0
ADVANCES IN IMPACT ENGINEERING

Fluid-Structure and Shock-Bubble Interaction Effects During Underwater Explosions Near Composite Structures

[+] Author and Article Information
Yin L. Young

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544yyoung@princeton.edu

Zhanke Liu

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544zhankel@princeton.edu

Wenfeng Xie

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544wxie@princeton.edu

J. Appl. Mech 76(5), 051303 (Jun 15, 2009) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3129718 History: Received January 01, 2008; Revised July 11, 2008; Published June 15, 2009

There is an increasing interest in the use of composites for marine/naval structures to reduce weight and maintenance cost, and to improve hydrodynamic and/or structural performance. In particular, recent works suggest that the use of a lightweight, soft core layer can significantly reduce the load transfer to the back layer of a sandwich structure when subjected to shock or impulse loads. The objective of this work is to investigate the role of fluid-structure interaction (FSI) and shock-bubble interaction in the transient response of composite structures during underwater explosions (UNDEX). The spatial distribution of UNDEX loads is different from uniform planar shocks due to the spherically propagating pressure front, and the temporal characteristics are also different due to the importance of shock-bubble interactions. Both effects influence the FSI response of the composite structure. A previously validated 2D Eulerian–Lagrangian numerical method is used to investigate fluid-structure and shock-bubble interaction effects during UNDEX near composite structures. Via a series of numerical experiments, the relative importance of different effects, namely, the Taylor’s FSI effect (1963, “The Pressure and Impulse of Submarine Explosion Waves on Plates” Scientific Papers of G. I. Taylor, 3, pp. 287–303), the bending/stretching effect, the core compression effect, and the boundary effect, are quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated. Insights for practical modeling, analysis, and design of blast-resistant sandwich structures are also drawn from the analysis.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Computational diagrams for the four different configurations (left top: stationary interface; right top: freely sliding rigid panel; left bottom: freely sliding steel panel; right bottom: freely sliding steel-foam-steel panel)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Taylor’s FSI effect: comparison of the interface pressure between case 1 (stationary interface) and case 2 (free rigid face) (left: pressure histories at P1; right: pressure profiles along the wet face at t=0.7ms)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Taylor’s FSI effect: comparison of the fluid field at t=0.7ms between case 1 (stationary interface) and case 2 (free rigid face)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Bending/stretching effect: comparison of the interface pressure between case 2 (free rigid face) and case 3 (free steel face) (left: pressure histories at P1; right: pressure profiles along the wet face at t=0.7ms)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Bending/stretching effect: comparison of the fluid field at t=0.7ms between case 2 (free rigid face) and case 3 (free steel face)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Core compression effect: comparison of the interface pressure between case 3 (free steel face) and case 4 (free sandwich) (left: pressure histories at P1; right: pressure profiles along the wet face at t=1.5ms)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Core compression effect: comparison of the fluid field at t=1.5ms between case 3 (free steel face) and case 4 (free sandwich)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of the different effects in terms of dimensionless change in momentum transfer (ΔMT) at the fluid-solid interface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of face velocities and nominal core compressive strains between case 4 (free sandwich) and case 5 (clamped sandwich) left: P1 (midspan); right: P2 (quarter-span)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Boundary effect: comparison of the maximum principle plastic strain field between case 4 (free sandwich) and case 5 (clamped sandwich). Notice that the vertical dimensions (the structure and its deformation) have been magnified by four times.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Boundary effect: comparison of the interface pressure between case 4 (free sandwich) and case 5 (clamped sandwich) (left: pressure histories at P1; right: pressure histories at P2)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In