0
Research Papers: Materials Technology

Comparative Study of the Shock Resistance of Rubber Protective Coatings Subjected to Underwater Explosion

[+] Author and Article Information
Feng Xiao

Institute of Vibration, Shock & Noise,
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical
System and Vibration,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China;
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
South Room 400,
Mechanical Building B,
800 Dong Chuan Road,
Shanghai 200240, China
e-mail: xiaofengsjtu@aliyun.com

Yong Chen

Institute of Vibration, Shock & Noise,
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical
System and Vibration,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China;
Professor
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
800 Dong Chuan Road,
Shanghai 200240, China
e-mail: chenyong@sjtu.edu.cn

Hongxing Hua

Institute of Vibration, Shock & Noise,
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical
System and Vibration,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China;
Professor
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
800 Dong Chuan Road,
Shanghai 200240, China
e-mail: hhx@sjtu.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received May 22, 2013; final manuscript received January 28, 2014; published online March 18, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Xin Sun.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 136(2), 021402 (Mar 18, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: OMAE-13-1050; doi: 10.1115/1.4026670 History: Received May 22, 2013; Revised January 28, 2014

Finite element simulations of rubber protective coatings with different structures under two dynamic loading cases were performed. They were monolithic coating and honeycomb structures with three different cell topologies (hexachiral honeycomb, reentrant honeycomb, and circular honeycomb). The two loading cases were a dynamic compression load and water blast shock wave. The dynamic mechanical responses of those coatings under these two loading cases were compared. Finite element simulations have been undertaken using the ABAQUS/Explicit software package to provide insights into the coating's working mechanism and the relation between compression behavior and water blast shock resistance. The rubber materials were modeled as hyperelastic materials. The reaction force was selected as the major comparative criterion. It is concluded that when under dynamic compressive load, the cell topology played an important role at high speed, and when under underwater explosion, the honeycomb coatings can improve the shock resistance significantly at the initial stage. For honeycomb coatings with a given relative density, although structural absorbed energy has a significant contribution in the shock resistance, soft coating can significantly reduce the total incident impulse at the initial fluid-structure interaction stage. Further, a smaller fraction of incident impulse is imparted to the honeycomb coating with lower compressive strength.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Scavuzzo, R. J., and PuseyH. C., 2000, “Naval Shock Analysis and Design,” Shock and Vibration Information Analysis Center, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., Falls Church, VA.
Chen, Y., Tong, Z. P., Hua, H. X., Wang, Y., and Gou, H. Y., 2009, “Experimental Investigation on the Dynamic Response of Scaled Ship Model With Rubber Sandwich Coatings Subjected to Underwater Explosion,” Int. J. Impact. Eng., 36(2), pp. 318–328. [CrossRef]
Chen, Y., Zhang, Z. Y., Wang, Y., and Hua, H. X., 2009, “Crush Dynamics of Square Honeycomb Thin Rubber Wall,” Thin-Walled Struct., 47(12), pp. 1447–1456. [CrossRef]
Xue, Z. Y., and Hutchinson, J. W., 2004, “A Comparative Study of Impulse-Resistant Metal Sandwich Plates,” Int. J. Impact. Eng., 30(10), pp. 1283–1305. [CrossRef]
McShane, G. J., Radford, D. D., Deshpande, V. S., and Fleck, N. A., 2006, “The Response of Clamped Sandwich Plates With Lattice Cores Subjected to Shock Loading,” Eur. J. Mech.: A/Solids, 25(2), pp. 215–229. [CrossRef]
Theobald, M. D., Langdon, G. S., Nurick, G. N., Pillay, S., Heyns, A., and Merrett, R. P., 2010, “Large Inelastic Response of Unbonded Metallic Foam and Honeycomb Core Sandwich Panels to Blast Loading,” Compos. Struct., 92(10), pp. 2465–2475. [CrossRef]
Yungwirth, C. J., Radford, D. D., Aronson, M., and Wadley, H. N. G., 2008, “Experiment Assessment of the Ballistic Response of Composite Pyramidal Lattice Truss Structures,” Compos. Part B: Eng., 39(3), pp. 556–569. [CrossRef]
Wang, E., Gardner, N., and Shukla, A., 2009, “The Blast Resistance of Sandwich Composites With Stepwise Graded Cores,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 46(18), pp. 3492–3502. [CrossRef]
Fleck, N. A., and Deshpande, V. S., 2004, “The Resistance of Clamped Sandwich Beams to Shock Loading,” J. Appl. Mech., 71(3), pp. 386–401. [CrossRef]
Xue, Z. Y., and Hutchinson, J. W., 2003, “Preliminary Assessment of Sandwich Plates Subject to Blast Loads,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 45(4), pp. 687–705. [CrossRef]
Mäkinen, K., 1999, “The Transverse Response of Sandwich Panels to an Underwater Shock Wave,” J. Fluids Struct., 13(5), pp. 631–646. [CrossRef]
Chen, Y., Zhang, Z. Y., Wang, Y., Hua, H. X., and Gou, H. Y., 2009, “Attenuating Performance of a Polymer Layer Coated Onto Floating Structures Subjected to Water Blasts,” Eur. J. Mech.: A/Solids, 28(3), pp. 591–598. [CrossRef]
Deshpande, V. S., and Fleck, N. A., 2005, “One-Dimensional Response of Sandwich Plates to Underwater Shock Loading,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 53(11), pp. 2347–2383. [CrossRef]
Liang.Y. M., Spuskanyuk, A. V., and Flores, S. E., 2007, “The Response of Metallic Sandwich Panels to Water Blast,” J. Appl. Mech., 74(1), pp. 81–99. [CrossRef]
Tilbrook, M. T., Deshpande, V. S., and Fleck, N. A., 2009, “Underwater Blast Loading of Sandwich Beams: Regimes of Behaviour,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 46(17), pp. 3209–3221. [CrossRef]
Gibson, L. J., and Ashby, M. F., 2001, Cellular Solids: Structures and Properties, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Xue, Z. Y., and Hutchinson, J. W., 2006, “Crush Dynamics of Square Honeycomb Sandwich Cores,” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 65(13), pp. 2221–2245. [CrossRef]
Zou, Z., Reid, S. R., Tan, P. J., Li, S., and Harrigan, J. J., 2009, “Dynamic Crushing of Honeycombs and Features of Shock Fronts,” Int. J. Impact. Eng., 36(1), pp. 165–176. [CrossRef]
Hu, L. L., and Yu, T. X., 2010, “Dynamic Crushing Strength of Hexagonal Honeycombs,” Int. J. Impact. Eng., 37(5), pp. 467–474. [CrossRef]
Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen, Inc., 2001, ABAQUS User's Manual, Version 6.0, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
Chen, Y., 2008, “Study on the Shock Behavior and FSI Mechanism of the Hyperelastic Sandwich Coating Subjected to Water Blast,” Postdoctoral thesis, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Cole, R. H., 1948, Underwater Explosions, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Finite element models: (a) hexachiral honeycomb, (b) reentrant honeycomb, and (c) circular honeycomb

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Stress-strain curves of the neoprene with different hardness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The fitting data and test data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The transient response under the compression speed of 1 m/s: (a) hexachiral honeycomb, (b) reentrant honeycomb, and (c) circular honeycomb

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The transient response under the compression speed of 10 m/s: (a) hexachiral honeycomb, (b) reentrant honeycomb, and (c) circular honeycomb

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The transient response under the compression speed of 30 m/s: (a) hexachiral honeycomb, (b) reentrant honeycomb, and (c) circular honeycomb

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Reaction force-displacement curves: (a) hexachiral honeycomb, (b) reentrant honeycomb, and (c) circular honeycomb

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Absorbed energy-time curves under different compression speeds: (a) 1 m/s, (b)10 m/s, and (c) 30 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Underwater explosion model of reentrant honeycomb coating

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Underwater blast shock wave pressure–time curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The transient response of different coatings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Internal and kinetic energy-time curves of monolithic rubber coating and hexachiral coating

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Response curves: (a) pressure, (b) impulse, (c) velocity, (d) displacement, and (e) reaction force

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Energy-time curves of different coatings: (a) deformation energy, (b) kinetic energy, and (c) absorbed energy

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