Underwater explosion in centrifuge Part II: Dynamic responses of defensive steel plate
Source abstract
Abstract
Part II of this paper is focused on the dynamic response of a steel plate of the centrifuge model which is fixed on the container. This plate is 5 cm thick, allowing for non-destructive elastic response to all the 19 blasts. Three accelerators and 10 sets of strain gauges are installed on the plate to monitor the acceleration and deformation histories induced by shock waves and bubble oscillations. This article presents the characteristic values measured for shock waves and bubble oscillations response. The detailed information can be found in a database available on the web. In order to obtain the correct acceleration time history, the cut-off frequency of low-pass filtering by Fourier transformation was applied. The results indicated that the acceleration and strain induced by shock wave was nearly unaffected by the increasing gravity, while the effect of gravity has remarkable influence on those induced by bubble oscillation. A preliminary study of comparing the measured dynamic response with numerical simulations has been carried out using ANSYS LS-DYNA. The results captured the dynamic response in terms of characteristics and trends, but deviated in magnitude due the theoretical and technological limitations involved in both the physical and numerical models. It certainly deserves further studies.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Ultrasound and Cavitation Phenomena · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Linear elastic shock response of plane plates subjected to underwater explosion. Int J Impact Eng, 2001, 25: 493–50610.1016/S0734-743X(00)00056-7 ↗
2. Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Damage prediction of clamped circular plates subjected to contact underwater explosion. Int J Impact Eng, 2001, 25: 373–38610.1016/S0734-743X(00)00051-8 ↗
3. Rajendran R. Effective shock factors for the inelastic damage prediction of clamped plane plates subjected to non-contact underwater explosion. J Strain Anal Eng Des, 2009, 44: 211–22010.1243/03093247JSA463 ↗
4. Ramajeyathilagam K, Vendhan C P. Deformation and rupture of thin rectangular plates subjected to underwater shock. Int J Impact Eng, 2004, 30: 699–71910.1016/j.ijimpeng.2003.01.001 ↗
5. Taylor G I. The pressure and impulse of submarine explosion waves on plates. In: The Scientific Papers of Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor, Vol 3. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1963. 287–303
6. Anderson J. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001
7. Ghoshal R, Mitra N. Non-contact near-field underwater explosion in-duced shock-wave loading of submerged rigid structures: Nonlinear compressibility effects in fluid structure interaction. J Appl Phys, 2012, 112: 024911–02491110.1063/1.4737778 ↗
8. Huang H. Transient bending of a large elastic plate by an incident spherical pressure wave. J Appl Mech, 1974, 41: 77210.1115/1.3423386 ↗
9. Jiang J, Olson M D. Rigid-plastic analysis of underwater blast loaded stiffened plates. Int J Mech Sci, 1995, 37: 843–85910.1016/0020-7403(94)00100-X ↗
10. Vernon T A. Whipping response of ship hulls from underwater explosion bubble loading. DTIC Document, 1986
11. Geers T L, Hunter K S. An integrated wave-effects model for an underwater explosion bubble. J Acoust Soc Am, 2002, 111: 1584–160110.1121/1.1458590 ↗
12. Zhang X, Li Y, Zhao B. Pressure field and dynamic effect of ship structure produced by underwater shock and explosion bubble (in Chinese). Shipbuild China, 1997, 4: 61–68
13. Zong Z. Dynamic plastic response of a submerged free-free beam to an underwater gas bubble. Acta Mech, 2003, 161: 179–19410.1007/s00707-002-0990-1 ↗
14. Yao X L, Chen J P, Ren H L. The analysis of dynamic response of ship hull subjected to gas bubble impulsive pressure of underwater explosions (in Chinese). J Harbin Eng Univ, 2000, 21: 1–5
15. Yao X L, Chen J. A study on anti-underwater-explosion performance of ship subjected to gas bubble impulsive pressure (in Chinese). Shipbuild China, 2001, 42: 48–55
16. Chen J, Liu X, Xu Q. Numerical simulation analysis of damage mode of concrete gravity dam under close-in explosion. KSCE J Civ Eng, 2017, 21: 397–40710.1007/s12205-016-1082-4 ↗
17. Yu T T. Dynamical response simulation of concrete dam subjected to under water contact explosion load. In: 2009 World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering. Los Angeles, 2009. 767–774
18. Zhu F, Zhu W, Zhu X X, et al. Numerical simulation of arch dam withstand underwater explosion. In: 2012 Proceedings of International Conference on Modelling, Identification & Control (ICMIC). IEEE, 2012. 1034–1039
19. Zhang S, Wang G, Wang C, et al. Numerical simulation of failure modes of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosion. Eng Failure Anal, 2014, 36: 49–6410.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.10.001 ↗
20. Wang G, Zhang S, Kong Y, et al. Comparative study of the dynamic response of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater and air explosions. J Perform Constr Facil, 2014, 29: 0401409210.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000589 ↗
21. Wang G, Zhang S. Damage prediction of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosion shock loading. Eng Failure Anal, 2014, 39: 72–9110.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.01.018 ↗
22. Lu L, Li X, Zhou J. Study of damage to a high concrete dam subjected to underwater shock waves. Earthq Eng Eng Vib, 2014, 13: 337–34610.1007/s11803-014-0235-z ↗
23. Lu L, Li X, Zhou J, et al. Numerical simulation of shock response and dynamic fracture of a concrete dam subjected to impact load. Earth Sci Res J, 2016, 20: 1–610.15446/esrj.v20n1.54133 ↗
24. Lu L, Kong X, Dong Y, et al. Similarity relationship for brittle failure dynamic model experiment and its application to a concrete dam subjected to explosive load. Int J Geomech, 2017, 17: 0401702710.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000889 ↗
25. Vanadit-Ellis W, Davis L K. Physical modeling of concrete gravity dam vulnerability to explosions. In: 2010 International Waterside Security Conference (WSS). IEEE, 2010. 1–11
26. Song G, Chen Z Y, Long Y, et al. Experimental and numerical investigation of the centrifugal model for underwater explosion shock wave and bubble pulsation. Ocean Eng, 2017, 142: 523–53110.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.07.011 ↗
27. Brandt A. Noise and Vibration Analysis: Signal Analysis and Experimental Procedures. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 201110.1002/9780470978160 ↗
28. Niu J, Shi Y, Cai M, et al. Detection of sputum by interpreting the time-frequency distribution of respiratory sound signal using image processing techniques. Bioinformatics, 2017
29. Li Z, Escoffier S, Kotronis P. Using centrifuge tests data to identify the dynamic soil properties: Application to Fontainebleau sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 2013, 52: 77–8710.1016/j.soildyn.2013.05.004 ↗
30. Chopra A K. Dynamics of Structures. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995
31. Hallquist J O. LS-DYNA3D theoretical manual. Livermore: Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 1993
32. Stenberg D J. Spherical explosions and the equation of state of water, UCID-2097. Livermore: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 198710.2172/6766676 ↗
33. Li X J, Zhang C J, Wang X H, et al. Numerical study on the effect of equations of state of water on underwater explosions (in Chinese). Eng Mech, 2014, 31: 46–52
34. Lee E, Finger M, Collins W. JWL equation of state coefficients for high explosives. Rept-UCID-16189, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1973
35. Cole R H. Underwater Explosions. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 194810.5962/bhl.title.48411 ↗