Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/
marstruc

Review

Blast loaded plates

R. Rajendran a, *, J.M. Lee b,1
a
BARC Facilities, Kalpakkam 603 102, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Pusan National University, 30 Jangjeon-Dong, Geumjeong-Gu, Busan
609-735, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Plates form one of the basic elements of structures. Land-based
Received 21 August 2006 structures may be subjected to air blast loads during combat
Received in revised form 1 April 2008 environment or terrorist attack, while marine structures may be
Accepted 22 April 2008
subjected to either air blast by the attack of a missile above the wa-
ter surface or an underwater explosion by the attack of a torpedo
Keywords:
or a mine or a depth charge and an aircraft structure may be sub-
Detonation
jected to an in-flight attack by on-board explosive devices. Further-
Shock wave propagation
Air blast more, gas explosion occurs in offshore installations and industries.
Underwater explosion This review focuses on the phenomenological evolution of blast
Plate damage damage of plates.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Plated structures are important in a variety of aero, marine and land-based applications including
aircrafts, ships, offshore platforms, box girder bridges, power/chemical plants, bins, bunkers and box
girder cranes. Internal explosion on-board commercial aircraft using explosive devices results in com-
plete loss of aircraft. Land-based structures experience air blast loading during war or terrorist attack or
accidental gas explosion. Marine structures undergo air blast loading due to accidental gas explosions
and or the attack of rockets and missiles above the waterline and underwater explosion loading due to
the explosion of torpedoes, mines and depth charges below the waterline.
For an aircraft, frames (circumferential reinforcing members) and stringers (rows of longitudinal re-
inforcements) are riveted or adhesively bonded to the thin aluminium fuselage skin. The curvature of
the fuselage is small compared to the individual shell size. Therefore, the individual panels are

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ91 44 27480282.

E-mail addresses: rajurajendr@yahoo.co.in (R. Rajendran), jaemlee@pusan.ac.kr (J.M. Lee).
1
Tel.: þ82 51 510 2342; fax: þ82 51 512 8836.

0951-8339/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marstruc.2008.04.001
100 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

Nomenclature

A area of the plate (m2)/explosive constant

B, R1, R2, U explosive constants
ac crack length (m)
C structural damping matrix
ca ambient speed of sound in air (m/s)
cp peak wind velocity behind the shock front (m/s)/plastic wave speed of the plate material
(m/s)
csa velocity of shock wave in air (m/s)
cw velocity of sound in water (m/s)
D material constant
E Young’s modulus of the plate material
Ep shock energy transferred to the plate per unit area (J/m2)
EqTNT TNT equivalent of the explosive
Es energy of the shock wave per unit area (J/m2)
ETNT energy of TNT explosive (J)
F peak load on the plate (N)
F(t) time-dependent load on the plate (N)
G matrix relating structural degrees of freedom to the fluid
I impulse per unit area (N s/m2)
It total impulse (N s)
JWL Jones–Wilkins–Lee
K structural stiffness matrix
k stiffness of the plate (N/m)
M structural mass matrix
m mass per unit area of the plate (kg/m2)
n material parameter
Pm peak pressure/peak overpressure (MPa)
Po atmospheric pressure (MPa)
p exponent of power-type strain law/pressure (MPa)
pi incident pressure (MPa)
q dynamic pressure (MPa)/material constant
re radius of the explosive (m)
S stand off (m)
S0 scaled distance (m/m)
T kinetic energy of the plate (J)
t time (s)/thickness (m)
tc cavitation time (m/s)
td positive duration of the blast wave (s)
tf thickness of the fluid element (m)
U internal energy of the explosive per unit volume (J/m3)
V volume (m3)/impact velocity (m/s)
Vm maximum velocity attained by the plate (m/s)
v velocity of the water particle behind the shock front (m/s)
vi incident water particle velocity (m/s)
vs scattered fluid particle velocity (m/s)
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 101

W TNT equivalent of the explosive charge quantity (kg)/work imparted to the plate
structure (J)
x lateral displacement of the plate (m)
a waveform parameter
aj Johnson’s damage number
b aspect ratio
d central plastic deflection of the plate (m)
3f uniaxial fracture strain (m/m)
F dimensionless number
h coupling factor
hm moment amplification factor
n Poisson’s ratio
q time constant of the underwater shock wave (s)/half angle of the petal ( )
r density of air behind the shock front (kg/m3)
ro ambient density of air (kg/m3)
rp density of the plate material (kg/m3)
rw density of water (kg/m3)
so flow stress of the material (MPa)
su ultimate stress (MPa)
sy static yield stress (MPa)
syd dynamic yield stress (MPa)
s burn time (s)
x shock factor (kg0.5/m)
xe effective shock factor (kg0.515/m1.03)
j inverse mass number (kg/kg)
z knock-down factor

Subscripts
a air-backed plate
c circular plate
cr critical
m maximum
p plate
r rectangular plate
t total
w water-backed plate
y yield

approximated as flat plates [1]. The curvature of the ship plating is small and it is supported by welded
longitudinal and transverse stiffeners at its edges. The plate between the stiffeners is therefore consid-
ered as a flat plate [2].
The motivation for this review arises from the primary concern for the design of plated structures
against blast load. As elucidated in the preceding paragraph, plates form one of the basic elements of
the structures. Therefore, studying the blast response of plates helps understanding and improving
their blast resistance. The topic can be broadly categorized into (1) the detonation process or the rapid
chemical reaction of the explosive, (2) the shock wave propagation in the medium in which detonation
takes place, (3) the interaction of the shock wave with the plate and (4) the response of the plate to the
input shock loading. These four aspects are brought out in this review with an attempt to gain greater
insight into the blast damage phenomenon.
102 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

2. The explosion process

The explosion is a rapid chemical reaction in a substance, which converts the original material into
a gas at very high temperature and pressure evolving large amount of heat (4389 kJ/kg of trinitrotol-
uene (TNT) explosive) [3]. The explosion process is divided into two parts: (1) the detonation process
and (2) the interaction process between the product gases and the surrounding medium (air in atmo-
sphere and water in underwater). During the detonation process, a detonation wave generates and
propagates in the explosive. The parameters that are used to assess the detonation performance of
an explosive are the Chapman–Jouguet (C–J) detonation pressure [4], the temperature of detonation
[5] and the detonation velocity [6]. Typically for an explosive (TNT) with a density of 1650 kg/m3,
the Chapman–Jouguet (C–J) detonation pressure [4] is 21,000 MPa, the detonation temperature [5] is
3720 K and the detonation velocity [6] is 6950 m/s. Once the process of detonation is completed, the
interaction of the product gases with the surrounding medium takes place. The product gases with
high pressure and temperature expand outward by generating a pressure wave. The gaseous products
are assumed to be inviscid at this high temperature and thus the viscous forces are not considered for
the explosive modeling. In the water medium, an instantaneous compression of the water surround-
ing the gas emits a pressure pulse that propagates into water with a velocity that is three times higher
than the velocity of sound in water [7]. This higher velocity levels off rapidly and attains a velocity that
is only 20% higher than the sound velocity at a distance that is five times the charge radius after which
the pressure wave falls to the sound velocity at around 20 times the charge radius and propagates at
that constant velocity. The gas bubble expands at a velocity that is much slower than the pressure
pulse. In air explosion, the shock wave moves with the gas–air interface [8]. An equation of state
(EOS) of the explosive relating energy, pressure and volume is essential for the numerical modeling
of the detonation process. The most commonly used EOS to describe the state of detonation products
is Jones–Wilkins–Lee (JWL), which is given as [8]
   
U U U
pJWL ðV; Uin Þ ¼ A 1  eðR1 VÞ þ B 1  eðR2 VÞ þ Ein (1)
R1 V R2 V V
where A, B, R1, R2and U are constants [8], pJWL is the pressure, V is relative the volume compared to the
initial volume of the explosive and Uin is the internal energy per unit volume. The first term in JWL
equation known as the high-pressure term dominates first for V close to one, the second term is influ-
ential for V close to 2 and last term corresponds to the expanded state.

3. The shock wave propagation

Significant contrast exists in the wave propagation phenomena between the air and the water me-
dia due to (1) their different physical properties and (2) the interface phenomena between the explo-
sive product gases and the surrounding medium [9]. The physical properties that matter for the
propagating medium are the velocity of sound, the density, the compressibility, the temperature and
the ambient pressure. While air is compressible water is considered as incompressible. Both air and
water are treated as inviscid. The velocity of sound in air at sea level is 340 m/s. The velocity of sound
in water is 1483 m/s (approximately 4.36 times the velocity of sound in air at sea level). The sound ve-
locity increases with temperature. The density of air at sea level is 1.25 kg/m3 and the density of water
is 1000 kg/m3 (approximately 800 times the density of air). The relations between the shock wave pa-
rameters and the charge quantity and stand off for both air blast and underwater blast are empirically
formulated and verified with a number of experiments.

3.1. Air blast

A schematic of the blast wave is shown in Fig. 1. The shock wave has an instantaneous rise and an
exponential fall [10]. The parameters of interest for the damage process are the peak overpressure (that
is the pressure above the atmospheric pressure), the positive duration and impulse with respect to the
scaled distance. The negative phase of the blast wave is generally ignored. An explosion of higher yield
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 103

Peak
overpressure
p(t)

Ambient
pressure

Positive phase Negative phase

duration duration

Fig. 1. A schematic of the blast wave.

will arrive at a point sooner than an explosion of lower yield. The higher the overpressure at the shock
front the greater is the velocity of the shock wave. As the blast wave progresses outward, the pressure
at the shock front decreases and the velocity falls of accordingly. At long ranges, when the overpressure
decreases to 7 kPa, the velocity of the blast wave approaches the ambient speed of sound. The duration
of the overpressure phase increases with the energy of the explosive yield and the distance from the
explosion. The instantaneous pressure p(t) of the positive phase of an ideal air blast wave is given by
the Friedlander equation as [10]
   
t
pðtÞ ¼ Po þ Pm 1  eat=td (2)
td
where Po is the ambient pressure, t is the instantaneous time, td is the positive duration of the pressure
pulse and a is called waveform parameter that depends upon the peak overpressure Pm of the shock
wave. The waveform parameter a is regarded as an adjustable parameter which is selected so that
the overpressure–time relationships provide suitable values of the blast impulse. For chemical explo-
sions, the peak overpressure is expressed as [10]
h  S0  2 i
808 1 þ 4:5
Pm =Po ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 2 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 2 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 2 (3a)
1 þ 0:048 S S
1 þ 0:32 1 þ 1:35 S

and for nuclear explosions [10]

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 0 ffi 0 
6 03 S S
Pm =Po ¼ 3:2  10 S 1þ 1þ (3b)
87 800

The scaled distance S0 is given as [11–13]

S
S0 ¼ (4)
W 1=3
where S is the stand off from the explosion in m and W is the TNT equivalent of the explosive charge
weight in kg. The time of arrival of the shock wave ta for a radial distance r from an explosive radius of
radius re is given as [10]
104 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

Z r" #1=2
1 1
ta ¼ dr (5)
ca re 1 þ 6Pm
7Po

The duration of the shock pulse td for the chemical explosion in ms is [10]
h 0 10 i
S
980 1 þ 0:54
td
W 1=3
¼ h 0 3 ih 0 6 irffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 2 (6a)
S
1 þ 0:02 S
1 þ 0:74 1 þ 6:9 S

For a nuclear explosion [10]

h 0 3 i
180 1 þ 100 S
td
¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi (6b)
W 1=3 0 ffi 6 0 5 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 
1 þ 40 S 1 þ 285 S 6
1 þ 50;000 S

The shock wave velocity csa is expressed as [12]

 
6Pm 1=2
csa ¼ ca 1 þ (7)
Po
where ca is the ambient speed of sound. The particle velocity, cp (or peak wind velocity behind the
shock front) is given as [12]

5Pm ca
cp ¼ (8)
7Po ð1 þ 6Pm =7Po Þ1=2

The density, r, of the air behind the shock front is related to the ambient density ro as [12]

7 þ 6Pm =Po
r=ro ¼ (9)
7 þ Pm =Po
The dynamic pressure q, which is the kinetic energy per unit volume of air immediately behind the
shock front, is given as [12]

5 2
Pm
q ¼ (10)
2 7Po þ Pm
The peak overpressure Pm in MPa is given as [14]

Pm ¼ 1:13S0ð2:1Þ for 1  S0  10 (11a)

Pm ¼ 0:183S0ð1:16Þ for 10  S0  200 (11b)

where S is in m.
The impulse of the shock wave I in N s/m2 is given as [14]

I ¼ 203S0ð0:91Þ for 1  S0  10 (12a)

I ¼ 335S0ð1:06Þ for 10  S0  200 (12b)

and also as [10]
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 105

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi
2  S0  4
0:067 1 þ 0:23
I ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 (12c)
3
S
02 3
1þ S0
1:55

3.2. Gas explosion

A gas explosion is a process where combustion of a premixed gas cloud, that is, fuel–air or fuel/
oxidizers causing rapid increase of pressure [15]. The pressure generated by the combustion wave
will depend on how fast the flame propagates and how the pressure expands away from the gas cloud
(governed by confinement). The consequence of gas explosion ranges from no damage to total
destruction.

3.3. Underwater explosion

The schematic of the blast wave in Fig. 1 is applicable for the underwater explosion too. The ambient
pressure is the hydrostatic pressure. In air blast, the peak overpressure is typically of the order of kPa,
which is comparable to the atmospheric pressure of 100 kPa, whereas in underwater explosion the
peak overpressure is of several orders of magnitude greater than the hydrostatic pressure. Therefore,
the hydrostatic pressure is ignored and the peak overpressure is simply called as peak pressure. The
parameters that are of interest for an underwater explosion wave from the point of view of the plate
damage are the peak pressure, Pm, the time constant, q, the free field impulse, I and the energy carried
by the shock wave Es. The pressure p(t) at a given point decays from its peak value Pm exponentially
with time t as [3,16]

pðtÞ ¼ Pm et=q (13)

where q is the time taken by the shock wave to decay to 1/e of peak value. The peak pressure, Pm, in MPa
is [3,16]
!1:13
W 1=3
Pm ¼ 52:16 ¼ 52:16S01:13 (14)
S

The velocity of the water particle behind the shock front is given as [3]

vðtÞ ¼ pðtÞ=rw cw (15)

The time constant q in s is given as [3,16]
!0:22
 W 1=3 
1=3
q ¼ 96:5  10 6
W ¼ 96:5  106 W 1=3 S0ð0:22Þ (16)
S

The free field impulse per unit area, I, in N s/m2 is given as [3,16]
!0:89
 W 1=3 
I ¼ 5760 W 1=3 ¼ 5760 W 1=3 S0ð0:89Þ (17)
S

The energy carried by the shock wave per unit area in J/m2 is given as [3,16]

!2:1
 W 1=3 
Es ¼ 98; 000 W 1=3 ¼ 98; 000 W 1=3 S0ð2:1Þ (18)
S
106 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

These formulae are applicable for a stand off that is greater than 10 times the explosive charge radius.
A variation of the ratio of the underwater explosion impulse, Iw, to the air blast impulse, Ia, as a function
of reduced stand off is shown in Fig. 2. The underwater explosion load carries an impulse that is at least
22 times that of air blast for the same reduced stand off configuration. The dip in the curve is due to the
change in the formula for the air blast impulse prediction when the reduced stand off changes from 9 to
10 m/kg(1/3).

4. Fluid–plate interaction

4.1. Air blast

When an air blast wave encounters a plate on which it impinges at zero angle of incidence, it gets
normally reflected. The peak plate overpressure (commonly known as reflected pressure), Ppm, is
obtained from the Rankine Hugoniot relationship for an ideal gas as [17]

Ppm ¼ 2Pm ð7Po þ 4Pm Þ=ð7Po þ Pm Þ (19)

The ratio of the plate impulse per unit area (commonly known as reflected impulse), Ip, to the inci-
dent impulse per unit area, I, is approximated as [17]

Ip =I ¼ Ppm =Pm (20)

For a weak shock wave, Pm  Po. This leads from Eqs. (19) and (20) that the plate peak overpressure is
double that of the incident peak pressure and hence the impulse imparted to the plate is double that of
the incident impulse.
The requirement for simulating the maximum uniform lateral impulse on the plate area to study
the blast response of plates, taking into account the minimum use of the quantity of the explosive
for the reasons of safety and economy leads to a genre of experiments [18–34]. For numerical modeling

40

30
Iw/Ia

20

10

0 20 40 60 80 100
S' (m/kg1/3)

Fig. 2. The variation of the ratio of free field impulse for underwater explosion to air blast as a function of reduced standoff.
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 107

of the deformation phenomena, the impulse that is measured experimentally during the zero stand off
firing (that is, the explosive is separated from the test pate by a thin polystyrene sheet) is divided by the
burn time of the explosive to arrive at the assumed uniform rectangular lateral pressure [35]. A blast
peak pressure that is 10 times or bigger than the corresponding static collapse pressure is assumed as
a rectangular pressure pulse without loss of accuracy [36,37]. The step pressure, Pm, is estimated as
a function of the measured total plate impulse, Itp, the exposed area of the plate, A, and the burn
time s as [38]

Itp
Pm ¼ (21)
As
Shock tubes are built to simulate the blast waves with required plate peak pressure and plate im-
pulse [39–44]. Spherical shock wave fronts generated by the direct detonation process lead to a com-
plex space–time evolution of the pressure distribution on a plane plate, which results in poor
prediction of the plate deformation [40]. On the contrary, the plane shock wave fronts generated by
the shock tube allow precise modeling.

4.2. Underwater explosion

For the coupled fluid–structure interaction, the motion of the plate is given as [45–49]

M€x þ C x_ þ kx ¼ FðtÞ (22)

where M is the structural mass matrix, C is the structural damping matrix, K is the structural stiffness
matrix, x is the structural displacement and F(t) is the time-varying load applied to the structure. By
superimposing the imaginary fluid mesh on the fluid–plate boundary, the surface compatibility of
the submerged plate is written as [46]

FðtÞ ¼ GAf ðpi þ ps Þ (23)

where G is the matrix relating the structural degrees of freedom to the fluid, Af is the matrix containing
the areas of the elements in the fluid mesh, pi is the incident pressure of the underwater explosion and
ps is the scatted pressure of the plate. Compatibility requirements dictate that the surface normal ve-
locity of the plate and the fluid is equal, that is [46],

GT x_ ¼ vi þ vs (24)
where vi is the incident water particle velocity from the underwater explosion, and vs is the scattered
water particle velocity from the plate.
The fluid is assumed to be inviscid and incompressible. The scatted pressure and the scattered fluid
particle velocity are related by [46]

ps ¼ rw cw vs (25)
From Eqs. (24) and (25),

ps ¼ rc GT x_  vi (26)

Eq. (26) is substituted into Eq. (23) to obtain the load–time history as [46]
h i
FðtÞ ¼ GAf pi þ rc GT x_  vi (27)

The force–time history is finally substituted into Eq. (22) to obtain the differential equation for the
response of the plate as [46]

M€x þ C þ GAf GT rw cw x_ þ Kx ¼ GAf ðpi þ rw cw vi Þ (28)
108 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

The term rwcw represents the additional damping term to the plate due to the energy radiated away
from the plate into the fluid. The only unknown term in Eq. (28) is the plate displacement x which
is solved by finite element method. The response equation of the plate is valid until the fluid pressure
goes below the local atmospheric pressure or in other words, until cavitation occurs. Ignoring damping
and the nodal displacement for the duration the pressure pulse acts, for a one dimensional plate Eq.
(28) reduces to [3,7,50–52]

m€x þ rw cw x_ ¼ 2Pm et=q (29)

where m is the mass per unit area of the plate. Applying initial conditions and introducing the dimen-
sionless inverse mass number ja ¼ rwcwq/m, the plate pressure, Pp(t), is [53]
2Pm ja h t=q i
Pp ðtÞ ¼ 2pm et=q  e  eja t=q (30)
ðja  1Þ
from which the plate peak pressure is given as
1
ja
Pp ¼ 2Pm j1
a (31)
and the plate maximum velocity is

2Pm q 1jaja
Vma ¼ j (32)
m a
The shock energy transferred to the air-backed plate Ep is
2 q 2ja 2
1 2 2Pmm
Epa ¼ mVma ¼ ja1ja (33)
2 m
The energy carried by the free field shock wave is
Z N Z N 2 2q2
1 1 Pm
Es ¼ p2 ðtÞ dt ¼ Pm et=q dt ¼ (34)
rc 0 rc 0 2mja
The ratio of the plate energy to the free field shock energy, ha , which is also known as coupling factor is
 2
 2ja
2
2Pm q ja
m j1
a 1þja
E
ha ¼ pa ¼   ¼ 4j1
a
ja
(35)
Es 2 2
Pmq
2mja

The time to reach the maximum velocity or the cavitation time, tca, is given as
q ln ja
tca ¼ (36)
ja  1
The impulse acting on the air-backed plate per unit area is given as
ja
Ip ¼ 2Pm qja1ja (37a)
The maximum achievable impulse per unit area for an infinitely rigid plate from Eq. (37a) is [54]

Ipm ¼ 2Pm q (37b)

or

Ipa ¼ zIpm ¼ 2za If (37c)

where za is the knock-down factor for air-backed plate which is given as
ja
ja
za ¼ j1
a (37d)
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 109

For ja ¼ 1/2, the impulse imparted to the plate, Ip, is equal to the free field impulse. Or in other words,
Ip ¼ I when 2rwcwq ¼ m. As the plate becomes more and more rigid, the impulse ratio approaches unity,
meaning thereby, the underwater explosion impulse becomes double that of the free field impulse as in
the case of the impulse imparted by a weak air blast wave on a plate. The ratio of the variation of the
plate impulse for air-backed underwater exploded plates, Ipw, to air blasted plates, Ipa, as a function of
reduced stand off is shown in Fig. 3.
For a water-backed plate, the equation of motion of the plate is modified as [7,50]

m€x þ 2rw cw x_ ¼ 2Pm et=q (38)

The maximum velocity of the water-backed plate is [7]

Pm q 1jwjw
Vmw ¼ j (39)
m w
where jw ¼ 2rwcwq/m. The maximum velocity for the water-backed plate is reached when the plate
pressure equals the hydrostatic pressure of the water behind the plate. The energy imparted to the wa-
ter-backed plate, Epw, is

2
1 2 P 2 q 2jjww
Epw ¼ mVmw ¼ m j1 (40)
2 2m w
The ratio of the energy of the water-backed plate to the shock wave energy, hw, is given as
2
 1þjw
Pm q jw
Epw rc j1
w 1þjw
1jw
hw ¼ ¼  ¼ 2jw (41)
Es 2
Pm q
2r c

30

20
Plate impulse ratio
m=15.6kg/sq m
Ipw/Ipa

m=31.2kg/sq m
m=62.4kg/sq m
m=289.5 kg/sq m
10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
S'(m/kg1/3)

Fig. 3. The variation of the ratio of impulse for underwater explosion to air blast on a plate as a function of reduced standoff.
110 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

The ratio of ha to hw gives the ratio of the strain energy of the air-backed plate to the water-backed plate
during the elastic regime of deformation. This ratio from Eqs. (35) and (41) is given as
  2ja
ha Ep =Es 4ja
ja Þð12ja Þ
¼ ¼ 2ð12ja Þ jð1
a (42)
hw Epw =Es
The time to reach the maximum velocity, tcw, is given as [7]

q ln jw
tcw ¼ (43)
jw  1
The impulse acting on the water-backed plate per unit area is given as
jw
jw
Ipw ¼ 2Pm qj1
w ¼ 2If zw (44a)
where zw is the knock-down factor for water-backed plate which is given as
jw
1jw
zw ¼ jw (44b)
The ratio of the primary pulse plate impulse for an air-backed plate to a water-backed plate gives the
plastic damage ratio of these plates for the primary shock. From Eqs. (37) and (44),
ja
Ipa 2ja
ja Þð12ja Þ
¼ 212ja jð1
a (45)
Ipw
For jw ¼ 1/2, the impulse imparted to the plate, Ipw, is equal to half of the free field impulse. Or in
other words, Ipw ¼ If/2 when 4rwcwq ¼ m. As the plate becomes infinitely rigid, the maximum plate im-
pulse equals the free field impulse. This is in contrast to the air-backed plate that undergoes twice the
free field impulse for identical conditions. The variation of plate impulse, Ip, and energy, Ep, as a fraction
of the respective free field parameters for air- and water-backed plates as a function of inverse mass
number is shown in Fig. 4.

2 1

Air-backed plate impulse

Water-backed plate impulse
1.6 air-backed plate shock energy transfer 0.8
water-backed plate energy transfer

1.2 0.6
Ep/Es
Ip/If

0.8 0.4

0.4 0.2

0 0
0 4 8 12 16

Fig. 4. The variation of impulse and energy of air- and water-backed plates with the inverse mass number for underwater explosion.
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 111

The damage caused by the reloading component of the underwater shock wave on an air-backed
plate is larger than the damage caused by the primary pulse itself. While reloading due to cavitation
is absent for water-backed plates, reloading due to the gas bubble is present for both air- and water-
backed plates. Reloading occurs when the depth of explosion is at least half the stand off and reaches
it maximum when the depth of explosion becomes double the stand off [55].

5. Blast damage

5.1. Air blast

5.1.1. Uniform blast loading

Simple methods of structural dynamics were applied by Biggs [56] and Clough and Penzien [57] by
applying single degree of freedom system (SDOF) and idealizing the plate as the beam for obtaining the
blast damage. The damage of plates that are subjected to non-contact air blast is conventionally
assessed by the simulated experimental methods or by taking the measured pressure–time history
on the plate for the simulated environment as the prescribed load and performing numerical analysis
[1,13,58,59].

5.1.1.1. P–I diagrams. Elastic and plastic response of single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems subjected
to blast loading can be presented in the form of pressure–impulse (P–I) diagrams [60]. According to the
P–I diagram of a specific structure or structural element, a certain load with the peak pressure and im-
pulse above the critical value will result in the damage of the structures, vice versa, the structure is safe
if the peak pressure and impulse combination is located below the curve.
In quasi-static loading realm, the deformation depends only on the peak load F and the structural
stiffness k. The response is independent of the duration of loading and the mass of the structure.
The work done on the structure is equated to the strain energy for the quasi-static loading regime
(loading period to the natural period of the structure is greater than 6.36). For a linear elastic system,
the strain energy, UE, is given as [61]

1 2
UE ¼ kx (46)
2 max
The maximum permissible work imparted, W, to the structure by a constant force whose amplitude
decreases insignificantly is [61]

W ¼ Fxmax (47)
where F is the force that is acting which is given by multiplying the area, A, with the pressure Pm. From
Eqs. (46) and (47) [61],

xmax
¼ 2:0 (48)
ðF=kÞ
Eq. (48) is called quasi-static asymptote.
In the impulsive realm (loading period to the natural period of the structure is less than 0.0636), the
deformation is directly proportional to the impulse. The kinetic energy imparted to the structure, T, is
equated to the strain energy UE [61].
  2
mA I I2
T ¼ ¼ (49)
2 ðmAÞ2 2mA

Equating the kinetic energy, T, to the strain energy UE,

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
kmAxmax
¼ 1:0 (50)
I
112 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

Eq. (50) is called impulsive asymptote. A combination of peak loads and durations with the same im-
pulse will result in the same maximum deformation. The deflection is influenced by both structural
stiffness and structural mass. A dynamic load factor of 2 is conservative in this regime.
Between quasi-static realm and impulsive realm a transition realm exists which is known as dy-
namic loading realm. The deformation here depends on the entire loading history. Here, the motion
of the structure depends on pressure and impulse as well as structural stiffness and mass. Computa-
tion of the quasi-static and impulsive asymptotes yields an approximation to the entire shock
response.
For a rigid-plastic system loaded in the pressure realm, the strain energy, UP, is given as [61]

UP ¼ Rxmax (51)
where R is the resistance. Equating the work done, W, to the strain energy [61]

F=R ¼ 1:0 (52)

Eq. (52) is the quasi-static asymptote for the rigid-plastic structure. For the impulsive loading realm,
equating the kinetic energy to the strain energy UP,

I pffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 2 (53)
xmax mAR
Eq. (53) is called impulsive asymptote for the rigid-plastic structure.
The loading on a plate cause by gas or dust explosions is characterized finite rise time and a non-
exponential fall. The quasi-static loading
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi asymptote for a finite rise time is equivalent to a static
loading. In the range 1:15 < I=xmax kmA < 5:5, the loading with finite rise time is more severe than
a loading with zero rise time. This behaviour is produced by resonance between the loading rate
and the structural frequency. A typical P–I diagram for a blast loaded SDOF system is shown in Fig. 5.

5.1.1.2. Plastic deformation. The central deflection of plastically deformed plates is taken as the indica-
tion of the measure of blast damage. Assumed modes method in which a shape function is used to rep-
resent the global displacement function [62] was used in conjunction with rigid-plastic material
behaviour and energy methods were applied by Schleyer et al. [63] and Langdon and Schleyer [64].
For the contact air blast, where a rectangular pressure pulse can be assumed [18,65] analytical [36]
and empirical [28] predictions are available based on the impulse imparted to the plate.
Johnson [66] proposed a guideline for assessing the behaviour of metals subjected to impact loading
using a dimensionless number that is defined as

rp V 2
aj ¼ (54a)
sd
where V is the impact velocity, rp is the plate material density and sd is the damage stress which is
taken as equal to the plate material yield stress sy. Johnson’s damage number is applicable only
when plates have similar dimensions. The damage number can be written in terms of impulse as [67]

2
Itp
aj ¼ 2 2
(54b)
A t rp sy

where t is the thickness of the plate.

A modified damage parameter F was introduced by Nurick and Martin [28] that incorporated plate
dimensions and loading. For circular plates [29]

Ipt
Fc ¼ 1=2 (55)
pRt 2 rp sy

where R is the radius of the loaded portion of the circular plate. For rectangular plates [67]
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 113

Fig. 5. P–I diagram for SDOF systems undergoing blast load [61]. (a) Elastic response due to air blast, (b) plastic response due to air
blast, (c) elastic response due to gas explosion and (d) plastic response due to gas explosion [61].

Ipt
Fr ¼ 1=2 (56)
2t 2 4abrp sy

where 2a and 2b are the length and breadth of the plate.

For large plastic deformation (mode I failure) of clamped circular plates [28] the deflection-thick-
ness ratio is empirically given as
 
d
¼ 0:425Fc þ 0:227 (57)
t c

and for clamped rectangular plates [28] the empirical relationship is

 
d
¼ 0:471Fr þ 0:001 (58)
t r

where d is the central deflection of the plate.

Jones [36] predicted analytically the deflection-thickness ratio for fully clamped circular plates
without strain rate effects as
114 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

 
d
¼ 0:817Fc (59a)
t c

Taking strain rate effect into account Eq. (59a) is modified as [36]
 
d 0:817Fc
¼ pffiffiffi (59b)
t c n

 1=2 !1=q
Ip2 rp
n ¼ 1þ (59c)
3r2P t 2 DR 3sy

For fully clamped rectangular plates without strain rate effects, the deflection-thickness ratio as
given by the analytical method of Jones is [36]
n o
  ð3  20 Þ ð1 þ GÞ1=2 1
d
¼ (60a)
t r 2f1 þ ð20  1Þð20  2Þg

2  
2rp V 2 a2 b 1
G ¼ ð3  220 Þ 1  20 þ (60b)
3sy t 2 2  20

 
2 1=2
20 ¼ b 3þb b (60c)

b
b¼ (60d)
a
Taking strain rate effect into account Eq. (60a) is modified as
n o
  ð3  20 Þ ð1 þ G=nÞ1=2 1
d
¼ (60e)
t r 2f1 þ ð20  1Þð20  2Þg

" #1=q
Vtð3  20 ÞG1=2
n ¼ 1þ pffiffiffi (60f)
6 2Db2 f1 þ ð20  1Þð20  2Þg

5.1.2. Localized blast loading

Localized impact is the explosion or impact process that occurs over a localized region of the plate
(in contrast to the uniform loading that occurs over the whole area of the unsupported plate). When
a localized explosion takes place on a plate petalling occurs [68]. For small amplitudes of impulse
the plate undergoes dishing. Dishing occurs until tensile necking and fracture takes over the critical
velocity, Vcr, of the plate which is given by

pffiffiffiffi
Vcr ¼ 2:83cp 3f (61a)
where cp is the plastic wave speed which is given as

sffiffiffiffiffi
so
cp ¼ (61b)
rp

where so is the flow stress which is given as

 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 115

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sy su
so ¼ (61c)
1þp
where su is the ultimate stress and p is the exponent in the power-type stress–strain law. The detona-
tion blows out a central cap of the radius rp (where rp is the radius of the explosive). This occurs at a cen-
tral deflection d, which is given as

pffiffiffiffi
d ¼ 2:47rp 3f (62)
When the impulse is above this value, the reminder of the initial kinetic energy goes into the petalling
process. For n1 radial cracks that develop from a point in an infinite plate dividing it into n1 symmetric
petals, the central 2q angle of the petal equals 2p/n1. Taking the instantaneous crack length as ac, the
perpendicular distance l, which can be considered as process parameter is given by ac cos q. By energy
balance [68],
 2 " 2 #   1:4
Vcr V t l
1 ¼ 5:2h0:6
m 1 (63a)
c Vcr re re

where V is the impact velocity and hm is the moment amplification factor which takes into account the
larger bending resistance of the curved plate is given as [68]
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi re
hm ¼ 1 þ 2 23f q2 (63b)
t
Normally 3–5 petals form in the plate [68]. The amount of impulse imparted to the plate is propor-
tional to the weight of the explosive W.
     
V Ip W
¼ ¼ (63c)
Vcr Ipc Wcr
where Wcr is the critical weight of the explosive to generate the critical impulse, Ipc, that is required to
blow out the central plot. Lee and Wierzbicki [69,70] reported analytical and numerical modeling on
the dishing, discing and petalling of plates subjected to localized impulse. Analytical and experimental
work was reported by Wierzbicki and Nurick [71] to determine the location of tearing failure and the
critical impulse to failure. Experimental work on clamped circular plates subjected to localized impulse
was reported by Nurick and Radford [72] to study the formation of petalling failure. Jacob et al. [73]
described the effect of varying both the loading conditions and the plate geometries on the deforma-
tion of the plate and predicted numerically the plate response.

5.2. Underwater explosion

5.2.1. Uniform explosion loading

5.2.1.1. Elastic response. A near miss underwater explosion in a war scenario may result in the plate re-
sponse varying from elastic to plastic and in an extreme case fracture. The designer is therefore inter-
ested in predicting the range of responses of the ship plates. Both warships and merchant ships have
liquid filled side shells. Therefore it is of interest to know what happens to these side shells during an
underwater explosion environment. Although there is no permanent damage to the plate that un-
dergoes elastic deformation, it is the interest to the designer to know in advance the transient state
of stress it develops. For a small intensity of explosion, the stresses developed in the plate are in its elas-
tic range. During elastic deformation the air-backed plate undergoes tens of thousands of ‘g’s (acceler-
ation due to gravity) [74]. Water-backed plates, however, suffer relatively less damage. This is because
a considerable proportion of the shock wave transmits through the water at the rear of the plate. In
other words, water-backed plates simply transmit the maximum part of the shock wave energy.
116 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

5.2.1.1.1. Circular geometry. For air-backed plates [75–77] for the primary shock wave, the semi-an-
alytical von Mises stress, sa, at the apex (center) of the plate is given as
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u6Er P 2 x2=ð1xa Þ
sa ¼ t 2p 2m a (64a)
rw cw ð1  nÞ
where E is the Young’s modulus of the plate material. In terms of effective shock factor [77,78]
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
E
sa ¼ 1179xea (64b)
ð1  nÞt

where E is Young’s modulus of the material, n is the Poisson’s ratio, xea is the effective shock factor for
the air-backed plates.
pffiffiffi
xea ¼ x1:03 ha (64c)
where x is the normal shock factor which is given as [7]
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
W
x ¼ 0:445 (64d)
S
Traditionally, the shock factor is used to classify the severity of the attack. For x less than 0.15, the shock
damage is considered to be negligible; for x greater than 0.7, the shock damage is considered to be the
severest [7].
For water-backed plates, assuming a strain distribution pattern of the target plate similar to that of
air-backed plate [76–78] the semi-analytical von Mises stress is given as
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u3Er P 2 x2=ð1xw Þ
sa ¼ t p2 m2 w (65a)
2rw cw ð1  nÞ

or in terms of effective shock factor [77,78]

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
E
sa ¼ 1179xew (65b)
ð1  nÞt

where xew is the effective shock factor for a water-backed plate

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
xew ¼ x1:03 hw (65c)
A comparison of the apex (plate center) von Mises stress developed by the circular plate for various
shock factors is shown in Fig. 6. As expected, water-backed plates undergo less stress. Furthermore, the
shock wave parameters based and the shock factor based stresses are in good agreement.
5.2.1.1.2. Rectangular geometry. For air-backed plates [76] and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 the semi-
analytical von Mises stress is given as
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u14Er P 2 x2=ð1xa Þ
t p m a
sa ¼ 0:867 (66a)
r2w c2w
In terms of effective shock factor [77,78]
rffiffiffi
1:03 pffiffiffiffiffi E
sa ¼ 1584x ha (66b)
t
Numerical and experimental underwater explosion simulations carried out [65] on aluminium plate
of 1 m  1 m  0.01 m are compared well with Eq. (66).
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 117

600
ABPSWPB
ABPSFB
WBPSWPB
WBPSFB
Apex Von Mises stress (MPa) ABPE

400

200

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Shock factor (kg1/2/m)

Fig. 6. A comparison of the elastic response of air- and water-backed circular plates as a function of shock factor. ABPSWPB: air-
backed plate shock wave parameters based; WBPSWPB: water-backed plate shock wave parameters based; ABPSFB: air-backed plate
shock factor based; WBPSFB: water-backed plate shock factor based; and ABPE: air-backed plate experiment [76].

For water-backed plates, assuming a strain distribution pattern of the target plate similar to that of
air-backed plates [76,77]
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u7Er P 2 x2=ð1xw Þ
sa ¼ 0:867t p m2 w2 (67a)
2rw cw

or in terms of effective shock factor [77,78]

rffiffiffi
1:03 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi E
sa ¼ 1584x hw (67b)
t
A comparison of the apex (plate center) von Mises stress developed by the rectangular plate for var-
ious shock factors is shown in Fig. 7. A similar trend as for the circular plates is observed.

5.2.1.2. Limiting elastic range. As the intensity of explosion gradually increases, the plate reaches the
limit of the elastic range beyond which it undergoes permanent deformation. For all practical discus-
sions here, elastic range limit is assumed to merge with the yield point without appreciable error. Mer-
chant cargo vessels and warships are normally made up of mild steels whereas mine sweepers are
made up of austenitic steel (non-magnetic) and aluminium alloys. For strain rate sensitive materials,
there are static and dynamic yield points, the dynamic yield stress, syd, is higher than the static yield
stress sy, and is typically related by the Cowper–Symonds relation:
"  1=q #
3_
syd ¼ sy 1 þ (68)
D

where 3_ is the average strain rate, and D and q are material constants which are given by Jones [36].
118 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

600
ABPSWPB
ABPSFB
WBPSWPB
500
Apex Von Mises stress (MPa) WBPSFB
ABPE

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Shock factor (kg1/2/m)

Fig. 7. A comparison of the elastic response of air- and water-backed rectangular plates as a function of shock factor. ABPSWPB: air-
backed plate shock wave parameters based; WBPSWPB: water-backed plate shock wave parameters based; ABPSFB: air-backed plate
shock factor based; WBPSFB: water-backed plate shock factor based; and ABPE: air-backed plate experiment [76].

The effective shock factor xe remains the same for air- and water-backed plates for generating a spec-
ified stress level. The effective shock factor, xeyc, required for generating the static yield stress for cir-
cular plates is given as [77,78]
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
6 ð1  nÞt
xeyc ¼ 848  10 sys (69)
E
and for rectangular plates as [77,78]
rffiffiffi
E
xeyr ¼ 631  106 sys (70)
t
It was established from experiments [79] that the dynamic yielding of mild steel during an underwater
explosion occurs for a stress that is 1.4 times the static yield stress. The average strain rate for defor-
mation during the elastic range was 0.5 s1 [70]. Therefore, the effective shock factor for circular
and rectangular plates for dynamic yielding of various hull materials is given by multiplying the right
side of Eqs. (69) and (70) by scaling factors (sd/sy). The Cowper–Symonds equations should be obtained
from dynamic tensile tests on the specific material being considered. Guideline values are derived by
applying the nominal material constants [36] and the average strain rate for the elastic range limit. The
scaling factors thus obtained are as follows: for mild steel 1.42, for high tensile steel 1.17, for aluminium
alloy 1.09, for a-titanium (Ti 50A) 1.54 and for AISI 304 stainless steel 1.59.
A look at Eq. (64d) shows that a range of charge quantity and stand off combination is possible for
generating the desired shock factor. The charge quantity in kg and stand off in m required to generate
the shock factor for the given time constant are obtained from Eqs. (16) and (64d) as [80]
 0:5946  2:7026
x q
W ¼ (71)
0:445 96:5  106
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 119

   1:3513
0:445 0:7027 q
S ¼ (72)
x 96:5  106

5.2.1.3. Plastic deformation. When the effective shock factor exceeds the dynamic yield value, the plate
undergoes permanent deformation. The extent of permanent deformation is indicated by the central
deflection of the exploded plates and is proportional to the impulse imparted to the plate [3]. For
the underwater explosion of the air-backed plates based on the free field impulse [81,82] the empirical
relationship is given as [81,82]
 
d
¼ 0:541Fc  0:433 (73)
t c

The variation of the deflection-thickness ratio as a function of the dimensionless parameter Fc for cir-
cular plates is shown in Fig. 8. A comparison of Eqs. (57), (59a), (59b) and (73) with experimental data
showed good agreement [80]. Eq. (59a) over predicts because strain rate effects are not accounted for.
For air-backed rectangular plates the empirical prediction is given as [80]
 
d
¼ 0:553Fr þ 0:741 (74)
t r

The variation of the deflection-thickness ratio as a function of the dimensionless parameter, Fr, for rect-
angular plates is shown in Fig. 9. A comparison of Eqs. (58), (60a), (60e) and (74) with experimental data
showed good agreement [80]. Eq. (60a) over predicts because strain rate effects are not accounted for.
Eqs. (73) and (74) assume that the total deflection caused by the impulse due to primary and the
reloading shock waves on the plate is equal to the deflection caused by the free field impulse.

Circular plates
Nurick & Martin Equation (57)
30
Jones Equation (59a)
Jones Equation (59b)
Rajendran & Narsimhan Equation (73)
Experimental (Ref [81])
Deflection-thickness ratio

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40

Fig. 8. Variation of deflection-thickness ratio of circular plates with the dimensionless parameter F.
120 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

Rectangular plates
25 Nurick & Martin Equation (58)
Jones Equation (60a)
Jones Equation (60e)
Rajendran & Narasimhan
Equation (74)
20 Experimental (Ref [81])
Deflection-thickness ratio

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40

Fig. 9. Variation of deflection-thickness ratio of rectangular plates (b ¼ 5/6) with the dimensionless parameter F.

For water-backed plates cavitation does not occur [7]. However, there will be shock loading on the
water-backed plate due to the gas bubble pulse. The total impulse for water-backed plates for the in-
teraction of the primary shock pulse is given as

Ipt ¼ Vmw At rp (75)

from which dimensionless parameters are obtained for water-backed plates to calculate the central de-
flection. A photographic view of a rectangular steel plate that underwent mode I (inelastic deforma-
tion) is shown in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10. Photographic view of an underwater exploded plate that underwent mode I failure.
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 121

5.2.2. Contact underwater explosion

In underwater explosion scenario, contact underwater explosion where the explosive comes in di-
rect contact with the plate during the detonation process is equivalent to localized blast loading. The
physics of the contact underwater explosion phenomena is not yet well understood. However, it is of
great relevance to the naval warfare because underwater weapons for attacking the subsurface vessels
are so designed that they detonate on impact with the target. Keil [50] reported that the early work on
contact explosion damage of ships was carried out by the Japanese imperial navy on the discarded ship.
Experiments carried out by Keil [7] ruled out the depth of submergence on the damage of plates. Keil
[7] described that there is a definite relation between the radius, R, of the hole that is being bored by an
explosive quantity, W, during contact with a plate of thickness t.
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
W
R ¼ 0:0704 (76)
t
where R and t are in m and W is in kg. The boundary conditions were, however, not specified for this
empirical relationship. This relation is valid only above a certain charge quantity since a minimum
quantity of explosive is required for making a hole in the plate of specified thickness. The critical charge
weight, Wcri, above which Eq. (76) is valid is given by [7]

Wcri ¼ 2:72t (77)

An analytical prediction for the radius of the hole that is bored on a clamped circular plate is given by
Rajendran and Narasimhan [83]
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2hWEqTNT ETNT J
R ¼ (78)
pt sy 3f
A comparison of the radius of the crack by Wierzibicki [68], Keil [7] and Rajendran et al. [82] is pre-
sented in Fig. 11. The model proposed by Wierzbicki [68] for localized air blast impact under predicts
for smaller charges and over predicts as the charge quantity increases beyond 20 g for localized under-
water explosion in comparison with the prediction methodologies by Keil [7] and Rajendran and Nar-
asimhan [83]. A photographic view of a circular plate that underwent contact underwater explosion is
shown in Fig. 12.

1.20

Equation (63)
1.00
Equation (76)
Equation (78)
Crack length (m)

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
TNT explosive quantity (g)

Fig. 11. The variation of the plate crack length that is subjected to localized blast as a function of explosive charge quantity. Plate
thickness ¼ 1.6 mm; strain to rupture ¼ 0.3; flow stress ¼ 330 MPa.
122 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

Fig. 12. Photographic view of petalling of a steel plate during contact underwater explosion.

6. Fracture

Mode I deformation of the plates under explosive loading continues with the increasing intensity of
the explosion. The moment the total strain at any point at the edge of the plate attains its rupture
strain, tensile tearing or fracture (mode II failure) occurs. A photographic view of a steel plate that failed
in tensile tearing is shown in Fig. 13.
Lee and Wierzbicki [69] proposed that facture initiates at the critical point of a structure when the
accumulated equivalent plastic strain with suitable weighting function reaches a critical value. Rajen-
dran and Narasimhan [83] equated equivalent plastic strain of thin plates to their uniaxial fracture
strain as fracture criterion. Balden and Nurick [84] proposed that fracture occurs when the summation
of the ratio of the incremental effective plastic strain to the failure strain becomes equal to one. The
failure strain is a function of mean stress, strain rate and temperature. Langdon and Schleyer [64]
equated the total strain to cause tearing at the outer fibres of a rectangular cross-section beam to
the sum of the membrane strain and the strain due to the curvature. The interaction of mode II fracture
and mode III (shear) fracture is brought out by Rudhrapatna et al. [58,59].

Fig. 13. Photographic view of an underwater exploded plate that underwent mode II failure (tensile tearing).
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 123

The ability of the hull structure to withstand large plastic deformation before fracture is a major cri-
terion in naval structural design [85]. Explosion Bulge Test (EBT) has been used as the final qualification
test to verify the dynamic plasticity of defence structural materials [86]. Explosive loading promotes
brittle fracture due to high strain rate influence of material flow properties. EBT has been developed
by Hartbower and Pellini [87,88] to investigate the response of steel weldments to air blast. MIL-
STD-2149A [89] formulated by the U.S. Navy recommends air blast as the source of energy to evaluate
the resistance of base materials and weldments to fracture under shock loading. It also recommends
repetitive loading on the test plate with a reduction in thickness in each shot until final strain to frac-
ture. Underwater EBT was developed by Sumpter [90] and Porter et al. [91] to minimize the charge
quantity and environmental noise nuisance. Sumpter [92] formulated pass/fail criterion for cracked
plates subjected to shock load. Fracture resistance of metal plates loaded into plastic regime by non-
contact underwater explosion was reported by Gifford et al. [93,94].

7. Numerical methods

Elastic response of blast loaded plates was carried out by Veldman et al. [1] using ANSYS. The non-
linear finite element analysis accounted for large deformation effects but neglected strain rate effects.
Pressure–time history was modeled as decaying exponential function based on experimental data. The
slight negative phase of the shock wave and round reflection peak that were present during the exper-
iment were ignored. Numerical simulation and experiments showed good correlation to within 5.5%
for the plate central displacement. Jacinto et al. [13] performed numerical elastic analysis using ABA-
QUS/standard 5.7. The plate was modeled using shell element. The boundary conditions were consid-
ered as perfectly clamped. Dynamic analysis was performed using modal superposition and direct
integration method. Pressure–time history was input from the experiment. It was brought out that
the number of vibration modes was important because blast load excites high frequencies. The element
size of the model should agree with the quantity of modes. More refined mesh captured high frequency
with less error.
Circular plate clamped at its edge and subjected to uniform blast load was simulated by Balden and
Nurick [84] using ABAQUS. A frictional contact was prescribed between upper and lower plate surfaces
and corresponding plate surfaces. The friction co-efficient was assumed to be 0.3. The bolt array was
simulated with single elastic spring having spring stiffness based on the axial elastic response of the
bolt array, acting between upper and lower flanges. The bolt array preload was calculated using the as-
sumed bolt tightening torque and applied as load during the analysis. Uniform blast pressure was dis-
tributed over the entire exposed surface of the plate. The blast pressure was obtained by dividing the
impulse with the burn time of the explosive. von Mises plasticity with isotropic hardening/softening
behaviour together with strain rate sensitivity using Cowper–Symonds relationship was applied.
The hardening curve was linearly changed in magnitude based on the change in yield stress at various
temperatures. The variation of elastic response with reference to temperature was accounted for by
providing the variation of Young’s modulus of the material with temperature. Element failure criterion
was fixed as 200% failure strain and on nodal temperature. Comparison of experimental and numerical
predictions of input energy for uniform blast loading was good. Veldman et al. [1] used ANSYS/
LS_DYNA–Release 7.1 for modeling the inelastic deformation of rectangular plates. The plate was mod-
eled as four-node quadrilateral explicit thin shell elements ignoring strain rate effects. Bi-linear isotro-
pic plasticity was assumed. Pressure–time history was modeled as decaying exponential function
based on experimental data. The negative phase of the pressure pulse and the small ground reflection
were neglected. An agreement to within 5.3% was seen between numerical and experimental results.
Explicit finite element code DYNA3D was adopted by Pan and Louca [95] to model the response of
a plate to gas explosion. Reaction-time history of the support assembly was compared with experimen-
tally obtained and ABAQUS/Explicit results to simulate the exact boundary conditions. Four noded thin
shell elements were used to model the frame–plate assembly. Pinned boundary condition was applied
to the outside part of the lower side of the specimen frame. To simulate the slip in bolt connections and
possible in-plane movement of the test rig, beam elements were used. Good comparison was seen be-
tween predicted and measured peak displacement.
124 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

A detailed coupled fluid–structure interaction that is applied for underwater shock loading is pre-
sented in Section 4.2. LS-DYNA and Underwater Shock Analysis (USA) codes were used by Shin [45] for
non-linear structural analysis of a ship model that is subjected to an underwater explosion. Doubly as-
ymptotic approximation (DAA) that is used for the fluid–structure interaction eliminates the need for
modeling the surrounding fluid volume by covering the wet surface of the structure with DAA boundary
elements. The fluid element thickness, tf, in the direction normal to the wetted surface is defined as [45]

2rw tf
5 (79)
rp t
Velocity and acceleration response prediction by Shin [45] of a ship model using LS-DYNA and USA
gave good comparison with shock test data

8. Conclusions

This paper brought out a detailed review of the phenomena of air and underwater explosions and
their effects on plane plates. The process of detonation of the explosive is marked by the generation of
large amount of heat with the associated pressure at a short interval. The shock wave parameters that
are significant for an air blast are the peak overpressure and the impulse. For an underwater explosion,
the peak overpressure, time constant, free field impulse and energy are the four vital parameters that
are considered for the damage process.
By and large, interest is shown on the plastic damage of plates that are subjected to an air blast. For
a generated pressure–time history on a plate, a simple single degree of freedom (SDOF) system, or as-
sumed modes method or numerical method is applied to derive the plate response.
When rectangular air blast pressure–time history is imparted, with the magnitude of the pressure
more than 10 times that of static collapse pressure of the plate, analytical and empirical methods are
employed to obtain the central plastic deflection with the measured impulse on the plate as input. For
performing numerical analysis, the impulse is divided by the burn time of the explosive to get the pres-
sure magnitude.
For underwater explosion, from the threat perception and survivability point of view, both elastic
and plastic responses are of interest. Methods of evaluating the elastic stresses and the limiting elastic
range are presented for a mild intensity explosion. Empirical methods are presented for predicting the
plastic central deflection for a severe explosion.
Localized blast leads to petalling of the plate. Analytical methods are available to compute the crack
length. Methods developed by Keil [7] and Rajendran and Narasimhan [83] for underwater explosion
are compared against the methodology developed by Wierzbicki [68] for air blast.
Various methods of numerical simulation of a plate that undergoes air blast, gas explosion and un-
derwater explosion are brought out comparing their predictive accuracy with experimental results.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Advanced Ship Engineering Research Centre (ASERC) of Pusan
National University, Republic of Korea, as part of its research program.

References

[1] Veldman RL, Ari-Gur J, Clum C, DeYong A, Folkert J. Effect of pre-pressurization on blast response of clamped aluminium
plates. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2006;32(10):1678–95.
[2] Fox EN. A review of underwater explosion phenomena. Compendium of Underwater Explosion Research, ONR 1947;1:
1–83.
[3] Cole RH. Underwater explosions. New York: Dover Publications Inc.; 1948.
[4] Keshawarz MH, Pouretedal HR. An empirical method for predicting detonation pressure of CHNOFCl explosives. Thermo-
chimica Acta 2004;414:203–8.
[5] Keshawarz MH, Nazari HR. A simple method to assess detonation temperature without using any experimental data and
computer code. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2006;133(1–3):129–34.
[6] Keshawarz MH. Detonation velocity of pure and mixed CHNO explosives at maximum nominal density. Journal of Hazard-
ous Materials 2007;141(3):536–9.
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 125

[7] Keil. Introduction to underwater explosion research. Portsmouth, Virginia: UERD, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; 1956.
[8] Alia A, Souli M. High explosive simulation using multimaterial formulations. Applied Thermal Engineering 2006;26:
1032–42.
[9] Clutter JK, Stahl M. Hydrocode simulations of air and water shocks for facility vulnerability assessments. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 2004;106(1):9–24.
[10] Kinnery GF, Graham KJ. Explosive shocks in air. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1985.
[11] Formby SA, Wharton RK. Blast characteristics and TNT equivalence values for some commercial explosives detonated at
ground level. Journal of Hazardous Materials 1996;50(2–3):183–98.
[12] Glasstone S, Dolan PJ. Effects of nuclear weapons. Washington, DC: US Department of Defence and the Energy Research
and Development Administration; 1977.
[13] Jacinto AC, Abrosini RD, Danesi RF. Experimental and computational analysis of plates under air blast loading. Interna-
tional Journal of Impact Engineering 2001;25(10):927–47.
[14] Alonso FD, Ferradas EG, Perez SJF, Gimeno JR, Alonso JM. Characteristic overpressure–impulse–distance curves for the det-
onation of explosives, pyrotechnics or unstable substances. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2006;
19(6):724–8.
[15] Bjerketvedt D, Bakke JR, Wingerden KV. Gas explosion handbook. Journal of Hazardous Materials 1997;52:1–150.
[16] Bjorno L, Levin P. Underwater explosion research using small amount of chemical explosives. Ultrasonics 1976:263–7.
[17] Luccioni B, Ambrosini D. Blast load assessment using hydrocodes. In: Larreteguy A, editor. Mechanica Computational, vol.
XXIV; 2005. p. 329–44. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
[18] Florence AL. Circular plates under a uniformly distributed impulse. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1966;
2(1):37–47.
[19] Wierzbicki T, Florence AL. A theoretical and experimental investigation of impulsively loaded clamped circular viscoplastic
plates. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1970;6:553–68.
[20] Batra RC, Dube RN. Impulsively loaded circular plates. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1971;7(8):965–78.
[21] Bodner SR, Symonds PS. Experiments on viscoplastic response of circular plates to impulsive loading. Journal of Mechanics
and Physics of Solids 1979;27(2):91–113.
[22] Idczak W, Rymarz Cz, Spychala A. Studies on shock-wave loaded circular plates. Journal of Technical Physics 1981;22(2):
175–84.
[23] Nurick GN. A new technique to measure the deflection-time history of a structure subjected to high strain rates. Interna-
tional Journal of Impact Engineering 1985;3(1):17–26.
[24] Nurick GN. Using photo voltaic diodes to measure the deformation response of a structure subjected to an explosive load,
SPIE. High-speed Photography 1986;674:215–25.
[25] Nurick GN. The measurement of deformation response of a structure subjected to an explosive load using light interfer-
ence technique. In: Proceedings of 1986 SEM spring conference on experimental mechanics. The Society of Experimental
Mechanics Inc.; 1986. p. 105–14.
[26] Nurick GN, Pearce HT, Martin JB. Predictions of transverse deflections and in-plane strains in impulsively loaded thin
plates. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 1987;29(6):435–42.
[27] Nurick GN, Martin JB. Deformation of thin plates subjected to impulsive loading-a review. Part-I: theoretical consider-
ations. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1989;8(2):159–69.
[28] Nurick GN, Martin JB. Deformation of thin plates subjected to impulsive loading-a review. Part-II: experimental studies.
International Journal of Impact Engineering 1989;8(2):171–86.
[29] Teeling-Smith RG, Nurick GN. The deformation and tearing of thin circular plates subjected to impulsive loads. Interna-
tional Journal of Impact Engineering 1991;11(1):77–91.
[30] Olson MD, Nurick GN, Fagnan JR. Deformation and rupture of blast loaded square plates – predictions and experiments.
International Journal of Impact Engineering 1993;13(2):279–91.
[31] Nurick GN, Olson MD, Fagnan JR, Levin A. Deformation and tearing of blast-loaded stiffened square plates. International
Journal of Impact Engineering 1995;16(2):273–91.
[32] Nurick GN, Gelman ME, Marshall NS. Tearing of blast loaded plates with clamped boundary conditions. International Jour-
nal of Impact Engineering 1996;7–8:803–27.
[33] Worznica K, Pennetier O, Renard J. Experimental and numerical simulations on thin metallic plates subjected to explo-
sions. Journal of Engineering and Materials Technology 2001;123(2):203–9.
[34] Langdon GS, Cantwell WJ, Nurick GN. The blast response of novel thermoplastic-based fibre-metal laminates – some pre-
liminary results and observations. Composites Science and Technology 2005;65(6):861–72.
[35] Gupta NK, Nagesh. Deformation and tearing of circular plates with varying support conditions under uniform impulsive
loads. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2007;34(1):42–59.
[36] Jones N. Structural impact. Cambridge University Press; 1989.
[37] Park BW, Cho SR. Simple design formulae for predicting the residual damage of unstiffened and stiffened plates under
explosion loadings. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2006;32(10):1721–36.
[38] Yuen SCY, Nurick GN. Experimental and numerical studies on the response of quadrangular stiffened plates. Part I:
subjected to uniform blast load. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2005;31(1):55–83.
[39] Schleyer GK, Lowak MJ, Polcyn MA, Langdon GS. Experimental investigation of blast wall panels under shock pressure
loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2007;42(6):1095–118.
[40] Stoffel M, Schmidt R, Weichert D. Shock wave-loaded plates. International Journal of Solids and Structures
2001;38(42–43):7659–80.
[41] Stoffel M. Sensitivity of simulations depending upon material parameter variations. Mechanics Research Communications
2005;32(3):332–6.
[42] Stoffel M. An experimental method to validate viscoplastic constitutive equations in the dynamic response of plates.
Mechanics of Materials 2005;37(12):1210–22.
[43] Stoffel M. An experimental method for measuring the buckling shapes of thin-walled structures. Thin-walled Structures
2006;44(1):69–73.
126 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127

[44] Stoffel M. Shape forming of shock wave loaded viscoplastic plates. Mechanics Research Communications 2006;33(1):
35–41.
[45] Shin YS. Ship shock modeling and simulation for far field explosion. Computers and Structures 2004;82(23–26):2211–9.
[46] Makinen K. Cavitation models for structures excited by a plane shock wave. Journal of Fluids and Structures 1998;12(1):
85–101.
[47] Makinen K. The transverse response of sandwich panels to an underwater shock wave. Journal of Fluids and Structures
1999;13(5):631–46.
[48] Liang CC, Tai YS. Shock response of a surface ship subjected to non-contact underwater explosions. Ocean Engineering
2006;33(5–6):748–72.
[49] Gong SW, Lam KY, Lu C. Structural analysis of a submarine pipeline subjected to underwater shock. International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping 2000;77(7):417–23.
[50] Keil AH. The response of ships to underwater explosions. Transactions of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
1961;69:366–410.
[51] Kennard AH. The effect of pressure wave on a plate diaphragm. Compendium of Underwater Explosion Research, ONR
1944;3:11–64.
[52] Taylor GI. The pressure and impulse of submarine explosion waves on plates. Compendium of Underwater Explosion
Research, ONR 1941;1:1155–74.
[53] Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. One-dimensional response of sandwich plates to underwater shock loading. Journal of Mechan-
ics and Physics of Solids 2005;53(11):2347–83.
[54] Xue Z, Hutchinson JW. A comparative study of impulse resistant metal sandwich plates. International Journal of Impact
Engineering 2004;30(10):1283–305.
[55] Ezra AA. Principles and practice of explosive metal working, Part I, Industrial Newspapers Ltd.. Adelphi, London, WC2N
6JH: John Adams House; 1973.
[56] Biggs JM. Introduction to structural dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1964.
[57] Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1975.
[58] Rudhrapatna RS, Vaziri R, Olson MD. Deformation and failure of blast loaded square plates. International Journal of Impact
Engineering 1999;22(4):449–67.
[59] Rudhrapatna RS, Vaziri R, Olson MD. Deformation and failure of blast loaded stiffened plates. International Journal of Im-
pact Engineering 2000;24(5):457–74.
[60] Ma GW, Shi HJ, Shu DW. P–I diagram method for combined failure modes of rigid-plastic beams. International Journal of
Impact Engineering 2007;34(6):1081–94.
[61] Baker WR, Cox PA, Westine PS, Kulesz JJ, Strehlow RA. Explosion hazards and evaluation. New York: Elsevier Scientific Pub-
lishing Company; 1983.
[62] Craig RR. Structural dynamics. New York: Wiley; 1981. pp. 251–261.
[63] Schleyer GK, Hsu SS, White MD, Birch RS. Pulse pressure loading of clamped mild steel plates. International Journal of Im-
pact Engineering 2003;28(2):223–47.
[64] Langdon GS, Schleyer GK. Inelastic deformation and failure of clamped aluminium plates under pulse pressure loading.
International Journal of Impact Engineering 2003;28(10):1107–27.
[65] Xue Z, Hutchinson JW. Preliminary assessment of sandwich plates subject to blast loads. International Journal of Mechan-
ical Sciences 2003;45(4):687–705.
[66] Johnson W. Impact strength of materials. London: Edward Arnold; 1972.
[67] Nurick GN. An empirical solution for predicting the maximum central deflection of impulsively loaded plates. In: Interna-
tional conference on mechanical properties of materials at high rates of strain. Oxford: Institute of Physics Society; 1989. p.
457–63. No.12, Session: 9.
[68] Wierzbicki T. Petalling of plates under explosive and impact loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1999;
22(9–10):935–54.
[69] Lee YW, Wierzbicki T. Fracture prediction of thin plates under localized impulse loading. Part-I: dishing. International Jour-
nal of Impact Engineering 2005;31(10):1253–76.
[70] Lee YW, Wierzbicki T. Fracture prediction of thin plates under localized impulse loading. Part-II: discing and petalling. In-
ternational Journal of Impact Engineering 2005;31(10):1277–308.
[71] Wierzbicki T, Nurick GN. Large deformation of thin plates under localized impulse loading. International Journal of Impact
Engineering 1996;18(7–8):899–918.
[72] Nurick GN, Radford AM. Deformation and tearing of clamped circular plates subjected to localised central blast loads. In:
Reddy BD, editor. Recent developments in computational and applied mechanics, A volume in honour of J.B.Martin; 1997.
p. 276–301.
[73] Jacob N, Yuen CH, Nurick GN, Bonorchis D, Desai SA, Tait D. Scaling aspects of quadrangular plates subjected to localised
blast loads – experiments and predictions. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2004;30(7–8):1179–208.
[74] Hung CF, Hsu PY, Fuu JJH. Elastic shock response of an air-backed plate to underwater explosion. International Journal of
Impact Engineering 2005;31(2):151–68.
[75] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Underwater shock response of circular HSLA steel plates. Shock and Vibration 2000;7:251–62.
[76] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Linear elastic shock response of plane plates subjected to underwater explosion. International
Journal of Impact Engineering 2001;25(5):493–506.
[77] Rajendran R, Paik JK, Kim BJ. Design of warship plates against underwater explosions. Ships and Offshore Structures 2006;
1(4):347–56.
[78] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. A shock factor based approach for the damage assessment of plane plates subjected to un-
derwater explosions. Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design 2006;41(6):417–25.
[79] Rajendran R. Response of thin HSLA steel plates to underwater explosive shock loading. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay, Mumbai, India; 2001.
[80] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Deformation and fracture behaviour of plate specimens subjected to underwater explosion –
a review. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2006;32(12):1945–63.
 R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 127

[81] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Performance evaluation of HSLA steel subjected to underwater explosion. Journal of Materials
Engineering and Performance 2001;10(1):66–74.
[82] Rajendran R, Paik JK, Lee JM. Of underwater explosion experiments on plane plates. Experimental Techniques 2007;31(1):
18–24.
[83] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Damage prediction of clamped circular plates subjected to contact underwater explosion. In-
ternational Journal of Impact Engineering 2001;25(4):373–86.
[84] Balden VH, Nurick GN. Numerical simulation of the post-failure motion of steel plates subjected to blast loading. Interna-
tional Journal of Impact Engineering 2005;32(1–4):14–34.
[85] Sumpter JDG. Design against fracture in welded joints. In: Smith CS, Clarke JD, editors. Advances in marine structures.
Elsevier Applied Science Publishers; 1986. p. 326–46.
[86] Porter JF. Response of SMA and narrow gap SMA weldments to explosive shock. Technical Memorandum 88/206, DREA,
Atlantic, Canada; 1988.
[87] Hartbower CE, Pellini WS. Explosion bulge test studies on deformation of weldments. Welding Journal 1951:307s–18s.
[88] Hartbower CE, Pellini WS. Investigation factors which determine the performance of weldments. Welding Journal 1951:
499s–511s.
[89] U.S. Navy. Standard procedure for explosion bulge testing of ferrous and non-ferrous metallic materials and weldments.
MIL-STD-2149A (SH); 1990.
[90] Sumpter JDG. Prediction of critical crack size in plastically strained weld panels. ASTM-STP-995; 1989. p. 415–432.
[91] Porter JF, Morehouse DO. Development of the DREA underwater single shot explosion bulge procedure. In Canadian frac-
ture conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia; 1990.
[92] Sumpter JDG. Design against fracture in welded joints. Journal of Naval Science 1987;13(4):258–70.
[93] Gifford LN, Dally JW. Fracture resistance of metal structures loaded into plastic regime. In: Smith CS, Dow RS, editors. Ad-
vances in marine structures-2. Elsevier Applied Science; 1991. p. 23–41.
[94] Gifford LN, Carlberg JR, Wiggs AJ, Sickles JB. Explosive testing of full thickness pre-cracked weldments. In: Gudas JP,
Joyce JA, Huckett EM, editors. Fracture mechanics twenty first symposium, ASTM-STP-1074. Philadelphia: ASTM; 1990.
p. 157–77.
[95] Pan Y, Louca LA. Experimental and numerical studies on the response of stiffened plates subjected to gas explosions. Jour-
nal of Constructional Steel Research 1999;52(2):171–93.