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

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. 7

Reaction force-displacement curves: (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. 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. 9

Underwater explosion model of reentrant honeycomb coating

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. 13

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

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. 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. 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