Original Article

Proc IMechE Part M:

J Engineering for the Maritime Environment
0(0) 1–10
Underwater explosion research on ship Ó IMechE 2014
Reprints and permissions:
with polymer hull coating sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1475090213507051
pim.sagepub.com

Zhen-Hua Zhang1,2, Yong Chen1,2, Hong-Xing Hua1,2 and Yu Wang3

Abstract
A polymer coating applied to the wet surface of a ship’s hull can reduce some types of damage to a ship subjected to a
far-field underwater explosion. Results from numerical simulations are compared with full-scale underwater explosion
test data for a ship with and without polymer coating to study the effectiveness of such coatings in blast-resistant design.
The polymer coating is a thin wall structure applied to the wet surface of the ship hull, while the ship is a relatively large
structure. Hence, an effective approximate simulation method for the full-scale ship with polymer coating is developed.
Based on the homogenization theory of polymer coating, a continuum model that takes into account the strain rate
dependence is introduced. The shock response subjected to underwater explosion of the finite element ship model is
investigated. The results obtained from underwater explosion tests and numerical simulation are compared and dis-
cussed. The blast-resistant property of polymer coating is elaborated. Mesh sensitivity and the validity of the polymer
coating equivalent continuum model are studied.

Keywords
Polymer coating, underwater explosion, homogenization theory, strain rate dependence, shock response spectrum

Date received: 15 January 2013; accepted: 29 August 2013

Introduction accuracy of shock simulation using the shock trials con-

The shock resistance of surface ships or submarines sub-
jected to underwater explosion (UNDEX) is of great
importance since blast load can damage onboard equip-
ment, injure the crew and even result in serious holing.
Analysis of the ship blast response includes different
areas: (a) UNDEX shock trial, (b) numerical simulation
and (c) blast-resistant design for UNDEX. Full-scale
UNDEX tests are difficult, expensive and often impossi-
ble, while they are extremely important in determining
the vulnerabilities of a ship. Therefore, advanced numeri-
cal simulation tools like the finite element method (FEM)
attract wide attention.1–9
Shin has published a series of investigations about the
response of surface ship subjected to UNDEX. These
studies eliminated some of the assumptions made in earlier
studies and presented a variety of UNDEX shock simula-
tion methods. Shin used the USA-NASTRAN-CFA code
to investigate the effects of fluid–structure interaction and
cavitation on the response of a surface ship subjected to
UNDEX.1 Shin employed three-dimensional (3D) ship
shock simulation by modeling the coupled 3D ship struc-
tures and surrounding fluid volume using the LS-DYNA/
USA code. The simulation results are compared well with
ship shock test data.2 Furthermore, Shin investigated the
ducted on USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81).
Three separate UNDEX simulations obtained acceptable
predictions of vertical velocity responses.3 Liang employed
the FEM coupled with the DAA2 to study the transient
dynamic response of a 2000-ton patrol boat subjected to
UNDEX. The investigation elucidated the plastic zone
spread phenomena and deformed diagram of the ship.4
Jin analyzed the shock response of a ship section and veri-
fied it with experimental results in real application envi-
ronment. The numerical simulation for the ship section
model was carried out with ABAQUS.5
To eliminate or at least reduce damage caused by
UNDEX is the major goal in the design of modern
1
Fundamental Science on Vibration, Shock & Noise Laboratory, Shanghai
Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
2
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Jiao
Tong University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
3
Naval Research Center, 100073, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
Corresponding author:
Hong-Xing Hua, Fundamental Science on Vibration, Shock & Noise
Laboratory; State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 800 Dongchuan Road, Shanghai
200240, P. R. China.
Email: hhx@sjtu.edu.cn

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

2 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 0(0)

combatant ships. All-metal sandwich plate or polymer
coating applied to the ship wet surface can buffer and
absorb significant energy in crushing under intense
impulsive load. Xue had verified that square honeycombs
as cores for all-metal sandwich plate were effective in
enhancing the blast-resistant property in that they com-
bine excellent crushing strength and energy absorption.
A continuum model of square honeycomb core has been
introduced that can be used to simulate core behavior in
large structural calculations, but not feasible to mesh the
detailed core geometry.10
This study aims to develop an effective simulation
method, which is based on the homogenization theory
of polymer coating,10,11 to investigate the shock
response of ship subjected to far-field UNDEX and
verify the coating’s effect in blast-resistant design. Six
UNDEX tests for full-scale surface ship with and with-
out polymer coating are preformed. The nonlinear
finite element tool ABAQUS is employed to investigate
the ship with polymer coating. The numerical results
are compared with the test data.
Experiment
Six UNDEX full-scale ship tests were performed to
study the shock response of surface ship with and with-
out polymer coating. As shown in Figure 1, the charge
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the UNDEX tests.
is located on the right side at the ship mid-section. The
charge location is listed in Table 1. The keel shock fac-
tor (KSF) can be expressed as
pffiffiffiffiffi  
W 1 þ sin b
KSF ¼ 3 ð1Þ
D 2
where W is the weight of trinitrotoluene (TNT) charge
(kg); D is the distance between the charge and keel (m)
and b is the angle between the keel–charge straight line
and the horizontal line (rad). A charge of 5 kg TNT is
used in the test.
A photograph of the full-scale UNDEX test is
shown in Figure 2. The water depth of the test area is
10–15 m.
Equivalent continuum model of polymer
coating
The polymer coating is a thin wall structure, which is
composed of a top plate, bottom plate and core structure.
A unit cell of the coating is presented in Figure 3(a). The
inner part of the core is a tube, and the outer is a thin
wall hexagon. The core is 50 mm in height, while the tube
is 40 mm in outer diameter and 2.20 mm in thickness and
the hexagon is 46.19 mm in outer edge length and 4.00
mm in thickness. The coating is formed by unit cell’s lat-
eral and longitudinal extension. Its material is a type of
neoprene with shore hardness of 65.
Xue had investigated the continuum model of square
honeycomb cores, which can be used to simulate core
behavior in large structural calculations when it is not
feasible to mesh the detailed core geometry.10 Similarly,
the equivalent continuum constitutive model of the
coating is an approximate simulation method to replace
detailed mesh of core members in coating structure in
large finite element model based on homogenization
theory, thereby reducing the size of the numerical simu-
lation. The equivalent continuum constitutive model of
the coating is shown in Figure 3(b).
Figure 4(a) shows the coating’s effective stress–strain
curve of the detailed model and equivalent continuum
model at strain rate of 100 s21. Overall strain e is
defined as the coating’s macro-characteristic, which
neglects the local distortion of the core. Overall strain
is expressed as

Table 1. Charge location and KSF.

Polymer coating Charge depth, H (m) Horizontal distance from keel, L (m) KSF (kg1/2 m21)

Test 1 Without 3.3 6.2 0.226

Test 2 Without 5.4 10.2 0.140
Test 3 Without 7.5 14.2 0.101
Test 4 With 3.3 6.2 0.226
Test 5 With 5.4 10.2 0.140
Test 6 With 7.5 14.2 0.101

KSF: keel shock factor.

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Zhang et al. 3

The stress of the detailed model in Figure 4(a) is that

exerted on the bottom plate at a strain rate of 100 s21.
For the detailed core model, four compression stages
could be observed in Figure 4(a), which include (a) elas-
tic wave transmission stage, (b) buckling stage, (c) stress
plateau stage and (d) densification stage. Because of the
relatively low shock speed in far-field UNDEX, buck-
ling stage could be replaced by stress plateau stage.
Uniaxial tension and compression curves are speci-
fied separately, and rate-dependent behavior is speci-
fied by providing the uniaxial stress–strain curves for
different values of nominal strain rates. During the
analysis, the stress along each principal deformation
direction is evaluated by interpolating the specified
stress–strain curves using the corresponding values of
Figure 2. UNDEX shock test scene. principal nominal strain and strain rate, and the stress–
strain curve beyond maximum strain rate could be
D1 extrapolated based on the slope with respect to strain
e ¼ ð2Þ rate. The stress–strain curve of the equivalent conti-
H1
nuum model for a uniaxial compression cycle is pre-
where D1 is the displacement of the top plate relative to sented in Figure 4(b), and the stress–strain data of the
the bottom plate and H1 is the height of the coating. equivalent continuum model are presented in Table 2.

Figure 3. Unit cell of the coating: (a) detailed model and (b) equivalent continuum model.

Figure 4. Stress–strain curve of the coating: (a) data of detailed model and continuum model at strain rate of 100 s21 and (b) data
of equivalent continuum model at different strain rates.

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

4 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 0(0)

Table 2. Stress–strain data of the equivalent continuum model.

Strain rate of 1 s21 Strain rate of 10 s21 Strain rate of 100 s21
Stress Strain Stress Strain Stress Strain

0 0 0 0 0 0
320,000 0.1 375,000 0.04 380,000 0.04
320,000 0.7 510,000 0.07 800,000 0.07
1,440,000 0.8 600,000 0.1 810,000 0.1
1,700,000 0.874 700,000 0.65 840,000 0.64
1,283,000 0.74 2,000,000 0.74
3,065,000 0.8 4,200,000 0.8
5,230,000 0.85 14,500,000 0.865
7,300,000 0.874

Young’s modulus: 210 GPa;

Yield stress: 360 MPa.

The maximum width of the ship’s wet surface is

4.4 m, and the fluid diameter is 20 m. The ratio between
the surrounding fluid dimension and the structure
dimension is an important parameter, which affects the
added mass effect of the fluid on the structure. If the
ratio is 32, the finite element model could accurately
simulate the response of the structure with infinite fluid.
However, the ratio is set to 5 here, which balances the
simulation efficiency and accuracy. The fluid is divided
into two parts; fine mesh is used in the inner part. The
ship model consists of 4409 S4R elements, 7788 S3R
elements and 5046 B31 elements. Each shell normal is
directed into the external fluid. The coating consists of
12492 C3D8R and 924 C3D6 elements. Two elements
Figure 5. UNDEX simulation model. are taken through the coating height. The maximum of
the coating element is about 125 mm in length and
width. The length ratio is about 5. The fluid mesh con-
Numerical analysis
sists of 169862 AC3D4 elements. The couplings
Simulation model between the fluid-coating structures are enforced using
ABAQUS/Explicit is used in this section. The ship the tie option.
length is 26.5 m, the width is 4.5 m, the draft depth is Zamyshlyayev12 indicates that the pressure versus
1.75 m and the displacement is 53 ton. The objective of time history accurately describes the profiles of the ini-
this study is to investigate the transient response of the tial shock wave for far-field UNDEX
ship subjected to far-field UNDEX. The ship structure 8
t
>
< p0 e u ; t "\ u
includes five parts: hull, lower deck, main deck, bulk-  1:5 !#
pðtÞ ¼ u t ð3Þ
head and superstructure. The ship is reinforced by keel, >
: 0:368p0 t 1 ; u4t4tp
tp
longitudinal, frame and so on.
8  1:5
Figure 5 shows the finite element model of the ship >
< 4:413107 W1=3 ; 64 RR0 412
with coating and surrounded by the fluid. The ship is R
p0 ¼  1=3 1:13 ð4Þ
simulated by S4R four-node thin-shell elements, S3R >
: 5:243107 W
R ; 124 RR0 4240
three-node thin-shell elements and B31 beam elements.
The continuum coating is meshed by C3D8R and  0:23
W1=3
C3D6 elements. The fluid is meshed by AC3D4 acous- u ¼ 0:0843103  W1=3 ð5Þ
R
tic elements. The superstructure is constructed with
aluminum, and the other parts of ship are made of where p0 is peak pressure of shock wave (Pa), u is time
middle-strength steel whose material parameters are as constant of shock wave (s), W is mass of TNT explosive
follows: (kg), R is distance between explosion center and hull
(m), R0 is initial radius of spherical explosive (m) and tp
Mass density: 7800.0 kg/m3; is positive time period of shock wave (s). For example,
Poisson’s ratio: 0.3; the charge of 5 kg TNT at the depth of 5.4 m with a

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Zhang et al.
Figure 6. Schematic representation of the ship right part and measurement locations.
horizontal distance of 10.2 m, generating a peak pres-
sure of 7.19e6 Pa with a time constant of 0.000215 s.
The UNDEX simulation model in ABAQUS/
Explicit includes the following:
1. The total wave formulation is used in simulation,
and the incident wave loading is applied on the
fluid surface that wetting the ship.
2. The zero acoustic pressure boundary condition is
satisfied at the nodes on the free surface, and the
initial acoustic static pressures are specified on the
acoustic medium nodes.
3. Cavitation effect is taken into account in the
UNDEX simulation, and the fluid cavitation limit
is defined as 0 Pa.
4. The reflection plane over seabed is specified to cal-
culate additional incident wave load due to reflec-
tion. The seabed plane is located 12 m below the
fluid-free surface, and the reflection coefficient
value is 1.2.
5. The fluid outer surface is specified as a non-
reflecting spherical boundary. The spherical non-
reflecting condition provides an approximation:
acoustic wave is transmitted across such a bound-
ary with little reflection of energy back into the
acoustic medium.
Define the parameters
1 1 1 1 g tions’ peak velocity of ship with coating is smaller than
¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi and ¼ þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
c1 rf Kf a1 rf r1 2rf rf Kf
The transient sphere radiation boundary condition
can be written as
∂p 1 1 1 Compared to the data in Table 3, the simulation
n  ¼ p_ þ p
∂X rf c1 a1
where rf is the density of the fluid, Kf is the bulk modu-
lus of the fluid, r1 refers to the radius of the sphere, g is
the ‘‘volumetric drag’’ (force per unit volume per velo-
city), n is the normal vector pointing into the fluid, p is
the excess pressure in the fluid (the pressure in excess of
any static pressure) and x is the spatial position of the
fluid particle.
Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
5
Experiment and simulation comparison
The shock responses of the ship are measured with 14
accelerometers. The ship right part and measurement
locations are shown in Figure 6. The accelerometers
A5, A6, A7 and A11 measure the vertical and trans-
verse shock responses, else measure only the vertical
responses. A1, A2, A7, A10 and A14 are located on the
keel. A8 is located on the first longitudinal. A13 is
located on the hull above the waterline. A4, A9 and
A12 are located on the lower deck. A3, A5 and A11 are
located on the main deck. A6 is located on the
superstructure.
The acceleration-time test data are filtered using a 5-
Hz Butterworth high-pass filter to eliminate zero drift
and a 5-kHz low-pass filter. The velocity–time data are
acquired from the integration of the acceleration his-
tory. The peak velocities are presented in Table 3.
Corresponding to the six tests presented in Table 1,
six numerical simulations with the same charge location
have been investigated. Simulations 1–3 are about the
ship without coating. Simulations 4–6 are about the
ship with coating. The locations recorded that the simu-
lation results are as the same as that in the tests.
Table 4 shows the peak velocities at different situa-
tions. The hull peak velocity of the ship with coating
decreases about 1.0%–41.2% compared to that without
coating. The coating could reduce the hull dynamic
responses subjected to UNDEX. Most structure loca-
that of ship without coating, including vertical and
transverse responses. However, the vertical peak velo-
city of ship with coating at A3 and A6 is not attenu-
ated, and even a little larger than that of ship without
coating.
ð6Þ results have the same regulation as the test data. The
coating could attenuate the keel peak velocity greatly
but have less influence on the other locations at the
ship structure and even enhance the shock response at
a few locations such as superstructure top middle point.
However, the reduction of test data is more than that
in simulation. The blast-resistant property of the coat-
ing is underestimated in simulation. Figures 7–10 show
the shock response spectrum comparison at points A7
6 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 0(0)

Table 3. Peak velocity in test.

Test 1 Test 4 Test 2 Test 5 Test 3 Test 6

A1 1.21 0.82 0.55 / 0.51 0.44

A2 1.97 1.90 1.18 0.65 0.57 0.50
A3 2.12 2.27 0.61 1.03 0.32 0.46
A4 1.48 1.02 1.32 0.92 0.78 0.77
A5 (vertical) 2.11 1.86 1.59 1.39 1.23 1.07
A5 (transverse) 0.98 0.56 0.60 20.53 20.40 0.25
A6 (vertical) 1.70 1.87 1.43 1. 68 1.09 1.21
A6 (transverse) 1.69 1.73 1.21 1.24 0.75 0.77
A7 (vertical) 2.37 1.16 1.40 0.69 1.30 0.60
A7 (transverse) 1.74 0.80 1.05 20.49 0.81 0.25
A8 / 1.17 / 1.00 / 0.58
A9 1.58 0.92 1.21 0.76 0.54 0.47
A10 2.00 1.44 1.24 0.81 0.79 0.63
A11 (vertical) / 0.99 1.02 0.85 0.82 0.79
A11 (transverse) / 0.43 0.52 0.34 0.38 0.21
A12 1.57 1.37 1.00 1.02 0.41 0.75
A13 2. 74 2.12 1.25 1.06 1.05 /
A14 1.76 0.96 1.05 0.89 0.43 0.32

/: no data measured.

Table 4. Peak velocity in simulation.

Simulation 1 Simulation 4 Simulation 2 Simulation 5 Simulation 3 Simulation 6

A1 1.11 0.98 0.65 0.61 0.48 0.44

A2 1.99 1.95 1.38 1.07 0.92 0.69
A3 2.36 2.90 0.99 1.32 0.35 0.44
A4 1.47 1.38 1.18 1.05 0.77 0.74
A5 (vertical) 2.19 2.01 1.62 1.35 1.29 1.25
A5 (transverse) 0.59 0.57 0.39 0.35 0.25 0.26
A6 (vertical) 1.95 2.07 1.39 1.54 1.12 1.15
A6 (transverse) 1.09 1.44 0.49 0.56 0.30 0.33
A7 (vertical) 1.89 1.20 1.05 0.75 0.87 0.48
A7 (transverse) 1.51 1.04 0.83 0.53 0.62 0.39
A8 2.15 1.51 1.34 1.05 1.01 0.70
A9 1.12 1.08 0.93 0.85 0.61 0.57
A10 2.45 1.44 1.48 0.91 0.84 0.66
A11 (vertical) 1.89 1.84 1.12 1.03 0.85 0.82
A11 (transverse) 0.75 0.63 0.47 0.45 0.39 0.35
A12 1.54 1.37 1.08 0.93 0.74 0.69
A13 2.63 1.46 1.08 0.71 0.66 0.61
A14 1.62 1.23 0.94 0.82 0.80 0.72

(vertical), A14, A12 and A6 (vertical) in test 5 and
simulation 5, respectively.
Simulation results and experimental data agree well
with Figures 7–10, which further validated the dynamic
simulation analysis of the ship model subjected to far-
field UNDEX. Simulation results in the shock response
spectrum are a little different from the experimental
data in a wide range of frequencies, which can be
explained, as follows: (a) the model is not precise
enough; (b) parameters such as the damping are not
accurate enough and (c) deviation introduced by the
continuum constitutive model of polymer coating.
Simulation results and discussion
Figure 11 shows the vertical deformation of the ship in
simulations 2 and 5 at locations A7, A11 and A6. In
simulation 2, the rigid body vertical displacement of the
ship is 82 mm at 0.25 s; the vertical deformation peaks of
A7, A11 and A6 are 12.4, 22.5 and 27.0 mm, respectively.
While, in simulation 5, the rigid body displacement
of the ship is 88 mm at 0.25 s; the vertical deformation
peaks of A7, A11 and A6 are 7.9, 13.2 and 22.7 mm,
respectively, which indicates that the polymer coating
could decrease the vertical deformation of the hull and
ship structures greatly.
The compared peak velocities of ship keel between
simulations 2 and 5 are presented in Figure 12. The
shock response of the ship with polymer coating is
much less than that without polymer coating, and the
reduction is from 6.2% to 38.5%. The effect to attenu-
ate the shock response is more prominent in the ship
mid-section than that in the prow and stern sections.
The other locations on the hull have the same rule as

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Zhang et al.
Figure 7. Shock response spectrum comparison at point A7
(vertical).
Solid black line for test 5; dashed red line for simulation 5.
Figure 8. Shock response spectrum comparison at point A14.
Solid black line for test 5; dashed red line for simulation 5.
that on the keel in simulation. Overall, it proves that
the polymer coating is effective to protect the hull sub-
jected to the UNDEX.
The hull maximum vertical velocity appears at the
right side under the waterline, which is the minimum
distance of hull location from the charge. The vertical
peak velocity of the right side of the hull is a bit larger
and commences earlier than that of the left side.
Figure 13 shows the velocity–time history at points
A8 and A4 in simulation 5. They represent the typical
velocity–time response of hull and other structures,
respectively. A8 is located on the first longitudinal. As
a point on the hull, dynamic response at A8 subjected
to UNDEX increases to a peak value in about several
Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
7
Figure 9. Shock response spectrum comparison at point A12.
Solid black line for test 5; dashed red line for simulation 5.
Figure 10. Shock response spectrum comparison at point A6
(vertical).
Solid black line for test 5; dashed red line for simulation 5.
milliseconds and then decays with exponential mode.
However, the dynamic responses of ship structures are
much different from that on the hull. Compared to
point A8, low-frequency component of the response at
A4 is more dominant.
In simulation 2, the vertical peak velocity at A7,
A14 and A1 appears at 1, 6 and 10 ms, while in simula-
tion 5, the vertical peak velocity at A7, A11 and A1
appears at 3, 10 and 17 ms. The shock wave reaches at
the mid-section first and then transmits to the stern
and prow section. The coating makes the keel peak
velocity commences a little later.
Physically, in simulations 1–3, the incident shock
wave impinges on the hull directly, and evidently, the
8 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 0(0)

Figure 11. Vertical deformation of the ship: (a) simulation 2 and (b) simulation 5.

Figure 12. Vertical peak velocity of ship keel in simulations 2 Figure 14. Vertical peak velocity of ship keel in simulations 1–3.
and 5.

high-frequency motion of the hull is predictable. When

Figure 13. Velocity–time history of ship in simulation 5.
the shock energy propagated upward to the main deck
and other structures, the high-frequency motion is atte-
nuated by the structural damping, and the low-
frequency shock responses become prominent.
However, in simulations 4–6, the incident shock wave
impinges on the coating first and then transmits to the
hull. The high-frequency motion is attenuated by
damping of the coating, and the shock energy is buf-
fered and absorbed partly. Hence, the polymer coating
plays a positive role in the blast resistance.
Figures 14 and 15 show the vertical peak velocity of
ship without and with coating under different simula-
tions. Measurement points A1, A2, A7, A10 and A14
are located on the ship keel from prow to stern section.
The farther the distance between the measurement loca-
tion and mid-section, the smaller dynamic response is.
This rule is effective for the ship both with and without
coating.

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Zhang et al.
Figure 15. Vertical peak velocity of ship keel in simulations
4–6.
Figure 16. Energy history in simulations 2 and 5.
At points A2, A7 and A10, compared to Figure 14,
the vertical peak velocity shown in Figure 15 attenuates
greatly. The peak velocity at points A1 and A14 also
decreases, but the reduction is less than that near the
mid-section.
Figure 16 presents the external work for whole
model and strain energy for ship in simulations 2 and 5.
The work of the external forces is defined as the exter-
nal work, which integrated forward continuously,
defined entirely by nodal forces (moments) and displa-
cements (rotations). The impedance value of coating is
larger than that of the fluid, but less than that of the
ship hull. Because of which matches on the interaction
between fluid-coating hull, the external work for whole
model in simulation 5 is larger than that in simulation
2. However, the external work for whole model in simu-
lation 5 is mostly applied to the coating. The strain
energy for ship (excluding the coating) in simulation 5
is less than that in simulation 2 especially in the shock
Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
9
Figure 17. Mesh sensitivity study.
initial stage. In this stage, the strain energy for ship in
simulation 5 is attenuated greatly because of the buck-
ling of the coating. The reduction is about 20%–50%,
which means that the blast-resistant effect of the coat-
ing plays an important role in the shock initial stage.
After that stage, the difference between the both situa-
tions becomes small gradually.
The velocity–time response of ship hull decays with
an exponential mode, and the peak velocity appears
very early. However, low-frequency component of the
dynamic response of ship structure is more prominent,
and the peak velocity appears relatively later.
Therefore, the difference of strain energy between both
situations explains the phenomenon that the coating
could attenuate the hull peak velocity greatly but has
less influence on the ship structure and even increases
the peak velocity at some locations.
Mesh sensitivity study
The simulation results presented in sections
‘‘Experiment and simulation comparison’’ and
‘‘Simulation results and discussion’’ are carried out
using two elements through the coating height.
Figure 17 shows a mesh sensitivity study using 1, 2, 3
and 5 elements through the coating height, and the y
coordinate is the vertical peak velocity at A7 in simula-
tion 5. The ship and fluid mesh are adjusted according
to the coating mesh.
By the mesh convergence study, the simulations
using 2, 3 and 5 elements through the coating height
could acquire reasonable results. Considering a balance
between the accuracy and efficiency, the simulations
using two elements through the coating height in this
study are suitable.
Conclusion
In this study, six tests for a full-scale surface ship with
and without polymer coating are preformed to
10
investigate its shock response to far-field UNDEX. The
polymer coating is a thin wall structure, while the ship
is relatively large structure. Hence, based on the homo-
genization theory of polymer coating, the equivalent
continuum constitutive model is developed to replace
detailed mesh of core members of coating in full-scale
ship finite element model. Mesh sensitivity study proves
the convergence of the simulation. The shock response
of the ship is numerically analyzed and verified by
experimental results. The polymer coating equivalent
continuum model has testified the validity and high
efficiency in full-scale ship UNDEX simulation. Based
on the results obtained from both test and numerical
simulation, we can have the following conclusions:
1. Simulation results and experimental data agree
well through the comparison of the shock response
spectrum, which validated the dynamic simulation
analysis of the ship model with polymer coating
equivalent continuum subjected to far-field
UNDEX.
2. The keel shock response of the ship with polymer
coating is much less than that without polymer
coating, and the reduction is from 6.2% to 38.5%.
The effect to attenuate the keel shock response is
more prominent in the ship mid-section than that
in the prow and stern sections. The responses of
the other locations on the hull have the same ten-
dency as that on the keel in simulation. Therefore,
it can be concluded that the polymer coating is
effective to protect the hull subjected to the
UNDEX.
3. The blast-resistant effect of the coating plays an
important role only in the shock initial stage. The
coating could attenuate the hull peak velocity
greatly but has less influence on the ship structures
and even increases the peak velocity at a few loca-
tions such as superstructure top middle point.
Compared to the test data with the simulation
results, the dynamic response reduction amplitude
resulted from the coating in test is more than that
in simulation. The blast-resistant property of the
coating is underestimated in simulation.
The VUMAT subroutine could solve the buckling
phenomenon, which has the negative stiffness effect.
Hence, further study to develop an accurate enough
ship model and use VUMAT subroutine in the finite
element code ABAQUS/Explicit to model the equiva-
lent continuum of the polymer coating is needed.
Innovative coating with different core geometries or
other different characteristic parameters should be
developed to protect the ship in different UNDEX
situations.
Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 0(0)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Prof Zhang Zhi-yi for
his excellent work in full-scale UNDEX tests.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This study was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 10802051
and 11172173).
References
1. Shin YS and Santiago LD. Surface ship shock modeling
and simulation: two-dimensional analysis. Shock Vib
1998; 5(2): 129–137.
2. Shin YS. Ship shock modeling and simulation for far-
field underwater explosion. Comput Struct 2004; 82:
2211–2219.
3. Shin YS and Schneider NA. Ship shock trial simulation
of USS Winston S Churchill (DDG-81): modeling and
simulation strategy and surrounding fluid volume effects.
In: 74th Shock and vibration symposium, San Diego, CA,
27–31 October 2003 (Scientific Applications, Inc., True-
Grid User’s Manual, Version 2.1.0, 2001).
4. Liang CC and Tai YS. Shock responses of a surface ship
subjected to noncontact underwater explosions. Ocean
Eng 2006; 33: 748–772.
5. Jin QK and Ding GY. A finite element analysis of ship
sections subjected to underwater explosion. Int J Impact
Eng 2011; 38: 558–566.
6. Geers TL. Doubly asymptotic approximations for transi-
ent motions of submerged structures. J Acoust Soc Am
1978; 64(5): 1500–1508.
7. Reid WD. The response of surface ships to underwater
explosions. DSTO-GD-0109, September 1996. Mel-
bourne, VIC, Australia: Aeronautical and Maritime
Research Laboratory.
8. Gong SW and Lam KY. Transient response of floating
composite ship section subjected to underwater shock.
Compos Struct 1999; 46(1): 65–71.
9. Sprague MA and Geers TL. A spectral-element/finite-ele-
ment analysis of a ship-like structure subjected to an
underwater explosion. Comput Method Appl M 2006;
195(17–18): 2149–2167.
10. Xue ZY and Hutchinson JW. Crush dynamics of square
honeycomb sandwich cores. Int J Numer Meth Eng 2006;
65(13): 2221–2245.
11. Chen Y, Zhang ZY, Wang Y, et al. Crush dynamics of
square honeycomb thin rubber wall. Thin Wall Struct
2009; 47: 1447–1456.
12. Zamyshlyayev BV. Dynamic loads in underwater explo-
sion. AD-757183, February 1973. Washington, DC:
Naval Intelligences Support Center.