Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 53

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

Amendments and Corrections


This document is valid until superseded by a new revision.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.

Comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnv.com


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.

Computer Typesetting (FM+SGML) by 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

INTRODUCTION The following main subjects are covered:


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
Page 4 – Introduction

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 7

1. General DNV-OS-C301 Stability and Watertight Integrity of


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005
Page 8 see note on front cover

1.6 Symbols clp Plastic zone length factor


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 9

y Generalised displacement, displacement amplitude 2.2 Safety format


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

φ Displacement shape function Sd ≤ R d (2.1)

λ Reduced slenderness ratio


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 11

Shared energy design implies that both the installation and


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

3.3.1 Strain energy dissipation


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.

3.3.2 Reaction force to deck 3.5 Ship collision forces


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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]

Contact force with bulb


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)

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 13

Force-deformation relationships for tanker bow impact are


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

Contact dimension [m]


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 15

c1 = 1 for pinned beams member the force-deformation relationship may be interpo-


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)

1 .2 WP characteristic deformation for stiffened where


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005
Page 16 see note on front cover

4,5

Bending & membrane


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

3.7.3 Support capacity smaller than plastic bending i = adjacent member no i


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 17

occur when the tensile strain due to the combined effect of


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

imply that the capacity with respect to energy dissipation is


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)

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005
Page 18 see note on front cover

For flanges subjected to compression; 3.10.4 Tensile fracture in yield hinges


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 19

be taken as effective shell flange


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)

imum collision force occurs at maximum deformation.


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

The loss of momentum during impact with water is given by


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 21

in Table 4-1. fy = characteristic yield strength

Table 4-1 Terminal velocities for objects falling in water


⎛ d ⎞
Item Mass Terminal velocity − 2.5⎜⎜ 1− ⎟⎟
[kN] [m/s] c = −e ⎝ 2r ⎠

Drill collar 28 23-24


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

As the load level is not known a priori an incremental approach


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.

dwo Object Installation dwi 4.5 Limits for energy dissipation


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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-

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

Table 6-1 Analysis models


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 25

6.4 SDOF system analogy


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

the dynamic equations of equilibrium can be transformed to an


equivalent single degree of freedom system: M c = ∑M
i
i = total concentrated mass

m&y& + ky = f (t ) (6.5) F = ∫ qdx = total load in case of uniformly


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005
Page 26 see note on front cover

100

Static asymptote, k 3=0.2k 1 k 3=0.1k 1

10 Impulsive asymptote, k 3=0.2k 1


k 3=0.2k 1

ymax/yel
for system
Elastic-perfectly plastic, k 3=0
1

F(t) td/T for system

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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 27

Rel/Fmax=0.05 =0.1 = 0.3 = 0.5 = 0.6


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)

6.6 MDOF analysis Elasto-plastic : The effect of partial yielding on bending


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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: Elastic material, small deformations


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

Figure 6-6 200 10


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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]

2 buckling, tripping or lateral torsional buckling stiffened plates/


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

Mass factor Load-mass factor


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

Plastic 0.50 0.33 0.66 (


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 31

Mass factor Load-mass factor


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

Elastic 1.0 1.0 0.37 1.0 0.37 (


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

16 M Ps 107 EI V1 = 0.25R + 0.07 F


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005
Page 32 see note on front cover

6.10.2 Beams with partial end restraint.


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

4 α = 1.2 Bending & membrane


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)

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

0.2 0.1 F (explosion load)


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)

For members where the plastic moment capacity of adjacent where


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

4M P + 2M P1 + 2M P2 Reference is made to Section 3.10.


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 35

7. References The added mass is due to the hydrodynamic pressure induced


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

bility of accidental loads make this an acceptable assumptions.


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).

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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 ⎠

Figure 8-5 shows brace thickness as a function of diameter and


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 37

phase. Between these extremities, simple linear interpolation is


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

fy = 420 MPa, 6 MN R ( w ) = RM P =1 ( w )ξ + RM P =0 ( w )(1 − ξ ) (8.2)


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)

R M P , red = Plastic collapse load in bending with reduced


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

εcr/εy Figure 8-11


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

εcr εcr 1600

Figure 8-9 Figure 8-12


Determination of plastic stiffness Design of an impact resistant stern – collision with a VLCC.

Calculation of energy dissipation in stringers, decks and bulk-


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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 superstr. Force [MN]


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 41

Rel/Fmax=0.05 =0.1 = 0.3 = 0.5 = 0.6 = 0.7


100

Rel/Fmax= 0.8

= 0.9

10
= 1.0
ymax/yel

= 1.1
= 1.2

= 1.5
1

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


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)

Rel/Fmax=0.05 =0.1 = 0.3 = 0.5 = 0.6 = 0.7


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)

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005
Page 42 see note on front cover

Rel/Fmax=0.05 =0.1 = 0.3 = 0.5 = 0.6 = 0.7


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)

Comm.6.7.1.1 Component behaviour Comm. 6.10.7 Ductility limits


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

0.6 removed. The unequal stiffness may be represented by two


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 43

It must also be verified that the capacity of the joints is suffi-


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

Energy dissipation [MJ]


508 8 8

Impact force [MN]


6 6

Figure 9-1 USFOS


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

Assuming clamped ends (c1 = 2) the non-dimensional spring


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

4c1M P 4 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 355 ⋅ (0.762 − 0.0286) 2 ⋅ 0.0286


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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.

Girder 9.2.3 Calculation of dynamic response of stiffened plate


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

This gives td/T = 5.4. By inspection of Figure 6-3 it is found


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

9.3.2 Calculation of resistance curve for stiffened plate


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!).

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005
Page 48 see note on front cover

9.5.2 Cross sectional of properties for the girder


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

l e = s ⋅ ⎢C x + 0.1 ⋅ ⎜ − 1⎟ ⋅ ⎜⎜1 + 2 ⎟⎟ ⎥ = 800 ⋅ ⎢0.58 + 0.1 ⋅ ⎜ − 1⎟ ⋅ ⎜ 1 + ⎟ ⎥ = 784.6 mm


⎝ 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

Gross sectional properties:


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 49

Elastic moment of inertia (gross section):


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

Effective compression web height, see Figure 9-10:

⎧ 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

z0 twg = 10 hwg = 870-20 ½ hce


= 850
e

ht ht

tfg = 20

bfg = 300
Figure 9-10
Effective Girder Section

Effective girder cross section properties


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 ⎠

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005
Page 50 see note on front cover

Effective elastic section modulus:


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

W e = min(W eo , W eu ) = 4.923 ⋅10 6 mm 3

Plastic section modulus:

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 ⎠

Eccentricities (see figure): e3


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

A f − Aw1 + Aw 2 − A p 6000 − 2145.0 + 5990.0 − 4245.1


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

Plastic section modulus if Ap > Aw1 + Aw2 + Af :


⎛ 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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 51

Plastic section modulus:


⎧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

Mass from plate:

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):

K lm ,u ⋅ M u 0.77 ⋅ w ⋅ L 0.77 ⋅ 3863.7 ⋅12.0


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

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004 Amended April 2005
Page 52 see note on front cover

9.5.5 Ductility ratio


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;

4 ⋅ c1 ⋅ k ⋅ wc2 4 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 7.873 ⋅10 9 ⋅ 406.12 p


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS


Amended April 2005 Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C204, November 2004
see note on front cover Page 53

Rel/Fmax=0.05 =0.1 = 0.3 = 0.5 = 0.6


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)

Maximum resistance for a fixed supported beam, see Figure


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)

Resistance utilised in order to take the permanent and live load:


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.

DET NORSKE VERITAS