Discussion of assumptions behind the external dynamic models in ship collisions and groundings

References

• Brown AJ. 2002. Collision scenarios and probabilistic collision damage. Mar Struct. 15:335–364. doi: 10.1016/S0951-8339(02)00007-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferry M. 2001. MCOL user’s manual. Nantes: Principia Marine.
   Google Scholar
• Hong L. 2009. Simplified analysis and design of ships subjected to collision and grounding [PhD thesis]. Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Jia H, Moan T. 2010. Global responses of struck ships in collision with emphasis on hydrodynamic effects. ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 225–236.
   Google Scholar
• Le Sourne H, Donner R, Besnier, F, Ferry M. 2001. External dynamics of ship-submarine collision. Preprints of 2nd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships, Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Le Sourne H., Besnard N, Cheylan C, Buannic N. 2012. A ship collision analysis program based on upper bound solutions and coupled with a large rotational ship movement analysis tool. J Appl Math. 2012:1. doi: 10.1155/2012/375686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Z, Amdahl J. 2010. A new formulation of the impact mechanics of ship collisions and its application to a ship–iceberg collision. Mar Struct. 23:360–384. doi: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2010.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marintek. 2012. SIMO – User's manual version 4.0 rev0. Marintek Report.
   Google Scholar
• Minorsky V. 1958. An analysis of ship collisions with reference to protection of nuclear power plants. New York: Sharp (George G.), Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Motora S, Fujino M, Sugiura M, Sugita M. 1971. Equivalent added mass of ships in collisions. Sel Pap J Soc Naval Architect Japan. 7:138–148.
   Google Scholar
• Newton I. 1686. Principia: mathematical principles of natural philosophy (and his system of the world). Reprinted by University of CA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norrbin NH. 1971. Theory and observations on the use of a mathematical model for ship manoeuvring in deep and confined waters. DTIC Document.
   Google Scholar
• Oshiro RE, Calle MAG, Mazzariol LM, Alves M. 2017. Experimental study of collision in scaled naval structures. Int J Impact Eng. 110:149–161. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.01.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen PT, Zhang S. 1998. On impact mechanics in ship collisions. Mar Struct. 11:429–449. doi: 10.1016/S0951-8339(99)00002-7
   Google Scholar
• Petersen MJ, Pedersen PT. 1981. Collisions between ships and offshore platforms. Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen MJ. 1982. Dynamics of ship collisions. Ocean Eng. 9:295–329. doi: 10.1016/0029-8018(82)90026-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pill I, Tabri K. 2011. Finite element simulations of ship collisions: A coupled approach to external dynamics and inner mechanics. Ships Offshore Struct. 6:59–66. doi: 10.1080/17445302.2010.509585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popov YN, Faddeev O, Kheisin D, Yakovlev A. 1969. Strength of ships sailing in ice. DTIC Document.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelides E, Frieze P. 1989. Fluid-structure interaction in ship collisions. Mar Struct. 2:65–88. doi: 10.1016/0951-8339(89)90024-5
   Google Scholar
• Stronge, WJ. 2004. Impact mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tabri K, Broekhuijsen J, Matusiak J, Varsta P. 2009. Analytical modelling of ship collision based on full-scale experiments. Mar Struct. 22:42–61. doi: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2008.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabri K, Broekhuijsen J. 2011. Influence of ship motions in the numerical prediction of ship collision damage. Advances in Marine Structures – Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Marine Structures, MARSTRUCT 2011, 391–397.
   Google Scholar
• Tabri K, Varsta P, Matusiak J. 2010. Numerical and experimental motion simulations of nonsymmetric ship collisions. J Mar Sci Technol. 15:87–101. doi: 10.1007/s00773-009-0073-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabri K. 2012. Influence of coupling in the prediction of ship collision damage. Ships Offsh Struct. 7:47–54. doi: 10.1080/17445302.2011.553812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travanca J, Hao H. 2014. Dynamics of steel offshore platforms under ship impact. Appl Ocean Res. 47:352–372. doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2014.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berlekom WB, Goddard TA. 1972. Maneuvering of large tankers. Presented at the Annual Meeting of SNAME, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Paper #8.
   Google Scholar
• Wang L, Yang L, Huang D, Zhang Z, Chen G. 2008. An impact dynamics analysis on a new crashworthy device against ship–bridge collision. Int J Impact Eng. 35:895–904. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Amdahl J, Storheim M. 2016. A new approach for coupling external dynamics and internal mechanics in ship collisions. Mar Struct. 45:110–132. doi: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2015.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Amdahl J. 2016. Full six degrees of freedom coupled dynamic simulation of ship collision and grounding accidents. Mar Struct. 47:1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2016.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Amdahl J. 2018. A review of structural responses and design of offshore tubular structures subjected to ship impacts. Ocean Eng. 154:177–203. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Shen Y, Amdahl J, Greco M. 2016. Implementation of linear potential-flow theory in the 6DOF coupled simulation of ship collision and grounding accidents. J Ship Res. 60:119–144. doi: 10.5957/JOSR.60.3.160012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang S, Villavicencio R, Zhu L, Pedersen PT. 2017. Impact mechanics of ship collisions and validations with experimental results. Mar Struct. 52:69–81. doi: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2016.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar