Collisions - What is the Danger to

Offshore Rigs?
Dr J. E. Harding, A. Onoufriou and S. K. Tsang
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, IMPERIALCOLLEGE OF SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGY,
LONDON

SYNOPSIS
This paper presents a discussion on a literature survey
of collision damage to offshore structures.
It assesses the data and information that are
available and presents views on what should be the
aims of future research.
Results of sample analysis are presented and serve
to indicate the risk associated with the area of
post-damage strength reserve.

INTRODUCTION
The number of platforms being used either for oil
exploration or for producing oil has grown substantially over the last few years both in the North Sea
and other areas of the world. Apart from the daily
risk of collisions from supply boats and other small
craft, large vessels including tankers have increased
dramatically in size and sophistication in recent
times making the risk of a major ship-structure
collision seem inevitable. This paper looks at the
data available on these risks, what is known about
the likely damage caused, and what can be predicted
in terms of subsequent platform performance. It is
essentially a commentary on a literature survey of
the collision field but some new data are presented at
the conclusion of the paper that underline the
potentially catastrophic risk that is being faced.
THE RISKS
When the word platform or rig is mentioned in the
offshore oil context almost all engineers would turn
their mind to the large number of fixed rigs
progressively appearing in the waters off the British
coasts. Again, many engineers are aware that these
platforms are stocky in nature and contain, in
general, multiple redundancies. This in itself
provides a sense of security, as it could be thought
that all but a major collision is unlikely to cause
anything other than element damage and is
extremely unlikely to result in major structure
failure, with resultant loss of the platform and major
potential loss of life. This is, in part, probably
essentially valid. Minor collisions with bracing
members will certainly result in local damage,
denting or bending, but the degree of redundancy
would normally be sufficient to ensure overall
platform stability. But how many braces can be
damaged in this way? Such damage might often go
unrecorded or uninvestigated.

Minor collisions with main leg members are

unlikely to cause major damage because of the
stockiness of the members, but how significant can
the damage be and what would be the effects of a
major collision?
What is often forgotten is that as well as the
numerous fixed rigs there are also significant
numbers of floating rigs, semi-submersibles on
exploration drilling or even the new tension leg
platform (TLP), which are equally at risk from
collision. Their floating nature may even raise the
risk of such an encounter. The problem with this
type of structure is that the elements tend to be far
more slender because of the inherent savings in
weight required of a floating design and secondly
there is often very little or even no effective
redundancy if one of the main members were to be
significantly damaged. The lesson of the Alexander
Keiland should be borne in mind in this respect. The
other unfortunate fact is that the post-collapse
strength of many of the main structural elements of
such platforms would be very low, maybe as little as
one third of their peak capacity, and the degree of
redistribution required in the event of even a
moderate collision could be very significant. This is
brought about by the imperfection sensitivity of the
shells where, as will be seen later, a relatively small
dent of a few shell thicknesses would be sufficient to
remove in excess of the entire design safety factor
from an individual major element. For a semisubmersible with only four columns and virtually no
bracing, what would be the result of such an
occurrence?
The real question to ask is whether information is
currently available, on both probabilities and
consequences, to assess the overall situation and
deem the risks acceptable, and also whether
information exists in a suitable form to assess the
damage when it has occurred so that decisions can be
taken about rectification or even platform abandonment. It is hoped that the information provided in
this paper will indicate the state of knowledge, or the
lack of it, in this case.

THE LIKELIHOOD OF COLLISION

The possible consequences of a ship striking an
offshore platform have been of concern to the
British Government since drilling operations began
at the end of 1964. Although there have been a

32

Journal of Constructional Steel Research: Vol. 3, No. 2:1983

number of relatively minor collisions, there have

been none of any major consequence in the North
Sea. Nevertheless from the point of view of design,
certainly in the area of establishing code 'safety
factors' and general guidelines for overall design
philosophy, a measure of the probability of collision
is highly desirable.
The event 'collision' should be considered in terms
of both the probability of occurrence and the
possible or actual consequences. These cannot be
considered in isolation if meaningful conclusions are
to be drawn. In principle the probabilistic evaluation
of collision events should be compared with
accepted probabilities of failure built into structural
design codes, and appropriate conclusions drawn. In
practice the complexity of the procedure and the
lack of information make it impossible at the present
time.
The probability and consequence of collision are
affected by several factors, for example, traffic
monitoring, navigational aids, field layout, platform
topology, design of rendering or other defensive
systems, size and manoeuvrability of the vessels,
mooring equipment, etc. Structural safeguards, such
as the damage control ring present in the Hutton
TLP design, can also ensure satisfactory probabilities of overall platform safety.
It should be noted that both the UK Department
of Energy and the Norwegian classification society
Det norske Veritas have been involved in studies of
rig accidents. Reference 1 reports a survey of major
accidents during the period 1970-79, and reference 2
examines the feasibility of predicting ship/platform
encounters in the North Sea using readily available
information on shipping movements, recorded
incidents and environmental data. Figure 1, taken
from the latter report, shows the tonnages of 36
vessels from 43 collisions between ships and offshore
installations in the North Sea in the period 1974-6. It
concludes that the overall collision risk estimate for

~0
o

tonnage recorded for

vessels in
36 collisionsI43 tolal

other

tn

u 30

20

ec
u

:_

~?~ \'~t

10
0

.... .

1aM

\\Xl

ftshing

\11

vessels

1 I 1
tess
101
thon
to
101
200

supply vessels

\ ",,
\

"
201
to
500

\
501 1001 2001 ' 5001 I10001 I o v e r I
to
to
to
to
to
20000
1000 2000 SO00 10000 20000

Figure 1 Details of collisions recorded in the North Sea

during period 1974--6

an individual North Sea installation is of the order of

0.05-0.10 or higher in any one year. While the
individual figures could be questioned, there seems
no doubt from this and other reports that the risk of
significant structural damage from collision is far
higher than that normally accepted in design.
Another survey O) presents a record of various types
of mishap occurring between 1955-74.
Reference 4 is an analysis of ship-platform impact
and defines 'risk' as the product of probability and
cost-consequence. It concludes, however, that total
risk assessment is not feasible due to the scarcity of
data concerning collision events. Reference 5 also
looks at the probability of collisions in the North
Sea. It states that structural design and safety criteria
for offshore structures in the North Sea have tended
to concentrate on the ability of structures to
withstand the large wave occurring in fifty years or
longer, with additional requirements defining the
safe fatigue life for such structures. So far as is
known, there are no requirements to determine the
ability of offshore structures to withstand the
collision situation. It could well be asked whether
this is a desirable or acceptable situation in view of
the documented levels of risk involved.

TYPE OF DAMAGE
In order to predict the effects of a collision between
two bodies, the deformation and energy-absorbing
characteristics of both bodies need to be known.
While limited knowledge is available in this area for
ships, knowledge of the behviour of shell structures
subject to lateral loading of types relevant to
collisions is extremely scarce.
References 6-8 give some information on the
energy absorbed in ship collisions in relation to the
damage volume, and the approaches developed give
reasonable guidance for major impacts. The forces
involved are not, however, predicted and application to small impacts appears to be unreliable.
References 9-11 look at the protection of reactors
in nuclear-powered ships. Two modes of failure are
encountered, deformation failure where decks and
stiffeners buckle over a relatively large area, and
cracking which is much more localised and occurs
when the stiffener or deck spacing decreases. The
last reference demonstrates the feasibility of a
collision protection system.
A paper by Reckling, 2) on ship/ship collisions,
establishes that plastic effects predominate and this
would almost certainly be true in the field of offshore
structures. Estimates of energy absorption are also
made and could provide useful background data to
the problem being discussed.
Other references 3-19) deal primarily with impact
damage to ship structures. All provide useful data on
energy absorption and possible guides to analysis
and experimental techniques that can be applied to

Collisions
offshore structure collision, but provide no directly
usable data on the subject.
It was not until recently that the problem of
impact damage to shell structures has been
addressed. References 20 and 21 and references 1
and 4 deal more specifically with the effects of ship
impact on offshore structures.
Reference 20, for example, looks at the problem
of energy absorption in axially compressed
cylindrical shells struck by bulbous bows. The paper
outlines various buckling modes and relates them to
the successive development of plastic mechanisms.
A series of tests is described and analytical formulae
are used to calculate the energy absorption of the
shells. Agreement is poor, however, and the paper
concludes that special efforts should be made to
study the mechanisms of collapse and the
significance of dynamic effects. It also concludes that
to account for all energy-absorbing components
would make the theoretical models very complex.
Reference 21 assesses methods available for
estimating energy absorption characteristics by
comparison with experiments. A series of tests on
ring-stiffened cylinders under static and dynamic
loading is described. The paper also presents a
simple numerical model for predicting the postdamage strength of bracing elements.
Reference 22 deals with similar topics. It also
studies the effect of velocity on load-carrying
capacity and concludes that velocities of 1-2 m/s will
increase load-carrying capacity by about 10 per cent
compared with static strength.
While reference 1 looks at the impact between
ships and vertical rigid cylindrical columns, the
paper concentrates on the damage to and energy
absorption characteristics of the ships. It also
provides estimates of the forces involved and
indicates that a typical force for a tanker collision
might be in the range of 100-200 MN, while a supply
vessel collision may be one order of magnitude
lower.
Figure 2 gives an example of a calculation of the
force-indentation relationship for a supply vessel
and tanker.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between impact
force and ship displacement, illustrating the
variation with the diameter of the column. Apart

co u m n a i o = f 5 m

250

between

frames ....

UPPLY
VESSEL

40

on

30

o:,o~m

20

co~hspon between
transverse
frames

10
1

3 InOentot=on(m)

100

TANKER

50

&

6 Indentation(m)
(token

Figure 2
tanker

WheoO - -

from tel 1)

Force-indentation curve for a supply vessel and a

what is the danger to offshore rigs?

33

C o l u m n dia 1.5m

20C

10C

"~ sc

E
- 10
SUPPLY
,~ VESSEL

o
Z

~//

3 4 5

TAN KER

10

20

50

100

200

~__

S h i p d i s p l a c e m e n t l o a d e d (103 t o n )
( t a k e n f r o m ref. t )

Figure 3 Maximum impact force versus ship displacement.

(All energy absorbed by the ship.)

from acknowledging the fact that to assume the

platform itself will absorb the whole of the collision
energy is unduly conservative, it gives no further
guidance in this respect. It comments that the
absorption will depend on the relative stiffnesses,
member dimensions, member deformation between
nodes, and global deformation of the structure. The
last effect would be mainly elastic while the more
localised effects would involve considerable plastic
deformation.
The reference <1) also indicates that the likely first
contact point for a side impact will be the main legs
of the structure and that the contact zone may be
spread over the height of the ship's side. The amount
of energy absorbed locally depends most of all on
the wall thickness of the tube concerned. For wall
thicknesses in the region 20-50 mm the authors of
this reference believe that the energy absorbed
locally by the platform may be significant compared
to the total energy involved. Most major structural
members fall within this range. The paper does
indicate that excessive wall thickness provides a shell
strength that exceeds the loads likely to be imposed
by typical vessels. The paper, however, is
concentrating on fixed offshore platforms and the
question must remain as to what deformation would
be produced in the more slender shells typical of
floating structures.
Reference 4 also concentrates on ship-platform
collisions and relates impact velocity, via kinetic and
absorbed energy, to degree of damage to ship and
platform through a knowledge of the loaddeformation characteristics of both. Figure 4 shows
the relative components of energy absorbed by the
platform, fender and ship (Ap, Af and As). The
deformation of the ship is provided by a computer
program which considers the static response of the
ship's hull to impact from an infinitely stiff object.
Various simplifications are incorporated and the

34

Journal of Constructional Steel Research: Vol. 3, No. 2:1983

LOAD
PLATFORM
/
FENDER

Displacement

(token from ref.4)

Figure 4 Load-displacement relationships for platform,

tender and ship

results must be regarded as approximate. The paper

concludes that a better knowledge of local strength
and deformation mechanisms of steel cylinders is
needed.
Reference 23 considers a similar problem using a
time variation of the interactive force and the
resulting deformation to both ship and platform.
The paper claims that more accurate predictions of
local damage and global effects can be assessed using
finite element or finite difference packages. The
paper concentrates its attention on concrete
structures but general conclusions can certainly be
extrapolated.
Three papers in the proceedings of the 1981
Offshore Technology Conference all deal with the
problem of collision resistance.
The first (24) examines the collision forces acting on
braces and chords of semi-submersibles and jackups.
A simplified non-linear stiffness representation is
used for the solution. Design principles are
suggested for improved protection against global
collapse.
Figure 5 shows the collapse mechanism considered
for the structural damage to a semi-submersible
following an impact with a brace. The reference does
acknowledge that this form of deformation requires
much energy, and that with a more rigid deck
structure and better column/pontoon connections,
the damage could have been restricted to the brace.
It certainly seems difficult to believe that a modest
impact on a brace member could produce plastic

deformations in the deck of the structure.

Reference 25 presents a theoretical study of the
energy released for deformation of the structure
during a ship/platform collision. The study concludes
that it is important to take into account the overall
flexibility of the platform.
Figure 6 shows the energy absorbed by a small
jacket structure hit by a supply ship travelling at 2
rn/s. The figure shows that if the collision force is
small all the energy will be released for local plastic
deformation. If the collision force is high, however,
most of the energy will be stored as global vibration
energy in the platform. Global platform deflections
are much larger in the latter case. The figure also
shows the relationship between assumed force and
local deformation but the paper demonstrates that
the above conclusion is not sensitive to this relation.
The third paper (26) looks at local energy
absorption of a shell using simple upper bound
solutions and then studies overall energy absorption
during member bending. Work was again restricted
to unstiffened members. A simple method for
estimating extent of damage is suggested.

RESIDUAL $'rRENGTH
The question which often requires an answer in the
context of residual strength is whether the damaged
platform is able to sustain the extreme loads to
which it will be subjected after impact. The
secondary question is, what form of repair is needed,
if one is required? It must be remembered that
repairs at sea are often difficult and expensive and
assessment of the need and extent of repair is all
important. Knowledge of the post-damage strength
of the member or platform is of great benefit when

2 m/s

-"

fc

local deformation

10 E

~, ~0
c

0.8"6

~6

o.6~

=
o

O.Z, .

-6 2
_J

INITIAL CONFIGURATION

FINAL DAMAGE CONFLGURATION

( t a k e n from ref 2 4 )

Figure 5 Example of collapse mechanism of a semisubmersible structure when hit by a collision force at the
middle of a diagonal brace

0-2~_
-

0.1

10
Slope

fc

of force

100
deformation

[MN/m ](taken

fro~

curve

ref. 25 )

Figure 6 Energy absorbed by local deformation and

platform deflection during supply ship and jacket structure
collision

Collisions
repairs are being contemplated and is also of the
greatest importance when assessing the need, in the
extreme, for platform abandonment or, for example
in the case of a floating structure, for towing the
platform back to the yard. Decisions may need to be
taken extremely quickly without time for extensive
analysis, so general guidance from existing data
would prove invaluable in this respect.
References concerning this particular subject area
are very sparse indeed. It is only now that a true
understanding of the elasto-plastic behaviour of the
type of shells used in offshore structures is beginning
to develop. The behaviour under complex loading is
still not understood. The complexities, therefore, of
introducing local damage to an individual shell have
only recently been amenable to accurate analysis.
The problem of the global behaviour of a fixed rig
with for example a damaged brace is relatively
simple, providing you assume the brace is missing or
use data, which is available, on the residual member
rigidity. But because of the number of variables
involved, such as member sizes, platform configuration, type of damage, etc., it does not lend itself to
research leading to simple guidance procedures.
Subsequent damaged structure analysis tends to be
more appropriate.
On the element side, for example a large-diameter
stiffened tubular such as the main leg of a floating
platform, the problem does lend itself to parametric
study with varying shell slenderness, stiffener
geometry and dent shape and depth. Nonetheless
virtually no work has been performed in this area at
present. Analysis by the second author of this paper
on local panel denting of a ring-stiffened cylinder
using a large-deflection elasto-plastic finite element
package indicates that dent sizes of only five plate
thicknesses in a cylinder with an R/t of 300 and ring
spacing 0.15R can reduce the axial strength by over
50 per cent. This indicates that the subsequent
strength would probably be insufficient to carry the
extreme environmental loading even if the potential
conservatism of the code rules were realised (the
code rules tend to be a lower bound of cylinder
strength with different imperfections, and a real
structure is likely to fall part way across the strength
scatter band). The dent noted is modest in a cylinder
of such high slenderness, but the latter is typical of
many floating structures. Figure 7 shows the strength
against dent depth relationship for this particular
tube.
Data that are generally available associated with
this problem are included in references 27-31.
References 28-30 deal essentially with the problem
of damaged braces in a comprehensive manner.
Both experimental and analytical approaches are
used. The latter is based on elasto-plastic frame
analysis and it is interesting to note that the former
includes testing full-scale damaged pieces recovered

what is the danger to offshore rigs?

st,ren.~iOhF
|

yield/

R/t = 300
Ring spacing = 0.15 R

stren(~th[.

I"
k

Imperfection type
dent overal( bulge with
omp[itude eclual to DnV
tolerance.
dent * experimentally
measured imperfections

}~
0.6~ " ~ * i ,

0.4

~,,,~.
~

"

02

2-0

35

4!0

6.0
8!0 101.0
dent depth/thickness

12.0

1/.0

Figure 7 Reduction in strength of ring-stiffened tube caused

by panel dent

from the BP West Sole Platform. The paper states

that elasto-plastic beam-column theory gives a
satisfactory account of the collapse and post-collapse
behaviour of tubular bracing members providing
local buckling does not occur, and also provides
results which give guidance on the effects of collision
on the performance of bracing members. Certainly
results of the type presented appear to give a ready
means for the quick assessment of individual brace
damage problems. Figure 8, for example, shows the
effect of bending deformation t~p on the axial
strength of brace members. It can be seen that the
reduction in strength is very significant for modest
bows. Reference 27 considers both bending and
local denting using a yield line collapse mechanism.
This can then be incorporated into the overall
platform analysis. The scope covered, however, is
similar to that of the above three references.
Reference 31 considers the general area of
collision damage and suggests methods appropriate
to damage assessment. It agrees that in certain areas
non-linear finite element shell analysis may be the
only effective means of assessment of residual
strength but warns of the difficulties and costs
involved.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It is obvious, from the brief literature survey
presented in the preceding three sections of this
1 0~.~

CLANPEDTUBES

08

~-

1"0
0"8

ii~i

PPORTED TUBES

0.4

Oyo.6
0,2

0-01 0.02 (]-03 004

~pl L

o;1 o!o~o'o~ o'o,

(token

from

~pl L
ret Z5 )

Figure8 lnfluence of lateral bending damage on compressive

strength

36

Journal of Constructional Steel Research: Vol. 3, No. 2:1983

paper, that while a certain amount is known about

collisions, much of it is speculative and based on
vague hypothesis, and it must be concluded that in
an area of very real risk, enormous uncertainties
exist and major problems remain unsolved.
The problem separates itself into three specific
topics:
(i) The probability of collision and the severity of
the resulting damage.
(ii) The process of damage and what can be done to
minimise it.
(iii) The effect of damage on the structural integrity
of the damaged element and platform as a
whole.
Studies have been carried out both by official and
independent bodies on the risk of collision to
platforms in the North Sea and elsewhere but the
major problem encountered relates to the relatively
short timespan considered. This makes any form of
probablistic approach difficult and at best approximate. Ignorance of the severity of damage and its
effect in individual situations and a lack of a
guideline for quantifying the damage 'risk', further
hamper the presentation of such information.
Nevertheless, it is apparent from the information
that is available that the risk of significant structural
damage occurring to a platform is far higher than the
risk of structural failure resulting from dead, live and
environmental loading associated with accepted
design practice.
Codes relating to North Sea design, until very
recently, presented no specific requirements for
damage control or structural redundancy. DnV have
now, following the Kieland, introduced flotation
redundancy requirements, but lack of suitable
design information makes safety difficult to
guarantee.
Apart from highlighting the problem, further
work in the area of probability assessment is unlikely
to alter the general conclusions drawn so far and it
would seem imperative that emphasis be placed on
means of damage control and means of assessing
damage effect so that general levels of structural
reliability can be improved.
The second area associated with damage
formation has been examined in some detail,
especially in the field of ship-ship impact.
Knowledge of the behaviour of shells, of the type
used in offshore structures, is sparse. Even with ship
impacts the variables are so complex that many
simplifying assumptions are made producing results
which must only be regarded as indicative of the type
of behaviour that would occur in practice. In this
respect the energy absorption characteristics and the
relative stiffnesses of the colliding bodies is all
important in providing indications of platform
damage.

It is unlikely that such assessments of damage will

be of practical use in individual situations of
collision. In an actual collision, emphasis would be
placed on physical monitoring of damage, and
energy would be spent in using appropriate results or
analysis methods to assess the possible effects.
The study of impact is useful, however, in the
general area of designing impact-resistant secondary
structures such as fenders or in modifying primary
structures to cope better with the forces involved.
The latter could be considered in two ways: either in
the provision of sufficient global redundancy to cope
with a specified level of damage or in the provision
of secondary elements, such as the damage control
ring of the Hutton TLP, so that local redundancy
exists. The former is more appropriate to a fixed
offshore jacket while the latter is more appropriate
to a floating structure. A need for a better
knowledge of the forces involved is essential before
this problem can be rationally assessed.
This aspect also interacts with the third category in
that a knowledge of the relative extent of damage
produced in different structural forms, combined
with a knowledge of the post-damage resistance,
may well lead to design guidelines which in a sense
reflect the 'ruggedness' of the structural elements.
For example, the relative flexibility under lateral
loading of unstiffened or ring-stiffened shells
compared with that of orthogonally stiffened shells
combined with the extreme imperfection sensitivity
of the former, indicates in general terms that the
latter would be more attractive in a damage situation
and possibly therefore more appropriate for design
in susceptible areas. This does not exclude the use of
the former type of structure but does suggest that
designers need to be aware of the safeguards that are
needed. Information in the third area relating to the
subsequent effect of collision damage on platform
performance is sadly lacking at present. It must be
acknowledged that in the event of serious damage
occurring to a platform, the designers or other
authorities would probably have to make use of
appropriate analysis methods, where they exist, to
quantify the individual effect and either specify a
suitable repair option or prove the platform fit for
purpose. This may range from global finite element
or frame analysis in the case of a damaged brace in a
fixed platform, to a sophisticated non-linear analysis
of a stiffened shell in the case of serious damage to
the main leg of a floating structure. While the former
methods tend to be reasonably established in design
firms with a history of involvement in major rig
design, the latter are only gradually becoming
used and even then mainly in research type
establishments.
Having acknowledged that, in the event of a
major damage situation, individual relatively
complex analysis would probably need to be

Collisions - what is the danger to offshore rigs?

performed, it must also be acknowledged that there
will be a need for rapid initial assessment of the
approximate effect of the damage to the platform to
indicate the need for subsequent analysis and, in the
extreme case, to enable an informed decision to be
made of the need to evacuate the platform and/or
take it out of service. With the exception of
information on the behaviour of dented or bent
bracing members, the amount of information
relating to the behaviour of larger stiffened shells is
almost non-existent in this area.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper has assessed the amount of information
available in the area of damage to offshore
platforms.
The information indicates that risk of significant
structural damage due to collision is in excess of risks
associated with normal structural design accepted by
codes of practice.
Studies conducted to date have concentrated on
the areas of collision probability and damage
prediction, the latter mainly in the area of energy
and deformation involvement in ship/ship impacts.
The authors believe that the areas of greatest
relevance to practical designers of big structures are
damage control and damage effect. Neither have
received significant attention in the past.
The authors also conclude that there is a
significant difference in the problems associated with
fixed and floating rig structures. The former involve
largely the problem of overall structural redundancy
while the latter is more concerned with main
element response as redundancy is often negligible
in global terms. Specimen results are presented in
the paper that highlight the dangers that exist.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the use of a finite
element package developed at Imperial College by D.
Bates and U. Trueb in the production of the results
shown in Figure 7 of this paper.
REFERENCES
AMDAHL,J. and FURNESS, O. Ship Collisions with Offshore
Platforms. Hamburg: Intermaritec, 1980.
2 The Risk of Ship/Platform Encounter in UK Waters. Report
commissioned by the Department of Energy, Offshore
Energy Technology Board. National Maritime Institute,
R39, 1978.
3 'A Survey of Rig Mishaps.' Offshore, June 1974.
4 FURNESS,O. and AMDAHL,J. 'Computer Simulation Study of
Offshore Collisions and Analysis of Ship-Platform Impacts.'
Applied Ocean Research, 1980, 2, No. 3.
5 MACDUFF,r. 'Probability of Collision, A Note on Encounters
between Ships, Terra Firma and Offshore Structures.'
Fairplay International Shipping Weekly, March 1974.
6 HAGASAWA,H., ARITA,K., TANI, M. and OKA,S. 'A Study on the
Collapse of Ship Structure in Collision with Bridge Piers.'
Transactions of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 1977,
l

8
9
10

11

12

13

37

HAYWOOD, J. A Note on Collision Estimates for LNG

Carriers. NCRE Report, 1971.
AKITA,Y., ANDO, I., FuJrrA, Y. and KITAMURA,K. 'Studies on
Collision-Protective Structures in Nuclear Powered Ships.'
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1972, 19.
ARITA,~l., ANDO, N. and ARrrA, K. Study on the Structural
Strength of Ships in Collision. Conference on Fracture
Mechanics and Technology, Hang Kong, March 1977.
WOISIN,6, Development of a Collision Protection Structure
for Nuclear Powered Ships. International Seminar on
Extreme Load Conditions and Limit Analysis Procedures for
Structural Reactor Safeguards and Containment Structures,
International Association for Structural Mechanics in
Reactor Technology, West Berlin. Paper R.2/3, 1975.
RECKLING, r. A. On Collision Protection of Ships.
I n t e r n a t i o n a l S y m p o s i u m on Practical Design in
Shipbuilding, Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Tokyo,
1977.
VAN BECK, A. W. and TEN CATE, W. Collision Resistance of

LNG-Tanker, Part 2, Numerical Analysis of Collision

Damage of LNG-Tankers. Teehnische Hogeschool Delft,
Valgroep Technische Mechanica, report no. 11317/2, 1976.
14 CHANG,p. v. A Mathematical Model for the Analysis of the
Protection Barrier of Nuclear Ships. Symposium on the
15
16

17
18

19

20

21

22

23

Safety of Nuclear Ships sponsored by OECD Nuclear Energy

Agency, Hamburg. Paris: OECD, 1976.
PEDERSEN,P. r. Oral communications. October 1977 and
August 1978.
JONES,N. A Literature Survey on the Collision and Grounding
Protection of Ships. DOT/US Coast Guard and Ship
Structure Committee, Report SSC-283, 1979.
JONES, N. 'Slamming Damage.' Journal of Ship Research,
June 1973, 17, No. 2.
JONES,N. Damage Estimates for Plating of Ships and Marine
Vehicles. International Symposium on Practical Design in
Shipbuilding, Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Tokyo,
1977.
AftrA, y. and KrrAMUV.A,g. 'A Study on Collision by an
Elastic Stem to a Side Structure of Ships.' Transactions of
Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 1972, 131.
AMDAHL,J. and SOREIDE,r. H. 'Energy Absorption in Axially
Compressed Cylindrical Shells with Special Reference to
Bulbous Bows in Collision.' Norwegian Maritime Research,
1981, 9, No. 4.
S~REIDE,T. H., MOAN,T., AMDAHL,J. and TABY,J. Analysis of
Ship~Platform Impacts. Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on Behaviour of Offshore Structures, BOSS '82,
Boston, August 1982.
SI3REIDE,T. H. and AMDAHL,J. 'Deformation Characteristics
of Tubular Members with Reference to Impact Loads from
Collision and Dropped Objects.' Norwegian Maritime
Research, 1982, 10, No. 2.
DAVIES, I. U. and MAVRIDES,A. Assessment of the Damage

Arising from Collisions between Ships and Offshore

Structures. Second International Symposium on Integrity of
24

Offshore Structures, University of Glasgow, July 1982.

PETERSEN,E. and JOHNSON, r. R. New Non-Linear Methods

for Estimation of Collision Resistance of Mobile Offshore

Units. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1981.
25 PEDERSEN,P. T. and FETERSEN, M. J. Collisions between Ships
and Offshore Platforms. Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, 1981.
DE OLIVEmA,J. G. The Behaviour of Steel Offshore Structures
under Accidental Collisions. O f f s h o r e Technology
Conference, Houston, 1981.
27 TABV, J., MOAN, T. and RASHED, S. M. H . 'Theoretical and
Experimental Study of the Behaviour of Damaged Tubular
Members in Offshore Structures.' Norwegian Maritime
Research, 1981, 9, No. 2.
28 SMITH, C. S., SOMERVILLE, W. L. and SWAN, J. W. Residual

26

Strength and Stiffness of Damaged Steel Bracing Members.

29

Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1981.

SMITH,C. S., KIRKWOOD,W. and SWAN,J. W. Buckling Strength

142.

and Post-Collapse Behaviour of Tubular Bracing Members

including Damage Effects. Proceedings of 2nd International

MINORSKI,V. U. 'An Analysis of Ship Collision with Reference

to Nuclear Power Plants.' Journal of Ship Research, 1959, 3.

Conference on Behaviour of Offshore Structures, BOSS '79,

Imperial College, London, August 1979.

38

Journal o f Constructional Steel Research: Vol. 3, No. 2:1983

3O SMITH, C. S. 'Strength and Stiffness of DamagedTubular

Beam Columns.' Buckling of Shells in Offshore Structures,
eds Harding, J. E., Dowling, P. J. and Agelidis, N. London:
Granada, 1982.
31 sMrrn, c. s. and DOW,t. S. 'Residual Strength of Damaged
Steel Ships and Offshore Structures.' Journal of

Constructional Steel Research, September 1981, 1, No. 4,

2-15.
Contributions discussing this paper should be received by the
Editor before 1 September 1983.

Discussion
Design of Circular and Rectangular Hollow Section Columns*
Author's closure to discussion by Rondal and
Maquoit
It is worth emphasizing that the author's paper dealt with
standard rolled hollow sections, the wall-width/thickness
ratios of which preclude local buckling, while the tests at
Liege related to relatively thin walled sections with the
possibility of interaction between local and overall
instability. Clearly, with the plate slenderness adopted in
the tests conducted at Li6ge, the column collapse load
could depend as much on local plate imperfections as on
residual stresses. As far as the author is aware, Braham,
Grimault and Rondal have not given information on local
plate imperfections existing in their test specimens, t22)
Thus, the lower failure loads for stronger axis bending
mentioned by Rondal and Maquoi could well have been

due to an inordinate influence of local plate imperfections

as well as due to the presence of large compressive residual
stresses in the shorter walls. The author concedes that it is
possible for such residual stresses to exist in the thin walled
rectangular hollow sections, but stands by his earlier
comments on the procedure adopted by Braham,
Grimault and Rondal,122) and can only repeat that reliable
methods of measuring residual stresses in structural hollow
sections remain to be established.

* Paper published in Journal of Constructional Steel Research (JCSR),

September 1981, 1, No. 4, 35--45. Also discussionand author's reply in
JCSR, June 1982, 2, No. 2, 10 and 46--9.
i" Furtherdiscussionin JCSR, 1983,3, No. 1, 35.

Granada Publishing Limited, PO Box 9, 29 Frogmore, St AIbans, Herts AL2 2NF England. Granada Granada Publishing
Printed in Great Britain by The Leagrave Press Limited, Luton, Beds.