Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

328 vues

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Steel Connections
- Design of Structural Connections
- Curvature Ductility Factor of Rectangular Sections Reinforced Concrete Beams
- CE6306 Strength of Materials(SOM)
- Deformation (Engineering)
- Crosby Alloy Masterlink
- Structural Steel Design Bowles
- Matest_2014.pdf
- Characterization of Sustainable Bio-based Mortar for Concrete Repair
- Modelling the Effect of Climate Change Induced Soil Settling on Drinking Water Distribution Pipes
- DOEAL-SG-100_AppM_09-30-05_final
- A Comparative Study of Recron and Steel Fiber Reinforced
- Bridgestone Catalogue.pdf
- 2. Stress and Strain Axial Loading
- Stress vs Strain Curve_OVERVIEW
- 1-s2.0-S0142112316303723-main
- MM222 Lectures 2
- 0 AKN Pin Bearing and Pedestal Design Viaduct 1
- On the mechanics of braided composites in tension
- Hussien Alkasim

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 53

DNV-RP-C204

DESIGN AGAINST

ACCIDENTAL LOADS

NOVEMBER 2004

Since issued in print (November 2004), this booklet has been amended, latest in April 2005.

See the reference to “Amendments and Corrections” on the next page.

FOREWORD

DET NORSKE VERITAS (DNV) is an autonomous and independent foundation with the objectives of safeguarding life, prop-

erty and the environment, at sea and onshore. DNV undertakes classification, certification, and other verification and consultancy

services relating to quality of ships, offshore units and installations, and onshore industries worldwide, and carries out research

in relation to these functions.

DNV Offshore Codes consist of a three level hierarchy of documents:

— Offshore Service Specifications. Provide principles and procedures of DNV classification, certification, verification and con-

sultancy services.

— Offshore Standards. Provide technical provisions and acceptance criteria for general use by the offshore industry as well as

the technical basis for DNV offshore services.

— Recommended Practices. Provide proven technology and sound engineering practice as well as guidance for the higher level

Offshore Service Specifications and Offshore Standards.

DNV Offshore Codes are offered within the following areas:

A) Qualification, Quality and Safety Methodology

B) Materials Technology

C) Structures

D) Systems

E) Special Facilities

F) Pipelines and Risers

G) Asset Operation

H) Marine Operations

J) Wind Turbines

This document is valid until superseded by a new revision. Minor amendments and corrections will be published in a separate

document normally updated twice per year (April and October).

For a complete listing of the changes, see the “Amendments and Corrections” document located at:

http://webshop.dnv.com/global/, under category “Offshore Codes”.

The electronic web-versions of the DNV Offshore Codes will be regularly updated to include these amendments and corrections.

For subscription orders or information about subscription terms, please use distribution@dnv.com

Comprehensive information about DNV services, research and publications can be found at http://www.dnv.com, or can be obtained from DNV, Veritas-

veien 1, NO-1322 Høvik, Norway; Tel +47 67 57 99 00, Fax +47 67 57 99 11.

© Det Norske Veritas. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including pho-

tocopying and recording, without the prior written consent of Det Norske Veritas.

Printed in Norway

If any person suffers loss or damage which is proved to have been caused by any negligent act or omission of Det Norske Veritas, then Det Norske Veritas shall pay compensation to such person

for his proved direct loss or damage. However, the compensation shall not exceed an amount equal to ten times the fee charged for the service in question, provided that the maximum compen-

sation shall never exceed USD 2 million.

In this provision "Det Norske Veritas" shall mean the Foundation Det Norske Veritas as well as all its subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents and any other acting on behalf of Det

Norske Veritas.

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

Introduction – Page 3

This proposal deals with design to maintain the load-bearing — Design philosophy

function of the structures during accidental events. The overall

— Ship Collisions

goal of the design against accidental loads is to achieve a sys-

tem where the main safety functions of the installation are not — Dropped Objects

impaired. — Fire

— Explosions

The 'Design Accidental Loads' and associated performance

criteria are given in DNV-OS-A101. The 'Accidental loads' in — Unintended Flooding.

this standard are prescriptive loads. This Recommended Practice is applicable to all types of float-

This proposed recommended Practice may be used in cases ing and fixed offshore structures made of steel. The methods

where the 'Design Accidental Loads' are determined by a for- described are relevant for both sub- and topside structures. The

mal safety assessment (see DNV-OS-A101 Appendix C) , or document is limited to load-carrying structures, and does not

'Quantified Risk Assessment' (QRA). cover pressurised equipment.

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

Page 4 – Introduction

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 5

CONTENTS

1. GENERAL .............................................................. 7 4.4.1 Stiffened plates subjected to drill collar impact ............... 21

4.4.2 Stiffeners/girders .............................................................. 21

1.1 Introduction .............................................................7 4.4.3 Dropped object ................................................................. 21

1.2 Application ...............................................................7 4.5 Limits for energy dissipation ............................... 21

1.3 Objectives .................................................................7 4.5.1 Pipes on plated structures ................................................. 21

4.5.2 Blunt objects ..................................................................... 21

1.4 Normative references ..............................................7

1.4.1 DNV Offshore Standards (OS)........................................... 7 5. FIRE ...................................................................... 21

1.4.2 DNV Recommended Practices (RP)................................... 7

5.1 General................................................................... 21

1.5 Definitions ................................................................7

5.2 General calculation methods................................ 22

1.6 Symbols.....................................................................8

5.3 Material modelling................................................ 22

2. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY ....................................... 9 5.4 Equivalent imperfections...................................... 22

2.1 General .....................................................................9 5.5 Empirical correction factor.................................. 22

2.2 Safety format............................................................9 5.6 Local cross sectional buckling.............................. 22

2.3 Accidental loads .......................................................9 5.7 Ductility limits ....................................................... 22

2.4 Acceptance criteria..................................................9 5.7.1 General.............................................................................. 22

5.7.2 Beams in bending ............................................................. 23

2.5 Analysis considerations .........................................10 5.7.3 Beams in tension............................................................... 23

3. SHIP COLLISIONS............................................. 10 5.8 Capacity of connections ........................................ 23

3.1 General ...................................................................10 6. EXPLOSIONS ...................................................... 23

3.2 Design principles....................................................10 6.1 General................................................................... 23

3.3 Collision mechanics ...............................................11 6.2 Classification of response ..................................... 23

3.3.1 Strain energy dissipation................................................... 11

3.3.2 Reaction force to deck ...................................................... 11 6.3 Recommended analysis models for stiffened

panels...................................................................... 23

3.4 Dissipation of strain energy ..................................11

6.4 SDOF system analogy ........................................... 25

3.5 Ship collision forces ...............................................11

3.5.1 Recommended force-deformation relationships............... 11 6.5 Dynamic response charts for SDOF system ....... 26

3.5.2 Force contact area for strength design of large diameter

columns............................................................................. 13 6.6 MDOF analysis...................................................... 27

3.5.3 Energy dissipation is ship bow ......................................... 13 6.7 Classification of resistance properties ................ 27

3.6 Force-deformation relationships for denting of 6.7.1 Cross-sectional behaviour................................................. 27

tubular members ...................................................14 6.8 Idealisation of resistance curves .......................... 28

3.7 Force-deformation relationships for beams........14 6.9 Resistance curves and transformation factors

3.7.1 General.............................................................................. 14 for plates ................................................................ 28

3.7.2 Plastic force-deformation relationships including elastic, 6.9.1 Elastic - rigid plastic relationships.................................... 28

axial flexibility.................................................................. 14 6.9.2 Axial restraint ................................................................... 29

3.7.3 Support capacity smaller than plastic bending moment of 6.9.3 Tensile fracture of yield hinges ........................................ 29

the beam............................................................................ 16

3.7.4 Bending capacity of dented tubular members .................. 16 6.10 Resistance curves and transformation factors

3.8 Strength of connections.........................................17 for beams................................................................ 29

6.10.1 Beams with no- or full axial restraint ............................... 29

3.9 Strength of adjacent structure .............................17 6.10.2 Beams with partial end restraint. ...................................... 32

6.10.3 Beams with partial end restraint - support capacity

3.10 Ductility limits........................................................17 smaller than plastic bending moment of member............. 34

3.10.1 General.............................................................................. 17 6.10.4 Effective flange................................................................. 34

3.10.2 Local buckling ................................................................. 17 6.10.5 Strength of adjacent structure ........................................... 34

3.10.3 Tensile fracture ................................................................. 18 6.10.6 Strength of connections .................................................... 34

3.10.4 Tensile fracture in yield hinges......................................... 18 6.10.7 Ductility limits.................................................................. 34

3.11 Resistance of large diameter, stiffened columns.19

3.11.1 General.............................................................................. 19 7. REFERENCES..................................................... 35

3.11.2 Longitudinal stiffeners...................................................... 19

3.11.3 Ring stiffeners................................................................... 19 8. COMMENTARY ................................................. 35

3.11.4 Decks and bulkheads ........................................................ 19

9. EXAMPLES ......................................................... 43

3.12 Energy dissipation in floating production

vessels......................................................................19 9.1 Design against ship collisions ............................... 43

9.1.1 Jacket subjected to supply vessel impact.......................... 43

3.13 Global integrity during impact ............................19

9.2 Design against explosions ..................................... 44

4. DROPPED OBJECTS ......................................... 19 9.2.1 Geometry .......................................................................... 44

9.2.2 Calculation of dynamic response of plate: ....................... 44

4.1 General ...................................................................19 9.2.3 Calculation of dynamic response of stiffened plate.......... 44

4.2 Impact velocity.......................................................20 9.3 Resistance curves and transformation factors .. 44

4.3 Dissipation of strain energy ..................................21 9.3.1 Plates................................................................................. 44

9.3.2 Calculation of resistance curve for stiffened plate ........... 45

4.4 Resistance/energy dissipation ...............................21 9.3.3 Calculation of resistance curve for girder......................... 46

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 6 see note on front cover

9.4 Ductility limits ..................................................... 46 9.5.1 Geometry, material and loads ...........................................47

9.4.1 Plating ...............................................................................46 9.5.2 Cross sectional of properties for the girder.......................48

9.4.2 Stiffener: ...........................................................................46 9.5.3 Mass ..................................................................................51

9.4.3 Girder: ...............................................................................47 9.5.4 Natural period ...................................................................51

9.5.5 Ductility ratio ....................................................................52

9.5 Design against explosions - girder ....................... 47 9.5.6 Maximum blast pressure capacity.....................................52

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 7

Offshore Units

1.1 Introduction

1.4.2 DNV Recommended Practices (RP)

This Recommended Practice deals with design to maintain the

load-bearing function of the structures during accidental The latest revision of the following documents applies:

events. The overall goal of the design against accidental loads

is to achieve a system where the main safety functions of the DNV-RP-C201 Buckling Strength of Plated Structures

installation are not impaired. DNV-RP-C202 Buckling Strength of Shells

The Recommended Practice has been developed for general

world-wide application. Governmental legislation may include 1.5 Definitions

requirements in excess of the provisions of this Recommended Load-bearing structure: That part of the facility whose main

Practice depending on type, location and intended service of function is to transfer loads.

the unit/installation.

Accidental Event: An undesired incident or condition which, in

The Design Accidental Loads and associated performance cri- combination with other conditions (e.g.: weather conditions,

teria are given in DNV-OS-A101. The Accidental Loads in failure of safety barrier, etc.), determines the accidental

this standard are prescriptive loads. This Recommended Prac- effects.

tice may also be used in cases where the Design Accidental

Loads are determined by a formal safety assessment (see Accidental Effect: The result of an accidental event, expressed

DNV-OS-A101, Appendix C) or Quantified Risk Assessment in terms of heat flux, impact force and energy, acceleration,

(QRA). etc. which is the basis for the safety evaluations.

The following main subjects are covered: Design Accidental Event (DAE): An accidental event, which

results in effects that, the platform should be designed to sus-

— Design philosophy tain.

— Ship Collisions

Acceptance criteria: Functional requirements, which are con-

— Dropped Objects cerned with the platforms' resistance to accidental effects. This

— Fire should be in accordance with the authority's definition of

— Explosions. acceptable safety levels.

1.2 Application Active protection: Operational loads and mechanical equip-

ment which are brought into operation when an accident is

The Recommended Practice is applicable to all types of float- threatening or after the accident has occurred, in order to limit

ing and fixed offshore structures made of steel. The methods the probability of the accident and the effects thereof, respec-

described are relevant for both substructures and topside struc- tively. Some examples are safety valves, shut down systems,

tures. water drenching systems, working procedures, drills for cop-

The document is limited to load-carrying structures and does ing with accidents, etc.

not cover pressurised equipment. Passive protection: Protection against damage by means of

distance, location, strength and durability of structural ele-

1.3 Objectives ments, insulation, etc.

The objective with this Recommended Practice is to provide Event control: Implementation of measures for reducing the

recommendations for design of structures exposed to acciden- probability and consequence of accidental events, such as

tal events. changes and improvements in equipment, working procedures,

1.4 Normative references active protection devices, arrangement of the platform, person-

nel training, etc.

The following standards include requirements which, through

reference in the text constitute provisions of this Recom- Indirect design: Implementation of measures for improving

mended Practice. Latest issue of the references shall be used structural ductility and resistance without numerical calcula-

unless otherwise agreed. Other recognised standards may be tions and determination of specific accidental effects.

used provided it can be demonstrated that these meet or exceed Direct design: Determination of structural resistance, dimen-

the requirements of the standards referenced below. sions, etc. on basis of specific design accidental effects.

Any deviations, exceptions and modifications to the codes and Load: Any action causing load effect in the structure.

standards shall be documented and agreed between the sup-

plier, purchaser and verifier, as applicable. Characteristic load: Reference value of a load to be used in

determination of load effects when using the partial coefficient

1.4.1 DNV Offshore Standards (OS) method or the allowable stress method.

The latest revision of the following documents applies: Load effect: Effect of a single load or combination of loads on

the structure, such as stress, stress resultant (internal force and

DNV-OS-A101 Safety Principles and Arrangements moment), deformation, displacement, motion, etc.

DNV-OS-C101 Design of Offshore Steel Structures, Resistance: Capability of a structure or part of a structure to

General (LRFD Method) resist load effect.

DNV-OS-C102 Structural Design of Offshore Ships Characteristic resistance: The nominal capacity that may be

DNV-OS-C103 Structural Design of Column Stabilised used for determination of design resistance of a structure or

Units (LRFD) structural element. The characteristic value of resistance is to

DNV-OS-C104 Structural Design of Self-Elevating Units be based on a defined percentile of the test results.

(LRFD) Design life: The time period from commencement of construc-

DNV-OS-C105 Structural Design of TLPs (LRFD) tion until condemnation of the structure.

DNV-OS-C106 Structural Design of Deep Draught Limit state: A state where a criterion governing the load-carry-

Floating Units (LRFD) ing ability or use of the structure is reached.

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 8 see note on front cover

A Cross-sectional area cs Shear factor for vibration eigenperiod

Ae Effective area of stiffener and effective plate flange cQ Shear stiffness factor

As Area of stiffener cw Displacement factor for strain calculation

Ap Projected cross-sectional area d Smaller diameter of threaded end of drill collar

Aw Shear area of stiffener/girder dc Characteristic dimension for strain calculation

B Width of contact area Generalised load

f

CD Hydrodynamic drag coefficient fu Ultimate material tensile strength

D Diameter of circular sections, plate stiffness fy Characteristic yield strength

E Young's Modulus of elasticity, g Acceleration of gravity, 9.81 m/s2

(for steel 2.1⋅105 N/mm2) hw Web height for stiffener/girder

Ep Plastic modulus

i Radius of gyration

Ekin Kinetic energy

k Stiffness, characteristic stiffness, plate stiffness, factor

Es Strain energy

Generalised stiffness

F Lateral load, total load k

ke Equivalent stiffness

G Shear modulus

kl Bending stiffness in linear domain for beam

H Non-dimensional plastic stiffness

k '

1 Stiffness in linear domain including shear deformation

I Moment of inertia, impulse kQ Shear stiffness in linear domain for beam

J Mass moment of inertia Temperature reduction of effective yield stress for

k y,θ

Kl Load transformation factor maximum temperature in connection

Km Mass transformation factor l Plate length, beam length

Klm Load-mass transformation factor m Distributed mass

L Girder length ms Ship mass

M Total mass, cross-sectional moment mi Installation mass

MP Plastic bending moment resistance meq Equivalent mass

NP Plastic axial resistance m Generalised mass

Sd Design load effect p Explosion pressure

T Fundamental period of vibration r Radius of deformed area, resistance

N Axial force rc Plastic collapse resistance in bending for plate

NSd Design axial compressive force rg Radius of gyration

NRd Design axial compressive capacity s Distance, stiffener spacing

NP Axial resistance of cross section sc Characteristic distance

R Resistance se Effective width of plate

RD Design resistance t Thickness, time

R0 Plastic collapse resistance in bending td Duration of explosion

V Volume, displacement tf Flange thickness

WP Plastic section modulus tw Web thickness

W Elastic section modulus vs Velocity of ship

a Added mass vi Velocity of installation

as Added mass for ship vt Terminal velocity

ai Added mass for installation w Deformation, displacement

b Width of collision contact zone wc Characteristic deformation

bf Flange width wd dent depth

c Factor w Non-dimensional deformation

cf Axial flexibility factor x Axial coordinate

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 9

yel Generalised displacement at elastic limit The requirements to structures exposed for accidental loads are

given in DNV-OS-C101 Section 7.

z Distance from pivot point to collision point

The structure should be checked in two steps:

zplast Smaller distance from flange to plastic neutral axis

— First the structure will be checked for the loads to which it

α Plate aspect parameter is exposed due to the accidental event

β Cross-sectional slenderness factor — Secondly in case the structural capacity towards ordinary

loads is reduced as a result of the accident then the strength

ε Yield strength factor, strain of the structure is to be rechecked for ordinary loads.

εcr Critical strain for rupture

The structure should be checked for all relevant limit states.

εy Yield strain The limit states for accidental loads are denoted Accidental

η Plate eigenperiod parameter Limit States (ALS). The requirement may be written as

μ Ductility ratio where:

ν Poisson's ratio, 0.3

θ Angle Sd = Sk γ f Design load effect

ρ Density of steel, 7860 kg/m3

Rk

ρw Density of sea water, 1025 kg/m3 Rd = Design resistance

γM

τ Shear stress Sk = Characteristic load effect

τcr Critical shear stress for plate plugging γf = partial factor for loads

R = Characteristic resistance

ξ Interpolation factor

γM = Material factor

ψ Plate stiffness parameter

For check of Accidental limit states (ALS) the load and mate-

rial factor should be taken as 1.0.

2. Design Philosophy The failure criterion needs to be seen in conjunction with the

assumptions made in the safety evaluations.

2.1 General The limit states may need to be alternatively formulated to be

The overall goal for the design of the structure against acciden- on the form of energy formulation, as acceptable deformation,

tal loads is to prevent an incident to develop into an accident or as usual on force or moment.

disproportional to the original cause. This means that the main

safety functions should not be impaired by failure in the struc- 2.3 Accidental loads

ture due to the design accidental loads. With the main safety The accidental loads are either prescriptive values or defined

functions is understood: in a Formal Safety Assessment. Prescriptive values may be

given by authorities, the owner or found in DNV Offshore

— usability of escapeways, Standard DNV-OS-A101.

— integrity of shelter areas, Usually the simplification that accidental loads need not to be

— global load bearing capacity combined with environmental loads is valid.

In this section the design procedure that is intended to fulfil For check of the residual strength in cases where the accident

this goal is presented. lead to reduced load carrying capacity in the structure the

check should be made with the characteristic environmental

The design against accidental loads may be done by direct cal- loads determined as the most probable annual maximum value.

culation of the effects imposed on the structure, or indirectly,

by design of the structure as tolerable to accidents. Examples 2.4 Acceptance criteria

of the latter are compartmentation of floating units which pro-

vides sufficient integrity to survive certain collision scenarios Examples of failure criteria are:

without further calculations.

— Critical deformation criteria defined by integrity of pas-

The inherent uncertainty of the frequency and magnitude of the sive fire protection. To be considered for walls resisting

accidental loads, as well as the approximate nature of the meth- explosion pressure and shall serve as fire barrier after the

ods for determination of accidental load effects, shall be recog- explosion.

nised. It is therefore essential to apply sound engineering — Critical deflection for structures to avoid damage to proc-

judgement and pragmatic evaluations in the design. ess equipment (Riser, gas pipe, etc). To be considered for

structures or part of structures exposed to impact loads as

Typical accidental events are: ship collision, dropped object etc.

— Ship collision — Critical deformation to avoid leakage of compartments. To

be considered in case of impact against floating structures

— Dropped objects where the acceptable collision damage is defined by the

— Fire minimum number of undamaged compartments to remain

— Explosion stable.

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 10 see note on front cover

2.5 Analysis considerations for the installation and the ship, where the deformations in the

installation shall comply with ductility and stability require-

The mechanical response to accidental loads is generally con- ments.

cerned with energy dissipation, involving large deformations

and strains far beyond the elastic range. Hence, load effects The load bearing function of the installation shall remain intact

(stresses forces, moments etc.) obtained from elastic analysis with the damages imposed by the ship collision load. In addi-

and used in ultimate limit state (ULS) checks on component tion, damaged condition should be checked if relevant, see

level are generally not applicable, and plastic methods of anal- Section 2.2.

ysis should be used. The structural effects from ship collision may either be deter-

Plastic analysis is most conveniently based upon the kinemat- mined by non-linear dynamic finite element analyses or by

ical approach, taking into account the effect of the strengthen- energy considerations combined with simple elastic-plastic

ing (membrane tension) or softening (compression) caused by methods.

finite deformations, where applicable. If non-linear dynamic finite element analysis is applied all

The requirements in this RP are generally derived from plastic effects described in the following paragraphs shall either be

methods of analysis, including the effect of finite deforma- implicitly covered by the modelling adopted or subjected to

tions. special considerations, whenever relevant.

Plastic methods of analysis are valid for materials that can Often the integrity of the installation can be verified by means

undergo considerable straining and during this process exhibit of simple calculation models.

considerable strain hardening. If the material is ductile as such, If simple calculation models are used the part of the collision

i.e. it can be strained significantly, but has little strain harden- energy that needs to be dissipated as strain energy can be cal-

ing, the member tends to behave brittle in a global sense (i.e. culated by means of the principles of conservation of momen-

with respect to energy dissipation), and plastic methods should tum and conservation of energy, refer Section 3.3.

be used with great caution.

It is convenient to consider the strain energy dissipation in the

A further condition for application of plastic methods to mem- installation to take part on three different levels:

bers undergoing large, plastic rotations is compact cross-sec-

tions; typically type I cross-sections (refer DNV-OS-C101, — local cross-section

Table A1). The methods may also be utilised for type II sec- — component/sub-structure

tions provided that the detrimental effect of local buckling is — total system

taken into account. Note that for members subjected to signif-

icant tensile straining, the tendency for local buckling may be Interaction between the three levels of energy dissipation shall

overridden by membrane tension for large deformations. be considered.

The straining, and hence the amount of energy dissipation, is Plastic modes of energy dissipation shall be considered for

limited by fracture. This key parameter is associated with con- cross-sections and component/substructures in direct contact

siderable uncertainty, with respect to both physical occurrence with the ship. Elastic strain energy can in most cases be disre-

as well as modelling in theoretical analysis. If good and vali- garded, but elastic axial flexibility may have a substantial

dated models for prediction of fracture are not available, safe effect on the load-deformation relationships for components/

and conservative assumptions for ductility limits should be sub-structures. Elastic energy may contribute significantly on

adopted. a global level.

If non-linear, dynamic finite elements analysis is applied, it 3.2 Design principles

shall be verified that all behavioural effects and local failure

modes (e.g. strain rate, local buckling, joint overloading, and With respect to the distribution of strain energy dissipation

joint fracture) are accounted for implicitly by the modelling there may be distinguished between, see Figure 3-1:

adopted, or else subjected to explicit evaluation.

— strength design

— ductility design

— shared-energy design

3. Ship Collisions

3.1 General Ductile Shared-energy Strength

Energy dissipation

The requirements and methods given in this section have his- design design design

torically been developed for jackets. They are generally valid

also for jack-up type platforms, provided that the increased ship

importance of global inertia effects are accounted for. Column-

stabilised platforms and floating production and storage ves-

sels (FPSOs) consist typically plane or curved, stiffened pan- installation

els, for which methods for assessment of energy dissipation in

braced platforms (jackets and jack-ups) sometimes are not rel-

evant. Procedures especially dedicated to assessment of energy Relative strength - installation/ship

dissipation in stiffened plating are, however, also given based

on equivalent beam-column models. Figure 3-1

The ship collision load is characterised by a kinetic energy, Energy dissipation for strength, ductile and shared-energy design

governed by the mass of the ship, including hydrodynamic

added mass and the speed of the ship at the instant of impact.

Depending upon the impact conditions, a part of the kinetic Strength design implies that the installation is strong enough to

energy may remain as kinetic energy after the impact. The resist the collision force with minor deformation, so that the

remainder of the kinetic energy has to be dissipated as strain ship is forced to deform and dissipate the major part of the

energy in the installation and, possibly, in the vessel. Generally energy.

this involves large plastic strains and significant structural Ductility design implies that the installation undergoes large,

damage to the installation, the ship or both. The strain energy plastic deformations and dissipates the major part of the colli-

dissipation is estimated from force-deformation relationships sion energy.

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 11

ship contribute significantly to the energy dissipation. Collision response Model

From calculation point of view strength design or ductility

design is favourable. In this case the response of the «soft»

structure can be calculated on the basis of simple considera-

tions of the geometry of the «rigid» structure. In shared energy

design both the magnitude and distribution of the collision

force depends upon the deformation of both structures. This

interaction makes the analysis more complex.

In most cases ductility or shared energy design is used. How-

ever, strength design may in some cases be achievable with lit-

tle increase in steel weight.

Figure 3-2

3.3 Collision mechanics Model for assessment of reaction force to deck

3.4 Dissipation of strain energy

The collision energy to be dissipated as strain energy may -

depending on the type of installation and the purpose of the The structural response of the ship and installation can for-

analysis - be taken as: mally be represented as load-deformation relationships as

illustrated in Figure 3-3. The strain energy dissipated by the

Compliant installations ship and installation equals the total area under the load-defor-

mation curves.

2

⎛ vi ⎞

⎜1 − ⎟

1 ⎜ v ⎟

2 ⎝ s ⎠ (3.1) Rs Ri

E s = (ms + a s )vs

2 ms + a s

1+

mi + a i

Fixed installations

Es,s Es,i

1 2

E s = (m s + a s )v s (3.2)

2

Articulated columns dws Ship Installation dwi

2

⎛ v ⎞ Figure 3-3

⎜1 − i ⎟

⎜ v s ⎟⎠ Dissipation of strain energy in ship and platform

1 ⎝

E s = (m s + a s ) (3.3)

2 m z2

1+ s

J w s, max w i, max

E s = E s,s + E s,i = ∫ R s dw s + ∫ R i dw i (3.4)

0 0

ms = ship mass

as = ship added mass

vs = impact speed As the load level is not known a priori an incremental proce-

mi = mass of installation dure is generally needed.

ai = added mass of installation The load-deformation relationships for the ship and the instal-

vi = velocity of installation lation are often established independently of each other assum-

J = mass moment of inertia of installation (including ing the other object infinitely rigid. This method may have,

added mass) with respect to effective pivot point however, severe limitations; both structures will dissipate

z = distance from pivot point to point of contact some energy regardless of the relative strength.

In most cases the velocity of the installation can be disre- Often the stronger of the ship and platform will experience less

garded, i.e. vi = 0. damage and the softer more damage than what is predicted

The installation can be assumed compliant if the duration of with the approach described above. As the softer structure

impact is small compared to the fundamental period of vibra- deforms the impact force is distributed over a larger contact

tion of the installation. If the duration of impact is compara- area. Accordingly, the resistance of the strong structure

tively long, the installation can be assumed fixed. increases. This may be interpreted as an "upward" shift of the

resistance curve for the stronger structure (refer Figure 3-3 ).

Floating platforms (semi-submersibles, TLP’s, production

vessels) can normally be considered as compliant. Jack-ups Care should be exercised that the load-deformation curves cal-

may be classified as fixed or compliant. Jacket structures can culated are representative for the true, interactive nature of the

normally be considered as fixed. contact between the two structures.

In the acceleration phase the inertia of the topside structure 3.5.1 Recommended force-deformation relationships

generates large reaction forces. An upper bound of the maxi-

mum force between the collision zone and the deck for bottom Force-deformation relationships for supply vessels with a dis-

supported installations may be obtained by considering the placement of 5000 tons are given in Figure 3-4 for broad side

platform compliant for the assessment of total strain energy -, bow-, stern end and stern corner impact for a vessel with

dissipation and assume the platform fixed at deck level when stern roller.

the collision response is evaluated. The curves for broad side and stern end impacts are based upon

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 12 see note on front cover

penetration of an infinitely rigid, vertical cylinder with a given collision events, e.g. impact against tubular braces.

diameter and may be used for impacts against jacket legs (D =

1.5 m) and large diameter columns (D = 10 m). For beam -, stern end – and stern corner impacts against jacket

braces all energy shall normally be assumed dissipated by the

The curve for stern corner impact is based upon penetration of brace, refer Ch.8, Comm. 3.5.2.

an infinitely rigid cylinder and may be used for large diameter

column impacts. For bow impacts against jacket braces, reference is made to

Section 3.5.3.

In lieu of more accurate calculations the curves in Figure 3-4

may be used for square-rounded columns. For supply vessels and merchant vessels in the range of 2-

5000 tons displacement, the force deformation relationships

The curve for bow impact is based upon collision with an infi-

given in Figure 3-5 may be used for impacts against jacket legs

nitely rigid, plane wall and may be used for large diameter col-

umn impacts, but should not be used for significantly different with diameter 1.5 m – 2.5 m.

50

Broad side D

D = 10 m

40

= 1.5 m

Impact force (MN)

30

Stern end D

20 Stern corner

D = 10 m

= 1.5 m

10

Bow

Bo

0

0 1 2 3 4

Indentation (m)

Figure 3-4

Recommended-deformation curve for beam, bow and stern impact

80 40

Design

curve - plane wall

60 30

Energy

Energy [MJ]

Force [MN]

40 20

20 10

no bulb

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deformation [m]

Figure 3-5

Force -deformation relationship for bow with and without bulb (2-5.000 dwt)

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 13

70 12 given in Figure 3-6 for the bulbous part and the superstructure,

Bulb force respectively, and for the bulb of a VLCC in Figure 3-7. The

60 10

curves may be used provided that the impacted structure (e.g.

50 stern of floating production vessels) does not undergo substan-

Force [MN]

8

40

b tial deformation i.e. strength design requirements are complied

6 with. If this condition is not met interaction between the bow

30

a and the impacted structure shall be taken into consideration.

20

4 Non-linear finite element methods or simplified plastic analy-

b sis techniques of members subjected to axial crushing shall be

10 2

employed, see Ch.7 /3/, /4/.

a

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

3.5.2 Force contact area for strength design of large diam-

eter columns.

Deformation [m]

The basis for the curves in Figure 3-4 is strength design, i.e.

limited local deformations of the installation at the point of

70 18 contact. In addition to resisting the total collision force, large

16 diameter columns have to resist local concentrations (subsets)

Contact dimension [m]

60

14 of the collision force, given for stern corner impact in Table 3-

50 1 and stern end impact in Table 3-2.

a

Force [MN]

12

40 10

30 8

b Table 3-1 Local concentrated collision force -evenly distributed

6

20 over a rectangular area. Stern corner impact

b 4

Contact area Force (MN)

10 Force 2

superstructure a

a (m) b (m) b

0 0 0.35 0.65 3.0

0 1 2 3 4 5

0.35 1.65 6.4 a

Deformation [m] 0.20 1.15 5.4

Figure 3-6 Table 3-2 Local concentrated collision force -evenly distributed

Force -deformation relationship for tanker bow impact over a rectangular area. Stern end impact

(~ 125.000 dwt) Contact area Force (MN)

a (m) b (m)

b

0.6 0.3 5.6

0.9 0.5 7.5 a

160 800

140 700 2.0 1.1 10

Force

120 600

Energy If strength design is not aimed for - and in lieu of more accurate

Energy [MJ]

Force [MN]

100 500 assessment (e.g. nonlinear finite element analysis) - all strain

80 400 energy has to be assumed dissipated by the column, corre-

60 300

sponding to indentation by an infinitely rigid stern corner.

40 200 3.5.3 Energy dissipation is ship bow

20 100

For typical supply vessels bows and bows of merchant vessels

0 0

of similar size (i.e. 2-5000 tons displacement), energy dissipa-

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 tion in ship bow may be taken into account provided that the

Deformation [m]

collapse resistance in bending for the brace, R0, see Section 3.7

is according to the values given in Table 3-3. The figures are

valid for normal bows without ice strengthening and for brace

12 diameters < 1.25 m. The values should be used as step func-

tions, i.e. interpolation for intermediate resistance levels is not

10 allowed. If contact location is not governed by operation con-

Contact dimensions [m]

a ditions, size of ship and platform etc., the values for arbitrary

8 contact location shall be used. (see also Ch.8, Comm. 3.5.3).

b

6 Table 3-3 Energy dissipation in bow versus brace resistance

Energy dissipation in bow

4 Contact location if brace resistance R0

b

> 3 MN > 6 MN > 8 MN > 10 MN

2 Above bulb 1 MJ 4 MJ 7 MJ 11 MJ

a

First deck 0 MJ 2 MJ 4 MJ 17 MJ

0

First deck - oblique brace 0 MJ 2 MJ 4 MJ 17 MJ

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Deformation [m] Between forcastle/first 1 MJ 5 MJ 10 MJ 15 MJ

deck

Figure 3-7 Arbitrary location 0 MJ 2 MJ 4 MJ 11 MJ

Force -deformation relationship and contact area for the bulbous

bow of a VLCC (~ 340.000 dwt) In addition, the brace cross-section must satisfy the following

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 14 see note on front cover

compactness requirement The curves are inaccurate for small indentation, and they

should not be used to verify a design where the dent damage is

2 required to be less than wd / D > 0.05.

f y t 1.5 D 0.5 ≥ ⋅ factor (3.5)

3 The width of contact area is in theory equal to the height of the

vertical, plane section of the ship side that is assumed to be in

where factor is the required resistance in [MN] given in Table contact with the tubular member. For large widths, and

3-3. depending on the relative rigidity of the cross-section and the

See Section 3.6 for notation. ship side, it may be unrealistic to assume that the tube is sub-

jected to flattening over the entire contact area. In lieu of more

If the brace is designed to comply with these provisions, spe- accurate calculations it is proposed that the width of contact

cial care should be exercised that the joints and adjacent struc- area be taken equal to the diameter of the hit cross-section (i.e.

ture is strong enough to support the reactions from the brace. B/D = 1).

3.6 Force-deformation relationships for denting of 3.7 Force-deformation relationships for beams

tubular members

The contribution from local denting to energy dissipation is 3.7.1 General

small for brace members in typical jackets and should be The response of a beam subjected to a collision load is initially

neglected. governed by bending, which is affected by and interacts with

local denting under the load. The bending capacity is also

The resistance to indentation of unstiffened tubes may be taken reduced if local buckling takes place on the compression side.

from Figure 3-8. Alternatively, the resistance may be calcu- As the beam undergoes finite deformations, the load carrying

lated from Equation (3.6): capacity may increase considerably due to the development of

membrane tension forces. This depends upon the ability of

20

adjacent structure to restrain the connections at the member

18 ends to inward displacements. Provided that the connections

16 do not fail, the energy dissipation capacity is either limited by

14 b/D = 2 tension failure of the member or rupture of the connection.

1

Simple plastic methods of analysis are generally applicable.

R/(kRc)

12

0.5

10 Special considerations shall be given to the effect of:

0

8

— elastic flexibility of member/adjacent structure,

6

— local deformation of cross-section,

4 — local buckling,

2 — strength of connections,

0 — strength of adjacent structure, and

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 — fracture.

wd/D 3.7.2 Plastic force-deformation relationships including

elastic, axial flexibility

Figure 3-8 Relatively small axial displacements have a significant influ-

Resistance curve for local denting

ence on the development of tensile forces in members under-

going large lateral deformations. An equivalent elastic, axial

stiffness may be defined as

c2

R ⎛w ⎞

= kc1 ⎜⎜ d ⎟⎟ 1 1 l

Rc ⎝ D ⎠ = + (3.7)

k k node 2EA

D t2

Rc = fy

t 4 knode = axial stiffness of the node with the considered mem-

B ber removed. This may be determined by introduc-

c1 = 22 + 1.2 ing unit loads in member axis direction at the end

D nodes with the member removed.

1.925 Plastic force-deformation relationship for a central collision

c2 =

B (3.6) (midway between nodes) may be obtained from:

3.5 +

D

— Figure 3-9 for tubular members

N Sd — Figure 3-10 for stiffened plates in lieu of more accurate

k = 1.0 ≤ 0.2

N Rd analysis.

⎛N ⎞ N Sd The following notation applies:

k = 1.0 − 2⎜⎜ Sd − 0.2 ⎟⎟ 0.2 < < 0.6

⎝ N Rd ⎠ N Rd

4c1M P plastic collapse resistance in bending for

N Sd R0 = the member, for the case that contact point

k=0 0.6 ≤ l

N Rd is at midspan

w

w= non-dimensional deformation

c1 wc

NSd = design axial compressive force 2

4c 1 kw c

NRd = design axial compressive resistance c= non-dimensional spring stiffness

B = width of contactarea f y Al

wd = dent depth c1 = 2 for clamped beams

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 15

lated from the curves for pinned ends and clamped ends:

D characteristic deformation for tubular

wc =

2 beams R = ζR clamped + (1 − ζ) R pinned (3.8)

wc = plating

A actual

WP = plastic section modulus R0

0≤ξ= −1 ≤ 1

= member length MP (3.9)

l 4

l

For non-central collisions the force-deformation relationship

may be taken as the mean value of the force-deformation

= Plastic

actual resistance by bending action of beam account-

curves for central collision with member half length equal to R0 ing for actual bending resistance of adjacent members

the smaller and the larger portion of the member length,

respectively.

4M P + 2M P1 + 2M P2

For members where the plastic moment capacity of adjacent R0 actual

= (3.10)

members is smaller than the moment capacity of the impacted l

member the force-deformation relationship may be interpo-

lated from the curves for pinned ends and clamped ends:

M Pj = ∑ M Pj,i ≤ M P (3.11)

i

For non-central collisions the force-deformation relationship

may be taken as the mean value of the force-deformation i = adjacent member no i

curves for central collision with member half length equal to j = end number {1,2}

the smaller and the larger portion of the member length, MPj,i = Plastic bending resistance for member number i at

respectively. end j.

For members where the plastic moment capacity of adjacent Elastic, rotational flexibility of the node is normally of moder-

members is smaller than the moment capacity of the impacted ate significance.

6,5

6

5,5

5

4,5 Bending & membrane

0.2 Membrane only

4

0,3 0.1 F (collision load)

3,5

R/R0

0.5

3

1 k k

c =∞

2,5

0.05 w

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4

Deformation w

Figure 3-9

Force-deformation relationship for tubular beam with axial flexibility

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 16 see note on front cover

4,5

3,5

Membrane only

3

F (collision load)

0.1

R/R0

2,5

0.2

c =∞

2 0.5 k k

1,5 1 w

1 0

0,5

0

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4

Deformation w

Figure 3-10

Force-deformation relationship for stiffened plate with axial flexibility

moment of the beam j = end number {1,2}

MPj,i= Plastic bending resistance for member no. i

For beams where the plastic moment capacity of adjacent wlim = limiting non-dimensional deformation where the

members is smaller than the moment capacity of the impacted membrane force attains yield, i.e. the resistance curve,

beam, the force-deformation relationship, R*, may be derived R, with actual spring stiffness coefficient, c, intersects

from the resistance curve, R, for beams where the plastic

moment capacity of adjacent members is larger than the with the curve for c = ∞. If c = ∞, w lim = π w for

moment capacity of the impacted beam (Section 3.7.2), using 2

tubular beams and wlim = 1.2 w for stiffened plate

the expression:

3.7.4 Bending capacity of dented tubular members

w

R = R + (R 0 − R )

* * w

, ≤ 1 .0 The reduction in plastic moment capacity due to local denting

0

w lim w lim shall be considered for members in compression or moderate

(3.12) tension, but can be neglected for members entering the fully

plastic membrane state.

w

R* = R ≥ 1.0 Conservatively, the flat part of the dented section according to

w lim the model shown in Figure 3-11 may be assumed non-effec-

tive. This gives:

where

M red θ 1

R0 = Plastic bending resistance with clamped ends (c1 = 2) = cos − sinθ (3.15)

MP 2 2

– moment capacity of adjacent members larger than

*

the plastic bending moment of the beam M P = f y D2 t

R 0 = Plastic bending resistance - moment capacity of adja-

⎛ 2w d ⎞

cent members at one or both ends smaller than the plas- θ = arccos⎜1 − ⎟

tic bending moment of the beam ⎝ D ⎠

wd = dent depth as defined in Figure 3-11.

4M P + 2M P1 + 2M P2

R *0 = (3.13)

l

M Pj = ∑ M Pj,i ≤ M P (3.14)

i

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 17

1 rotation and membrane elongation exceeds a critical value.

To ensure that members with small axial restraint maintain

0,8 wd moment capacity during significant plastic rotation it is recom-

mended that cross-sections be proportioned to section type I

D requirements, defined in DNV-OS-C101.

0,6 Initiation of local buckling does, however, not necessarily

Mred/MP

exhausted, particularly for type I and type II cross-sections.

0,4 The degradation of the cross-sectional resistance in the post-

buckling range may be taken into account provided that such

information is available, refer Ch.8, Comm. 3.10.1.

0,2

For members undergoing membrane stretching a lower bound

to the post-buckling load-carrying capacity may be obtained

0 by using the load-deformation curve for pure membrane

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 action.

wd/D 3.10.2 Local buckling

Tubular cross-sections:

Figure 3-11

Reduction of moment capacity due to local dent Buckling does not need to be considered for a beam with axial

restraints if the following condition is fulfilled:

1

3.8 Strength of connections ⎛ 14c f f y 2

⎞3

⎛ κl ⎞

Provided that large plastic strains can develop in the impacted β≤⎜ ⎜ ⎟

⎜d ⎟

⎟ (3.16)

⎜ c1 ⎟

member, the strength of the connections that the member ⎝ ⎝ c⎠ ⎠

frames into should be checked.

where

The resistance of connections should be taken from ULS

requirements in relevant standards. Dt

β= (3.17)

For braces reaching the fully plastic tension state, the connec- 235 f y

tion shall be checked for a load equal to the axial capacity of

the member. The design axial stress shall be assumed equal to axial flexibility factor

the ultimate tensile strength of the material. 2

⎛ c ⎞⎟

If the axial force in a tension member becomes equal to the cf = ⎜ (3.18)

axial capacity of the connection, the connection has to undergo ⎜1 + c ⎟

⎝ ⎠

gross deformations. The energy dissipation will be limited and

rupture should be considered at a given deformation. A safe dc = characteristic dimension

approach is to assume failure (disconnection of the member) = D for circular cross-sections

once the axial force in the member reaches the axial capacity c1 = 2 for clamped ends

of the connection. = 1 for pinned ends

If the capacity of the connection is exceeded in compression c = non-dimensional spring stiffness, refer Section 3.7.2.

and bending, this does not necessarily mean failure of the

member. The post-collapse strength of the connection may be κ l ≤ 0.5 l = the smaller distance from location of collision

taken into account provided that such information is available. load to adjacent joint

If this condition is not met, buckling may be assumed to occur

3.9 Strength of adjacent structure when the lateral deformation exceeds

The strength of structural members adjacent to the impacted

member/sub-structure must be checked to see whether they ⎛ 2 ⎞

w 1 ⎜ 14c f f y ⎛ κl ⎞ ⎟

can provide the support required by the assumed collapse = 1− 1− ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ (3.19)

mechanism. If the adjacent structure fails, the collapse mecha- d c 2c f ⎜⎜ c 1β 3 ⎜d ⎟

⎝ c⎠ ⎟

nism must be modified accordingly. Since, the physical behav- ⎝ ⎠

iour becomes more complex with mechanisms consisting of an For small axial restraint (c < 0.05) the critical deformation may

increasing number of members it is recommended to consider be taken as

a design which involves as few members as possible for each

collision scenario. 2

w 3.5f y ⎛ κl ⎞

= ⎜ ⎟ (3.20)

3.10 Ductility limits dc c 1β 3 ⎜d ⎟

⎝ c⎠

3.10.1 General Stiffened plates/ I/H-profiles:

The maximum energy that the impacted member can dissipate In lieu of more accurate calculations the expressions given for

will – ultimately - be limited by local buckling on the compres- circular profiles in Equation (3.19) and (3.20) may be used

sive side or fracture on the tensile side of cross-sections under- with

going finite rotation.

If the member is restrained against inward axial displacement, dc = characteristic dimension for local buckling, equal

any local buckling must take place before the tensile strain due to twice the distance from the plastic neutral axis in

to membrane elongation overrides the effect of rotation bending to the extreme fibre of the cross-section

induced compressive strain. = h height of cross-section for symmetric I –profiles

If local buckling does not take place, fracture is assumed to = 2hw for stiffened plating (for simplicity)

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 18 see note on front cover

bf t f When the force deformation relationships for beams given in

β = 2.5 type I cross-sections (3.21) Section 3.7.2 are used rupture may be assumed to occur when

235 f y the deformation exceeds a value given by

bf t f

β=3 type II and type III cross-sections (3.22) w c ⎛ 4c c ε ⎞

235 f y = 1 ⎜ 1 + w f cr − 1⎟ (3.26)

⎜

d c 2c f ⎝ c1 ⎟

⎠

For webs subjected to bending

where the following factors are defined;

hw tw

β = 0.7 type I cross-sections (3.23) Displacement factor

235 f y

2

1 ⎛ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ εy ⎞ ⎛ κl ⎞

β = 0.8

hw tw

type I and type III cross-sections cw = ⎜ c lp ⎜1 − c lp ⎟ + 4⎜1 − W ⎟⎟ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (3.27)

(3.24)

c1 ⎜ ⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎜ W ⎟⎜d ⎟

235 f y ⎝ ⎝ P ⎠ ε cr ⎠⎝ c ⎠

bf = flange width plastic zone length factor

tf = flange thickness

hw = web height ⎛ ε cr ⎞ W

⎜ − 1⎟ H

tw = web thickness ⎜ εy ⎟ WP

⎝ ⎠

c lp = (3.28)

3.10.3 Tensile fracture ⎛ ε cr ⎞ W

⎜ − 1⎟ H +1

The degree of plastic deformation or critical strain at fracture ⎜ εy ⎟ WP

will show a significant scatter and depends upon the following ⎝ ⎠

factors: axial flexibility factor

— material toughness 2

— presence of defects ⎛ c ⎞⎟

cf = ⎜ (3.29)

— strain rate ⎜1+ c ⎟

— presence of strain concentrations ⎝ ⎠

non-dimensional plastic stiffness

The critical strain for plastic deformations of sections contain-

ing defects need to be determined based on fracture mechanics

methods. Welds normally contain defects and welded joints Ep 1 ⎛⎜ f cr − f y ⎞⎟

H= = (3.30)

are likely to achieve lower toughness than the parent material. E E ⎜⎝ ε cr − ε y ⎟⎠

For these reasons structures that need to undergo large plastic

deformations should be designed in such a way that the plastic c1 = 2 for clamped ends

straining takes place outside the weld. In ordinary full penetra-

tion welds, the overmatching weld material will ensure that = 1 for pinned ends

minimal plastic straining occurs in the welded joints even in c = non-dimensional spring stiffness, refer Sec-

cases with yielding of the gross cross section of the member. tion 3.7.2

In such situations, the critical strain will be in the parent mate- κl ≤ 0.5 l the smaller distance from location of

rial and will be dependent upon the following parameters: collision load to adjacent joint

— stress gradients W = elastic section modulus

— dimensions of the cross section WP = plastic section modulus

— presence of strain concentrations εcr = critical strain for rupture (see Table 3-4 for

— material yield to tensile strength ratio recommended values)

— material ductility

fy

Simple plastic theory does not provide information on strains εy = = yield strain

as such. Therefore, strain levels should be assessed by means E

of adequate analytic models of the strain distributions in the fy = yield strength

plastic zones or by non-linear finite element analysis with a

sufficiently detailed mesh in the plastic zones. (For informa- fcr = strength corresponding to εcr

tion about mesh size see Ch.8, Comm. 3.10.4.)

The characteristic dimension shall be taken as:

When structures are designed so that yielding take place in the

parent material, the following value for the critical average dc = D diameter of tubular beams

strain in axially loaded plate material may be used in conjunc-

tion with nonlinear finite element analysis or simple plastic = 2hw twice the web height for stiffened

analysis plates (se·t > As)

= h height of cross-section for symmet-

t ric I-profiles

ε cr = 0.02 + 0.65 (3.25)

l = 2 (h − zplast) for unsymmetrical I-profiles

where:

zplast = smaller distance from flange to plastic neutral axis of

t = plate thickness cross-section

l = length of plastic zone. Minimum 5t For small axial restraint (c < 0.05) the critical deformation may

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 19

WP = plastic section modulus of ring stiffener including

w effective shell flange

= c w ε cr (3.31)

dc Ae = area of ring stiffener including effective shell flange

Effective flange of shell plating: Use effective flange of stiff-

The critical strain εcr and corresponding strength fcr should be ened plates, see Chapter 6.

selected so that idealised bi-linear stress-strain relation gives For ductile design it can be assumed that the resistance of the

reasonable results, see Ch.8, Commentary. For typical steel ring stiffener is constant and equal to the plastic collapse load,

material grades the following values are proposed: provided that requirements for stability of cross-sections are

complied with, refer Section 3.10.2.

Table 3-4 Proposed values for εcr and H for different steel

3.11.4 Decks and bulkheads

grades

Steel grade εcr H Calculation of energy dissipation in decks and bulkheads has

to be based upon recognised methods for plastic analysis of

S 235 20 % 0.0022 deep, axial crushing. It shall be documented that the collapse

S 355 15 % 0.0034 mechanisms assumed yield a realistic representation of the true

S 460 10 % 0.0034 deformation field.

3.11 Resistance of large diameter, stiffened columns 3.12 Energy dissipation in floating production ves-

sels

3.11.1 General

For strength design the side or stern shall resist crushing force

Impact on a ring stiffener as well as midway between ring stiff- of the bow of the off-take tanker. In lieu of more accurate cal-

eners shall be considered. culations the force-deformation curve given in Section 3.5.2

Plastic methods of analysis are generally applicable. may be applied. (See Ch.8, Comm. 3.12 on strength design of

stern structure)

3.11.2 Longitudinal stiffeners For ductile design the resistance of stiffened plating in the

For ductile design the resistance of longitudinal stiffeners in beam mode of deformation can be calculated using the proce-

the beam mode of deformation can be calculated using the pro- dure described in Section 3.7.2. (See Ch.8, Comm. 3.12 on

cedure described for stiffened plating, Section 3.7. resistance of stiffened plating)

For strength design against stern corner impact, the plastic 3.13 Global integrity during impact

bending moment capacity of the longitudinal stiffeners has to

comply with the requirement given in Figure 3-12, on the Normally, it is unlikely that the installation will turn into a glo-

assumption that the entire load given in Table 3-1 is taken by bal collapse mechanism under direct collision load, because

one stiffener. the collision load is typically an order of magnitude smaller

than the resultant design wave force.

Linear analysis often suffices to check that global integrity is

3 maintained.

The installation should be checked for the maximum collision

Plastic bending capacity

force.

2 For installations responding predominantly statically the max-

(MNm)

For structures responding predominantly impulsively the max-

1 imum collision force occurs at small global deformation of the

platform. An upper bound to the collision force is to assume

that the installation is fixed with respect to global displace-

0 ment. (e.g. jack-up fixed with respect to deck displacement).

1 2 3 4

Distance between ring stiffeners (m)

4. Dropped Objects

Figure 3-12

Required bending capacity of longitudinal stiffeners 4.1 General

The dropped object load is characterised by a kinetic energy,

governed by the mass of the object, including any hydrody-

3.11.3 Ring stiffeners namic added mass, and the velocity of the object at the instan-

In lieu of more accurate analysis the plastic collapse load of a tof impact. In most cases the major part of the kinetic energy

ring-stiffener can be estimated from: has to be dissipated as strain energy in the impacted component

and, possibly, in the dropped object. Generally, this involves

large plastic strains and significant structural damage to the

4 2M P impacted component. The strain energy dissipation is esti-

F0 = (3.32) mated from force-deformation relationships for the component

wc D

and the object, where the deformations in the component shall

comply with ductility and stability requirements.

where

The load bearing function of the installation shall remain intact

wc =

WP with the damages imposed by the dropped object load. In addi-

Ae

=characteristic deformation of ring stiffener tion, damaged condition should be checked if relevant, see

D = column radius Section 2.2.

MP = plastic bending resistance of ring-stiffener including Dropped objects are rarely critical to the global integrity of the

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 20 see note on front cover

installation and will mostly cause local damages. The major and

threat to global integrity is probably puncturing of buoyancy

tanks, which could impair the hydrostatic stability of floating 1

installations. Puncturing of a single tank is normally covered

E kin = (m + a )v 2 (in water) (4.2)

2

by the general requirements to compartmentation and water-

tight integrity given in DNV-OS-C301. a = hydrodynamic added mass for considered motion

The structural effects from dropped objects may either be For impacts in air the velocity is given by

determined by non-linear dynamic finite element analyses or

by energy considerations combined with simple elastic-plastic v = 2gs (4.3)

methods as given in Sections 4.2 - 4.5.

If non-linear dynamic finite element analysis is applied all s = travelled distance from drop point

effects described in the following paragraphs shall either be v = vo at sea surface

implicitly covered by the modelling adopted or subjected to

special considerations, whenever relevant. For objects falling rectilinearly in water the velocity depends

upon the reduction of speed during impact with water and the

4.2 Impact velocity falling distance relative to the characteristic distance for the

The kinetic energy of a falling object is given by: object.

1

E kin = mv 2 (in air) (4.1)

2

-3

-2

In air

-1

Velocity [v/vt]

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4

0

Distance [s/sc]

s In water

3

Figure 4-1

Velocity profile for objects falling in water

a

v t 2 (1 +)

mΔv = ∫ d F(t)dt

t

(4.4) m+a m = characteristic distance

0 sc = =

ρ w Cd A p ρ V

2g(1 − w )

F(t) = force during impact with sea surface m

After the impact with water the object proceeds with the speed ρw = density of sea water

Cd = hydrodynamic drag coefficient for the object in the

v = v 0 − Δv considered motion

Assuming that the hydrodynamic resistance during fall in m = mass of object

water is of drag type the velocity in water can be taken from Ap = projected cross-sectional area of the object

Figure 4-1 where V = object displacement

terminal velocity for the The major uncertainty is associated with calculating the loss of

2g(m − ρ w V) momentum during impact with sea surface, given by Equation

vt = = object (drag force and (4.4). However, if the travelled distance is such that the veloc-

ρ w Cd A p buoyancy force balance the

gravity force) ity is close to the terminal velocity, the impact with sea surface

is of little significance.

Typical terminal velocities for some typical objects are given

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 21

⎛ d ⎞

Item Mass Terminal velocity − 2.5⎜⎜ 1− ⎟⎟

[kN] [m/s] c = −e ⎝ 2r ⎠

Winch, 250 R = πdtτ = contact force for τ ≤τ cr refer Section 4.5.1 for τ cr

Riser pump 100

BOP annular preventer 50 16 m i = ρ p πr 2 t = mass of plate enclosed by hinge circle

Mud pump 330 7

m = mass of dropped object

Rectilinear motion is likely for blunt objects and objects which ρp = mass density of steel plate

do not rotate about their longitudinal axis. Bar-like objects d = smaller diameter at threaded end of drill

(e.g. pipes) which do not rotate about their longitudinal axis collar

may execute lateral, damped oscillatory motions as illustrated

in Figure 4-1. r = smaller distance from the point of impact to

the plate boundary defined by adjacent

4.3 Dissipation of strain energy stiffeners/girders, refer Figure 4-3.

The structural response of the dropped object and the impacted For validity range of design formula reference is given to Ch.8,

component can formally be represented as load-deformation Comm. 4.4.1.

relationships as illustrated in Figure 4-2. The part of the impact

energy dissipated as strain energy equals the total area under

the load-deformation curves. r r

w o, max w i , max

r

E s = E s,o + E s,i = ∫ R o dw o + ∫ R i dw i (4.5)

0 0

is generally required. Figure 4-3

Definition of distance to plate boundary

Often the object can be assumed to be infinitely rigid (e.g. axial

impact from pipes and massive objects) so that all energy is to

be dissipated by the impacted component. 4.4.2 Stiffeners/girders

In lieu of more accurate calculations stiffeners and girders sub-

jected to impact with blunt objects may be analysed with

Ro Ri resistance models given in Section 6.10.

4.4.3 Dropped object

Calculation of energy dissipation in deformable dropped

objects shall be based upon recognised methods for plastic

Es,o Es,i analysis. It shall be documented that the collapse mechanisms

assumed yield a realistic representation of the true deformation

field.

4.5.1 Pipes on plated structures

Figure 4-2 The maximum shear stress for plugging of plates due to drill

Dissipation of strain energy in dropped object and installation collar impacts may be taken as

⎛ t⎞

If the object is assumed to be deformable, the interactive nature τ cr = f u ⎜ 0.42 + 0.41 ⎟ (4.7)

of the deformation of the two structures should be recognised. ⎝ d ⎠

4.4 Resistance/energy dissipation f u = ultimate material tensile strength

4.4.1 Stiffened plates subjected to drill collar impact 4.5.2 Blunt objects

The energy dissipated in the plating subjected to drill collar For stability of cross-sections and tensile fracture, refer Sec-

impact is given by tion 3.10.

2

R2 ⎛ m ⎞

E sp = ⎜1 + 0.48 i ⎟⎟

⎜

(4.6)

5. Fire

2k ⎝ m ⎠

where: 5.1 General

The characteristic fire structural load is temperature rise in

⎛ 2

⎞ exposed members. The temporal and spatial variation of tem-

⎜ 1 + 5 d − 6c 2 + 6.25⎛⎜ d ⎞⎟ ⎟ perature depends on the fire intensity, whether or not the struc-

1 ⎜ r ⎝ 2r ⎠ ⎟ : stiffness of plate tural members are fully or partly engulfed by the flame and to

k = πf y t ⎜ ⎟ enclosed by hinge circle what extent the members are insulated.

2 ⎜ (1 + c)2

⎟

⎜ ⎟ Structural steel expands at elevated temperatures and internal

⎝ ⎠ stresses are developed in redundant structures. These stresses

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 22 see note on front cover

are most often of moderate significance with respect to global tions compressive members shall be modelled with an initial,

integrity. The heating causes also progressive loss of strength sinusoidal imperfection with amplitude given by

and stiffness and is, in redundant structures, accompanied by Elastic-perfectly plastic material model, refer Figure 6-4 :

redistribution of forces from members with low strength to

members that retain their load bearing capacity. A substantial

loss of load-bearing capacity of individual members and sub- fy i

assemblies may take place, but the load bearing function of the e* 1

= α

installation shall remain intact during exposure to the fire load. l π E z0

In addition, damaged condition should be checked if relevant, Elasto-plastic material models, refer Figure 6-4 :

see Section 2.2.

Structural analysis may be performed on either

e* W 1 fy i 1 f y Wp

— individual members = p

α = α

— subassemblies l W π E z0 π E AI

— entire system

α = 0.5 for fire exposed members according to column

The assessment of fire load effect and mechanical response curve c, Ch.7 /2/ Eurocode 3

shall be based on either i = radius of gyration

z0 = distance from neutral axis to extreme fibre of cross-

— simple calculation methods applied to individual mem- section

bers, WP = plastic section modulus

— general calculation methods, W = elastic section modulus

A = cross-sectional area

or a combination. I = moment of inertia

Simple calculation methods may give overly conservative e* = amplitude of initial distortion

results. General calculation methods are methods in which l = member length

engineering principles are applied in a realistic manner to spe-

cific applications. The initial out-of-straightness should be applied on each phys-

ical member. If the member is modelled by several finite ele-

Assessment of individual members by means of simple calcu- ments the initial out-of-straightness should be applied as

lation methods should be based upon the provisions given in displaced nodes.

Ch.7 /2/ Eurocode 3 Part 1.2. /2/ .

The initial out-of-straightness shall be applied in the same

Assessment by means of general calculation methods shall sat- direction as the deformations caused by the temperature gradi-

isfy the provisions given in Ch.7 /2/ Eurocode 3 Part1.2, Sec- ents.

tion 4.3.

In addition, the requirements given in this section for mechan- 5.5 Empirical correction factor

ical response analysis with nonlinear finite element methods The empirical correction factor of 1.2 should be accounted for

shall be complied with. in calculating the critical strength in compression and bending

Assessment of ultimate strength is not needed if the maximum for design according to Ch.7 /2/ Eurocode 3, refer Ch.8,

steel temperature is below 400°C, but deformation criteria may Comm. A.5.5.

have to be checked for impairment of main safety functions.

5.6 Local cross sectional buckling

5.2 General calculation methods If shell modelling is used, it shall be verified that the software

Structural analysis methods for non-linear, ultimate strength and the modelling is capable of predicting local buckling with

assessment may be classified as sufficient accuracy. If necessary, local shell imperfections

have to be introduced in a similar manner to the approach

— stress-strain based methods adopted for lateral distortion of beams

— stress-resultants based (yield/plastic hinge) methods If beam modelling is used local cross-sectional buckling shall

Stress-strain based methods are methods where non-linear be given explicit consideration.

material behaviour is accounted for on fibre level. In lieu of more accurate analysis cross-sections subjected to

Stress-resultants based methods are methods where non-linear plastic deformations shall satisfy compactness requirements

material behaviour is accounted for on stress-resultants level given in DNV-OS-C101:

based upon closed form solutions/interaction equation for type I: Locations with plastic hinges (approximately full

cross-sectional forces and moments. plastic utilization)

5.3 Material modelling type II: Locations with yield hinges (partial plastification)

In stress-strain based analysis temperature dependent stress- If this criterion is not complied with explicit considerations

strain relationships given in Ch.7 /2/ Eurocode 3, Part 1.2, Sec- shall be performed. The load-bearing capacity will be reduced

tion 3.2 may be used. significantly after the onset of buckling, but may still be signif-

icant. A conservative approach is to remove the member from

For stress resultants based design the temperature reduction of further analysis.

the elastic modulus may be taken as kE,θ according to Ch.7 /

2/ Eurocode 3. The yield stress may be taken equal to the effec- Compactness requirements for type I and type I cross-sections

tive yield stress, fy,θ. The temperature reduction of the effec- may be disregarded provided that the member is capable of

tive yield stress may be taken as ky,θ. developing significant membrane forces.

Provided that the above requirements are complied with creep 5.7 Ductility limits

does need explicit consideration.

5.7.1 General

5.4 Equivalent imperfections The ductility of beams and connections increase at elevated

To account for the effect of residual stresses and lateral distor- temperatures compared to normal conditions. Little informa-

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 23

tion exists. The load bearing function of the installation shall remain intact

with the damages imposed by the explosion loads. In addition,

5.7.2 Beams in bending damaged condition should be checked if relevant, see Section

In lieu of more accurate analysis requirements given in Section 2.2.

3.10 shall be complied with.

6.2 Classification of response

5.7.3 Beams in tension The response of structural components can conveniently be

In lieu of more accurate analysis an average elongation of 3% classified into three categories according to the duration of the

of the member length with a reasonably uniform temperature explosion pressure pulse, td, relative to the fundamental period

can be assumed. of vibration of the component, T:

Local temperature peaks may localise plastic strains. It is con-

sidered to be to the conservative side to use critical strains for Impulsive domain td/T < 0.3

steel under normal temperatures. See Section 3.10 and 3.10.4. Dynamic domain 0.3 < td/T < 3

Quasi-static domain 3 < td/T

5.8 Capacity of connections

In lieu of more accurate calculations the capacity of the con- Impulsive domain:

nection can be taken as: The response is governed by the impulse defined by

Rθ = ky,θ R0

I = ∫ F(t )dt

td

where 0

(6.1)

R0 = capacity of connection at normal temperature Hence, the structure may resist a very high peak pressure pro-

ky,θ = temperature reduction of effective yield stress for max- vided that the duration is sufficiently small. The maximum

imum temperature in connection deformation, wmax, of the component can be calculated itera-

tively from the equation

R (w )dw

w max

6. Explosions I = 2m eq ∫ (6.2)

0

6.1 General

where

Explosion loads are characterised by temporal and spatial pres-

sure distribution. The most important temporal parameters are R(w)= force-deformation relationship for the component

rise time, maximum pressure and pulse duration. meq = equivalent mass for the component.

For components and sub-structures the explosion pressure

shall normally be considered uniformly distributed. On global Quasi-static-domain:

level the spatial distribution is normally non-uniform both with The response is governed by the peak pressure and the rise

respect to pressure and duration. time of the pressure relative to the fundamental period of vibra-

The response to explosion loads may either be determined by tion. If the rise time is small the maximum deformation of the

non-linear dynamic finite element analysis or by simple calcu- component can be solved iteratively from the equation:

lation models based on Single Degree Of Freedom (SDOF) 1

R (w )dw

w max

analogies and elastic-plastic methods of analysis. w max =

Fmax ∫0

(6.3)

If non-linear dynamic finite element analysis is applied all

effects described in the following paragraphs shall either be If the rise time is large the maximum deformation can be

implicitly covered by the modelling adopted or subjected to solved from the static condition

special considerations, whenever relevant.

In the simple calculation models the component is transformed

to a single spring-mass system exposed to an equivalent load Fmax = R(w max ) (6.4)

pulse by means of suitable shape functions for the displace-

ments in the elastic and elastic-plastic range. The shape func- Dynamic domain:

tions allow calculation of the characteristic resistance curve The response has to be solved from numerical integration of

and equivalent mass in the elastic and elastic-plastic range as the dynamic equations of equilibrium.

well as the fundamental period of vibration for the SDOF sys-

tem in the elastic range. 6.3 Recommended analysis models for stiffened pan-

Provided that the temporal variation of the pressure can be els

assumed to be triangular, the maximum displacement of the Various failure modes for a stiffened panel are illustrated in

component can be calculated from design charts for the SDOF Figure 6-1. Suggested analysis model and reference to applica-

system as a function of pressure duration versus fundamental ble resistance functions are listed in Table 6.1. Application of

period of vibration and equivalent load amplitude versus max- a Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) model in the analysis of

imum resistance in the elastic range. The maximum displace- stiffeners/girders with effective flange is implicitly based on

ment must comply with ductility and stability requirements for the assumption that dynamic interaction between the plate

the component. flange and the profile can be neglected.

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 24 see note on front cover

Figure 6-1

Failure modes for two-way stiffened panel

Simplified Comment

Failure mode analysis model Resistance models

Elastic-plastic deformation of plate SDOF Section 6.9

Stiffener plastic SDOF Stiffener: Section 6.10.1-2. Elastic, effective flange of plate

– plate elastic Plate: Section 6.9.1

Stiffener plastic SDOF Stiffener: Section 6.10.1-2. Effective width of plate at mid span. Elastic, effective

– plate plastic Plate: Section 6.9 flange of plate at ends.

Girder plastic SDOF Girder: Section 6.10.1-2 Elastic, effective flange of plate with concentrated loads

– stiffener and plating elastic Plate: Section 6.9 (stiffener reactions). Stiffener mass included.

Girder plastic SDOF Girder: Section 6.10.1-2 Effective width of plate at girder mid span and ends.

– stiffener elastic Plate: Section 6.9 Stiffener mass included

– plate plastic

Girder and stiffener plastic MDOF Girder and stiffener: Dynamic reactions of stiffeners

– plate elastic Section 6.10.1-2 → loading for girders

Plate: Section 6.9

Girder and stiffener plastic MDOF Girder and stiffener: Dynamic reactions of stiffeners

– plate plastic Section 6.10.1-2 → loading for girders

Plate: Section 6.9

By girder/stiffener plastic is understood that the maximum displacement wmax exceeds the elastic limit wel

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 25

Biggs method: ∫ qϕ (x)dx load transformation factor for

= uniformly distributed load

For many practical design problems it is convenient to assume Kl = l

F

that the structure - exposed to the dynamic pressure pulse - ulti-

mately attains a deformed configuration comparable to the ∑i F ϕ i i

= load transformation factor for

static deformation pattern. Using the static deformation pattern Kl = concentrated load

as displacement shape function, i.e. F

M u = ∫ mdx = total uniformly, distributed mass

w (x , t ) = φ(x )y(t ) l

equivalent single degree of freedom system: M c = ∑M

i

i = total concentrated mass

distributed load

l

φ(x) = displacement shape func-

tion F= ∑F

i

i = total

load

load in case of concentrated

y(t) = displacement amplitude

= generalized mass

m = ∫ mφ(x ) dx + ∑ M i φ i k

2 2

ke = = equivalent stiffness

l i kl

= generalized load

f ( t ) = ∫ q(t)φ(x )dx + ∑ Fi φ i The natural period of vibration for the equivalent system in the

l i linear resistance domain is given by

= generalized elastic bend-

k = ∫ EIφ , xx (x ) dx

2

ing stiffness m K l m, u M u + K l m,c M c

l T = 2π = 2π (6.7)

= generalized plastic bend- k ke

k=0

ing stiffness

(fully developed mecha- The response, y(t), is - in addition to the load history - entirely

nism) governed by the total mass, load-mass factor and the character-

istic stiffness.

= generalized membrane

k = ∫ Nφ , x (x ) dx

2

stiffness For a linear system, the load mass factor and the characteristic

l

(fully plastic: N = NP) stiffness are constant k = k1. The response is then alternatively

m = distributed mass governed by the eigenperiod and the characteristic stiffness.

Mi = concentrated mass For a non-linear system, the load-mass factor and the charac-

q = explosion load teristic stiffness depend on the response (deformations). Non-

linear systems may often conveniently be approximated by

Fi = concentrated load (e.g. equivalent bi-linear or tri-linear systems, see Section 6.8. In

support reactions) such cases the response can be expressed in terms of (see Fig-

xi = position of concentrated ure 6-6 for definitions):

mass/load

k1 = characteristic stiffness in the initial, linear resistance

domain

φ i = φ (x = x i ) yel = displacement at the end of the initial, linear resistance

domain

The equilibrium equation can alternatively be expressed as: T = eigenperiod in the initial, linear resistance domain

(K l m, u M u + K l m,c M c )&y& + K(y)y = F(t) (6.6)

and, if relevant,

where

k3 = normalised characteristic resistance in the third linear

resistance domain.

K m,u

K l m,u = = load-mass transformation factor Characteristic stiffness is given explicitly or can be derived

Kl for uniform mass

from load-deformation relationships given in Section 6.10. If

K m,u the response is governed by different mechanical behaviour

K l m,u = = load-mass transformation factor

for concentrated mass

relevant characteristic stiffness must be calculated.

Kl

For a given explosion load history the maximum displacement,

ymax, is found by analytical or numerical integration of equa-

∫ mϕ (x)

2

dx

= mass transformation factor for uni- tion (6.6).

K m,u = l

form mass

Mu For standard load histories and standard resistance curves

maximum displacements can be presented in design charts.

∑M ϕ i

2

mass transformation factor for

= concentrated mass

Figure 6-2 shows the normalised maximum displacement of a

SDOF system with a bi- (k3 = 0) or tri-linear (k3 > 0) resistance

K m,c = i

function, exposed to a triangular pressure pulse with zero rise

Mc

time. When the duration of the pressure pulse relative to the

eigenperiod in the initial, linear resistance range is known, the

maximum displacement can be determined directly from the

diagram as illustrated in Figure 6-2.

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 26 see note on front cover

100

k 3=0.2k 1

ymax/yel

for system

Elastic-perfectly plastic, k 3=0

1

td

0,1

0,1 1 10

td/T

Figure 6-2

Maximum response a SDOF system to a triangular pressure pulse with zero rise time. Fmax / Rel = 2

Design charts for systems with bi- or tri-linear resistance domain. This will reduce the need for large complex simula-

curves subjected to a triangular pressure pulse with 0.5 td rise tion of explosion scenarios.

time is given in Figure 6.3. Curves for different rise times are

given in Ch.8, Commentary Figure 8-15 to Figure 8-17. 6.5 Dynamic response charts for SDOF system

Baker's method Transformation factors for elastic–plastic-membrane deforma-

tion of beams and one-way slabs with different boundary con-

The governing equations (6.1) and (6.2) for the maximum ditions are given in Table 6-2.

response in the impulsive domain and the quasi-static domain

may also be used along with response charts for maximum dis- Maximum displacement for a SDOF system exposed to a tri-

placement for different Fmax/Rel ratios to produce pressure- angular pressure pulse with rise time of 0.5td is displayed in

impulse (Fmax, I) diagrams - iso-damage curves - provided that Figure 6.3. Maximum displacement for a SDOF system

the maximum pressure is known. exposed to different pressure pulses are given in Ch.8, Com-

The advantage of using iso-damage diagrams is that "back- mentary Figure 8-15 to Figure 8-17.

ward" calculations are possible: The characteristic response of the system is based upon the

The diagram is established on the basis of the resistance curve. resistance in the linear range, k = k1, where the equivalent stiff-

The information may be used to screen explosion pressure his- ness is determined from the elastic solution to the actual sys-

tories and eliminate those that obviously lie in the admissible tem.

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 27

100 = 0.7

Rel/Fmax= 0.8

10

ymax/yel

= 0.9

= 1.0

1 = 1.1

= 1.2

F R k3 = 0.5k1 =0.2k1 =0.1k1

= 1.5

k3 = 0

Fmax Rel

k 3 = 0.1k1

k 3 = 0.2k 1 k1

k 3 = 0.5k 1

0.50td td yel y

0.1

0.1 1 10

td/T

Figure 6-3

Dynamic response of a SDOF system to a triangular load (rise time = 0.50 td)

moment is accounted for

SDOF analysis of built-up structures (e.g. stiffeners supported

by girders) is admissible if Elastic-perfectly plastic: Linear elastic up to fully plastic bend-

ing moment

— the fundamental periods of elastic vibration are suffi- The simple models described herein assume elastic-perfectly

ciently separated plastic material behaviour.

— the response of the component with the smallest eigenpe-

riod does not enter the elastic-plastic domain so that the Note: Even if the analysis is based upon elastic-perfectly plas-

period is drastically increased tic behaviour, the material has to exhibit strain hardening in

practice for the theory to be valid. The effect of strain harden-

If these conditions are not met, then significant interaction ing on the plastic, cross-sectional resistances may be

between the different vibration modes is anticipated and a accounted for by using an equivalent (increased) yield stress.

multi degree of freedom analysis is required with simultaneous If this is considered relevant, and the material is utilised

time integration of the coupled system. beyond ultimate strain, it is often justified to use an equivalent

yield stress equal to the mean of the lower yield stress and the

6.7 Classification of resistance properties ultimate stress.

6.7.1 Cross-sectional behaviour In the clauses for the ductility limits the effect of strain hard-

ening is accounted for.

Elastic-perfectly plastic

Moment

elasto-plastic

Curvature

Figure 6-4

Bending moment-curvature relationships

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 28 see note on front cover

Component behaviour

k2 k2

R R R

R k2

k3

k1 k1 k1 k1

w w w w

Elastic Elastic-plastic Elastic-plastic Elastic-plastic

(determinate) (indeterminate) with membrane

Figure 6-5

Resistance curves

Elastic-plastic (determinate): Elastic-perfectly plastic mate-

rial. Statically determinate system. Bending mechanism fully + =

developed with occurrence of first plastic hinge(s)/yield lines.

No axial restraint.

Elastic Rigid-plastic Elastic-plastic with membrane

Elastic-plastic (indeterminate): Elastic perfectly plastic mate-

rial. Statically indeterminate system. Bending mechanism

develops with sequential formation of plastic hinges/yield Figure 6-7

lines. No axial restraint. For simplified analysis this system Construction of elastic -plastic resistance curve

may be modelled as an elastic-plastic (determinate) system

with equivalent initial stiffness. In lieu of more accurate anal-

ysis the equivalent stiffness should be determined such that the 6.9 Resistance curves and transformation factors for

area under the resistance curve is preserved. plates

Elastic-plastic with membrane: Elastic-perfectly plastic mate- 6.9.1 Elastic - rigid plastic relationships

rial. Statically determinate (or indeterminate). Ends restrained

In lieu of more accurate calculations rigid plastic theory com-

against axial displacement. Increase in load-carrying capacity bined with elastic theory may be used.

caused by development of membrane forces.

In the elastic range the stiffness and fundamental period of

6.8 Idealisation of resistance curves vibration of a clamped plate under uniform lateral pressure can

be expressed as:

The resistance curves in 6.7 are idealised. For simplified

SDOF analysis the resistance characteristics of a real non-lin- r = k1w

ear system may be approximately modelled. An example with = resistance-displacement relationship for

plate centre

a tri-linear approximation is illustrated in Figure 6-6. The stiff-

ness in the k3 phase may have some contribution from strain D

k1 = ψ = plate stiffness

hardening, but in most cases the predominant effect is devel- s4

opment of membrane forces when member ends are restrained

form inward displacement. 2π ρ ts 4 = natural period of vibration

T=

η D

t3

D=E = plate bending stiffness

R (

12 1 − ν 2 )

k3

The factors ψ and η are given in Figure 6-8.

k 2=0 800 40

Rel

700 35

k1 600 30

500 25

wel w 400 20 η

300 15

Representation of a non-linear resistance by an equivalent tri-lin-

ear system 100 5

0 0

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

In lieu of more accurate analysis the resistance curve of elastic- l/s

plastic systems may be composed by an elastic resistance and Figure 6-8

a rigid-plastic resistance as illustrated in Figure 6-7. Coefficients ψ and η.

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 29

In the plastic range the resistance (r) of plates with edges fully The effect of flexibility may be taken into account in an

restrained against inward displacement and subjected to uni- approximate way by means of plate strip theory and the proce-

form pressure can be taken as: dure described in Section 3.7.2. The relative reduction of the

plate’s plastic resistance, with respect to the values given in

2 ⎛ α + (3 − 2α ) ⎞ Equation (6.8), is taken equal to the relative reduction of the

2

r

= 1 + w ⎜⎜ ⎟

⎟ w ≤1 resistance for a beam with rectangular cross-section (plate

rc ⎝ 9 − 3α ⎠ thickness x unit width) and length equal to stiffener spacing,

(6.8) using the diagram for α = 2 (Figure 6-12). The elastic straining

r ⎛ α(2 − α ) ⎛ 1 ⎞⎞ of the plate is accounted for by the 2nd term in Equation (6.8).

= 2 w ⎜1 + ⎜ − 1 ⎟⎟ w >1

rc ⎜ 3 − α ⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ In lieu of more accurate calculation, the effect of pull-in, given

⎝ ⎝ 3w ⎠⎠ by the first term in Equation (6.8) may be estimated by remov-

Pinned ends: ing the plate and apply a uniformly distributed unit in-plane

w 6f t 2 force normal to the plate edges. The axial stiffness should be

w=2 rc = 2 y 2 taken as the inverse of the maximum in-plane displacement of

t l α the long edge.

Clamped ends: In lieu of more accurate calculation, it should be conserva-

tively assumed that no membrane effects exist for a plate

w 12f t 2 located close to an unsupported boundary, i.e. the resistance

w= rc = 2 y2 should be taken as constant and equal to the resistance in bend-

t l α

ing, r = rc over the allowable displacement range.

In lieu of more accurate calculations, it is suggested to assess

⎛ 2 ⎞ the relative reduction of the resistance for a uniformly loaded

s⎜ ⎛s⎞ s⎟

α = ⎜ 3+⎜ ⎟ − ⎟ = plate aspect parameter plate located some distance from an unsupported boundary

l⎜ ⎝l⎠ l⎟

⎝ ⎠ with c = 1.0.

If membrane forces are taken into account it must be verified

l (>s) = plate length that the adjacent structure is strong enough to anchor the fully

s = plate width plastic membrane tension forces.

t = plate thickness

rc = plastic resistance in bending for plates with no axial 6.9.3 Tensile fracture of yield hinges

restraint In lieu of more accurate calculations the procedure described

w = non-dimensional displacement parameter in Section 3.10.4 may be used for a beam with rectangular

cross-section (plate thickness x unit width) and length equal to

6 stiffener spacing.

l/s = 100

5 6.10 Resistance curves and transformation factors

5 for beams

4 3 Provided that the stiffeners/girders remain stable against local

Resistance [r/rc]

3 1 girders may be treated as beams. Simple elastic-plastic meth-

2

ods of analysis are generally applicable. Special considerations

shall be given to the effect of:

1

— Elastic flexibility of member/adjacent structure

0

— Local deformation of cross-section

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

— Local buckling

Relative displacement

— Strength of connections

w — Strength of adjacent structure

— Fracture

Figure 6-9

Plastic load-carrying capacities of plates as a function of lateral 6.10.1 Beams with no- or full axial restraint

displacement

Equivalent springs and transformation factors for load and

mass for various idealised elasto-plastic systems are shown in

6.9.2 Axial restraint Table 6-2. For more than two concentrated loads, equal in

magnitude and spacing, use values for uniform loading.

In Equation (6.8) the beneficial effect of membrane stiffening Shear deformation may have a significant impact on the elastic

is represented by the term containing the non-dimensional dis- flexibility and eigenperiod of beams and girders with a short

placement parameter w . Great caution should be exercised span/web height ratio (L/hw), notably for clamped ends. The

when assuming the presence of the membrane effect, because eigenperiod and stiffness in the linear domain including shear

the membrane forces must be anchored in the adjacent struc- deformation may be calculated as:

ture. For plates located in the middle of a continuous plate

field, the boundaries have often considerable restraint against 2

pull-in. If the plate is located close to the boundary, the edges m Kl m,u Mu + Kl m,c Mc ⎛ πrg ⎞ ⎛ E A ⎞

are often not sufficiently stiffened to prevent pull-in of edges. T = 2π = 2π 1+ ⎜⎜ cs ⎟ ⎜1+

⎟ ⎜

⎟ (6.9)

⎟

k k1' ⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ G Aw ⎠

Unlike stiffeners no simple method with a clear physical inter-

pretation exists to quantify the effect of flexibility on the resist- and

ance of plates under uniform pressure. In the formulations used

in this RP the flexibility may be split into two contributions 1 1 1 GA w

'

= + , k Q = cQ (6.10)

1) Pull-in of edges k1 k 1 k Q L

2) Elastic straining of the plate where

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 30 see note on front cover

cs = 1.0 for both ends simply supported Mps = plastic bending capacity of beam at support

= 1.25 for one end clamped and one end simply sup- Mpm = plastic bending capacity of beam at midspan

ported

= 1.5 for both ends clamped and regardless of rotational boundary conditions the following

L = length of beam/girder values may be used

E = elastic modulus

G = shear modulus cQ = 8 for uniformly distributed loads

A = total cross-sectional area of beam/girder = 4 for one concentrated loads

Aw = shear area of beam/girder = 6 for two concentrated loads

kQ = shear stiffness for beam/girder

k1 = bending stiffness of beam/girder in the linear domain The dynamic reactions according to Table 6-2 become increas-

according to Table 6-2 ingly inaccurate for loads with short duration and/or high mag-

rg = radius of gyration nitudes.

Table 6-2 Transformation factors for beams with various boundary and load conditions

Mass factor Load-mass factor

Load case Km Klm Linear

Load Maximum Dynamic reaction

stiffness

Resistance Factor Concen- Uni- Concen- Uniform resistance

domain Kl trated form trated Rel V

mass k1

mass mass mass

8Mp 384 EI

Elastic 0.64 0.50 0.78 0.39 R + 011

. F

L 5 L3

F=pL

Plastic 0.50 0.33 0.66

8Mp

0 0.38 Rel + 012

. F

bending L

L Plastic 2 N P ymax

4NP

membrane 0.50 0.33 0.66

L L

4Mp 48 EI

Elastic 1.0 1.0 0.49 1.0 0.49 0.78 R − 0.28 F

L L3

F

Plastic 1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33

4Mp

0 0.75Rel − 0.25F

bending L

L/2 L/2

Plastic 1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33 4NP 2 N P ymax

membrane L L

6Mp 56.4 EI

Elastic 0.87 0.76 0.52 0.87 0.60 0.525R − 0.025F

L L3

F/2 F/2

Plastic 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56

6Mp

0 0.52 Rel − 0.02 F

bending L

L/3 L/3 L/3

Plastic 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56 6N P 3 N P ymax

membrane L L

Load case Km Klm Equiva-

Load

Resist- Maximum Linear lent lin- Dynamic reaction

Fac- Con-

ance resistance stiffness ear

tor Concen- Uniform cen- Uniform

domain trated Rel k1 stiffness V

Kl mass trated mass ke

mass

mass

12 M ps 384 EI

Elastic 0.53 0.41 0.77

L L3 0.36 R + 0.14 F

F=pL

Elasto-

plastic 0.64 0.50 0.78 (

8 M ps + M Pm ) 384 EI

0.39 Rel + 011

. F

L bending L 5 L3

8 M ps + M Pm ) 0 0.38 Rel + 012

. F

bending L

Plastic 2 N p ymax

4NP

mem- 0.50 0.33 0.66

brane L L

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 31

Load case Km Klm Equiva-

Load

Resist- Maximum Linear lent lin- Dynamic reaction

Fac- Con-

ance resistance stiffness ear

tor Concen- Uniform cen- Uniform

domain trated Rel k1 stiffness V

Kl mass trated mass ke

mass mass

4 M ps + M Pm ) 192 EI 0.71R − 0.21F

L L3

F ⎛ 48EI ⎞

⎜ 3 ⎟ ⋅ m1

Plastic 1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33 (

4 M ps + M Pm ) 0 ⎝ L ⎠

0.75Rel − 0.25F

bending L

L/2 L/2

Plastic

4NP 2 N P ymax

mem- 1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33

brane L L

9 M ps 260EI

Elastic 080 0.64 0.41 0.80 0.51 0.48R + 0.02 F

F/2 F/2 L3

L

⎛ 212 EI ⎞

Elasto- ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ m1

6 ( M ps + M Pm ) 56.4EI 3

⎝ L ⎠

plastic 0.87 0.76 0.52 0.87 0.60 0.52 Rel − 0.02 F

L/3 L/3 L/3 bending L L3

Plastic 6 ( M ps + M Pm )

bending 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56 0 0.52 Rel − 0.02 F

L

Plastic

mem- 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56 6N P

brane L

8 M ps 185EI V1 = 0.26 R + 0.12 F

Elastic 0.58 0.45 0.78 3 V2 = 0.43R + 019

. F

L L ⎛ 160 EI ⎞

⎜ ⎟ ⋅ m2

Elasto- ⎝ L ⎠

3

0.39 R + 011

. F

F=pL plastic 0.64 0.50 0.78 (

4 M ps + 2 M Pm ) 384 EI

5L 3 ± M Ps L

bending L

V1 V2

L 0.38 R + 012

. F

Plastic 0.50 0.33 0.66 (

4 M ps + 2 M Pm ) 0

bending L ± M Ps L

Plastic 2 N P ymax

4NP

mem- 0.50 0.33 0.66

brane L L

Elastic 1.0 1.0 0.43 1.0 0.43 V2 = 0.54 R + 014

. F

3L L3 ⎛ 160 EI ⎞

⎜ ⎟ ⋅ m2

Elasto- ⎝ L ⎠

3

0.78 R − 0.28 F

F plastic 1.0 1.0 0.49 1.0 0.49 (

2 M ps + 2 M Pm ) 48 EI

L3 ± M Ps L

V1

bending L

V2

0.75R − 0.25F

L/2 L/2 Plastic 1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33 (

2 M ps + 2 M Pm ) 0

bending L ± M Ps L

Plastic 2 N P ymax

4NP

mem- 1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33

brane L L

6 M Ps 132 EI V1 = 017

. R + 017

. F

Elastic 0.81 0.67 0.45 0.83 0.55 V2 = 0.33R + 0.33F

L L3 ⎛ 122 EI ⎞

⎜ ⎟ ⋅ m3

Elasto- ⎝ L ⎠

3

0.525R − 0.025F

F/2 F/2 plastic 0.87 0.76 0.52 0.87 0.60 (

2 M ps + 3 M Pm ) 56 EI

L3 ± M Ps L

V1

bending L

V2

Plastic (

2 M ps + 3 M Pm ) 0.52 Rel − 0.02 F

L/3 L/3 L/3

bending 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56 0

L ± M Ps L

Plastic 3 N P ymax

6N P

mem- 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56

brane L L

Where:

q = explosion load per unit length 1.5M ps

m1 = + 0.25

= ps for stiffeners M ps + M pm

= p l for girders

1.5M ps

m1, m2 and m3 are factors for deriving the equivalent stiffness: m2 = + 0.5

M ps + 2M pm

2M ps

m3 = + 0.5

M ps + 3M pm

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 32 see note on front cover

Relatively small axial displacements have a significant influ- w

w= = non-dimensional deformation

ence on the development of tensile forces in members under- c1 w c

going large lateral deformations. Equivalent elastic, axial

stiffness may be defined as

αWp characteristic beam height for beams

1 1 l wc = = described by plastic interaction equation

= + (6.11) A (6.12).

k k node 2EA

2

knode = axial stiffness of the node with the considered member 4c1 kw c

removed. This may be determined by introducing unit loads in c= = non-dimensional spring stiffness

f y Al

member axis direction at the end nodes with the member

removed. c1 = 2 = for clamped beams

Plastic force-deformation relationship for a beam under uni- c1 = 1 = for pinned beams

form pressure may be obtained from Figure 6-10, Figure 6-11 WP = plastic section modulus for the cross sec-

or Figure 6-12 if the plastic interaction between axial force and tion of the beam

bending moment can be approximated by the following equa- Wp = zgAg = plastic section modulus for stiffened

tion: plate for set > As

α A = As + st = total area of stiffener and plate flange

M ⎛⎜ N ⎞

⎟ =1

+ for 1 < α < 2 (6.12) Ae = As + set = effective cross-sectional area of stiffener

M p ⎜⎝ N p ⎟

⎠ and plate flange,

zg = distance from plate flange to stiffener

In lieu of more accurate analysis α = 1.2 can be assumed for centre of gravity.

stiffened plates and H or I beams. For members with tubular

section α = 1.5. For rectangular sections and plates α = 2.0 can As = stiffener area

be assumed. s = stiffener spacing

se = effective width of plate flange see Sec-

8c 1 f y Wp plastic collapse resistance in bending for tion 6.10.4

R0 = = the member with uniform load.

l

l = member length

Membrane only

R/R 0

3

F (explosion load)

0.2 0.1

0.5 k k

2

c=∞ 1 w

1 0

0

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4

Deformation w

Figure 6-10

Plastic load-deformation relationship for beam with axial flexibility (α = 1.2)

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 33

α = 1.5

5

Bending & membrane

Membrane only

R/R0

4

F (explosion load)

3

0.2 0.1

2

c=∞ 1

0.5 k k

w

0

1

0

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4

Deformation w

Figure 6-11

Plastic load-deformation relationship for beam with axial flexibility (α = 1.5)

7

α=2

6

Bending & membrane

Membrane only

R/R0

4

0.5

c=∞ k k

3

1

2

w

0

1

0

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4

Deformation w

Figure 6-12

Plastic load-deformation relationship for beam with axial flexibility (α = 2)

members is smaller than the moment capacity of the exposed

member the force-deformation relationship may be interpo- R0

actual

lated from the curves for pinned ends and clamped ends: 0≤ζ= −1 ≤ 1

Mp (6.14)

R = ζR clamped + (1 − ζ)R pinned (6.13) 8

l

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 34 see note on front cover

Commentary.

R actual = Collapse load in bending for beam accounting for

0 actual bending resistance of adjacent members Determination of effective flange due to buckling can be made

as for buckling of stiffened plates see DNV-RP-C201.

8M p + 4M p1 + 4M p2

R 0actual = (6.15) The effective width for elastic deformations may be used when

l the plate flange is on the tension side.

M Pj = ∑ M Pj,i ≤ M P (6.16) In most cases the flange will experience varying stress with

i parts in compression and parts in tension. It may be unduly

i = adjacent member no i conservative to use the effective width for the section with the

largest compression stress to be valid for the whole member

j = end number {1,2} length. For continuous stiffeners it will be reasonable to use the

MPj,i = Plastic bending moment for member no. i. mean value between effective width at the section with the

largest compression stress and the full width. For simple sup-

Elastic, rotational flexibility of the node is normally of moder- ported stiffeners with compression in the plate it is judged to

ate significance be reasonable to use the effective width at midspan for the total

length of the stiffener.

6.10.3 Beams with partial end restraint - support capacity

smaller than plastic bending moment of member 6.10.5 Strength of adjacent structure

For beams where the plastic moment capacity of adjacent The adjacent structure must be checked to see whether it can

members is smaller than the moment capacity of the impacted provide the support required by the assumed collapse mecha-

beam, the force-deformation relationship, R*, may be derived nism for the member/sub-structure

from the resistance curve, R, for beams where the plastic

moment capacity of adjacent members is larger than the 6.10.6 Strength of connections

moment capacity of the impacted beam (Section 3.7.2), using

The capacity of connections can be taken from recognised

the expression:

codes.

The connection shall be checked for the dynamic reaction

w w

R * = R + (R 0 − R *0 ) , ≤ 1.0 (6.17) force given in Table 6-2.

w lim w lim

For beams with axial restraint the connection should also be

w checked for lateral - and axial reaction in the membrane phase:

R* = R , ≥ 1.0

w lim — If the axial force in a tension member exceeds the axial

capacity of the connection the member should be assumed

where disconnected.

— If the capacity of the connection is exceeded in compres-

R0 = Plastic bending resistance with clamped ends (c1 = 2) sion and bending, this does not necessarily mean failure of

– moment capacity of adjacent members larger than the member. The post-collapse strength of the connection

the plastic bending moment of the beam may be taken into account provided that such information

R *0 = Plastic bending resistance - moment capacity of adja- is available.

cent members at one or both ends smaller than the plas-

tic bending moment of the member 6.10.7 Ductility limits

R *0 = (6.18)

The local buckling criterion in Section 3.10.2 and tensile frac-

l

M Pj = ∑ M Pj,i ≤ M P

ture criterion given in Section 3.10.3 may be used with:

(6.19)

i

dc = characteristic dimension equal to twice the distance

i = adjacent member no i from the plastic neutral axis in bending to the extreme

j = end number {1,2} fibre of the cross-section

MPj,i = Plastic bending resistance for member no. i. c = non-dimensional axial spring stiffness calculated in

wlim = limiting non-dimensional deformation where the Section 6.10.2.

membrane force attains yield, i.e. the resistance y

Alternatively, the ductility ratios μ =

max

in Table 6-3 may

curve, R, with actual spring stiffness coefficient, c, y el

be used.

intersects with the curve for c = ∞. If c = ∞,

π

wlim = w Table 6-3 Ductility ratios μ - beams with no axial restraint

2

Boundary Load Cross-section type 1)

for tubular beams and for stiffened plate conditions

Type I Type II Type III

6.10.4 Effective flange

In order to analyse stiffened plate as a beam the effective width Cantilevered Concentrated 6 4 2

Distributed 7 5 2

of the plate between stiffeners need to be determined. The

effective width needs to be reduced due to buckling and/or Pinned Concentrated 6 4 2

Distributed 12 8 3

shear lag.

Fixed Concentrated 6 4 2

Shear lag effects may be neglected if the length is more than Distributed 4 3 2

2.5 times the width between stiffeners. For guidance see Ch.8, 1) Crossecton types are defined in DNV-OS-C101, Table A3, Appendix A

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 35

by the forced motion of water particles on the wet surface of

/1/ NORSOK Standard N-003 Action and Action Effect the ship. By solving the velocity potential for the fluid on the

body surface, the added mass is determined by means of 2-D

/2/ NS-ENV 1993-1 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel structures (strip theory) or 3-D techniques. The added mass is frequency

Part 1-2. General rules - Structural fire design dependent, and thus varies with time during a collision, but a

/3/ Amdahl, J.: “Energy Absorption in Ship-Platform constant value is recommended for simple analysis.

Impacts”, UR-83-34, Dept. Marine Structures, Norwe-

gian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, 1983. The fraction of collision energy to be dissipated as strain

energy for shuttle tanker impact on FPSO stern is shown in

/4/ SCI 1993: Interim Guidance Notes for the Design and Figure 8-1. Note the strong dependency of the mass ratio; the

Protection of Topside Structures against Explosion and larger the mass of shuttle tanker, the lesser of the collision

Fire energy must be dissipated as strain energy. (However, pro-

/5/ Amdahl, J.: “Mechanics of Ship-Ship Collisions- Basic vided that the speed of the shuttle tanker is constant, the abso-

Crushing Mechanics”. West Europene Graduate School lute value of the strain energy increases)

of Marine Technology, WEGEMT , Copenhagen, 1995

The relative size may differ considerably for the approach

/6/ Skallerud, B. and Amdahl, j.: “Nonlinear Analysis of phase (shuttle tanker in ballast, FPSO fully loaded) and the

Offshore Structures”, Research studies Press, UK 2002 departure phase (shuttle tanker fully loaded, FPSO in ballast).

/7/ Amdahl, J. and Johansen, A.: “High-Energy Ship Colli- To illustrate this, possible values are listed in Table 8-1. In this

sion with Jacket Legs” ISOPE, Stavanger, 2001 example both the FPSO and shuttle tanker are large compared

/8/ Moan, T., Amdahl, J., Wang, X. and Spencer, J.: “ Risk to typical North Sea conditions. The same added mass coeffi-

Assessment of FPSOs, with Emphasis on Collisions”, cient applies to both vessels. It is observed that the fraction of

SNAME Annual Meeting, Boston, 2002 energy to be dissipated as strain energy varies between 0.33

(departure) and 0.71 (approach). This indicates that the

/9/ Skallerud, B. and Amdahl, j.: “Nonlinear Analysis of approach phase may be particularly critical with respect to the

Offshore Structures”, Research studies Press, UK 2002 consequences of collision.

/10/ Amdahl, J. and Johansen, A.: “High-Energy Ship Colli-

sion with Jacket Legs” ISOPE, Stavanger, 2001 Table 8-1 Fraction of collision energy for strain energy

dissipation

Vessel size [dwt]

8. Commentary Approach phase Departure phase

Comm. 2.3 General Shuttle tanker 150.000 370.000

FPSO 320.000 160.000

The structural design is seen as having acceptable safety

Strain energy fraction 0.71 0.33

against accidental loads when the design accidental loads are

less than the design resistance. This is similar to the check of

the structure for ordinary loads but with the following differ-

ences: As ordinary loads are either permanent or occur fre- 1,2

quent it will not be acceptable that the load lead to reduced load

carrying capacity while the short duration and the low proba- 1

Strain energy fraction

E.g. a blast wall need not be capable of resisting another explo- 0,8

sion after a blast, but if the wall is used as a fire barrier it need

to serve as such after the blast. 0,6

Comm. 3.1 General

For typical installations, the contribution to energy dissipation 0,4

from elastic deformation of component/substructures in direct

contact with the ship is very small and can normally be 0,2

neglected. Consequently, plastic methods of analysis apply.

0

However, elastic elongation of the hit member as well as axial

flexibility of the nodes to which the member is connected, have 0 1 2 3 4

a significant impact on the development of membrane forces in Mass ratio [(ms + as)/(mi+ ai)]

the member. This effect has to be taken into account in the

analysis, which is otherwise based on plastic methods. The dia-

grams in Section 3.7.2 are based on such an approach. Figure 8-1

Depending on the structure size/configuration as well as the Fraction of collision energy to be dissipated as strain energy for

location of impact elastic strain energy over the entire structure shuttle tanker impact on an FPSO.

may contribute significantly.

Comm. 3.2 Design principles Comm. 3.5.1 Recommended force-deformation relationships

The transition from essentially strength behaviour to ductile The force-deformation relationship for impacts from supply

response can be very abrupt and sensitive to minor changes in vessels/merchant vessels against jacket legs have been elabo-

scantlings. E.g. integrated analyses of impact between the stern rated because of the need to consider high-energy impacts (col-

of a supply vessel and a large diameter column have shown lision energy ~50 MJ) for some installations in the North Sea.

that with moderate change of (ring - and longitudinal) stiffener The likelihood of a central impact against a leg is obviously not

size and/or spacing, the energy dissipation may shift from pre- very large, but has still been considered because loss of a leg

dominantly platform based to predominantly vessel based. could be critical for some platforms. Experience has shown,

Due attention should be paid to this sensitivity when the calcu- however, that many large North Sea jackets have sufficient

lation procedure described in Section 3.5 is applied. strength to crush the bow. Reference is made to Amdahl and

Comm. 3.3 Collision mechanics Johansen (2001).

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 36 see note on front cover

The curve for bow impact in Figure 3-4 has been derived on the Figure 8-3 shows an example of the evolution of contact force

assumption of impacts against an infinitely rigid wall. Some- intensity during a collision between the stern corner of a supply

times the curve has been used erroneously to assess the energy vessel and a stiffened column. In the beginning the contact is

dissipation in bow-brace impacts. concentrated at the extreme end of the corner, but as the corner

Experience from small-scale tests Ch.7, /3/ indicates that the deforms it undergoes inversion and the contact ceases in the

bow undergoes very little deformation until the brace becomes central part. The contact area is then, roughly speaking,

strong enough to crush the bow. Hence, the brace absorbs most bounded by two concentric circles, but the distribution is une-

of the energy. When the brace is strong enough to crush the ven.

bow the situation is reversed; the brace remains virtually

undamaged. The force-deformation curves given in Figure 3-4 relate to

On the basis of the tests results and simple plastic methods of total collision force for stern end - and stern corner impact ,

analysis, force-deformation curves for bows subjected to respectively. Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 give the anticipated

(strong) brace impact were established in Ch.7, /3/ as a func- maximum force intensities (local force and local contact areas,

tion of impact location and brace diameter. These curves are i.e. subsets of the total force and total area) at various stages of

reproduced in Figure 8-2. In order to fulfil a strength design deformation.

requirement the brace should at least resist the load level indi-

cated by the broken line (recommended design curve). For The basis for the design curves is integrated, non-linear finite

braces with a diameter to thickness ratio < 40 it should be suf- element analysis of stern/column impacts.

ficient to verify that the plastic collapse load in bending for the

brace is larger than the required level. For larger diameter to The information given in 3.5.2 may be used to perform

thickness ratios local denting must probably be taken into strength design. If strength design is not achieved numerical

account. analyses have shown that the column is likely to undergo

Normally sized jacket braces are not strong enough to resist the severe deformations and absorb a major part of the strain

likely bow forces given in Figure 8-2, and therefore it has to be energy. In lieu of more accurate calculations (e.g. non-linear

assumed to absorb the entire strain energy. For the same rea- FEM) it has to be assumed that the column absorbs all strain

sons it has also to be assumed that the brace has to absorb all energy.

energy for stern and beam impact with supply vessels.

Comm. 3.5.3 Energy dissipation is ship bow.

Impact force [MN] The requirements in this paragraph are based upon considera-

Recommended design curve for brace impact tions of the relative resistance of a tubular brace to local dent-

12 ing and the bow to penetration of a tubular beam. A

Between a stringer (D= 1.0 m) fundamental requirement for penetration of the brace into the

bow is, first - the brace has sufficient resistance in bending,

8 On a stringer (D= 0.75 m) second - the cross-section does not undergo substantial local

deformation. If the brace is subjected to local denting, i.e.

Between stringers (D= 0.75) m undergoes flattening, the contact area with the bow increases

4

and the bow inevitably gets increased resistance to indentation.

The provisions ensure that both requirements are complied

with.

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Figure 8-8 indicates the level of the various contact locations.

Indentation [m]

Figure 8-4 shows the minimum thickness as a function of brace

Figure 8-2 diameter and resistance level in order to achieve sufficient

Load-deformation curves for bow-bracing impact, Ch.7, /3/ resistance to penetrate the ship bow without local denting. It

may seem strange that the required thickness becomes smaller

Comm. 3.5.2 Force contact area for strength design of large for increasing diameter, but the brace strength, globally as well

diameter columns. as locally, decreases with decreasing diameter.

Local denting in the bending phase can be disregarded pro-

vided that the following relationship holds true:

2

D 1⎛l⎞

≤ 0.14 2 ⎜ ⎟ (8.1)

t c1 ⎝ D ⎠

length diameter ratio that results from Equation (8.1). The

Total collision force thickness can generally be smaller than the values shown, and

distributed over this still energy dissipation in the bow may be taken into account,

but if Equation (8.1) is complied with denting does not need to

Area with high force

intensity

be further considered.

The requirements are based upon simulation with LS-DYNA

Deformed stern corner

for penetration of a tube with diameter 1.0 m. Great caution

should therefore be exercised in extrapolation to diameters

substantially larger than 1.0 m, because the resistance of the

Figure 8-3

Distribution of contact force for stern corner/large diameter col- bow will increase. For brace diameters smaller than 1.0 m, the

umn impact requirement is conservative.

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 37

80 used.

fy = 235 MPa, 6 MN

Comm. 3.10.1 General

60

Thickness [mm]

fy = 235 MPa, 3 MN

If the degradation of bending capacity of the beam cross-sec-

fy = 355 MPa, 6 MN

tion after buckling is known the load-carrying capacity may be

40

interpolated from the curves with full bending capacity and no

fy = 355 MPa, 3 MN bending capacity according to the expression:

20

0

0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 fy = 420 MPa, 3 MN RM P =1 ( w ) = Collapse load with full bending contribution

Diameter [m] RM P =0 ( w ) = Collapse load with no bending contribution

Figure 8-4

Required thickness versus grade and resistance level of brace to R M P , red

penetrate ship bow without local denting ξ=

R M P =1 ( w = 0)

100 cross-sectional capacities. This has to be

updated along with the degradation of cross-

80 sectional bending capacity.

Thickness [mm]

L/D =20

60 Comm. 3.10.4 Tensile fracture in yield hinges

L/D =25

40 L/D =30 The rupture criterion is calculated using conventional beam

theory. A linear strain hardening model is adopted. For a can-

20 tilever beam subjected to a concentrated load at the end, the

strain distribution along the beam can be determined from the

0 bending moment variation. In Figure 8-7 the strain varia-

0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 tion, ε = ε cr ε Y , is shown for a circular cross-section for a

Diameter [m] given hardening parameter. The extreme importance of strain

hardening is evident; with no strain hardening the high strains

Figure 8-5 are very localised close to the support (x = 0), with strain hard-

Brace thickness yielding little local deformation in the bending ening the plastic zone expands dramatically.

phase

On the basis of the strain distribution the rotation in the plastic

zone and the corresponding lateral deformation can be deter-

mined.

Comm. 3.7.3 Support capacity smaller than plastic bending

moment of the beam If the beam response is affected by development of membrane

forces it is assumed that the membrane strain follows the same

The procedure is illustrated in Figure 8-6. relative distribution as the bending strain. By introducing the

Elastic, rotational flexibility of the node is normally of moder- kinematic relationships for beam elongation, the maximum

ate significance. membrane strain can be calculated for a given displacement.

50

7

α = 1.5 c =0.5 45

6 40

Hardening parameter H = 0.005

5 35

R/R0 R*/R0

30 Maximum strain P

Strain ε

4 εcr/εY x

R/R0 25 = 50

3 20 = 40

l

= 20

2 15

R *0 / R0 No hardening

10

1

R*/R0 5

0

wlim 0

0 1 2 3 4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

x/l

Deformation w

Figure 8-7

Axial variation of maximum strain for a cantilever beam with cir-

Figure 8-6 cular cross-section

Derivation of force-deformation relationship for beam with end

moments less than beam plastic moment.

Adding the bending strain and the membrane strain allows

determination of the critical displacement as a function of the

The procedure given is essentially the same as the one used in total critical strain.

NORSOK N-004, but is formulated differently. The bending

moment boundary condition is important in the bending phase, Figure 8-8 shows deformation at rupture for a fully clamped

but has no influence on the resistance in the pure membrane beam as a function of the axial flexibility factor c.

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 38 see note on front cover

5

20%

4.5

NORSOK

4

15%

3.5 ABAQUS fine

Strain

l/D = 30 l/D = 20 USFOS beam

3 10%

w/D

2.5 c= 0 c= 0 ABAQUS

2 = 0.05 = 0.05 5% USFOS shell

= 0.5 = 0.5

1.5

= 1000 = 1000

1 0%

0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0 Displacement [m]

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Strain versus displacement of clamped beam

Figure 8-8

Maximum deformation for a tubular fully clamped beam

(H=0.005)

It is observed that the strain estimated in ABAQUS analysis

depend significantly on the mesh size evidencing the need for

a mesh-size-dependent fracture strain criterion. The NORSOK

criterion agrees fairly well with FEM calculations when a fine

The plastic stiffness factor H is determined from the stress- mesh is used. The criterion is conservative, as desired. The

strain relationship for the material. The equivalent linear stiff- strain calculation in the USFOS beam element assumes a yield

ness shall be determined such that the total area under the plateau followed by parabolic type hardening. Only the fine

stress-strain curve up to the critical strain is preserved (The two ABAQUS mesh captures the yield plateau effect.

portions of the shaded area shall be equal), refer Figure 8-9. It Comm. 3.12 Energy dissipation in floating production vessels

is un-conservative and not allowable to use a reduced effective

yield stress and a plastic stiffness factor as illustrated in Figure

8-10.

fcr

fcr

HE HE

1600

1600

E E

Determination of plastic stiffness Design of an impact resistant stern – collision with a VLCC.

heads subjected to gross, axial crushing shall be based upon

f recognised methods for plastic analysis, e.g. Ch.7, /3/ and

HE

Ch.7, /4/. It shall be documented that the folding mechanisms

assumed yield a realistic representation of the true deformation

field.

The force deformation relationships given in Figure 3-6 may

be used to design a collision resistant stern of an FPSO. In

order to be impact resistant, stringers and frames must be fairly

ε closely spaced, typically in the range of 1.5 – 2 m. Given the

Figure 8-10 relative dimensions of the girder system and the bulb cross-

Erroneous determination of plastic stiffness section, as illustrated in Figure 8-12, it is reasonable to apply

the total collision force as uniformly distributed line loads on

the stringers and frames. The integrity of the stringers and

frames can then be checked in a FEM analysis. Moderate local

The accuracy of the calculation model for tensile fracture in yielding should be accepted.

yield hinges has been investigated by Amdahl and Skallerud

(2002). The maximum strain as a function of lateral displace- The stern structure must resist the collision force during all

ment (Equation (3.22)) for a tubular beam is compared with the stages of the collision process. Normally, it suffices to analyse

a few collision force and contact area situations.

maximum strain from finite element calculations in Figure

8-11. The beam is assumed to be clamped and fixed against It is normally neither practical nor necessary to design the plat-

inward axial displacement, l = 25 m, D = 1 m, t = 0.06 m, fy = ing and stiffeners such that their response is elastic. Large plas-

tic deformations can be accepted, but fracture of the plating

300 MPa, H = 0.00287 (i.e. ultimate stress fu = 390 MPa for at should not occur (Note: provided that strength design is aimed

ultimate strain εu = 0.15). The mesh size for USFOS shell and for). In lieu of more accurate calculations, the contact force

ABAQUS is 0.25 ⋅ 0.39 m and for ABAQUS fine mesh may be considered uniformly distributed over the plate field,

0.05 ⋅ 0.195 m. The element used in ABAQUS analyses is the and the resistance may be assessed using the provisions given

S4R reduced integration element . for the resistance of plates and stiffeners to explosion loads.

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 39

Even if the stiffeners are allowed to deform under extreme col- imply that the resistance is totally lost, because fracture takes

lision loads, they should be sufficiently robust to initiate crush- place in the top flange while the strain on the plate side is con-

ing of the bulb. Engineering judgment must be applied, but it siderably smaller .

is recommended to design the stiffeners according to require- The above procedure neglects the effect of membrane forces

ments for ships navigating in ice; DNV Ice Class POLAR. transverse to the stiffeners. Depending on the geometry of the

With respect to deformation resistance of stiffened plating, see panel this contribution may be substantial.

next paragraph. Collisions with FPSOs have been studied in-depth in a paper

The ductile resistance of stiffened plates may be analysed con- by Moan et.al. (2002). Force-deformation relationships are

sidering the side as an assembly of plate/stiffeners. The resist- given for supply vessels/merchant vessels, 18.000 tons chemi-

ance of individual stiffeners with associated plate flange can be cal tanker and a 42.000 tons tanker and a shuttle tanker. The

calculated with the methods given in Section 6.3 using rela- collision risk for all categories of vessels is discussed exten-

tionships for a concentrated force, see example in Ch.8, sively. The consequences of a collision with a shuttle tanker

Comm. 9.3. The resistance of the various stiffeners will be servicing the FPSO are especially considered.

mobilised according to the geometry (raking) of the impacting Figure 8-13 shows the force-deformation relationship for sup-

bow. ply vessel/merchant vessel colliding with the side of an FPSO.

Unless the frame spacing is long or the stiffener height is small, It is interesting to see that the force level for bow without bulb

fracture will take place before noticeable membrane stiffening is smaller than the bow force-deformation curve given in Fig-

has taken place. The initiation of fracture does not necessarily ure 3-4.

30 30

Energy s upers tr.

25 Energy bulb 25

Total force

20 20

Energy [MJ]

Forc e bulb

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

0 1 2 3

Bow Displacement [m]

Figure 8-13

Force-deformation relationship for supply vessel/merchant vessel impact against FPSO side

Comm. 4.4.1 Stiffened plates subject to drill collar impact to replace its effect by equivalent, initial lateral member distor-

tions. There is however, not sufficient information to support

The validity for the energy equation 4.6 is limited to such a procedure at present.

7 < 2 r/d < 41, t/d < 0.22 and mi/m < 0.75.

Comm. 5.5 Empirical correction factor

The formula neglect the local energy dissipation which can be

added as Eloc = R·0.2 t. In Ch.7 /2/ Eurocode 3 an empirical reduction factor of 1.2 is

applied in order to obtain better fit between test results and col-

In case of hit near the plate edges the energy dissipation will be umn curve c for fire exposed compressive members. In the

low and may lead to unreasonable plate thickness. The failure design check this is performed by multiplying the design axial

criterion used for the formula is locking of the plate. In many load by 1.2. In non-linear analysis such a procedure is imprac-

cases locking may be acceptable as long as the falling object is tical. In non-linear space frame, stress resultants based analysis

stopped. If the design is based on a hit in the central part of a the correction factor can be included by dividing the yield

plate with use of the smaller diameter in the treaded part in the compressive load and the Euler buckling load by a factor of

calculations, no penetration of the drill collar will take place at 1.2. (The influence of axial force on member’s stiffness is

any other hit location due to the collar of such dropped objects. accounted for by the so-called Livesly’s stability multipliers,

Comm. 5.1 General which are functions of the Euler buckling load.) In this way the

reduction factor is applied consistently to both elastic and

For redundant structures thermal expansion may cause buck- elasto-plastic buckling.

ling of members below 400°C. Forces due to thermal expan-

sion are, however, purely internal and will be released once the The above correction factor comes in addition to the reduction

member buckles. The net effect of thermal expansion is there- caused by yield stress and elastic modulus degradation at ele-

fore often to create lateral distortions in heated members. In vated temperature if the reduced slenderness is larger than 0.2.

most cases these lateral distortions will have a moderate influ- Comm. 6.2 Classification of response

ence on the ultimate strength of the system.

Equation (6.2) is derived using the principle of conservation of

As thermal expansion is the source of considerable inconven- momentum to determine the kinetic energy of the component

ience in conjunction with numerical analysis it would tempting at the end of the explosion pulse. The entire kinetic energy is

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 40 see note on front cover

then assumed dissipated as strain energy. Figure 8-14 is derived from the dynamic response chart for a

Equation (6.3) is based on the assumption that the explosion SDOF system subjected to a triangular load with zero rise time

pressure has remained at its peak value during the entire defor- given in Figure 6-3.

mation and equates the external work with the total strain In the example it is assumed that from ductility considerations

energy. In general, the explosion pressure is not balanced by for the assumed mode of deformation a maximum displace-

resistance, giving rise to inertia forces. Eventually, these iner- ment of ten times elastic limit is acceptable. Hence the line

tia forces will be dissipated as strain energy. y allow y max

= = 10 represents the upper limit for the

Equation (6.4) is based on the assumption that the pressure y el y el

increases slowly so that the static condition (pressure balanced displacement of the component. From the diagram it is seen

by resistance) applies during the entire deformation. that several combinations of pulses characterised by Fmax and

Comm. 6.4 SDOF system analogy td may produce this displacement limit. Each intersection with

a response curve (e.g. k3 = 0) yields a normalized pressure

The displacement at the end of the initial, linear resistance

domain yel will generally not coincide with the displacement at

first yield. Typically, yel represents the displacement at the ini- F Fmax

tiation of a plastic collapse mechanism. Hence, yel is larger =

R R el

than the displacement at first yield for two reasons:

and a normalised impulse

i) Change from elastic to plastic stress distribution over

beam cross-section

1

ii) Bending moment redistribution over the beam (redundant I

Fmax t d

1 t

beams) as plastic hinges form = 2 = ⋅ d

RT R el T R el T

2

Fmax

11 By plotting corresponding values of normalised impulse and

normalised pressure the iso-damage curve given in Figure 8-14

is obtained.

Impulsive asymptote

10

9

If the displacement shape function changes as a non-linear

structure undergoes deformation the transformation factors

8 change. In lieu of accurate analysis an average value of the

combined load-mass transformation factor can be used:.

7

Pressure F/R

+ (μ − 1)k lm

elastic plastic

k lm

=

average

6 k lm (8.3)

μ

5

μ = ymax/yel ductility ratio

4

Since μ is not known a priori iterative calculations may be nec-

3

Iso-damage curve for ymax/yelastic = 10 essary.

Elastic-perfectly plastic resistance

Dynamic response charts for a SDOF system with triangular

2 pressure pulses with rise time different from td/2 are given in

Figure 8-15 to Figure 8-17.

1

Pressure asymptote

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Impulse I/(RT)

Figure 8-14

Iso-damage curve for ymax/yel = 10. Triangular pressure

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 41

100

Rel/Fmax= 0.8

= 0.9

10

= 1.0

ymax/yel

= 1.1

= 1.2

= 1.5

1

k3 = 0

k3 = 0.1k1 Fmax Rel

k3 = 0.2k 1 k1

k3 = 0.5k 1

td yel y

0.1

0.1 1 10

td/T

Figure 8-15

Dynamic response of a SDOF system to a triangular load (rise time=0)

100

Rel/Fmax= 0.8

10

= 0.9

ymax/yel

= 1.0

= 1.1

1 = 1.2

= 1.5

F R k3 = 0.5k1 =0.2k1 =0.1k1

k3 = 0

k3 = 0.1k1 Fmax Rel

k3 = 0.2k1

k1

k3 = 0.5k1

0.15td td yel y

0.1

0.1 1 10

td/T

Figure 8-16

Dynamic response of a SDOF system to a triangular load (rise time = 0.15td)

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 42 see note on front cover

100

Rel/Fmax= 0.8

10

= 0.9

ymax/yel

= 1.0

1 = 1.1

= 1.2

F R = 1.5

k3 = 0.5k1 =0.2k1 =0.1k1

k3 = 0

Fmax Rel

k 3 = 0.1k1

k 3 = 0.2k 1 k1

k 3 = 0.5k 1

0.30td td yel y

0.1

0.1 1 10

td/T

Figure 8-17

Dynamic response of a SDOF system to a triangular load (rise time = 0.30td)

For beams the characteristic linear stiffness given for the The table is taken from Ch.7, Reference /4/. The values are

elasto-plastic resistance domain in Table 6-2 is derived from based upon a limiting strain, elasto-plastic material and cross-

the equal area principle on the assumption that the support sectional shape factor 1.12 for beams and 1.5 for plates. Strain

moment is equal to the plastic bending moment of the beam. hardening and any membrane effect will increase the effective

Comm. 6.7.1.1 Component behaviour ductility ratio. The values are likely to be conservative.

For deformations in the elastic range the effective width (shear

lag effect) of the plate flange, se, of simply supported or

clamped stiffeners/girders may be taken from Figure 8-18. 9. Examples

9.1 Design against ship collisions

1.2 9.1.1 Jacket subjected to supply vessel impact

The location of contact is at brace mid-span and the force acts

1

Uniform distribution or n> 6 parallel to global x-axis. The brace dimensions are 762 x 28.6

n= 5 mm. From linear elastic analysis it is found that the stiffness of

0.8 n= 4 nodes 508 and 628 against displacement in the brace direction

n= 3 is 736 MN/m and 51 MN/m respectively, when the brace is

s e/s

equal springs, each with stiffness:

0.4

nFi nFi

0.2

=L = 0.6L

0

0 2 4 6 8

/s

Figure 8-18

Effective flange for stiffeners and girders in the elastic range

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 43

cient to support the force state in the brace both in the bending

mode of deformation and in the membrane tension state. Fig-

ure 9-3 displays the simulated bending moment-axial force

interaction history in the brace and shows that the membrane

force becomes substantial, but doe not attain the fully plastic

axial force. In lieu of accurate calculations, it should be assume

that the fully plastic tension is developed.

Provided that the joints and adjacent structure are capable of

supporting the brace ends, the energy dissipation is limited by

fracture due to excessive straining of the brace. Fracture crite-

ria are given Section 3.10.3. Using the fracture criterion in Sec-

628 tion 3.10.3 there is obtained wcrit = 2.2 m and a corresponding

energy dissipation E = 6 MJ.

10 10

762 x 28.6 mm

l= 23.3 m Energy dissipation

508 8 8

6 6

Jacket subjected to ship impact 4 4

2 Simple model 2

−1

⎛ 1 1⎞

K node = 2⎜ + ⎟ = 95 MN / m 0 0

⎝ 736 51 ⎠

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

The axial stiffness of the brace is given by

Displacement [m]

2 EA 2 ⋅ 2.1 ⋅ 10 ⋅ π ⋅ 0.762 ⋅ 0.0286

5

Figure 9-2

= = 1234 MN / m Load versus lateral deformation of the contact point

l 23.3

and is large compared to the stiffness of the node. This yields

an effective stiffness of

1.0

1 1 1

= + = 88 MN/m

K 95 1234 0.8

Normalised force N/NP

stiffness comes out to be 0.6

0.4

2

4c 1 Kw c 2 Kd 2 ⋅ 88 ⋅ 0 .762

c= = = ≅ 0 .18 0.2

f y Al f y π t l 355 ⋅ π ⋅ 0 .0286 ⋅ 23 .3

The resulting end restraint is quite flexible. This is particularly 0.0

due to low stiffness in node 628, in spite of the support by the

adjacent braces. Hence, the build-up of tension force will be -0.2

delayed compared to a full axial fixity. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

The collapse load in bending is calculated assuming clamped Normalised moment M/MP

conditions at both ends. This is a good approximation at the

lower end but slightly optimistic at the upper end. Figure 9-3

Axial force-bending moment interaction in brace

R0 = = = 1.9 MN Tensile fracture in jacket brace

l 23.3

Tensile fracture of the brace considered in is estimated. The

The load-deformation characteristics for the brace are obtained characteristic dimension is, dc = D = 0.762 m. For steel grade

by interpolation of the curves given in Figure 3-7. The result is S 355 a strain hardening coefficient of H = 0.0034 is used, refer

depicted in Figure 9-2. The response predicted by means of the Table 3-3. c1 = 2 (clamped ends are assumed), the collision

nonlinear analysis program USFOS is also plotted. It appears occurs at mid span, hence κ = 0.5, and κ l /dc = 15.3. The non-

that the simplified approach performs very well when axial dimensional spring stiffness is c = 0.18 and W/WP = π /4. This

flexibility is taken into account. The loss of stiffness predicted yields wcrit = 2.2 m.

by USFOS at large displacements is due to initiation of failure

of adjacent members at node 628. Collapse of these members Because of the large κ l /dc – ratio, the brace is capable of

takes place at a load level of 2.8 MN. deforming almost three times its diameter.

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 44 see note on front cover

9.2 Design against explosions eigenperiod is adjusted by Tmod = T 1 0.65 = 5.0 msecs to

account for less stiffness. This yields td/Tmod = 4.0. From the

9.2.1 Geometry response chart there is obtained ymax/yel ~ 0.7. This yields

The geometry of the structure is outlined in Figure 9-4. The wmax = 0.7 · 47,3 = 33 mm.

plate, stiffeners and girders will be assessed. The main dimen- All these methods yield approximately the same result. The

sions are: static approach is quite good, but there is a slight dynamic

amplification > 1 in the present case.

t = 10 mm

s = 500 mm The plate must be checked with respect to rupture, see Section

l = 2000 mm 9.4.1.

It is noticed that if no membrane force can be taken into

Stiffener dimension Hp 180 account, i.e. c = 0, then ymax/yel >> 100 and the plate will fail

completely.

t = 10

The dynamic response of the stiffened plate considered in Sec-

tion 9.3.2, subjected to a triangular explosion pulse with dura-

tion 20 msecs and peak pressure fmax = 2.5 MPa, is studied.

The collapse resistance is R0 = Rel = 0.58 MN, and no mem-

brane stiffening can be assumed, i.e. k3 = 0. As the plate/stiff-

Stiffener Hp180 ener undergoes a phase with elasto-plastic bending, the

resistance is approximated by a linear elastic-perfectly plastic

model, with equivalent stiffness of 208 MN/m and wel = 2.8

mm. The critical deformation at rupture wcrit = 36 mm, hence

Figure 9-4 the ductility ratio is μ = ymax/yel = 36/2.8 = 13.

Geometry

The total mass is 108 kg. The load-mass factor is ~ 0.77 and

0.66 in the elastic/elasto-plastic and plastic bending phase,

9.2.2 Calculation of dynamic response of plate: respectively. Using Equation (8.3) the average load-mass fac-

tor becomes klm average

= ( 0.77 + (13 − 1) 0.66 ) /13 = 0.67 and the

The dynamic response of the plate considered in Section 9.3.1 eigenperiod is:

is studied. The plate is subjected to a triangular pressure pulse

with duration of 20 msecs. The peak pressure is fmax = 2.5

average

MPa. Assume that the resistance curve for c = 1.0 in Figure 9- k lm M

7 applies. This yields rel/fmax = 0.3. The curve is redrawn T = 2π = 3.7m sec s

below along with approximate relationships k1

5 that for μ = 13 and td/T =5.4 → Rel/Fmax ≅ 0.75 (in other

P late c = 1.0

words, because of limited pulse duration it is possible to “over-

4 load” the stiffener by 33% compared to the static collapse

resistance in bending).

Resistance [Mpa]

E q . linear

S tatic

3 The maximum peak pressure the stiffener can resist is:

T ri-lin ear 1 Rel

2 f crit = = 0.8 MPa.

0.75 sl

1

Consequently; the stiffener is not strong enough to resist the

0 explosion pressure without rupture (see discussion in Section

0 10 20 30 40 50 9.3.2 as concerns rupture of stiffener).

D eform ation [m m ] It is a fairly common experience that stiffeners are more likely

to be critical with respect to explosion loads than the plating

Alternative 1- static analysis: The eigenperiod of the plate between stiffeners.

according to Section 9.3.1 with η = 25 is T = 4.0 msecs. Hence

td/T = 5. This is a fairly long duration and static behaviour can 9.3 Resistance curves and transformation factors

be assumed. The maximum deflection is determined directly

from Figure 9-7, i.e. wmax = 27 mm. 9.3.1 Plates.

Alternative 2 - tri-linear resistance: By inspection of the Generation of elastic–plastic resistance curve is illustrated for

dynamic response charts and the resistance curve for the plate a plate with the following particulars: Length, l = 2 m, width,

it is noticed that none of the tri-linear curves apply very well. s = 0.5 m, thickness, t = 10 mm, yield stress f y = 355 MPa. It

The best fit is obtained with k3 = 0.5 k1, but this underestimates is assumed that the plate is a part of a continuous plate field.

the resistance for large deformations. From the response chart Large deformations are expected so that the plate will yield

for td/T = 5 there is read ymax/yel ~ 4.8. This yields wmax = 4.8 along the boundaries. Then clamped boundaries are assumed.

· 6.15 = 30 mm. The rigid – plastic curve is given by Equation (8.3). The col-

Alternative 3 – equivalent linear resistance: For large defor- lapse resistance in bending is rc = 0.76 MPa. The resistance

mations the stiffness is fairly linear. Assume that the average curve for fully fixed boundaries are indicated by the line “Plate

stiffness is linear and equal to 65 % of the elastic stiffness, i.e. c = inf” in Figure 9-6. Below, the curve will be adjusted for the

k = 0.65 · 123 = 80 MPa/m. In this case the rel can be set arbi- effect of in-plane flexibility using the procedure described in

trarily, but it should be ensured that the response is such that Section 6.8.2.

ymax/yel < 1.0, and it is practical to select a given rel/fmax ratio First, the resistance of a plate-strip is calculated, using infor-

for which a response curve is provided. Hence assume rel/fmax mation given in Section 6.9.2 with α = 2 (rectangular cross-

= 1.5, which gives rel = 47.3 mm and then it follows r. The section). Clamped boundaries with c1 = 2 are assumed also for

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 45

the plate strip. The collapse resistance in bending for the plate

strip is rc = 0.57 MPa. 5

The characteristic beam height is.

4

Resistance [Mpa]

αWP 2 t 2 ⋅1 4 t Plate c = inf

wc = = =

A t ⋅1 2 3 Plate c = 1.0

Plate c = 0.3

The resistance curve for the plate strip is shown in Figure 9.6 2 Strip c = inf

for fully fixed boundaries c = ∞ , and for two values of the non-

dimensional spring stiffness, c = 1.0 and c = 0.3. It is observed 1 Strip c = 1.0

that the difference between the plate strip and the plate solution Strip c = 0.3

is small for the present fairly large aspect ration, notably when 0

the membrane effect predominates 0 10 20 30 40 50

On the assumption that the plate experiences the same relative Deformation [mm]

reduction of the resistance due to axial flexibility as does the

plate strip, resistance curves for the plate with non-dimen- Figure 9-6

sional spring stiffness, c = 1.0, and c = 0.3 can be generated as Derivation of rigid-plastic resistance curves for a plate

shown in Figure 9-6.

The next step is to assess the flexibility factor c:

If the flexibility of the adjacent structure is neglected, account-

ing only for the 2nd term in Equation (6.11), there is obtained 5

2 EA 2 Et ⋅ 1 4

Resistance [Mpa]

k= = = 8400 MN / m

l s 3

This yields a non-dimensional spring stiffness, c = 0.95.

2 Plate c = inf

Plate c = 1.0

Uniform stress field applied along 1 Plate c = 0.3

boundary of removed plate

0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Deformation [mm]

Figure 9-7

Elastic-plastic resistance for a plate with various degrees of axial

Inward flexibility.

displacement

The plate considered in Section 9.3.1 is stiffened with HP 180x

Figure 9-5 8 stiffeners with yield stress fy = 355 MPa. The girder spacing

Approximate determination of flexibility by means of membrane is 2.0 m. It is assumed that the stiffener is continuous, so that

analysis yield hinges can form at the connections to the girder, hence c1

= 2. The area of the stiffener As= 1.88·10-2 m2 and the distance

to the centroid is zg = 0.109 m.

In order to assess the influence of the flexibility of the adjacent From Figure 8-18 it is found that the plate flange is approxi-

structure, a membrane analysis is performed with the plate mately 80% for a uniformly distributed load when

removed, see Figure 9-5. A constant stress of 100 MPa is

applied perpendicular the boundaries. The maximum deforma- l /s = 0.6⋅2.0/0.5 = 2.4. The effective area of the plate flange

is 0.8 s t = 4·10-3 m2 > As. Hence, it may be assumed that the

tion obtained, at the mid-point of the long edges, is 0.25 mm. plastic neutral axis for the effective section lies at the stiffener

This yields an equivalent stiffness of knode = 100·0.010·1/ web toe. This yields the plastic section modulus WP = As zg =

0.25·10-3 = 4000 MN/m. When both effects are accounted for, 2.05·10-3 m3 and collapse resistance in bending

the resulting stiffness becomes k = (1/8400 +1/4000)-1 =

2710 MN/m and c = 0.31. Hence, the plate resistance may be 8c1 f yWP

R0 = = 0.58 MN

assessed reasonably well by means of the curves for either c = l

1.0 or c = 0.3.

The characteristic beam height is.

Finally, the linear elastic solution up to the collapse resistance α WP

in bending, rc, is added to the rigid-plastic solution. Using the w c = ------------ = α z g = 1.2 ⋅ 0.109 = 0.13 m

information given in Section 6.9.1, ψ = 400, and k1 = 123 MPa/ A

m. The deformation corresponding to r = rc is wel = 6.15 mm. The moment of inertia for stiffener with effective plate flange

The resulting resistance curves are shown in Figure 9.7. is I = 2.28 10-5 m4. The initial elastic stiffness is taken from

Table 6-2:

384EI

k= = 230 MN/m

L3

This yields a lateral “elastic” deformation of wel = 2.5 mm for

R = R0.

The resistance curve for the stiffener with associated plate

flange is shown in Figure 9.8 for various degrees of axial flex-

ibility (Note elastic part not included!).

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 46 see note on front cover

For uniformly loaded, clamped beams there will be an elasto- The plastic bending resistance is

plastic bending phase between the occurrence of first plastic 8M Pm

hinge and final formation of final collapse mechanism. To Rel* = = 5.95 MN

account for this effect, the initial stiffness may be modified on L

the basis of equal area principle. The equivalent elastic stiff- and wel* = 21.8 mm. However, the functional loads amount to

ness is obtained from Table 6-2 with m1 = 1: 1.8 + 0.29 = 2.09 MN (including steel weight), so 21.8·2.09/

5.95 = 7.6 mm is already utilised and only Rel = 5.95-2.09 =

307EI 3.86 MN and wel = 14.1 mm is available in the equivalent elas-

k= = 184 MN/m

L3 tic range. The limiting deformation for rupture calculated in

9.4.3 is wmax = 95 mm, yielding ductility ratio μ = w/max / wel

and wel = 3.2 mm for R = R0. = 95/14.1 = 6.7.

It is noticed that the stiffener must undergo a substantial plastic When calculating the load-mass factor the change in transfor-

deformation before membrane strengthening becomes signifi- mation factor from the elastic to plastic regime may be

cant according to the present model. Whether this is achievable accounted for, see Ch.8, Comm. 6.4. The factor for distributed

depends on the ductility of the stiffener, refer Section 9.4.2. mass and concentrated mass is

Recent investigations indicate that the model adopted for stiff- klmaverage,u = (0.55 + (6.7 − 1) ⋅ 0.56) / 6.7 = 0.56

ened plate is considerably conservative, which may warrant a and

more accurate nonlinear finite element analysis if the stiffener

response becomes critical. klm average,c = (0.83 + (6.7 − 1) ⋅ 1.0) / 6.7 = 0.975,

respectively. The eigenperiod becomes

2.0 4 5

0.56 ⋅ 2.9 ⋅ 10 + 0.975 ⋅ 1.8 ⋅ 10

T = 2p ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0.166s

c = inf 6

1.5 α = 1.2

274 ⋅ 10

c = 1.0

c = 0.5 and hence td/T= 0.33/0.166 ~ 2. From Figure 6-3 there is read

Rel/Fmax = 0.7 for coordinates (2,6.7). Hence, the girder can

R [MN]

c = 0.2

1.0 c = 0.1 resist a dynamic load of Fmax = 3.86/0.7 = 5.5 MN, corre-

sponding to a peak pressure of fmax= 0.23 MPa.

0.5 Example girder:

The neutral axis for the girder studied in Section 9.3.3 is

located 0.315 m from the plate flange. This yields a character-

0.0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

istic dimension dc = 2 ⋅ (1.5 − 0.315) = 2.37 m. The critical

Deformation w [m]

location is at the clamped side, whereby κ =1/3. Clamped end

yields c1 = 2 for the fracture check. With H = 0.0034 and c =

0, there is obtained w/dc = 0.069 and w = 0.095 m.

Figure 9-8

Resistance curve for stiffener with associated plate flange. 9.4 Ductility limits

9.4.1 Plating

9.3.3 Calculation of resistance curve for girder Rupture of the plating for the example considered in Section

What is the maximum pressure a steel girder can resist prior to 9.2.2 may be estimated by means of the procedure given in

rupture, when the explosion load is triangular, with equal rise Section 3.10.4, using the plate strip analogy. The characteristic

and decay time, and the duration is 0.33 s? dimension is, dc = t = 10 mm. For steel grade S 355 a strain

hardening coefficient of H = 0.0034 is used, refer Table 3-4. κ

The girder has the following dimensions: = 0.5, c1 = 2 (clamped ends) and κ l /dc = 0.5 s/t = 25. This

yields the following values for the critical deformation, wcrit,

Length L = 12 m, web height, hw = 1.5 m, web thickness, tw = depending on the spring stiffness c, see Table 9.1 (Note: the

13 mm, top flange breadth, btop = 0.45 m, top flange thickness elastic deformation rel = 6.15 mm is added to the values

ttop = 19 mm. The girder spacing is 2 m and the plate thickness obtained). By inspection of Figure 9-7 it is noticed that the

is 10 mm. For simplicity it is assumed that the plate flange is fully plastic membrane state according to this procedure is

fully effective. The girder has a distributed load of intensity 10 attained in all cases but c = 0.

kN/m2 and mounted equipment with mass 1.8·105 kg. The

equipment load acts equally at two points located L/3 from Table 9-1 Ductility limit as a function of the spring stiffness

member ends. The girder is simply supported at one end and c ∞ 1.0 0.3 0

clamped at the other end. At the clamped end fully plastic

bending moment of the girder can be assumed. There is no wcrit [mm] 35 51 59 76

axial restraint. Yield stress fy = 355 MPa, acceleration of grav- 9.4.2 Stiffener:

ity g = 10 m/s2, density of steel 7.86⋅103 kg/m3.

Rupture is calculated for the stiffened plate considered in sec-

The following is obtained for the girder: tion 9.2.3 using the procedure given in Section 3.10.4. The

Moment of inertia I = 1.84⋅10-2 m4, elastic section modulus, W steel grade is S 355 with a strain hardening coefficient of H =

0.0034, refer Table 3-3. Clamped conditions are assumed, i.e.

= 1.96⋅10-2 m3, plastic section modulus, WP = 2.51⋅10-2 m3, c1 = 2. The shape factor (somewhat arbitrarily) set to 1.5. The

total cross-sectional area 0.048 m2. The total distributed mass, characteristic dimension of the stiffened plate is dc = 2hw =

including mass of girder is 0.29⋅10-5 kg, so the concentrated 0.36 m. This yields λ/dc = 5.56, only. This critical deformation

mass predominates. Hence, transformation factors for two con- becomes wcrit = 0.1dc = 36 mm, almost independent of the

centrated loads in Table 6.2 are used. spring stiffness c (Note: ductility ratio is μ = 36/2.2 = 16). This

The equivalent stiffness in the elasto-plastic range (m3 = 1) is. fairly small value is due to the low κλ/dc – ratio for the stiff-

ener. The stiffener is far from entering the membrane stiffen-

122EI ing phase, so that any discussion of the possibility for

k= = 274 MN/m

L3 membrane forces to develop is irrelevant.

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 47

If the stiffener is free against rotation and/or has a longer span Plate thickness: t = 14 mm

membrane effects may become important prior to rupture. Stiffener dimension: HP240x10, simulated as an L-profile

with dimension L240x39x10x29

Observe that rupture is calculated for the location subjected to Stiffener spacing: s = 800 mm

the largest strains, i.e. at the stiffener top flange. Rupture in the Stiffener length: l = 3200 mm

top flange is not necessarily critical with respect to intactness Girder dimension: T-girder with dimension: 870x300x10

to explosion loads, because the plate side experiences far less x20

strains. It is likely that the plate will remain intact beyond the Girder length: L = 12000 mm

deformation limit corresponding to rupture in the top flange. A

significant part of the contribution to resistance from the stiff- The material properties are as follow:

ener is lost, but the plating between girders may have a signif-

icant residual resistance after failure of stiffeners provided that

the plate does not disintegrate. It is, however, difficult to pro- Yield strength: fy = 420 MPa

vide validated, closed form solution for this situation. Strain rate factor: γε = 1.0

A stiffener subjected to pressure on the plate side may trip Effective yield strength: fy = fy· γε = 420 MPa

about the weld toe at mid span. In this case the assumptions Modulus of elasticity: E = 2.1·105 MPa

used in the strain calculation model are no longer valid. Material density: ρ = 7850 kg/m3

9.4.3 Girder: Poisson’s ratio: ν = 0.3

Max. plastic strain: 1.0% (maximum allowable, corre-

The neutral axis for the girder studied in Ch.8, Comm. 6.10 is spond to cross section class 3 or 4, see

located 0.315 m from the plate flange. This yields a character- sub-section 9.5.2)

istic dimension dc = 2 ⋅ (1.5 − 0.315) = 2.37 m. The critical

location at the clamped side, whereby κ =1/3. Clamped end Permanent loads and live loads are as follow:

yields c1 = 2 for the fracture check. With H = 0.0034 and c =

0, there is obtained w/dc = 0.069 and w = 0.095 m. Permanent loads: pP = 10.0 kN/m2

9.5 Design against explosions - girder Live loads: pL = 5.0 kN/m2

Explosion pulse td = 0.15 sec (triangular load

9.5.1 Geometry, material and loads period: with a rise time =

0.50·td)

The geometry of the structure is outlined in Figure 9-4. The

main dimensions are:

Stiffener:

10

240

800 (typ.)

Bulkhead 29

39

Girder:

t = 14

12000 10

Stiffener: Hp240

870

Girder: TG870x300x10x20

Bulkhead

20

3200(typ.) 300

Figure 9-9

Geometry

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 48 see note on front cover

Effective plate flange according to DNV Classification Note

30.1 (July 1995), sub-section 3.4.3 and 3.5.4:

s fy 800 420

β= ⋅ = ⋅ = 2.56

t E 14 2.1E 5

1 .8 0 .8 1 .8 0.8

Cx = − = − = 0.58

β β 2

2.56 2.56 2

⎡ ⎛l ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎤

2

⎡ ⎛ 3200 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎤

2

⎝ s ⎠ ⎝ β ⎠ ⎥⎦

2

⎣⎢ ⎣⎢ ⎝ 800 ⎠ ⎝ 2.56 ⎠ ⎦⎥

Determination of cross section class, Ref. NS3472:2001, Sec- tion 12.1:

(h wg / t wg ) (850 / 10)

Web: = = 113.6 , i.e. class 3 (bending considered)

235 / f y 235 / 420

0.5 ⋅ (b fg − t wg )

( ) 0.5 ⋅ (300 − 10)

Bottom Flange: t fg ( ) , i.e. class 2 (bending & axial)

= 20 = 9 .7

235 / f y 235 / 420

0.5 ⋅ (l e − t wg ) 0.5 ⋅ (784.6 − 10)

( ) ( )

Plate Flange: t 14 , i.e. class 4 (bending & axial)

= = 37.0

235 / f y 235 / 420

In the following calculations, a plate flange width larger than cross sectional class 3 will not be considered, i.e.:

l e = 2 ⋅ (14 ⋅ t ⋅ 235 / f y ) + t wg = 2 ⋅ (14 ⋅14 ⋅ 235 / 420 ) + 10 = 303.2 mm

Effective area of plate flange: le = 303.2

Ap = le·t = 303.2·14 = 4245.1 mm2

Area of girder flange:

Af = bfg·tfg = 300·20 = 6000.0 mm2 t = 14

Total area of girder web:

Aw = hwg·twg = 850·10 = 8500.0 mm2

Total area (gross section):

hc

AG = Ap+Af+Aw = 4245.1+6000+8500 = 18745.1 mm2

Distance to neutral axis (from bottom of girder flange):

⎛ h wg ⎞

twg = 10

t fg ⎛t ⎞

Af ⋅ + Aw ⋅ ⎜⎜ + t fg ⎟⎟ + A p ⋅ ⎜ + h wg + t fg ⎟

2 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ hwg = 870-20

z0 = = 403.6mm

AG = 850

Web height in tension:

ht = z0-tfg = 403.6-20.0 = 383.6mm z0

Web height in compression: ht

hc = hwg-ht = 850.0-383.6 = 466.4mm

tfg = 20

bfg = 300

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 49

2 2 2

⎛ t fg ⎞ ⎛h ⎞

1

(

I G = ⋅ A f ⋅ t 2fg + Aw ⋅ h wg

12

2

⋅ ⎜⎜

+ Ap ⋅ t 2 + A f ) ⎟ + Aw ⋅ ⎜ wg + t fg

⎟ ⎜ 2

⎟ + A p ⋅ ⎛⎜ + h wg + t fg ⎞⎟ − AG ⋅ z 02 = 2.407 ⋅10 9 mm 4

⎟

t

⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝2 ⎠

Effective girder web according to NS3472:

Elastic buckling stress

2

π2 ⋅E ⎛ t wg ⎞ 2

⎟ = 23.9 ⋅ π ⋅ 2.1 ⋅ 10

2 5

⎛ 10 ⎞

f e = 23.9 ⋅ ⋅⎜ ⋅⎜ ⎟ = 627.9 MPa

12 ⋅ (1 − ν ) ⎜⎝ hwg

2 ⎟

⎠ (

12 ⋅ 1 − 0.3 2

) ⎝ 850 ⎠

Web slenderness:

fy 420.0

λp = = = 0.818

fe 627.9

⎧ hc if λ p ≤ 0.724

⎪ ⎡ 341.2 ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤

hce = ⎨ ⎡ hc ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ hce = ⎢ ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎥ = 430.8mm

⎪⎢ λ ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟⎥ if λ p > 0.724

⎜ 5⋅λ ⎟⎥ ⎣ 0.818 ⎝ 5 ⋅ 0.818 ⎠ ⎦

⎩ ⎣⎢ p ⎝ p ⎠⎦

le = 303.2

t = 14

½ hce

hc Δh

= 850

e

ht ht

tfg = 20

bfg = 300

Figure 9-10

Effective Girder Section

Reduction in web height:

Δh = hc -hce = 466.4 – 430.8 = 35.6 mm

Effective cross section area:

Ae = AG -Δh ·twg = 18745.1 – 35.6·10.0 = 18389.1 mm2

Distance to neutral axis from bottom of girder flange:

⎛ Δh + hce ⎞ 35.6 + 430.8

AG ⋅ z 0 − Δh ⋅ t wg ⎜ + ht + t fg ⎟ 18745.1 ⋅ 403.6 − 35.6 ⋅10⎛⎜ ⎞

+ 383.6 + 20 ⎟

⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

z 0e = = = 399.1mm

Ae 18389.1

Effective elastic moment of inertia:

2

1 ⎛ h ⎞

I Ge = I G − ⋅ Δh 3 ⋅ t wg − Δh ⋅ t wg ⋅ ⎜ t fg + ht + c − z 0 e ⎟

12 ⎝ 2 ⎠

2

1 ⎛ 466.4 ⎞

I Ge = 2.407 ⋅10 9 − ⋅ 35.6 3 ⋅10 − 35.6 ⋅10 ⋅ ⎜ 20 + 383.6 + − 399.1⎟ = 2.387 ⋅10 9 mm 4

12 ⎝ 2 ⎠

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 50 see note on front cover

I Ge 2.387 ⋅10 9

W eo = = = 4.923 ⋅10 6 mm 3

t fg + h wg + t − z 0 e 20 + 850 + 14 − 399.1

I Ge 2.387 ⋅10 9

W eu = = = 5.982 ⋅10 6 mm 3

z 0e 399.1

Web areas:

hce 430.8

Aw1 = ⋅ t wg = ⋅10 = 2154.0mm 2

2 2 e1

½ h ce Aw1

⎛h ⎞ ⎛ 430.8 ⎞

Aw 2 = ⎜ ce + ht ⎟ ⋅ t wg = ⎜ + 383.6 ⎟ ⋅10 = 5990.0mm 2

⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

A f + Aw1 + Aw 2 − A p 6000 + 2154.0 + 5990.0 − 4245.1 ½ h ce

e1 = = = 494.9mm

2 ⋅ t wg 2 ⋅10

e3 = = = 279.5mm Aw2

2 ⋅ t wg 2 ⋅10

ht

⎧ hc 2 hc 2

⎪ + ht if e3 > + ht

e2 = ⎨ 2 2

e 2 = 279.5mm

h

⎪ e3 if e3 ≤ c 2 + ht

⎩ 2

⎛ hce ⎞

⎛ t fg⎞ ⎜ + ht ⎟

t hce ⎜ 2 ⎟ = 8.719 ⋅10 6 mm 3

W p1 = A p ⋅ + A f ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟ + Aw1 ⋅

⎟+ h wg + A ⋅ h −

2 ⎝ 2 ⎠ 4

w2

⎜ wg 2 ⎟

⎜ ⎟

⎝ ⎠

Plastic section modulus if Ap + Aw1 > Aw2 + Af :

2

⎛ hce ⎞ ⎛ hce ⎞

2

⎜ − e1 ⎟ ⎜ + ht ⎟

W p 2 = A p ⋅ ⎜ + e1 ⎟ + A f ⋅ (t fg + h wg − e1 ) + 1 ⋅ t wg

⎛t ⎞ e ⎝ 2 ⎠ 2

+ ⋅ t wg + Aw 2 ⋅ ⎜ h wg − − e1 ⎟ = 6.392 ⋅10 6 mm 3

⎝ 2 ⎠ 2 2 ⎜ 2 ⎟

⎜ ⎟

⎝ ⎠

Plastic section modulus if Ap + Aw1 < Aw2 + Af :

⎛t h ⎞ ⎛ h tf ⎞

W p 31 = A p ⋅ ⎜ + ce + Δh + e 2 ⎟ + A f ⋅ ⎜⎜ ht + ce + − e 2 ⎟⎟ = 4.259 ⋅10 6 mm 3

⎝2 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠

2

⎛ hce ⎞

2

⎜ + ht − e 2 ⎟

⎛h ⎞ e ⎝ 2 ⎠

W p 32 = Aw1 ⋅ ⎜ ce + Δh + e 2 ⎟ + 2 ⋅ t wg + ⋅ t wg = 1.812 ⋅10 6 mm 3

⎝ 4 ⎠ 2 2

W p 3 = W p1 + W p 2 = 6.070 ⋅10 6 mm 3

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 51

⎧W p1 if A p > Aw1 + Aw 2 + A f

⎪

W p = ⎨W p 2 if A p + Aw1 > Aw 2 + A f = 6.070 ⋅10 6 mm 3

⎪W

⎩ p 3 if A p + Aw1 < Aw 2 + A f

Ratio between plastic and elastic section modulus:

Wp

= 1.23

We

9.5.3 Mass

kg

w p = t ⋅ l ⋅ ρ = 14 ⋅ 3.200 ⋅ 7850 = 351.7

m

Mass from stiffener, see figure:

As = hws ⋅ t ws + b fs ⋅ t fs = 211 ⋅ 10 + 39 ⋅ 29 = 3241mm 2 tws = 10

hws = 240-29

= 211

l 3241 3200 kg

ws = As ⋅ ρ ⋅ = ⋅ 7850 ⋅ = 101.8

s 10 6 800 m tfs = 29

Mass from girder:

18745.1 kg

w g = AG ⋅ ρ = 6

⋅ 7850 = 147.1

10 m bfs = 39

Mass from permanent loads and possible live loads (to be eval- uated in each case):

p 10 ⋅ 10 3 kg

w PL = P ⋅ l = ⋅ 3.200 = 3263.1

g 9.807 m

Total mass:

kg

w = w p + ⋅w s + w g + w PL = 351.7 + 101.8 + 147.1 + 3263.1 = 3863.7

m

9.5.4 Natural period

Linear Stiffness, Ref. Table 6-2 in Section 6.10:

384 ⋅ E ⋅ I Ge 384 ⋅ 2.1 ⋅10 5 ⋅ 2.387 ⋅10 9 N N

kl = = = 1.114 ⋅10 5 = 1.114 ⋅10 8

L3 12000 3

mm m

Natural period assuming uniformly distributed mass (Klm,u is

taken from Table 6-2):

T = 2 ⋅π ⋅ = 2 ⋅π ⋅ = 2 ⋅π ⋅ = 0.113 sec

kl kl 1.114 ⋅10 8

Ratio of pulse load period versus natural period:

td 0.15

= = 1.33

T 0.113

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005

Page 52 see note on front cover

The maximum lateral deformation prior to buckling can be cal- Web (bending):

culated according to equation 3.19 in sub-section 3.10.2: h wg / t wg 850 / 10

⎛ β = 0.8 = 0 .8 = 90.9

14 ⋅ c f ⋅ f y ⎛ κL ⎞ ⎞⎟

2

wp 1 ⎜ 235 / f y 235 / 420

= ⋅ ⎜1 − 1 − ⋅ ⎜ ⎟

dc 2⋅c f ⎜ c1 ⋅ β 3 ⎜⎝ d c ⎟⎠ ⎟⎟ Based on these input parameters, the maximum plastic defor-

⎝ ⎠

mation is calculated to:

where;

1089 ⎛⎜ 14 ⋅ 0.994 ⋅ 420 ⎛ 6000 ⎞ ⎞⎟

2

dc is characteristic dimension for local buckling, i.e. wp = ⋅ 1− 1− ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ = 33.37 mm

2·(t+½hce+dh+e3) = 2·(14+½·430.8+35.6+279.5)= 1089mm 2 ⋅ 0.994 ⎜ 2 ⋅ 90.9 3 ⎝ 1089 ⎠ ⎟

⎝ ⎠

c1 is 2 for clamped beams

The maximum elastic deformation is found from:

κL is the smaller the distance from load to adjacent joint (0.5).

Here set to 0.5·L, i.e. 6000

2 2 f y ⋅ W e ⋅ L2 420 ⋅ 4.923 ⋅10 6 ⋅12000 2

⎛ c ⎞ ⎛ 106624 ⎞ we = = = 18.56mm

c f = ⎜⎜ ⎟ =⎜

⎟

⎟

⎜ 1 + 106624 ⎟ = 0.994 32 ⋅ E ⋅ I Ge 32 ⋅ 2.1 ⋅10 5 ⋅ 2.387 ⋅10 9

⎝1+ c ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

,and c is non-dimensional spring stiffness, ref Section 3.7;

c= = = 106624

f y ⋅ Ae ⋅ l 420 ⋅18389.1 ⋅12000 Me f y We

p L2

12

1 1

k = = = 7.873 ⋅10 9

1 1 1 1

+ + L

k node 2 ⋅ E ⋅ AG 1 ⋅10 20 2 ⋅ 2.1 ⋅10 5 ⋅18745.1

Maximum elastic deformation:

knode is axial stiffness of the node with the considered member

removed, here assumed infinitely. 1 p L4

we

1.2 ⋅ W p 1.2 ⋅ 6.070 ⋅10 6 384 E I

wc = = = 396.1 1 p L2 12 L2 1 L2 f y We L2

Ae 18389.1 we Me

384 12 E I 32 E I 32 E I

Calculation of cross sectional slenderness factor, ref. Section

3.10, i.e. the maximum of the following:

Ductility ratio:

Plate flange:

wp 33.37

le / t 303.2 / 14 μ= = = 1.80

β =3 =3 = 86.9 we 18.56

235 / f y 235 / 420

9.5.6 Maximum blast pressure capacity

Bottom flange:

b fg / t fg From Figure 9-11, the dynamic load factor is found:

300 / 20

β =3 =3 = 60.2

235 / f y 235 / 420

Rm

DLF ( μ ) = = 0.99

Fl

With reference to Figure 9-11, k3 was set to 0, which ensures

conservative results.

Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004

see note on front cover Page 53

100 = 0.7

Rel/Fmax= 0.8

10

ymax/yel

= 0.9

μ = 1.80

= 1.0

1

= 1.1

= 1.2

F R k3 = 0.5k1 =0.2k1 =0.1k1

= 1.5

k3 = 0

Fmax Rel

k3 = 0.1k1

k3 = 0.2k1 k1

k3 = 0.5k1

0.50td td yel y

0.1

0.1 1 10

td/T = 1.33

td/T

Figure 9-11

Dynamic Response of a SDOF system due to a triangular pulse load profile (rise time = 0.50td)

9-12:

16 ⋅ M p 16 ⋅ W p ⋅ f y 16 ⋅ 6.070 ⋅10 6 ⋅ 420

Rm = = = = 3399.2 ⋅10 3 N = 3399.2kN

L L 12000

Elastic Plastic

p pP

L L

M = pL2/12 MP = pPL2/16

M = pL2/24 MP = pPL2/16

Rm = pPL = 16MP/L

Figure 9-12

Moment diagram (elastic and fully plastic)

R 0 = w g ⋅ g ⋅ L + ( p p + p l )⋅ l ⋅ L = 147.1 ⋅ 9.807 ⋅12 + (10 + 5) ⋅10 3 ⋅ 3.2 ⋅12 = 593.3 ⋅10 3 N = 593.3kN

The maximum blast pressure capacity is obtained from the fol-

lowing two equations:

Rm − R0

Fl = and Fl = pmax ⋅ l ⋅ L

DLF ( μ )

The maximum blast pressure capacity is then:

Rm − R0 1 (3399.2 − 593.3) ⋅ 103 1

pmax = ⋅ = ⋅ = 0.074 MPa = 0.74bar

DLF ( μ ) l ⋅ L 0.99 3200 ⋅ 12000

Note that the maximum resistance (Rm) given above does not

include a capacity check with respect to shear. The shear

capacity can be determined from sub-section 12.4.4 in

NS3472-2001.

- Steel ConnectionsTransféré parTejas Patel
- Design of Structural ConnectionsTransféré parAlin Catinean
- Curvature Ductility Factor of Rectangular Sections Reinforced Concrete BeamsTransféré paryasser_goldstone
- CE6306 Strength of Materials(SOM)Transféré pargoldencomet
- Deformation (Engineering)Transféré parphutd09
- Crosby Alloy MasterlinkTransféré parjakash
- Structural Steel Design BowlesTransféré parIonut Narcis Iuga
- Matest_2014.pdfTransféré parcivil lab
- Characterization of Sustainable Bio-based Mortar for Concrete RepairTransféré parmargarethsm
- Modelling the Effect of Climate Change Induced Soil Settling on Drinking Water Distribution PipesTransféré parIonut Patras
- DOEAL-SG-100_AppM_09-30-05_finalTransféré parnewavatar
- A Comparative Study of Recron and Steel Fiber ReinforcedTransféré parBan
- Bridgestone Catalogue.pdfTransféré parHaviz Albar, S.T
- 2. Stress and Strain Axial LoadingTransféré parrocket
- Stress vs Strain Curve_OVERVIEWTransféré parMohammad Khasawneh
- 1-s2.0-S0142112316303723-mainTransféré parClaudio Junior
- MM222 Lectures 2Transféré parSufyan Jawed
- 0 AKN Pin Bearing and Pedestal Design Viaduct 1Transféré pardik_g
- On the mechanics of braided composites in tensionTransféré parsaniawaqar
- Hussien AlkasimTransféré parhussien alkasim
- 28 - Forged Steel Cast Aluminum and Cast Iron in Safety Critical Automotive ComponentsTransféré parAndy
- Bucking of Thin Concrete DomesTransféré parSack David
- indeterm_all.pdfTransféré parmaloy
- Bridge Engineering ResearchTransféré parJasmin Miranda
- Braided_composites-1.pdfTransféré pardebaleena12
- Ab Initio Investigation on Mechanical Properties of CopperTransféré partone_n_tune
- Ab initio investigation on mechanical properties of copper.pdfTransféré partone_n_tune
- Uoh Matlsci Lesson01 Quiz v2 Tedl DwcTransféré parMirza Safeer Ahmad
- Fire behavior of composite beams with simple connections: Benchmarking of numerical modelsTransféré parMilmxmen
- PO_04Transféré parHarold Taylor

- Hooke's Law Lab ReportTransféré parÖzgür Sarımaden
- Environmentally Assisted Cracking - Corrsion CourseTransféré parMd. Saimon Islam
- SIA 9 CompositesTransféré parjohnj_ramirez
- Seismic Response of Steel Moment Resisting Frames Designed Using a Direct DBD ProcedureTransféré parTeja Dewanti
- Design by AnalysisTransféré parJEELE77
- Mech-V-Design of Machine Elements i [10me52]-SolutionTransféré parTolbert D'Souza
- 01 Mechanical Properties of Materials Jan09 StdNotesTransféré parRusYz AvVeroez
- NSI_FracTip_volume4_number1.pdfTransféré parMarcelo Ayllón Ribera
- Tissue Healing and Wound CareTransféré parPatricia Andrea Acevedo Arancibia
- manual.pdfTransféré parAndrés Juárez Sánchez
- Plugin Chapter6Transféré parGerard Mercado
- Asymmetric Single Point Incremental Forming of Sheet Metal.pdfTransféré parMarckho
- Series of LecturesTransféré parIrfan Saeed
- Callister Ch6 Mek OzTransféré parÖzgür Tombak
- Strength of MaterialsTransféré parSurendra Babu Koganti
- Charpy Test Determination of Impact Energy Using the Charpy TestTransféré parseelan10
- Structural Mechanics Module Users GuideTransféré parAnonymous wx4I4YQO
- ACI MCP 2010 Manual of Concrete Practice 2010Transféré parmaciel
- 1-s2.0-S2215098614000597-main.pdfTransféré parAnkush
- IS CODETransféré parraghu_chandra_3
- Numerical simulation for direct shear testTransféré parzerlopez
- AAPL Capability StatementTransféré parjsmnjasmines
- Griffith 1920 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ATransféré parEdwin Ronald Valderrama Campos
- Computer Modeling and Optimization of Swage Autofrettage Process of a Thick-Walled Cylinder Incorporating Bauschinger EffectTransféré parBoonsap Witchayangkoon
- Finite Element Modeling and Parametric Analysis of Visc 2017 Construction AnTransféré parHanamant Hunashikatti
- Numerical and Experimental Study of Buckling of AdvancedTransféré parபுகழேந்தி தனஞ்செயன்
- Fibre Reinforced ConcreteTransféré parPradeepLokhande
- Investigation of Refractory Brittleness by Fracture Mechanical and Fractographic MethodsTransféré parsrivasabhinav
- Strength characteristics of interwoven sandcrete block masonryTransféré parA A Adedeji
- III Sem Mechanical Engineering.pdfTransféré parNishant kumar