Finite Element-Based Evaluation of Double-Hull Midsection Performance under Oblique Collision

Dina Malsyage, Aldias Bahatmaka, Arnova Chandra Cahya Kirana, Lee Sang Won, Song Yeon Hee

Abstract

Ship collisions pose a significant concern in maritime safety, particularly for double hull vessels operating in confined or high-risk areas. Understanding the structural response to collision is essential for improving crashworthiness. This study investigates the safety limits of a double-hull midsection ship under oblique impacts. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was used to simulate three collision angles (45°, 60°, 90°) and four velocities (1, 3, 5, and 7 m/s). A benchmark study confirmed simulation accuracy with an error of less than 2%. The study reveals that impact angle and velocity significantly affect the ship's structural response. Perpendicular impacts (90°) with varying velocities produce the highest internal energy, reaching up to 28.99 MJ. In oblique impacts at 45°, the highest crushing force was generated, which reached 51.05 MN. Safety factor analysis indicates that impacts exceeding 3 m/s, especially those approaching perpendicular, lead to a decrease in structural integrity, falling below the acceptable limit. At 7 m/s and 90°, the stress on the inner hull exceeds the material's ultimate strength, indicating a potential for failure. To ensure structural safety, operational speeds should be limited to below 3 m/s. Findings highlight the importance of managing collision risks and guiding future ship design optimization.

Full Text:

PDF

References

  1. R. A. Rahman, S. Suryanto, A. R. Prabowo, I. Yaningsih, S. Ehlers, and M. Braun, “Assessment of ship collision risk based on the recorded accident cases: Structural damage and environmental recovery,” E3S Web Conf., vol. 563, pp. 1–8, 2024.

  2. Z. Wang, Z. Hu, K. Liu, and G. Chen, “Application of a material model based on the Johnson–Cook and Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman model in ship collision and grounding simulations,” Ocean Eng., vol. 205, article no. 106768, 2020.

  3. R. Raza, “Ship collision causes oil spill on Vietnam’s Long Tau River,” MarineTraffic, 2025. Available: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/maritime-news/14/accidents/2025/12041/ship-collision-causes-oil-spill-on-vietnams-long-tau-river (Accessed: July 10, 2025).

  4. J. Gross and N. Ismaeel, “Oil tanker collision near Strait of Hormuz raises security fears,” The New York Times, 2025. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/business/tanker-collision-hormuz-israel-iran.html (Accessed: July 15, 2025).

  5. K. Sheehan, B. Kathianne, A. Blair, and J. F. Gibbon, “Mexican ship crashed into Brooklyn Bridge because it lost steering during mechanical failure: Sources,” New York Post, 2025. Available: https://nypost.com/2025/05/18/us-news/mexican-ship-crashed-into-bklyn-bridge-because-it-lost-steering-during-mechanical-failure-sources (Accessed: July 15, 2025).

  6. G. Wright, “North Sea tanker collision – what we know so far,” BBC News, 2025. Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62z9ee68y6o (Accessed: July 15, 2025).

  7. W. Ma, Y. Zhu, M. Grifoll, G. Liu, and P. Zheng, “Evaluation of the effectiveness of active and passive safety measures in preventing ship–bridge collision,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 8, article no. 2857, 2022.

  8. International Maritime Organization, International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS): Chapter II-1 Construction – Structure, subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations, London: IMO, 1974.

  9. K. W. Ketkar, “The Oil Pollution Act of 1990: A decade later,” Spill Sci. Technol. Bull., vol. 7, no. 1–2, pp. 45–52, 2002.

  10. Det Norske Veritas, “Design against accidental loads,” Recomm. Pract. DNV-RP-C204, pp. 7–52, 2010.

  11. Biro Klasifikasi Indonesia, “IACS Common Structural Rules for Double Hull Oil Tankers,” Rules Classif. Constr. Part 1. Seagoing Ships, vol. XVI, 2014.

  12. H. S. Alsos and J. Amdahl, “On the resistance to penetration of stiffened plates, Part I – Experiments,” Int. J. Impact Eng., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 799–807, 2009.

  13. P. Hogström and J. W. Ringsberg, “An extensive study of a ship’s survivability after collision – A parameter study of material characteristics, non-linear FEA and damage stability analyses,” Mar. Struct., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2012.

  14. A. Jahanbakhsh, J. Fragasso, L. Moro, and M. M. S. Islam, “Finite element model updating of a scale model ship using experimental modal analysis and response surface methodology,” J. Mar. Sci. Appl., pp. 1–17, 2025.

  15. X. Liu, H. Wu, and D. Chen, “Impact force–damage depth model for ship–bridge collision,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 167, article no. 108963, 2025.

  16. V. U. Minorsky, “An analysis of ship collisions with reference to protection of nuclear power plants,” J. Ship Res., vol. 3, pp. 1–4, 1958.

  17. A. R. Prabowo, D. M. Bae, J. H. Cho, and J. M. Sohn, “Analysis of structural crashworthiness and estimating safety limit accounting for ship collisions on strait territory,” Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct., vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 1594–1613, 2017.

  18. B. C. Cerik and J. Choung, “Fracture estimation in ship collision analysis – Strain rate and thermal softening effects,” Metals, vol. 11, no. 9, article no. 1402, 2021.

  19. A. R. Prabowo, A. Bahatmaka, J. H. Cho, J. M. Sohn, D. M. Bae, S. Samuel, and B. Cao, “Analysis of structural crashworthiness on a non-ice class tanker during stranding accounting for the sailing routes,” Marit. Transp. Harvest. Sea Resour., vol. 1, pp. 645–654, 2016.

  20. ANSYS, ANSYS LS-DYNA User’s Guide, Pennsylvania: Ansys Inc., 2020.

  21. S. Zhang, The Mechanics of Ship Collisions, Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark, 1999.

  22. P. T. Pedersen and S. Zhang, “Absorbed energy in ship collisions and grounding – Revising Minorsky’s empirical method,” J. Ship Res., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 140–154, 2000.

  23. A. R. Prabowo, T. Tuswan, A. Nurcholis, and A. A. Pratama, “Structural resistance of simplified side hull models accounting for stiffener design and loading type,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2021, article no. 6229498, 2021.

  24. R. Ridwan, S. Sudarno, H. Nubli, A. Chasan, I. Istanto, and P. S. Pratama, “Numerical analysis of openings in stiffeners under impact loading: Investigating structural response and failure behavior,” Mekanika Maj. Ilm. Mek., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 115–125, 2023.

  25. S. Ehlers, “A procedure to optimize ship side structures for crashworthiness,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M J. Eng. Marit. Environ., vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2010.

  26. A. R. Prabowo, A. Bahatmaka, and J. M. Sohn, “Crashworthiness characteristic of longitudinal deck structures against identified accidental action in marine environment: A study case of ship-bow collision,” J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng., vol. 42, no. 3, article no. 584, 2020.

  27. A. R. Prabowo, R. Ridwan, T. Tuswan, D. F. Smaradhana, B. Cao, and S. J. Baek, “Crushing resistance on the metal-based plate under impact loading: A systematic study on the indenter radius influence in grounding accident,” Appl. Eng. Sci., vol. 18, article no. 100177, 2024.

  28. F. Liu, R. Li, N. Su, and G. Feng, “Experimental and numerical investigations on EH36 steel plates subjected to quasi-static penetration and repeated dynamic impact loads,” Int. J. Impact Eng., vol. 198, article no. 105212, 2025.

  29. M. S. Akbar, A. R. Prabowo, D. D. D. P. Tjahjana, F. B. Laksono, and S. J. Baek, “Assessment of designed midship section structures subjected to hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads: A convergence study,” Procedia Struct. Integr., vol. 33, pp. 67–74, 2021.

  30. Z. Xiong, M. Ma, Y. Guo, and R. Li, “Study of energy absorption characteristics of coastal ship side structures based on collision accidents,” Ocean Eng., vol. 307, article no. 118079, 2024.

  31. J. Pan, T. Wang, W. Z. Zhang, S. W. Huang, and M. C. Xu, “Study on the assessment of axial crushing force of bulbous bow for bridge against ship collision,” Ocean Eng., vol. 255, article no. 111411, 2022.

  32. A. AbuBakar and R. S. Dow, “The impact analysis characteristics of a ship’s bow during collisions,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 100, pp. 492–511, 2019.

  33. A. R. Prabowo, B. I. R. Harsritanto, D. M. Bae, J. M. Sohn, A. Bahatmaka, S. Samuel, and B. Cao, “Progressive structural failure of the RoRo side hull during accidental powered-bow collisions,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Sci. Eng. Math. Chem. Phys., Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018.

  34. B. Q. Chen, B. Liu, and C. G. Soares, “Experimental and numerical investigation on a double hull structure subject to collision,” Ocean Eng., vol. 256, article no. 111437, 2022.

  35. E. S. Yeshanew, G. M. S. Ahmed, D. K. Sinha, I. A. Badruddin, S. Kamangar, I. M. Alarifi, and H. M. Hadidi, “Experimental investigation and crashworthiness analysis of 3D printed carbon PA automobile bumper to improve energy absorption by using LS-DYNA,” Adv. Mech. Eng., vol. 15, no. 6, 2023.

  36. D. Hambissa, R. B. Nallamothu, and T. Andarge, “Analysis of three-wheeler vehicle structure at the event of side pole crash,” J. Eng., vol. 2022, article no. 5490585, 2022.

  37. H. Liu, K. Liu, X. Wang, Z. Gao, and J. Wang, “On the resistance of cruciform structures during ship collision and grounding,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 11, no. 2, article no. 459, 2023.

  38. Z. Wang, K. Liu, G. Chen, and Z. Hu, “An analytical method to assess the structural responses of ship side structures by raked bow under oblique collision scenarios,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M J. Eng. Marit. Environ., vol. 235, no. 3, pp. 773–791, 2021.

  39. I. M. Suci, G. Sitepu, M. Zubair, and M. Alie, “Longitudinal strength analysis considering the cargo load on very large crude carrier (VLCC),” Kapal J. Ilmu Pengetah. Teknol. Kelaut., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 171–177, 2021.

  40. D. Rosato and D. Rosato, Plastics Engineered Product Design, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2003.

  41. A. I. Wulandari, R. J. Ikhwani, S. Suardi, R. S. Yani, A. N. Himaya, and A. Alamsyah, “Collision analysis of a self-propelled oil barge (SPOB) using finite element method,” Kapal J. Ilmu Pengetah. Teknol. Kelaut., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 101–111, 2022.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/mekanika.v24i2.106778

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.