0
Research Papers: Offshore Technology

Influence of Solid Rubber Coating on the Response of Floating Structure to Underwater Shock Wave

[+] Author and Article Information
Y. Chen

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical
System and Vibration,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
800 Dong Chuan Road,
Shanghai 200240, China
e-mail: chenyong@sjtu.edu.cn

F. Chen, H. X. Hua

State Key Laboratory of Mechanical
System and Vibration,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
800 Dong Chuan Road,
Shanghai 200240, China

Z. P. Du, W. Zhang

Naval Research Center,
Box 1303-14,
Beijing 100073, China

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 August 8, 2015; final manuscript received June 17, 2016; published online August 11, 2016. Assoc. Editor: David R. Fuhrman.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 138(6), 061302 (Aug 11, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: OMAE-15-1086; doi: 10.1115/1.4034200 History: Received August 08, 2015; Revised June 17, 2016

The influence of solid rubber coating on the transient response of floating structure to underwater shock wave is experimentally and numerically studied. A stiffened metal box coated with solid rubber tiles on the outer face is live-fire tested first. Based on the test results, a detailed numerical model is built by abaqus/explicit. Using the validated model, the influence of coating properties including density, nonlinear elasticity, compressibility and viscosity, on the wall pressure, global shock environment, and local bottom plate deformation of structure is investigated in detail. It is shown that solid rubber coating can change the incident pressure on the wet surface as well as the dynamic characteristics of the coated structure. The coating with high stiffness and low compressibility often enhances the high-frequency response on structure. The coating with high density and viscosity is helpful to reduce both the local deformation and global response.

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

References

Hu, G. Y. , Xia, F. , and Li, J. , 2010, “ The Transient Responses of Two-Layered Cylindrical Shells Attacked by Underwater Explosive Shock Waves,” Compos. Struct., 92(7), pp. 1551–1560. [CrossRef]
Yao, X. L. , Guo, J. , Feng, L. H. , and Zhang, A. M. , 2009, “ Comparability Research on Impulsive Response of Double Stiffened Cylindrical Shells Subjected to Underwater Explosion,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 36(5), pp. 754–762. [CrossRef]
Huang, H. , 1970, “ An Exact Analysis of the Transient Interaction of Acoustic Plane Waves With a Cylindrical Elastic Shell,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 37(4), pp. 1091–1099. [CrossRef]
Kwon, Y. E. , and Fox, P. K. , 1993, “ Underwater Shock Response of a Cylinder Subjected to a Side-On Explosion,” Comput. Struct., 48(4), pp. 637–645. [CrossRef]
Kwon, Y. E. , and Cunningham, R. E. , 1998, “ Comparison of USA-Dyna Finite Element Models for a Stiffened Shell Subjected to Underwater Shock,” Comput. Struct., 66(1), pp. 127–134. [CrossRef]
Liang, C. C. , and Tai, Y. S. , 2006, “ Shock Responses of a Surface Ship Subjected to Noncontact Underwater Explosions,” Ocean Eng., 33(5), pp. 748–772. [CrossRef]
Shin, Y. S. , 2004, “ Ship Shock Modeling and Simulation for Far-Field Underwater Explosion,” Comput. Struct., 82(23–26), pp. 2211–2220. [CrossRef]
Hung, C. F. , Lin, B. J. , Hwang, 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]
Li, L. J. , Jiang, W. K. , and Ai, Y. H. , 2011, “ Experimental Study on Dynamic Response and Shock Damage of Cylindrical Shell Structures Subjected to Underwater Explosion,” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 133(1), pp. 287–300. [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]
Brett, J. M. , Yiannakopoulos, G. , and van der Schaaf, P. J. , 2000, “ Time-Resolved Measurement of the Deformation of Submerged Cylinders Subjected to Loading From a Nearby Explosion,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 24(9), pp. 875–890. [CrossRef]
Ramajeyathilagam, R. , and Vendhan, C. P. , 2004, “ Deformation and Rupture of Thin Rectangular Plates Subjected to Underwater Shock,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 30(6), pp. 699–719. [CrossRef]
Gong, S. W. , and Lam, K. Y. , 2002, “ Analysis of Layered Composite Beam to Underwater Shock Including Structural Damping and Stiffness Effects,” Shock Vib., 9(6), pp. 283–291. [CrossRef]
Gong, S. W. , and Lam, K. Y. , 2006, “ On Attenuation of Floating Structure Response to Underwater Shock,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 32(11), pp. 1857–1877. [CrossRef]
Kim, C. H. , and Shin, Y. S. , 2013, “ Numerical Simulation of Surface Shield Effects to Water Blast Wave,” Ocean Eng., 60, pp. 99–113. [CrossRef]
Avachat, S. , and Zhou, M. , 2015, “ High-Speed Digital Imaging and Computational Modeling of Dynamic Failure in Composite Structures Subjected to Underwater Impulsive Loads,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 77, pp. 147–165. [CrossRef]
Avachat, S. , and Zhou, M. , 2016, “ Compressive Response of Sandwich Plates to Water-Based Impulsive Loading,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 93, pp. 196–210. [CrossRef]
Leblanc, J. , Gardner, N. , and Shukla, A. , 2013, “ Effect of Polyurea Coatings on the Response of Curved E-Glass/Vinyl Ester Composite Panels to Underwater Explosive Loading,” Composites, Part B, 44(1), pp. 565–574. [CrossRef]
Leblanc, J. , and Shukla, A. , 2015, “ Response of Polyurea-Coated Flat Composite Plates to Underwater Explosive Loading,” J. Compos. Mater., 49(8), pp. 965–980. [CrossRef]
Associates, L. A. T. , 1992, “ Test Plan for Microsphere Effects on Shock Waves,” Defense Nuclear Agency, Report No. LATA031-00, DNA-001-86-C-0024.
Kwon, Y. W. , Bergersen, J. K. , and Shin, Y. S. , 1994, “ Effect of Surface Coatings on Cylinders Subjected to Underwater Shock,” Shock Vib., 17, pp. 253–264. [CrossRef]
Brasek, T. P. , 1994, “ Effect of Surface Coatings on One-Dimensional System Subjected to Unit Step Pressure Wave,” M.S. thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
Chen, Y. , Wang, Y. , Zhang, Z. Z. , and Hua, H. X. , 2013, “ Experimental Research on the Responses of Neoprene Coated Cylinder Subjected to Underwater Explosions,” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 135(1), p. 011102. [CrossRef]
Woyak, D. B. , 2002, “ Modeling Submerged Structures Loaded by Underwater Explosions With ABAQUS/Explicit,” ABAQUS Users' Conference, p. 15.
Cichocki, K. , 1994, “ Computer Analysis of Dynamic Response Due to Underwater Explosion on Hybrid Structure,” ABAQUS Users' Conference, p. 10.
Adamczyk, R. , Cichocki, K. , and Ruchwa, M. , 1997, “ Analysis of the Shock Response of an Underwater Structure Subjected to Far-Field Explosion,” ABAQUS Users Conference, p. 11.
DuBois, P. A. , 2006, “ Material Behaviour of Polymers Under Impact Loading,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 32(5), pp. 725–740. [CrossRef]
Yang, L. M. , Shim, V. P. W. , and Lim, C. T. , 2000, “ A Visco-Hyperelastic Approach to Modelling the Constitutive Behaviour of Rubber,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 24(6–7), pp. 545–561. [CrossRef]
HooFatt, M. S. , and Ouyang, X. , 2007, “ Integral-Based Constitutive Equation for Rubber at High Strain Rates,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 44(20), pp. 6491–6506. [CrossRef]
Hibbitt, Karlsson, Sorensen, Inc., 2010, “ ABAQUS/Explicit User's Manual, Version 6.0.,” Hibbitt, Karlsson, Sorensen, Inc., Rhode Island, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) The stiffened metal box, (b) the box coated with 91 pieces of solid rubber tiles at the bottom, and (c) the cross-sectional shape of the coated box

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The sketch map of the live fire test on the floating box

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) The sketch map and (b) the practical locations of the measuring points including strain gage and accelerometers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The uniaxial test data and fitted curves using different hyperelastic models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The planar test data and fitted curves using different hyperelastic models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The shear relaxation test data and fitted curves using Prony series

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The geometry and finite element model of the floating box and fluid

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

The mesh of water domain and acoustic boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The free-field pressure history and the theoretical value (1 kg TNT, 3.5 m)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The typical pressure (a), acceleration (b), and strain (c) time histories in event 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison between (a) the acceleration peak and (b) strain peak of the bare box and the rubber-coated box

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison between numerical and test results of velocity histories: (a) A1, event 3; (b) A4, event 3; (c) A1, event 7; (d) A4, event 7; (e) A1, event 5; and (f) A4, event 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison between the strain amplitude of the numerical and test results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

(a) Velocity comparison for coatings with different densities; (b) shock response spectrum comparison for coatings with different densities (dotted line— ρ=800 kg/m3, solid line— ρ=1600 kg/m3, dashed line— ρ=2400 kg/m3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

(a) Wall pressure and (b) strain peaks of different locations for the coatings with different densities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

(a) Velocity comparison for coatings with different stiffness and (b) shock response spectrum comparison for coatings with different stiffness (dotted line—stiffness decreased by 50%, solid line—the original stiffness, dashed line—stiffness increased by 50%)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

(a) Wall pressure and (b) the strain peaks of different locations for coatings with different stiffness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

(a) Velocity comparison for coatings with different Poisson ratio and (b) shock response spectrum comparison for coatings with different Poisson ratio (dotted line— υ=0.445, solid line— υ=0.465, dashed line— υ=0.485)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

(a) Wall pressure and (b) the strain peaks of different locations for coatings with different Poisson ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

(a) Velocity comparison for coatings with different viscosity and (b) shock response spectrum comparison for coatings with different viscosity (dotted line— τ1G=0.0001, solid line— τ1G=0.001, dashed line— τ1G=0.01)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

(a) Wall pressure and (b) the strain peaks of different locations for coatings with different viscosity

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