Parametric Study on Ship Collision Based on Experimental Testing

Kristjan Tabri
1)
, Joep Broekhuijsen
2)

1)
Helsinki University of Technology, Ship Laboratory.
Finland
2)
Schelde Naval Shipbuilding
The Netherlands
Abstract
The paper presents the results of ship collision experi-
ments. Based on the experiments a parametric study is
carried out, where the effects of different input parame-
ters, such as mass ratio, location of the contact point and
collision angle, are studied in a view on the conse-
quences of the collision, such as deformation energy
and penetration. Analysis reveals that the mass ratio is
the most important parameter to determine the portion
of total energy to be absorbed by the ship structures.
Other parameters, such as collision velocity and struc-
tural response, have a secondary effect on relative de-
formation energy. Furthermore, study shows that the
deformation energy is strongly affected by the location
of the contact point and less by the collision angle.
Keywords
Large- and model-scale ship collision experiments,
arbitrary collision location, oblique collision angle,
deformation energy.
Introduction
Crashworthiness of ships and their behaviour in colli-
sion has received attention for several decades. Increas-
ing density of shipping traffic and perhaps disastrous
consequences of possible accidents have been the main
motivators. The assessment of collision behaviour of a
certain ship or a structural concept is often limited to an
analysis where a striking ship collides under right angle
to the amidships of another ship i.e. the collision is
symmetric. In symmetric collisions only few motion
components are excited, simplifying significantly the
analysis. Other scenarios, hereinafter referred as non-
symmetric, where the struck ship is hit under oblique
angle to an arbitrary location along its side have re-
ceived less attention. There are several reasons for that.
Often in symmetric collisions the damage is more se-
vere and such analysis preserves conservativeness. Still,
with new structural concepts evolving, such as sand-
wich-type side structures involving thin plating, other
collision scenarios might become as important. Another
reason for less attention is complicated analysis proce-
dure of non-symmetric collisions. In such collisions,
ship motions, especially angular motions, and thus also
the effects of surrounding water, become more signifi-
cant. Several calculation models exist, see for example
Pedersen & Zhang (1998), but they lack proper experi-
mental validation. As far as the authors know, there are
no publicly reported ship collision experiments other
than symmetric.
However, there is a need to understand more about non-
symmetric collisions. Recently Tuovinen (2005) studied
the statistics of ship collisions on the basis of IMO
Damage Cards and the IMO database. All together 392
collision cases from 1997 to today were investigated. It
was shown that less than one quarter of the collisions
can be considered as symmetric. Also the proposed
classification procedure by Germanischer Lloyd (Zhang
et al, 2004) for novel crashworthy side structures re-
quires the evaluation of several non-symmetric collision
scenarios.
This paper aims to provide experimental validation data
covering a wide range of input parameters. Presented
are the results of 37 symmetric and non-symmetric
model-scale ship collision experiments. Based on the
experiments, a parametric study is carried out, where the
effects of different input parameters on the outcome of
ship collision are studied. The collision scenarios varied
to cover the following input parameters: ratio between
the ship masses, velocity of the striking ship, structural
resistance, collision angle and location. Parametric
study focuses on the maximum contact force, penetra-
tion and deformation energy. The latter is often pre-
sented as a relative fraction of initial kinetic energy and
thus called as relative deformation energy. In addition to
model-scale experiments, the results of five large-scale
experiments are also presented to show the validity of
the model-scale tests.
Ship collision experiments
Large-scale experiments conducted in recent dec-
ades (Wevers and Vredeveldt, 1999) have provided
validation data for symmetric collisions, but no informa-
tion was obtained for non-symmetric collisions. The
model-scale experiments performed in Helsinki Univer-
sity of Technology (Mttnen, 2005) aimed to provide
deeper insight into the dynamics of non-symmetric
collisions. The tests were designed to be physically
similar to the large-scale experiments.
Large-scale experiments
Large-scale collision experiments were conducted in the
Netherlands by TNO in the framework of Japanese,
German and Dutch consortium of shipyards and a clas-
sification society.

Fig.1. Experimental test set-up in large-scale colli-
sions.
The experiments had different purposes, such as to
validate numerical analysis tools, to investigate various
aspects in collision and to prove new structural con-
cepts. In every experiment, a different side structure was
installed to the amidships of the struck ship, see Fig.1.
In this study, the following experiments were used for
comparison:
- Test 1, stiffened plate (Kitamura, 1998)
- Test 2, corrugated double side (Kitamura, 1998)
- Test 3, conventional double hull (Peschmann, 2001)
- Test 4, Y-core structure (Wevers, 1999), (Wevers and
Vredeveldt, 1999)
- Test 5, X-core structure developed in EU funded
SANDWICH project (Tabri et al, 2007a).
In all the experiments, except the Test 5, the same ships
were used. The masses of the participating ships, colli-
sion velocities and the most important outcomes are
given in Table 1. In the table all the parameters and
values are scaled down with scaling parameter =35 and
with using the following relations:
length l~
mass m~
3

force F~
3

velocity v~
1/2

energy E~
4
.
(1)
In the experiments the loading conditions varied. In
three tests out of five, the ships had some of the tanks
partially filled with water. This caused sloshing inside
the tanks, which affects the energy to be absorbed by
the deformation. In Table 1, the tests with sloshing
interaction are marked with SL. Tabri et al (2007a)
described an analytical model to simulate sloshing in-
teraction in collision. This model was used to resimulate
the Y-core collision experiment without sloshing inter-
action. This recalculation is marked as Test 4 (calc.) in
Table 1 and in subsequent sections.
All the tested large-scale structures were designed for
different purposes. Thus, the straight comparison be-
tween them is not relevant as their resistance to defor-
mation was different. Here, the large-scale experiments
are used to show the physical similarity between the
large- and model-scale experiments. Thorough compari-
son of the experiments conducted in different scales is
presented by Tabri (2007b).
Table 1. Large-scale collision experiments scaled down to
model scale ( =35)
Test m
A
m
B
u
0
F E
DEF

[kg] [t]
A
B
M
M

[m/s] [N] [J]
Test 1 (SL) 25 33 0,64 0,77 243 2,7
Test 2 25 35 0,62 0,77 220 4,1
Test 3 (SL) 18 34 0,45 0,43 64 0,9
Test 4 (SL) 18 32 0,48 0,59 156 1,6
Test 4 (calc.) 18 32 0,48 0,56 181 2,2
Test 5 17 57 0,24 0,56 148 2,1
where
m
A
- mass of the striking ship,
m
B
- mass of the struck ship,
A
B
M
M
- mass ratio as defined by Eq.(2),
u
0
- collision velocity,
F - maximum contact force,
E
DEF
- total deformation energy.
Mass ratio considers the added mass of the prevailing
motion component and is defined as
( )
( )
,
,
1
1
A surge A
A
B B sway B
m
M
M m

+
=
+
(2)
where is added mass coefficient. Tabri et al (2007a)
presented calculations of added masses for Tests 4 and
5. Based on these calculations, the added mass coeffi-
cients for the surge motion are considered to be

surge
=0.05 and for sway motion
sway
=0.24~0.29.
As these large-scale experiments possessed above men-
tioned differences, it is hard to draw any solid conclu-
sions on the effects of input parameters. Still, these tests
are important to validate the conclusions drawn based
on the model-scale tests. Later in parametric study, the
large-scale experiments are presented along the model-
scale tests.
Model-scale experiments
Large-scale experiments provided valuable test data, but
due to their complicacy and high price, the number of
studied collision parameters was small. Cheaper and
simpler model-scale experiments offer an alternative to
study wider range of collision parameters.
General arrangement of the test setup is presented in
Fig.2. The models were scaled from the ships participat-
ing in the large-scale experiments Tests 1 to 4 using
Froudes scaling law Eq.(1), with the scaling parameter
=35. This resulted in models with length L=2.29 m,
breath B=0.234 m for the striking ship and B=0.271 m
for the struck ship. Depth D of both models was 0.12 m.

Fig. 2: General arrangements of the model tests.
The striking model, hereinafter referred as model A,
was launched towards the motionless struck model B.
The launching was performed using impulse loading
from a pneumatic cylinder. Adjusting the pressure in the
cylinder changed the collision velocity. Impulse was
transferred to the striking model in a location close to
her centre of gravity to avoid initial pitch motions. Col-
lision angles and locations were varied by changing the
position and orientation of the struck model.
The striking model, equipped with a rigid bulb, hit the
struck model to a location where a block of soft foam
was installed. It is obvious that the structural response in
these model-scale experiments had to be similar to that
in large scale. A preliminary study was carried out to
find a suitable combination of the foam properties and
the shape of the bulb (Ranta & Tabri, 2007). Different
bulb shapes corresponded to different structural proper-
ties. Three different bulbs were used in the experiments.
Bulb 1 yielded to lowest structural response and bulb 3
to highest, see Fig.3. When colliding with the bulb 1,
the resulting structural resistance was similar to that
obtained in Test 5.

Fig. 3: Structural response obtained by bulb 1 and
bulb 3.
Two separate measuring systems were used, one to
record ship motions and other to measure contact forces.
Motions were measured with Rodym DMM system.
This system bases on a non-contact measurement using
a solid state camera system. Camera unit receives sig-
nals sent by infrared light emitting diodes (LED) and
evaluates the position and orientation of the model.
Three LEDs were installed on both models, which allow
evaluating of all six motion components.
In non-symmetric collisions two force components were
measured: longitudinal force along the longitudinal axis
and transversal force along the transversal axis of the
striking ship. In symmetric collisions only longitudinal
force was measured. Vertical contact force was ne-
glected as with contact point close to the waterline only
small vertical forces were expected.
Table 2. Main parameters of the models
Model Mass Draft KG
sway

[kg] [cm] [cm] [-]
A 20,5 4 7,4 0.17
A 28,5 6 6,4 0.23
A 40,5 8 5,1 0.28
B 20,5 4 7,4 0.16
B
30,5 6 7,3 0.21
B 44,5 8 5,1 0.27
where
KG -height of centre of gravity


-added mass coefficient.

Main parameters of the models are presented in Table 2.
Longitudinal centre of gravity of the models was in
amidships. Added mass coefficients were calculated
with strip theory (Journe, 1992). For all the models, the
surge added mass coefficient was considered to be

surge
=0.05.
The model-scale experiments were divided into three
different sets. In the first set only symmetric collisions
were carried out. Emphasis was on the effects of the
mass ratio (ranging from 0.38 to 1.78), collision veloc-
ity (0.4 to 1.0 m/s) and structural resistance (bulbs 1 and
3). Experiments carried out in the 1
st
set together with
the main outcomes are presented in Table A1 in Appen-
dix A. Second and third sets consisted of non-symmetric
collision experiments. In the second set the location of
the contact point was changed ranging form 30 to 80 cm
from the amidships towards the bow. In the third set the
collision angles varied from 30 to 120. The experi-
ments carried out in the 2
nd
and 3
rd
sets are listed in
Table A2 in Appendix A.
In this paper, only the most important results will be
presented and discussed. An elaborate description of the
tests and the analysis is presented by Mttnen (2005)
and Tabri et al (2007b).
Effect of input parameters on the outcome of
collision
This chapter analyses the effect of the input parameters
on the outcome of the collision. In the following figures,
the location of the contact point is made dimensionless
by dividing it by L
B
/2. Resulting non-dimensional loca-
tion varies between 0 and 1, with first indicating a colli-
sion in the amidships and latter a collision in the bow.
Consequences of the collision are presented as non-
dimensional relative deformation energy E
DEF
/E
0
,
maximum contact force F and non-dimensional penetra-
tion o/B
B
. If the contact force or the penetration clearly
has two distinct components in two directions, both are
presented.
When graphically presenting the influence of a certain
input parameter, only the tests are selected, which show
the influence in a way that the effects of other parame-
ters are excluded. When the trends on the sensitivity of
a certain parameter are obvious the trendline is added to
the corresponding figure.
Mass ratio, collision velocity and structural resistance
Mass ratio and the collision velocity are among the most
important parameters describing the collision. Also
close-form calculation models such as Minorsky (1959)
and Pedersen & Zhan (1998) often base on the conser-
vation of momentum and thus they only require ship
masses as input to evaluate the relative deformation
energy. Fig.4 presents experimentally measured relative
deformation energy as a function of mass ratio. Only the
symmetric experiments are presented in the figure.

Fig. 4: Relative deformation energy as a function of
mass ratio.
Figure show clearly the importance of the mass ratio. In
lower mass ratio values, i.e. in a scenario where a
smaller ship hits a larger one, relatively more energy is
absorbed compared to a case where a large ship hits a
smaller one. The smaller struck ship is displaced more
easily and the relative deformation energy becomes
smaller. Figure also reveals that even with the same
mass ration, the relative energy varies. This is due to
different structural resistance and velocity. These effects
are discussed later.
In large-scale experiments the relative deformation
energy is affected by the sloshing and thus it becomes
too small. Test 2 and Test 5 are free from sloshing nter-
action and their agreement with the model-scale ex-
periments is better. When the Test 4 is recalculated to
remove the effects of sloshing, it agrees well with the
model-scale tests.

Fig. 5: Maximum contact force as a function of mass
ratio (1
st
set tests with bulb 1).
Maximum contact force is only slighty influenced by
the mass ratio, see Fig.5. Influence becomes clearer
when grouping the results by velocity. This is however
expected as the maximum contact force is a direct func-
tion of the penetration depth and the absolute deforma-
tion energy. Non-dimensional mass ratio should be
accompanied by the collision velocity to evaluate the
force.

Fig. 6: Relative deformation depth as a function of
mass ratio (1
st
set tests with bulb 1).
Relative penetration depth decreases as the mass ratio
increases and the trend is stronger in higher collision
velocities, see Fig.6. This effect is obvious as similar to
relative deformation energy, the deformation is more
severe in smaller mass ratios. In practise, the slopes of
the regression line in Fig.6 might be even steeper as
smaller ships also have smaller breadth and thus the
relative penetration depth changes more.
Relative deformation energy is only very slightly influ-
enced by collision velocity u
0
, see Fig.7. This minor
influence is mainly due to the increase in total energy
involved in the collision. When the total energy in-
creases and all the other parameters remain the same,
the contact between the ships lasts longer. This means
that the damping part of the radiation force acting on the
struck ship, becomes more significant (Tabri et al,
2007a). This force is an additional resistance to the ship
motions and can thereby be considered as an additional
mass. A larger ship mass increases the inertia of the ship
and it cannot be displaced so easily.

Fig. 7: Relative deformation energy as a function of
collision velocity (1
st
set tests with bulb 1).
Maximum contact force and relative penetration depth
are obviously influenced by the collision velocity as can
be seen from Figs.8~9. Velocity increases the absolute
deformation energy and larger penetration is required to
absorb it. A large-scale Test 5 is presented in the figures
as it was free from sloshing interaction and its structural
resistance was similar to that in the model-scale experi-
ments.

Fig. 8: Maximum contact force as a function of colli-
sion velocity (1
st
set tests with bulb 1).
Structural resistance has only minor influence on rela-
tive deformation energy. Stiffer resistance reduces the
deformation energy. This small influence is due to simi-
lar mechanism how the velocity affects the collision
dynamics. With stiffer structural resistance, the contact
lasts for a shorter time and the deformation energy be-
comes smaller.

Fig. 9: Relative penetration depth as a function of
collision velocity (1
st
set tests with bulb 1).
Location of the contact point and angle
In this section the effects of the location of the contact
point and the collision angle are discussed. Effects of
the location on the relative deformation energy and the
penetration depth are shown in Figs.10~11. All the
presented experiments had the mass ratio 0.81, bulb 1
and |=90.

Fig. 10: Relative deformation energy as a function of
contact location (tests with bulb 1).
Fig.10. reveals strong influence of the collision location
on the relative deformation energy. When the contact
point is away from the amidships, the struck ship starts
to rotate around its vertical axis and the deformation
becomes smaller. The same trends were observed in the
penetration depth depicted in Fig.11 and in the contact
force. Transversal force component was about 515%
of the longitudinal component and the longitudinal
penetration was below 1% of the transversal penetra-
tion.

Fig. 11: Relative penetration depth as a function of
contact location (tests with bulb 1 and
u
0
=0.7~0.9 m/s).
Effects of the collision angle are presented in
Figs.12~14. The figures present the experiments from
3
rd
set with bulb 1 and velocity u
0
=0.28~0.43 m/s, and a
single experiment from 2
nd
set, which had similar inputs
and |=90. In oblique angle experiments, the contact
point was aimed to be about 40 or 80 cm from the amid-
ships, but the actual locations realized to be up to 10 cm
away from the desired location. Experiments carried out
under 35 behaved differently from those under 60, 90
and 120. In most of the experiments under 35, the
striking ship was sliding along the struck ship causing
rather long but shallow penetration. In the experiments
under 60~120, the striking ship got stuck on the
struck ship and the deformation was shorter and deeper.

Fig. 12: Relative deformation energy as a function of
collision angle.
It was observed that the experiments under 60 and 120
were not exactly comparable even though they both
deviate 30 from the right angle. As the contact point is
away from the centre of gravity of the struck ship, the
dynamics of the collision are different for those two
collision angles. Furthermore, Fig.12 indicates that also
the mass ratio affects the collision dynamics as the cor-
relation between the energies in the experiments under
60 and 120 is different for different mass ratios. Ex-
cluding the experiments with |=120, the deformation
energy decreases as the angle between the ships be-
comes smaller.

Fig. 13: Longitudinal and transversal contact force
measured from the striking model.
Penetrations and contact forces are analysed only for
experiments with mass ratio 1.26. Both, the contact
force in Fig.13 and the penetration in Fig.14 have two
distinct components. Obviously, a ship colliding under
an oblique angle causes damages both along the trans-
versal and longitudinal direction of the struck ship.
Length of longitudinal deformation increases as the
collision angle deviates away from the right angle. For
very small, or very large, angle collisions the depth of
the penetration becomes small compared to its length.

Fig. 14: Longitudinal and transversal penetration
depths in the struck model.
Again, there are interesting difference between the tests
under 60 and 120. In both collisions, the contact
forces are very similar, but the penetration depths and
their divisions to different directions are different. This
again indicates more complicated dynamics and kine-
matics of oblique angle collisions. There is no obvious
and simple link between the forces and penetrations as
was the case in symmetric collisions.
Conclusions
The paper presented the results of a series of symmetric
and non-symmetric ship collision experiments. Based
on the experiments, a parametric study was carried out
to show the effects of different input parameters on the
outcome of collision. Study indicated clear differences
between symmetric and non-symmetric collisions. Ob-
vious trends on the influence of different input parame-
ters were observed.
Analysing the symmetric collision experiments, it can
be concluded that the mass ratio is an essential parame-
ter describing the collision scenario as this is required
both to evaluate the relative and the absolute deforma-
tion energy. Ratios influence on penetration and on
contact force is not that obvious. Collision velocity is
required for absolute deformation energy, collision
force and penetration. Its influence on relative deforma-
tion energy is not significant. Similarly, the relative
deformation energy is only slightly affected by struc-
tural resistance.
In non-symmetric collisions the deformations in the
struck ship are affected strongly by the collision loca-
tion and less by the collision angle. Deformation energy
becomes smaller when the contact point is located away
from the amidships and if the angle between the ships
differs from the right angle. In oblique angle collisions
the deformation extends along the side of the struck ship
while in symmetric collisions the penetration is limited
to only very small longitudinal extent. Study showed
that non-symmetric collisions are not simply defined by
the collision angle and the distance between the centre
of gravity and the contact point, but also proper direc-
tions are important.
Comparison with the large-scale experiments showed
the physical similarity between the experiments of dif-
ferent scale and thus verifying their suitability as valida-
tion data for calculation models.
References
Journe, JMJ (1992) Strip Theory Algorithms, Delft
University of Technology, Report MEMT 24.
Kitamura, O, Kuroiwa, T, et al (1998). A Study on the
Improved Tanker Structure Against Collision and
Grounding Damage, Practical Design of Ships and
Mobile Units, The Hague, Elsevier Science B.V.
Minorsky, VU (1959) An Analysis of Ship Collision
with Reference to Protection of Nuclear Power
Plants, J Ship Res, Vol 3, No 1, pp.1-4.
Mttnen, J (2005). Experiments on Ship Collisions
in Model Scale, Masters Thesis, Helsinki Univer-
sity of Technology, p 145.
Pedersen, PT and Zhang, S (1998). On Impact Me-
chanics in Ship Collisions, Mar Str, No 11, pp 429-
449.
Peschmann, J (2001). Berechnung der Energieabsorp-
tion der Stahlstruktur von Schiffen bei Kollision
und Grundberhrung, Dissertation, Technische
Universitt Hamburg.
Ranta, J, Tabri, K (2007). Study on the Properties of
the Polyurethane Foam for Model-Scale Ship Colli-
sion Experiments, Helsinki University of Tech-
nology, Report M-297.
Tabri, K, Broekhuijsen, J, Matusiak, J, Varsta, P
(2007a). Analytical Modelling of Ship Collision
Based on Full Scale Experiments, Mar Str, In Press.
Tabri, K, Mttnen, J, Ranta, J (2007b). Model-Scale
Experiments of Symmetric Ship Collisions, Sub-
mitted to J Ship Res & Tech.
Tuovinen, J (2005) Statistical Analysis of Ship
Collisions, Masters Thesis, Helsinki University of
Technology, p.94.
Wevers,L, Ludolphy, JWL, Vredeveldt, AW (1999).
Full Scale Ship Collision Experiments, The 70th
Shock and Vibration Symposium, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, 15-19 November 1999.
Zhang, L, Egge, ED, Bruhns, H (2004) Approval Pro-
cedure Concept for Alternative Arrangements,
ICCGS 2004, Japan.
Appendix A
Table A1. Test matrix for 1
st
set
Test | bulb L
C
m
A
m
B
u
0
F
L
**
F
T
***
E
DEF

[deg] [m] [kg] [kg]
A
B
M
M

[m/s] [N] [N] [J]
0
DEF
E
E

101 90 3 0 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,40 231 * 1,29 55%
102 90 3 0 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,88 540
*
6,15 54%
103 90 1 0 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,91 298
*
7,10 57%
104 90 1 0 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,46 147
*
1,70 53%
105 90 1 0 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,65 221
*
3,68 59%
106 90 1 0 20,5 30,5 0,58 1,00 296
*
7,53 70%
107 90 1 0 40,5 30,5 1,16 0,83 309
*
6,88 47%
108 90 1 0 40,5 20,5 1,78 0,82 260
*
5,00 35%
109 90 1 0 40,5 20,5 1,78 0,45 134
*
1,86 44%
110 90 1 0 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,92 278
*
6,71 53%
111 90 1 0 28,5 44,5 0,53 0,94 245
*
9,39 70%
112 90 1 0 20,5 44,5 0,38 1,01 301
*
7,71 71%
113 90 1 0 20,5 44,5 0,38 0,60 179
*
2,42 63%

Table A2. Test matrix for 2
nd
and 3
rd
set
Test | bulb L
C
m
A
m
B
u
0
F
L
**
F
T
***
E
DEF

[deg] [m] [kg] [kg]
A
B
M
M

[m/s] [N] [N] [J] 0
DEF
E
E

201 90 1 0,82 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,87 226 25 3,91 35%
202 90 1 0,83 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,71 179 17 2,48 33%
203 90 1 0,83 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,38 91 13 0,75 35%
204 90 1 0,45 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,91 300 36 6,30 51%
205 90 1 0,48 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,38 115 6 0,95 45%
206 90 1 0,38 28,5 30,5 0,81 0,71 221 13 3,43 45%
207 90 1 0,80 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,90 200 27 4,02 34%
208 90 1 0,41 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,89 229 33 4,92 41%
301 60 1 0,37 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,87 172 47 4,02 35%
302 60 1 0,32 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,30 59 14 0,51 38%
303 60 1 0,3 28,5 44,5 0,53 0,84 204 52 6,50 61%
304 60 1 0,38 28,5 44,5 0,53 0,37 89 21 1,01 49%
305 (sliding) 35 1 0,32 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,34 44 29 0,54 31%
306 (sliding) 35 1 0,44 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,87 115 65 3,91 34%
307 (sliding) 35 1 0,38 28,5 44,5 0,53 0,84 118 67 5,47 52%
308 35 1 0,34 28,5 44,5 0,53 0,28 45 27 0,52 45%
309 35 2 0,46 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,87 120 86 3,16 28%
310 (sliding) 35 3 0,44 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,88 142 94 3,19 28%
311 60 2 0,42 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,88 217 69 4,25 36%
312 60 3 0,41 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,86 313 104 4,64 42%
313 120 1 0,29 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,76 177 41 3,44 40%
314 120 1 0,32 28,5 20,5 1,26 0,36 80 16 0,81 42%
315 120 1 0,38 28,5 44,5 0,53 0,75 202 52 4,35 52%
316 120 1 0,4 28,5 44,5 0,53 0,43 104 24 1,17 43%

* not measured
** F
L
- longitudinal contact force
*** F
T
- transversal contact force