0
Research Papers: Ocean Engineering

On the Dynamic Collapse of Cylindrical Shells Under Impulsive Pressure Loadings

[+] Author and Article Information
Luciana Loureiro da Silva Monteiro

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
CEFET/RJ,
Rio de Janeiro 20271.110, Brazil

Theodoro Antoun Netto

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
COPPE—Ocean Engineering Program,
P.O. Box 68.508,
Rio de Janeiro, 21.945.970, Brazil

Paulo Cesar da Camara Monteiro, Jr.

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
COPPE—Ocean Engineering Program,
P.O. Box 68.508,
Rio de Janeiro 21.945.970, Brazil

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received June 12, 2015; final manuscript received March 1, 2016; published online April 8, 2016. Editor: Solomon Yim.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 138(4), 041101 (Apr 08, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: OMAE-15-1044; doi: 10.1115/1.4033002 History: Received June 12, 2015; Revised March 01, 2016

The dynamic collapse of submerged cylindrical shells subjected to lateral impulsive pressure loads caused by underwater explosions is studied via coupled experimental and numerical work. Two sets of experiments were performed. Initially, 50.8 mm outside diameter aluminum tubes with diameter-to-thickness ratio of 32.3 were tested inside a pressure vessel. Hydrostatic pressure was applied quasi-statically up to the onset of collapse in order to obtain the collapse pressure of the tubes tested. Subsequently, similar tubes were tested in a 5 m × 5 m × 1.6 m deep water tank under various explosive charges placed at different distances. Explosive charges and standoff distances were combined so as to eventually cause collapse of the specimens. Dynamic pressures were recorded using a fit-for-purpose data acquisition system with sampling rates of up to 1 mega samples/s/channel. In parallel, finite element models were developed using commercially available software to simulate underwater explosion, pressure wave propagation, its interaction with a cylindrical shell, and the subsequent onset of dynamic collapse. The surrounding fluid was modeled as an acoustic medium, the shells as J2 flow theory based materials with isotropic hardening, and proper fluid–structure interaction elements accounting for relatively small displacements of the boundary between fluid and structure were used. Subsequently, the physical explosion experiments were numerically reproduced with good correlation between results. Finally, a parametric study was carried out to examine the effect on the pipe under different impulsive pressure loads.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Cole, R. H. , 1948, Underwater Explosions, Princeton University Press, London, Chap. 1.
Swisdak, M. M. , 1978, “ Explosion Effects and Properties: Part II—Explosion Effects in Water,” NSWC/WOL Technical Report, Dahlgren, VA, Report No. NSWC/WOL/TR-76-116, Vol. 76–116, pp. 1–109.
Kwon, Y. W. , and Fox, P. K. , 1993, “ Underwater Shock Response of a Cylinder Subjected to a Side-On Explosion,” Comput. Struct., 48(4), pp. 637–646. [CrossRef]
Wardlaw, A. B. , and Luton, J. A. , 2000, “ Fluid–Structure Interaction Mechanisms for Close-In Explosions,” Shock Vib., 7(5), pp. 265–275. [CrossRef]
Hung, C. F. , Lin, B. J. , Hwang-Fuu, J. J. , and Hsu, P. Y. , 2009, “ Dynamic Response of Cylindrical Shell Structures Subjected to Underwater Explosion,” Ocean Eng., 36(8), pp. 564–577. [CrossRef]
Liang, C. C. , and Tai, Y. S. , 2006, “ Shock Responses of a Surface Ship Subjected to Noncontact Underwater Explosions,” Ocean Eng., 33(5–6), pp. 748–772. [CrossRef]
Brett, J. M. , and Yiannakopolous, G. , 2008, “ A Study of Explosive Effects in Close Proximity to a Submerged Cylinder,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 35(4), pp. 206–225. [CrossRef]
Jones, R. A. , and Shin, Y. S. , 1990, “ Experimental Investigation of the Response and Failure Mechanisms of Circular Metal and Composite Plates to Underwater Explosion,” 61st Shock and Vibration Symposium, Pasadena, CA, pp. 163–178.
Rajendran, R. , and Narasimhan, K. , 2000, “ Underwater Shock Response of Circular HSLA Steel Plates,” Shock Vib., 7(4), pp. 251–262. [CrossRef]
Hung, C. F. , Hsu, P. Y. , and Hwang-Fuu, J. J. , 2005, “ Elastic Shock Response of an Airbacked Plate to Underwater Explosion,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 31(2), pp. 151–168. [CrossRef]
Yeh, M. K. , and Kyriakides, S. , 1986, “ On the Collapse of Inelastic Thick-Walled Tubes Under External Pressure,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 108(1), pp. 35–47. [CrossRef]
Alonso, F. D. , Ferradás, E. G. , Pérez, J. F. S. , Aznara, A. M. , Gimeno, J. R. , Jesús , and Alonso, J. M. , 2006, “ Characteristic Overpressure–Impulse–Distance Curves for the Detonation of Explosives, Pyrotechnics or Unstable Substances,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 19(6), pp. 724–728. [CrossRef]
Kyriakides, S. , and Netto, T. A. , 2000, “ On the Dynamics of Propagating Buckles in Pipelines,” Int. J. Solids Struct.,” 37(46–47), pp. 6843–6867. [CrossRef]
Kyriakides, S. , and Corona, E. , 2007, Mechanics of Offshore Pipelines, Volume 1: Buckling and Collapse, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK, Chap. 4.
Hibbitt, H. , Karlsson, B. , and Sorensen, P. , 2010, “ abaqus Analysis User's Manual 6.10,” Dassault Systèmes SIMULIA, Providence, RI.
Netto, T. A. , 1998, “ On the Dynamics and Arrest of Propagating Buckles in Offshore Pipelines,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Shin, S. Y. , 2004, “ Ship Shock Modeling and Simulation for Far-Field Underwater Explosion,” Comput. Struct., 82(23–26), pp. 2211–2219. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Engineering stress–strain curves of test specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Support apparatus of the tube built for the experimental tests

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of instrumentation layout (top view)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Complete pressure record for explosive weight (test T01)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Analytical solution and experimental results for pressure measured by sensor S0, (b) analytical solution and experimental results for pressure measured by sensor S1, (c) analytical solution and experimental results for pressure measured by sensor S2, and (d) analytical solution and experimental results for pressure measured by sensor S3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Peak pressure as function of explosive mass

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Peak pressure as function of standoff distance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Photos of collapsed tube SE01 after being subjected to 3 g explosive from distance of 0.150 m (test T11): (a) front view and (b) transverse view

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Finite element mesh for a quarter tube

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

(a) Comparison between measured and approximated shock waves: wave measured by sensor S2 and its analytical estimation using the wave measured at sensor S1 and (b) comparison between measured and approximated shock waves: wave measured by sensor S3 and its analytical estimation using the wave measured at sensor S2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Finite element mesh (one half of the fluid mesh is omitted)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The time history of the measured pressure at a standoff distance of 0.150 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of equivalent plastic strain results for all configuration tests at position nearest the charge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

(a) Sequence of equivalent plastic strain at t = 1 ms (standoff distance = 0.150 m and incident shock pressure show in Fig. 12), (b) sequence of equivalent plastic strain at t = 3 ms (standoff distance = 0.150 m and incident shock pressure show in Fig. 12), (c) sequence of equivalent plastic strain at t = 5 ms (standoff distance = 0.150 m and incident shock pressure show in Fig. 12), and (d) sequence of equivalent plastic strain at t = 8 ms (standoff distance = 0.150 m and incident shock pressure show in Fig. 12)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

(a) Sequence of equivalent plastic strain for different incidents square pressure profiles at case 1 (t = 1.0 ms), (b) sequence of equivalent plastic strain for different incidents square pressure profiles at case 2 (t = 2.0 ms), (c) sequence of equivalent plastic strain for different incidents square pressure profiles at case 3 (t = 0.5 ms), (d) sequence of equivalent plastic strain for different incidents square pressure profiles at case 4 (t = 1.0 ms), and (e) sequence of equivalent plastic strain for different incidents square pressure profiles at case 5 (4.0 ms)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

(a) Maximum equivalent plastic strain obtained from the test T10 (standoff = 0.200 m) and (b) maximum equivalent plastic strain obtained from the test T11 (standoff = 0.150 m)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

(a) Strain energy density in function of time (case 1), (b) equivalent plastic strain in function of time (case 1), (c) strain energy density in function of time (case 2), (d) equivalent plastic strain in function of time (case 2), (e) strain energy density in function of time (case 3), (f) equivalent plastic strain in function of time (case 3), (g) strain energy density in function of time (case 4), (h) equivalent plastic strain in function of time (case 4), (i) strain energy density in function of time (case 5), and (j) equivalent plastic strain in function of time (case 5)

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