0
Research Papers

Computational Modeling of Dynamically Initiated Instabilities and Implosion of Underwater Cylindrical Structures in a Confined Environment

[+] Author and Article Information
Emily L. Guzas

Naval Undersea Warfare
Center (Division Newport),
Platform and Payload Integration Department,
Analysis and Technology Branch,
1176 Howell Street,
Newport, RI 02841
e-mail: emily.guzas@navy.mil

Sachin Gupta, Arun Shukla

Dynamic Photo Mechanics Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical,
Industrial and Systems Engineering,
University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI 02881

Joseph M. Ambrico, James M. LeBlanc

Naval Undersea Warfare
Center (Division Newport),
Platform and Payload Integration Department,
Analysis and Technology Branch,
1176 Howell Street,
Newport, RI 02841

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received September 26, 2018; final manuscript received November 19, 2018; published online December 12, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Yong Zhu.This work is in part a work of the U.S. Government. ASME disclaims all interest in the U.S. Government's contributions.

J. Appl. Mech 86(2), 021008 (Dec 12, 2018) (13 pages) Paper No: JAM-18-1549; doi: 10.1115/1.4042046 History: Received September 26, 2018; Revised November 19, 2018

This paper details a numerical study of the dynamic stability of a cylindrical shell structure under combined hydrostatic and dynamic pressure loading within a tubular environment as compared to the traditional loading of hydrostatic pressure alone. Simulations are executed using a coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian scheme, within the dynamic system mechanics advanced simulation (DYSMAS) code, to explicitly model the (1) structural response of a single unstiffened cylindrical shell to dynamic pressure loading and (2) the fluid flow field within the surrounding environment due to the shock and the shell structural response. Simulations involve a non-pressure-compensated aluminum 6061-T6 cylindrical structure with a length-to-diameter ratio, L/D, equal to 9.6. This structure is 31.8 mm (1.25-in) in outer diameter and is concentrically and longitudinally centered within the outer tube, which has an inner diameter of 177.8 mm (7.00-in) and total internal length of 2.13 m (84-in). Simulations are run at four hydrostatic tank pressures, which are categorized by percentage of measured critical collapse pressure, Pc, of the shell structure: 66% Pc, 80% Pc, 85% Pc, and 90%Pc. For each case, the shell structure is subjected to shock loading created by the detonation of a commercial blasting cap at a given standoff to the structure within the confining tube. Simulated pressure histories are compared to experimental pressure data at gage locations. The simulations and corresponding experiments produce the same overall result for three of four cases (i.e., survive: 66%Pc or implode: 85%Pc and 90%Pc). For the 80%Pc case, the overall result differs between simulation and experiment in that the specimen in the experiment survives but the simulated cylinder implodes. However, the discrepancy between the overall experimental result and corresponding simulation is not deemed a failure for the 80%Pc case; instead, this signifies a transitional case for the dynamic stability of the shell structure (i.e., collapse is sensitive to small deviations from assumed conditions in this regime).

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Mesloh, R. E. , Sorenson, J. E. , and Atterbury, T. J. , 1973, “ Buckling—and Offshore Pipelines,” Gas, 49, pp. 40–43.
Palmer, A. C. , and Martin, J. H. , 1975, “ Buckle Propagation in Submarine Pipelines,” Nature, 254(5495), pp. 46–48. [CrossRef]
Turner, S. E. , and Ambrico, J. M. , 2012, “ Underwater Implosion of Cylindrical Metal Tubes,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 80(1), p. 011013. [CrossRef]
LeBlanc, J. M. , Ambrico, J. M. , and Turner, S. E. , 2014, “ Underwater Implosion Mechanics: Experimental and Computational Overview,”Blast Mitigation—Experimental and Numerical Studies, Springer, New York.
Cartlidge, E. , 2001, “ Accident Grounds Neutrino Lab,” IOP Publishing, Bristol, UK, accessed Apr.15, 2016, www.physicsworld.com
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2014, “ Robotic Deep-Sea Vehicle Lost on Dive to 6-Mile Depth,” Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, accessed Apr. 15, 2016, http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/Nereus-Lost
Diwan, M. , Dolph, J. , Ling, J. , Russo, T. , Sharma, R. , Sexton, K. , Simos, N. , Stewart, J. , Tanaka, H. , Arnold, D. , Tabor, P. , and Turner, S. , 2012, “ Underwater Implosions of Large Format Photo-Multiplier Tubes,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 670, pp. 61–67. [CrossRef]
Isaacs, J. D. , and Maxwell, A. E. , 1952, “ The Ball-Breaker—A Deep Water Signalling Device,” J. Mar. Res., 11, pp. 63–68.
Urick, R. J. , 1963, “ Implosions as Sources of Underwater Sound,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 35(12), pp. 2026–2027. [CrossRef]
Vanzant, B. , Russell, J. , Schraeder, A. , and DeHart, R. , 1967, “Near-Field Pressure Response Due to a Sphere Imploding in Water,” Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, Report No. 1938-1.
Vath, F. , and Colletti, W. , 1968, Development of Buoyancy Material for the Deep Submergence Search Vehicle: Evaluation of Sympathetic Implosion of Buoyancy Modules, U.S. Naval Applied Science Laboratory, Brooklyn, New York.
Orr, M. , and Schoenberg, M. , 1976, “ Acoustic Signatures From Deep Water Implosions of Spherical Cavities,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 59(5), pp. 1155–1159. [CrossRef]
Turner, S. E. , 2007, “ Underwater Implosion of Glass Spheres,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 121(2), pp. 844–852. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Farhat, C. , Wang, K. G. , Main, A. , Kyriakides, S. , Lee, L.-H. , Ravi-Chandar, K. , and Belytschko, T. , 2013, “ Dynamic Implosion of Underwater Cylindrical Shells: Experiments and Computations,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 50(19), pp. 2943–2961. [CrossRef]
Gupta, S. , Parameswaran, V. , Sutton, M. , and Shukla, A. , 2014, “ Study of Dynamic Underwater Implosion Mechanics Using Digital Image Correlation,” Proc. R. Soc. A, 470, p. 20140576.
Pinto, M. , Gupta, S. , and Shukla, A. , 2015, “ Study of Implosion of Carbon/Epoxy Composite Hollow Cylinders Using 3-D Digital Image Correlation,” Compos. Struct., 119, pp. 272–286. [CrossRef]
Luton, A. , Harris, G. , McGrath, T. , McKeown, R. , Clair, J. S. , Babcock, W. , and Wardlaw, A. , 2016, “ Overview of the Dynamic System Mechanics Advanced Simulation (DYSMAS),” 24th International Symposium on the Military Aspects of Blast and Shock, Halifax, NS, Canada, Sept. 18–23.
Chamberlin, R. E. , and Guzas, E. L. , 2014, “ Trends in Energy Released in Underwater Implosions,” U. S. Navy J. Underwater Acoust., 62, pp. 549–566.
Chamberlin, R. E. , Guzas, E. L. , and Ambrico, J. M. , 2014, “ Energy Balance During Underwater Implosion of Ductile Metallic Cylinders,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 136(5), pp. 2489–2496. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gupta, S. , LeBlanc, J. M. , and Shukla, A. , 2014, “ Mechanics of the Implosion of Cylindrical Shells in a Confining Tube,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 51(23–24), pp. 3996–4014.
Gupta, S. , LeBlanc, J. M. , and Shukla, A. , 2015, “ Sympathetic Underwater Implosion in a Confining Environment,” Extreme Mech. Lett., 3, pp. 123–129. [CrossRef]
Gupta, S. , LeBlanc, J. M. , and Shukla, A. , 2015, “ Implosion of Longitudinally Off-Centered Cylindrical Volumes in a Confining Environment,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 82, p. 051001. [CrossRef]
Bitter, N. P. , and Shepherd, J. E. , “ Dynamic Buckling and Fluid–Structure Interaction of Submerged Tubular Structures,” Blast Mitigation—Experimental and Numerical Studies, A. Shukla , Y. D. S. Rajapakse and M. E. Hynes , eds., Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 189–227.
Gupta, S. , Shukla, A. ,and LeBlanc, J. , 2016, “ Shock Initiated Instabilities in Underwater Cylindrical Structures,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 95, pp. 188–212. [CrossRef]
Gupta, S. , Shukla, A., and LeBlanc, J., 2013, “ Shock Initiated Implosion of a Tube Within a Closed Tube: Experiments and Computational Simulations,” ASME Paper No. IMECE 2013-63765.
Wang, K. , 2016, “ Multiphase Fluid-Solid Coupled Analysis of Shock-Bubble-Stone Interaction in Shockwave Lithotripsy,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Biomed. Eng., 33(10), p. e2855.
Gupta, S. , 2015, “ Underwater Implosion of Cylindrical Metallic Shells in Confining Environments,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/oa_diss/326/
Teledyne RISI Inc., 2018, “ RP-80 EBW Detonator,” Teledyne RISI Inc., Tracy, CA, accessed Nov. 29, 2018, http://www.teledynerisi.com/products-services/ebw-detonators/rp-80-ebw-detonator
Whirley, R. , and Engelmann, B. , 1993, “DYNA3D: A Nonlinear, Explicit, Three-Dimensional Finite Element Code for Solid and Structural Mechanics, User Manual,” Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Livermore, CA, Report No. UCRL-MA-107254-Rev.1 ON: DE94009374. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/10139227-dyna3d-nonlinear-explicit-three-dimensional-finite-element-code-solid-structural-mechanics-user-manual-revision
De Groot, A. J. , Sherwood, R. J. , and Durrenberger, J. K. , 2011, “ParaDyn: A Parallel Nonlinear Explicit, Three-Dimensional Finite-Element Code for Solid and Structural Mechanics: Version 11.1,” Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Livermore, CA, Report No. UCRL-MA-140943. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/520969.pdf
Farhat, C. , Rallu, A. , Wang, K. , and Belytschko, T. , 2010, “ Robust and Provably Second-Order Explicit-Explicit and Implicit-Explicit Staggered Time-Integrators for Highly Nonlinear Fluid-Structure Interaction Problems,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 84(1), pp. 73–107. [CrossRef]
Menikoff, R. , 2017, “ JWL Equation of State,” Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, Report No. LA-UR-15-29536. https://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-15-29536

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the experimental setup for the pressure vessel facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of cylindrical shell structure with support collets

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Locations of pressure sensors, test specimen, and detonator in the experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic of the modified RP-80 detonator

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Typical shock pressure profile at ch-6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Typical shock pressure profile at ch-5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Model used for precalculation 1: initial explosive burn

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Material test data and material fit for Aluminum 6061-T6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Fluid model, with detail of mesh in vicinity of air bubble

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Initialization of fully coupled 3D model, with structures in hydrostatic equilibrium (preload) and fluid utilizing 2D–3D remap of initial 2D Shock burn

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Pretest design and post-test photos of aluminum sleeve housing the RP-80 detonator

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Initial shock pressure comparisons (a) at the charge (ch-6) and (b) at the cylindrical shell structure (ch-B) when using 64%W for 80%Pc

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Initial shock impulse comparisons (a) at the charge (ch-6) and (b) at the cylindrical shell structure (ch-B) when using 64%W for 80%Pc

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Collapsed shapes 85%Pc case, (a) elevation view and (b) plan view

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Collapsed shape comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Pressure comparisons near the cylindrical shell structure (ch-B) for (a) 66%Pc, (b) 80%Pc, (c) 85%Pc, and (d) 90%Pc

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Pressure comparisons at the far end cap (ch-1) and at the near end cap (ch-8) for (a) 66%Pc, (b) 80%Pc, (c) 85%Pc, and (d) 90%Pc

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Simulated time history of air volume inside cylindrical shell structure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Simulated time history of water volume inside confining tube

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Simulated radial displacement time history at mid-length of the cylindrical shell structure for 66%Pc, 80%Pc, 85%Pc, and 90%Pc at (a) contacting surface and (b) lobe tip

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Model radial displacement time history extraction locations, at (a) contacting surface and (b) lobe tip

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Sequence of pressure (top) and axial velocity (bottom) contour plot pairs of the water inside the confining tube for the 80%Pc case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Simulated time history of volume of cavitated water inside the confining tube for (a) 66%Pc versus 80%Pc and (b) 80%Pc versus 85%Pc

Tables

Errata

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