Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Study on the quantitative law of wall pressure caused by mini-charge

underwater explosion bubble
Chen Yingyu a, Yao Xiongliang a, *, Cui Xiongwei a, Li Suyun a, Liu Liangtao b
a
College of Shipbuilding Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, 150001, China
b
National Key Laboratory of Transient Physics, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The wall pressure caused by underwater explosion is always a key problem in the anti-explosion design of naval
Underwater explosion bubble ships. Notably, the accurate wall pressure caused by underwater explosion bubble is one of the most difficult
Wall pressure parts due to the significant nonlinear deformation of the bubble. In present study, the dynamics of an underwater
Quantitative law
explosion bubble near a rigid wall are captured by high-speed camera and the wall pressure in the wall center are
measured by a pressure transducer. The wall pressure with standoff distance parameter γ ¼ d=Rm from 0.38 to
1.54 are recorded, where d represents the vertical distance from the explosive charge center to the wall center,
and Rm is the maximum radius of bubble. According to the previous study and the experimental data in this
paper, when γ < 1:2, the load on the wall center has obvious double-peak phenomenon, that is, the composition
of the re-entrant jet load and the bubble collapse load. To obtain the quantitative law of wall pressure caused by
mini-charge underwater explosion bubble, we proposed a mathematical model to describe the time-pressure
curve when γ < 1:2. And according to the conclusion in our previous study (Chen et al., 2018), based on the
boundary element method (BEM), the space distribution of the wall pressure was obtained.

1. Introduction
Accurately obtaining the wall pressure caused by underwater ex­
plosion bubble plays a key role in ship design. Experimental method has
been recognized worldwide as the authoritative means of studying the
near-field explosion bubble load. A large number of researchers carried
out experiments on bubble dynamics and its impact load. Among these
studies, scholars have developed many experimental methods to study
underwater bubbles, such as laser bubbles (lauterborn, 1998; Lindau
and Lauterborn, 2003; Shaw et al., 1999; Zhao et al., 2007; Y et al.,
1991), electrode discharge bubbles (C.G. et al., 1995; Cui et al., 2016a;
Fong et al., 2009; Gong et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2018;
Zhang et al., 2018a), underwater explosion bubbles (Klaseboer et al.,
2005; Cui et al., 2016b). The measurement of the bubble load on the
wall surface can be traced back to 1980’s, Tong (Tong et al., 1999)
conducted a series of studies on the wall pressure caused by laser bubble
with standoff distance parameters between 0.8 and 1.2 using experi­
ments and numerical methods. Studies have shown that the first peak of
the bubble load has an inflection point as the standoff distance param­
eters increases, and the decay time corresponding to this pressure peak
inflection point is prolonged. Tomita et al. (Shima et al., 1983; Tomita
and Shima, 1986) used the wall pressure sensor system to study the load
characteristics of laser bubble and its damage to soft structures. Wang
et al. (Wang and Chen, 2007) used PVDF sensors to measure the impulse
of bubble loads and the law of load characteristics are given. With the
development of the small charge underwater explosion test, Mu et al.
(Jin-Lei et al., 2010) used wall pressure sensors to measure the hori­
zontal, vertical and inclined wall pressure caused by bubble motion. By
using pressure transducer, a number of experiments near a vertical wall
and between a free surface and a bottom have been conducted (Jayap­
rakash et al., 2010, 2012) to study the wall pressure caused by
spark-generated bubble. The experimental results indicated the jet
characteristics as function of standoff distance. By using Hopkinson bar,
Yao et al. (Cui et al., 2018; Yao et al., 2019a, 2019b) proposed a new
pressure measure methodology to assess the pressure loading on the
rigid planar boundary due to spark generated bubble or micro-charge
explosive. Through the above test results, we can find that the stand­
off distance parameter is one of the important parameter to the bubble
dynamics, whether the explosion source is laser bubble, electric spark
bubble or under explosion bubble. When γ < 1:2 , two pressure peaks of
bubble load acted on the wall is a very obvious feature. However, many
experimental results only provide qualitative analysis. From these

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xiongliangyao@hrbeu.edu.cn (Y. Xiongliang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107552
Received 8 September 2019; Received in revised form 19 May 2020; Accepted 20 May 2020
Available online 27 July 2020
0029-8018/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
C. Yingyu et al. Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

qualitative researches, the bubble load on the wall center has obvious
double-peak phenomenon, that is, the composition of the re-entrant jet
load and the bubble collapse load. Unfortunately, based on the present
public studies, there is no concrete expression of the wall pressure
caused by underwater explosion bubble. The specific waveform, distri­
bution form in time and space, and quantitative relationship between
the impact load and bubble deformation are not clearly given.
As an effective numerical method, boundary element method (BEM)
(Klaseboer et al., 2005; Wang and Khoo, 2004; Jin et al., 2018, 2019) has
been one of the most salient methods to calculate the bubble dynamics
and its impact load. Li et al., 2015, 2016, 2018a, 2018b, 2019 used the
BEM to simulate the near-wall bubble dynamics, and combined the
auxiliary function to solve the wall pressure. When γ < 1:2, the phe­
nomenon of bimodal load near the wall is revealed in the results of
different calculation methods by many different authors. For example,
Liu et al. (2017) used the Front tracking method (FTM) to simulate the
shape and load characteristics of incompressible bubble near the wall.
Chahine et al. (Hsiao et al., 2014) used a hybrid solution to solve the
high-efficiency boundary element method and the finite difference
method considering compressibility. Similar to Chahine’s hybrid solu­ Fig. 1. Experiment set-up in side view. The bubble was generated by ignited
tion, Wang et al. (Wang et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018b) combined with the explosive charge below the target plate with different standoff distances.
the discontinuous Galerkin method (Jin et al., 2017) and the boundary Wall pressure was record by the pressure transducer. Images were captured
element method to numerically simulate the load characteristics of with the high-speed cameras, with illumination from LED lamp.
spark generated bubble. In Tian’s (Tian et al., 2020) work, the Eulerian
finite-element method (EFEM) is introduced to continuously simulate
the shock wave and non-spherical bubble evolution stages near a hori­
zontal solid wall. To sum up, these studies have mentioned the evolution
characteristics and loading characteristics of bubble, but they rarely
show the quantitative rules. Therefore, this study intends to carry out a
series of tests, and show the quantitative relationship between the wall
pressure and the bubble deformation by combining numerical methods.
In this paper, the mechanism of bubble re-entrant jet and shrinkage
collapse load of bubble near a rigid wall was studied by means of
experimental test and numerical method. The mini-charge underwater
explosion bubble test was systematically carried out to obtain the bubble
jet and shrinkage collapse load near a rigid wall. To obtain the quanti­
tative law of wall pressure caused by mini-charge, we proposed a
Fig. 2. Details installation arrangement of pressure transducer.
mathematical model to describe the time-pressure curve when γ < 1:2.
And according to the conclusion in our previous study (Chen et al.,
potassium perchlorate powder, 18%~23% of aluminium powder, 10%–
2018), based on the boundary element method (BEM), the space dis­
15% of ferrotitanium powder, and about 5% of manganese dioxide
tribution of the wall pressure was obtained.
powder. Supported by the 3D fixator, the bubble was generated by
ignited the explosive charge below the target plate with different
2. Experimental details
standoff distances.
2.1. Experiment apparatus
2.2. Experimental measuring device
In this study, experiments were performed using mini-charge
explosive beneath a target plate in a tank of quiescent water, as shown Images of the bubble dynamics were captured with a high-speed
in Fig. 1. The measurement apparatus of this experiment system consists camera (Phantom VEO-640S, American). In the full-pixels mode, the
of a waterproof tube, a target plate, an aluminum alloy frame and a camera captures 14,000 frames per second of 512- by 512-pixels at a rate
water tank. As the experiment base, an aluminum alloy frame was 0.75 up to 0.29 Mfps. The camera in this study works at a rate of 6000 fps
m long, 0.75 m wide, and 1.8 m height. The transparent glass tank with with 1024- by 768-pixels. The exposure time was 90 μs per frame. A 25
0.6 m long, 0.6 m wide, and 0.6 m deep was located on the aluminum mm, f/2.8 lens (Canon) with a fully open aperture was used for all ex­
alloy frame. The target plate is a circular plate made of 304 stainless periments in this study. As shown in Fig. 1, the camera was placed
steel, its thickness and diameter are 12 mm and 250 mm, respectively. In directly in front of the water tank, and the LED lamp used as the back­
order to measure the wall pressure at the center of the target plate, a ground light was placed directly behind the water tank.
through threaded hole was drilled and the pressure transducer was The pressure transducer used in this paper is the piezoelectricity type
embedded in the center of the target plate by means of bolt connection. pressure transducer of SINOCERA PIEZOTRONICS INC (http://www.ch
During the process of installing the pressure transducer, we needed to ina-yec.com) together with a YE5853 Low noise Charge Amplifier. This
pay attention to keep the measurement surface of the pressure trans­ pressure transducer (CY-YD-205) had a diameter of 10 mm and was
ducer and the surface of the target plate on the same plane. The details capable of measuring pressure up to 60 MPa, with the sensitivity of
installation arrangement of pressure transducer was shown in Fig. 2. The 13.68 Pc/10^5Pa. Its overload capacity is 120% and its natural vibration
target plate and the waterproof cylindrical tube were connected by bolts frequency is over 100 kHz.
and waterproof gaskets, and then fixed above the water tank. The oscilloscope used in the experiment is model DS1074B (RIGOL,
In this paper, a mini-charge of powder of fire cracker was used as the China, https://www.rigol.com/), with a maximum bandwidth of 200
explosive source. The powder of fire cracker consists of 55%~65% of MHz and a maximum real-time sampling rate of 2 GSa/s. Its powerful

2
C. Yingyu et al.
triggering and analysis capabilities makes it easy to capture and analyze
waveforms, which is convenient for users to observe and analyze signals
faster and more clearly. In this study, the oscilloscope was used to collect
data and trigger signals. It worked with a sampling rate of 125 kSa/s and
a sampling accuracy of 8 bits. By simultaneously outputting the trigger
signal through the oscilloscope, the high-speed camera was synched in
time with the ignition of mini-charge through the oscilloscope and the
simultaneous recording of the oscilloscope.
3. Results and discussion
Bubble dynamics in the free field with a charge of 0.2 g is shown in
Fig. 3. During the first two cycles of bubble’s expansion and collapse, the
maximum radius of the underwater explosion bubble in the first cycle
was 78.0 mm. Bubble dynamics nearby a rigid wall varied in mass of
charge and standoff distance. Here, we focus on the influence of standoff
distance on wall pressure. By using the same explosive source with a
charge of 0.2�0.001 g, 7 test cases of underwater explosion bubble near
a rigid wall were carried out, the details was listed in Table 1. Here, the
non-dimensional standoff distance is defined as γ ¼ d= Rm , where d
represents the standoff distance from the explosive charge center to the
wall center, and Rm is the maximum radius of underwater explosion
bubble. In all experiments, the water depth in the water tank was kept at
550 mm, and the target plate was placed 30 mm beneath the free
surface.
3.1. Wall pressures at different γ
The wall pressure measured by pressure transducer with γ ¼ 0:38
was shown in Fig. 4(a). Five significant pressure peaks are tagged in
Fig. 4(a) respectively. The time corresponding to these pressure peaks
respectively are 0.02 ms, 14.56 ms, 15.11 ms, 22.68 ms and 27.75 ms.
With the help of the high-speed camera, we analyzed the bubble dy­
namics closest to these moments. Fig. 5 shows three cycles of bubble
oscillation from charge was ignited to the third time of bubble collapse.
According to the high-speed camera records (Fig. 5) and the time history
of pressure (Fig. 4), as the explosive charge was ignited (t ¼ 0, Fig. 5(a)),
a shock wave was generated and reached the target plate after 0.02 ms,
then the first pressure peak (shock wave ps ) was recorded at the wall
center. During the first cycle of bubble oscillation, as the bubble re-
entrant jet acted on the target plate (Fig. 5 (i)) and bubble turned to
minimum volume (Fig. 5 (j)) the second and the third pressure peak
occurred. Here, we defined the pressure peaks caused by re-entrant jet
impact and bubble collapse during the first cycle of bubble oscillation as
pb1 j and pb1 c . The third and the four pressure peak at t ¼ 22.68 ms and
t ¼ 27.75 ms in Fig. 4(a) referred to maximum of the bubble collapse
load during the second and the third cycle of bubble oscillation, which
were defined as pb2 c and pb3 c .
For the case of γ ¼ 0:38, Fig. 4(a) shows the pressure peak and the
impulse of the bubble load during the first cycle of bubble oscillation are
significantly larger than that of the shock wave. Fig. 4(b) shows the
bubble load during the first cycle of bubble oscillation has several
pressure peaks: the first pressure peak at t ¼ 14.56 ms at the moment of
the re-entrant jet impact (Hsiao et al., 2014). A plurality of bubble
collapse load peaks at t ¼ 15.11 ms and t ¼ 15.16 ms correspond to
bubble ring collapse. After the bubble re-entrant jet impact the wall, the
Fig. 3. Bubble dynamics in the free field with a charge of 0.2 g. The depth of the water in the tank is 550 mm. The charge is located at a depth of 380 mm from the
bottom of the water tank.
3
Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552
Table 1
Test cases.
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Stand-off distance (cm) 3 4 5 7 8 9 10
γ 0.38 0.51 0.67 0.90 1.06 1.38 1.54
speed of the time decay of the re-entrant jet load is slowed down due to
the splashing effect (Chen et al., 2018; Li et al., 2015). And then the
plurality of bubble collapse peaks occurs after the bubble re-entrant jet
load. Similarly, in the study of Mu et al. (Jin-Lei et al., 2010), it is found
that the distribution of the bubble load during the first cycle of bubble
oscillation at the center of the nearby rigid wall has similar character­
istics. The distribution waveform of the bubble load in this phase is
called as “saddle type”. “Saddle type” can be described as the super­
position of the bubble re-entrant jet load and the bubble collapse load on
the time distribution. With the second and the third collapse of the
bubble, the corresponding bubble collapse loads with a large pressure
peak and a narrow pulse width were measured at the center of the
nearby rigid wall. In Fig. 4(a), we observe that the bubble load impulse
of the second and the third cycle of bubble oscillation are only about
20% and 12% of that of the first cycle of bubble oscillation. It shows that
the bubble load in the first cycle of bubble oscillation is mainly evalu­
ated when assessing the bubble load, and the impulse of the bubble
re-entrant jet load in the first cycle of bubble oscillation is much larger
than the component of the bubble collapse load. These details are spe­
cifically analyzed in the next section.
It can be seen from Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 that the pressure-time history of
γ ¼ 0:51 and γ ¼ 0:67 have a similar characteristics with the case of γ ¼
0:38. That is, during the first cycle of bubble oscillation the main dis­
tribution law is the superposition of the bubble re-entrant jet load and
the multiple contraction collapse load of bubble (Fig. 6 (b) and Fig. 7
(b)). It is worth mentioning that these multiple contraction collapse
loads of bubble was recorded in detail in the experiment. Compared with
the experiment study of bubble load carried out by other scholars (Luo
et al., 2018; Cui et al., 2016b; Jin-Lei et al., 2010; Jayaprakash et al.,
2012), most of the experimental records of explosive bubble rarely have
such detailed records on the bubble collapse load. At present, by using a
new measurement based on Hopkinson bar, multiple contraction
collapse load during the bubble collapsing in first cycle also can be
captured in Cui’s (Cui et al., 2018) experimental records. From the study
of literature (Lindau and Lauterborn, 2003), we suspect these multiple
peaks with narrow pulse width in the first pulsation phase may be due to
the formation of annular bubble when the bubble shrinks to the mini­
mum volume. Owing to the asymmetric motion, the annular bubble will
be broken into more than two independent tiny bubbles. Then these
multi independent tiny bubbles will further shrink to their minimum
volume and radiate high-pressure shock waves. These shock waves are
superimposed at the center point of the rigid wall to create a special
phenomenon, which show as multi pressure peaks after bubble
re-entrant jet load. When γ ¼ 0:90 (Fig. 8 (b)), this special phenomenon
disappeared, which mean the asymmetric motion might not appear in
this case.
When γ ¼ 1:06 (Fig. 9), we can clearly distinguish the pressure peaks
of bubble re-entrant jet load and the bubble collapse load and the time
difference between them. According to the conclusion in the literature
C. Yingyu et al. Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

Fig. 4. Pressure-time history measured by

pressure transducer for γ ¼ 0:38. Plot (a)
shows pressure (left axis, in blue line) and
impulse (right axis, in orange dotted line) at
the center of the target plate. The pressure
was recorded by pressure transducer and the
impulse was integrated by the pressure-time
curve. (b) shows the enlarged view of pres­
sure vs time during the first bubble
collapsing phase (t ¼ 14.2 ms–15.6 ms). For
these figures, some annotations were added
at the pressure peaks. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)

Fig. 5. Evolution of the first three cycles of the underwater explosion bubble’s expansion and collapse near the target plate with γ ¼ 0:38. (a) Explosive charge was
ignited, (b) ~ (d) bubble expanded during the first cycle, (d) bubble maximum in the first cycle, (e)~ (j) bubble collapsed during the first cycle, (i) bubble re-entrant
jet acted on the target plate, (j) bubble minimum in the first cycle, (k)~ (p) bubble expanded and collapsed during the second cycle, (p) bubble minimum in the
second cycle, (q)~ (r) bubble expanded and collapsed during the third cycle, (r) bubble minimum in the third cycle.

Fig. 6. Pressure-time history measured by pressure sensor on the wall center with γ ¼ 0:51. Plot (a) shows pressure (left axis, in blue line) and impulse (right axis, in
orange dotted line) at the center of the target plate. (b) shows the enlarged view of pressure vs time during the first bubble collapsing phase (t ¼ 14.2 ms–16.2 ms).
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

(Tomita and Shima, 1986), when γ > 1:2, the time moment of bubble
re-entrant jet acts on the nearby rigid wall was later than the time
moment of the bubble shrinks to the minimum volume. The same time
sequence of these two pressure peaks is shown in (γ ¼ 1:54), the first
peak of bubble load during the first cycle of bubble oscillation is the
bubble collapse load, and the following pressure peak is caused by the
bubble re-entrant jet. For a better understanding on what happens
during near field underwater explosion by comparing the images and the
pressure-time history, images of underwater explosion bubble’s expan­
sion and collapse near the solid wall for γ ¼ 0:51~γ ¼ 1:54 are given in
appendix A.
Statistical analysis was carried out on the pressure peaks and impulse

4
C. Yingyu et al. Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

Fig. 7. Pressure-time history measured by pressure sensor on the wall center with γ ¼ 0:67. Plot (a) shows pressure (left axis, in blue line) and impulse (right axis, in
orange dotted line) at the center of the target plate. (b) shows the enlarged view of pressure vs time during the first bubble collapsing phase (t ¼ 13.2 ms–15.2 ms).
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 8. Pressure-time history measured by pressure sensor on the wall center with γ ¼ 0:90. Plot (a) shows pressure (left axis, in blue line) and impulse (right axis, in
orange dotted line) at the center of the target plate. (b) shows the enlarged view of pressure vs time during the first bubble collapsing phase (t ¼ 13.2 ms–16.2 ms).
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 9. Pressure-time history measured by pressure sensor on the wall center with γ ¼ 1:06. Plot (a) shows pressure (left axis, in blue line) and impulse (right axis, in
orange dotted line) at the center of the target plate. (b) shows the enlarged view of pressure vs time during the first bubble collapsing phase (t ¼ 13.6 ms–15.6 ms).
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

of the above seven stand-off parameters, shown in Table 2. For the oscillation are much smaller than the impulse of bubble load in the first
convenience of discussion, the impulse of the shock wave is defined as Is , pulsation phase.
and the impulses of the bubble loads during the first and the second
cycle of bubble oscillation are defined as Ib1 and Ib2 , respectively. It can
be seen from the impulse-time history curves in Fig. 4–11 and Table 2
that the impulses of bubble load in the second and third cycle of bubble

5
C. Yingyu et al. Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

Table 2 3.2. Mathematical models for bubble load during the first cycle of bubble
Pressure peaks during the first and the second cycle of underwater explosion oscillation
bubble pulsation under different cases.
NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 From the results show in Fig. 4–9, the impulse of bubble load during
γ 0.38 0.51 0.67 0.90 1.06 1.38 1.54
the first bubble pulsation phase are larger than the second and the third
ps (MPa) 5.848 3.801 1.901 1.345 1.462 0.8722 0.6901
phase. The time history of pressure have very significant characteristics
Pb1-j 6.725 6.14 5.702 5.731 5.848 2.398 0.5731 when γ < 1:2. In this section, we focus on the characteristics in the first
(MPa) bubble pulsation phase when γ < 1:2. Fig. 12 shows the water jet ve­
Pb1-c 19.59 7.602 3.363 4.058 4.211 – 0.8538 locity on the bubble jet tip measured by high-speed camera. It can be
(MPa)
seen from the figure that the velocity of the bubble jet tip is generally
Pb2-c 9.942 7.018 1.17 2.396 5.848 5.789 –
(MPa) between 100 and 150 m/s, and there is a minimum value near the stand-
Is (MPa 0.8302 0.6749 0.3895 0.352 0.5383 0.2077 0.2597 off parameter of γ ¼ 0:6. These are consistent with the other studies
� ms) (lauterborn, 1998; Tomita and Shima, 1986).
Ib1 (MPa 3.4278 4.0281 3.7075 5.15 5.0376 2.5563 0.8993 The bubble load characteristics in case of γ ¼ 0:51 has similar trend
� ms)
with the case of γ ¼ 0:38. During the first bubble pulsation phase the
Ib2 (MPa 0.672 0.267 0.057 0.167 0.5321 0.476 –
� ms) bubble load consists two parts, they are bubble re-entrant jet load with a
Ifull 5.559 4.97 4.154 5.669 6.108 3.24 1.159 large pulse width and bubble contraction collapse load with a sharp
(MPa pulse width. Although the pressure peak of the bubble re-entrant jet load
� ms)
is smaller than that of the bubble contraction collapse load, owing to its
large pulse width the bubble re-entrant jet load still keeps as the main
factor causing larger deformation of the elastoplastic structure. Based on
this pressure-time distribution characteristics, we can define the math­
ematical expression of the bubble re-entrant jet load as
8
> p
< b1 j ½t ðTc Δτu Þ�; Tc Δτu < t < Tc
Δτ u (1)
>
:p � �
b1 j exp ðt Tc Þ θb1 j ; Tc < t

Fig. 10. Pressure (left axis, in blue line) and impulse (right axis, in orange
dotted line) at the center of the target plate with γ ¼ 1:38. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web
version of this article.)
where Δτu is the rising time of the bubble jet load from time moment of
T0 to Tc . Here we define T0 as Tc Δτu . And θb1 j is the fitting time decay
of the bubble re-entrant jet load. For a better description, the relevant
annotations are given in the Fig. 13.
When the bubble collapses to the minimum volume, the bubble
contraction collapse load with multi-peaks will appear in the time dis­
tribution. Compared to the bubble re-entrant jet load, the pulse width of
the bubble contraction collapse load is extremely narrow. To simplify
the mathematical model, referring to the research results of Cole’s (Cole,
1948), we can defined the mathematical expression of the bubble
contraction collapse load as
( 0
pb1 c expððt Tc1 Þ=θb1 c Þ; t < Tc1
(2)
0
pb1 c expð ðt Tc1 Þ=θb1 c Þ; t > Tc1
where pb1 c and θb1 c are the pressure peak and the fitting time decay of
0

the bubble contraction collapse load during the first cycle of the bubble
pulsation.
As the same definition in reference (Tomita and Shima, 1986), Tc and
Tc1 represent the time moment of the bubble reentrant jet acted on the

Fig. 11. Pressure (left axis, in blue line) and impulse (right axis, in orange
dotted line) at the center of the target plate with γ ¼ 1:54. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web Fig. 12. The velocity of the bubble jet tip measured by high-speed camera
version of this article.) under different cases. Error bars show measurement uncertainties.

6
C. Yingyu et al. Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

Fig. 13. Dot line represent the fitting curve; the solid line represent the Fig. 14. Dot line represent the fitting curve; the solid line represent the
experimental results forγ ¼ 0:38 . Some annotations were added at the experimental results forγ ¼ 0:51 . Some annotations were added at the
time moments. time moments.

rigid wall and that of bubble collapsing to the minimal volume,

respectively. The relationship between Tc and Tc1 can be expressed as
Tc1 Tc ¼ Δτ⋅T (3)

where T is the time period of the bubble pulsation.

To define the pulse width or the time decay of the bubble load, the
idea of average impulse was used in this paper. For the exponentially
decaying form load, the impulse can be expressed as
Z t
I¼ pðtÞdt ¼ pm θ (4)
0

Therefore, during the first bubble pulsation phase, the pressure peaks
of bubble load (e.g. pb1 j and pb1 c ), the parameters of Tc and Tc1 can be
0

directly extracted from the experimental data. And the fitted parameters
θb1 j and θb1 c are obtained by the impulse data and equation (4),
respectively. The calculated values are counted in Table 3 and their load
curves were plotted, as shown in Fig. 13–17. It is worth mentioning that

Table 3
Key feature of the bubble load during the first bubble pulsation phase.
Fig. 15. Dot line represent the fitting curve; the solid line represents the
NO. 1 2 3 4 5 experimental results forγ ¼ 0:67 . Some annotations were added at the
γ 0.38 0.51 0.67 0.90 1.06 time moments.
T0 (ms) 14.41 14.48 13.41 13.62 13.60
Tc (ms) 14.51 14.69 13.61 13.850 14.010 due to the defects of the acquisition instrument, two test cases of γ ¼
Δτu (ms) 0.1 0.21 0.2 0.2 0.410 0:90 and γ ¼ 1:06 have obvious peak clipping phenomenon. In order to
Tc1 (ms) 15.108 15.62 14.61 14.630 14.530 better reflect the bubble load characteristics, the experimental data was
Δτ⋅T(ms) 0.698 1.140 1.200 1.010 0.930 adjusted by means of compensation, as shown by the black dashed line
pb1 j (MPa) 6.725 6.14 5.70 7.9 7.0 in Fig. 16 and Fig. 17.
θb1 j (ms) 0.304 0.445 0.52 0.626 0.530 The experimental data and the fitting results show that the fitted
pb1
0
(MPa) 19.59 6.902 3.36 1.778 1.731 curve and the test value have a good agreement, that is, the pressure at
c
θb1 c (ms) 0.0239 0.04 0.05 0.095 0.095 the center point of the wall pressure can be described by the super­
Impulse obtained from 3.4278 4.0281 3.71 5.421 5.136 position of the formula (1) and the formula (2). That is to say, the wall
experiment pressure caused by the first pulsation phase of the bubble is composed of
Ib1 (MPa*ms) two parts. The first part is the bubble reentrant jet load, which is mainly
The fitting impulse 3.317 3.985 3.859 6.071 5.074 divided into the load rising phase and the exponential decay phase. The
(MPa*ms) second part is the bubble contraction collapse load, which is mainly in
Error of the impulse 3.23% 2.46% 4.09% 11.99% 1.19%
The tip velocity obtained 116.12 112.53 108.77 133.91 119.27
the form of symmetrical exponential rise and decay. It is obvious that
from experiment Vtip when γ � 0:51, the bubble contraction collapse load peak is greater than
1=2ρVtip
2 6.743 6.331 5.916 8.966 7.113 that of the bubble reentrant jet load. At γ ¼ 0:38, the impulse of the
Error of bubble jet load 0.26% 3.12% 3.75% 13.49% 1.61% bubble contraction load accounted for 14% of the total impulse of the

7
C. Yingyu et al.
Fig. 16. Dot line represent the fitting curve; the solid line represents the
experimental results forγ ¼ 0:90 . Some annotations were added at the
time moments.
Fig. 17. Dot line represent the fitting curve; the solid line represents the
experimental results forγ ¼ 1:06 . Some annotations were added at the
time moments.
bubble load during the first bubble pulsation phase. At this time, the
impulse caused by the bubble contraction collapse load cannot be
ignored. As γ increases, when γ � 0:64, the impulse of the bubble
contraction collapse load accounts for only about 3% of the total im­
pulse. It shows that the main impulse of the bubble load on the structure
is derived from the near-structure bubble re-entrant jet load. It can be
seen from Table 3 that the impulse of the fitted load curve and the actual
impulse error are controlled within 3.5%. Except for the case of γ ¼ 0:90
(with 11% error), the main error of this case may be due to the rising
phase of the bubble jet load. However, the matching degree for the
exponential decay phase of the bubble jet load and the bubble shrinkage
collapse stage still meets the fitting requirements.
It can be clearly seen from the data in Table 3 that the jet load is
closely related to the bubble characteristic amount when the bubble
collapses. It is worth mentioning that since the bubble contraction
collapse load peak pb1 c in the test result is the superposition value of the
re-entrant jet load at time Tc1 and the actual pulsation peak pb1 c , the
0
8
Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552
pressure peak pb1 c is corrected. If the tip velocity of the bubble jet is vtip ,
0
the peak of the bubble re-entrant jet load can be predicted as 1=2ρV 2 tip .
It can be seen from the data in the Table 3, except for the case of γ ¼ 0:90
, the error of the impulse and the peak of bubble re-entrant jet load
between the experimental data and other forecasts are controlled within
3.75%. For the time parameter Δτu of the rising phase of the bubble jet
load, when γ � 0:38, we have Δτu ¼ 0e0:1ms. When 0:51 � γ � 0:90,
then we have Δτu ¼ 0:1e0:2ms. This can be explained by the fact that the
smaller the γ, the smaller the thickness of the water layer between the
bubble and the wall surface, as the bubble en-entrant jet directly acting
on the wall, the rise time of bubble jet load will be shorter. When γ ¼
1:06, the bubble jet will travel a long distance to reach the wall, so Δτu
reaches 0.4 ms. It can be seen from Table 3 that for the wall pressure
caused by the first pulsation stage of bubble, if the time parameters Δτu ,
Δτ, θb1 j , θb1 c and the load peaks of pb1 j , pb1 c can be determined, the
0
wall pressure characteristics of the bubble can be uniquely determined.
That means we have relationship as.pb wall ¼ fðΔτu ; Δτ ⋅T; θb1 j ; θb1 c ;
pb1 j ; pb1 c Þ:.
0
According to the test data, the variation law of pb1 c with the stand-
0
off parameter γ is shown in Fig. 18. To obtain the wall pressure caused by
a nearby bubble pb wall , pb1 j can predict by 1=2ρV 2 tip , and pb1 c shrinks
0
as γ3 increase.
To perform a dimensionless analysis on time parameters, the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
dimensionless factor of time can be taken as 0:915Rm ðρ∞ =p∞ Þ and the
results are summarized in Table 4. Where ρ∞ and p∞ are the ambient
density and pressure of the liquid at inception point of the underwater
explosion bubble, respectively. It can be seen from the Table 4 that when
γ � 0:38, Δτ is taken as Δτ ¼ 0e0:014T. When 0:51 � γ � 0:90, we have
Δτ ¼ 0:028Te0:03T. And as γ ¼ 1:06, then we have Δτ ¼ 0:058T. When
Δτ is between 0.1 and 0.2, its trend with distance γ is consistent with that
given in the literature (Tomita and Shima, 1986). The value of θb1 j
ranges from 0.043 to 0.089. The value of θb1 c ranges from 0.003 to
0.013. θb1 j is almost ten times that of θb1 c (see Table 4).
Fig. 19 shows the tendency of these parameters due to the distance
changes. Theoretically, the parameters of Δτu , Δτ, θb1 j , and θb1 c under
a certain stand-off parameter γ can be obtained by interpolation, and the
wall pressure of the bubble load can be obtained by combining equations
(1) and (2). The wall pressure of bubble load, that is, the mathematical
expression of the explosion bubble load model. In order to obtain
quantitative law of wall pressure under mini-charge explosion bubble
from the experimental data, the parameters shown in Fig. 19 are fitted,
and the parameter values can be quickly obtained by fitting the formula
(given in Table 4). It is worth mentioning that the main variable of this
quantitative law is the stand-off parameter γ, which is closely related to
the maximum radius of the bubble Rm . Therefore, there is also a direct
relationship with the size of the charge. The purpose of this study is to
adopt an equivalent explosive source close to the explosion bubble, that
Fig. 18. pb1 as a function of γ.
0
c
C. Yingyu et al. Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

Table 4 diameter of the sensor used was relatively large (1/3 to 1/2 times the
Dimensionless parameters with different γ. width of the bubble jet), there were few measurable points and irregu­
NO. 1 2 3 4 5 fitting curve larities in measuring the pressure space distribution. In addition, for the
feature quantity of the bubble jet, there may be some error by the
γ 0.38 0.51 0.67 0.90 1.06 –
discrimination of the high-speed image, so it is difficult to find the
Δτu 0.014 0.030 0.028 0.028 0.058 Δτu ðγÞ ¼ 0:9γ3 1:8γ2 þ
1:2γ 0:2
feature law. Therefore, this section reveals these problems by means of
0.099 0.161 0.170 0.139 0.132
numerical means, which are the spatial distribution characteristics of
Δτ ΔτðγÞ ¼ 1:5γ3 3:7γ2 þ
2:9γ 0:5 the bubble jet load on the wall surface and the variation law of the
θb1 0.043 0.063 0.074 0.089 0.075 θb1 j ðγÞ ¼ 0:18γ2 þ
characteristic quantities of the near-surface bubble jet.
j
0:32γ 0:05 In this paper, five main geometric quantities used to define the
θb1 c 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.013 0.013 θb1 c ðγÞ ¼ 0:018γ2 þ bubble re-entrant jet characteristics were selected as in (Chen et al.,
0:042γ 0:01 2018; Jayaprakash et al., 2012). They are the width of the bubble
re-entrant jet W, the height of the bubble re-entrant jet H , the equivalent
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
cylinder radius of the bubble re-entrant jet Req ¼ νjet =ðπ HÞ, the ve­
is mini-charge explosion, and the summarized law is only applicable to locity of on the top tip of the liquid jet Vtip , and the momentum of
the loading law of small charge. Further studies are needed on the wall
re-entrant jet velocity Vmom . Where νjet is the volume of the re-entrant
pressure loading under the influence of different mass (large-charge R
within the bubble. Vmom satisfy Vmom ¼ ν1jet ν jVjdν . The schematic of
explosion) and type of detonation source.
the jet quantities in different time period are shown in Fig. 20.
The study of using the boundary element method to solve the time
3.3. Relationship between bubble quantities and bubble load and spatial distribution characteristics of pressure near the wall surface
has been clarified in our another published literature (Chen et al., 2018),
Using the means of experimentation, the time distribution law of the and we will not be repeated here. In this study, the axisymmetric
wall pressure at the center point was obtained in the previous section. In boundary element (BEM) model is used and the influence of water depth
order to carry out a more profound analysis of the load space distribu­ is considered. To generalize the analysis results, the problem is
tion of the first cycle of bubble pulsation, this section combines the non-dimensionalized with respect to p∞ , Rm , p0 , g and ρ. Where p∞ is the
numerical method to systematically analyze the flow field and wall ambient pressure of the liquid at the inception point of the bubble and ρ
pressure of the bubble pulsation process, and predict the spatial distri­ is the density of the liquid, p0 is the pressure on the bubble surface, and g
bution of the bubble load. Under the premise of ensuring certain accu­ is the gravity acceleration. Therefore, the initial condition of the bubble
racy, the numerical method has great advantages in analyzing the motion is given by the strength parameter ε ¼ p0 =p∞ and the buoyancy
spatial distribution of wall pressure. In the previous test, because the

Fig. 19. Different dimensionless time parameters with different γ, (a) the time parameter of the water jet impact during the rising phase Δτu , (b) the time parameter
between two pressure peaks Δτ , (c) the time decay of the water jet impact θb1 j , (d) the time decay of the bubble collapse pressure θb1 c .

9
C. Yingyu et al. Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

the main value source of the quantitative law in the next section.
Therefore, based on the selected parameter γ and the interpolation in
Fig. 21 or the corresponding fitting formula (5)~ (6), the spatial dis­
tribution of the bubble load can be uniquely determined.

3.4. Quantitative law of wall pressure

Based on the discussion mentioned above, this section discusses how

to forecast the mini-charge underwater explosion bubble re-entrant jet
load and the bubble contraction collapse load. That is, try to answer the
question how to predict the wall pressure caused by nearby mini-charge
Fig. 20. Quantities used to characterize a collapsing bubble jet before the UNDEX bubble.
bubble touchdown the wall (Chen et al., 2018; Jayaprakash et al., 2012). According to the empirical formula, the maximum radius of the
bubble Rm can be written as (Wang and Khoo, 2004),
parameter δ2 ¼ ρgRm =p∞ . Therefore, according to the water depth and �
W
�1=3
stand-off parameters, can be calculated the initial condition of the Rm ¼ 3:38⋅ (7)
H þ 10
bubble motion. Based on the conclusions of the literature (Chen et al.,
2018), the following relationships are obtained as follow. Firstly, the where WðKgÞ and HðmÞs are the weight and the depth of explosive
bubble jet load is directly related to the bubble jet velocity, and the charge, respectively.
bubble jet velocity is directly related to the bubble stand-off parameter. The time period of the bubble pulsation T is,
Secondly, the spatial distribution of the bubble load satisfies the rela­ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ρ∞
tionship of PðrÞePr¼0 ⋅exp½ 1 =2 ⋅ðr=Req Þ2 �, so only the solution Req is T ¼ 0:915Rm ⋅ (8)
p0 þ p∞
required.
Therefore, this section mainly looks for the variation law of bubble
where p0 is the initial bubble pressure and p∞ is the ambient pressure of
characteristic quantities with stand-off parameter, and then obtains the
the liquid at inception point of the underwater explosion bubble.
spatial distribution relationship of bubble load. By using the boundary
Therefore, the mathematical form of bubble loading proposed by the
element method, we can calculate the physical characteristics of the
above discussion can be expressed as
bubble under different stand-off parameters. The quantities includes the
�
bubble jet tip velocity Vtip , the bubble jet flow equivalent velocity Vmom , pb wall ¼ f Δτu ; Δτ; θb1 j ; θb1 c ; Vtip ; γ (9)
the dimensionless equivalent bubble jet width Req =Rm , the details can
If the time at which the bubble re-entrant jet load starts is marked as
refer to Table 5.
0, the time and spatial distribution of the near-wall bubble load can be
Fig. 21 shows the variation of bubble characteristic quantities at
simplified as
different distance parameters γ. When γ < 0:35s, it can be found that Vtip
decreases almost linearly as γ decreases, while Req =Rm and H= Vmom in­ 81
> 2 t
creases linearly. When 0:35 < γ < 1:1, there is a minimum velocity < 2 ρVtip ⋅Δτu ⋅T ; 0 < t < Δτu ⋅T
>
value nearby γ ¼ 0:6 , and the value of the bubble jet equivalent width Pr¼0 ðt tc Δτu Þ ¼
>
> � ��
: 1 ρV 2 ⋅exp
parameter Req =Rm is maintained between 0.15 and 0.2. For the conve­ ðt Δτu ⋅TÞ θb1 j ⋅T ; Δτu ⋅T < t
2 tip
nience of application, each parameter is fitted with the change of the ( 0
p c expððt Δτ⋅TÞ=ðθb1 c ⋅TÞÞ; t < Δτ⋅T
distance parameter γ. þ b1 0 (10)
pb1 c expð ðt Δτ⋅TÞ=ðθb1 c ⋅TÞÞ; t > Δτ⋅T
Vtip ðγÞ ¼ 1854γ5 7914γ4 þ 12800γ3 9644γ2 þ 3349γ 321 (5)
� and
Req Rm ðγÞ ¼ 4:92γ 5 þ 18:55γ4 27γ3 þ 18:99γ 2 6:24γ þ 0:92 (6) h � �2 i
Pðr; tÞ ¼ Pr¼0 ðtÞ⋅exp 1 = 2 ⋅ r Req : (11)
As can be seen from the data in the Table 6, except for the case of γ ¼
0:90 , the error between the fitting value and the experimental value of
where tc ¼ 2T Δτ⋅T.
Vtip are all controlled within 9%. As Vtip from the experiment mainly
depends on the image extraction, there is error due to the limited
4. Conclusion
number of image frames. Therefore, in this paper, the Vtip from experi­
mental extraction is mainly used to obtain the law features, while the Vtip
In present paper, the wall pressure with different standoff distance
from numerical calculation that can reflect the detail features is used as
parameters subject to near-field underwater explosion are experimen­
tally investigated. With the recording of the pressure transducer and the
Table 5 observations by the high-speed camera, we can conduct that the bubble
The characteristic quantities of bubble with different stand-off parameter γ. generated by mini-charge explosion is an adaptive way to study the
interaction between the bubble and the structure. The following con­
γ Vtip (m/s) Req =Rm
clusions are drawn.
0.2 56.451 0.239
0.25 77.720 0.203 (1) Combined with experimental data and numerical results, a three-
0.3 104.963 0.146
stage mathematical model of wall pressure caused by a nearby
0.4 114.320 0.157
0.5 104.639 0.162 bubble is first proposed, which is a double-peak superposition
0.6 98.346 0.170 model with linear growth, exponential attenuation of bubble re-
0.7 99.646 0.175 entrant jet load and symmetrical exponential attenuation of
0.8 107.281 0.177
bubble collapse load. In our study, for the first time, the bubble
0.9 115.524 0.174
1.0 122.705 0.165
load is quantitatively described in mathematical form.
1.1 129.765 0.157

10
C. Yingyu et al. Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

Fig. 21. (a) The tip velocity of the water jet Vtip ; (b) Dimensionless equivalent radius of the water jet Req =Rm .

Declaration of competing interest

Table 6
The comparison between the fitting value and the experimental value of Vtip .
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
NO. 1 2 3 4 5 interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
γ 0.38 0.51 0.67 0.90 1.06 the work reported in this paper.
Vtip from experiment (m/s) 116.12 112.53 108.77 133.91 119.27
Vtip from fitting curve (m/s) 111.06 105.09 98.96 115.05 127.77 CRediT authorship contribution statement
error (%) 4.36 6.61 9.02 14.08 7.13
Chen Yingyu: Data curation, Writing - original draft. Yao Xion­
gliang: Conceptualization, Supervision. Cui Xiongwei: Methodology,
(2) The control parameters of wall pressure caused by bubble Visualization, Investigation. Li Suyun: Writing - review & editing. Liu
movement are given. On this basis, the quantitative law of wall Liangtao: Writing - review & editing.
pressure caused by mini-charge are given.
Acknowledgement
It is worth mentioning that the quantitative law of wall pressure
proposed in this paper is only applicable to the loading law of mini The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
charge. Further studies are needed on the wall pressure loading under by National Natural Science Foundation of China (51779056).
the influence of different mass (large-charge explosion) and type of
detonation source.

Appendix B. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107552.

Appendix A. Bubble dynamics at different γ

Fig. A.1. Evolution of the first and the second cycle of the underwater explosion bubble’s expansion and collapse near the solid wall with γ ¼ 0:51.

11
C. Yingyu et al. Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

Fig. A.2. Evolution of the first and the second cycle of the underwater explosion bubble’s expansion and collapse near the solid wall with γ ¼ 0:67.

Fig. A.3. Evolution of the first and the second cycle of the underwater explosion bubble’s expansion and collapse near the solid wall with γ ¼ 0:90.

Fig. A.4. Evolution of the first and the second cycle of the underwater explosion bubble’s expansion and collapse near the solid wall with γ ¼ 1:06.

12
C. Yingyu et al. Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552

Fig. A.5. Evolution of the first and the second cycle of the underwater explosion bubble’s expansion and collapse near the solid wall with γ ¼ 1:38.

Fig. A.6. Evolution of the first and the second cycle of the underwater explosion bubble’s expansion and collapse near the solid wall with γ ¼ 1:54.

References Jin, Z., Yin, C., Chen, Y., Hua, H., 2017. Coupling Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin
method to finite element method for compressible multi-phase flow interacting with
a deformable sandwich structure. Ocean Eng. 130, 597–610.
C, G.L., F, G.S., L, C.J., 1995. Spark-generated bubbles as laboratory-scale models of
Jin, Z., Yin, C., Chen, Y., Hua, H., 2018. Numerical study on the interaction between
underwater explosions and their use for validation of simulation tools. In: SAVIAC
underwater explosion bubble and a moveable plate with basic characteristics of a
Proceedings 66th Shock and Vibrations Symposium. Biloxi.
sandwich structure. Ocean Eng. 164, 508–520.
Chen, Y., Yao, X., Cui, X., 2018. A numerical and experimental study of wall pressure
Jin, Z., Yin, C., Chen, Y., Hua, H., 2019. Dynamics of an underwater explosion bubble
caused by an underwater explosion bubble. Math. Probl Eng. 1–10, 2018.
near a sandwich structure. J. Fluid Struct. 86, 247–265.
Cole, R.H., 1948. Underwater Explosions.
Jin-Lei, M.U., Huang, X.M., Hai-Tao, L.I., 2010. Experimental study of jets formed by
Cui, P., Wang, Q.X., Wang, S.P., Zhang, A.M., 2016a. Experimental study on interaction
bubbles from underwater explosions. J. Harbin Eng. Univ. 31 (2), 154–158.
and coalescence of synchronized multiple bubbles. Phys. Fluids 28 (1).
Klaseboer, E., Hung, K.C., Wang, C., Wang, C.W., Khoo, B.C., Boyce, P., Debono, S.,
Cui, P., Zhang, A.M., Wang, S.P., 2016b. Small-charge underwater explosion bubble
Charlier, H., 2005. Experimental and numerical investigation of the dynamics of an
experiments under various boundary conditions. Phys. Fluids 28 (11), 117103.
underwater explosion bubble near a resilient/rigid structure. J. Fluid Mech. 537,
Cui, X., Yao, X., Chen, Y., 2018. A lab-scale experiment approach to the measurement of
387–413.
wall pressure from near-field under water explosions by a Hopkinson bar. Shock Vib.
lauterborn, P.a., 1998. Cavitation Erosion by Single Laser-Produced Bubbles.
1–15, 2018.
Li, S., Li, Y.B., Zhang, A.M., 2015. Numerical analysis of the bubble jet impact on a rigid
Fong, S.W., Adhikari, D., Klaseboer, E., Khoo, B.C., 2009. Interactions of multiple spark-
wall. Appl. Ocean Res. 50, 227–236.
generated bubbles with phase differences. Exp. Fluid 46 (4), 705–724.
Li, S., Han, R., Zhang, A.M., Wang, Q.X., 2016. Analysis of pressure field generated by a
Gong, S.W., Ohl, S.W., Klaseboer, E., Khoo, B.C., 2018. Interaction of a spark-generated
collapsing bubble. Ocean Eng. 117, 22–38.
bubble with a two-layered composite beam. J. Fluid Struct. 76, 336–348.
Li, S., Khoo, B.C., Zhang, A.M., Wang, S., 2018a. Bubble-sphere interaction beneath a
Hsiao, C.T., Jayaprakash, A., Kapahi, A., Choi, J.K., Chahine, G.L., 2014. Modelling of
free surface. Ocean Eng. 169, 469–483.
material pitting from cavitation bubble collapse. J. Fluid Mech. 755, 142–175.
Li, S., Zhang, A.M., Han, R., Letter, 2018b. Counter-jet formation of an expanding bubble
Jayaprakash, A., Chahine, G., Hsiao, C.T., 2010. Numerical and experimental study of
near a curved elastic boundary. Phys. Fluids 30 (12).
the interaction of a spark-generated bubble and a vertical wall. In: ASME
Li, S., Zhang, A.M., Han, R., Ma, Q., 2019. 3D full coupling model for strong interaction
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Proceedings
between a pulsating bubble and a movable sphere. J. Comput. Phys. 392, 713–731.
(IMECE).
Lindau, O., Lauterborn, W., 2003. Cinematographic observation of the collapse and
Jayaprakash, A., Hsiao, C.T., Chahine, G., 2012. Numerical and experimental study of
rebound of a laser-produced cavitation bubble near a wall. J. Fluid Mech. (479),
the interaction of a spark-generated bubble and a vertical wall. J. Fluids Eng. Trans.
327–348.
ASME 134 (3).

13
C. Yingyu et al.
Liu, L.T., Yao, X.L., Zhang, A.M., Chen, Y.Y., 2017. Numerical analysis of the jet stage of
bubble near a solid wall using a front tracking method. Phys. Fluids 29 (1).
Luo, J., Xu, W., Deng, J., Zhai, Y., Zhang, Q., 2018. Experimental study on the impact
characteristics of cavitation bubble collapse on a wall. Water 10 (9).
Ma, X., Huang, B., Zhao, X., Wang, Y., Chang, Q., Qiu, S., Fu, X., Wang, G., 2018.
Comparisons of spark-charge bubble dynamics near the elastic and rigid boundaries.
Ultrason. Sonochem. 43, 80–90.
Shaw, S.J., Jin, Y.H., Gentry, T.P., Emmony, D.C., 1999. Experimental observations of
the interaction of a laser generated cavitation bubble with a flexible membrane.
Phys. Fluids 11 (8), 2437–2439.
Shima, A., Takayama, K., Tomita, Y., Ohsawa, N., 1983. Mechanism OF impact pressure
generation from spark-generated bubble collapse near a wall. AIAA J. 21 (1), 55–59.
Tian, Z.L., Liu, Y.L., Zhang, A.M., Tao, L., Chen, L., 2020. Jet development and impact
load of underwater explosion bubble on solid wall. Appl. Ocean Res. 95.
Tomita, Y., Shima, A., 1986. Mechanisms of impulsive pressure generation and damage
pit formation by bubble collapse. J. Fluid Mech. 169 (-1), 535.
Tong, R.P., Schiffers, W.P., Shaw, S.J., Blake, J.R., Emmony, D.C., 1999. The role of
‘splashing’ in the collapse of a laser-generated cavity near a rigid boundary. J. Fluid
Mech. 380, 339–361.
Wang, Y.-C., Chen, Y.-W., 2007. Application of piezoelectric PVDF film to the
measurement of impulsive forces generated by cavitation bubble collapse near a
solid boundary. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 32 (2), 403–414.
14
Ocean Engineering 213 (2020) 107552
Wang, C., Khoo, B.C., 2004. An indirect boundary element method for three-dimensional
explosion bubbles. J. Comput. Phys. 194 (2), 451–480.
Wang, L., Chen, H., Ye, X., Yao, X., 2015. Study on load characteristics of underwater
explosion using RKDG-LS-DGF and BEM. Shock Vib. 2015, 165252, 2015.
Y, T., S, A., T, H., 1991. The behaviour of a laser-produced bubble near a rigid wall with
various configurations. ASME 1991.
Yao, X., Cui, X., Guo, K., Chen, Y., 2019a. An experimental approach to the measurement
of wall pressure generated by an underwater spark-generated bubble by a Hopkinson
bar. Shock Vib. 1–14, 2019.
Yao, X., Guo, K., Chen, Y., Cui, X., 2019b. A new experimental methodology to assess the
wall pressure generated by a high-voltage underwater Spark-generated bubble. Res.
Phys. 12, 571–574.
Zhang, Q., Luo, J., Zhai, Y., Li, Y., 2018a. Improved instruments and methods for the
photographic study of spark-induced cavitation bubbles. Water 10.
Zhang, Z.F., Wang, C., Wang, L.K., Zhang, A.M., Silberschmidt, V.V., 2018b. Underwater
explosion of cylindrical charge near plates: analysis of pressure characteristics and
cavitation effects. Int. J. Impact Eng. 121, 91–105.
Zhao, R., Xu, R.-q., Shen, Z.-h., Lu, J., Ni, X.-w., 2007. Experimental investigation of the
collapse of laser-generated cavitation bubbles near a solid boundary. Optic Laser.
Technol. 39 (5), 968–972.