TRM 149

TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rev 1

MANUAL Date 10/02

Civil & Structural
Page 1 of 10
SHIP IMPACT AND BERTHING FORCES

INTRODUCTION

Most structures over or adjacent to navigable waterways should be designed to resist ship impact.
This accidental load case is not covered in great detail by codes of practice but the consequences
can be severe. It is important to assess each structure according to its importance and the impacts
that are possible in that location, taking into account the infrequency of such events.
1
This TRM is based on work carried out by WSP during the design of Hungerford bridge over the
Thames in London. Sample ship impact calculations based on work carried out for that project are
included in Appendix A.

Ship impact is an accidental load and in most cases permanent damage to the ship and the
structure is acceptable. In contrast, berthing loads should not be allowed to cause unrecoverable
deformations.

DESIGN STANDARDS

As noted above, codes of practice and other standards do not generally give advice about ship
impact. This is partly because of the specialist nature of the problem, and partly because there is
so much variation in the relevant parameters. Ships differ considerably in size and construction,
and every waterway has its own pattern of boat traffic, currents, obstructions, tidal flows and
topography.

However, some documents provide useful information and a number of references2,3,4 are listed at
the end of this TRM.

ACCIDENTAL IMPACT FORCE

In order to design the various elements of the structure, the engineer needs to know the magnitude
of the force applied by the errant vessel. This depends on a number of factors, principally:
• the mass of the vessel
• its velocity (the sum of its speed through the water and the speed of the current)
• the construction of the ship
• the construction of the structure.

Information on forces arising from collisions between road traffic and structures is more readily
available 5. Boats generally move more slowly than road traffic and have a much greater mass.
Boat construction is very different to road vehicle construction, and larger vessels are built in a
different way to smaller craft. This leads to empirical formulae for impact forces which appear to be
counter-intuitive.

For example, several have force varying with the square root of the dead weight tonnage (DWT) of
the ship, when it might be expected to be directly proportional to DWT. The difference probably
arises because larger vessels have bigger and more effective “crumple zones” which tend to
reduce the impact force. Some examples of these empirical formulae are given in Appendix A, and
in reference 3.
A more rigorous calculation of the force applied during impact would proceed as follows:

WSP Group
 TRM 149
TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rev 1

MANUAL Date 10/02

Civil & Structural
Page 2 of 10
SHIP IMPACT AND BERTHING FORCES

Mass of vessel m (kg)

Velocity relative to the structure v (m/s)
Energy 0.5 m v2 (J)
Vessel brought to rest over a distance x (m)
2
Force = energy / distance 0.5 m v / x (N)

This approach has a number of difficulties. Firstly, the mass of the vessel may be difficult to
determine. Different methods are used to express ship sizes; the Gross Displacement Weight
(GDW) indicates the weight of water displaced by the ship when fully laden and hence it gives the
maximum weight of the craft and its cargo. Other measures of ship size are less useful for this
purpose: eg DWT is the carrying capacity of the vessel including cargo, fuel and water but
excluding the weight of the ship itself. Gross Registered Tonnage is a measure of the volume - not
the weight - of the vessel. In addition the effective mass of a moving boat is increased because it
tends to drag an amount of water along with it.

The distance over which the vessel is brought to a stop depends on the amount that the hull of the
boat is crushed, on the characteristics of any fenders that may be present and on the deflection of
or damage to the structure.

The ‘Minorsky method’ estimates x using a relationship between the volume of steel crushed and
the amount of kinetic energy absorbed in the impact. By studying drawings of typical vessels it is
possible to estimate the length (x) of ship which contains the required volume of steel. Clearly not
all the steel in this length suffers plastic deformation, and so the value of x can be increased in
order to allow for undamaged steel. This was the approach adopted for Hungerford bridge - see
Appendix A.

The vessel is almost certainly not brought to a halt smoothly and so there may be a peak in the
force when deceleration is greatest. The force is very short lived - usually under a second in
duration - and clearly peaks are even shorter.

The design vessel for Hungerford bridge, specified by the Port of London Authority, had a mass of
3000 tons and a velocity relative to the bridge of 12 knots (6.2 m/s). It had a relatively crushable
bow, and this led to a design force of 30 MN. Smaller vessels would not necessarily have reduced
the impact force significantly. Most rubbish barges have a mass of only 1000 tons but the
numerous stiffeners welded inside their hulls led to an impact force of 20 MN.

BERTHING FORCES

Berthing loads can be calculated in a similar way to ship impact forces, but the vessel must be
brought to a halt without causing permanent damage to it or to the quayside structure. This is
usually effected by providing fenders, either attached to the quayside or detached from it.

References 6 and 7 provide some guidance on berthing loads. The following is based on reference
6:
2
The kinetic energy of the vessel (0.5 m v ) is modified by a series of factors (CE, CM , CS, CC ) to give
the energy that needs to be dissipated by the fender system. Manufacturers’ data for the fenders
then gives the energy / deflection / force relationship. It should be noted that berthing often applies
longitudinal friction loads that can be as high as 50% of the lateral forces. It may also be advisable
to consider higher accidental berthing loads which can occur from time to time because of human
error, tow line breakage etc.

WSP Group
 TRM 149
TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rev 1

MANUAL Date 10/02

Civil & Structural
Page 3 of 10
SHIP IMPACT AND BERTHING FORCES

Berthing velocities perpendicular to the dock are generally low:

GDW (tons) v (m/s)

< 2,000 0.30
2,000 - 10,000 0.18
10,000 - 125,000 0.16
> 125,000 0.14
2 2 2
Eccentricity factor C E = K / (K + R ) K = radius of gyration of ship 20-25% of length
R = distance from point of impact to ship centre of
gravity

Mass factor C M = 1.3 takes into account water moving with ship

Softness factor C S = 0.9 - 1.0 takes into account energy absorbed by ship’s hull. Use
higher values for soft fenders

Configuration factor C C = 0.8 - 1.0
allows for cushioning by the water between the ship’s
hull and the quay wall. This factor depends on the quay
construction and its distance from the ship, the berthing
angle, the shape of the hull and the depth of water below
the keel.

LOAD FACTORS

Ship impact is an accidental load and so a load factor of 1.0 or 1.05 is generally appropriate. This
factor - and the impact force details - should be agreed with the checker and the client, given to
tenderers where they will have design responsibility and recorded in the health and safety file.

Normal live load factors should be applied to berthing and other loads which occur frequently.
Lower factors would be appropriate for accidental berthing loads.

LIKELIHOOD OF IMPACT

4
The AASHTO Guide Specification recommends that ‘critical’ bridges are designed for 1 in 10 000
year collisions, with a 1 in 1000 year occurrence for bridges described as ‘regular.’ It is left to the
engineer and the client to agree whether a particular bridge is critical or not. (WSP and the City of
Westminster agreed that Hungerford bridge was not critical for these purposes, because it was a
footbridge.)

Data on the traffic using the waterway and published figures 4 for probabilities of accidents can be
used to calculate the probability of various magnitudes of impact. It is usually necessary to use a
considerable amount of engineering judgement in the calculation because of the many unknowns.
The force corresponding to a 1 in 10 000 or 1 in 1000 year collision is then used in the design. This
approach can allow the structure to be designed for an impact less than the largest ship at the
highest conceivable speed; again it would be wise to explain this decision carefully to the client and
the checking authority.

WSP Group
 TRM 149
TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rev 1

MANUAL Date 10/02

Civil & Structural
Page 4 of 10
SHIP IMPACT AND BERTHING FORCES

REFERENCES AND FURTHER ADVICE

1 Slade R E, Parker J S and Nicholson B A: Hungerford Bridge Millennium Project -

Protection Against the Effects of Ship Impact, issue 2 April 1998. WSP report for Westminster City
Council - copy held in GTC library.

2 Whitney M W, Harik I E, Giffin J J and Allen D L: Barge Collision Design Of Highway

Bridges. American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Bridge Engineering, v 1 n 2, May 1996.

3 Larsen (editor): Ship Collisions with Bridges. Structural Engineering Documents 4 -

International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, 1993.

4 Guide Specification and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1991.

5 BD 60/94 The Design of Highway Bridges for Vehicle Collision Loads. Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges volume 1 section 3 part 5, UK Highways Agency.

6 Blake L S: Civil Engineer’s Reference Book, 4th edition, Butterworth Heinemann Ltd, 1989,
section 26.

7 BS 6349 Maritime structures: Part 4: 1994: Code of practice for design of fendering and
mooring.

KEYWORDS

Berthing; bridges; design; fenders; ship impact.

Author: John Parker, WSP Buildings, Holborn

Sponsor: Group Technical Centre

WSP Group
 TRM 149
TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rev 1

MANUAL Date 10/02

Civil & Structural
Page 5 of 10
SHIP IMPACT AND BERTHING FORCES

APPENDIX A - HUNGERFORD BRIDGE SHIP IMPACT CALCULATION

A.1 Head-on impact force

The full calculation is included in reference 1. It is based

on the Minorsky method, which uses the volume of steel
crushed by the impact. It depends on some knowledge of
typical vessels using the waterway. For the design of
Hungerford bridge drawings for the Tracey Bennett (figure
A.1), at 2 300 tons the largest vessel currently using the
Thames, were obtained. It was assumed that the ‘design
vessel’ specified by the Port of London Authority would be
of similar construction.

Design vessel
Figure A.1: the Tracey Bennett
Gross Displacement Weight = 3 000 tons
Speed = 12 knots
= (speed of water 4 knots + vessel speed 8 knots)
= 6.2 m/s
6 2
Kinetic energy = 0.5 x 3 x 10 x 6.2
= 57 MJ

The Tracey Bennett

Use cross section about 2 m behind bow as

representative of the crushed area. Volume of
steel between side frames 88 and 90 (1.12 m
length):
3
= 0.041 m (deck plate)
+ 0.082 m 3 (keel plate)
3
+ 0.191 m (sides)
+ 0.042 m 3 (side frames)
3
+ 0.062 m (top girders)
3
+ 0.126 m (floor frames)
+ 0.041 m 3 (centre plate)
3
= 0.585 m
= 0.585 / 1.12
3
= 0.52 m /m length.

Assume that only (say) two thirds of this steel is

crushed in an impact. Hence crushed volume = 0.67 x 0.52
3
= 0.35 m /m length.

Minorsky

Minorsky gives a relationship between absorbed

energy and volume of steel crushed. As
reproduced in reference 3 the units are rather
strange, but the graph is a straight line: Figure A.2 Tracey Bennett bow construction
27 MJ at zero deformation
3
464 MJ at 9.44 m of steel crushed
or 27 + 46 x (volume of steel crushed) MJ.

WSP Group
 TRM 149
TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rev 1

MANUAL Date 10/02

Civil & Structural
Page 6 of 10
SHIP IMPACT AND BERTHING FORCES

Hence volume of steel crushed to absorb 57 MJ = (57 - 27) / 46

= 0.65 m 3
Length of ship crushed = 0.65 / 0.35
= 1.87 m.

This is the distance over which the boat is brought to a halt. Because energy = force x distance:
Average impact force = 57 / 1.87
= 30 MN.

This figure is conservative because the Minorsky diagram’s figure of 27 MJ absorbed with no steel
crushed is obviously an over-estimate. A 57 MJ impact is relatively low energy compared to most
of the points on Minorsky’s graph. If the relationship at low energies was, for example, energy = 46
x (volume of steel crushed) then the volume crushed would be 1.24 m 3 and the stopping distance
3.56 m, reducing the average impact force to 16 MN.

A.2 Transverse force from glancing blow

Assume that the impact occurs between frames 88 and 90 again, and causes a 1 m dent. In a side
impact the side plates and frames will absorb relatively little energy, and the centre plate will be
almost unaffected. The volume of steel becomes
= 0.065 m 3 / m of dent

If the boat is about 10 m wide, its course must be changed by an angle of

= tan-1(5/40)
= 7.1°

Figure A.3: glancing blow

Kinetic energy perpendicular to foundation = 57 sin(7.1°)

= 7 MJ.

Volume of steel crushed = 7 / 46

= 0.15 m3
= 0.15 / 0.065
= 2.3 m long dent.

The shape of the boat means that the ship deforms by 0.9 m perpendicular to the hull, and so

Lateral force = 7.0 / 0.9

8 MN

A.3 Small boats

A static force of 2 MN at any angle is used. This is derived from the Woisin and US Guide
Specification formulae (see below) using a 200 ton DWT vessel 40 m long travelling at 1 m/s.

WSP Group
 TRM 149
TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rev 1

MANUAL Date 10/02

Civil & Structural
Page 7 of 10
SHIP IMPACT AND BERTHING FORCES

A.4 Other methods from reference 3 for comparison:

Woisin

Force = v0.67 L2/1100 (v speed = 6.2 m/s, L length = 100 m)

= 31 MN

Frandsen

Force = 200 MN for 50,000 ton DWT ship travelling at 8 m/s

DWT = approx 65-80% of gross displacement weight (higher proportion for larger vessels).
Force proportional to square root of DWT, and to speed.

Force = 200 x (2000/50000) 0.5 x (6.2/8)

= 31 MN

Saul et al

Force = 0.88 (DWT)0.5 (± 50%)

= 39 MN (± 50%)

Knott

Force = 0.88 (DWT)0.5 (V/8)0.67 (Dactual /Dmax)0.33 (D actual = displacement weight of ship at time
of impact)
(D max = maximum fully loaded displacement
weight)
= 33 MN (maximum force, not average)

Norwegian Public Road Administration

0.5
Force = 0.5 (DWT)
= 22 MN

US Guide Specification
0.5
Force = 0.98 (DWT) (V/8)
= 34 MN

Charts from Louisiana and from the Great Belt Project

These gave forces of 27 MN and 50-60 MN respectively. The former was strictly off the low end of
the chart; the latter was a maximum, not an average force.

Other projects

The Dartford crossing used a force of 350 MN, based on a 65 000 ton DWT vessel.
The Luling bridge over the Mississippi used 270 MN, based on a 40 000 ton DWT vessel.

WSP Group
 TRM 149
TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rev 1

MANUAL Date 10/02

Civil & Structural
Page 8 of 10
SHIP IMPACT AND BERTHING FORCES

A.5 Risk assessment

Using references 2 and 4:

Probability of aberrancy, PA (ship going out of control) = 0.6 x 10-4 (ships)

-4
= 1.2 x 10 (barges)
-4
(Reported collisions = approx 4 per year for 60 000 ship movements, so actual PA 0.7 x 10 )

However this is based on long stretches of waterway. For the relatively short stretch of Thames
between Waterloo and Westminster bridges (ie one bridge each side of Hungerford), take

PA (for this stretch of river) = 1.0 x 10-5 (ships)

-5
= 2.0 x 10 (barges)

Six lengths of river are considered where loss

of control might occur:

1. downstream of Waterloo bridge

2. at Waterloo bridge
3. halfway between Waterloo and Hungerford
bridges
4. upstream of Westminster bridge
5. at Westminster bridge
6. halfway between Westminster and
Hungerford bridges.

Location 4 is off the bottom of the map. The

effect of a vessel losing control at location 6 is
shown; similar diagrams can be drawn for the
other locations.

The PA value for each location is one sixth of

the value above. The value is then reduced by
a further factor of 0.5 because half the total
journeys are upstream, and only ships travelling
upstream and losing control at locations 1 - 3
will pose a risk to Hungerford bridge (and vice
versa at locations 4 - 6). Therefore:

PA at each location, leading to risk of collision

-6
= 0.8 x 10 (ships)
= 1.7 x 10-6 (barges).
Figure A.4: the Thames near Hungerford bridge
The geometric probability, PG depends on
the apparent width of the pier compared to the
scatter width: the total width of river which an
errant vessel could end up in. For the first
location above, if the ship is in a central 5 m
width at any of the three piers there would be a
head-on collision; the scatter width is 250 m.
Therefore:

PG, head-on, location 1 = 5 x 3 / 250

Figure A.5: geometric probability
= 0.06

WSP Group
 TRM 149
TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rev 1

MANUAL Date 10/02

Civil & Structural
Page 9 of 10
SHIP IMPACT AND BERTHING FORCES

If the vessel is 4 m either side of the head-on impact, the pier will suffer a glancing blow

PG, glancing blow, location 1 = 4 x 2 x 3 / 250

= 0.10

If the vessel has turned through 20° the piers have an apparent width of 17 m. Note that only one
pier can be hit at this angle from location 1, and a vessel losing control at location 1 and turning
through more than 20° will hit the bank before it reaches Hungerford bridge.

PG, 20° impact, location 1 = 17 / 250

= 0.07

Closer to the bridge, the scatter width reduces but the angle of impact can increase. A probability
matrix can be assembled as follows:

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total PG
Scatter width 250 m 150 m 100 m 250 m 150 m 100 m
Head-on collision 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.62
Glancing blow 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.10 0.16 0.24 1.00
20° 0.07 0.17 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.59
30° 0.17 0.17
40° 0.30 0.30 0.60

River traffic data were obtained from the Port of London Authority. Both ships and barges are
much lighter when empty than when full: most of the weight of a laden vessel is in its cargo. The
heavy vessels in particular travel empty about half the time, and so the number of annual transits is
reduced by 50% to allow for this:

Annual transits Reduced n’ to allow

n for unladen vessels
3000 ton ships 500 250
1000 ton ships 200 100
200 ton ships 50,000 25,000
2000 ton barges 2,000 1,000
1000 ton barges 1,200 600

Head-on and glancing blow forces are calculated using the methods given in A.1 and A.2 above.
Impacts at angles are calculated using components of the head-on force. This gives a further table
showing the collision loads applicable to various angles of impact:

Head-on Glancing 20° 30° 40°

collision blow Long’l Lateral Long’l Lateral Long’l Lateral
(MN) (MN) (MN) (MN) (MN) (MN) (MN) (MN)
3000 ton ships 30 8 28 10 26 15 23 19
1000 ton ships 18 5 17 6 16 9 14 12
200 ton ships 8 2 8 3 7 4 6 5
2000 ton barges 30 8 28 10 26 15 23 19
1000 ton barges 20 6 19 7 17 10 15 13

The annual frequency of a particular load is given by = n’ x PA x PG

However if the bridge is designed for this load it will not necessarily collapse. For example, if the
impact occurs at low tide the bridge will be much better able to withstand the force than at high tide.
This will reduce the collapse frequency by a factor of (say) 0.5.

WSP Group
 TRM 149
TECHNICAL REFERENCE Rev 1

MANUAL Date 10/02

Civil & Structural
Page 10 of 10
SHIP IMPACT AND BERTHING FORCES

4
In addition, the AASHTO specification considers that the “probability of collapse if impact occurs is
10% if the impact force is up to ten times the bridge impact capacity.” This statement appears to
be somewhat questionable; it is based on the assumption that the mass of the pier is much greater
than the mass of the vessel. At Hungerford the piers and some of the large ships are of
comparable mass, and so the amount of reserve capacity will be less than the AASHTO document
recommends - again reduce the collapse frequency by a factor of (say) 0.5.

Hence the annual frequency of collapse due to a 30 MN head-on impact load is:

Vessel n’ PA PG Tide Collapse Annual

factor factor frequency
-6
3000 ton ships 250 0.8 x 10 0.62 (head-on) + 0.5 0.5 0.000063
0.59 (20° impact) =
1.21
2000 ton barges 1000 1.7 x 10-6 1.21 0.5 0.5 0.000504
Total 0.000567

… or 1 / 0.000567 = 1 in 1760 years.

For a lateral load of 8 MN the collapse factor can be reduced further to allow for the fact that
collisions with the central part of the foundation will not result in collapse of the footbridge. Hence
annual frequency of collapse due to a lateral load of 8 MN is:

Vessel n’ PA PG Tide Collapse Annual

factor factor frequency
-6
3000 ton ships 250 0.8 x 10 1.00 (glancing blow) 0.5 0.33 0.000082
+ 0.59 (20° impact)
+ 0.17 (30° impact)
+ 0.60 (40° impact)
= 2.36
1000 ton ships 100 0.8 x 10-6 0.17 (30° impact) 0.5 0.33 0.000011
+ 0.60 (40° impact)
= 0.77
-6
2000 ton barges 1000 1.7 x 10 2.36 0.5 0.33 0.000649
1000 ton barges 600 1.7 x 10-6 0.77 0.5 0.33 0.000127
Total 0.000868

… or 1 / 0.000868 = 1 in 1150 years.

The probability of other forces can be derived in a similar way.

WSP Group