# Design and Simulation Analysis of a New Type of Assembled UHPC Collision Avoidance
## 3 Performance Analysis of Design Parameters
### Analysis of Material Properties of Internal Support Elements of Floating Tank  
In the preliminary design of the collision avoidance device, three kinds of supporting element materials are proposed, namely, the UHPC material, a low-carbon steel material and a high-strength aluminum alloy material. In this section, the finite element performance analysis of the collision avoidance device with the three different supporting materials is carried out: Condition A1: the supporting element is made of the UHPC material, Condition A2: the supporting element is made \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Type**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Bow**} & **Water** & **The Adjustment** & **Side Wall** & **Rubber** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Pier**} \\  & & **Separator** & **Tank** & **Standard Box** & **Material** & \\ \hline Bow & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\ Water separator & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & — & 2 \\ The adjustment tank & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & — & 2 \\ Side wall standard Box & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & — & 2 \\ Steel bar & 3 & — & — & — & — & 3 \\ Rubber Material & 2 & — & — & — & 1 & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: 1 automatic one-sided contact, 2 automatic face-to-face contact, 3 automatic point-to-face contact.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Contact Definition of a Cargo Ship Impact Collision avoidance Floating Tank System. of the low-carbon steel material, Condition A3: the supporting element is made of the high strength aluminum alloy. The system energy curves for Conditions A1, A2, and A3 are shown in Figures 13-15. The total energy of the system is defined as the sum of the kinetic energy, internal energy, slip energy and hourglass energy. The total energy of the system is 89.49 MJ in the collision process, which satisfies the Energy conservation law. The internal energy values of the system are 50.03 MJ, 61.60 MJ, and 58.59 MJ for Conditions A1, A2, and A3, respectively, and the hourglass energy values are 3.29 MJ, 3.26 MJ and 3.06 MJ, respectively. The hourglass energy accounts for 6.6%, 5.3%, and 5.2% of the system internal energy, respectively. The hourglass energy accounts for no more than 10% of the system internal energy, which shows that the calculation results are reliable [42]. deformation during the collision process. The maximum collision depth of the bow with the UHPC support elements is 1.42 m, which is 53.6% lower than that of an unprotected condition (3.06 m), while the maximum collision depth of the bow with the steel support element is 1.21 m, which is 60.5% lower than that of the unprotected condition, and the maximum collision depth of the bow with the aluminum alloy support element is 1.61 m, which is 47.4% lower than the maximum bow collision depth of the unprotected condition. It can be seen that the collision depth of the bow is significantly reduced under all three conditions, which proves that the collision avoidance device has excellent protection performance for ships. When the supporting element uses the steel support, the system kinetic energy is converted into internal energy with the largest amplitude and the smallest bow collision depth, indicating that the plastic deformation of the bow absorbs the least amount of energy, and the system kinetic energy is more transformed into the internal energy of the collision avoidance device, which is more favorable as it reduces the depth of the ship's impact and protects the ship. The maximum equivalent stress values on the pier under Conditions A1, A2 and A3 are 42.4 MPa, 38.2 MPa and 39.3 MPa is shown in Figure 17, respectively, which are 32.7%, 39.4% and 37.6% lower than the maximum equivalent stress (63.0 MPa) of the unprotected condition, respectively. It can be seen that the maximum equivalent stress on the pier under Condition A2 is the lowest, because the regional equivalent stress and the protective pier performance are larger and thus weakened the impact on the pier the most.