Review of methods to assess the structural response of offshore wind turbines subjected to ship impacts

References

• Alsos HS, Hopperstad OS, Törnqvist R, Amdahl J. 2008. Analytical and numerical analysis of sheet metal instability using a stress based criterion. Int J Solids Struct. 45(7-8):2042–2055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amdahl J. 1983. Energy absorption in ship-platform impacts [PhD thesis]. University of Trondheim.
   Google Scholar
• Amdahl J, Holmas T. 2011. High energy ship collisions with jacket supported offshore wind turbines.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen MT, Wendt FF, Robertson AN, Jonkman JM, Hall M. 2016. Verification and validation of multisegmented mooring capabilities in FAST v8. The 26th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference; OnePetro.
   Google Scholar
• Bai Y, Jin W-L. 2016. Chapter 21 - Offshore Structures Under Impact Loads. Marine Structural Design. Second Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann; p. 427-446.
   Google Scholar
• Bela A, Le Sourne H, Buldgen L, Rigo P. 2017. Ship collision analysis on offshore wind turbine monopile foundations. Marine Structures. 51:220–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya S. 2019. Design of foundations for offshore wind turbines. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Biehl F, Lehmann E. 2006. Collisions of ships with offshore wind turbines: Calculation and risk evaluation. Offshore wind energy. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; p. 281–304.
   Google Scholar
• Brown AJ. 2002. Collision scenarios and probabilistic collision damage. Mar Struct. 15(4–5):335–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buldgen L, Le Sourne H, Pire T. 2014. Extension of the super-elements method to the analysis of a jacket impacted by a ship. Mar Struct. 38:44–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bureau Veritas. 2016. NR445: rules for the classification of offshore units.Paris (France).
   Google Scholar
• Calle MA, Alves M. 2015. A review-analysis on material failure modeling in ship collision. Ocean Eng. 106:20–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calle MA, Oshiro RE, Alves M. 2017. Ship collision and grounding: scaled experiments and numerical analysis. Int J Impact Eng. 103:195–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calle MA, Verleysen P, Alves M. 2017. Benchmark study of failure criteria for ship collision modeling using purpose-designed tensile specimen geometries. Mar Struct. 53:68–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerik BC, Choung J. 2020. On the modelling of strain-rate effects in nonlinear fe analysis of ship collisions. Proceedings of the International Conference on Ships and Offshore Structures, Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Cerik BC, Lee K, Park S -J, Choung J. 2019. Simulation of ship collision and grounding damage using Hosford–Coulomb fracture model for shell elements. Ocean Eng. 173:415–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerik BC, Shin HK, Cho SR. 2016. A comparative study on damage assessment of tubular members subjected to mass impact. Mar Struct. 46:1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Hu Z, Liu G, Wan D. 2019. Coupled aero-hydro-servo-elastic methods for floating wind turbines. Renew Energy. 130:139–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho SR, Seo BS, Cerik BC, Shin HK. 2013. Experimental and numerical investigations on the collision between offshore wind turbine support structures and service vessels. Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures – Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures, ICCGS 2013. p. 281–287.
   Google Scholar
• Consolazio GR, Cowan DR. 2003. Nonlinear analysis of barge crush behavior and its relationship to impact resistant bridge design. Comput Struct. 81(8–11):547–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costas M, Morin D, Hopperstad OS, Børvik T, Langseth M. 2019. A through-thickness damage regularisation scheme for shell elements subjected to severe bending and membrane deformations. J Mech Phys Solids. 123:190–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowper GR, Symonds PS. 1957. Strain-hardening and strain-rate effects in the impact loading of cantilever beams. Tech. Rep., Brown University, Providence, RI.
   Google Scholar
• Dai L, Ehlers S, Rausand M, Utne IB. 2013. Risk of collision between service vessels and offshore wind turbines. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 109:18–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daudeville L, Malécot Y. 2011. Concrete structures under impact. Eur J Environ Civil Eng. 15:101–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DNV. 2021. Mooring system and individual mooring line analysis – Mimosa. [accessed 26 Apr 2021]. https://www.dnv.com/services/mooring-system-and-individual-mooring-line-analysis-mimosa-2313.
   Google Scholar
• DNV GL. 2018. DNVGL-ST-0119: Floating wind turbine structures. DNV GL – Standard (July), 108.
   Google Scholar
• Echeverry S, Márquez L, Rigo P, Le Sourne H. 2020. Numerical crashworthiness analysis of a spar floating offshore wind turbine impacted by a ship. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures, ICCGS 2019. p. 85–95.
   Google Scholar
• Ehlers S. 2011. A review of collision and grounding damage assessment methods. Mar Syst Ocean Technol. 6(1):5–15.
   Google Scholar
• Ellinas C, Valsgard S. 1985. Collisions and damage of offshore structures: a state-of-the-art. J Energy Resour Technol. 107(3):297–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Explorer T. 2021. OO-star wind floater concept. https://www.theexplorer.no/solutions/offshore-floating-wind-turbines/.
   Google Scholar
• Fan W, Liu B, Huang X, Sun Y. 2019. Efficient modeling of flexural and shear behaviors in reinforced concrete beams and columns subjected to low-velocity impact loading. Eng Struct. 195:22–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan W, Yuan W. 2014. Numerical simulation and analytical modeling of pile-supported structures subjected to ship collisions including soil–structure interaction. Ocean Eng. 91:11–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujikake K, Li B, Soeun S. 2009. Impact response of reinforced concrete beam and its analytical evaluation. J Struct Eng. 135(8):938–950.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furnes O, Amdahl J. 1980. Ship collisions with offshore platforms. Intermaritec'80.
   Google Scholar
• Hagiwara K, Takanabe H, Kawano H. 1983. A proposed method of predicting ship collision damage. Int J Impact Eng. 1(3):257–279.
   Google Scholar
• Hall M. 2016. Hybrid modeling of floating wind turbines [Phd thesis]. University of Maine.
   Google Scholar
• Hall M, Buckham B, Crawford C. 2014. Evaluating the importance of mooring line model fidelity in floating offshore wind turbine simulations (October 2013). pp. 1835–1853.
   Google Scholar
• Hall M, Goupee A. 2015. Validation of a lumped-mass mooring line model with DeepCwind semisubmersible model test data. Ocean Eng. 104:590–603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen M. 2015. Aerodynamics of wind turbines. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hong S, Lee I, Park SH, Lee C, Chun HH, Lim HC. 2015. An experimental study of the effect of mooring systems on the dynamics of a SPAR buoy-type floating offshore wind turbine. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng. 7(3):559–579.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ideol B. 2018. Floatgen demonstrator. https://www.bw-ideol.com/en/floatgen-demonstrator.
   Google Scholar
• IEA. 2020. Offshore wind outlook 2019. Tech. rep., International Energy Agency (IEA).
   Google Scholar
• Ito H, Kondo K, Yoshimura N, Kawashima M, Yamamoto S. 1985. A simplified method to analyse the strength of double hulled structures in collision (2nd Report). J Soc Nav Archit Jpn. 1985(158):420–434.
   Google Scholar
• Jia H, Qin S, Wang R, Xue Y, Fu D, Wang A. 2020. Ship collision impact on the structural load of an offshore wind turbine. Glob Energy Interconnection. 3(1):43–50.
   Google Scholar
• Jones N. 1979. A literature survey on the collision and grounding protection of ships. Tech. rep., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Jones N. 2011. Structural impact. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jonge TD, Laukeland L. 2013. Collision between a spar platform and a tanker. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures, ICCGS 2013. p. 267–272.
   Google Scholar
• Jonkman J. 2015. Fast simulation tool containing methods for predicting the dynamic response of wind turbines. Tech. rep., National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
   Google Scholar
• Kim SJ, Kõrgersaar 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
• Kõrgesaar M. 2019. The effect of low stress triaxialities and deformation paths on ductile fracture simulations of large shell structures. Mar Struct. 63:45–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kõrgesaar M, Storheim M. 2020. Treatment of bending deformations in maritime crash analyses. In International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Vol. 84324. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. V02AT02A017.
   Google Scholar
• Kühn MJ. 2001. Dynamics and design optimisation of offshore wind energy conversion systems. DUWIND, Delft University Wind Energy Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen TJ, Hansen AM. 2007. How 2 HAWC2, the user's manual. Risø National Laboratory. v. 1597.
   Google Scholar
• Lee S-G, Nam J-H, Kim J-K, Zhao T, Nguyen H-A. 2012. Structural safety assessment of ship collision using FSI analysis technique. In: The Twenty-second International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• Le Sourne H. 2007. A ship collision analysis program based on super-element method coupled with large rotational ship movement analysis. In: 4th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships. pp. 131–138.
   Google Scholar
• Le Sourne H, Barrera A, Maliakel JB. 2015. Numerical crashworthiness analysis of an offshore wind turbine jacket impacted by a ship. J Mar Sci Technol. 23(5):694–704.
   Web of Science ®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. 2012:375686.
   Google Scholar
• Le Sourne H, County N, Besnier F, Kammerer C, Legavre H. 2003. LS-DYNA applications in shipbuilding. In: 4th European LS-DYNA users Conference. pp. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Le Sourne H, Donner R, Besnier F, Ferry M. 2001. External dynamics of ship-submarine collision. In: Preprints of 2nd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships, Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Le Sourne H, Kim S-J, Conti F, Bae H, Ahmed M, Pineau J-P, Looten T, Kaydihan L, Vassalos D, Kujala P, Hirdaris S. 2021. A comparison of crashworthiness methods for the assessment of ship damage extents. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Stability and Safety 1 of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Le Sourne H, Pire T, Rigo P. 2016. New analytical developments to study local and global deformations of an offshore wind turbine jacket impacted by a ship. Proceedings of the International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures, Ulsan, Korea, 15–18.
   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
• 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(3):360–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LRG. 2014. Guidance notes for risk based analysis: collisions. Vol. 54. London (UK): Lloyd's Register. p. 11–821.
   Google Scholar
• Ma KT, Luo Y, Kwan CTT, Wu Y. 2019a. Mooring system engineering for offshore structures. Cambridge (MA): Gulf Professional Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ma K-T, Luo Y, Kwan T, Wu Y. 2019b. Mooring for floating wind turbines. In: Mooring System Engineering for Offshore Structures. Gulf Professional Publishing, an imprint of Elsevier. p. 299–315.
   Google Scholar
• Marquez L, Le Sourne H, Rigo P. 2021. Ship collision events against reinforced concrete offshore structures. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Marine Structures; MARSTRUCT 2021; June 7–9; Trondheim, Norway).
   Google Scholar
• Masciola M, Jonkman J, Robertson A. 2014. Extending the capabilities of the mooring analysis program: a survey of dynamic mooring line theories for integration into fast. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (March). p. 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Micallef K, Sagaseta J, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. 2014. Assessing punching shear failure in reinforced concrete flat slabs subjected to localised impact loading. Int J Impact Eng. 71:17–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minorsky V. 1959. An analysis of ship collision to protection of nuclear powered plant. J Ship Res. 3(2):1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Mo R, Li M, Kang H. 2018. Transient behaviour of grouted connections of offshore wind turbines subject to ship impact. Appl Ocean Res. 76:159–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moan T, Amdahl J, Ersdal G. 2019. Assessment of ship impact risk to offshore structures – New NORSOK N-003 guidelines. Mar Struct. 63:480–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motora S, Fujino M, Sugiura M, Sugita M. 1971. Equivalent added mass of ships in collisions. Selected Papers, J Soc Nav Arch Jpn. 7:138–148.
   Google Scholar
• Mujeeb-Ahmed M, Ince ST, Paik JK. 2020. Computational models for the structural crashworthiness analysis of a fixed-type offshore platform in collisions with an offshore supply vessel. Thin-Walled Struct. 154:106868.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mujeeb-Ahmed M, Paik JK. 2021. Quantitative collision risk assessment of a fixed-type offshore platform with an offshore supply vessel. Structures. 29:2139–2161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen FG, Hanson TD, Skaare B. 2006. Integrated dynamic analysis of floating offshore wind turbines. In: International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Vol. 47462. p. 671–679.
   Google Scholar
• NREL. 2021a. Feamooring. [accessed 2021 Apr 28]. https://www.nrel.gov/wind/nwtc/feamooring.html.
   Google Scholar
• NREL. 2021b. Openfast. [accessed 2021 Jul 5]. https://www.nrel.gov/wind/nwtc/openfast.html.
   Google Scholar
• Orcina. 2021. Orcaflex features and specification. [accessed 2021 Apr 29]. https://www.orcina.com/orcaflex/specification/.
   Google Scholar
• Oshiro RE, Calle MA, Mazzariol LM, Alves M. 2017. Experimental study of collision in scaled naval structures. Int J Impact Eng. 110:149–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paboeuf S, Le Sourne H, Brochard K, Besnard N. 2015. A damage assessment tool in ship collisions. In: Proceedings of Damaged Ship III–The Royal Institution of Naval Architects. p. 25–26.
   Google Scholar
• Pack K, Mohr D. 2017. Combined necking & fracture model to predict ductile failure with shell finite elements. Eng Fract Mech. 182:32–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paik JK. 2018. Ultimate limit state analysis and design of plated structures. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Paik JK, Chung JY, Choe IH, Thayamballi AK, Pedersen PT, Wang G. 1999. On rational design of double hull tanker structures against collision. Annual Meeting Paper No. 14, Society Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• Paik JK, Thayamballi A. 2003. Ultimate limit state design of steel-plated structures. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen PT. 2013. Ship collisions against wind turbines, quays and bridge piers. Collision and grounding of ships and offshore structures. London: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group. p. 273–280.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen PT, Jensen JJ. 1991. Ship impact analysis for bottom supported offshore structures. Advances in Marine Structures II. Elsevier Applied Science. p. 276–295.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen PT, Zhang S. 1998. On impact mechanics in ship collisions. Mar Struct. 11(10):429–449.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen MJ. 1982. Dynamics of ship collisions. Ocean Eng. 9(4):295–329.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen MJ, Pedersen PT. 1981. Collisions between ships and offshore platforms. In: Offshore Technology Conference. OnePetro.
   Google Scholar
• Pire T. 2018. Development of a code based on the continuous element method to assess the crashworthiness of an offshore wind turbine jacket [PhD thesis]. University of Liege.
   Google Scholar
• Pire T, Le Sourne H, Echeverry S, Rigo P. 2018a. Analytical formulations to assess the energy dissipated at the base of an offshore wind turbine jacket impacted by a ship. Mar Struct. 59:192–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pire T, Le Sourne H, Echeverry S, Rigo P. 2018b. Analytical formulations to assess the energy dissipated at the base of an offshore wind turbine jacket impacted by a ship. Mar Struct. 59:192–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pire T, Le Sourne H, Hsieh J-R, Rigo P. 2018c. Quick assessment of the punching resistance of an offshore wind turbine jacket impacted by a ship. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on SHips and Offshore Structures (September). pp. 192–218.
   Google Scholar
• Rudan S, Ćatipović I, Berg R, Völkner S, Prebeg P. 2019. Numerical study on the consequences of different ship collision modelling techniques. Sh Offshore Struct. 14(sup1):387–400.
   Google Scholar
• Rudman M, Cleary PW. 2016. The influence of mooring system in rogue wave impact on an offshore platform. Ocean Eng. 115:168–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saini D, Shafei B. 2019. Concrete constitutive models for low velocity impact simulations. Int J Impact Eng. 132:103329.
   Google Scholar
• Salzmann DC, Van der Tempel J. 2005. Aerodynamic damping in the design of support structures for offshore wind turbines. In: Paper of the Copenhagen Offshore Conference. Citeseer.
   Google Scholar
• Samsonovs A, Giuliani L, Zania V. 2014. Soil structure interaction in offshore wind turbine collisions. Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Dynamic, EURODYN (July). p. 3651–3658.
   Google Scholar
• Schafhirt S, Muskulus M. 2018. Decoupled simulations of offshore wind turbines with reduced rotor loads and aerodynamic damping. Wind Energy Sci. 3(1):25–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwer L. 2010. An introduction to the Winfrith concrete model. Schwer Engineering & Consulting Services p. 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Sha Y, Amdahl J. 2019. Numerical investigations of a prestressed pontoon wall subjected to ship collision loads. Ocean Eng. 172:234–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sha Y, Amdahl J, Dørum C. 2017. Dynamic responses of a floating bridge subjected to ship collision load on bridge girders. Procedia Eng. 199:2506–2513.
   Google Scholar
• Sha Y, Amdahl J, Dørum C. 2019. Local and global responses of a floating bridge under ship–girder collisions. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng. 141(3):031601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sha Y, Hao H. 2013. Laboratory tests and numerical simulations of barge impact on circular reinforced concrete piers. Eng Struct. 46:593–605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonsen BC, Ocakli H. 1999. Experiments and theory on deck and girder crushing. Thin-Walled Struct. 34(3):195–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SINTEF. 2021. Sima. [accessed 2021 Aug 26]. https://www.sintef.no/en/software/sima2/offshore-wind/.
   Google Scholar
• Song M, Jiang Z, Yuan W. 2021. Numerical and analytical analysis of a monopile-supported offshore wind turbine under ship impacts. Renew Energy. 167:457–472.
   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
• Soreide T, Amdahl J. 1983. Energy absorption in ship-platform impacts. Reports of the Working Commissions. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering 42. p. 195–203.
   Google Scholar
• Søreide TH, Amdahl J, Eberg E, Holmås T, Hellan Ø. 1993. USFOS – a computer program for progressive collapse analysis of steel offshore structures. Theory Manual, SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Storheim M, Amdahl J, Martens I. 2015. On the accuracy of fracture estimation in collision analysis of ship and offshore structures. Mar Struct. 44:254–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stronge WJ. 2018. Impact mechanics. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tabri K. 2010. Dynamics of ship collisions [PhD thesis]. Aalto University.
   Google Scholar
• Tabri K, Määttänen J, Ranta J. 2008. Model-scale experiments of symmetric ship collisions. J Mar Sci Technol. 13(1):71–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabri K, Varsta P, Matusiak J. 2010. Numerical and experimental motion simulations of nonsymmetric ship collisions. J Mar Sci Technol. 15(1):87–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tørnqvist R. 2003. Design of crashworthy ship strucures. Kgs. Lingby: Technical University of Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Veritas B. 2021. Ariane advanced mooring software. [accessed 2021 Apr 27]. https://marine-offshore.bureauveritas.com/ariane-advanced-mooring-software.
   Google Scholar
• Vredeveldt AW. 1992. Full scale ship collision test results. Tech. rep., TU Delft.
   Google Scholar
• Wendt FF, Andersen MT, Robertson AN, Jonkman JM. 2016. Verification and validation of the new dynamic mooring modules available in FAST v8. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (August). p. 352–363.
   Google Scholar
• Wierzbicki T, Suh M. 1988. Indentation of tubes under combined loading. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences. 30(3):229–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woelke P, Londono J, Knoerr L, Dykeman J, Malcolm S. 2018. Fundamental differences between fracture behavior of thin sheets under plane strain bending, tension. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. Vol. 418. IOP Publishing. p. 012078.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Crawford JE. 2015. Numerical modeling of concrete using a partially associative plasticity model. J Eng Mech. 141(12):04015051.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Crawford JE, Magallanes JM. 2012. Concrete constitutive models. 12th International LS-DYNA Users conference (1). p. 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Yamada Y. 2007 Mar. Buffer bulbous bows: A measure to reduce oil spill in collisions [PhD thesis]. Technical University of Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Yu Q, Liu K, Yang Z, Wang H, Yang Z. 2021. Geometrical risk evaluation of the collisions between ships and offshore installations using rule-based Bayesian reasoning. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 210:107474.
   Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Amdahl J. 2016a. Full six degrees of freedom coupled dynamic simulation of ship collision and grounding accidents. Mar Struct. 47:1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Amdahl J. 2016b. Influence of 6DOF ship motions in the damage prediction of ship collision and grounding accidents. Proc ICCGS. 15(18):199–205.
   Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Amdahl J. 2018a. Analysis and design of offshore tubular members against ship impacts. Mar Struct. 58:109–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Amdahl J. 2018b. A review of structural responses and design of offshore tubular structures subjected to ship impacts. Ocean Eng. 154:177–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Amdahl J. 2021a. A numerical solver for coupled dynamic simulation of glacial ice impacts considering hydrodynamic-ice-structure interaction. Ocean Eng. 226:108827.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Amdahl J. 2021b. Ship collision against a 10 MW semi-submersible floating offshore wind turbine. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Marine Structures; MARSTRUCT 2021; 2021 Jun 7–9; Trondheim, Norway).
   Google Scholar
• Yu Z, Amdahl J, Kristiansen D, Bore PT. 2019. Numerical analysis of local and global responses of an offshore fish farm subjected to ship impacts. Ocean Eng. 194:106653.
   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.
   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(3):119–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yukio U, Rashed SM. 1984. The idealized structural unit method and its application to deep girder structures. Comput Struct. 18(2):277–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang S, Pedersen P, Villavicencio R. 2019. Probability and mechanics of ship collision and grounding. Cambridge (MA): Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Hu Z. 2021. A nonlinear numerical simulation approach for the dynamic responses analysis of floating wind turbine under ship impact scenario. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Marine Structures, MARSTRUCT 2021; 2021 Jun 7–9; Trondheim, Norway).
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Hu Z, Ng C, Jia C, Jiang Z. 2021. Dynamic responses analysis of a 5 MW spar-type floating wind turbine under accidental ship-impact scenario. Mar Struct. 75:1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar