluation approaches and acceptance criteria.

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank many colleagues who provided valuable comments, especially, Dr. Y. Shin and C. Wang. The authors are indebted to Ms. Jo Feuerbacher for proofreading the manuscript.

REFERENCES
Akita, Y., Ando, N., Fujita, Y. and Kitamura, K. 1972. Studies on Collision-protective Structures in Nuclear Powered Ships. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 19: 365-401. Amdahl, J., Kavlie, D. and Johansen, A. 1995. Tanker Grounding Resistance. 6th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobil Units (PRADS95), Seoul, 2:1072-1083. Arita, K. and Aoki, G. 1985. Strength of Ship Bottom in Grounding - An Investigation into the Case of a Ship Stranded on a Rock, Journal of SNAJ, 158:359-367. Astrup, O. 1994. Cutting of Thick Plate with a Wedge. Joint MIT-Industry Project on Tanker Safety, Report No.27. Bjorneboe, N., Simonsen B.C., Hansen, P.F. 1999. Statistical and Theoretical Analysis of Ship Grounding Accidents. 18th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE'99), St. Johns. Bockenhauer, M., Effe, E.D. 1995. Assessment of the Collision Resistance of Ships for Classification Purposes. International Conference on Technologies for Marine Environment Preservation, Tokyo, Japan, I: 44-51. Brown, A., Amrozowicz, M. 1996. Tanker Environmental Risks Putting the Pieces Together, International Conference on Design and Methodologies for Collision and Grounding Protection of Ships, San Francisco. Brown, A., Tikka, K., Daidola, J.C., Lutzen, M., Choe, I.H. 2000. Structural Design and Response in Collision and Grounding. SNAME Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC. Card, J.C. 1975. Effectiveness of Double Bottoms in Preventing Oil Outflow from Tanker Bottom Incidents. Marine Technology, 12, 60-64. Chen, D. 2000. Simplified Ship Collision Model, Master Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Chen, Y. 1999. Ship Structural Response in GroundingValidation of Prediction Methods and Sensitivity Analysis of Grounding Scenarios, Master Degree Thesis, Webb Institute, New York. Cui, W., Qi, E., Peng, X., Xu, X. 2000. Asymmetrical Bending Ultimate Strength and Reliability Analysis of Damaged Ships, Shipbuilding of China (Chinese), 42(2): 41-47. Daidola, J.C. 1995. Tanker Structure Behavior during Collision and Grounding, Marine Technology, 32:20-32. Fujii, Y., Yamanouchi, H. and Mizuhi, N., 1974. Some Factors Affecting the Frequency of Accidents in Marine Traffic. II- The Probability of Stranding and III- The Effect of Darkness on the Probability of Collision and Stranding. Journal of Navigation, Vol. 27, 1974. Gluver, H., Olsen, D. 1998. Current Practice in Risk Analysis of Ship Collisions to Bridges, Ship Collision Analysis, Gluver & Olsen (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam.

Hagiwara, K. Takanabe, H., Kawano, H., 1983. A Proposed Method of Predicting Ship Collision Damage, Int. Journal of Impact Engineering. 1(33): 257-379. IMO 1995. Interim Guidelines for Approval of Alternative Methods of Design and Construction of Oil Tankers under Regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. Ito, H. 1992. A Research on the Collision Strength of Double Hulls, Dr. Thesis (Japanese), the University of Tokyo, Tokyo. Jones, N., Jouri, W.S. 1987. A Study of Plate Tear for Ship Collision and Grounding Damage. Journal of Ship Research, 31, 253-268. Kierkegaard, H. 1993. Ship Collision with Icebergs. Dr. Thesis, Dept. of Ocean Engineering, Technical University of Denmark Kitamura, K., Okumoto, Y. and Shibue, T. 1985. On the Model Tests of Double Bottom Strength for Stranding, Journal of Society of Naval Architect of Japan (Japanese), 346-356. Kitamura, O. 1996. Comparative Study on Collision Resistance of Side Structure, International Conference on Design and Methodologies for Collision and Grounding Protection of Ships, San Francisco. Kitamura, O. 1999. Authors Closure. Marine Technology, 36, 230-231. Kite-Powell H.L., Jin D., Jebsen J., Papakonstantinou V., Patrikalakis N. 1999. Investigation of Potential Risk Factors for Groundings of Commercial Vessels in U.S. Ports, Internal Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 9:16-21. Kuroiwa, T. 1996. Numerical Simulation of Actual Collision and Grounding Experiments, International Conference on Design and Methodologies for Collision and Grounding Protection of Ships, San Francisco. Lee, T.K., Kim, J.D., Chun, T.B. et al. 1999. Experimental Study on the Collision Strength of VLCC Side Structures, 9th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE99), Brest, France, 4:450-455. Lehman, E., Yu, X. 1995. Progressive Folding of Bulbous Bows, The Sixth International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units. Ed. Kim, H. and Lee, J.W. 2:1048-1059. Lehmann, E., Yu, X. 1998. On Ductile Rupture Criteria for Structural Tear in the Case of Ship Collision and Grounding, 7th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units (PRADS98), The Hague, The Netherlands, Sept 1998, 149-156. Lu, G., Calladine C.R. 1990. On the Cutting of a Plate by a Wedge, International Journal of Mechanical Science, 32: 293-313. Luzten, M., Simonsen, B.C., Pedersen, P.T. 2000. Rapid Prediction of Damage to Struck and Striking Vessels in a Collision Event. Ship Structure Symposium on Ship Structures for the New Millennium: Supporting Quality in Shipbuilding, Arlington, VA, 13-14 June. McDermott, J.F., Kline, J.F., Jones, R.G., Maniar, E.L., Chiang, W.P. 1974. Tanker Structural Analysis for Minor Collision, Transactions SNAME, 82: 382-407. McGee, S.P. et al. 1999. Damage Length Predictor for High Speed Craft, Marine Technology, 36(4): 203-210. Michel, K., Moore, C., Tagg, R. 1997. A Simplified Methodology for Evaluating Alternative Tanker Configurations, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 1: 209-219.

Minorsky, V.U. 1959. An Analysis of Ship Collisions with Reference to Nuclear Power Plants, Journal of Ship Research, 3(2): 1-4. Mizukami, M., Tanigawa, M.1995. FEM Analysis of VLCC Bottom Raking in Grounding, International Conference on Technologies for Marine Environment Preservation, Tokyo, Japan, 1: 86-90. Nagasawa, H., Arita, K., Tani, M. et al. 1977. A Study on the Collapse of Ship Structure in Collision with Bridge Piers, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan (Japanese), 142: 323-332. Okumoto, Y. 1986. A research on the structural strength of ships in grounding. (Japanese). Ohtsubo, H., Suzuki, K. 1995. The Crushing Mechanics of Bow Structure and Its Optimal Design against Head on Collision, The Sixth International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units. Vol. 2. Ed. Kim, H. and Lee, J.W. 2.1060-1071. Ohtsubo, H., Wang, G. 1995. An Upper-Bound Solution to the Problem of Plate Tearing, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 1: 46-51. Ohtsubo, H., et al. 1997. Structural Design against Collision and Grounding, 13th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress (ISSC97), Trondheim, Norway, 2: 83-116. Paik, J.K., Pedersen, P.T. 1994. Modelling of Internal Mechanics in Ship Collision. Paik, J.K., Lee, T.K. 1995. Damage and Residual Strength of Double Hull Tankers in Grounding, International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 5, 286-295. Paik, J.K., Wierzbicki, T. 1997. A Benchmark Study on Crushing and Cutting of Plated Structures. Journal of Ship Research, 41, 147-160. Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Yang, S.H. 1998. Residual Strength Assessment of Ships after Collision and Grounding. Marine Technology, 35:38-54. Paik, J.K., Chung, J.Y., Choe, I.H., Thayamballi, A.K., Pedersen, P.T., Wang, G. 1999. On the Rational Design of Double Hull Tanker Structures against Collision, SNAME Annual Meeting 1999, Baltimore, MD. Petersen, M.J., Pedersen, P. Terndrup 1981. Collision between Ships and Offshore Platforms, Offshore Technology Conference Houston, USA Paper OTC 4134. Pedersen, P.T, Valsgard, S., Olsen D., et al. 1993. Ship Impacts: Bow Collisions, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 13: 163-187. Pedersen, P.T. 1994. Ship Grounding and Hull-girder Strength, Marine Structures, 7:1-29. Pedersen, P.T., Zhang, S. 1998. On Impact Mechanics in Ship Collisions. Marine Structures, 11: 429-449 Pedersen, P.T., Zhang, S. 2000. Absorbed Energy in Ship Collisions and Grounding - Revising Minosky's Empirical Method, Journal of Ship Research. 44(2): 40-154. Pippenger, D., Sirkar, J., Little, P., Cojeen, P. 1996. A Design Performance Standard for Oil Tankers, International Conference on Design and Methodologies for Collision and Grounding Protection of Ships, San Francisco. Rawson, C., Crake, K., Brown, A. 1998. Assessing the Environmental Performance of Tankers in Accidental Grounding and Collision, Transactions SNAME. Reardon, P.C., Sprung, J. 1996. Validation of Minorskys Ship Collision Model and Use of the Model to Estimate the Probability of Damaging a Radioactive Material Transportation Cask during a Ship Collision, International

Conference on Design and Methodologies for Collision and Grounding Protection of Ships, San Francisco. Rodd, J., Phillips, M.P. 1994. Stranding Experiments on Double Hull Tanker Structures, The Advanced (unidirectional) Double-Hull Technical Symposium, Gaitherburg, Maryland, October 1994. Sajit, K.S. 1999. An Investigation into the External and Internal Mechanics of Ships Collision, Masters Degree Thesis, University of Tokyo, Tokyo. Samuelides, M. 1999. Prediction of Oil Outflow in Case of a Ship-Ship Collision Based on Energy Considerations. Journal of Ship Research, 3, 194-200. Simonsen, B.C., Pedersen, P.T. 1995. Analysis of Ship Groundings on Soft Sea Beds. The 6th Internal Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobil Units (PRADS95), Sept 1995, Seoul, 2:1096-1109. Simonsen BC. 1997. Ship Grounding on Rock: I & II, Marine Structures, 10: 519-584. Simonsen, B.C. 1997. Mechanics of Ship Grounding. Dr. thesis, Technical University of Denmark. Simonsen, B.C., Hansen, N.E.O. 1998. Protection of Marine Structures by Artificial Islands, Ship Collision Analysis, Gluver & Olsen (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam. Sirkar, J., Ameer, P., Brown, A., Goss, P., Michel, K., Nicastro, F., Willis, W. 1997. A Framework for Assessing the Environmental Performance of Tankers in Accidental Groundings and Collisions, Transactions SNAME. SNAME Ad Hoc Panel #6. www.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/crashworthines s. Sterndorff M.J., Pedersen P.T., 1996. Grounding Experiments on Soft Bottoms, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 1(3): 174-181 Suhara, T., Shimizu, S., Ando, S., et al. 1970. Strength of Huge Tanker in Collision, Journal of Society of Naval Architect of Japan (Japanese), 281-294. Suzuki, K., Ohtsubo, H., Sajit, K.S. 1999. Evaluation of Absorbed Energy in Collision of Ships The Effectiveness of Minorskys Formula in Anti-Collision Structure. Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 186, 311317. Suzuki K., Ohtsubo H. 2000. Ship Structure Symposium on Ship Structures for the New Millennium: Supporting Quality in Shipbuilding, Arlington, VA, 13-14 June. Tikka, K.K. 1998. Review and Improvement of the IMO Probabilistic Methodology for Evaluating Alternative Tanker Designs, Report to American Bureau of Shipping. Tikka, K., Chen, Y. 2000. Prediction of Structural Response in Grounding Application to Structural Design, Ship Structure Symposium on Ship Structures for the New Millennium: Supporting Quality in Shipbuilding, Arlington, VA., 13-14 June. Ueda, Y., Murakawa, H. 1995. Strength Estimation Method of Ship Structures subjected to Hard Bow Collision, Journal of the Society of Naval Architect of Japan (Japanese), 178. Urban, J. Pedersen, P.T., Simonsen, B.C. 1999. Collision Risk Analysis for HSC, FAST99, 181-194 Vredeveldt, A.W., Wevers, L.T. 1995. Full Scale Grounding Experiments, Conference on Prediction Methodology of Tanker Structural Failure & Consequential Oil Spill, Tokyo, June 1995. Wang, G., Ohtsubo, H., Liu, D. 1997. A Simple Method for Predicting the Grounding Strength of Ships, Journal of Ship Research, 41: 241-247.

Wang, G., Ohtsubo, H. 1997. Deformation of Ship Plate Subjected to Very Large Load, 16th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE'97), Yokohama, 2:173-180. Wang, G., Ohtsubo, H., Arita, K. 1998. Inner Dynamics of Side Collision to Bridge Piers. Ship Collision Analysis, Gluver & Olsen (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam. Wang, G., Ohtsubo, H., Arita, K. 1998. Large Deflection of a Rigid-Plastic Circular Plate Pressed by a Rigid Sphere, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 65: 533-535. Wang, G., Ohtsubo, H. 1999. Impact Load of a Supply Vessel. 9th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE99), Brest, 4:463-471. Wang, G., Arita, H., Liu, D. 2000a. Behavior of a Double Hull in a Variety of Stranding or Collision Scenarios, Marine Structures, 13: 147-187. Wang, G., Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Shin, Y. 2000b. Residual Strength of Damaged Ship Hull, Ship Structure Symposium on Ship Structures for the New Millennium: Supporting Quality in Shipbuilding, Arlington, VA, 13-14 June. Wang, G., Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Peng, H. 2001. Longitudinal Strength of Damaged Ships. Marine Structures. Wierzbicki, T., Peer, D.B., Raddy E., 1993. The Anatomy of Tanker Grounding, Marine Technology, 30: 71-78 Wierzbicki, T., Thomas P. 1993. Closed-form Solution for Wedge Cutting Force Through Thin Metal Sheets, International Journal of Mechanical Science, 35: 209-229. Wierzbicki, T. et al. 1992-1999. Reports, Joint MITIndustry Program on Tanker Safety. Woisin, G. 1979. Design against Collision. Proceeding of International Symposium on Advances in Marine technology, 2, Trondheim. Woisin, G. 1998. Analysis of the Collision between Rigid Bulb and Side Shell Panel, 7th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units (PRADS98), The Hague, The Netherlands, Sept 1998, 165-172. Woisin, G. 1999. Discussion on Kitamura. Marine Technology, 36, 228-229. Yang, P.D.C., Caldwell, J.B. 1988. Collision Energy Absorptin of Ships. Bow Structures. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 7(2). Yao, T., Nikolov, P.I. 1991. Progressive Collapse Analysis of a Ships Hull under Longitudinal Bending. Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 170, 449-461. Yu, X. 1996. Structural Analysis with Large Deformations until Fracture and with Dynamic Failure, Dr. Thesis (German), Hamburg University. Zhang, S. Yu, Q., Mu, Y. 1996. A Semi-Analytical Method of Assessing the Residual Longitudinal Strength of Damaged Ship Hull, ISOPE, VI, 510-516. Zhang, S. 1999. The Mechanics of Ship Collision, Dr. thesis, Technical University of Denmark. Zhu, L. 1990. Dynamic Inelastic Behavior of Ship Plates in Collision, Dr. thesis, University of Glasgow. Zhu, L., Atkins, A.G. 1998 Failure Criteria for Ship Collision and Grounding, 7th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units (PRADS98), The Hague, The Netherlands, Sept 1998, 141-148.