0
Ocean Engineering

The Influence of Different Scenarios of Supply Ship Collision on the Dynamic Response of a North-Sea Jacket-Pile-Soil System

[+] Author and Article Information
M. R. Emami Azadi

Department of Civil Engineering, Azarbaijan T.M. University, East-Azarbaijan, Tabriz, Irandr.emami@azaruniv.edu

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 133(1), 011103 (Nov 04, 2010) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4001950 History: Received June 08, 2007; Revised March 13, 2010; Published November 04, 2010; Online November 04, 2010

In the present study, the influence of various scenarios of supply ship collisions, namely, bow, stern, and also broad-side impacts on a jacket-pile-soil system, is investigated. In the previous study of ship impact on an eight-leg North-Sea jacket platform by Amdahl and other authors, the effect of jacket-pile-soil interaction was not considered. The collision points on the jacket structure are also taken as joints and midspan of leg, horizontal and vertical braces, namely, hard and soft impact points. The speed and the weight of the colliding vessel are also varied for typical supply vessels. Several supply ship collision analyses are carried out for bow, stern and broad-side impact scenarios on an eight-leg North-Sea jacket platform. It is observed that by taking into account the jacket-pile-soil interaction effects, particularly in softer clayey soils, the amplitude of displacement response after the supply ship impact at the deck level is increased due to yield in the upper soil layers. Contrary to this finding, less linear dynamic effects can be seen in the studied jacket-pile-soil system subjected to the supply ship impact. It can also be concluded that for a soft impact scenario, the dynamic effects in the global response of the platform located in the mainly over-consolidated (OC) clayey soil may be much less than those for a hard impact scenario on the same platform. For instance, for a brace impact at its midspan, a less significant dynamic effect has been observed than for a leg impact. The duration of impact in such cases is shown to play an important role in determining the dynamic influence of the platform response. The relative energy absorption of the platform is shown to be more for broad-side loading. It is shown that the global response of the jacket platform during the collision with a supply vessel might depend largely on the scenario of the impact and, to some extent, on the pile-soil behavior. It is found that for the bow and stern impact scenarios, the energy contribution of the local member dent or buckling might be more significant than that for the broad-side loading for which the global frame energy contribution and the overall inertia effect of the platform might be a dominant factor.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Force response of jacket-pile-soil system at node 3 (midnode) of El.401 under bow impact in global Y-direction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Axial pile-soil load transfer versus displacement curves at depths of 5.5 m, 10.5 m, and 22.5 m below mud-line level

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) Disk modeling of pile-soil interaction under axial loading. (b) Visualization of pile-soil stack of disk model.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

A finite element model of the eight-leg jacket platform

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Position of impact on midspan (node 3) of brace element 304 subjected to bow impact

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Displacement response of jacket-pile-soil system at node 101 at deck level (bow impact at midspan of horizontal brace El.401)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Position of horizontal brace El.401 subjected to bow side ship impact at mid-span (node 3 of El.401)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Force response of jacket-pile-soil system at node 301 at impact point (bow impact in X-direction on main leg El.712)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Displacement response of jacket-pile-soil system at node 101 (deck) under bow impact in X-direction on leg EL.712

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Position of impact node 301 (node 2 of El.712) subjected to bow ship impact

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Force response of jacket-pile-soil system at node 201 at impact point (broad-side diagonal impact on main leg El.712)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Displacement response of jacket-pile-soil system at node 101 (deck) under broad-side impact on main leg 712

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Position of impact node 201 (node 1 of El.712), reference node 101 at upper deck level and EL.712 (main leg member)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Lateral pile-soil load transfer versus displacement curves at depths of 5.5 m, 10.5 m, and 22.5 m below mud-line level

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Displacement response of jacket-pile-soil system at node 101 at deck level (bow impact at midspan of horizontal brace El.304)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Force response of jacket-pile-soil system at node 3 (midnode) of El.304 under bow impact in global X-direction

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In