Structural assessment of a 500-cbm liquefied natural gas bunker ship during bunkering and marine operation under collision accidents

References

• ANSYS/LS-DYNA. 2020. User’s manual for ANSYS/LS-DYNA (version 2020 R1). New York, NY: ANSYS Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Brown AJ, Tikka K, Daidola J, Lutzen M, Choe I. 2000. Structural design and response in collision and grounding. SNAME Trans. 108:447–473.
   Google Scholar
• Chen L, Liao X, Zhu L, Soares CG. 2018. Finite element analysis of a container ship struck by rigid and deformable bows. Proceedings of the ASME 37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering; June 17–22; Madrid, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• DNV. 2021. Alternative fuels insight (AFI) [accessed 2021 April 24]. https://afi.dnvgl.ocom
   Google Scholar
• DNVGL. 2016. Liquefied gas carriers with independent cylindrical tanks of type C. Oslo, Norway: Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd.
   Google Scholar
• Ferry M, Le Sourne H, Besnier F. 2002. MCOL user’s manual. Nantes, France: Principia Marine.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes OF, Paik JK. 2013. Ship structural analysis and design. Alexandria (VA): The Society of Naval Architectures and Marine Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• Hydrostar. 2019. Hydrostar for experts under manual. Paris, France: Bureau Veritas.
   Google Scholar
• Hypermesh. 2020. Hyperworks14.0 user’s guide. Troy (MI): Altair.
   Google Scholar
• IGC Code. 2014. International code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk. London: IMO.
   Google Scholar
• IMO. 2021. Sulphur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM): regulation 14 [accessed 2021 April 20]. https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Sulphur-oxides-(SOx)-%E2%80%93-Regulation-14.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Kim SJ, Kõrgersaara M, Ahmadi N, Taimuri G, Kujala P, Hirdaris S. 2021. The influence of fluid structure interaction modelling on the dynamic response of ships subject to collision and grounding. Mar Struct. 75:102875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko YG, Kim SJ, Sohn JM, Paik JK. 2018. A practical method to determine the dynamic fracture strain for the nonlinear finite element analysis of structural crashworthiness in ship–ship collisions. Ships Offshore Struct. 13(4):412–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehmann E, Egge ED, Sharrer M, Zhang L. 2001. Calculation of collision with the aid of linear FE models. Proceedings of the International Conference on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units; Sept 16–21; Shanghai, China.
   Google Scholar
• Liu B, Pedersen PT, Zhu L, Zhang S. 2018. Review of experiments and calculation procedures for ship collision and grounding damage. Mar. Struct. 59:105–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marine Traffic. 2019. Global ship tracking intelligence, AIS marine traffic [accessed 2021 May 5]. https://www.marinetraffic.com
   Google Scholar
• Marine Traffic. 2020. Vessel information [accessed 2021 May 5]. https://www.marinetraffic.com
   Google Scholar
• Minitab. 2019. Getting started with minitab. State College (PA): Minitab Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Paik JK, Thayamballi AK. 2003. Ultimate limit state design of steel-plated structures. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Paik JK, Thayamballi AK. 2007. Ship-shaped offshore installation: design, building and operation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prabowo AR, Bae DM, Cho JH, Sohn JM. 2017c. Analysis of structural crashworthiness and estimating safety limit accounting for ship collisions on strait territory. Latin Am J Solids Struct. 14(8):1594–1613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prabowo AR, Bae DM, Sohn JM, Zakki AF, Cao B, Cho JH. 2017b. Effects of the rebounding of a striking ship on structural crashworthiness during ship–ship collision. Thin-Walled Struct. 115:225–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prabowo AR, Cao B, Bae DM, Bae SY, Zakki AF, Sohn JM. 2017a. Structural analysis of the double bottom structure during ship grounding by finite element approach. Latin Am J Solids Struct. 14(6):1106–1123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prabowo AR, Muttaqie T, Sohn JM, Bae DM. 2018. Nonlinear analysis of inter-island RoRo under impact: effects of selected collision’s parameters on the crashworthy double-side structures. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng. 40:248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qu X, Meng Q, Suyi L. 2011. Ship collision risk assessment for the Singapore strait. Accid Anal Prev. 43(6):2030–2036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringsberg JW. 2010. Characteristics of material, ship side structure response and ship survivability in ship collisions. Ships Offshore Struct. 5(1):51–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudan S, Ćatipović I, Berg R, Völkner S, Prebeg P. 2019. Numerical study on the consequences of different ship collision modelling techniques. Ships Offshore Struct. 14(s1):387–400.
   Google Scholar
• Sen DT, Vinh TC. 2016. Determination of added mass and inertia moment of marine ships moving in 6 degrees of freedom. Int J Transp Eng Technol. 2(1):8–14.
   Google Scholar
• Silveira PAM, Teixeira AP, Soares CG. 2013. Use of AIS data to characterise marine traffic patterns and ship collision risk off the coast of Portugal. J Navigation. 66(6):879–898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song M, Ma J, Huang Y. 2017. Fluid-structure interaction analysis of ship–ship collisions. Mar Struct. 55:121–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Meng Q. 2019. Probabilistic ship domain with applications to ship collision risk assessment. Ocean Eng. 186:106130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Kopca C, Tang J, Ma D, Wang Y. 2017. A systematic approach for collision risk analysis based on AIS data. J Navigation. 70(5):1117–1132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar