Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772 www.elsevier.

com/locate/oceaneng

Shock responses of a surface ship subjected to noncontact underwater explosions

Cho-Chung Lianga, Yuh-Shiou Taib,*
a

Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering, Da-Yeh University, 112 Shan-Jeau Road, Dah-Tsuen, Changhwa 515, Taiwan, ROC b Department of Civil Engineering, R.O.C. Military Academy, 1 Wei-Wu Road, Fengshan 830, Taiwan, ROC Received 22 September 2004; accepted 27 March 2005 Available online 15 August 2005

Abstract In combat operations, a warship can be subjected to air blast and underwater shock loading, which if detonated close to the ship can damage the vessel form a dished for hull plating or more serious holing of the hull. This investigation develops a procedure which couples the nonlinear nite element method with doubly asymptotic approximation method, and which considers the effects of transient dynamic, geometrical nonlinear, elastoplastic material behavior and uidstructure interaction. This work addresses the problem of transient responses of a 2000-ton patrol-boat subjected to an underwater explosion. The KSFZ0.8 is adopted to describe the shock severity. Additionally, the shock loading history along keel, the acceleration, velocity and displacement time histories are presented. Furthermore, the study elucidates the plastic zone spread phenomena and deformed diagram of the ship. Information on transient responses of the ship to underwater shock is useful in designing ship hulls so as to enhance their resistance to underwater shock damage. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Underwater explosions; Fluidstructure interaction; Surface ship

1. Introduction Underwater explosions are very important and complex problems for naval surface ships or submarines, since detonations near a ship can damage the vessel form a dished for

* Corresponding author. Fax: C886 7 745 6290. E-mail address: ystai@cc.cma.edu.tw (Y.-S. Tai).

0029-8018/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2005.03.011

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

749

hull plating or causing more serious holing. Analyzing these problems requires understanding many different areas, including the process of underwater explosions, shock wave propagation, explosion gas bubble behavior, nonlinear structural dynamics and uidstructure interaction phenomena. Previous literature dealt with the effectiveness of underwater explosions on marine structures was restricted in this area for reasons of national security. This investigation develops a procedure to examine the transient responses of a ship hull subjected to noncontact underwater explosions. The dynamic responses of submerged structures impinged by underwater explosion have received attention since the 1950s. Many investigators studied the transient response of structures shocked by acoustic waves, and the interaction between structures and acoustic waves, and these investigations have considered a variety of structural geometry and boundary conditions. Carrier (1951) proposed a solution for an innite, elastic, circular cylindrical shell submerged in an innite uid medium and impacted by a transverse transient, acoustic wave. The solution developed by Carrier resulted from transforming the governing equation using a modal expansion of the shell displacements and then solving the transformed equations. The shell displacements, uid pressures and shell velocities were expressed in terms of modal inversion integrals. Mindlin and Bleich (1953) proposed the early time asymptotic solution for the rst three modes of the series solution for the case of a transverse step incident wave. Due to the series approach not being able to calculate the exact value of initial redial acceleration of the shell at the rst point of impact. Payton (1960) applied double integral transform techniques and obtained the asymptotic solution for the early time total responses of the shell and the uid motion by the method of steepest descent. Meanwhile, Haywood (1958) introduced an approximate relation between the uid pressure and the velocity of a cylindrical wave and used it to obtain the approximate modal solutions for the rst three modes of the shell response. Since 1969, Huang has published a series of investigations dealing with the transient interaction of structures and acoustic waves. These studies eliminated some of the assumptions made in earlier investigations and covered a variety of structural geometry interacting with a point loading, plane, or spherical waves. Huang employed series expansion methods to investigate the interaction of plane (Huang, 1969)/spherical (Huang et al., 1971) acoustic waves with an elastic spherical shell. That investigation presented the exact solution of the problem, and also provided illustrative examples for subsequent investigations. Huang (1974) dealt with the transient response of a large elastic plane to the impact of an incident spherical shock wave. His investigation employed Laplace and Hankel transform techniques to investigate the uidstructure interaction. The work displays the bending effect of a plate impacted by a convex acoustic wave. Huang (1979) used classical techniques for separating variable and Laplace transforms to solve the wave equations governing the uid motions and shell equations of motion. This work studied the transient response of two uid-coupled cylindrical elastic shells to an incident pressure pulse was studied. Huang and Wang (1985) presented the ranges within which asymptotic uidstructure interaction theories predict acoustic radiation accurately. According to their results, added mass and plane wave approximation (PWA) is appropriate for very low- and high-frequency situations. Huang (1986) subsequently addressed the linear interaction of pressure pulses with a submerged spherical shell. In his investigation Huang

750

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

applied the boundary element method, which is based upon the exact Kirchhoff Retarded Potential integral solution to the linear wave equation, in conjunction with the nite element method. Recently, Huang and Kiddy (1995) studied the transient interaction of a spherical shell with an underwater explosion shock wave and subsequent pulsating bubble, based on their approach on the nite element method (PISCES 2DELK) coupled with the EulerianLagrangian method. According to their results, the structural response, as well as interactions among the initial shock wave, the structure, its surrounding media and the explosion bubble must be considered. In the 1970s, Geers systematically developed many theories in the technical area of transient interaction between a submerged spherical shell and an acoustic wave. Most notably, Geers (1971) summarized the effects in the transient uidstructure interaction. The investigation concluded that retarded potential integral, spatial domain mapping, and surface approximation methods offer the optimum means of analyzing complex submerged structures. Geers (1978) sequentially studied the transient motions of submerged spherical shell subjected to step waves, and simultaneously examined the free vibration and forced response characteristics of rst-order doubly asymptotic approximation (DAA1) and second-order doubly asymptotic approximation (DAA2). Geers and Felippa (1983) not only used the rst- and second-order DAA2 for steady-state vibration analysis of submerged spherical shells, but also examined the accuracy of DAA1 forms. Furthermore, Tang and Yen (1970) used the Laplace transform and Watsons transform to study the interaction of a plane acoustic step wave with an elastic spherical shell, while considering the effects of membrane, bending, rotators inertia, and shear deformation. Kwon and Fox (1993) applied numerical and experimental techniques to investigate the nonlinear dynamic response of a cylinder subjected to a sideon, far-eld underwater explosion. Comparisons between the strain gage measurements and the numerical results at different locations revealed a good agreement. Bathe et al. (1995) developed a new effective three-eld mixed nite element formulation for analyzing acoustic uids and their interactions with structures. The discretization use displacements, pressure and a vorticity moment were variables with appropriate boundary conditions. Shin and Chisum (1997) employed a coupled LagrangianEulerian nite element analysis technique as a basis to investigate the response of an innite cylindrical and a spherical shell subjected to a plane acoustic step wave. Ergin (1997) presented experimental measurements and theoretically calculations of a cylindrical shell subjected to an impulse, and the dynamic response is predicted based on the DAA method. Kwon and Cunningham (1998) studied submerged structures subjected to an underwater explosion and developed a technique which investigated for smearing of stiffeners. Meanwhile, Kwons paper represented a cylindrical shell by a beam with a surface of revolution (SOR) and the interface of a cylindrical shell with a SOR beam. Liang et al. (1998) presented a procedure based on the methodology of Hibbit and Karlsson to analyze the elastoplastic response and critical regions of an entire pressure hull subjected to an underwater explosion. Liang et al. (2000) investigated the response of a submerged spherical shell to a strong shock wave based on DAA2. Using full-scale trials to examine the response of marine structures subjected to underwater explosions is very costly and is limited by environmental safety concerns. Meanwhile, the physical phenomena involved in these explosions cannot be scaled in a practical experimental setup. Additionally, for simple geometric closed-forms solutions

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

751

can be found, but for practical structures, numerical simulation is unavoidable. The brief review above reveals that in the past decades many investigations have provided preliminary results concerning the uidstructure interaction of submerged spherical shells. However, the transient interaction of a surface ship hull with an underwater shock wave, has received limited attention. Greenhorn (1988) described a computer code (SSVUL) which can assess the vulnerability of a surface ship to underwater attack by blast weapons. Meanwhile, Shin and Santiago (1998) used a coupled USA-NASTRAN-CFA as a basis to investigate the effects of uidstructure interaction and cavitation on the response of a surface ship subjected to an underwater explosion. Finally, Hung et al. (1999) presented a numerical simulation of a ship-like structure subjected to underwater explosions in an innite uid domain. This study aims to develop a procedure that considers factors such as transient dynamic response, geometrically nonlinear, elastoplastic material behavior, and the uidstructure interaction effect, to investigate the shock responses of a surface ship subjected to underwater explosion. The nonlinear nite element method based on the methodology of Hibbit and Karlsson (1979) is employed to model the structure, and the boundary element method based on doubly asymptotic approximation (DAA) is used to model the uid domain. Meanwhile, the incident pressure from the explosive charge is determined according to the empirical equation of Cole (1948). Furthermore, the most widely used keel shock factor (KSF) value is adopted for the shock intensity consideration. This study selects a 2000-ton patrol-boat subjected to shock intensity KSFZ0.8 for numerical study. Additionally, the surface pressure, acceleration, velocity, displacement time histories and plastic zone progress of the ship are also presented. Information on the transient response of the ship to underwater shock is useful for designing a ship hull to enhance its resistance to underwater shock damage.

2. Theoretical background To study the transient dynamic elastoplastic response of surface ship subjected to a shock wave, this work initially applies an incremental update Lagrangian nite element procedure based on Hibbit and Karlssons methodology. The procedure used the Newmark time implicit integration scheme and NewtonRaphson method, which includes dynamic equilibrium interaction considering the half-step residual convergence tolerance proposed by Hibbit (1979). The plastic relations, based on the von-Mises yield criterion, assume the isotropic-hardening rule for the elastoplastic material behavior of the material under study. The governing equation of the uid medium based on the doubly asymptotic approximation (Geers, 1971, 1978; DeRuntz et al., 1980; DeRuntz, 1989) is advantageous in that it models the surrounding uid medium as a membrane on the wet surface of structure actually in contact with the homogeneous uid. The effect of cavitation on a structure modeled with a surrounding uid also included. The uid motion is described only in term of the response of the wet surface, which is then linked by compatible relations to the structural response. In addition, the staggered solution procedure is adopted herein to perform the doubly asymptotic approximation.

752

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

2.1. Governing equations In this section, we present the structural response equation, which is based on the dynamic virtual work equation. The uid and coupled uidstructure equation are based on the doubly asymptotic approximation. 2.1.1. Structural response equation For a fully or partially submerged structure subjected to an underwater shock wave, the structure may exhibit material and geometrical nonlinear behavior. The formulation is based on the dynamic virtual work equation. Let the body force at any point within the volume V be fb, and the surface force at any point on surface S be fs. The governing equation of structural response is _e due dV C tij eij dV K fib due dV K fis due dS Z 0 e due dV C rs au rs u (1)
Ve
e Ke Ke

Ve

Ve

Ve

Se

where u , u and u are the displacement, velocity and acceleration, respectively, of the nodal at the element. Additionally, tij and eij represent the stress and strain tensor, respectively. Furthermore, rs and ac are the material density and the mass proportional damping factor, respectively. Based on the theorem of virtual displacement, the governing equation of the problem can be expressed in matrix form as g C Cs fu _g C Ks fug Z ff g Ms fu where Ms Z K s Z
Ve

(2)
Ve

rs N T N dV ; BT DBdV ;

C s Z ff g Z

rs ac N T N dV

N T f dV

Ve

Ve

{u} and {f} are the structural displacement and the external force vector, respectively. Additionally, [Ms], [Cs] and [Ks] represent the structural mass, damping and stiffness matrices, respectively. [N], [B], [D] are the shape function, strain matrix and matrix of elasticplastic tangent stiffness, respectively. For excitation of a submerged structure by an acoustic wave, {f} can be expressed as f f g ZK GAf fPI g C fPS g (3)

where {PI} and {PS} are the nodal pressure vector for wet-surface uid mesh pertaining to the incident wave and scattered wave, respectively. Where [Af] represents the diagonal area matrix associated with an element in the uid mesh, and [G] represents the transformation matrix relating the structural and uid nodal surface forces. 2.1.2. Fluid surface equation For a structure submerged in an innite acoustic medium, the governing equation of the wet surface of the shell is based on the Doubly Asymptotic Approximation (Geers, 1971,

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

753

1978; DeRuntz et al., 1980). The second-order approximation (DAA2) is given in matrix notation by s g C rf cAf fP _ s g C rf cUf Af fPs g Z rf cMf fv _s g C Uf Mf vs Mf fP where Uf Z hrf cAf Mf K1 (5) (4)

[Mf] denotes the symmetric uid mass matrix, h is scale parameter bounded as 0%h%1, and rf and c are the uid density and sound velocity, respectively. Additionally, {ns} is the vector of scattered-wave uid particle velocities normal to the structural surface. 2.1.3. Coupled uidstructure interaction equation The uid surface Eq. (4) is coupled to the structural response by the following equation _g KfvI g fvs g Z GT fu (6)

where {nI} is the uid incident velocity. The coupled uidstructure interaction equations can then be obtained by introducing Eq. (3) into Eq. (2), as well as, introducing Eq. (6) and its derivative into Eq. (4) g C Cs fu _ g C Ks fug ZK Ms fu GAf fPI g C fPs g s g C rf cAf fq _s g C rf cUf Af fqs g Mf fq g Kf v _I g C Uf Mf GT fu _g KfvI g Z rf cMf GT fu where fqs g Z fPs tgdt
0 t

(7)

(8)

(9)

Multiplying by [Af][Mf]K1, Eq. (8) can be rewritten as follows:

2 s g C rf cDf1 fq _ s g C r2 Af fq f c Df2 fqs g

g Kfv _I g C rf cDf1 GT fu _ g KfvI g Z rf cAf GT fu where the [Df1]Z[Af][Mf]K1[Af] and Df2 Z Af Mf K1 Af Mf K1 Af . 2.2. Solution method and convergence tolerance

(10)

The NewtonRaphson method and the Newmark implicit time integration scheme were used as numerical techniques for solving the structural equations. In addition, the uid equation is treated with the staggered solution procedure (Park et al., 1977). The convergence tolerance of the dynamic equilibrium equation is based on the half-step residual proposed by Hibbit (1979). Fig. 1 displays a ow chart of the analysis procedure.

754

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

Fig. 1. The denition of HSF and KSF.

3. Shock pressure of underwater explosions The sudden energy release associated with the underwater explosions of a conventional high explosive or nuclear weapon generates a shock wave and the forms a superheated, highly compressed gas bubble in the surrounding water (Cole, 1948; Keil, 1961). Of the total energy released from a 1500-lb TNT underwater explosion, approximately 53% goes into the shock wave and 47% goes into the pulsation of the bubble. Most cases demonstrate that the damage done to marine structures (such as the surface ship and

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

755

submarine) occurs early on and is due to the strikes of the shock wave. This investigation only considers the effects of the shock wave. The underwater shock wave generated by the explosion is superimposed on the hydrostatic pressure. The pressure history P(t) of the shock wave at a xed location starts with an instantaneous pressure increase to a peak Pmax (in less than 10K7 s) followed by a decline which initially is usually approximated by an exponential function. Thus, according to the empirical equation of Cole (1948) Pt Z Pmax eKt=l ; t R t1 (11)

where Pmax is the peak pressure in the shock front, t is the time elapsed since the arrival of the shock, and l is the exponential decay time constant. The peak pressure and the decay constant depend upon the size of the explosive charge and the stand off distance from this charge at which the pressure is measured. The peak pressure Pmax and decay constant l in Eq. (11) are expressed by  1=3 A1 W Pmax Z K1 MPa (12) R
1=3

l Z K2 W

W 1=3 R

A2

millisecond; ms

(13)

where K1, K2, A1 and A2 are constants which depend on explosive charge type when different explosives are used the input constants are according to Table 1 (Cole, 1948; Smith and Hetherington, 1994; Reid, 1996), W is the weight of the explosive charge in kilograms and R is the distance between explosive charge and target in meters. Moreover, Cole (1948) gave further information on the systematic presentation of the physical effects associated with underwater explosions, and this should be consulted. When the pressure from an underwater explosion impinges upon a exible surface such as the hull of surface ship, the reected pressure on the uidstructure interaction surface can be predicted reasonable accurately, based on Taylors plate theory (Taylor, 1950). For an air backed plate of mass per unit area (m) subjected to an incident plane shock wave Pi(t), a reection wave of pressure Pr(t) will depart from the plate. Let np(t) be the velocity of the plate and applying Newtons second law of motion m dv p Z Pi C P r dt (14)

Table 1 Shock wave parameters for various explosive charges Constants K1 A1 K2 A2 Type HBX-1 53.51 1.144 0.092 K0.247 TNT 52.12 1.180 0.0895 K0.185 PETN 56.21 1.194 0.086 K0.257 Nuclear 1.06!104 1.13 3.627 K0.22

756

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

The uid particle velocities behind the incident and reected shock wave ni(t) and nr(t), respectively, the velocity of the plate becomes vp t Z vi t Kvr t (15)

Incidence and reected shock wave pressures are dened as PiZrfcvi and PrZrfcvr. The rf and c are the uid density and sound velocity, respectively. Substituting the pressure into Eq. (14) and utilizing Eq. (11) then the Pr(t) can be expressed as Pr t Z Pi t Krf cvp Z Pmax eKt=l Krf cvp Then the equation of motion can be rewritten as m dv p C rf cvp Z 2Pmax eKt=l dt (17) (16)

Eq. (17) is a rst-order linear differential equation. Solving the differential equation obtain the velocity of the plate vp Z 2Pmax l Kbt=l Kt=l e Ke m1 Kb 2Pmax Kt=l e Kb eKbt=l 1 Kb (18)

where the bZ(rfcl/m), and tO0. The total pressure on the plate is given by Pt t Z 2Pi t Krf cvp Z (19)

In Eq. (19), as b becomes large (light weight plate), the total pressure will become negative at a early time. In reality, the pressure cannot be negative in water since the water cannot sustain the tension. As the pressure reduces to vapor pressure, local cavitation occurs in front of the plate.

4. Shock factor Since a ship can be subjected to a large variety of underwater explosion (variation in charge weight, standoff distance, relative attack orientation), the relation between attack severity and geometry must be determined. The attack severity for high explosive charges such as mines is usually described by shock factor which is proportional to the energy density of the shock wave arriving at the ships hull (Keil, 1961; Reid, 1996). Because the shock energy ux density is given by 1 EZ rf c
6 :7l 0

Pt2 dt

(20)

where the pressure time history can be obtained by Eq. (11), and then the energy density at a distance R from the explosion of W of trinitrotoluene (TNT) is EZ P2 max l 2rf c (21)

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

757

or approximately expressed as E z 94:34 W R2 (22)

For charge weight (W) and standoff distance (R), various combinations can generate various pressuretime curves. Nevertheless, for the observation that the energy released from various pressure loadings for structures indicates is roughly equal. Higher shock factors represent an increasing proportion of energy being imparted to the ship by the underwater shock. Thus, the underwater shock resistance of a vessel can specify at the design stage in terms of a shock factor. The factor may be chosen that theoretically ensures that a vessel will withstand a particular threat or as a value that experience has shown reasonable for the type of vessel. For damage predictions for submarines, this factor is referred to as the Hull Shock Factor (HSF) (Bishop, 1993; Reid, 1996; OHara and Cunniff, 1993). The HSF represents the energy contained in a shock wave which may contribute to damaging hull plating on the ship (see Fig. 2a). It has been found that p HSF Z W =R (23) where W is the weight of explosive in TNT equivalence (kg). R is the stand off distance from the charge to the target (m). For a surface ship, where the response is largely vertical, it is necessary to correct for the angle at which the shock wave strikes the target. When the charge position is measured relative to the keel of the ship and the angle of incidence of the shock wave with respect to the ship is also considered the value is referred to as the Keel Shock Factor (KSF) (Bishop, 1993; Reid, 1996). In this situation the above equation must also be multiplied by (1Ccos q)/2, then the KSF can be expressed as p W 1 C cos q KSF Z (24) ! 2 R where q is the angle between a vertical line and a line drawn from the charge to the keel of the ship (see Fig. 2b). This work adopts the KSF to study the shock resistance of a surface ship.

5. Numerical Example2000-ton patrol-boat subjected to underwater shocks This investigation selected a 2000-ton patrol-boat subjected to underwater explosions to study the transient response. A simplied notional ship design was adopted due to the complexity of a global ship model, and this design was derived from an earlier design modeled by the United Ship Design and Development Center (USDDC) of Taiwan.

758

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

Transient Response of surface ship subjected to underwater explosions

boundary element method

finite element method Calculate the mass and stiffness matrix Force vector { f } Dynamic Analysis

fluid wet-surface mesh

mesh geometry

element definitions Double Asymptotic Approximation

element definitions

fluid properties

material properties

constraints

constraints

fluid equation

structural equation

Establish the coupled fluidstructure interaction eqs.

solve the displacement and veloctiy at t+t compute structural restoring forces and transform into fluid node and reform the fluid equation at t+t

estimate the structural force kSu at t+t from the extrapolation of current values and past values transform the structural force kSu into fluid node also involves the know incident pressure at t+t Time Intergration

re-solve the fluid equation and obtain refined pressure at t+t

solve fluid equation and obtain preliminary of pressure at t+t

transform fluid pressure into structural nodal forces

Data output structural responses and shock wave pressure

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the analysis procedure.

The shock intensity consideration KSF is set at 0.8 and cavitation effects are considered. Moreover, for the following results is also presented. 1. The shock loading history at different keel locations. 2. Acceleration, velocity and displacement responses. 3. The plastic zone progress.

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

759

5.1. Description of problem 5.1.1. Model description Fig. 3 schematically depicts the 2000-ton patrol-boat analyzed herein, which has a length of 90.0 m, breadth of 13.2 m, depth of 7.6 m and draft of 3.8 m. Additionally, the gure illustrates the locations of the major cabins. The shell thickness is modeled using the average thickness technique. For the stiffener, the cross-sectional area is blended into the plate cross-sectional area. The method and smear ratio are based on the method of Kwon and Cunningham (1998), and Table 2 lists the relative plate thickness at various locations. Due to the symmetry of the structure, only half of the patrol-boat must be modeled. The problem is modeled for the structure using three-node thin shell elements with ve degrees of freedom pre nodeux, uy, ux, qx, qy (Fig. 4). The uid medium comprises three-node shelluid interface elements with three degrees of freedom pre nodeux, uy, ux (Fig. 5). Fig. 6 depicts the nite element mesh diagram with 1828 nodes, 5074 shell elements and 1075 uid interface elements, and the uid for the draft as a interface element covers the wet surface of the structures. The symmetry boundary conditions are imposed on the yz plane of the centerline (CL). 5.1.2. Material properties The 2000-ton patrol-boat was constructed of steel (ASTM A106 grade C), and this work adopts the hardening rule of elasticperfectly plastic. Meanwhile, the superstructure was constructed by aluminum (6061-T6 Alloy). The material properties of the patrol-boat are described as follows: (1) Steel: Mass density (kg/m3): 7860.0 Poissons ratio: 0.3 Youngs modulus (GPa): 204.0 Yield stress (MPa): 351.7

Fig. 3. The geometrical conguration of the 2000-ton patrol-boat.

760

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

Table 2 Equivalent plate thickness Structural location Outer plate Bottom plate Bulkhead Main deck First deck Tank top Superstructure Plate thickness (mm) 12.4 16.4 9.6 9.0 7.0 10.0 8.3

(2) Aluminum: Mass density (kg/m3): 2710.0 Poissons ratio: 0.33 Youngs modulus (GPa): 70.0 Yield stress (MPa): 300.0 The material properties of seawater are described as: Mass density (kg/m3): 999.6 Sound speed (m/s): 1461.2

5.1.3. Shock loading This study adopts the Keel Shock Factor p (KSF) to describe the shock severity. The work assumes the KSF value is 0.8 KSF Z W =D ! 1 C cos q=2 and the charge is positioned directly underneath the keel (qZ0, pFig. 6). Eq. (5) becomes the relationship between weight and distance KSF Z 0:8 Z W =D, and then the shock pressure-time
n Node 1 S2

Integration pt. S1 i

Node 3 Z Node 2 Y

X
Fig. 4. The 3-node doubly curved thin shell element.

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

761

ship-like structure

Fluid Interface element

Node 1

Pressure

Node 3 Z Node 2 Y

X
Fig. 5. The 3-node shell-uid interface elements.

curves can be generated by empirical equation, namely Eqs. (1)(3). According to Table 1, for the TNT explosive material, the constants K1, K2, A1 and A2 are 52.1, 1.18, 0.0895, and K0.185, respectively. For charge weight (W) and standoff distance (R), various combinations can generate various pressuretime curves Pt Z Pmax eKt=l .

Fig. 6. Finite element model of the 2000-ton patrol-boat.

762

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

For example, when KSFZ0.8, then if the weight WZ64.0 kg, the standoff distance R is 10.0 m, if WZ576.0 kg, then R is 30.0 m and if WZ1600.0 kg, then R is 50.0 m, and so on. Nevertheless, for the observation that the total energy released from various pressure loadings for structures indicates is roughly equal (60.38 m kPa), the relationship can be calculated by Eq. (22). This study, assumes that WZ576.0 kg, and RZ30.0 m. 5.2. Results and discussion Figs. 713 present the numerical results for the transient response of a patrol-boat subjected to an underwater explosion shock wave. These results reveal the following: 5.2.1. The shock loading history at different locations along keel For charges close to the ship, the shock waves propagate as spherical waves moving towards the structure. It is apparent that different portions of the ship will encounter different peak responses, depending on distance from the explosion and angle of attack. Fig. 7 displays the uid pressure history at locations A, B, C, D, E along the keel. The greatest peak pressure occurred at location C, since the charge was positioned directly beneath here, followed by locations D and B, and with locations E and A experiencing the lowest peak pressure, a result that meets expectations. The peak pressure at location C (the standoff point) instantly rises to 10.46 MPa at tZ0.25 ms (Fig. 7(a)). Meanwhile, for locations D and B, the peak pressures, of 5.86 and 6.48 MPa arrive at tZ4.75 ms (Fig. 7(b)) and tZ5.0 ms (Fig. 7(c)), respectively. These values are roughly 38.0543.98% below the location C response. Finally, for locations E and A, the peak pressures 4.25 and 4.25 MPa arrive at tZ11.25 ms (Fig. 7(d)) and tZ17.0 ms (Fig. 7(e)), respectively. These two values are roughly 59.0% lower than the location C response. 5.2.2. Acceleration, velocity and displacement response at different locations through the ship To examinate the responses for different locations in the ship, several important locations (such as main engine room (location B2), steering gear room (location B3), bow thruster room (location B1), main deck (location M) and combat direct tower (location S) throughout the ship were chosen. Figs. 810 display the acceleration, velocity and displacement responses at these different locations. Fig. 8 indicates that the acceleration responses in the vertical, athwartships, and fore-aft directions. Due to the charge being located below the main engine room (location B2), the peak acceleration 2662.0 g at tZ0.25 ms in the vertical direction suddenly rises. The athwartships and fore-aft peak acceleration responses are 1413.0 and 946.0 g, that is approximately 53.1% of the vertical acceleration response. Following the peak response, the response rapidly decays, after about 5.07.0 ms, and then the response tends to steadies. Successively, in the steering gear room (location B3) the peak acceleration response at tZ11.75 ms is 1054.0 g in the vertical direction. Meanwhile, in the bow thruster room (location B1) the peak acceleration response occurs at tZ19.5 ms and is 398.0 g in the fore-aft direction. These values are about 39.59 and 14.95% of the location B2 vertical acceleration response. The results for the main deck (location M) are different

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

763

12.0

Pressure (MPa)

8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (ms)

(a) Location C
12.0

Pressure (MPa)

8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (ms)

(b) Location D
12.0

Pressure (MPa)

8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (ms)

(c) Location B
12.0

Pressure (MPa)

8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (ms)

(d) Location E
12.0

Pressure (MPa)

8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (ms)

(e) Location A
Fig. 7. Shock pressure history at different keel locations.

764

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

Direction Location Vertical direction

4.0 2.0 2.662

Athwartships direction
4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 1.413

Fore and aft direction

4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.946

B2

0.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.054

2.0 0.0

B3
Acceleration ( 103 ), g

0.452

2.0 0.0

0.0

Acceleration ( 103 ), g

2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.597 0.359

2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.464 1.183 0.174

Acceleration ( 103 ), g

2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0

0.471

B1

0.398

0.770

0.439

0.0 2.0 0.525 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Note: Athwartships (x-direction), Vertical (y-direction), Fore and aft (z-direction)

Fig. 8. Acceleration response underwater shock loading.

from the response of location B2. Unlike location B2, the peak acceleration responses for the main deck are 1183.0 and 770.0 g and occur in the athwartships and fore-aft directions. The peak acceleration response in the vertical direction is 597.0 g, just 50.46% of that in the athwartships direction. The main reason for this phenomena is the hull hogging response induced by the underwater explosion. In the combat direct tower (location S), the peak acceleration response in the vertical direction is at 525.0 g. Meanwhile, the athwartships direction response is 464.0 g and the fore-aft direction response is 439.0 g. These values are roughly 19.72 and 16.5% lower than those of the vertical acceleration response at location B2. Besides, due to the shock waves propagating spherically, they

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

765

Direction Location Vertical direction

12.0 9.674 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0

Athwartships direction
12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0

Fore and aft direction

12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0

B2

2.462

2.207

5.451

B3
Velocity (mps)

0.822

2.223

Velocity (mps)

B1

12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0

2.774

12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0

Velocity (mps)

0.521

12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0

2.814

4.459

2.781

1.983

6.052

12.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0

1.275

2.268

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Note: Athwartships (x-direction), Vertical (y-direction), Fore and aft (z-direction)

Fig. 9. Velocity response underwater shock loading.

arrive rst in locations B2 and M, at 0.25 and 6.5 ms, then following arrival in location S, at 7.25 ms, and nally reach locations B3 and B1 at 11.75 and 15.0 ms. Fig. 9 represents the velocity response in the vertical, athwartships, fore-aft directions. For the locations B2, B3, M and S, the greatest velocities all occurred in the vertical direction, followed by the athwartships and fore-aft directions. Meanwhile, the greatest velocity at location B1 was in the fore-aft direction, followed by the vertical direction, and nally the athwartships direction. Fig. 10 displays the displacement responses. For all locations, the greatest displacement was in the vertical direction, followed by the fore-aft direction, while the athwartships direction consistently had the lowest displacement. Such behavior displays an evident

766

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

Direction Vertical direction Location

10 8 6 4 2 0 2 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 6.05
0.12 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18

Athwartships direction
0.088

Fore and aft direction

0.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2

B2

0.20

0.029

0.34

B3
Displacement (cm)

2.26

Displacement (cm)

B1

1.48

0.12 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18

Displacement (cm)

0.036

0.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.86

1.08

7.71

0.28

0.173 0.095

5.49

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Note: Athwartships (x-direction), Vertical (y-direction), Fore and aft (z-direction)

Fig. 10. Displacement response underwater shock loading.

difference in the order of displacement in the three directions. The peak vertical direction displacements at tZ45.0 ms were observed at locations B2, M, S, B3, B1 and were 6.05, 7.71, and 5.49, 2.26 and 1.48 cm. These results reveal that during the initial shock, the middle locations (B2, M, S) experience upward motion and cavities/hollows/holes form. This behavior presents the hogging response. Fig. 11 illustrates a sequence of deformed congurations during the analysis process. The hull of the patrol-boat was constructed from the steel, and the superstructure was constructed with aluminum. Fig. 12 focuses on the AA section to investigate the dynamic response of the amidships cross-section. At the keel the peak vertical acceleration 2520.0 g

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

767

Fig. 11. Deformation of patrol-boat subjected to underwater shock (displacement magnication factor is 100).

and velocity 7.70 mps are suddenly rising, and the following responses rapidly decline. The high frequency motion of the keel is very evident. On the main deck, the peak acceleration is 533.0 g and velocity is 6.252 mps. The acceleration response is more alleviative than the keel response, and is does not display the rapid initial rise to a peak value. Physically, the keel is struck directly by the incident shock wave, and the evidently

768

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

02 deck Main deck

Aluminum

Steel
y x

Keel

A-A section
Acceleration time history
Acceleration (103) g
4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2.520 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Velocity timehistory
Displacement (cm)
7.70

Displacement time history

6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 6.10

Time (ms)

Velocity (mps)

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Keel
Acceleration (103) g
4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.533 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Displacement (cm)

Velocity (mps)

6.252

6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0

5.68

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Main deck
Acceleration (103) g
4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0.730 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Displacement (cm)

Velocity (mps)

7.315

6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1.80

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

Time (ms)

02 deck
Fig. 12. The amidships section of the ship structure for acceleration and velocity response in the vertical direction.

high frequency motion of keel is predictable. When the shock energy was propagated upward to the main deck, higher frequency motion was attenuated by structural damping of the ship, and lower frequency responses became more prominent. However, at 02 deck the peak acceleration of 730.0 g occurred at tZ27 ms. This response is 36.9% higher than

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

769

Fig. 13. The plastic zone progress of the patrol-boat subjected to underwater shock.

the main deck and the time is obviously delayed. The main reason lies in the fact that the superstructure is aluminum, which has a stiffness approximately 34.3% that of steel. Consequently, when the shock wave propagated upward via the main deck the superstructure responded excessively. At tZ45 ms, the peak displacement at the keel is

770

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

6.10 cm, which is a direct linear increase, and at the main deck, the peak displacement is 5.68 cm, which indicates that the patrol boat was subjected to an underwater explosion with light upward rigid body motion. The upward motion of the main deck is obviously delayed, which upward motion beginning at tZ31.5 ms. Finally, Fig. 12 shows that the displacement responses at 02 deck are smaller than the keel and main deck. 5.2.3. The ship plastic zone progress When the ship is subjected to the serious underwater explosion KSFZ0.8, the structure will respond into the plastic range. Fig. 13 depicts the plastic zone spread diagram. This work selects WZ576.0 kg and RZ30.0 m, with the shock wave propagating towards the hull as spherical waves. Initially, the stress of the bottom structure at tZ2.03.0 ms immediately exceeds the yielding stress and moves into the plastic range, with the effective plastic strain being approximately 7.0!10K3. Then the following yield region spreads through the fore-aft direction at tZ4.016.0 ms. Meanwhile, the patrol boat oscillates between elastic and plastic states. Finally, the whole patrol boat recovers toward completely elastic state at tZ20.0 ms.

6. Conclusion This investigation developed a procedure to exanimate a surface ship under a shock environment. It employed the nite element method coupled with the DAA2 to study the transient dynamic response of a 2000-ton patrol-boat subjected to an underwater explosion. It adopted the Keel Shock Factor (KSFZ0.8) to describe the shock severity. Consequently, the shock loading history at the keel, the acceleration, velocity and displacement time history at different locations, and the ship plastic zone progress are presented in detail. Based on the results, we can conclude p the following: 1. The keel shock factor KSF Z W =R ! 1 C cos q=2 is used for describing shock severity. An identical KSF can create various pressure shock loadings, and the total energy generated by each pressure loading is approximately equal. For total energy equality, then when q is constant, selecting a smaller charge W will reduce distance R, which means a spherical shock wave and local damage to the hull of the ship occurring early. But, if a larger charge W is selected, then the distance R will be longer, which means a plane shock wave and a longer impulse duration on the ship hull, thus increasing the damage to equipment. Therefore, the KSF is used to describe shock severity for the real shock threat, and in addition various charge weights, distance and incident angle should be carefully considered. 2. In most cases, the equipment is more sensitive then the structure to shock, and damage may be caused by higher acceleration or displacement. This investigation developed a procedure to analyses the shock response at different locations. When the ship was subjected to underwater shock, typical acceleration, velocity and displacement time histories were obtained. These results should conrm whether the specication requirements were satised or not.

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

771

This work represents a preliminary study of the transient responses of a surface ship under shock loading. It aims to assist in the choice of structure and equipment to ensure durability in a shock environment. The gas bubble effect and shock resistant design of ship structure and attached equipment are merit further study.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the United Ship Design and Development Center of Republic of China for nancially supporting this work under contract No. USDDC-RD461.

References
Bathe, K.J., Nitikitpaiboon, C., Wang, X., 1995. A mixed displacement-based nite element formulation for acoustic uid-structure interaction. Computers and Structures 56 (23), 193213. Bishop, J.H., 1993. Underwater shock standards and tests for naval vessels. DSTO, Materials Research Laboratory. Carrier, G.F., 1951. The interaction of an acoustic wave and elastic cylindrical shell. Tech. Rept. No.4, Brown University, Providence, R.I. Cole, R.H., 1948. Underwater Explosions. Princeton University Press, Princeton. DeRuntz Jr.., J.A., 1989. The Underwater Shock Analysis Code and its Applications 60th Shock and Vibration Symposium Proceedings, vol. 1 1989 pp. 89107. DeRuntz, J.A., Jr., Geers, T.L. and Felippa, C.A., 1980. The underwater shock analysis (USA-Version 3) code, A Reference Manual. DNA 5615F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C. Ergin, A., 1997. The response behaviour of a submerged cylindrical shell using the doubly asymptotic approximation method (DAA). Computers and Structures 62 (6), 10251034. Geers, T.L., 1971. Residual potential and approximate methods for three-dimensional uid-structure interaction problems. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49, 15051510. Geers, T.L., 1978. Doubly asymptotic approximations for transient motions of submerged structures. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64, 15001508. Geers, T.L., Felippa, C.A., 1983. Doubly asymptotic approximations for vibration analysis of submerged structures. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 73, 11521159. Greenhorn, J., 1988. The assessment of surface ship vulnerability to underwater attack, The Royal Institution of naval Architects 1988 pp. 233243. Haywood, J.H., 1958. Response of an elastic cylindrical shell to a pressure pulse. Quart. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 11, 129141. Hibbit, H.D., Karlsson, B.I., 1979. Analysis of pipe whip. EPRI, Report, NP-1208. Huang, H., 1969. Transient interaction of plane acoustic waves with a spherical elastic shell. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 45, 661670. Huang, H., 1974. Transient bending of a large elastic plate by an incident spherical pressure wave. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 772776. Huang, H., 1979. Transient response of two uid-coupler cylindrical elastic shell to an incident pressure pulse. Journal of Applied Mechanics 46, 513518. Huang, H., 1986. Numerical analysis of the linear interaction of pressure pulses with submerged structures. In: Smith, C.S., Clarke, J.D. (Eds.), Advance in Marines Structures. Huang, H., Wang, Y.F., 1985. Asymptotic uid-structure interaction theories for acoustic radiation prediction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77, 13891394.

772

C.-C. Liang, Y.-S. Tai / Ocean Engineering 33 (2006) 748772

Huang, H., Kiddy, K.C., 1995. Transient interaction of a spherical shell with an underwater explosion shock wave and subsequent pulsating bubble. Shock and Vibration 2, 451460. Huang, H., Lu, Y.P., Wang, Y.F., 1971. Transient interaction of spherical acoustic waves and a spherical elastic shell. Journal of Applied Mechanics 38, 7174. Hung, C.F., Hsu, P.Y., Chiang, L.C., Chu, L.N., 1999. Numerical simulation of structural dynamics to underwater explosion, Proceeding of The 13th Asian Tech. Exchange and Advisory Meeting on Marine Structures 1999 pp. 155164. Keil, A.H., 1961. The response of ships to underwater explosions. Annual Meeting of The SNAME, New York. Kwon, Y.W., Fox, P.K., 1993. Underwater shock response of a cylinder subjected to a side-on explosion. Computers and Structures 48 (4), 637646. Kwon, Y.W., Cunningham, R.E., 1998. Comparison of USA-DYNA nite element models for a stiffened shell subject to underwater shock. Computers and Structures 66 (1), 127144. Liang, C.C., Lai, W.H., Hsu, C.Y., 1998. Study of the nonlinear response of a submersible pressure hull. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 75, 131149. Liang, C.C., Hsu, C.Y., Lai, W.H., 2000. A study of transient responses of a submerged spherical shell under shock waves. Ocean Engineering 28, 7194. Mindlin, R.D., Bleich, H.H., 1953. Response of an elastic cylindrical shell to a transverse step shock wave. Journal of Applied Mechanics 20, 189195. OHara, G.J., Cunniff, P.F., 1993. Scaling for shock response of equipment in different submarines. Shock and vibration 1 (2), 161170. Park, K.C., Felippa, C.A., DeRuntz, J.A., 1977. Stabilization of staggered solution procedures for uid-structure interaction analysis. Computational Methods for Fluid-Structure Interaction Problems, Ed. T. Belytschko, AMD 26, 94-124. Payton, R.G., 1960. Transient interaction of an acoustic wave with a circular cylindrical shell. Journal of the Acoustical Social of America 32, 722729. Reid, W.D., 1996. The response of surface ships to underwater explosions. DSTO, Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory. Shin, Y.S., Chisum, J.E., 1997. Modeling and simulation of underwater shock problems using a coupled lagrangian-eulerian analysis approach. Shock and Vibration 4, 110. Shin, Y.S., Santiago, L.D., 1998. Surface ship shock modeling and simulation: two-dimensional analysis. Shock and Vibration 5, 129137. Smith, P.D., Hetherington, J.G., 1994. Blast and Ballistic Loading of Structures. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, London. Tang, S.C., Yen, D.H.Y., 1970. Interaction of a plane acoustic wave with an elastic spherical shell. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 47, 13251333. Taylor, G.I., 1950. The pressure and impulse of submarine explosion waves on plates. Compendium Underwater Explosion Res ONR 1, 11551174.