Nuclear

= .... ;I., 'L Engineeri.ng

ELSEVIER Nuclear Engineering and Design 150 (1994) 397 407
and Design

Calculation of the collision resistance of ships and its

assessment for classification purposes
M. B6ckenhauer, E.D. Egge
Hull and Research Division, Germanischer Lloyd AG, Postfach 11 16 06, 20416 Hamburg, Germany

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.

1. Introduction analyses to quantify the risk of spillage of haz-

The 1960s and 1970s saw a sharp increase in the
marine transport of hazardous goods (chemicals,
liquefied gases) as bulk cargo. In addition, ships
with nuclear propulsion such as the Otto Hahn
and the Savannah were built. These developments
have increasingly raised the question of the safety
of ships in a collision. Authorities faced with
the question of approving the bulk transport of
hazardous goods or opening up their ports to
ships with nuclear propulsion have requested risk
ardous materials or of radioactive emissions.
Germanischer Lloyd became involved in
these questions at an early stage. Reports of the
work carried out can be found in B6ckenhauer
(1979) and Greuner and B6ckenhauer (1980), for
example.
One major question was, for instance, what is
the impact speed ("critical speed") above which a
potential participant in a collision is liable to
breach the cargo tanks of a chemical or liquefied
gas carrier of specified design and size, resulting in

0029-5493/94/$07.00 © 1994 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved

SSDI 0029-5493(94)00755-N
398 M. BiJckenhauer, E.D. b~<,L,e / Nuclear EngineerhTg and De.si~,,n 150 (1994) 397 407
the spillage of cargo? The two IMO Codes for
these ships (IMO, 1983a,b) specify only that the
cargo tanks must be located at minimum dis-
tances from the side shell depending on how
dangerous the cargo is. These distances are 20%
of the ship's breadth with a maximum of 11.5 m
for the most hazardous cargo (Type 1), and
0.76 m for moderate or low hazard cargoes (Type
2 and Type 3). The distance of 20% of the ship's
breadth is derived from IMO damage statistics,
according to which some 50°/,, of all measured
major collisions had a penetration depth greater
than 20% of the ship's breadth. The empirically
determined distance of 0.76 m is intended only as
a protection against "minor side damage" such as
may occur during towing manoeuvres in port.
These minimum distances alone are not a suffi-
cient measure for the collision resistance of a ship.
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
which a minimum distance of 0.76 m is prescribed
between the tank and the side shell. However, the
actual distances in gas carriers as built vary be-
tween 0.76 and 4.0m, depending on the tank
system, the latter sometimes being protected only
by the side shell, sometimes by a double hull. It
follows that only calculations on actual vessels
can provide a true indication of the collision
resistance of a particular ship design.
2. Critical collision speed
The critical collision speed is defined as the
impact speed of the remaining ship above which a
critical situation such as cargo spillage is likely to
occur. Since the tank systems of liquefied gas
carriers vary considerably, the critical collision
speed was defined as the impact speed of the
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-
cific L N G tankers have been made. The critical
collision speed is described by the following for-
mulae for the event of rectangular central impact
according to the conservation of momentum the-
ory: for a free-floating ship,
~ , . ( m s ') = (/2 < , . m l + m f \ ) ~:2
,,,,-;;~ (I)
and for a ship lying at pier (without taking into
account the energy absorption by the lenders, i.e.
l~r(m s ') =(2Ecr/ml) 1'2 (2)
where ml (t) is the mass of the ramming ship
including an additional hydrodynamic mass equal
to 10% of the displacement, m2 (t) the mass of the
rammed ship including an additional hydrody-
namic mass of 40% of the displacement and
Ec,.(kJ ) the "critical energy".
The critical energy is the sum of the amounts
of energy absorbed by the structures of the two
colliding vessels at the penetration depth giving
rise to a critical situation.
3. Calculation by the modified Minorsky method
The Minorsky method was used for the calcula-
tion of the critical collision energy in the earlier
studies by Germanischer Lloyd on the critical
collision speed of ships. The energy absorbed in a
collision by the structures of the rammed and
ramming ships can be calculated according to
Minorsky (1959) by the following formula:
E(kJ) = (4.7R + 3.3) × 104 (3)
where R is a coefficient for the damaged steel
volume.
On the basis of the collision tests carried out in
Germany a Minorsky formula modified by
Woisin (1976, 1979) was used, where the constant
3.3 in the Minorsky formula was replaced by the
expression 0.049 £ ht z, where h (m) is the height
of rupture aperture in the side shell and t (cm) is
the side shell thickness.
4. Calculation by the ultimate load method
4.1. General
The empirical Minorsky method, particularly in
its modified form, gives satisfactory results for
 M. B6ckenhauer, E.D. Egge ] Nuclear Engineering and Design 150 (1994) 397 407
collisions with major penetrations as the method is
based on the evaluation of severe collisions. How-
ever, the method has its limitations for the analysis
of "low energy collisions" with minor penetra-
tions. This is specially true for single-hull ships
such as conventional oil tankers where the side
shell is also the tank wall. The use of the ultimate
load method seems appropriate here. In the 1970s,
various researchers (Kinkead, 1979; van Beck,
1976; Edinberg, 1981) started to determine the
collision energy absorption of L N G tanker struc-
tures using the ultimate load method. Within the
scope of a research project "Tanker Safety" spon-
sored by the Federal Ministry of Research and
Technology, Germanischer Lloyd elaborated a
program system for the determination of the
plastic deformation processes taking place in a
collision. This system is now solely applied when
assessing the collision resistance of ships.
4.2. Calculation method
A program system for the calculation of plastic
deformation energy was set up for ship-ship colli-
sion analysis. This program describes the "inter-
nal collision mechanics". The basis of this
program system is the substructure method. This
method is based on the principle that all areas of
the ramming and rammed ships affected by the
collision are divided into their structural compo-
nents, e.g. plates, panels, stringers, frames, shell,
and then the ultimate loads of these components
are calculated by ultimate load and buckling the-
ory. The program system consists of two parts: a
program for calculating the ultimate loads of the
bow structure of the ramming ship and a program
for calculating those of the side structure of the
rammed vessel.
In the bow structure program, the ultimate load
capacities of the bow structures of the ramming
ship are calculated for stepwise increased penetra-
tion depths as a function of their contact area
with the rammed ship.
These ultimate loads are placed in height seg-
ments according to their position, so that for each
penetration depth not only the total ultimate load
of the bow is known but also the load distribution
over the depth of the hull.
399
The program for the side of the rammed ship is
used to calculate the actual collision process in-
cluding the interaction of bow and side.
Once the ultimate load distribution over the
side has been finally established, the ultimate load
capacities of bow and side can be compared.
If the ultimate load capacity of the bow is
greater at a given height segment, the side of the
rammed ship is deformed to the extent of one
penetration step. If the ultimate load capacity of
the side is greater, then the bow of the ramming
ship is deformed. As the comparison is made for
each height segment, the penetration depths for
the bow and the side are determined over the
ship's depth.
In the final stage of the program, the minima of
the ultimate load capacities of the bow or side and
the corresponding penetration depths are used to
calculate the kinetic energy absorbed by plastic
deformation in a collision. The associated impact
speed can be calculated by formula (1) or (2)
from this energy quantity. Subprograms have
been set up for graphic presentation of the results.
Forces and energies over the penetration depth
can be shown as a function of the height as well as
the penetration of the bow into the side at various
times during the collision.
Fig. 1 takes the example of two colliding
141 000 tdw oil tankers with a penetration depth
corresponding to the critical speed and compares
the ultimate load of the components coming into
contact at the individual height segments on the
ramming and rammed ships. Only the minimum
of the two ultimate loads at bow or side is trans-
mitted.
The ultimate load distribution shows clearly
that bow and side have contact only in the areas
of the main deck and the bulbous bow.
Fig. 2 shows the penetrations of the bow and
side profiles as the critical speed is reached.
Dented areas are shown by broken lines. If the
outer shell is ruptured in a height segment, this is
marked with a " x " in the figure.
Because of its detailed consideration of individ-
ual structural components, the method is particu-
larly suitable for the analysis of low energy
collisions with minor damage. The method is
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

-- 20 J struck ship 2 .~L--- "low - energy" area

& , /
side 0 i i lid

2.10 5 6.t0 5 10.10 5 E [I~]

Fig. 3. Tanker tanker collision, comparison with the Mi-

4t000 ' ' 6~3' Pf . . . . (kN)
norsky method.

minima of the The substructure method was also used to

7
20 -_.J analyse high energy collisions. A comparison with
transmitted
E the Minorsky method, which is based on actual
forces collisions, shows a good level of agreement and so
proves indirectly that the method is also suitable
for the calculation of high energy collisions (cf.
i i , * ,

2OOO 4000 6000 force (kN) Fig. 3).

Fig. 1. Tanker tanker collision, distribution of ultimate loads.
4.3. Membrane behaviour of the shell

~ J

The membrane behaviour of the shell has been

investigated in more detail by a non-linear finite
element analysis using the program ADINA. The
intent of this investigation was to demonstrate
that the energy absorption evaluated by the non-
striking struck linear FE analysis does not differ substantially
ship ship from that value obtained on the basis of the
membrane model according to Fig. 4 used in the
collision program. The supports shown in Fig. 4
represent strong transverses or other strong struc-
tures such as bulkheads. If these structures start
to plastify, the model is automatically extended to
I I I
frame 120 130 140 the next supports.
Fig. 2. Tanker tanker collision, penetration of bow and side Fig. 5 shows the overall FE model. A central
at the critical speed. impact between two transverses simulated by a
uniformly distributed load has been investigated.
speeds just before rupture of the shell or tank The area indicated by cross hatching is the load
wall, i.e. just prior to the critical situation defined area. It can be concluded that, by means of the
in Section 2. simplified model, one obtains results of sufficient
 M. B6ckenhauer, E.D. Egge / Nuclear Engineering and Design 150 (1994) 397-407 401

stresses at the upper and lower boundaries (deck,

ILt bottom).
It can further be seen that the stresses are
considerably smaller in the middle of the adjacent
fields.

5. Assessment of the collision resistance for

f = max. deformation at 5% elongation classification purposes
max between supports

fmax = 2 ~ = O,16e
Fig. 4. Simplified membrane model of the shell.
accuracy, bearing in mind that normally the en-
ergy absorption of the shell relative to the total
energy absorption is small, that the final result is
rarely influenced by the simplification.
Fig. 6 shows the membrane stresses in the shell
at 0.4 m deformation in the centre of impact. It
can be seen that tensile stresses act in the centre of
impact which are compensated by compressive
5.1. General
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-
tance and to assign corresponding class notations.
The collision resistance of a ship is expressed by
the notation C O L L with an index number ranging
from 1 to 6. The index numbers indicate that for
the given strengthened side construction or double
hull compared with a non-strengthened ship or a
ship without double hull, a critical situation is
likely to occur if the deformation energy absorbed

./CL

tensile stress
compr,stress

i "'~ [
I ~.~e -~

Fig. 5. Overall FE model.

 402 M. B6ckenhauer. E.D. E}ge / Nuclear Engineering and Des(~n 150 (1994) 397 407

SYM TR TR
L -i~ :i: :!: --~_~I ~: "".>77 "i - -i- -
1

l
,,, '.. i !

, :,~,,'.,.,...:.~-.7~ 7: 77 .-
I T1

7
T1
case 4 case 3

' ."~'.~'~.~ ~ * * '* * !~ " t - ~ r a n g e of p r o b a b l e

~'.A ~i',- ~ ]~ " / draught combinations

__ -. - i:.. / 1 "1T ~ case,

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.
-

The characteristic ratio of the critical deforma-

bow shape 1 raking bow without bulb tion energies is
bow shape 2 raking bow with bulb C* = ½(C, + C2)
Ships with roughly the same displacement are where
to be selected for collision. The specified draughts
Ell E22
are selected so that the largest possible masses ~ - - , z - -
CI Eo 1 C2 Eo 2
collide with each other. Fig. 7 shows the specified
draught combinations for collision cases 1 to 4. E~ is the mean value of the deformation energies
At the intersection of identical draught differences for the specified four draft differentials for the
A T with the lines of the maximum draughts Tt .... strengthened ship and Eo~ is the mean value of the
 M. B6ckenhauer, E.D. Egge / Nuclear Engineering and Design 150 (1994) 397-407 403

Table 1 bow shape 2 bow shape 1

Minimum values for C* and V*r

COLL C*mi n Vc*rrain (knots)

notation

1 2 1.0
2 3 1.5
3 4 2.5
4 6 4.0
5 10 5.5
6 20 7.0

deformation energies for the specified four draft

differentials AT for the unstrengthened ship using
bow shape 1, and E22 and E02 are the respective
values for bow shape 2.
The characteristic critical speed value is deter-
mined analogously, i.e.
Fig. 8. Critical penetration depths for 6500 m 3 LPG carrier.
V*r(knots) = 1
~(Vcr I + Vcr2)
For the assignment of COLL notations the mini- "strengthened ship" (double-hull ship), bow of
mum values for C* and V*r shown in Table 1 are ramming ship penetrates to cargo tank wall. The
required in the rules. results are shown in Table 2.
If the actual V*r value satisfies the requirements In addition, the corresponding values were also
for the next higher COLL notation, consideration calculated for a 54 000 m 3 LPG tanker and a
may be given to rounding up the C* value, allow- 125 000 m 3 L N G tanker with spherical tanks.
ing the next higher COLL notation to be assigned. According to Chapter 1, Section 33, of the
Germanischer Lloyd Rules for Seagoing Ships
5.2. Characteristic collision resistance o f selected (Germanischer Lloyd, 1992), the characteristic
liquefied gas tankers
Table 2
Characteristic values for determination of class notation
The determination of characteristic collision re- COLL
sistance is now explained in more detail using the
example of a 6500 m 3 LPG tanker, since this ship Bow shape 1 Bow shape 2
may be regarded as representative of typical mul-
Mean critical deformation energies
tipurpose liquefied gas carriers for transporting
Eol = 6504 kJ Eo2 = 3123 kJ
LPG, ethylene, anhydrous ammonia and vinyl Ell = 17 575 kJ E22 = 9073 kJ
chloride ranging in size from approximately 5000 Mean critical speeds
to 10 000 m 3 cargo tank capacity. This ship, with Vcr01 = 2.9 knots Vcr02 = 1.9 knots
a length of 114 m and a displacement of 10 900 t, V c r l l = 4.7 knots Vcr22 = 2.9 knots
has independent cargo tanks of the pressure vessel Mean ratios of the critical deformation energies
type, where the minimum distance between cargo C1 = E~l/Eol C2 = E22/Eo2
tanks and side shell is 800 mm; see also Fig. 8. As C I = 2.7 C 2 = 2.9
liquefied gas carriers of this type are to be re- Characteristic ratio of the critical deformation energy
garded as "double-hull ships" in view of the segre- C* = 0.5(Cl + C2) = 2.8

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

The question of the energy absorption and the

1,0 AT/ ATmax (+)
tolerable penetration depth of cylindrical cargo
tanks up to the point of rupture remains largely
unexplored. Model tests carried out in the Nether-
lands on a full pressure tank with relatively thick
walls (IWECO, 1982) do not support any definite
conclusions regarding the behaviour of the rela-
tively thin-walled Type C cargo tanks in typical
E[kJ] L P G tankers. If it is assumed that the cargo tank
0,1 2.10 4 4.10 4 6.104 begins to rupture when the indentation has reached
I I i a I a about 1/10 of the tank diameter, then the mean
-0,1 critical speed is increased by some 25% as a result.
The correspondingly increased energy absorption is
due to the greater depth of penetration into the
ship's structure. The energy absorption of the tank
-0,5 itself has been disregarded as experience shows that
this is small compared with the energy absorption
of the ship's structures. A "critical" penetration
~ pe ngetr~atinoknto
depth into the cargo tank of approximately 1.3 m
was assumed for the 125 000m 3 L N G tanker in
-1,0
A T / A T m a x (_) accordance with Greuner and B6ckenhauer ( 1980),
resulting in an increase in the mean critical speed of
Fig. 9. Critical energy as a function of the draught difference
25-30% (cf. also Fig. 10). Fig. 11 shows the critical
AT for bow shape 2.
penetration depths for the 54 000 m 3 LPG tanker.

collision resistance of the ship is 2.8 times larger

than that of a "single-hull ship". The ship can
therefore be assigned the class notation COLL 2. ,3 m
Fig. 9 shows the critical energy curves over the
ratio AT/ATmax for bow shape 2 (bulbous bow).
It can be seen that for positive AT/ATma, ratios,
i.e. if the ramming ship is floating at a relatively
small draught and the rammed ship at a relatively
large draught, there are practically no differences
in the amounts of energy between "rupture of the
side shell" and "penetration depth to cargo tank".
In these cases the bulbous bow hits the ship at
its most sensitive point, where the cargo tank is ~D
closest to the side shell. In contrast, large differ- ii
ences are found for negative AT/ATmax ratios. In
these cases the bulbous bow of the ramming ship
"undercuts" the cargo tank and encounters large
areas of the bottom structure, resulting in a con-
siderable energy absorption. This illustrates firstly
the danger of a bulbous bow and secondly it
explains the relatively high ratios of the critical
I~ B = 47,2 m
energy quantities C2 and the relatively high mean
critical speeds VcrO2 and Vcr22. Fig. 10. Critical penetration depths for 125 000 m 3 LNG carrier.
 M. B6ckenhauer, E.D. Egge / Nuclear Engineering and Design 150 (1994) 397-407 405

The characteristic values for determining the

class notation COLL for various liquefied gas
tankers are summarized in Table 3.

5.3. Characteristic collision res&tance o f a

280 000 tdw oil tanker design

During the project phase of a new 280 000 tdw

T double hull oil tanker design of a consortium of
E
¢q
/ five leading European shipyards, known as "E3
II tanker" design, Germanischer Lloyd was en-
trusted to study the collision resistance of the
various designs.
The double-hull widths of these designs range
between 3.0-6.2 m, i.e. they are larger than the
minimum width of 2.0 m as required by the new
, B = 28.5 m - - IMO double-hull requirements.
Fig. 12 shows the principal configuration of the
Fig. 11. Critical penetration depth for 54 000 m 3 LPG carrier. tankers' cross section (final design). In Table 4 the

.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

Ship C* V*~ COLE notation

, i
6500 m 3 LPG tanker, 2.8 3.8 2 ,
J
!
I
type C tanks tanker k~i ' '
125 000 m 3 LNG tanker, 4.4 3.9 3
spherical type B tanks ,anKer IL
54 000 m 3 LPG tanker, 2.7 2.6 2
type A tanks
i _.Z
Table 4
Results of calculations for various 280 000 tdw oil tankers

Ship C* V~* COLE notation

i
!
Tanker with wing 10.7 3.4 3 t- I --ii
tank width of 6.2 m i
i
Tanker with wing 4.8 2.5 3 ....

tank width of 3.0 m

Tanker with wing tank 8.7 3.1 3
, i!
width of 4.0 m, three
horizontal stringers • !

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.

penetration up to inner hull

calculation results are s u m m a r i z e d . Fig. 13 shows rood ed des g ~
some b o w shapes a n d d r a u g h t c o m b i n a t i o n s be- 1 -

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

resistance c o n s i d e r a b l y , which can be seen f r o m 2.1o~ I L....... / Originaldesign ]

Fig. 14. It was therefore possible to assign the class
n o t a t i o n C O L L 3 to the final E3 t a n k e r design. l '
F u r t h e r studies have shown t h a t with the ar- O 10 20 30 40 50 60
r a n g e m e n t o f seven stringers the c o n d i t i o n s for penetration steps

the high class n o t a t i o n C O L L 4 can be fulfilled.
The investigations o f G e r m a n i s c h e r L l o y d were
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-
tion 13F o f A n n e x I o f the M A R P O L 73/78
C o n v e n t i o n ( I M O , 1992).
Fig. 15 shows the results o f collision resistance
calculations for oil t a n k e r s r a n g i n g f r o m 12 000
tdw to 280 000 t d w where the wing t a n k widths
Fig. 14. Comparison of energy absorbing capability of origi-
nal and modified designs.
have been systematically varied. This figure shows
the m e a n values o f s t a n d a r d i z e d functions o f de-
f o r m a t i o n energies a b s o r b e d in collisions, which
m e a n s that the calculation results o b t a i n e d for
different b o w shapes a n d draft c o m b i n a t i o n s are
presented in a dimensionless form.
 M. B6ckenhauer, E.D. Egge / Nuclear Engineering and Design 150 (1994) 397-407 407

2,0 B/15 B/5

I
I
I
1.8 I
I
I
1,6 I
I
I
1,4 I
I
I
1,2 I

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-
hull tankers with wing tank widths ranging nor-
mally between 5 and 7 per cent of the ship's
breadth have an energy absorbing capability of at
least 5 times that of a conventional single-hull
tanker.
6. Summary
Germanischer Lloyd has developed a calcula-
tion method and a corresponding computer pro-
gram by means of which the complex problems of
energy absorption due to deformations in a colli-
sion can be more accurately assessed than by the
empirical Minorsky method used hitherto. The
collision resistance of ships can be calculated us-
ing standardized collision cases, thereby permit-
ting appropriate ship classification.
References
A.W. van Beck, W. ten Cate, Collision Resistance of LNG
Tankers, TNO Report 11317/2, 1976.
M. B6ckenhauer, Some considerations on gas carrier safety,
Gastech 79 Conference, Houston, TX, 1979.
D.L. Edinberg, A Study of the Collision Resistance of the
LNG-Carrier "GASTOR", 1981.
Germanischer Lloyd, Rules for Classification and Construc-
tion, Ship Technology, Chapter 1, Section 33, 1992.
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
of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, Res. MSC 5(48),
1983a.
IMO, International Code for the Construction and Equipment
of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, Res. MSC
4(48), 1983b.
IMO, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil,
Annex I to MARPOL 73/78, 1992.
IWECO, Aanvaringsexperiment uitgevoerd op een schaal-
model van een gastank, Report 5072080/81-82-1, July 1982.
A.N. Kinkead, A Method for Analyzing Cargo Protection
Afforded by Ship Structures in Collision and its Application
to an LNG Carrier, Royal Institution of Naval Architects,
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
Schiffbautechnischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 70 (1976).
G. Woisin, Design against collision, International Symposium
on Advances in Marine Technology, Trondheim, 13-15 June
1979.