Dropped Object to Using the Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis

Prakash Thapa
Centre for Risk, Integrity and Safety Engineering (C-RISE)
Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science
Memorial University, St John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada

Abstract
All through the past couple of decades of direct non-straight FE analysis has been growing for
the inadvertent events at the vessel/offshore structures. The major areas of the accidental design
dropped object analysis using non-straight analysis are the check of essential safety at the design
process.
This study to concerned methodology strategy conditions, and design considered dropped
challenge analysis to using the dynamic FE methodology. To comparing the result at the FE
analysis the simplified energy method to describe the delineated on the DNV-RP-C204 and to
take the direct advantages of intrigue non-linear analysis can be verified.
The analysis condition affect and looked into I am using the parametric study. In the study I
found the results are affected to utilization of the lifting equipment and human failure criteria to
instance the material properties, dropping position, dropped object condition etc. as per this study
I endeavor to prescribe the reasonable confirmation of the methodology and to condition of the
FE using the dropped object analysis on the offshore and onshore industry.
Introduction
The Dropped object is the major accidental events which are considered to design outline in the
subsea/offshore design procedure on the vessel/subsea and any other of the subsea structures or
pipeline. It was the indispensable guarantee structural drop accident against the safety the
wellbeing amid the normal or none routine to supply the material in the offloading vessel to
supply boat to platform in that stage or transporting the equipment’s for maintenance propose
and the Structural adequacy of the dropped object will be verified both analytically and
numerically.
The energy technique to delegate that the explanatory approach dropped object study and
analytic method can't be anticipate predict detailed of the structure, such as local strain focus,
area of crack, strain rate impact.
The global energy absorbing capacity retaining limits of structure to analyze that the kinetic
energy of the dropped object impact. For this situation the efficient and safe design against the
dropped object mischance are immediate numerical analyses to be completed in this study.
Description pf Model
In this structure study the Figure 1 has been chosen as a source of perspective model of the
dropped object analysis. The analytical and numerical evaluation of the dropped object will be
completed at the view of reference demonstrate. The detailed specification and determination
model are following:
- Deck: 10 mm - Girders: 900×20 web + 300×30 flange (T-bar)
- Longitudinal stiffener: 125×9 web + 90×9 Flange (edge)

1
 Figure 1: Dropped object study Structural model
Table 1: Material properties of structural model S355
Value Ref.
The stress Yield (MPa) 355 DNV-RP-C204
The strain of the rupture (%) 15 DNV-RP-C204
H 0.0034 DNV-RP-C204
C (s-1) 4000 DNV-RP-C208
p 5 DNV-RP-C208

Figure 2: Plastic stress–strain bends of S355

2
The material has been accepted as S355 grade steel in the parts: deck; supports; and stiffeners.
Plastic material properties of S355 in Table 1 and Figure 2 have been taken from DNV-RP-C204
and DNV-RP-C208.
C and P parameters of Cowper–Symonds model is fit to speaking to of strain rate are conditions
on the material. Cowper Symonds show [1] can be spoken to as Equation (1).
𝜖̇ 1
𝜎𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝜎𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 (1 + ( ) )
𝐶 𝑝
The different type of items is dropped in the accidental event. In this review the dropped energy I
attempt to accept that 353 kJ: for this case if the drop weight is 12 ton and the dropped height is
3 m. At the footprint of the dropped object to be expected that the 1m2 to consider that the
impact energy per unit territory per area. The deformation object has not been viewed as the rigid
body assumption.
ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENT
In this review the different strategies for analytic methodologies will be received the dropped
object analysis. The safety given for the structure to confirm to utilize the two representative
analytical techniques: The SRI equation and the DNV method. SRI equation is built up the
tentatively to check entrance of steel plate because of the dropped impact [2]. SRI equations are
gives the kinetic energy to require the thrashing a steel focus as underneath:
2 𝑤
𝐸 =𝑑𝑢𝑡 (42.7 + ) /10.3
𝑡
Where
E is kinetic energy (J),
d is missile diameter (m),
u is ultimate tensile strength(Pa), t is target thickness(m), and
w is unsupported width of plate (m)
As per the SRI method the Equation (2), required the kinetic energy to infiltrate given structure
anticipated 1,979 kJ when the diameter of the object are expected in the figure is 1.128 m for
effect range to be 1 m2.
In this way, given the structure are not is permitted to puncture because of given Impact energy
is 353 kJ.
The DNV-RP-C204 gives energy method to check of verification of structural safety stiffened
plate against impact the loading. The absorbed energy stiffened plates up to rupture of stiffener
are calculated in this case study.
The energy technique described by DNV most extreme break the energy absorbed is predicted as
239 kJ. The Stiffener of structure will be cracked under given impact energy in the dropped
energy 353 kJ. According to calculation result figuring the DNV technique will gives a great deal
more moderate outcomes than SRI recipe strategy.
Bases on the calculation the result I accept two kinds of analytic approaches methodologies such
as general impact retaining limit of structure figured. The Safety are given of the structure

3
against the dropped object accident likewise confirmed proficiently looking at figured limit of
the dropped object kinetic energy methodology.
Numerical Analysis
The drops Energy retaining limit of general structure are not design basis of the dropped object
assessments. The structural safety in the different focuses most extreme concentrated strain
esteem, area of crack and event of clasping direct finite element analysis ought to be completed
in this study.
The dynamic element non-direct transient study additionally connected with the dropped object
study to acquire by time subordinate reaction of the structure because of structure due to
dynamic impact loading analysis. The dynamic analysis, explicit scheme is adequate and
sufficient for huge condition of the frameworks for the business explicit code, LS-DYNA3D, has
been utilized in the numerical study.
In the Figure 3 demonstrates that the finite element model show that to use the numerical
analysis in all the structures modeled by the 2-dimensional shell components and dropped object
3-dimensional solid element analysis. In the event that Fine mesh component size of 30~80 mm
to connected the capture of basic of structural instability from FE analysis.
The eight and ten components utilized along the still spine and web of the brace, individually.
The two still components utilized alongside height of the stiffener and the Collapse will be
considered in the modeling of the dropped object in the rigid body mass object.

(A)

4
 (B)
Figure 3: Finite component model and limit conditions for numerical investigation: (a) FE
model; (b) limit conditions.
The limit boundary conditions are resolved to expecting the model is one Pet of the global
structure framework system. The limit are settled to fixed to x-heading to shows that the
persistent of the plate.
The base of the columns had demonstrated that to settle the all degree with no separations by
flexibility. The explicit scheme calculation time is significantly expanded to use by the fine
mesh. The decrease increment of the computational time step measure has been expanded the
selecting productive physical unit. The unit each physical amount is decides the m, s, kg, and N
for length, time, mass, and drive, separately.

(a)

5
 (b)
Figure 4: Dropped positions FE Calculation: (a) drop case on deck between supports; (b)
drop case on braces support
The structural safety framework to assess that the analyzing the different drop positions and the
Figure 4 demonstrates that the area of impact to considered at the numerical analysis. The
leading direct numerical analysis and point by point impact effect area on the basic reaction can
be verified. The most extreme likeness the plastic strain of every part is compressed in the Tables
2 and 3. The counterparts of the plastic strain are a standout amongst the most important design
criteria under plastic disfigurement.
At the perspective ALS (Accidental Limit State) condition the for the most part greatest identical
plastic use for the design criteria. The surpassing yield stress states are permitted in ALS
condition. Comparable plastic strain utilized for outline criteria for this review. The most
extreme proportional plastic strain is numerical investigation to look at the burst strain of the
material (15% for S355).
The break strain can be sensible safety criteria for ALS condition. Dropped object accidental
condition the aggregate fall or completely infiltration ought to be forestalled since second event
due to drop accident are not be a taken after. In those conditions the break of the structure ought
to be kept: The plastic disfigurement before crack can be permitted.
As condensed that the Tables 2 and 3 are the most extreme proportionate plastic strain is lower
than 15% for the greater part of the parts. This structure has been sufficient load-bearing limit
with respect to the dropped question.
Table 2: Maximum of Proportionate plastic strain of the dropped case on deck between
supports (w/o strain rate impact)
Max. Equivalent plastic strain (%)
Stiffener Deck Girders
13.5 7.2 1.2
D1

D2 13.6 6.6 1.2

6
 13.8 7.1 1.2
D3
13.0 6.6 1.1
D4
13.4 7.9 0.1
D5
12.5 7.6 0.0
D6
12.7 7.9 0.0
D7
13.1 7.4 0.1
D8
10.2 8.7 0.1
D9
10.3 8.7 0.0
D10
10.3 8.7 0.0
D11
10.2 8.7 0.1
D12

Table 3 Most extreme Plastic proportional strain for drop case on to supports (w/o strain
rate impact)

Maximum equivalent of plastic strain (%)

Girders
Stiffener Deck
4.5
G1-2 7.2 2.2
5.8
G2-3 2.8 3.1
4.8
G3-4 5.6 2.2
5.8
G1-5 7.1 1.2
4.8
G2-6 6.8 1.1
49
G3-7 6.6 1.5
5.6
G4-8 7.0 5.0
5.3
G5-6 4.9 2.3
5.0
G6-7 5.0 2.4
5.3
G7-8 4.2 2.2
3.5
G5-9 5.1 2.6

7
 3.8
G6-10 5.2 1.3
3.9
G7-11 4.1 1.4
3.4
G8-12 4.0 2.5
4.6
G9-10 4.1 2.1
4.3
G10-11 4.3 1.9
4.6
G11-12 4.1 2.0

The Even of the territory same measurement support, stiffener, and plate, the outcomes are
distinctive in FE analysis according to limit condition. In this purpose we can't considered the
analytical assessment.
The analytical approach of the drop cases D1 and D9 will give us similar outcomes in light of
the fact that the two districts had precisely same measurements, for example the brace traverse,
stiffener traverse and deck thickness. The numerical analysis D1 and D9 are offered us to various
outcome distinctive boundary conditions.
The dropped object to support comparable the plastic strain is brace significantly builds the
stiffener and deck diminishes. The drop case to brace ought to be checked the support strain
disparaged to checking the drop case in the deck. The brace thickness erroneously determined in
this study.
The estimation of the outcome tables 4 and 5 of the strain rate impacts are considered and
Cowper Symonds model is utilized for thought of strain rate. 4000 s-1 and 5 are utilized for
Cowper-Symonds parameters C and p, separately. The DNV-RP-C208 prescribes to utilizing the
estimations of high pliable steels when there are no exploratory outcomes.
Table 4 Maximum Equivalent plastic strain for drop case on to deck between supports (w/strain
rate impact)
The Maximum equivalent plastic strain (%)
Stiffener Deck Girders
D1 11.5 6.1 0.9
D2 12.1 5.4 1.1
D3 12.4 6.1 1.0
D4 11.2 5.3 0.9
D5 12.1 6.6 0.1
D6 11.0 6.3 0.0
D7 11.2 6.7 0.0
D8 12.0 6.0 0.1
D9 8.8 7.4 0.0
D10 8.8 7.5 0.0
D11 8.8 7.5 0.0
D12 8.7 7.4 0.0
Table 5 Maximum identical plastic strain for drop case on to supports (w/strain rate impact)

8
 Maximum equivalent plastic strain (%)
Stiffener Deck Girders
G1-2 4.9 1.7 3.9
G2-3 2.6 1.4 3.9
G3-4 4.9 1.6 4.0
G1-5 5.1 1.4 3.7
G2-6 6.0 1.1 3.7
G3-7 5.7 1.3 3.7
G4-8 6.0 2.2 4.5
G5-6 3.8 1.9 4.2
G6-7 4.0 1.7 2.9
G7-8 4.21 1.8 4.2
G5-9 5.4 2.0 2.6
G6-10 5.3 1.2 2.6
G7-11 5.3 1.3 2.6
G8-12 5.2 1.9 2.5
G9-10 3.5 1.5 3.3
G10-11 5.2 1.5 3.3
G11-12 3.6 1.5 3.3
The contrasting of Tables 4 and 5 with Tables 2 and 3, the most extreme comparable plastic
strain diminishes parts when the strain rates are impact to be considered. The aftereffects of
positive Cowper–Symonds parameters mean positive strain rate affectability (strain rate
solidifying).
The positive strain rate of affectability incites more grounded structure at higher strain rate and
most extreme 2% of the strain is decreased when C=4000 s-1 and p=5 are connected. The strain
rate ought to be considered for proficient plan and weight reduction of the structure.
Figure 5 (a) to demonstrates that the energy engrossing of every part of the case D6 to
considering strain rate impact and the Kinetic energy of the object are consumed by the plastic
twisting in the structure. The object of the Kinetic energy are completely exchanged to
misshaping impact of the structure will take 0.04 sec after initially dropped affect. The main
energy assimilated on the deck and the stiffeners are the fundamental energy retaining
individuals from the deck and the stiffener. Table 4 indicated us bigger plastic strain anticipated
at the stiffener and the deck.
Table 6: Effect of object shape on Maximum proportionate plastic strain (D6 w/strain rate of
impact)

Maximum equivalent plastic strain (%)

Stiffener Deck Girders

Hexahedral object 11.0 6.3 0.0

Cylindrical object 12.2 3.2 0.0

9
 (a)

(b)
Figure 5 Energy retaining of every section: (a) Case D6; (b) Case G5-6
The figure 5(b) demonstrates to the energy retaining every part the case is G5-6 with considering
strain rate impact and the object of the Kinetic energy is completely exchanged to misshaping
energy of the structure at 0.01 sec at the first principal affect.
The kinetic energy is assimilated much quicker since when the object dropped on to the support
and the brace are stiffer on the drop heading the deck is stiffener. According to contrasting with
the D6 case study the primary energy engrossing individuals are changed to the braces for this
situation the energy consumed by the stiffener to the deck are fundamentally diminishes
contrasted with dropping case on to the deck between supports.
Table 5 demonstrated the yields increase to the most extreme strain at the brace as to compared
the Table 4 the strain in the deck the stiffener diminish and the strain at the supports has been
expanded. The greatest strain case is stiffener will be checked by dropping cases on the deck
diverse amongst supports and most extreme strain case.

10
The analysis of this case even the object dropped on the brace the greatest strains at the supports
are still lower than the stiffener despite the fact that the strain at the braces has been expanded
contrasted with dropping case on the deck.
The dropping cases to the supports girders to be checked by the plan criteria to stiffener brace
can be distinctive framework. In this analysis most important component of the dropped object
evaluation to check the energy engrossing limit of the individuals of the point when the energy
retaining limit of the structure are sufficient to ingest given kinetic energy to identical plastic
strain will be prompted.
The accompanying Figure 6 demonstrated that the proportional plastic strain shape at the
dropped object zone. The solid confirmation of identical plastic strain in perspective of energy
engrossing of limit, confined strain to the object are lessened to utilizing the round and hollow
shape object as appeared on the Figure 7. The table 6 demonstrates that the greatest equal plastic
strain hexahedral and barrel shaped object in the D6.
The cylindrical object are dropped strain are expanded at the stiffener and abatements at the deck
in light of the fact the strain diminish of deck are decrease of the strain restriction at the side of
the hexahedral object. The vitality retaining proportions of every part for two kind of dropping
cases are practically are same appeared in Figure 8.
The cylindrical of the dropped object can be abstaining from straining increment because of the
strain limitation at the sharp corner of the object and the off chance that the primary target of the
dropped object evaluation to check the energy engrossing capacity of the structure round and
cylindrical object will give more dependable outcomes.

Figure 6: Strain localization at the corner of object

11
 Figure 7: Hexahedral and tube shaped object
Table 6 Effect of protest shape on most extreme identical plastic strain (D6 w/strain rate
impact)

(a)

12
 (b)
Figure 8 Energy engrossing of every section: (a) hexahedral protest; (b) cylindrical shaped
object
Figure 9 indicates are the different effect of the dropped object shown on the D6 at the point of
view the dropped object of structure with edge or corner the confined of strain to contact range
essentially increases to strain fixation. The following table 7 had demonstrated that the impact
energy to orientations of the dropped object in the corner of strain deck increments up to 84.4%.
The corner dropped object cases are the local strain drastically increases while the kinetic energy
in the object and energy engrossing limit are in the structure can't change. The most extreme
reduce strain to admissible strain even for these situations the unreasonable fortification are
required. For instance if the thicknesses of the deck are expanded up to 70 mm to decrease
greatest limited strain of deck up to 15% at the corner dropped protest case.
The dropped object analysis to contemplate led perspective of energy engrossing limit check on
the greatest separation object ought to additionally assess to check the likelihood impedance with
different frameworks situated underneath of the deck. For this situation the object does not
happen the greatest relocations of object are 595 mm as appeared in the following Figure 10.
If any structure is not situated in 600 mm under the deck the outline won't be permitted to against
the dropped object perspective. The genuine dislodging of the question will be lower than 595
mm misshaping of the object to consider the analysis for moderate approach are appeared on the
Figure 11 to diminishing inclination of entrance profundity with expanding deck thickness
toward the edge of the dropped object case.

13
 Figure 9: Effect of object orientation
Table 7 the plastic strain impact of effect introduction on most maximum equivalent (D6
w/strain rate impact)

Max. Equivalent plastic strain (%)

Stiffener Deck Girders

Case I (face drop) 11.0 6.3 0.0

Case II (edge drop) 19.4 13.6 0.0

Case III (corner drop) 82.0 82.0 0.0

Figure 10: Moving locus of the object for corner drop case

14
 Figure 11 decreasing propensity of the infiltration profundity with expanding deck
thickness for corner drop case
The dropped objects are kinetic energy and it’s was own misshaping standards to prescribe to
utilizing inflexible impact to preservationist appraisal. The impact of the unbending body
suspicion of the question had demonstrated the Table 8 demonstrates the impact of object
properties on greatest then strain. The deformable object components of the indistinguishable
measurement from inflexible impact have been utilized and the thickness of the still accepted as
5 mm for this study. The materials of the dropped object are expected as S235 when the impact
are deformable the most extreme strain of the deck are reductions since a segment of kinetic
energy is ingested through the dropped object impact.
The proportion of the ingested energy are crated the dropped object are add up to kinetic energy
firmly impacted by the state of the object and it's hard to foresee precise state of the protest for
the unplanned condition. These vulnerabilities of the object and condition incite incorrect
outline.
The difficult to decide precise state of the dropped object utilize unbending item will give safe
outcomes since inflexible body suspicion are the dropped object will give more preservationist
results in the genuine condition.
Table 8 Effect of the object properties on most extreme proportionate plastic strain (D6 w/strain
rate impact)

Maximum equivalent plastic strain (%)

Stiffener Deck Girders Object

Rigid object 11.0 6.3 0.0 RIGID

Deformable 12.2 4.2 0.0 2.5

object

15
 (a)

(b)
Figure 12: Energy retaining of every section: (an) inflexible question; (b) deformable protest
The greatest impact of ecological load to likeness plastic strain are study in this study the impact
of body brace bowing minute because of still water and wave twisting minute has been
confirmed on the table 9 demonstrates that the accepted of the body impact bowing minute.
I accepting in the segment modulus at the deck as 60 m3 most extreme tractable anxiety brought
on hoarding minute is 75 MPa the greatest compressive anxiety created by listing minute is - 75
MPa. I consider that the structure support bowing is most extreme estimations of malleable and
compressive burdens are analysis as introductory anxiety appeared in the Figure 13. In the table
10 are demonstrates the impact of starting most extreme proportionate plastic strain.
The initial tensile stress due to hogging moment to prompt to strain at the stiffener in the deck
are increment the graders. The likewise of these diminished the underlying compressive because
of drooping are incited. The expanding and diminishing case the measure of the brought on by

16
introductory anxiety is not substantial contrasted with the impact of alternate variables. The
impact of body support bowing minute ought to be checked it can't give a vast impact to the
outcomes when the movement are bigger.
Table 9: Hull support twisting minute
Still water bending moment (Hogging) 3,500,000
Still water bending moment (Sagging) -3,500,000
Wave bending moment – 1yr (Hogging) 1,000,000
Wave bending moment – 1yr (Sagging) -1,000,000
Hull girder bending moment (Hogging) 4,500,000
Hull girder bending moment (Sagging) -4,500,000
Section modulus (deck) [m3] 60.0
Tensile stress at the deck [MPa] 75.0
Compressive stress at the deck [MPa] -75.0

Figure 13: Energy retaining of every section: (an) unbending item

(b) Deformable object
Table 10 Effect of starting weight on most extreme comparable plastic strain (D6 w/strain rate
impact)

The maximum equivalent plastic strain (%)

Stiffener Deck Girders

No HGBM 11.0 6.3 0.0

Hogging 11.2 6.4 0.5

Sagging 9.0 6.0 0.0

CONCLUSIONS

17
 The dropped object evaluation are indicated of the structure has been done to utilizing the
scientific and numerical approach. Systematic methodologies evaluate auxiliary wellbeing
against dropped protest ascertaining vitality engrossing limit of general structure and contrasting
with energy impact. It is effective to speedy strategy for dropped impact evaluation. The
numerical analysis are immediate numerical ought to be directed.
The element non-direct FE investigation predicts time to ward reaction of the structure and
numerical analysis to investigation condition ought to be resolved properly and deliberately since
it gives an impact the outcomes. The impact of different analysis conditions on the outcomes has
been explored and quantitatively abridged.

18

View publication stats