VESSEL COLLISIONS ON BRIDGE PIERS: SIMULATION STUDY FOR...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 205 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 6, Issue 9, Sep 2015, pp. 205-217, Article ID: IJCIET_06_09_018

Available online at

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=6&IType=9

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication

VESSEL COLLISIONS ON BRIDGE PIERS:

SIMULATION STUDY FOR DYNAMIC

AMPLIFICATION FACTORS

Dr. Avinash S. Joshi

Research scholar, Department of Applied Mechanics,

Visveswaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India

Dr. Namdeo A. Hedaoo

Research scholar, Department of Applied Mechanics,

Visveswaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India

Dr. Laxmikant M. Gupta

Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics,

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, INDIA

ABSTRACT

In conventional analysis and design of bridges, piers are analyzed for

dead, vehicular, and earthquake forces. As a special case, an unfendered

Bridge pier may experience a vessel collision. This collision (impact) of a

barge or a ship commonly known as vessel may adversely damage the

structure. This paper presents an estimate of the Dynamic Amplification

Factor (DAF) for impact due to such vessel collisions on unfendered bridge

piers. Various geometries of piers are analyzed for forces arising from such a

collision scene considering the Indian navigational conditions. Static and

dynamic analysis of RCC wall type solid and the hollow circular piers using

the finite element method is carried out. Specially made computer programs in

MATLAB software are used for this purpose. The Dynamic Amplification

Factors for various geometries of piers with impact force applied at different

heights and angles are calculated and the results are presented in the form of

graphs.

Key words: Bridge pier, Collision, Dynamic amplification factor, Slenderness

ratio

Cite this Article: Dr. Avinash S. Joshi, Dr. Namdeo A. Hedaoo and Dr.

Laxmikant M. Gupta. Vessel Collisions on Bridge Piers: Simulation Study for

Dynamic Amplification Factors. International Journal of Civil Engineering

and Technology, 6(9), 2015, pp. 205-217.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=6&IType=9

Avinash S. Joshi, Namdeo A. Hedaoo and Laxmikant M. Gupta


1. INTRODUCTION

Impact force due to collision of vessels (ships or barges) is a reality and may

adversely damage the piers of a bridge in rivers or creeks which have navigational

channels. It has been observed, that the annual rate of ship/barge collisions with

bridges has increased from 0.5 to 1.5 bridges [1] in the period 1960 to 1980. Such a

hit results in heavy damage to the pier causing disruption to road traffic, resulting in

loss of economy in millions besides inordinate delays.

The pier is modeled using FEM techniques and is exposed to a force-time relation.

The maximum dynamic and static deflections are calculated. A dynamic amplification

factor is estimated. An equivalent static force could then be obtained by multiplying

the maximum force by the dynamic amplification factor. This will enable faster, less

cumbersome design process and at the same time ensure that the dynamic effects are

taken care off. The shape and size of the piers, the impacting vessel and the load from

the superstructure is varied to get an overall spectrum of the dynamic amplification

factors. The DAFs are presented in the form of graphs and equations.

2. PROBLEM FORMULATION

2.1. Vessel size

In Western countries like the US and some European nations, the magnitudes of the

ships plying navigational channels vary from 25,000 Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT)

upwards to 400,000 DWT. Such huge liners or ships may not enter the Inland

waterways. Present work is restricted to the IS 4561-Part III, for characteristics of the

vessel and other required details. IS 4561 tabulates the DWT and dimensions of small

ships, boats or barges from 600 T down to 125 T [2].

2.2. Vessel characteristics

The characteristics of vessels plying inland waterways as stated in IS 4651 are

reproduced here. The collision force due to a 600 T and a 400 T vessel are

investigated and marked ‘*’ in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of vessels plying inland waterways

Capacity (T) Overall

Length (m)

Overall

Breadth (m)

Overall

Depth (m)

Draught

Light (m)

Draught

Loaded (m)

600 * 57 11.58 3.05 0.91 2.29

500 49.1 8.75 2.50 0.40 1.85

400 * 41 8.76 1.94 0.76 1.85

300 37.3 7.60 2.44 0.91 2.13

300 42 7.80 2.70 0.57 1.82

200 35.2 7.05 2.25 1.63 0.75

125 22 5.85 2.20 0.76 1.83

2.3. Geometry of the Pier

Piers of different shapes and heights as per navigation and other requirements are

considered. Two types of piers viz., solid wall type and hollow circular tapering pier

are analyzed. Geometrical inputs are as mentioned in Tables 2 to 5. The geometries

are selected considering the present codes and recent design practices [3]. The

slenderness ratios ( are same for each type of pier ranging from 11 to 20. The height

Vessel Collisions On Bridge Piers: Simulation Study For Dynamic Amplification Factors


of the pier considered here is distance of pier top to pier base. The pier is assumed to

be fixed at the base. The inertial effects of the superstructure at the top are considered.

Table 2 Type 1 (wall type pier)

Length (m) Breadth (m) Height (m) Slenderness ratio

8.00 4.00 25.00 11

8.00 4.00 30.00 13

8.00 4.00 35.00 15

8.00 4.00 39.00 17

8.00 4.00 46.00 20

Table 3 Type 2 (wall type pier)

Table 4 Type 3 (hollow circular pier)

Table 5 Type 4 (hollow circular pier)

OD at

bottom

(m)

ID at bottom

(m)

OD at

top

(m)

ID at

top

(m)

Height

(m) Slenderness ratio

5.550 4.35 2.500 1.300 19.00 11

5.550 4.35 2.500 1.300 22.00 13

5.550 4.35 2.500 1.300 25.00 15

5.550 4.35 2.500 1.300 30.00 17

5.550 4.35 2.500 1.300 35.00 20

2.4. Approach velocities

The vessels are assumed to be in midstream and hence velocities are higher taken as

0.5 Hs [4], where ‘Hs’ is the average wave height, generally 4 m. Thus velocity is

greater than or equal to 2 m/s. A barge collision with a bridge pier is primarily an

accident; generally in such cases the navigator of the vessel looses control because of

a storm or an engine shut off and drifts freely in the stream. Considering this, the

stream velocity is 4.0 m/s adopted as the velocity of the vessel.

Length (m) Breadth (m) Height (m) Slenderness ratio

6.00 3.00 19.00 11

6.00 3.00 22.00 13

6.00 3.00 25.00 15

6.00 3.00 30.00 17

6.00 3.00 35.00 20

OD at

bottom

(m)

ID at

bottom

(m)

OD at

top

(m)

ID at

top

(m)

Height

(m) Slenderness ratio

7.000 5.800 3.500 2.300 25.00 11

7.000 5.800 3.500 2.300 30.00 13

7.000 5.800 3.500 2.300 35.00 15

7.000 5.800 3.500 2.300 38.00 17

7.000 5.800 3.500 2.300 45.00 20



2.5. Eccentricity of impact

The actual collision may be at some angle, which cannot be easily estimated

beforehand. The collision angle is of 10o, 15

o, 20

o, 25

o and 30

o is considered.

2.6. Water depth

The collision force is applied at 5 m, 10 m and 15 m from the base of the pier. The

application of the force, which depends on the depth of water, is selected so as to take

into consideration quite a large number of channels. Depth of inland waterways

having navigation with depths greater than 15 m is of rare occurrence.

2.7. The Dead load reaction on the pier

Navigable channels require a minimum horizontal clearance for the ship/barge to pass

comfortably below the bridge. The navigable spans are longer than normal hence dead

load reactions on the pier are larger, say of the magnitude (1500 T to 2000 T). 2000 T

is placed over different geometries of piers as mentioned above.

2.8. Material Properties

The Piers are considered to be of Reinforced Cement Concrete with E = 5000 ckf in

MPa, and poisons ratio ν = 0.15.

3. ESTIMATION OF THE IMPACT LOAD

3.1. Estimation of impact force

The present study is carried out for a head-on bow impact on the pier along the flow

of water [5]. The determination of the impact load on a bridge structure subjected to

vessel collision accident is complex. It depends on the characteristics of the vessel and

the bridge structure as well as the circumstances of the collision accident. Some

important parameters on which the present study is based on vessel characteristics i.e

type, size, shape and speed; geometry of pier i.e size, shape and mass and for the

collision circumstances i.e approach velocity, eccentricity of impact and water depth.

The following equation is used to assess the maximum impact force [6].

2.61/22.62

0 for 5.0 LELLELPPBOW (1)

2.61/2

0 for 5 LEELPPBOW (2)

where

PBOW = maximum bow collision (MN)

P0 = reference collision load equal to 210 MN

L = Lpp /275 m

E = Eimp /1425 MNm

Lpp = Length of the vessel in (m)

E imp = Kinetic energy of vessel (MNm)

Using this equation the maximum or peak impact force has been established for

vessels between 500 DWT to 300,000 DWT. The formula used is based on

investigations carried out at the Great Belt Project. Using this method the impact

forces are tabulated in Table 6.



Table 6 Impact force

Mass + 5%

added

mass

L=

Len

/27

5

Vel

oci

ty

m/s

K.E. imp

MNm

1/2 m.v2

E=

KE

/14

25

Force in

MN

Force in

(T)

Depth

of

Vessel

630 0.207 4 5.138 0.004 12.837 1284 3

420 0.149 4 3.425 0.002 8.889 889 2

3.2. Mass coefficient or added mass

When the motion of a vessel is suddenly checked the force of impact which the vessel

imparts comprises of the weight of vessel and an effect from the water moving along

with the vessel. Such an effect, expressed in terms of weight of water moving with the

vessel, is called added mass. The following order of magnitude of the hydrodynamic

added mass is normally recommended [7].

Mh = 0.05 DWT to 0.10 DWT : For Bow impacts

Mh = 0.4 DWT to 0.5 DWT : For sideways impact.

Work is restricted to only bow impacts and hence the mass has been increased by

5% to take into account the effect of the surrounding water during collision.

3.3. The force-time relationship

The impact force is dynamic in nature. The time history as established by Woisin. G

[7] is used. The maximum load Pmax occurs at the very beginning of the collision and

only for a very short duration (0.1 second to 0.2 second) as shown in Figure 1 and

then drops to a mean of value of Pmean ≈ 0.5Pmax. The total collision may last for 1

second to 2 seconds. The forcing function is suitably simplified without introducing

much error. The force–time relationship used is as shown in Figure 2.

Impact

Forc

e (

P)

0

Time (t)

Pmax = Maximum Impact Force

P(t)= Average Impact Force

Figure 1 Typical vessel impact force time history



Pmax = Maximum Impact Force

0

Impact

Forc

e (

P)

Pavg = Pmax / 2

1 sec.Time (t)

0.2 0.3

Figure 2 Simplified force – time history

4. MODELING OF PIER

To cover all the cases of static and dynamic loads, the choice of finite element has to

be made carefully. The force is applied over an area on the selected geometry of the

pier. The 3D-8 Noded, Isoparametric formulation is used for both, the wall type of

pier and the circular pier. The hollow piers have a very thick staining (0.6 m) and

hence the use of a thin shell element is not found to be suitable. Figure 3 and 4

indicate the finite element model of the piers along with the orientation.

Figure 3 Discretisation of wall type pier Figure 4 Discretisation of hollow pier

5. CALCULATING THE DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR

(DAF)

5.1. Static domain

The force due to collision is applied as a static force to the descritised pier at the

predefined height and angle. Using the Finite element technique the static deflections

are calculated. The force applied here is the Pmax as shown in Figure 2.

5.2. Dynamic domain

The problem in the dynamic domain can be best described as a case of forced

vibration of a multiple degree freedom system. For the dynamic analysis, the



Newmark method of direct integration has been used. The forcing function is divided

into discrete time intervals Δt apart.

5.3. The Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF)

DAF is calculated from the results of the above two steps that is the ratio of the

dynamic displacement to the static displacement ( staticdynamicDAF ). The DAF is

calculated considering all the nodal displacements of the pier just above the height of

collision. The maximum ratio is considered for plotting the graphs. It was also

observed that this ratio is greatest for the nodes at the top of the pier.

6. THE NEWMARK SCHEME AND FORMATION OF THE MASS

AND DAMPING MATRICES

The pier is represented as a multiple degree of freedom system and is subjected to the

dynamic load. The equations of equilibrium for a finite element system of motion are:

-

tPyKyCyM

(3)

where [M], [C] and [K] are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices and {Pt} is the

external load vector i.e. the collision force. {

y }, {

y } and {y} are the acceleration,

velocity and displacement vectors of the finite element assemblage.

6.1. Newmark method of direct Integration

The equations in the Newmark Integration scheme are [7]

Δt]yδyδ)[(yy ΔttttΔtt

1 (4)

2½ Δt]yαyα)[(yyy ΔtttΔtttΔtt

(5)

where >= 0.5; >= 0.25(0.5+) 2

6.2. Forming the Mass Matrix [M]

There are two ways of forming the mass matrix; one is the consistent mass matrix,

which is related to the volume of element through the shape function. The other is

lumped matrix, which can be taken in proportion to the area or volume of the element

at a given node. Herein the consistent mass matrix has been used. For generation of

the element mass matrix of a 3D solid element with 3 degrees of freedom for each

node mass is placed in each direction (u, v, w) for each node. Global mass matrix is

assembled from the element mass matrix.

6.3. Contribution of the dead weight of the superstructure

In the mass matrix, at the topmost nodes of the given pier configuration the dead

weight of the superstructure received (say 2000 T) is converted to mass. This enters

the pier system only at the topmost nodes. This Dead weight of the superstructure

plays a significant role in the Eigen values.



6.4. Damping

The Raleigh Damping method has been used to consider 5% damping which is the

normal practice for concrete structures. The Raleigh Damping method is found to be

suitable for the Newmark method. The two equations used are as follows –

C= M + K (6)

iii ξωβωα 22 (7)

where

ωi frequency for ith

mode.

ξi damping ratio for ith

mode

Damping increases as the vibration mode transgresses from the 1st mode to higher

modes. In applying this procedure to a practical problem the modes i and j with

specified damping ratios are to be chosen to ensure reasonable values for damping

ratios in all the modes contributing significantly to the response. In the present work

the damping ratio is considered to be 5% in the first mode of vibration which is

considered to increase to 7% in the 5th

mode of vibration. Thus using these values the

Raleigh damping coefficients by substituting in equation 7; two equations for and

are obtained. Substituting these values along with the already established [K]

(stiffness matrix) and [M] (mass matrix) we obtain the Raleigh damping matrix [7].

The Raleigh damping matrix is evaluated with = 5% and 5 = 7% these are well

known factors for concrete.

7. PROGRAMMING

The programming for finite element method is done in MATLAB. The programs

created specially for the present work were validated before use. The Algorithm for

the program is as under:-

Main program: - Calls all subroutines. Input data.

1. Subroutine for shape functions and isoparametric formulation.

2. Subroutine for nodal co-ordinates.

3. Subroutine for support specifications.

4. Formation of the element stiffness matrix [Ke] and element mass matrix [Me].

5. Assembly of the global stiffness matrix.

6. Assembly of the global Mass matrix.

7. Subroutine for eigen values and data input for dynamic analysis.

8. Formation of the force vector for static analysis.

9. Solving F=Kxto get static displacements

10. Formation of the force vector for dynamic analysis.

11. Solving [M]{y’’} + [K]{y} = {P(t)} to get undamped dynamic displacements using

Newmark method.

12. Solving [M] {y’’} + [C] {y’} + [K] {y} = {P (t)} to get damped dynamic

displacements using Newmark method.

13. Store results and calculate the DAF.



14. Repeat steps 9 to 13 for 600 t and 400 t vessels

15. Repeat steps 9 to 14 for varying angle of Impact i.e. 30o, 25

o, 20

o, 15

o and 10

o.

16. Repeat steps 9 to 15 for varying height of location of Impact i.e. 5 m, 10 m and 15 m

from base.

Steps 1 to 16 are repeated for different geometries of pier considered for this work.

8. DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYTICAL WORK

Twenty different geometries as tabulated in Tables 2 to 5 were selected for analyzing

for the collision. The slenderness ratio (λ=l / r) is used as a measure representing all

the three dimensions of the pier. Graphs of DAF versus slenderness ratio are plotted.

Each of the above piers is subjected to the collision force at three different

predefined heights from the base of pier. The collision force is applied at 5 m, 10 m

and 15 m from the base of the pier. In addition to the above two variations another

parameter has been introduced, that is the angle of impact. The bow collision force is

applied at an angle of 10o to 30

o in steps of 5

o. The angle is measured with respect to

the direction of flow of water. For a particular geometry, variation of DAF is studied

with respect to the angle of impact θ.

9. RESULTS

The Dynamic amplification factors versus the slenderness ratio for impact at different

heights, wall type piers and hollow circular piers with varying angles of impact are

plotted in Figures 5 to 9. The maximum values of DAF i.e. for an impact angle of 30o

presented in the form of a polynomial equation are given in Table 8 for use in

equation 6 below

32

2

1 CλCλCDAF (8)

where, C1, C2 and C3 are given in Table 7 and are to be used as the case may be.

Table 7 Constants to obtain DAF

Applicable to C1 C2 C3

Wall pier with impact at 5 m 0.0017 0.1096 2.7393



Hollow Circular pier with impact at 5 m 0.0024 0.0966 1.9964





Figure 5 Dynamic amplification Vs λ with 5% damping & impact angle=30o



1.7204

1.6323

1.4745

1.3377

1.2316

1.6074

1.5202

1.3775

1.2844

1.1824

1.5559

1.4699

1.3342

1.2605

1.17181.146

1.0804

1.0459

1.018

1.222

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Slenderness ratio

Dy

nam

ic A

mp

lifi

cati

on

Fac

tor

d

yn / s

tati

c

Wall pier, Impact at 5 m from base

Wall Pier, Impact at 10 m from base


Hollow Cicrular Pier, Impact at 5 m from base

Hollow Circular Pier, Impact at 10 m from base

Hollow Circular Pier, Imapct at 15 m from base

1.6611

1.5751

1.4265

1.3127

1.2084

1.5733

1.4875

1.3502

1.2703

1.1805

1.5317

1.4471

1.3152

1.2507

1.1707

1.2111

1.1357

1.0735

1.0388

1.01311

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Slenderness ratio

Dy

nam

ic A

mp

lifi

cati

on

Fac

tor

d

yn /

s

tati

c




Hollow Circular Pier,Impact at 5 m from base



1.6105

1.5257

1.3847

1.2909

1.1941

1.5433

1.4586

1.3259

1.2576

1.1791

1.5101

1.4266

1.3043

1.2418

1.1697

1.2014

1.1264

1.0673

1.03241.00861

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Slenderness ratio

Dyn

am

ic A

mp

lific

atio

n F

acto

r

dyn /

sta

tic




Hollow Circular pier, Impact at 5 m from base







10. OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION

Figures 10 and 11 show the vibrations of a wall type and a hollow circular pier of

special significance is the nature of punching into the hollow circular pier, when

collision occurs. This particular shape of distortion is noteworthy; the result of impact

or collision on a hollow circular pier is clearly visible in Figure 11.

Figure 12 shows the response of a wall type pier and Figure 13 indicates the response

of a hollow circular pier. The undamped and damped responses can be seen. The peak

can be observed in the initial stages in the graph. As the force no longer exists the

vibrations can be seen to be about the zero deflection line. The time period of the wall

type pier is seen to be lesser than the circular pier suggesting the greater flexibility of

the circular pier over the wall type pier.

1.5662

1.4819

1.3473

1.2713

1.1917

1.5164

1.4325

1.3103

1.246

1.1778

1.4906

1.4079

1.2965

1.2336

1.1688

1.1924

1.1179

1.0615

1.02641.0044

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Slenderness ratio

Dyna

mic

Am

plif

ication F

acto

r

dyn /

sta

tic Wall Pier, Impact at 5 m from base


Wall Pier, Imapct at 15 m from base

Hollow Circular Pier, imapct at 5 m from base



1.5265

1.4424

1.3194

1.2533

1.1895

1.4917

1.4083

1.3001

1.2353

1.1766

1.4725

1.3905

1.2893

1.2259

1.168

1.184

1.1099

1.0561

1.02131.0004

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Slenderness ratio

Dyn

am

ic A

mp

lific

atio

n F

acto

r

dyn /

sta

tic Wall Pier, Impact at 5 m from base


Wall Pier, Imapct at 15 m from base






Figure 10 Displacement of wall type pier Figure 11 Displacement of hollow circular

at each time interval at each time interval

The graph of Slenderness ratio (X-axis) versus the DAF (Y-axis) (Figure 5 to 9)

shows that as the slenderness ratio goes beyond 17 the DAF is nearly 1.00 for circular

columns while it is higher for wall type of piers. Thus slender piers may prove to be

advantageous and dynamically sound. This consideration goes in line with the general

principles advocated by structural designers of reducing the stiffness of the structure.

Figure 12 Un-damped and damped response of wall type pier



Figure 13 Un-damped and damped Response of hollow circular pier

11. CONCLUSIONS

The DAF obtained using equation 8 or from the graphs 5 to 9 will be useful to

reasonably cater for the dynamic effects of a ship collision on a bridge pier.

The circular tapering piers fare better and are generally felt to be dynamically more

efficient over the rectangular wall type of piers provided the local deformation near

the hit area is addressed.

REFERENCES

[1] Frandsen, A.G., Accidents Involving Bridges, IABSE Colloquium, Copenhagen,

1983, pp 11-26.

[2] Indian Standard 4651 (Part III) –1974, “Code of practice for planning and Design

of ports and Harbors, Part III Loading

[3] Indian Roads Congress specifications for Foundations and Substructures No. 78-

2000.

[4] DNV Guidelines for structures exposed to ship collisions.

[5] Ole Damgard Larsen, Ship collisions with Bridges, IABSE –SED 4, pp 53-76

[6] Woisin.G and Gerlach, on estimation of forces developed in collisions between

ships and offshore lighthouses, Stockholm 1970.

[7] Bathe and Wilson, Numerical methods in FEM.

[8] Prof. P.T. Nimbalkar and Mr. Vipin Chandra. Estimation of Bridge Pier Scour for

Clear Water & Live Bed Scour Condition. International Journal of Civil

Engineering and Technology, 4(3), 2015, pp. 92 - 97.

[9] Dr. Avinash S. Joshi Dr. Namdeo A.Hedaoo and Dr. Laxmikant M. Gupta.

Transient Elasto-Plastic Response of Bridge Piers Subjected To Vehicle

Collision. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 6(10),

2015, pp. 147 - 162.

[10] Adnan Ismael, Mustafa Gunal and Hamid Hussein. Use of Downstream-Facing

Aerofoil-Shaped Bridge Piers to Reduce Local Scour. International Journal of

Civil Engineering and Technology, 5(11), 2014, pp. 44 - 56.

Date post:	07-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

VESSEL COLLISIONS ON BRIDGE PIERS: SIMULATION STUDY FOR...

Documents