Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Nonlinear analysis of barge crush behavior

and its relationship to impact resistant bridge design
Gary R. Consolazio *, David R. Cowan
Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida, P.O. Box 116580, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

Abstract
Bridge structures crossing navigable waterways must not only be designed to resist gravity, wind, and earthquake
loads, but must also be capable of resisting ship and barge collision loads. Design specifications used both in the US and
internationally employ empirical models of vessel crush behavior to produce codified procedures for computing
equivalent static design loads due to vessel impact. In this paper, the ADINA finite element code is used to compute
force-deformation relationships for several hopper barge crushing scenarios. Results obtained from the nonlinear finite
element crush analyses are then compared to empirical crush models found in bridge design specifications.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bridge design; Vessel impact; Barge impact; Collision mechanics; Crush behavior; Contact

1. Introduction type are fundamentally dynamic in nature. As such, the

A core component of designing bridge structures that
cross navigable waterways consists of computing lateral
design loads due to vessel impact. Similarly, assessing
the vulnerability of an existing bridge structure to acci-
dental impact by vessels––ships and barges––requires
that lateral impact loads be quantified. In most vessel–
bridge collision scenarios, a pier supporting the bridge
superstructure is contacted by a portion (most often the
bow) of an errant vessel. The resulting lateral impact
force on the pier is transmitted both downward into the
pier-footing and upward to the bridge deck. While ele-
ments of a bridge other than the piers may also be
subjected to impact loads, most bridge collapses attri-
butable to vessel collision occur as the result of impact
load imparted to a pier. This is especially true for barge
impact loading––the focus herein––due to the low ver-
tical profile of barge flotillas.
Given that ship and barge impact loads are generated
by moving vessels having substantial mass, loads of this
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-352-846-2220; fax: +1-352-
392-3394.
E-mail address: grc@ce.ufl.edu (G.R. Consolazio).
magnitude of the load imparted to the bridge pier will
vary with respect to time. The peak load generated and
the rate of load oscillation during the impact are func-
tions of the type, structural configuration, mass, and
initial velocity of the impacting vessel; the structural
configuration and mass of the pier; and the soil condi-
tions. Given the complex nature of such dynamic events
and the degree of scatter found in the loads generated
[1], bridge design specifications generally provide sim-
plified procedures for computing equivalent static loads
as an alternative to conducting fully dynamic impact
analyses. These loads are applied to the bridge in a static
manner and are intended to produce approximately the
same structural response as that due to the application
of the corresponding time-varying dynamic impact load.
In the US, the American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bridge
design specifications [2,3] contain procedures for com-
puting equivalent static loads for both ship collision and
barge collision events. Included in the AASHTO pro-
visions are equations relating vessel kinetic energy, ves-
sel deformation level (crush depth), and the equivalent
static impact force to be applied to the bridge [1–5].
Separate relationships are given by AASHTO for
ship impact loads and barge impact loads because the

0045-7949/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00474-1
548 G.R. Consolazio, D.R. Cowan / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557
experimental and analytical bases for each type of vessel
differ [1–4]. The ship impact provisions derive primarily
from experimental studies conducted by Woisin [6] that
focused on protecting reactors in nuclear powered ships
against accidental impact by other ships. The basis for
the barge impact provisions, however, comes from ex-
perimental tests conducted by Meir-Dornberg [7] on
European hopper barges (discussed in further detail
later).
Comparing ship and barge impact incidents, the lat-
ter type occurs at a higher frequency because a greater
number of waterways (having bridge crossings) are
navigable by relatively shallow draft vessels (barges)
than by deeper draft vessels (ships). However, despite
this fact, vessel impact studies published in the literature
focus more frequently on ship collision mechanics than
on barge impact behavior. Even fewer studies focus
specifically on barge crush behavior during collisions
with bridge piers. The logistical problems associated
with conducting full-scale barge impact tests on in-
service bridge structures––i.e. bridges actively carrying
either vehicular or railway traffic––also hamper efforts
to collect data for purposes of studying barge crush
characteristics.
Given that new bridge designs are often controlled by
code-stipulated barge impact loading conditions, devel-
oping an improved understanding of barge collision
mechanics is highly desirable. In this paper, nonlinear
finite element crush simulations have been conducted to
gain a better understanding of barge crush behavior
during collisions with bridge piers. All crush analyses
presented herein were conducted using a high-resolution
finite element barge model developed as part of this
study. Importantly, the model was developed strictly
based on structural vessel plans obtained from a US
barge manufacturer. The finite element model is in no
way dependent on the empirical relationships used in the
AASHTO provisions. As such, the finite element crush
results presented can be considered to be an independent
source of barge crush data for purposes of making
comparisons to the current AASHTO code provisions.
Before describing the finite element barge model in de-
tail, aspects of the AASHTO barge impact provisions
that are pertinent to this study will be presented.
2. AASHTO methodology for prediction of barge impact
loads
Barge impact load calculations conducted according
to the AASHTO provisions involve the use of both an
empirical load prediction model and a risk assessment
procedure. The AASHTO guide specification for vessel
collision design [2] and the AASHTO LRFD bridge
design specifications [3] differ in the risk assessment
methods available in each document (Ref. [3] provides
only a subset of the options available in Ref. [2]).
However, the load prediction model implemented, which
is the item of interest here, is the same in both of these
documents.
AASHTO-based load calculations for barge impact
design begin with selection of the ‘‘design’’ impact
condition (barge type and impact speed). Factors such
as the characteristics of the waterway, expected types of
barge traffic, and the importance of the bridge (critical
or regular) enter in to this selection process. Once
the impact conditions have been identified, the kinetic
energy of the barge is computed as [2]:
CH WV 2
KE ¼ ð1Þ
29:2
where KE is the barge kinetic energy (kip ft), CH is the
hydrodynamic mass coefficient (a factor that approxi-
mates the influence of water surrounding the moving
vessel), W is the vessel weight (in tonnes where 1
tonne ¼ 2205 lbs), and V is the impact speed (ft/s). It is
noted that Eq. (1) is simply an empirical version (derived
for a specific set of units) of the more common rela-
tionship:


KE ¼ CH 12MV 2 ð2Þ
where KE, M (the vessel mass), and V are all dimen-
sionally consistent.
Once the kinetic energy of the barge has been deter-
mined, a two-part empirical load prediction model is
then used to determine the static-equivalent impact load.
The first component of the model consists of an empir-
ical relationship that predicts crush deformation as a
function of kinetic energy:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ! 
KE 10:2
aB ¼ 1þ 1 ð3Þ
5672 RB
In this expression, aB is the depth (ft) of barge crush
deformation (depth of penetration of the bridge pier into
the bow of the barge), KE is the barge kinetic energy
(kip ft) and RB ¼ ðBB =35Þ where BB is the width of the
barge (ft).
The second component of the load prediction model
consists of an empirical barge-crush model that predicts
impact loads as a function of crush depth:
4112aB RB aB < 0:34 ft
PB ¼ ð4Þ
ð1349 þ 110aB ÞRB aB P 0:34 ft
where PB is the equivalent static barge impact load (kip)
and aB is the barge crush depth (ft). The crush model
represented by Eq. (4) is illustrated graphically in Fig. 1.
Unfortunately, as a consequence of the fact that very
little barge collision data has ever been published in the
literature, Eqs. (3) and (4) are based on a single exper-
imental study. During the early 1980s, a study was
 G.R. Consolazio, D.R. Cowan / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557
Fig. 1. Barge crush model used in AASHTO bridge design specifications.
conducted in Germany by Meir-Dornberg [7] that in-
volved physical testing of reduced-scale standard Euro-
pean (type IIa) barges. Experimental barge crush data
was collected by Meir-Dornberg and then used to de-
velop empirical relationships relating kinetic energy,
depth of barge crush deformation, and impact load.
AASHTOÕs relationships, Eqs. (3) and (4), are virtually
identical to those developed by Meir-Dornberg except
that a width-modification factor––the RB term––has
been added to approximately account for deviations in
barge width from the baseline width of 35 ft (the width
of barges most often found operating in US inland
waterways).
Interestingly, while Eq. (3) utilizes the RB term to
reflect the influence of barge width, no such factor has
been included to account for variations in either the size
(width) or geometric shape of the bridge pier being im-
pacted. Furthermore, since Eq. (4) indicates that the
impact load (PB ) increases monotonically with respect to
crush depth (aB ), the AASHTO provisions implicitly
assume that maximum impact force occurs at maximum
crush depth and, therefore, peak impact load can be
uniquely correlated to peak crush depth. In this paper, it
will be demonstrated through finite element crush sim-
ulation that this assumption does not hold true for all
barge crush scenarios.
A primary goal of this study was to generate––using
finite element analysis––independent force-deformation
data that would serve to supplement the experimentally
derived crush-relationships reported by Meir-Dornberg.
By comparing simulation results to the static crush-
model assumed by AASHTO (i.e. Eq. (4)), areas of
potential future improvement in the bridge design
specifications can be identified.
549
3. Finite element analysis procedures and models
3.1. Finite element code and solution algorithms
Analysis of structural crushing is very often handled
using nonlinear contact finite element simulation. In the
case of vessel crush simulation, the finite element code
used must be capable of robustly representing nonlinear
inelastic material behavior (with failure), part-to-part
contact, self-contact, and large displacements (due to the
significant geometric changes that often occur). The
ADINA finite element code [8] meets all of these re-
quirements and has been shown in previous studies [9,10]
to be capable of accurately simulating complex structural
crushing. Thus, ADINA was employed throughout the
present investigation to study crushing of barges.
In regard to the selection of static, implicit dynamic,
or explicit dynamic solution methods for the purpose of
predicting barge crush behavior, one must examine the
impact conditions at both the global and local levels.
From a global viewpoint, when a barge impacts a bridge
pier, the inertial forces in the barge––as a whole unit,
including the payload mass––and in the bridge pier are
quite substantial, and therefore, the event is dynamic in
nature. However, at the local level inside the barge bow,
inertial forces arising in individual structural members
are typically small relative to stiffness and contact re-
lated forces. Thus, while the forces driving the impact
are dynamic, the barge crush behavior itself can be
considered pseudo-static in nature. The fact that Meir-
Dornberg found little difference between static and dy-
namic barge crushing forces [7] supports this assessment.
From a numerical analysis point of view, then, as
long as the time intervals between progressive contact
550 G.R. Consolazio, D.R. Cowan / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557
events are not very small relative to the time scale of the
overall crushing problem, then static or implicit dynamic
analysis methods will often be more efficient than ex-
plicit dynamic methods for crush simulation. In this
study, all analyses were conducted as pseudo-static so-
lutions using the automatic time step and response
smoothing algorithms available in ADINA.
As implemented in ADINA, response smoothing
involves adding dynamic effects (mass and damping
terms) to the system model to smooth the system re-
sponse and improve solution convergence. Rather
than solving the standard static equilibrium equation,
ADINA instead solves the following incremental
pseudo-dynamic equilibrium and displacement update
equations iteratively at time t þ Dt [8]:
€ ðiÞ þ C U_ ðiÞ þ K ði1Þ DU ðiÞ ¼ R  F ði1Þ
MU
ð5Þ
U ðiÞ ¼ U ði1Þ þ DU ðiÞ
where i and i  1 indicate the current and previous
equilibrium iterations respectively, M is the mass matrix,
C is a damping matrix computed as C ¼ bK (where b is
a user selected smoothing factor), K ði1Þ is the tangent
stiffness matrix computed at the end of iteration i  1,
U€ ðiÞ and U_ ðiÞ are the current approximations of acceler-
ation and velocity, DU ðiÞ is the set of incremental dis-
placements for the current iteration, R is the external
load vector, and F ði1Þ is the internal force vector cor-
responding to displacements U ði1Þ established at the end
of the previous iteration. While Eq. (5) includes dynamic
velocity and acceleration terms, static system response
can be obtained by making use of very slow loading
rates. In this study, response smoothing was found to be
beneficial in stabilizing and improving the convergence
of very slow rate (static) barge crushing simulations and
was therefore used throughout. Furthermore, a large
displacement formulation was used for all cases simu-
lated, and full Newton iteration was used to iteratively
solve Eq. (5).
3.2. Barge finite element model
In the AASHTO barge impact provisions, the jumbo
class hopper barge––measuring 195 ft in length, 35 ft in
width, and 12 ft in depth, as defined in Refs. [2,3]––is the
baseline vessel upon which Eq. (4) was established
(RB ¼ 1 for this barge). To permit comparisons to be
made between finite element predicted crush behavior
and the empirical AASHTO crush model, the jumbo
hopper barge was chosen as the vessel to be modeled in
this study. Simulating the crush behavior of vessels [11]
places special demands on the finite element model de-
velopment process. Crush models must be constructed
with sufficient mesh resolution that local buckling,
yielding, and internal contact can be adequately repre-
sented. In developing the hopper barge model presented
in this paper, special attention was given to all of these
issues. Accurate representation of geometry and struc-
tural configuration was achieved by basing the finite
element model on structural barge plans obtained from
a leading US barge manufacturer.
All of the simulations presented herein involved
crushing a barge model with rigid pier-shaped impac-
tors. In such cases, large deformations occur at the bow
of the barge. In order to accurately model the crushing
deformation expected in this area of the vessel, a high-
resolution mesh was used. However, the rear portion of
the barge does not experience the same level of defor-
mation during bow crushing, and therefore a coarser
mesh sufficed in this region. For simulation efficiency,
the barge model developed was divided into three sep-
arate zones (Fig. 2), each represented with a different
degree of mesh resolution.
Zone-1, the most detailed region of the barge model,
represents the leading 8.75 ft of the barge bow. In this
zone, steel channel and angle members are joined to
form internal stiffening trusses, while steel plates of
various thicknesses make up the outer hull shell. In order
to capture buckling and contact between the internal
components of the barge bow, both the internal struc-
tural members and the outer hull plates of zone-1 were
discretized into meshes of shell elements (Fig. 3). Four-
node shell elements based on the mixed interpolation of
tensorial components (MITC) formulation [12,13] were
used throughout zone-1 and zone-2 of the model. The
MITC4 shell element formulation has been shown by
Bathe et al. [10] to perform well in large deformation
crush analysis and thus was appropriate for the crush
simulations conducted herein.
In addition to modeling the structural members and
the outer hull plates of the barge bow, it was also nec-
essary to model the connections between them. Typi-
cally, structural members such as channels and angles
are welded together to create internal stiffening trusses
onto which formed (bent) steel hull plates are welded to
complete the barge bow. In regions where the structural
members and outer hull plates were joined together
by welds, ADINA nonlinear (large-displacement) rigid
links [8] were used to tie corresponding shell elements
together.
Contact-pair definitions were also established in the
model to detect contact between internal components of
the barge bow during crushing. Using such algorithms,
however, requires special care in the spatial positioning
of elements. Like other contact finite element codes,
ADINA performs initial penetration checks at the be-
ginning of any analysis involving contact. While most
contact codes, including ADINA, provide features that
either ‘‘correct’’ or ignore initial penetration problems,
allowing such procedures to take place is usually not
desirable as unintended, and oftentimes nonphysical,
model behavior can result. In the barge model developed
 G.R. Consolazio, D.R. Cowan / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557 551

Fig. 2. Overview of mesh zones used in finite element barge model.

Fig. 3. Cutaway view of barge bow revealing mesh resolution used to model structural components in zone-1 and zone-2.

herein, care was taken in positioning the structural
members and hull plates such that the projected thick-
nesses from the mid-surfaces of the shell elements did
not overlap and, therefore, initial penetrations did not
occur.
Zone-2 of the barge represents the 19.75 ft of the
barge bow that lies behind zone-1. The internal stiffening
trusses in this zone were not expected to sustain local-
ized flange buckling, plastic deformation, or internal
contact during bow crushing. Therefore, the trusses were
modeled using line-meshes of elastic three-dimensional
beam elements based on a large-displacement (small-
strain) formulation. As the nodal symbols in Fig. 4 in-
dicate, each physical truss member was broken into
several interconnected beam elements so that, through
large-displacement analysis, overall member-level buck-
ling (but not flange local buckling) could be represented.
Rigid links were used to connect the beam elements
552 G.R. Consolazio, D.R. Cowan / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557

representing the truss members in zone-2 to the shell
elements representing the truss members in zone-1.
Rigid links were also used to connect the beam elements
representing the truss members in zone-2 to the shell
elements representing the gusset plates in this same zone.
The outer hull plates in zone-2 were modeled using
MITC4 shell elements but with a coarser mesh resolu-
tion than that used in zone-1. Tied contact definitions [8]
were used to join the top and bottom hull-plates to the
appropriate beam elements to represent welded con-
nections.
Zone-3 of the model represents the rear 166.5 ft
hopper portion of the barge. Significant deformations
were not expected in this zone during bow crushing, thus
it was modeled using a coarse mesh of eight-node solid
elements. Nodes along the bottom surface of zone-3
were fixed against motion to provide restraint against
the crushing forces generated at zone-1.

Fig. 4. Finite element modeling of internal stiffening trusses.

100

600
80

500
True stress (MPa)
True stress (ksi)

60
400

300
40

200

20 Large strain steel material model

100

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
True strain

Fig. 5. Stress–strain relationship used to model barge steel.

 G.R. Consolazio, D.R. Cowan / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557 553

With regard to material modeling, significant yielding
was expected to occur during crushing of the hull plates
and structural members contained in zone-1. As such, all
shell elements in the barge model (both in zone-1 and in
zone-2) were assigned a plastic-multilinear material
model matching the stress–strain data shown in Fig. 5. In
all crush analyses presented in this paper, a large-dis-
placement, large-strain formulation was used for the shell
elements. Therefore, the true (Cauchy) stress, true (loga-
rithmic) strain data shown in Fig. 5 was used. In zone-2
and zone-3, all beam and solid elements were assigned a
simple linear elastic material model representing steel.
In total, the barge model contained approximately
25,000 shell elements, 2000 beam elements, 250 solid
elements, and required the solution of approximately
200,000 finite element equations (including contact
equations) when merged with an impactor model to
conduct crush simulations.

Fig. 6. Crush simulation models. (a) Crush model consisting of barge and circular pier impactor, (b) crush model consisting of barge
and square pier impactor.
554 G.R. Consolazio, D.R. Cowan / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557
3.3. Pier impactor models and crush conditions
Of particular interest in this study was the crush
behavior that occurs when barges collide with concrete
bridge piers. As such, the geometric shapes of the im-
pactors developed herein matched the two most common
bridge pier shapes––circular and square. Each impactor
was modeled using eight-node solid elements, was as-
signed a nearly rigid linear elastic material model, and
was positioned along the longitudinal axis of the barge
(Fig. 6) at a location that initially produced a small gap
between the surfaces of the barge and the pier impactor.
A contact definition was then defined between these
surfaces with a Coulomb friction value of l ¼ 0:3 (ap-
proximate frictional coefficient for steel sliding on con-
crete). Nodes on the back face of the impactor (opposite
the contact surface) were assigned a displacement time
history that translated the pier toward the barge at a
constant rate of 0.4 in./s to generate crushing at the
barge bow. Use of the very slow 0.4 in./s displacement
rate ensured that the solution of Eq. (5) predicted the
static, rather than dynamic, crushing response of the
barge.
4. Discussion of crush simulation results
Static barge crush analyses were conducted for three
circular impactors (diameters: 4, 6, and 8 ft) and for
three square impactors (widths: 4, 6, and 8 ft). For each
level of imposed impactor penetration, i.e. barge crush
depth, the total force acting at the contact interface
between the pier and the barge was extracted from the
0 50
1000
800
Crush force (kips)
600
400
200
0 0
0 2
Fig. 7. Predicted barge crush behavior for circular impactors.
finite element simulation data. Results obtained from
the circular crush simulations are presented in Fig. 7.
Forces acting on the pier (i.e. the impactor) are shown to
gradually and monotonically increase with correspond-
ing increases in crush depth. In general, the crush
characteristics are also shown to be slightly sensitive to
variations in pier width, but the effect is not strongly
pronounced.
In Fig. 8, crush results are presented for the square
impactor simulations. Several key differences between
the circular and square crush cases are immediately evi-
dent. In the square crush cases, the contact forces are
observed to rise very rapidly and––for small deforma-
tion levels––the overall crush behavior is seen to be
much stiffer than in the circular cases. However, after
the contact force has maximized, the stiffness of the
barge diminishes rapidly in the square cases. In fact,
whereas all of the circular crush analyses predicted a
monotonically increasing relationship between force and
crush depth, none of the square analyses exhibited this
characteristic. In addition, whereas diameter had very
little effect on the crush behavior observed for circular
piers, Fig. 8 indicates that in square crush conditions,
there is a definite relationship between pier width and
force generated.
That pier geometry can influence the crush behavior
of a barge is not surprising when consideration is given
to the internal structure of such vessels. In the bow of a
barge, numerous internal trusses run parallel to one
another (recall Figs. 2 and 3) resulting in significant
stiffness in the longitudinal direction. During impact
with a pier, both the shape and size of the pier determine
the number of internal trusses that actively participate in
Crush depth (mm)
100 150 200 250 300
3.5
3
Crush force (MN)
2.5
2
1.5
4 ft. Circular impactor
1
6 ft. Circular impactor
8 ft. Circular impactor
0.5
4 6 8 10 12 14
Crush depth (in)
 G.R. Consolazio, D.R. Cowan / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557 555

Crush depth (mm)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
1000

800 3.5
Crush force (kips)

Crush force (MN)

3
600
2.5

2
400
1.5

4 ft. Square impactor

1
200 6 ft. Square impactor
8 ft. Square impactor
0.5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Crush depth (in)

Fig. 8. Predicted barge crush behavior for square impactors.

resisting bow crushing. Fig. 9 illustrates the internal
deformation produced by 12 in. of crush depth imposed
by a 6 ft diameter circular impactor. Fig. 10 illustrates
the same scenario, but for a 6 ft wide square impactor.
In the circular case, bow deformation is concentrated in
a narrow zone near the impact point and only the trusses
immediately adjacent to this location generate signifi-
cant resistance. As increasing crush deformation occurs,
additional trusses participate and the force increases in
an approximately monotonic manner.
In contrast, when a flat-surface square impactor
bears against the barge, several trusses immediately and
simultaneously resist crushing, thus producing a very
stiff response. However, when the trusses buckle, and
therefore soften (Fig. 10), they all do so at approxi-
mately the same deformation level. As a result, there is
an abrupt decrease in the overall stiffness of the barge (as
was illustrated in Fig. 8 where the crush forces plateau
or even decrease after maximizing). In addition, in-
creasing the width of a square pier increases the number
of trusses that simultaneously participate in crushing,
thus explaining the sensitivity of force magnitude to
impactor width that was evident in the square crush
simulations. As was noted earlier, the AASHTO crush

Fig. 9. Barge deformation generated by circular pier impactor.

556 G.R. Consolazio, D.R. Cowan / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557

Fig. 10. Barge deformation generated by square pier impactor.

model given in Eq. (4) includes a correction factor (RB )
for barges that deviate from the 35 ft width of the
standard hopper barge. However, the finite element re-
sults presented here suggest that it may also be appro-
priate to include parameters reflecting the effects of pier
shape and pier size in the crush model as well.
A comparison of the empirical AASHTO crush
model, Eq. (4), and finite element predicted crush be-
havior (for the 8 ft circular and 8 ft square crush cases) is
presented in Fig. 11. For cases involving significant
barge crushing (e.g. more than 6 in.), the forces pre-
dicted by finite element simulation are significantly less
than those predicted by the AASHTO crush model.
While a more extensive review of structural designs
used throughout the barge manufacturing industry is
needed before it can be stated with confidence that the
AASHTO provisions are overly conservative, the pre-
liminary finite element results presented here suggest
that such a review is warranted.
Finally, the square impactor data shown in Figs. 8
and 11 demonstrate that, for some pier configurations,
crush force does not necessarily increase monotonically
with respect to crush depth. In such cases the maximum
force generated cannot necessarily be correlated to the
maximum crush depth sustained (e.g. in an impact
condition). This fact is important because the AASHTO

Crush depth (mm)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
1600 7

1400
6

1200
5
Force (kips)

1000
Force (MN)

4
800

3
600

2
400
ASSHTO barge crush model
8 ft Circular impactor
200 1
8 ft Square impactor

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Crush depth (in)

Fig. 11. Comparison of crush simulation data and AASHTO crush model.
 G.R. Consolazio, D.R. Cowan / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 547–557
load prediction procedure described earlier in this paper
(Eqs. (1), (3) and (4)) assumes that the equivalent static
impact force can be uniquely correlated to (or predicted
from) peak crush deformation sustained by a barge
during an impact event. The square impactor crush re-
sults presented here indicate that this procedure should
be reexamined since impact force does not appear to be
uniquely correlated to maximum deformation.
5. Concluding remarks
The primary objectives of this study have been to
predict, using nonlinear finite element analysis, the static
crush behavior of hopper barges and to compare the
finite element predictions to empirical crush models
currently used in bridge design specifications. In order to
accomplish these objectives, high resolution finite ele-
ment models of a jumbo hopper barge and multiple pier
shaped impactors have been developed to conduct static
crush simulations using the ADINA finite element code.
The modeling techniques used to represent the structural
components of the barge and the crush analysis proce-
dures employed have been presented.
Barge crush behavior has been predicted for both
circular and square shaped pier impactors, and both the
shape and size of the pier have been found to influence
the relationship between force and deformation during
crushing. In cases involving crushing by a square im-
pactor (or any flat-faced impactor), the width of the
impactor has been found to influence the magnitude of
forces generated. Simulation data have also indicated
that forces generated during crushing do not necessarily
increase monotonically, and therefore impact force
cannot necessarily be uniquely correlated to maximum
sustained deformation. Based on these observations,
areas of focus for future improvement to design speci-
fication based load prediction are as follows: the effects
of pier shape and size parameters in force determination;
and relationships that directly predict impact load from
impact energy rather than using crushing deformation––
which cannot be uniquely correlated to force––as an
intermediate step.
557
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) for providing the financial
support that made this study possible. The material
presented in this paper is based upon research that was
supported by the FDOT under Contracts BC354
RPWO#23 and BC354 RPWO#56.
References
[1] Knott M, Prucz Z. Vessel collision design of bridges:
bridge engineering handbook. CRC Press LLC; 2000.
[2] AASHTO. Guide specification and commentary for vessel
collision design of highway bridges. American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1991.
[3] AASHTO. LRFD bridge design specifications and com-
mentary. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 1994.
[4] Knott MA. Vessel collision design codes and experience in
the United States. In: Gluver H, Olsen D, editors. Ship
collision analysis. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1998.
[5] Whitney MW, Harik IE, Griffin JJ, Allen DL. Barge
collision design of highway bridges. ASCE J Bridge Eng
1996;1(2):47–58.
[6] Woisin G. The collision tests of the GKSS. Jahrbuch
Schiffbautech Gesellsch 1976;70:465–87.
[7] Meir-Dornberg KE. Ship collisions, safety zones, and
loading assumptions for structures in inland waterways.
VDI-Berichte 1983;496:1–9.
[8] ADINA Research and Development Inc. ADINA theory
and modeling guide. Report 01–7, Watertown, MA, 2001.
[9] Bathe KJ, Guillermin O, Walczak J, Chen H. Advances in
nonlinear finite element analysis of automobiles. Comp
Struct 1997;64(5/6):881–91.
[10] Bathe KJ, Walczak J, Guillermin O, Bouzinov PA, Chen
H. Advances in crush analysis. Comp Struct 1999;72:31–
47.
[11] Lehmann E, Yu X. Inner dynamics of bow collision to
bridge piers. In: Gluver H, Olsen D, editors. Ship collision
analysis. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1998.
[12] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1996.
[13] Bathe KJ, Dvorkin EN. A formulation of general shell
elements––the use of mixed interpolation of tensorial
components. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1986;22:697–722.