Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSong, Ming
dc.contributor.authorKim, Ekaterina
dc.contributor.authorAmdahl, Jørgen
dc.contributor.authorMa, Jun
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Yi
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-09T07:56:34Z
dc.date.available2017-11-09T07:56:34Z
dc.date.created2016-06-03T12:43:42Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationMarine Structures. 2016, 49 58-75.nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn0951-8339
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2465080
dc.description.abstractThe constant added mass (CAM) method and the fluid-structure interaction (FSI) method are widely used to simulate ship-ship and ship-ice collisions. In the CAM method, the hydrodynamic effect of the surrounding water is treated as a constant added mass, whereas in the FSI method the surrounding fluid flow is explicitly modelled. The objective of the paper is to compare the two methods and to explain the causes of the differences in the results. We considered collision between a freshwater ice mass and a floating steel structure. For both methods, the numerical simulations were performed with the LS-DYNA software. The behaviour of the ice mass was modelled using an elliptic yield criterion and a strain-based pressure-dependent failure criterion. To ensure realistic ice behaviour, the ice model was calibrated using general trends found in laboratory and in-situ indentation tests with focus on the laboratory-grown ice and the fluid model in the LS-DYNA was verified by comparing the added mass coefficients for a spherical body and a rectangular block with the corresponding WADAM results. To validate and benchmark the numerical simulations, experimental data on ice-structure interactions in water were used, including the acceleration of the floater wall measured with the dynamic motion unit (DMU), the relative velocity between the ice mass and the floater before the impact and some images extracted from video recording of the test. The comparisons indicated that the FSI method yields better results for the motion of the floater, i.e., the acceleration of the floater wall caused by the ice mass’s impact and the relative velocity were in reasonably good agreement with experimental measurements. It was also found that the CAM method was faster but predicted a higher peak contact force and more dissipated energy in the ice mass than in the FSI method.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherElseviernb_NO
dc.titleA comparative analysis of the fluid-structure interaction method and the constant added mass method for ice-structure collisionsnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.description.versionsubmittedVersionnb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber58-75nb_NO
dc.source.volume49nb_NO
dc.source.journalMarine Structuresnb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.marstruc.2016.05.005
dc.identifier.cristin1359469
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 203471nb_NO
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 223254nb_NO
dc.description.localcodeThis is a submitted manuscript of an article published by Elsevier Ltd in Marine Structures, 2 June 2016nb_NO
cristin.unitcode194,64,20,0
cristin.unitcode194,64,91,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for marin teknikk
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for bygg- og miljøteknikk
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpreprint
cristin.qualitycode2


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record