Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Review

Composite structures subjected to underwater explosive loadings:

A comprehensive review
Phuong Tran a,⇑, Changlang Wu a, Michael Saleh b, Luiz Bortolan Neto b, H. Nguyen-Xuan c,d,⇑, A.J.M. Ferreira e
a
Department of Civil & Infrastructure Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
b
Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation, Lucas Heights, NSW 2234, Australia
c
CIRTech Institute, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH), Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Viet Nam
d
Department of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, 209 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea
e
Departamento de Engenharia Mecanica, Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, Porto 4200-465, Portugal

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

Keywords: Composites materials and structures are increasingly used to replace conventional materials in civilian and
Underwater explosions defence‐related maritime transportation and infrastructure such as naval vessels, submarines, civilian ships,
Composite damage and oil platforms for its better performance‐to‐weight ratio and electro‐magnetic signature control.
Numerical modelling However, when subjected to under water explosions (UNDEX), navel composite structures experience highly
Post‐mortem analysis
nonlinear deformations and damages. Such transient deformation phenomena of composites and associated
multiscale damages have been a subject of research for many years. This review aims to provide historical
and methodological overviews of significant research and contributions in this area over the last 20 years from
experimental programs, modelling approaches, post‐mortem analysis techniques, analytical approximation and
recently emerging area of data‐led predictive simulations. UNDEX event is often described by a series of events
including (a) the formation of the arriving shock wave, (b) the attenuation of the initial shock wave, (c) devel-
opment of cavitation due to the reflected tension wave from free surface or the structural obstacles, (d) fluid‐
structure interaction‐induced deformation and associated (e) cavitation coalescence and collapse. Such inter-
connected dynamic events and their influences on the behaviours of composite structures are subjected to
extensive research and therefore summarised in this review work to highlight state‐of‐the‐art field and
laboratory‐scaled experimental programs including investigations on low temperature and cavitation’s influ-
ences. Furthermore, the ongoing increase in the computing power and the development of advanced numerical
methods have made it possible for multiscale and multi‐physics simulations capturing the complex fluid
dynamics associated with UNDEX. Over ten different modelling approaches, hydrocodes and their hybrid com-
bination are summarised and discussed for potential applications. Review on current computational
approaches also reveals the shortcomings of predictive modelling due to unavoidable simplifications, empirical
assumptions on limited experimental data. Therefore, this work also provides a brief discussion on how data‐
led modelling approach such as artificial neural networks or deep learning, which is based largely on experi-
mental data, could provide powerful assistance to analytical and deterministic numerical analysis.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Review on experimental programs for UNDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Full-scale and large-scale experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Laboratory-scale experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Water-filled shock tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. Water-filled chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.3. Spherical pressure vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

⇑ Corresponding authors at: CIRTech Institute, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH), Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Viet Nam (H. Nguyen-Xuan); Department of Civil &
Infrastructure Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia (Phuong Tran).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.113684
Received 16 August 2020; Revised 21 January 2021; Accepted 1 February 2021
Available online 11 February 2021
0263-8223/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Tran et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

2.2.4. Composites subject to extreme loading at low temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. Post-mortem analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Non-destructive methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. Destructive methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Numerical simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. Finite Element Method (FEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2. Coupled methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3. Data-led modelling technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1. Introduction sumption. In naval vessels, non‐magnetic properties of composite

Nowadays, composite materials have been widely used in the mar-
ine industry, such as important components and machinery of naval
vessels, civilian ships, and oil platforms [1]. The increasing popularity
of composite attributes to its advantages over traditional metallic
materials, including relatively low density, excellent marine environ-
ment resistance, good fatigue resistance, ease of transportation, non‐
magnetic, high strength to weight and stiffness to weight ratios [2–9].
Conventionally, steel, aluminium and wood were used for ship con-
struction [10–14]. When exposed to the marine environment, issues
involving these traditional materials could be overcome by substitut-
ing with composites. For example, weight has always been a primary
concern when designing marine structures using steel. Lighter struc-
tural weight of surface ships and submarines could increase payload
carrying capacity, while the reduced topside weight of offshore
platforms could reduce weight requirement for supporting structures
and installation fee [7]. Composite decks could generate a weight sav-
ing of 25% than steel, thereby translating a reduction of 4.5% fuel con-
structures allow their use against maritime mines, and low radar
cross‐section increases the stealth of warship [3,9].
Application of composites in marine structures could date back to
the 1940s, during which time period U.S. Navy employed composite
materials in small personnel boats. Afterwards, there started to be
small leisure crafts and offshore components constructed using com-
posites [3,15]. Since the mid‐1980s, maritime composites have been
considerably used for naval applications [9]. Table 1 summarises com-
posite applications in marine industry after World War I. Given the
role of naval ships in war, they are supposed to resist high‐intensity
dynamic load [16], including contact/non‐contact underwater explo-
sions (UNDEX) from torpedos, bombs, mines, and high‐velocity impact
from storm, water slamming, and collisions.
Table 2 summarises typical incidents that happened to different
maritime structures subject to different types of extreme loadings in
the marine environment.
As summarised in Table 2, explosive and high velocity impact from
military attacks, such as torpedo, bomb, gunfire, collision, and other

Table 1
Composites application in marine structures.

Applications Time Composite Representative Comments Refs.

materials/ structures
structures

Naval vessels Piping for destroyers 1940 s FRP Higgins Boat Up to 15 m length and 20 tonnes in displacement due to [17–21]
Minesweeper – early poor fabrication quality and low stiffness of hulls
Landing crafts 1950
Patrol boats Since GFRP KNM Skjold (Royal Rarely longer than 20 m due to low hull girder stiffness; [9,22–24]
early Norwegian Navy) Not applicable to offshore patrol operation
1960 s Smyge MPC2000
(Swedish Navy)
Hovercrafts Since FRP Landing Craft Air Lightweight; Higher cost than aluminium alloy; Improved [25–27]
1970 s Cushion 100 (U.S. operation and maintenance
Navy)
Mine-countermeasure Since GFRP HMS Wilton (Royal Mostly over 50 m with displacement at exceeding 600 [28–32]
vessels (MCMV) 1973 Navy) tonnes; Local buckling and underwater shock resistance
Corvettes Since FRP Visby corvette (Royal Longest naval vessels type; [33–35]
1990 s Swedish Navy) Higher cost than built with steel
Submarines Fairwater Since FRP Collin’s class Lightweight; Lower cost due to moulding into complex [17-
Sonar dome 1940 s submarines (Royal shapes without machining; Corrosion resistance 19,22,7,36,37]
Masts Rudders Australian Navy)
Casings
Offshore Low-pressure pipes Since GFRP/ Davy and Bessemer Corrosion resistance; Lightweight; Ease of transport; High [38–44]
Diesel storage tanks 1970 s CFRP monopod platforms specific strength/stiffness; Good thermal insulation;
Lube tanks (United Kingdom) Excellent damping & fatigue performance
Utility tanks FRP Fire resistance [45,46]
High-performance tubes (phenolic)
Cable ladders and trays
Risers
Civilian and Fishing trawlers Since FRP Low cost [47–50]
commercial Pilot boat the (especially
crafts Submersibles 1950 s GFRP)
Fast ferries

Note: FRP refers to fibre reinforced plastics. GFRP refers to glass fibre reinforced polymer. CFRP refers to carbon fibre reinforced polymer.

2
 Table 2

P. Tran et al.
Typical marine incidents due to extreme loadings.

Time Event/ Structure name Use purpose Built year, builder Units Cause Location Damage to vessel Casualty Loss
Historical involved
Fatal Nonfatal
event

Sep 1914 World War I HMS Aboukir, Armoured 1898, Fairfield Royal Navy Torpedoes from U- North Sea Sinking 1459 – –
HMS Hogue, cruiser Shipbuilding 9
HMS Cressy
Sep 1915 SM U-28 U-boat 1912,Kaiserliche Werft Imperial Torpedo induced North Cape, Norway Sinking 39 0 –
German explosion
Navy
Dec 1941 World War II HMS Prince of Battleship 1937, Cammell Laird Royal Navy Land-based South China Sea Sinking 840 –
Wales and Company bombers and
HMS Repulse Battlecruiser 1915, John Brown & torpedo bombers
Company, of the Imperial
Japanese Navy
USS California Battleship 1916, Mare Island Naval U.S. Navy A pair of Pearl Harbour Ship was moderately damaged, 98 61 –
(BB-44) Shipyard torpedoes and a and electrical system was disabled.
bomb
Oct 1944 USS Albert W. Destroyer 1942, Charleston Navy Gunfire Leyte Gulf, Philippines Ship suffered 22 hits, many by six- 38 104 –
Grant Yard inch shells. Fires broke out, and
the ship lost steering control and
all power.
May 1945 USS Stormes Destroyer 1944, Todd Pacific Hit by a Japanese Yomitan, Okinawa Ship was on fire, and sea water 21 15 –
(DD 780) Shipyards kamikaze aircraft poured through holes in the hull.
May 1958 Antisubmarine USS Stickleback Submarine 1944, Mare Island Naval Collision with a U. Hawaiian Islands Sinking and lost. It was found in 0 –
warfare (SS-415) Shipyard S. destroyer escort 2020.
exercise
Aug 1964 Gulf of Tonkin North P4 torpedo – Democratic Fired by a Gulf of Tonkin Three boats were damaged. 4 6 –
3

incident Vietnamese boats Republic destroyer and

torpedo boats of Vietnam aircraft carrier
(T-333, T-336,
T-339)
May 1987 Iran-Iraq War USS Stark (FFG- Frigate 1979, Todd Pacific U.S. Navy Two Iraqi Exocet Off Saudi Arabia, Hull and superstructures were 37 21 $142
31) Shipyards missile Persian Gulf destroyed million
July 1988 – Piper Alpha Oil production 1973 Occidental Oil rig explosion North Sea Platform was completely 167 Unmentioned £1.7
platform Petroleum and resulting oil destroyed. billion
(Caledonia) and gas fires
Limited
Aug 2000 Naval exercise K-141 Kursk Nuclear- 1990, Soviet Russian Explosions of A large hole in the hull and 118 0 –
powered Navy military shipyards Navy hydrogen sinking.
submarine peroxide-fuelled
torpedo
Nov 2001 – Nego Kim Bulk carrier 1985, Japan Saratoga Explosion of Dampier, Australia Tank was ruptured 8 Unmentioned –
Shipping topside water
Ltd ballast tank

Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

Jan 2007 – MSC Napoli Container ship 1991, South Korea Metvale Storm (bow English Channel A crack in one side and a flooded 0 0 £120
Limited slamming and hull engine room million
whipping)
Apr 2010 Deepwater Deepwater Semi- 2001, South Korea Transocean Explosion and Macondo Prospect oil Sinking 11 17 $560
Horizon oil Horizon submersible subsequent fire field, U.S. million
spill mobile
offshore
drilling rig
July 2016 – HMS Ambush Nuclear 2003, BAE Systems Royal Navy Collision with a Strait of Gibraltar Conning tower and sonar 0 0 £2.1
fleet submarine Submarine Solutions merchant ship equipment were damaged. million

(continued on next page)

P. Tran et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

accidents, including oil rigs explosion, storm, and bow slamming

million
would lead to severe damages to marine structures, machines
Loss

$27
–

–
(Fig. 1) and massive casualty. Therefore, it is crucial to design for
explosion and high‐velocity impact resistance of marine structures.
Composites are brittle [51], which leads to little energy absorption
Nonfatal

and sudden structural failure subject to shock loading [52,53]. More-

over, blast load causes nonlinear structural deformation and multi‐
3

1
Casualty

faceted failure mechanisms in composites, which are more complex

Fatal

than steel and difficult to predict [54]. Damage modes of composites

27
2

0
include matrix cracking, delamination, fibre fracture, skin‐core

Tourist boat sank at the bottom of

debonding, and core crushing, which occur at a much lower shock
side superstructure and starboard
Severe damage to both starboard

Vessel lost control of engine and

steering, sinking after few days.
wave pressure than damaging high‐strength steel panels [3,268].
Minor damage to port bow

Therefore, the response of maritime composite structures against

Helicopter was damaged.

side below the waterline

shock waves generated by an underwater explosion (UNDEX) needs

the Danube River. to be better understood.
Damage to vessel

and bulbous bow

In addition to blast‐resistant issue, the use of maritime composites

has also been hindered by the lack of proper design methods [55]. So
far, methods for the design of composite materials against blast, shock
wave, and collision situations have not been well developed, and no
standard has been established [9]. Many naval developers employ
the same techniques, which are adopted for metal designs, to design
composites, thereby reducing their performance [56]. As a conse-
North Sea (north of

Danube, Budapest,

quence, the International Maritime Organization does not practically

Bergen) Norway

allow the use of composite materials for large commercial vessels in

its Safety of Life at Sea regulations [15,57]. Thus, it is of great neces-
Hungary
Location

Red Sea

sity to develop rigorous standards and smart tools for composite design
Japan

subject to UNDEX [9].

Early before World War I, experiments have been conducted to
explosives at high

investigate composite response to UNDEX. Between World War I and

Collision with a
tanker Sola TS
Collision with

World War II, researchers started to develop theoretical frameworks

Strike from a

packed with
small vessel

cruise ship

and come up with optimal design charts for maritime composites.

Collison

These experimental and theoretical research works contributed to

Cause

speed

improved features and new designs for military ships, such as the Mid-
way class in the United States and the Yamato class in Japan. Mean-
Royal Saudi

while, some studies focused on the understanding of underwater

Norwegian

Panorama
U.S. Navy
involved

explosion event and its associated phenomena, such as theoretical

Royal
Units

Navy

Navy

Deck

studies of gas bubble hydrodynamics and pressure field [58–61]. Dur-

ing World War II, more powerful weapons appeared, such as non‐
1949, the former Soviet

contact mines and air‐attacks. The wide‐spread damage, particularly

1993, Bath Iron Works

2006, Navantia, Spain

to ship equipment and machinery, motivated researchers to enhance

2008, South Korea
Built year, builder

1981, Arsenal de

their understanding of the effects associated with UNDEX. The major

Lorient, French

naval powers, such as Great Britain, USA, Germany, and Japan,

increased their research efforts to improve the protection of their war-
Union

ships by not only conducting experiments, establishing theoretical

framework, but also performing numerical simulations. After World
War II, further investigations regarding nuclear‐weapon explosion
Container ship

[62] were conducted, which demonstrated the importance of under-

Use purpose

Tourist boat

standing UNDEX effect and structure damage mechanisms. Since the

Destroyer
Frigate

Frigate

1970s, an increasing number of papers and reports on experiments,

numerical simulations, and theoretical analysis have been published.
In order to gain insights into composite response subject to UNDEX
MV ACX Crystal
Structure name

Ingstad (F313)
USS Fitzgerald

and provide useful information to future studies, this paper presents a

HNoMS Helge
Al Madinah

historical review on the response of composites under such conditions.

Hableány

Different methods have been explored and developed over the past few
decades, providing design suggestions for warships. Four different
research approaches including experiments, post‐mortem inspections,
numerical modelling, and theoretical analysis are reviewed showing
USS Fitzgerald
Yemen's Civil

and MV ACX

how researchers have investigated the complex deformation and fail-

Sinking of
Historical

Hableány
Collision

ure behaviours of composite structures subjected to UNDEX.

Crystal
Event/

event

War

–
Table 2 (continued)

2. Review on experimental programs for UNDEX

May 2019

Early before World War I, experimental methods had been per-

Nov 2018
Jun 2017
Jan 2017

formed from full‐scale and large‐scale explosive testings to

Time

laboratory‐controlled scale. Most full‐scale and large‐scale experi-

4
P. Tran et al.
Fig. 1. (a) ‘USS STARK (FFG-31)’ listing to port after being hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles within 30 s; (b) Damage to hull and superstructure of ‘USS STARK (FFG-
31)’; (c) ‘USS Stickleback (SS-415)’ collided with ‘USS Silverstein’; (d) ‘USS Fitzgerald’ after collision.
ments were conducted by defence organizations [63], while some
were published in papers and reports [53,64,65]. These experiments
are precise to assess shock resistance of maritime structures as they
are close to real situation. However, they are costly and, in order to
be conducted, require many precautions and safety measures. There-
fore, laboratory‐scale experiments were more commonly used at
research centres and universities [66]. Laboratory‐scale testings simu-
lated UNDEX using various apparatus, including water‐filled shock
tubes [67–95], water‐filled chambers [96–103], spherical pressure
vessels [99–103] and cubic tank [98]. Table 3 summarises experimen-
tal methods that have been employed in previous studies.
The physical phenomena associated with UNDEX is extremely com-
plex and involves many aspects including high temperatures and pres-
sures, transient states, extensive distortions, and multi‐medium flow
[104] The resulting loading on a submerged structure subjected to
an UNDEX is time‐dependent and can be summarised into two distinct
phases:
1) The initial transient shockwave pressure load and associated
cavitation reloading.
2) Subsequent shockwaves and fluid impulse due to bubble pulsa-
tion and jetting. Cavitation effects may also be associated with
each of these pulses.
As illustrated in Fig. 2 the pressure experienced by a submerged
structure fluctuates periodically as the gas bubble migrates to the free
surface with initial pressure peak due to the transient shockwave sus-
tained over a short period, followed by pulsating bubble pressure
peaks as bubble migrates to surface.
2.1. Full-scale and large-scale experiments
Full‐scale and large‐scale UNDEX testings are costly, and results are
difficult to measure. However, it is necessary to conduct these studies
to validate smaller (less expensive and more controllable) experimen-
tal setups, numerical simulations and analytical models. Hall [53],
5
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
Qiankun and Gangyi [109], Arora et al. [110,111], Reid et al. [65],
and Rolfe et al. [66] are among the researchers who reported the
results of full‐scale and large‐scale underwater blast experiments in
the literature. To study the UNDEX process, a range of explosives
and analogues are used, including TNT [132], PE4 [133], C4
[134–137], HBX‐1 [138–140].
In the 1980s, Royal Australian Navy (RAN) conducted a three‐
phase underwater shock testing to evaluate the GFRP/foam sandwich
composite hull of the newly proposed minehunter [107] in an approx-
imate ten‐year time period. Hall [53,106] reported the results of a full‐
scale experiment that had been conducted as one phase of the series of
experiments. A full‐scale midship section of the hull was submerged in
a water‐filled quarry site and tested subject to explosion from certain
distance. High‐speed instrumentation techniques were employed dur-
ing the experiment to measure both the shock wave magnitude and
structural response, including acceleration, velocity and strain at pre-
determined structural locations. Results demonstrated that GFPR/
PVC foam sandwich composite hull could satisfy the requirements of
RAN, which was then supported by the third phase trials on another
minehunter, HMAS Shoalwater, in 1987 [108]. In 1999, the second
vessel of the Huon class Minehunter of RAN, HMAS Hawkesbury,
was also tested subject to UNDEX [65]. Details are not reported due
to sensitive information.
In 2011, Qiankun and Gangyi [109] conducted a full‐scale under-
water shock experiment on a ship section. A spherical charge, which
was made of 6 kg TNT, was placed at the depth of 2.5 m and stand‐
off distance of 15.12 m (Fig. 3a). The acceleration time histories were
measured by five accelerometers. Fig. 3b shows one of the acceleration
histories, which was recorded by the accelerometer mounted at the
yellow point in Fig. 3a. This shock trial was aimed to compare with
and validate a numerical simulation method. Agreements were found
between experimental results and numerical predictions of
acceleration.
Later, Arora et al. [110,111] developed two different setups to con-
duct large‐scale underwater blast testings on glass‐fibre reinforced
polymer (GFRP) skinned composite sandwich panels and GFRP tubular
 P. Tran et al.
Table 3
Summary of experimental methods.

Different experimental setup Composite materials/structures Loading simulation Instrument and measurements Refs.

Full/Large scale GFRP sandwich panels with different foam core materials; An explosive charge with predetermined High-speed instrumentation to determine shockwave [53,106–108]
A full-scale midsection of hull made of GFRP/foam sandwich characteristics magnitude, structural acceleration, velocity and strain.
composites.
A full-scale ship section with 2.5 m length, 1.2 m width, and A spherical charge made of 6 kg TNT with 15.12 m Accelerometers to gain acceleration profiles for [109]
1.2 m height stand-off distance predetermined points on tested section.
GFRP and CFRP sandwich composite 1 kg spherical charges made of Plastic Explosive type Strain gauges to study failure mechanisms. Pressure gauges to [110]
4 (PE4) at 1 m stand-off measure the shockwave pressure.
GFRP/SAN foam sandwich panel 1 kg/0.5 kg C4 explosive charge at 6 m below water Strain gauges and high-speed camera (with DIC) to monitor [111]
GFRP tubular laminate surface at different stand-off surface strain
A GFRP composite-hulled minehunter and GFRP composite T- A series of six explosive charges at various stand-off Velocity meters, accelerometers to obtain velocity time [65]
joint history.
GFRP/SAN foam sandwich panel 1.28 kg TNT equivalent charge at stand-off distance of Pressure gauges to measure reflected and side-on pressures. [66]
CFRP/SAN foam sandwich panel 1m Strain gauges and high-speed camera to record response
Lab scale Water- Monolithic CFRP plates; GFRP/PVC foam sandwich Generate peak pressures between 15 and 200 MPa High-speed photographic and laser interferometric [75-84]
filled composites; Aluminium/PVC foam sandwich plates diagnostics to study damage and failure mechanisms.
shock GFRP curved composite panels Conical shock tube (CST) facility, peak shock A 3D DIC system to record transient response of panels [68-72]
tube pressures from 10.3 MPa to 20.1 MPa
Compound steel-foam sticker on piston in contact High-speed photography to measure cavitation, deflection [85–90]
GFRP and CFRP plates with pressurised water, generating pressures up to time history and breaking/closing fronts propagation
20 MPa
Stainless steel monolithic plate; GFRP/PVC foam sandwich A flyer plate impacted piston at the velocity of 300 m/ Shadow Moiré measurement combined with high-speed [91–95]
composite; Martensitic and austenitic steel alloys; stainless s to produce an exponentially decaying pressure with photography to measure impact velocity, pressure wave
steel alloy with honeycomb core peak value above 100 MPa history, deformation and fractures
Water- GFRP laminates 5.8 g – 300 g PE4 at 0.3 m – 1.3 m stand-off distance, Norland Prowler digital waveform analyser and pressure [96,97,112–114]
filled generating maximum pressures between 8 MPa and transducers to record and measure shock wave respectively
chambers 133 MPa
6

Spherical CFRP composite hollow cylinders, CFRP composite panels Nitrogen gas into air pocket to increase pressure High-speed camera and pressure sensors to record pressure [99–103,115]
pressure after prolonged exposure to saline inside vessel at 0.083 MPa/min; RP-85 charges, time history. 3D DIC to capture real-time full-field
vessel equivalent to 1.778 g TNT displacements and velocities.
Cubic GFRP composite plates with polyurea coating An RP-503 charge, including 454 mg RDX and Pressure transducers to measure pressure field; High-speed [98,116]
tank 167 mg PETN, equivalent to 1.5 g TNT photography coupled with DIC to capture response of plate
back-face.
Extreme Drop Short carbon fibre reinforced PEEK composite; CFRP Drop weight tower generated different level of kinetic The cell on impactor to calculate its displacement time [117-124]
loading tests weight laminates/tubes; woven Kevlar/epoxy laminates; GFRP energy to impact composites at temperatures lowest history. Post-mortem analysis using SEM, ultrasonic pulse-
at low test laminates; CFRP/PVC foam sandwich composite to −196 °C echo to examine the damages in specimen
temperature Charpy 3D multi-axial warp knitted GFRP composites; bulk The pendulum hammer impacted specimens at Post-mortem analysis using SEM, ultrasonic pulse-echo to [125–127]
impact metallic glass matrix composites; GFRP laminates different energy level at temperatures lowest to examine the damages in specimen
test −196 °C
SHPB GFRP/foam sandwich composites; 3D braided basalt/epoxy The incident bar increased the strain rate, while the Dynamic stress-strain curves were obtained for foam core and [128–130]
test composite transmission GFRP face sheets respectively.
Bar increased the transmitted signal intensity.
Ballistic Taped and woven CFRP laminates The projectile impacted specimen at various velocities Two photoelectric cells to measure the impact velocity. C- [131]
test up to 525 m/s. Temperature ranged from −150 °C to scan images to quantify the damage.

Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

−20 °C
Blast test GFRP/foam sandwich composites Shock tube apparatus generated an incident pressure Pressure transducers to measure the shock wave pressure. [129]
of 0.9MPa at −40 °C (core). High-speed camera (with DIC) to record the real time
displacement of specimen.

Note: DIC refers to Digital Image Correlation; GFRP refers to glass fibre reinforced polymer; CFRP refers to carbon fibre reinforced polymer. PEEK refers to polyether-ether-ketone. SEM refers to scanning electron
microscopy; SHPB refers to Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar.
P. Tran et al.
Fig. 2. Dynamics of UNDEX event illustrating surface observations, bubble migration and pressure history [105].
Fig. 3. (a) Schematics of full-scale experiment (b) acceleration time history obtained from the accelerometer (yellow dot in (a)) [109].
laminates. The first setup is shown in Fig. 4a [111]. Target panels were
bonded in a steel frame and bolted in a base frame such that the effect
of the blast wave wrapping around the target could be reduced. This
configuration provided an enclosed volume in which air‐backed or
water‐backed conditions can be reproduced. It was a heavy structure
that replicated the boundary conditions in the hull of a ship. Strain
gauges were mounted along centre lines of the panel to measure the
strain. Fig. 4b [111] is an image taken during the explosion, showing
bubble venting 3.5 m height to the atmosphere.
Another full‐scale experiment was conducted by Rolfe et al. [66] in
2017. They performed a failure analysis of composite sandwich panels
with different skin materials subject to both underwater and air explo-
sions. GFRP and CFRP were tested respectively. Detail setup and pho-
tos during the experiment are shown in Fig. 5.
2.2. Laboratory-scale experiment
For laboratory‐scale experiments, the setups that have been used to
simulate UNDEX mainly include water‐filled shock tube, water‐filled
chamber, spherical pressure vessel, and cubic tank. It should be noted
7
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
that there are also research using laboratory‐scale air blast to examine
the performance of maritime composite structures [267].
2.2.1. Water-filled shock tube
Water‐filled shock tubes were developed with small variations for
different scopes. For example, LeBlanc and Shukla developed a shock
tube in which the initial shock wave was generated by a small explo-
sive charge [68–72,74], while other researchers used gas guns to gen-
erate the initial impulse [75–95]. Some of these configurations
allowed for different situations, such as air‐backed or water‐backed
conditions [75–90].
In 2014, LeBlanc and Shukla [69] utilised a conical shock tube to
generate impulsive loadings to examine the response of air‐backed
and fully coupled panels. The major apparatus was a conical water‐
filled shock that was horizontally mounted as shown in Fig. 6. The
rigid walls of the tube were used to confine the expansion of the pres-
sure to simulate a conical sector of the pressure field. Coombs and
Thornhill [141] demonstrated that the free field pressure wave distri-
bution could be replicated if the walls of the tube are rigid enough. An
amplification factor was applied to relate shock tube pressure to free
P. Tran et al.
Fig. 4. (a) Schematic diagrams of a large-scale underwater blast experiment setup to evaluate water blast resistance of GFRP composites; (b) photo of water
surface during the experiment, which threw water into air [111].
field pressure, which was defined as the ratio of the volume of a spher-
ical charge and the conical charge as depicted by [142]:
1 mitted impulses.
AF ¼
;
sin2 4α
where AF denotes amplification factor, and α denotes the cone angle.
For this setup, α was 2.6°. The explosive charge was detonated at the
left end of tube, which generated peak shock pressures from
10.3 MPa to 20.1 MPa. In order to capture the transient response,
two different measurement methods were applied. Strain gauges were
positioned on the back face of composites to record strains during
experiments, and Digital Image Correlation (DIC) technique was used
to record and analyse the displacement of face sheet.
Another laboratory‐scale apparatus is called Underwater Shock
Loading Simulator (USLS), which was developed by Avachat and Zhou
[75–84]. It was a system that could generate impulsive loadings of dif-
ferent intensities and simulate submerged structures subjected to
underwater blast loading. This facility was composed of a gas gun, a
shock tube filled with water and a containment chamber, in which
the sandwich structure was positioned. Gas gun accelerated a projec-
tile, which impacted a thin flyer plate and generated a planar pressure
wave. The sandwich structures can be either air‐backed or water‐
backed (Fig. 7). Moreover, high‐speed photographic and laser interfer-
ometric techniques were part of this system, which allowed for the
measurement of velocities and deformations of projectile and panels
Fig. 5. (a) Photographs during the full-scale UNDEX experiment on composite panels; (b) arrangement for composite panel and explosive charge [66].
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
during the loading phase. This system also included pressure transduc-
ers and a high‐frequency data acquisition system to record the trans-
ð2Þ Variants of USLS are shown in Fig. 8, which were also developed by
Avachat and Zhou [78,83]. Fig. 8a presents a setup called ‘Dynacomp’
[78]. The sandwich structures were comprised of two aluminium pla-
tens and foam cores with different configurations. The composite
structure was exposed to water on one side, while the aluminium pla-
ten on the other side rested on a force transducer. The transmitted
force was measured by force transducer, and the compressive strain
of foam core was recorded by a high‐speed camera (Fig. 8c and
Fig. 8d). It should be noted that only air‐backed conditions can be sim-
ulated using this setup. Fig. 8b shows another variant of USLS, which
was used to evaluate UNDEX resistance of axis‐symmetrically clamped
round plates [83]. This fully clamped circular plate was obtained by
blocking the circular specimen with adhesive bonding between the
specimen and the annular tube face near one of the two tube sides.
The other side was then filled with water and sealed with a piston.
The back face of the composite was supported by a clamping ring.
Slightly different, Espinosa and his research group [91–95] devel-
oped an experimental setup based on scaled fluid structure interaction
(FSI) to simulate the shock wave effects on a submerged structure. This
facility is similar to the USLS setup established by Avachat and Zhou
[75–82,84] (Fig. 7). The difference is that the water‐filled anvil tube
was shaped with a divergent configuration. This diffusion was closed
8
P. Tran et al.
Fig. 6. (a) Schematics of conical shock tube; (b) photo of setup from the
breech end; (c) photo of setup from the muzzle end [69].
by a piston on one side and specimen on the other side, as shown in
Fig. 9a. Pressure generation and load transmission process were the
same as in USLS [75–82,84]. Photographs of outside and inside exper-
imental set up are shown in Fig. 9b and Fig. 9c, respectively. A scaling
factor was highlighted in this method to keep FSI the same as the full‐
scale situation. In this case, the same fraction of the far field momen-
tum I o must be transmitted to the composite plate. A scaling factor K
was used to scale down the panel thickness according to:
Dfullscale
K¼ ; ð4Þ
Dexperiment
where Dfullscale and Dexperiment represent plate diameters for a full‐scale
dimension and in a laboratory experiment respectively. The deflection
histories of the panels were assessed using shadow Moiré and recorded
by high‐speed photography [91–95].
In the 2010 s, Schiffer and Tagarielli [85–90] developed a transpar-
ent shock tube that allowed direct observation of fluid and structure
response. This setup was composed of a transparent tube made of
acrylic with an internal diameter of 27 mm and a length of 2 m. The
transparent tube allowed for the observation of both structural and
fluid responses, which could be recorded using high‐speed cameras.
Three different tube configurations are presented in Fig. 10, including
unsupported air‐backed freestanding plates (Fig. 10a), unsupported
Fig. 7. (a) Schematic of the underwater blast testing facilities USLS for a simply-supported and air-backed composite (b) schematic of simply-supported and water-
backed composite; (c) photograph of experimental setup [79].
9
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
water‐backed freestanding plates (Fig. 10b) and fully clamped plates
(Fig. 10c). For all three setups, pressure was generated by the impact
of a compound projectile and measured by piezoelectric pressure
transducers inside the tubes. High‐speed cameras were used to record
both the composites and water response (such as cavitation shown in
Fig. 10d, e, f).
Facilities mentioned above focus on simulating FSI, hence captur-
ing composite response subject to the simulated underwater shock
loads, including deflection and velocity histories and core compres-
sion. Thus, the load‐carry capacity, energy‐dissipation capability and
failure mechanisms of different sandwich composites subject to under-
water shock load are evaluated. Structures, which are shaped both flat
and curved, backed by air and water, free‐standing and fully clamped,
could be examined using different water‐filled shock tube experimen-
tal setups. The testings, together with computational results, offer a
promising approach to improving the capabilities of maritime struc-
tures regarding underwater blast resistance [75–84]. In addition to
structural response, it is worth mentioning that the transparent shock
tube system [85–90] allow the observation of shock wave propagation
and bubble dynamics. However, the composites that have been exam-
ined are limited within particular structure configurations, specific
combinations of core and face sheet materials and core sizes using
water‐filled shock tube facilities. Further studies should be conducted
for different geometries, sizes and materials of sandwich composites
[75–84].
2.2.2. Water-filled chamber
A water‐filled chamber is another way that has been used to simu-
late explosion in a controlled way. In the 1990s, Mouritz and co‐
workers [96,112–114] performed a series of experiments on GFRP
laminates in a water‐filled pit (Fig. 11) to simulate underwater shock
wave generated by mine, torpedo exploding. This setup was consisted
of a steel cylinder confined within a concrete slab. Thin plastic sheets
containing air bubbles were applied on the internal walls to reduce the
internal reflection of shock waves following the explosion. The pit had
a diameter of 1.85 m and a depth of 2.0 m. The explosive charge could
generate maximum pressure from 8 MPa to 133 MPa. The tested lam-
inates were clamped at the bottom of the structure between two sheets
of rubber. Both air‐backed and water‐backed configurations could be
realized. Pressure‐time responses were measured using pressure trans-
ducers mounted on the laminate surface, and another was suspended
at the same stand‐off distance of the coupon freely in the water. Other
recording instrument included strain gauges and high‐speed cameras
(with Digital Image Correlation software). However, measuring trans-
mitted reaction forces or observing the experimental process and GFRP
P. Tran et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

Fig. 8. Schematics of USLS setup to evaluate UNDEX resistance of: (a) sandwich structures with foam cores of different configurations [78]; (b) clamped round
panels; [83] (c) high-speed images showing deformation of composite with PVC foam core (ρ ¼ 200kg=m3 ); (d) high-speed images showing deformation of
composite with PVC foam core (ρ ¼ 60kg=m3 ) [78].

Fig. 9. Schematics of: (a) water-filler anvil camber with a divergent configuration; (b) photographs of the outside facility; (c) photographs of the inside facility
[91].

response during the blast was not possible. It should be noted that
strong safety measures are required when using this experimental
setup.
2.2.3. Spherical pressure vessel
The spherical pressure vessel is another type of setup for UNDEX
experiment (Fig. 12a), which was developed by Pinto, Gupta and
Shukla [99‐103]. This spherical vessel had a diameter of 2.1 m, which
could provide a constant hydrostatic pressure up to 6.89 MPa. Win-
dows located on mid‐span of pressure vessel allowed for illumination
and observation of composite response during the experiment. The
composite tube was sealed using aluminium head caps and suspended
in the centre of the vessel. The vessel was filled with filtered water and
pressurized by introducing nitrogen gas into a pocket. Measuring and
recording instrument included high‐pressure blast transducers, high‐
speed cameras with 3D DIC technique. Two high‐speed cameras were
located outside windows at an offset angle of 17°. Images were anal-
ysed using 3D DIC software to study displacements and velocities of
composite sample and fluid response. Fig. 12b exhibits high‐speed
images, showing cavitation and bubble collapse during the explosion.
In 2020, Javier et al. [115] improved this system by introducing
two more windows on the right mid‐span of the pressure vessel. One
more lighting equipment and high‐speed camera were located outside
these two windows. This apparatus was employed to conduct UNDEX
experiment on CFRP composite plates, which were exposed to saline
for a long time.
2.2.4. Composites subject to extreme loading at low temperature
Maritime structure is likely faced with low temperature environ-
ment when it operates in the arctic region. Such harsh condition is
quite challenging, which should be carefully considered for the design
of marine structures regarding damage tolerance at low temperature

10
P. Tran et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

Fig. 10. Schematics of shock tube configured underwater blast simulator to observe UNDEX response of: (a) unsupported air-backed freestanding plates (b)
unsupported water-backed freestanding plates [90]; (c) fully clamped plates [89]; High-speed images showing: (d) onset of cavitation and propagation of breaking
front (BF); (e) propagation of BF; (f) closing front (CF) at fluid-structure interface [90].

Fig. 11. Schematics of underwater blast testing facilities to investigate the development of microstructural damage in GFRP: (a) cross-sectional view of the water-
filled chamber (b) cross-sectional view of GFRP laminates and boundary conditions [97].

[117]. Some core materials show brittle behaviours at low tempera-
ture, which makes sandwich composites susceptible to extreme load-
ings. When colliding with ice particles in the cold water, the
damages below the surface of composite structure could be extremely
significant, including matrix cracking, delamination, fibre breakages,
face sheet and core interface debonding, and core crushing.
In order to study the damage behaviour of composite structure sub-
ject to extreme loadings at low temperature, several types of experi-
ments were performed, including drop weight testings [117–124],
Charpy impact testings [125–127], Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar appa-
ratus (SHPB) [128–130], ballistic testings [131], and blast testings
[129].
Drop weight test is the most commonly used method. Elamin et al.
[117] employed a drop tower machine (Fig. 13a) with a climate chamber
to study the impact behaviour and failure mechanisms of CFRP/foam
sandwich composite at low temperature. Testings were conducted at dif-

ferent temperatures, including room temperature (23 C), standard freez-
 
ing temperature (0 C), average temperature in the arctic region (30 C),

and the lowest temperature recorded in the arctic region (70 C). The
climate chamber was connected to a liquid nitrogen tank to generate
low temperature environment for the composite specimen. Results
implied that the behaviour of CFRP/foam composite was remarkably
 
affected at 30 C and70 C. More brittle behaviour, reduced strength
of face sheet, and increased structural stiffness were revealed at low tem-
perature. Severe damages, including fibre breakage, delamination, face
sheet and core interface debonding, and core crushing, were observed
after the experiment using Micro‐CT. It is worth noting that the debond-
ing area was dramatically increased at low temperature, which was
attributed to the weaker matrix interface in such environment.

11
P. Tran et al.
Fig. 12. (a) Schematics of spherical pressure vessel setup to observe composite and fluid behaviours during UNDEX experiment; (b) high-speed images showing
the cavitation and bubble collapse during explosion [99].
Charpy impact test was a method utilised to study the energy
absorption of GFRP laminates. The experimental setup employed by
Li et al. [125] is shown in Fig. 13b, which aimed to study the impact
properties and failure mechanisms of composite at room temperature
 
(20 C) and liquid nitrogen temperature (196 C) respectively. For
the experiments at liquid nitrogen temperature, the specimen was
placed in a container filled with liquid nitrogen for more than two
hours before testing. The absorbed energy in the composites at differ-
ent temperatures was compared, and the failure mechanisms were
identified using a scanning electron microscope. The increased impact
energy indicated improved impact resistance of specimen at liquid
 
nitrogen temperature (196 C) than room temperature (20 C).
Authors explained this improvement as the results of the increased
stiffness and strength of the resin matrix and the enhanced bonding
effect between fibre and matrix at low temperature. However, they

also pointed out that at a temperature of 196 C brittle failure feature
became more apparent.
Compared with low‐velocity drop weight test, a high‐velocity
impact trial in low‐temperature environment was conducted by
López‐Puente et al. [131]. This experiment aimed to examine the effect
of low temperature on impact damage extension on CFRP laminates.
The setup is shown in Fig. 14(a). They employed a gas gun to acceler-
ate a spherical‐shaped steel projectile and impact the composite spec-
Fig. 13. (a) Drop weight testing facility to study the impact behaviour and failure modes of CFRP/foam sandwich composite at low temperature [117] (b) Charpy
impact testing facility to study the energy absorption of composite structures [125].
12
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
imen in a climate chamber. This chamber provided cryogenic
environment by allowing the liquid nitrogen flow inside and the fan
constantly recirculate. Fig. 14b presents the details of the chamber.
Composite specimens were tested at three different temperatures
  
(20 C,60 C,150 C) for comparison. Failure mechanisms were
observed, and damage areas were identified by C‐scan. It was demon-
strated that the low temperature had a negative effect on high‐velocity
impact response of taped CFRP laminates, whereas it showed little
effect on damage severity once the impact velocity was beyond the bal-
listic limit.
Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) apparatus, which utilises
stress wave propagation in elastic bars to generate dynamic load on
target structure [143], has also been used at low temperature to cap-
ture the high rate stress‐strain response of composite structures
[128–130].
To author’s best knowledge, the only blast test on composite struc-
tures at low temperature was performed by Gupta and Shukla [129] in
2012. Similar as one type of the UNDEX laboratory‐scale experiment,
they employed a shock tube apparatus to generate blast loading
(Fig. 15a). The shock load was replicated by pressurizing the driver
section. The GFRP/foam sandwich composites were tested at three dif-
ferent temperatures (−40 °C, 22 °C, 80 °C). To achieve the target low‐
temperature, the composite specimen was cooled down to −70 °C
P. Tran et al.
using the cooling system shown in Fig. 15b and quickly placed inside
the shock tube apparatus. The blast test was conducted when the tem-
perature of core dropped to −40 °C. During the experiment, high‐
speed camera with DIC technique was utilised to record the real time
displacement as shown in Fig. 15c. Results indicated that the tested
composites experienced larger displacement and severer damages at
low temperature than at room temperature. The main damage modes
observed after experiment were core cracking and face sheet/core
debonding.
Full‐scale and large‐scale experiments, as reported in literatures,
could capture the shockwave pressure magnitude and composite
response, including acceleration, velocity, strain, and failure modes.
An approximately real simulation of in‐service conditions is high-
lighted [110]. However, only a limited number of full‐scale and
large‐scale UNDEX testings have been performed and data from
these experiments are quantitatively limited (no repeat experiment)
[111]. This attributes to the costly and time‐consuming manufacture
of sample structures, challenging and expensive experimental setups.
To this regard, computational model of UNDEX experiments is rec-
ommended as a design tool to predict and evaluate composite beha-
viours [66].
Laboratory‐scale experiment aims to investigate behaviour of com-
posite structures during UNDEX event using small facilities. It requires
less preparation time, lower cost, whereas it is repeatable, safer and
more controllable than full‐scale and large‐scale experiments. The four
types of experimental setups mentioned above applied different work-
ing principles and captured slightly different characteristics during the
UNDEX testings. The shock tube and chamber systems could examine
both air‐backed and water‐backed samples, while the spherical vessel
and cubic tank systems are only for water‐backed and air‐backed
respectively. Both shock wave pressure history and structure response
Fig. 14. (a) Schematics of experimental setup to examine the effect of low temperature on impact response of CFPR laminates (b) photos of climate chamber to
provide a low temperature environment for composite specimens [131].
13
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
could be captured by four types systems, whereas only the transparent
shock tube system allows direct observation of the entire process dur-
ing experiment. With the aid of high‐speed camera (with DIC), beha-
viours of bubble and effects of FSI are also captured. However, the
real case is always more complicated than the controlled laboratory
environment. Also, the geometry and boundary conditions of the sam-
ples tested in laboratory are much simpler than the composites used in
maritime structures. Further experimental studies in this field could
focus on investigation of composites with more complex geometries
and made of different materials. Additionally, near field denotation
of explosive charges could also be studied extensively regarding its
localized effect.
3. Post-mortem analysis
Damage modes that composites experience are more complicated
compared to conventional materials. Common failure modes include
matrix cracking, core crushing, fibre fracture, debonding, delamina-
tion, fibre pull‐out, and compound failures including kink bands
(buckling delamination due to kinking of fibres under compression)
and barely visible impact damage (BVID) cone of fracture. Post‐
mortem analysis has been widely used to study damage mechanisms
of composite structures after blast testing. Different technologies have
been employed in different methods, such as ultrasonic pulse‐echo,
Lock‐in/Infrared thermography, X‐ray, and optical microscopy.
Advancements in damage detection technology have facilitated accu-
rate predictions of the behaviour of marine composite structures under
extreme loads and aggressive environments. Since the number of stud-
ies regarding composite response to UNDEX is limited, Table 4 sum-
marises approaches that have been employed to study failure modes
P. Tran et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

Fig. 15. (a) Schematics of the shock tube apparatus to study the temperature effect on dynamic response of maritime composites subject to blast load, including
driver section, driven section, muzzle section and test section [144] (b) cooling system to obtain target temperature for composite specimen (c) high-speed images
showing the real time deformations of composite at room temperature (22 °C) and low temperature (40 °C) respectively [129].

Table 4
Summary of post-mortem analysis methods to observe damage modes of composites.

Different post-mortem analysis Composite materials/ Instrument Observed damage modes References
structures

Non-destructive Visual GFRP/PVC sandwich High-speed Delamination, matrix cracking, fibre matrix [79,83,99,101]
inspection panel cameras debonding,
fibre pull-out and intralaminar cracking
Strain-based GFRP composite joints; Fibre optic strain Delamination, crack extension [145–150]
method aluminium/foam sensors
sandwich beam;
Ultrasonic pulse- Symmetrical and D9500TM C-SAMs Inter-laminar delamination, visible cracks [92,131,151–154]
echo method asymmetrical GFRP/ apparatus
PVC foam sandwich
composite; CFRP
laminates
Vibration-based CFRP laminates Polytec PSV-400 Delamination, cracks [155–157]
method non-contact
scanning laser
Doppler
Vibrometer
Electromagnetic CFRP laminates Electromagnetic Barely visible impact damage (BVID), [158–161]
inspection coupled spiral subsurface defects and internal micro-cracks
inductors (CSI)
Lock-in/Infrared GFRP; CFRP patch; Infrared camera; Subsurface defects, widespread weft yarn [162,163 164-166]
thermography boron composite patch Pulsed cracking, matrix delamination; Debonding
thermography and delamination in bonded composite
(PT); Transient joints
thermography
(TT)
Both non-destructive Visual GFRP/PVC sandwich High-resolution Delamination, matrix cracking, debonding, [72,79,82,83,95,167]
and destructive inspection panel; GFRP laminates digital camera fibre pull-out and intralaminar cracking
with/without polyurea
coating
X-radiography GFRP/SAN foam μCT scanner, CT Debonding between front face sheet and [66,117,153,168–173]
sandwich and CFRP/ scanner core, delamination, matrix cracking,
SAN foam sandwich through-thickness
panels; CFRP rupture
laminates
Microscopy GFRP and CFRP Optical Delamination, matrix cracking, fibre failure,
laminates, GFRP/PVC microscope, SEM core crushing, through-thickness
foam sandwich panel, Rupture, fibre matrix debonding, z-binder
hybrid metal yarn bridging the delamination crack
composite plates
[83,92,95,99,101,118,122,125–127,
131,151,153,167,170]

Note: GFRP refers to glass fibre reinforced plastics. CFRP refers to carbon fibre reinforced plastics. DIC refers to Digital Image Correlation.

14
P. Tran et al.
of composites resulted from air and water blast event, impact action
and environmental corrosion.
As summarised in Table 4, post‐mortem analysis could be achieved
using both non‐destructive and destructive damage detection methods
[92]. In previous studies, both destructive and non‐destructive meth-
ods were employed. Herein, several examples of using different tech-
nologies are given in the context of UNDEX.
3.1. Non-destructive methods
Non‐destructive techniques (NDT) include many methods that can
detect damage location, shape and size without destruction of the
structure, which is economically advantageous [174]. For post‐
mortem analysis in composite subject to UNDEX, high‐speed camera
(with DIC technique), optical microscope, scanning electron micro-
scope (SEM), C‐scan and X‐ray CT scanner have been employed. It
should be noted that microscopy and X‐ray could also be used in a
destructive way (refer to Section 3.2 for further detail).
High‐speed camera (with DIC technique) has been widely used to
track the displacement time histories of the viewable surface of target
structure [175]. DIC technique was calibrated in underwater explosive
experiments by Gupta et al. [176], showing accurate measurement of
displacements and velocities. Pinto and co‐authors [99,101] investi-
gated types and magnitudes of damages on composite structures sub-
ject to underwater shock load by both high‐speed camera (with DIC
technique) and optical microscopy. Fig. 16 presents three different
modes of damages, while the longitudinal cracking is identified dom-
inant regarding tube failure.
In 2011, LeBlanc and Shukla [72] assessed laminate modification
effects by observing the visible damage using a high‐resolution cam-
era. It can be seen in Fig. 17a, b, c, for all three laminates, that the
primary damage mode is delamination with minimal matrix and fibre
cracking. Still, the authors pointed out that damages could not be
separated regarding the blast loading phase and secondary deforma-
tion phase. Similarly in 2013, Avachat and Zhou [82] took post‐
mortem photographs to investigate damage mechanisms of a mono-
lithic composite structure since it was thin and failure modes were
difficult to identify using high‐speed imaging. Delamination, matrix
cracking, fibre pull‐out and rupture could be found in the magnified
photos.
According to Zhou et al. [177], scanning electron microscope
(SEM) is a sound instrument for microstructure morphology analysis.
Compared with the optical microscope, SEM can provide more
detailed information attributed to its higher magnification and greater
focus depth. In damage detection, SEM could be used both destructive
and non‐destructive. Avachat and Zhou [83] employed SEM to non‐
Fig. 16. Post-mortem images of (a) filament-wound and (b) roll-wrapped composite specimens: (A) through-thickness longitudinal crack, (B) interfibrillar cracks,
(C) fractured fibres [99].
15
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
destructively observe failure modes of monolithic and hybrid metal/-
composite laminates after UNDEX tests. Fig. 17(d, e) are high‐
resolution micrographs, showing interlaminar delamination, fibre
cracking, matrix cracking, fibre‐matrix debonding observed using
SEM.
The ultrasonic pulse‐echo method is another non‐destructive tech-
nique that utilises ultrasonic waves to detect defects in materials. The
scanning data could be presented in numbers of different formats. C‐
scan is one of the most commonly used formats, which provides a plan
view of the tested specimen. Latourte et al. [92] employed a C‐scan
pulse‐echo technique, using a D9500TM C‐SAMs apparatus, to exam-
ine the performance of both monolithic and sandwich composite pan-
els subject to underwater impulsive loading. Bending induced
delamination of the tested panel was found as a bright ring on the mar-
gin in Fig. 18a, while the darker patches corresponded to delamination
within the mapped gate. In addition to delamination, the pulse‐echo
technique also detected the visible cracks represented by a cross‐
shape feature in Fig. 18b. It should be noted that this C‐scan detection
process was conducted in a water‐immersed environment.
X‐radiography, including conventional tomography and micro‐
tomography, could be used both destructive and non‐destructive dam-
age detection. Rolfe et al. [168] carried out a post‐blast analysis of
GFRP and CFRP composite structures subject to full‐scale underwater
blast testing by using a μCT scanner. Deboning between front‐face
sheets and cores were found dominant, while core crushing was also
observed to different degrees for GFRP and CFRP, as shown in
Fig. 18c, d respectively.
3.2. Destructive methods
To improve the reliability and accuracy of non‐destructive damage
detection [92], destructive methods have been employed in some stud-
ies. However, destructive detection methods are typically time‐
consuming and confined to local damage observation [178]. The tech-
nique employed in composite subject to UNDEX involves high resolu-
tion camera, microscopes and CT‐scanner.
Early in 1994, Mouritz et al. [96] conducted post‐mortem analysis
of GRP laminates using optical microscope and SEM after underwater
shock tests. The tested samples were analysed firstly non‐destructively
and then cut, polished and etched for microstructural damage identifi-
cation using SEM. Fig. 19a and Fig. 19b are the micrographs taken dur-
ing the non‐destructive phase, revealing that glass fibres could stop or
deflect cracks within the polymer matrix, thereby carrying most of the
tensile loads and improving the underwater blast resistance of lami-
nates. Fig. 19(c) is the micrograph after sectioning, which reveals
extensive delamination between glass piles.
P. Tran et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

Fig. 17. Damage of three laminates after tests (a) base line, (b) equivalent thickness baseline with a glass veil between plies, (c) baseline with polyurea [72]; SEM
micrographs of the composite specimen after UNDEX test at two different magnifications, showing (d) interlaminar delamination, (e) fibre cracking, matrix
cracking and fibre-matrix debonding [83].

Wei et al. [95] compared, what were observed using optical micro-
scope and high‐resolution camera after underwater impulsive tests on
monolithic and sandwich composites, with their proposed numerical
simulation results. As shown in micrographs (Fig. 20a), delamination
patterns could be clearly identified at the clamped edge of the mono-
lithic composite panel with partially propagating to mid‐span. The
cross‐section of a foam core sandwich panel was examined with mag-
nified photographs (Fig. 20b). Core crushing and cracking were
observed at mid‐span, while delamination, fibre cracking and matrix
failure were found at clamped edges.

Fig. 18. (a) C-scan for solid panel subject to underwater impulsive loading, (b) C-scan for waterside face sheet of the panel [92]; X-Ray CT scan showing deboning
between front face-sheet and core of (c) CFRP and (d) GFRP after underwater blast testing [168].

16
P. Tran et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

Fig. 19. Scanning electron micrographs showing (a) a crack stopped at glass fibre; (b) a crack waved between glass fibres; (c) extensive delamination between two
glass piles [96].

Fig. 20. Optical micrographs of cross-section of: (a) monolithic panel after impulse test, showing delamination pattern, (b) sandwich panel with magnified photos
at edges and mid-span, showing foam crushing, delamination and shear failure [95]; (c) Cross-section of AISI 304 stainless steel honeycomb sandwich panels after
blast loading, (d) amplified cross-section at panel centre, (e) amplified cross-section near panel edge [94].

Mori et al. [94] examined both the cross‐section of sandwich panels
and fractures on face sheets of the examined composite after experi-
ment to identify failure mechanisms of such structures subject to
UNDEX. Face sheet examination was conducted using a non‐
destructive method, whereas the cross‐section was studied using a
destructive method. The tested sampled was cut into half by water‐
jet machining and the cross‐section was observed in high‐resolution
images. As exhibited in Fig. 20 (c, d, e) core crushing occurred in
the centre and the peripheries of the sample.
X‐ray CT scanning has also been employed as a destructive post‐
mortem analysis method. Recently, Rolfe et al. [66] used X‐ray CT
scanning to evaluate damages of composite panels with GFRP/CFRP
skins with graded foam core after underwater blast tests. Panels were
cut into three sections, and a certain thickness of material was
removed before examination. Fig. 21 shows the 3D reconstructed
GFRP panels after testing with cross‐sectional scans as well. Front face
sheet debonding, core crushing and core cracking could be easily
observed from CT scans. The post‐blast analysis revealed that panels
with GFRP skins suffered less damage, but severer core crushing com-
pared to CFRP skins.
Both destructive and non‐destructive methods could identify the
typical failure mechanisms of composite, including delamination,
matrix cracking, fibre matrix debonding, fibre pull‐out, core crushing,
and through‐thickness rupture. The techniques employed in UNDEX
cases are limited to X‐ray, microscopy, ultrasonic pulse‐echo, high‐
speed camera (with DIC technique) and high‐resolution camera as
summarised. Pros and cons of CT scanner, ultrasonic pulse‐echo and
SEM are listed as follows:
• X‐ray CT: features 3D visualisation of internal damages and quanti-
tative analysis, but strongly rely on variations in material density
and thickness.
• Ultrasonic pulse‐echo: allows detection of small and deep internal
flaws with only one surface of sample accessible. Size, shape, orien-
tation of damages could be identified. However, it cannot be
applied to irregular, inhomogeneous or very thin composites.
• SEM: it is capable of damage quantitative analysis, providing high‐
resolution, magnified and three‐dimensional images of nanostruc-
tures and microstructures. However, it is limited to small size sam-
ple, and particularly sensitive to external magnetic fields.
In future studies, other advanced techniques, such as lock‐in/
infrared thermography, could be used as the tool to examine the dam-
age modes of composite structures. Moreover, post‐mortem analysis
cannot identify during which time period of the UNDEX the damage
actually happens. To this regard, the damage modes captured in
post‐mortem analysis could be compared with numerical simulations
to help further investigate the progress of damage development.
4. Numerical simulations
Numerical simulations aim to provide deeper insights into how
fluid and composites respond during UNDEX and interact with each
other. Numerical simulations of composites subjected to UNDEX
mainly focused on fluid structure interaction (FSI), which date back
to the early 1940 s. Interaction between the motion of surrounding
fluid and structure has a remarkable effect on the stress within the

17
P. Tran et al.
Fig. 21. 3D reconstructed CFRP composite panel from 2D X-ray CT scans, showing the damaged composite after underwater blast testing [66].
structure [179]. In previous studies, the Finite Element method (FEM)
has been widely used, including Lagrangian model, Eulerian Lagran-
gian model and Acoustic Lagrangian model. Meanwhile, some coupled
methods have also been validated capable of simulating FSI, such as
coupled Boundary Element Method (BEM)/FEM and coupled
Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH)/FEM. Table 5 gives a sum-
mary of the models and major software employed by previous
research, but is also pertinent to highlight examples of other packages
can also be used for UNDEX simulation: RADIOSS [180], AUTODYNE
[181], MSC/Dytran [132,182–184], NASTRAN/USA/CFA [185],
MARC [186,187], NISA [188], Trident [189,190], Chinook
[135,137], PRONTO [191] and User‐Developed Code [192,193].
The following discussions aim to provide key development and
applications of each numerical technique. It should be emphasised that
all numerical models a based on a set of assumptions and simplifica-
tions and therefore there is no perfect modelling technique and each
technique is suitable for a class of problems. Besides the deterministic
modelling tools, recently there is sufficient interest in developing data‐
led predictive models such as neural network, machine learning or
deep learning.
4.1. Finite Element Method (FEM)
FEM regarding simulation of fluid–structure interaction (FSI) dur-
ing UNDEX mainly includes simplified models, Lagrangian framework
(L‐L method), Eulerian‐Lagrangian framework (E‐L method) and
Acoustic and Lagrangian framework (A‐L model). Simplified models
[87,88] were conducted based on certain assumptions, such as roller
constraints and infinite boundary distance. Simulations were con-
ducted to investigate one‐dimensional response of sandwich plates
and found consistent with experimental results. The other three FEM
approaches have been more commonly utilised to simulate FSI during
UNDEX events [95]. The L‐L method is to simulate both water and
composite structures with the Lagrangian framework [91]. Espinosa
18
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
et al. [91] performed extensive FEM simulations by the L‐L model to
gain insight into effect of divergent diffuser and nonlinearity in the
response of water at the imposed pressures. The pressure wave propa-
gation in the water and its distribution at the fluid‐solid interface was
investigated. Results indicated that the L‐L method could accurately
capture history‐dependent material properties.
Later, Avachat and Zhou [77] carried out FE simulations using
Lagrangian framework to investigate the relationship between the
thickness of face sheet and the response of underwater blast loading
on sandwich structures. By performing FE simulations, they found
that there existed an optimal design of face sheet thickness that
can maximise dissipated energy and minimise structural deformation
at the same time. Additionally, they pointed out that the L‐L model
could produce FSI and accurately simulate impulses and pressures.
Fig. 22a shows the finite element mesh for the constructed FE model,
and Fig. 22b presents the simulation results for equivalent plastic
strain distribution in the sandwich core. Similarly, Schiffer and
Tagarielli [89] also performed FE simulations based on the Lagran-
gian framework to study response of circular composite plates subject
to UNDEX.
However, the L‐L method was found difficult when dealing with
large deformation problems [219,220]. To eliminate the element dis-
tortion problem of L‐L model, another FEM method, Eulerian‐
Lagrangian technique (E‐L method), has been introduced. The E‐L
model combines the advantages of both the Eulerian and the Lagran-
gian formulations. Two popular frameworks have been proposed as
E‐L model in order to simulate FSI during UNDEX, i.e., coupled E‐L
model (CEL) and arbitrary Lagrangian‐Eulerian model (ALE).
CEL was proposed and validated by Xie and et al. [194] and applied
to UNDEX analysis of multi‐layered composite plates in a 2D axisym-
metric model. The multi‐phase compressible Eulerian solver is coupled
the Lagrangian solid solver using an interface capturing method which
updates the interface conditions of the fluid (pressure, density, normal
velocity) into characteristic equations for fluid and solid motion, gen-
 Table 5

P. Tran et al.
Summary of numerical simulation employed for composite structures subject to UNDEX.

Numerical simulation method Captured Fluid behaviour Domain description Software Composite material/ Comment Reference
feature structure

FEM Simplified FSI Mie-Gruneisen EOS with a - ABAQUS/ Metallic sandwich Assumptions were made to study [87,88]
model linear Hugoniot relation Explicit plates with cores of one-dimensional response.
different materials and
configurations
L-L model Fluid domain and solid domain are both Stainless steel Capture history-dependent [77,89,91]
described using the Lagrangian monolithic plates; material properties; difficulty with
framework. circular composite; large deformation problems
FRPsandwich plates
with polymer foam core
E-L CEL Mie-Gruneisen EOS Fluid domain is described using the LS-DYNA GFRP and CFRP Eliminate element distortion [116]
model Eulerian framework, while solid domain is laminates problem; capture nonlinear FSI;
Barotropic Tait’s EOS; bilinear described by the Lagrangian framework. ABAQUS/ Steel/foam core overestimate the effect of matrix [194-196]
EOS Explicit sandwich structures cracking and rupture.
Mie-Gruneisen EOS GFRP cylindrical [80,84]
specimen and sandwich
structure
Compressible Tillotson EOS DYSMAS CFRP composite plates [115]
after prolonged
exposure to saline
ALE Mie-Gruneisen EOS Fluid and solid domains are same as CEL. A LS-DYNA CFRP and GFRP Similar to CEL, but ALE is more [98,199–201]
third domain, called reference domain, laminates; GFRP efficient in solving large
allows nodes of the discretisation move in sandwich structures deformation problems than CEL
space independently of the material [197]. with hard foam core [198].
A-L model Inviscid, linear and Fluid is described as an acoustic medium, ABAQUS/ GRP monolithic panels Accurately simulate FSI and able [95,109,202–209]
compressible fluid behaviours while solid domain is described by the Explicit and sandwich to capture different failure
19

are assumed. Lagrangian framework. structures with PVC mechanisms of composite

foam core, partially structures
submerged ship hull
CFD Shock Linear wave theory, The domain volume is filled with ANSYS – Not precise enough, expensive [210,211]
waves Navier–Stokes equations tetrahedral cells and then improved by ICEM CFD
refinement, local mesh adaption.
SPH Fluid Mie-Gruneisen EOS SPH particles – A rigidly confined Simulate large deformation and [132,212–214]
dynamics, water chamber fracture of complex structure;
structural track movement of fluid-structure
damage, interface; not suitable for a long-
FSI time duration.
Coupled method Coupled FSI, Mie-Gruneisen EOS SPH particles and the Lagrangian Finite A rigidly confined Well-suited for load transmission [191,212]
SPH/FEM bubble formulation. element water chamber, flat from UNDEX to nearby structures
code plate, hollow cylinder and large deformation
PRONTO
Couple FSI, FSI is modelled only at the Solid domain is described using LS- A partially/fully Interaction between explosive gas [200,215-218]
BEM/FEM structural wettedsurface on the structures, Lagrangian formulation, while DYNA3D submerged composite and surrounding water is not

Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

analysis while the surrounding fluid fluid–structure interface is modelled using and ship section; GFRP properly considered so that
elements need not be modelled as a DAA boundary. boundary sandwich structures prediction of peak pressure is
[215]. element with hard foam core inaccurate.
code USA

Note: FEM refers to the Finite Element method. L-L refers to Lagrangian-Lagrangian. E-L refers to Eulerian-Lagrangian. A-L refers to Acoustic and Lagrangian. ALE refers to Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian. CEL refers to
Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian. CFD refers to Computational Fluid Dynamics. SPH refers to Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. FSI refers to fluid structure interaction. EOS refers to the Equation of State. BEM refers to
Boundary Element Method. USA refers to Underwater Shock Analysis. DAA refers to Doubly Asymptotic Approximation.
P. Tran et al.
Fig. 22. (a) The quarter-symmetric model, showing finite element mesh using L-L framework to simulate FSI in shock tube setup, to study effect of face sheet
thickness on energy absorption; (b) equivalent plastic strain distribution in the core [77].
Fig. 23. Coupled E-L (CEL) framework simulate FSI for experimental setup of: (a) water-filled shock tube [80]; (b) cubic tank [116].
erating the coupled FSI. A narrow band of ghost fluid cells are applied
to the solid‐side of the interface which is updated with extrapolated
values from the fluid‐ solid side for a more accurate FSI in all domains.
On the basis of previous work, Xie and his research group
[195,196] employed this strongly coupled E‐L model (CEL) to investi-
gate the transient response of sandwich structures subject to UNDEX.
Results indicated that CEL model could capture nonlinear FSI involv-
ing strong shock wave, cavitation, and bubble dynamics. Similarly, a
fully coupled 2D axisymmetric CLE study by Wang et al. [221] consid-
ers the boundary effects of UNDEX at a free surface and solid bound-
ary. The resultant rarefaction wave at the boundary demonstrates
multi‐phase applicability of the CLE method, highlighting the cavita-
tion regions in the fluid domain.
Avachat and Zhou [80] also employed the CEL framework in ABA-
QUS software to capture the extreme deformation of both monolithic
and sandwich composites subject to underwater impulsive loading.
The CEL computational framework for the shock tube experimental
setup, which is shown in Fig. 23a, was aimed to investigate deforma-
tion mechanisms and energy dissipation in composites. They found
that CEL model allowed Eulerian material interacting with Lagrangian
elements so that FSI could be captured. Additionally, they pointed out
that the Eulerian formulation could accurately simulate the explosive
pressure waves and cavitation at the interface. On this basis, Qu
et al. [84] employed the CEL framework to investigate collapse and
damage evolution of composite structures under large impulsive load
in the water. Results showed that this numerical model slightly over-
estimated the effect of matrix cracking and rupture. Recently, Matos
20
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
et al. [116] and Javier et al. [115] employed CEL to simulate FSI for
the cubic tank (Fig. 23b) and the spherical pressure vessel experimen-
tal setups respectively.
Compared to CEL, according to Bakroon et al. [198], ALE is more
efficient in dealing with large deformation problems. ALE method
has an outstanding feature of dynamic remeshing, which mitigates sig-
nificant distortion issues involved in the pure Lagrangian method. In
2016, LeBlanc et al. [98] employed the ALE model to simulate FSI of
cubic tank UNDEX experimental setup, as mentioned in Section 2.2.4.
The numerical simulations were found a high level of correlation to
experimental results, thereby demonstrating the capability of ALE
regarding FSI simulation. Supportively, Özarmut et al. [200] con-
ducted simulation using ALE framework to study the response of
FRP sandwich with hard foam core subject to underwater shock load.
The ALE model and meshing details are shown in Fig. 24a, while the
assumed planar wave generated by explosion is shown in Fig. 24b.
However, capturing the interaction between fluid and solid
involves the Eulerian mesh extending beyond the original fluid
domain, thereby leading to issues to achieve a fine mesh. Then, a
coarse Eulerian mesh results in stiff interface between the fluid and
solid domains [95]. Therefore, the Acoustic and Lagrangian frame-
work (A‐L model) was introduced by Marcus [222] as a third FEM
method regarding FSI simulation. In A‐L model, water is modelled
using acoustic element, while solid is modelled using Lagrangian for-
mulation. The interface was modelled using surface‐based tie con-
straints. McShane et al. [206], in 2007, conducted numerical
simulation using A‐L frameworks to evaluate UNDEX resistance of
P. Tran et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

Fig. 24. (a) ALE model with magnified meshing constructed using LS- DYNA to simulate FSI during UNDEX to evaluate its suitability regarding capture FRP
response; (b) shock wave propagation in two-dimensional ALE model [200].

Fig. 25. (a) cross-section view of mesh in A-L model to simulate FSI for divergent configuration shock tube setup; (b) deflection history of sandwich panel
predicted by A-L model [95].

both monolithic and sandwich composites. Similar studies have been
conducted since then to capture the FSI for the experimental setups
mentioned in Section 2 [74,95,109,202–204,207–209,223,224].
In 2013, Wei et al. [95] employed A‐L model to study the failure
mechanisms of sandwich composite panels subject to UNDEX
(Fig. 9). Fig. 25a schematically shows the detailed meshing, deforma-
tion and failure modes. The deflections predicted by A‐L model are
shown in Fig. 25b, which was found to slightly overestimated matrix
damage. To improve model accuracy, authors suggested establishing
a new rate‐dependent progressive degradation model for composites
and interfaces [95,202].
Supportively, Tran et al. [203,204] investigated the performance of
bio‐inspired composite structures subjected to UNDEX by simulating
FSI using A‐L model (Fig. 26a), which shows the deformation of com-
posites subject to UNDEX.
4.2. Coupled methods
In addition to FEM, some coupling methods, such as Boundary Ele-
ment Method (BEM)/FEM and Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
(SPH)/FEM were also utilised to simulate FSI for evaluation of com-
posite UNDEX resistance.
BEM is a more efficient tool for shock load simulation than FEM
when the non‐contact underwater explosion is far from the structure
[215]. In the late 1970 s and early 1980 s, Geers and his group
[217,225] proposed an approximate technique in BEM, doubly asymp-

21
P. Tran et al.
Fig. 26. (a) Schematics of A-L model to simulate the FSI in divergent shock tube experimental setup to understand deformation and failure mechanisms of
composites (b) Side view of composite deformation obtained in numerical results [203].
Fig. 27. (a) FE model with USA code to simulate FSI in LS-DYNA (b) pressure time histories of the hard foam core obtained in three different numerical methods
[200].
Fig. 28. (a) SPH/FEM mesh for submerged cylinder subject to UNDEX, with
magnified SPH mesh region; (b) material deformation plots during explosion
[191].
totic approximation (DAA), to determine the impact loading on a par-
tially submerged structure by an incident shock wave. DAA has an out-
standing feature that only the fluid on a wetted structure surface
should be modelled instead of simulating the entire fluid medium,
which is often used in FEM simulations. A few years later, Everstine
and Henderson [216] coupled FE model of the structure with the BE
model of the fluid on interface to simulate FSI. The combination of
22
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
BEM and FEM improves the level of accuracy and efficiency of FSI
problems.
In the past several decades, McCoy and Sun [179], Gong and Lam
[218], Hung et al. [215], and Özarmut et al. [200] are among the
researchers who used BEM/FEM method to conducted numerical sim-
ulations of FSI in UNDEX. Recently, Özarmut et al. [200] compared the
suitability of L‐L, ALE, and BEM/FEM. The established BEM/FEM
model is presented in Fig. 27a, where fluid was only modelled at the
interface. The capability of shock wave simulation of BEM/FEM
method was evaluated by comparing the pressure time histories of
the hard foam core from all three methods (Fig. 27b). Authors con-
cluded that BEM/FEM method, compared to other two methods, could
reduce the computational time if the modelling of a significant amount
of water could be avoided.
In addition to BEM/FEM, the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
SPH/FEM is another coupled numerical simulation method. SPH is a
meshless Lagrangian technique, which offers a solution to distortion
problems attributed to the Lagrangian formulation and also diffusion
problems associated with Eulerian formulation [226]. Early in 1995,
Swegle and Attaway [191] coupled SPH into FE code, PRONTO, to
evaluate feasibility of coupled SPH/FEM method regarding FSI in
UNDEX. Fig. 28a presents the simulation mesh for a submerged cylin-
der subject to UNDEX. Explosive and nearby water was simulated
using SPH, while the rest of water was hex elements and cylinder pipe
was using FEM. Results showed that SPH/FEM is capable of transmit-
ting loading to structure and capturing large deformation (Fig. 28b)
subject to underwater explosion. Nevertheless, results also revealed
that this coupled method was not promising to simulate FSI consider-
ing the late time effect caused by the acceleration of gravity and
buoyancy.
Similarly, Ming et al. [212] proposed an SPH/FEM coupling
method to simulation FSI for a flat plate subject to contact UNDEX
P. Tran et al.
Fig. 29. (a) SPH/FEM coupling procedure; (b) FSI simulation model using coupled SPH/FEM to investigate the damage process of a ship hull subject to UNDEX;
(c) damage of the hull and (d) the focused cabin at time of 15 ms [212].
by applying ‘glue’ treatment at the interface. The procedures of cou-
pling SPH and FEM is exhibited in Fig. 29a, while the established
FSI model is shown in Fig. 29b. Researchers observed the damage pro-
cess of a ship hull. Fig. 29c and Fig. 29d show the damages at the time
of 15ms.
When dealing with FSI, each numerical method has its own
strengths and limitations as listed here:
• L‐L method: it has difficulty in large deformation problems regard-
ing element distortion.
• E‐L method: it combines the advantages of both the Eulerian and
the Lagrangian formulations, which eliminates distortion but has
problems with a coarse Eulerian mesh.
• A‐L method: it is capable of accurately simulating cavitation, FSI
and depicting different damage modes of composites.
• Coupled BEM/FEM method: it only requires modelling of the fluid
on fluid‐structure interface, thereby suitable for large distance non‐
contact UNDEX event. However, the interaction between explosive
gas and surrounding water is not properly considered so that pre-
diction of peak pressure is inaccurate.
• Coupled SPH/FM method: it is well‐suited for load transmission
from UNDEX to nearby structures and large deformation problem,
whereas it is not promising to simulate FSI considering the late
time effect caused by the acceleration of gravity and buoyancy.
The physical processes of the underwater explosion near bound-
aries are incredibly complex, which involves various complicated
issues such as the shock wave propagation, water–air or water–struc-
ture interaction [221]. In terms of fluid behaviour, cavitation has been
investigated by many scientists as blast loading of submerged struc-
tures results in complex water cavitation phenomena [227]. Numerical
analyses show that an underwater bubble placed near a structure
would, in many cases, develop a jet directed towards this structure.
23
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
This jet can be potent and can destroy the ship hull. Depending on
the exact location of the bubbles, the proximity to the free surface
and the influence of gravity, the jet may impact on the structure or
miss it completely. Artificial viscosity is another characteristic that
could be captured using numerical simulation [87,228]. It smears off
shock waves in several meshes. Large coefficients of artificial viscosity
make peak pressure lower than the actual value, while small artificial
viscosity coefficients cannot suppress serious oscillations after peak
pressure [87,228]. In addition, damage modes of composites and FSI
are also vital features that have been widely investigated in previous
numerical studies. Table 6 summaries various UNDEX characteristics
by using different modelling tools.
4.3. Data-led modelling technique
As summarised in Table 5, numerical models could capture FSI,
structure response, shockwave propagation and behaviour of gas bub-
ble. However, results from numerical simulations are still approxima-
tions as FSI phenomenon are highly complex. The mathematical
modelling of dynamic events has always been very challenging due
to complex nonlinear governing equations, which lead into singulari-
ties in the formulation making it difficult to obtain analytical solutions.
Numerical FSI simulations often introduce simplifications that allow
for satisfactorily accurate solutions with the disadvantage of requiring
long lead‐times until completion, which might not suitable for time‐
critical applications. Alternative approaches have tapped onto
machine learning paradigms to develop novel rapid assessment tools.
The introduction of more powerful microcomputers in the mid‐
1990s led to the popularisation of machine learning tools to classify
and analyse large datasets and to predict the outcomes of physical
events. Broadly speaking, machine learning can be divided into super-
vised and unsupervised algorithms. The former being more suitable to
regression applications, and the latter to classification and pattern
P. Tran et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684

Table 6
Summary of captured characteristics in different numerical simulations of UNDEX.

Captured feature Numerical Modelling details Comment References

simulation
method

Fluid behaviour
Composite structure
Fluid structure interaction
Gas Cavitation formation FEM Set tensile failure of Cavitation initiates at a [73,87–90,95,109,132,133,202,
bubble zero stress in ABAQUS/ finite distance from FS 206,221,223,227,229-231]
Explicit. interface;
Detail of cavitation strongly
influences pressure history
on sandwich structure.
Bubble BEM Pressure field inside High calculating efficiency [232-237]
hydrodynamics bubble is assumed [232]
homogeneous and
related to bubble
volume variations with
an appropriate
equation of state.
Bubble-bubble and ALE Bubble is assumed Most commonly used [238-241]
bubble-wall interaction; incondensable steam
violent bubble motion and state is assumed to
be gamma law (gamma
of 1.3) in ALE3D
software
Interaction between ALE, Coupled Refer to Fig. 26 – Costly and time-consuming [191,242 98,116]
bubble and deformed SPH/FEM Figure 32
plate
Incompressibility and BEM, ALE, Rayleigh–Plesset model Flow rate is low, suitable for [239,244]
irrotationality Finite volume [243] the fluid domain in FSI.
method
Artificial viscosity Finite In ANSYS/AUTODYN, Large coefficients of [87,228]
Volume recommended values artificial viscosity make
method for linear and quadratic peak pressure lower than
(Euler) viscosity coefficients the actual value, while small
are 0.2 and 0.1, one cannot suppress serious
respectively. oscillations after peak
pressure.
FEM Hashin’s damage Fibre damage in tension and [80,87,92,95,202–204,207,245–247]
(Lagrangian model [205] compression, matrix
formulation) damage in tension and
compression could be
captured.
Extended Gurson Void volume fracture could [93]
damage model [207] be captured Table 5.
SPH/coupled Mostly focus on soil under –
FEM and SPH impact/ballistic scenarios
ALE, SPH, Refer to Table 5 Interaction between the [77,80,84,87,89,91,95,98,115,
coupled SPH/ motion of surrounding fluid 116,194,195,202-204,212,214]
FEM, couple and structure has a
BEM/FEM remarkable effect on
stresses within the structure
[179].

Note: FEA stands for finite element analysis. ALE stands for Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian. L-L stands for Lagrangian-Lagrangian. E-L stands for Eulerian-
Lagrangian. A-L stands for Acoustic and Lagrangian. CFD stands for Computational Fluid Dynamics. SPH stands for Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. FSI stands
for fluid structure interaction, BEM stands for Boundary Element Method.

recognition. Applications focused on modelling physical phenomena
have relied on supervised algorithms, such as Artificial Neural Net-
works (Multilayer Perceptron), Support Vector Machines, and logistic
regression. An extensive description of all machine learning paradigms
available is outside the scope of this paper and the reader is referred to
comprehensive textbooks – e.g. [248–250].
Cost, resource limitations and complexity restrict the experimental
blast testing to a low data environment with many features poorly
quantified since data collection is usually difficult and localised. As a
result, only recently datasets from field tests started to be utilised for
training machine learning tools for modelling dynamic events. Such
studies used machine learning for evaluating the performance of
spaced aluminium armour (Whipple shields) to hypervelocity impacts
from spherical projectiles [251–254] and to estimate the damage
caused by localised blast loadings on mild‐steel plates [255]. Initial
applications geared towards modelling dynamic events were intro-
duced in the mid‐2000 s [256,257] where limited availability of exper-
imental datasets had to be surpassed with usage of so‐called synthetic
data – i.e. data furnished from validated computational simulations.
Validated numerical models can provide complementary data to train
and improve the accuracy of machine learning implementations but
they lack the stochastic nature inherent to experimental test trials.
Stochastic results introduce scatter (noise) to training population,
which may assist the machine learning model in recognising trends
and developing confidence intervals [258]. Synthetic data has been
combined to machine learning models to evaluate the propagation of
air blast loadings in built environments [256,257,259–262] and to
estimate damage of air blast loadings on structural elements
[258,263,264].
Surprisingly, not many studies have employed machine learning
algorithms to describe UNDEX settings. One case study employed
Probabilistic Neural Networks to evaluate the quality of data his-
tograms from shock qualification tests for a floating shock plat-
form subjected to underwater explosion [265]. A more recent

24
P. Tran et al.
investigation used a simple 1D analytical formulation to model the
response of a structure submerged in water subjected to far‐field
UNDEX loading and utilised the results to train a Back‐
propagating Neural Network [266], but it lacked a comprehensive
description and in‐depth performance analysis of the machine
learning model.
Imperfect and incomplete description of physics is a well‐known
limitation of supervised machine learning tools, since they are not a
first principles approach. Whilst allowing for immediate construction
of suitable models, these models usually cannot be generalised and
are constrained by the training population bounds. Other limitations
may include overfitting of the training data and the development of
extremely complex models, making it difficult to understand the con-
nections between inputs and outputs [250].
All things considered, the combination of UNDEX experiments,
analytical and numerical models, and machine learning techniques
can produce powerful frameworks for estimating the mechanical
response of structures to dynamic loadings, reducing associated costs
and delivery time. As an example, appropriate machine learning mod-
els could be used for swiftly selecting potential prototypes, which
could then be further investigated with in‐depth numerical modelling
and experiments.
5. Conclusion
The UNDEX event involves a combination of extremely complex
phenomena whose impact on a marine structure or vessel can be catas-
trophic. In order to accommodate such events in the design of future
vessels and structures, proper understanding of the processes and
interconnectivity each of these phenomena is needed. This will ulti-
mately allow for more efficient and informed design choices and set
appropriate operational limits. While metallic materials continue to
be the dominant choice in naval vessels, composite materials are
increasingly prominent with the advances in their manufacturability
allowing for application as both functional and structural materials.
The UNDEX phenomena is broadly characterised by shock propaga-
tion, FSI (Fluid–structure interaction) dynamics with the concomitant
bubble motion and cavitation and multi‐faceted structural response in
the maritime composites. The incident pressures of UNDEX experi-
ments, in comparison to air blast, are often orders of magnitude
higher, with the added complexity of high fidelity and high‐speed data
collection in a submerged environment. The flow stress in the marine
composite structures can be described through both empirical and
mechanistic constitutive models, which also take into account the
damage evolution. Delamination, matrix cracking, fibre matrix
debonding, fibre pull‐out and intralaminar cracking are widely observ-
able using both destructive and non‐destructive analysis, as outlined in
the previous chapters.
The validity of the modelling technique reviewed is contingent on
appropriate experimental validation. Thus, the current review aimed
to provide a gestalt of the various research elements and to establish
an analysis pathway between small scale testing and the combat sur-
vivability of vessels during their in‐service operation. The application
of numerical modelling was found to be a key tool in the understand-
ing of the UNDEX problem and has allowed for accelerated interroga-
tion of the phenomena. It is clear that the progress in numerical
methods has allowed researchers to accurately simulate the FSI for
both surface and submerged vessels. From the reviewed literature, cur-
rent “state‐of‐the‐art” practices relevant to the numerical analysis of
the UNDEX process can be summarised as:
• The entire UNDEX process considering detonation, shock propaga-
tion, and bubble formation can be considered using multi‐physics
FE hydrocodes. The ability to consider multi‐material phase transi-
25
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
tions must be employed however if bubble formation, pulsation,
collapse jetting, or rarefaction‐induced cavitation are to be
considered.
• Current trends in FE analysis of UNDEX employ techniques cou-
pling the fluid dynamics solver to structural solver. These tech-
niques include the coupled FEM/BEM and coupled Eulerian‐
Lagrangian, along with the ALE technique. Each of these techniques
has advantages and disadvantages, with the number of finite ele-
ments, mesh refinement and computational resources required to
handle high‐resolution regions influencing computational effi-
ciency, especially when considering gas bubble collapse.
• SPH techniques are in increasing usage for UNDEX consideration,
primarily due to the “mesh‐less” nature of the formulation and abil-
ity to handle significant deformations.
• Blast analysis is highly dependent on mesh sensitivity and correct
implementation of mapping techniques will likely alleviate some
of the large computational penalties associated with the analysis.
Further increases in the fidelity of the experimental testing, and the
incorporation of multi‐scale modelling techniques, will ultimately
increase the uptake of composites in the maritime space. Closer inte-
gration of artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques
may also aid in the accelerated development of more novel solution
e.g. design of optimal multi‐layered configuration or auxetic structure.
Machine learning may also allow for the interpolation of sparse exper-
imental data sets, when supplemented with analytical or numerical
modelling results.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Baley C et al. Application of interlaminar tests to marine composite. Appl Compos
Mater 2004;11(2):99–126.
[2] Sutherland L. A review of impact testing on marine composite materials: Part I-
Marine impacts on marine composites. Compos Struct 2018;188:197–208.
[3] Mouritz, A.P., Progress Toward Explosive Blast-Resistant Naval Composites, in
Explosion Blast Response of Composites. 2017.
[4] Smith, C.S., Design of marine structures in composite materials. 1990: Elsevier
London.
[5] Ballinger, C.J.C.E.A., Structural FRP composites. 1990. 60(7): p. 63-65.
[6] Chalmers D. Experience in design and production of FRP marine structures. Mar
Struct 1991;4(2):93–115.
[7] Chalmers, D.J.M.s., The potential for the use of composite materials in marine
structures. 1994. 7(2-5): p. 441-456.
[8] Smith, C. Applications of fibre reinforced composites in marine technology. in
Compos-Stand Test and Des, Conf Proceeding, National Physics Laboratory,
Teddington, England, April 8-9, 1974. 1974.
[9] Mouritz A et al. Review of advanced composite structures for naval ships and
submarines. Compos Struct 2001;53(1):21–42.
[10] Nandakumar C. Environmental impact of non metallic hull ships. IEEE; 2012.
[11] Dong, P., et al., A math-based design-for-produceability evaluation of titanium
applications in ship hull structures. 2013. 120(1): p. 299-305.
[12] Løseth R, Sekkesæter G, ValsgÔrd S. Economics of high-tensile steel in ship hulls.
Mar Struct 1994;7(1):31–50.
[13] Heinz, D., et al., Application of advanced materials for ship
construction–Experiences and problems. 2000. 51(6): p. 407-412.
[14] Eyres, D.J., Ship construction. 2006: Elsevier.
[15] Job S. Why not composites in ships? Reinf Plast 2015;59(2):90–3.
[16] Gopalakrishnan, S. and Y. Rajapakse, Blast Mitigation Strategies in Marine
Composite and Sandwich Structures. 2017: Springer.
[17] Fried N, Graner W. Durability of reinforced-plastic structural materials in marine
service. Marine Technol SNAME News 1966;3(03):321–7.
[18] Greene, E., Use of fiber reinforced plastics in the marine industry. 1990.
[19] McKenzie AM, Stark H. Progress on naval use of reinforced plastic piping. J Am
Soc Naval Eng 1953;65(1):57–70.
[20] Johnson H et al. Modelling impact damage in marine composite panels. Int J
Impact Eng 2009;36(1):25–39.
[21] Chen N-Z, Guedes Soares C. Ultimate strength and reliability of composite
material structures. Mar Technol Eng 2011;2:817–40.
P. Tran et al.
[22] Lemiere, Y.J.I., The evolution of composite materials in submarine structures.
1992: p. 441-449.
[23] Huang G, Sun H. Effect of water absorption on the mechanical properties of glass/
polyester composites. Mater Des 2007;28(5):1647–50.
[24] Arun, K., et al., Damage characterisation of glass/textile fabric polymer hybrid
composites in sea water environment. 2010. 31(2): p. 930-939.
[25] PAXHIA, V. LCAC-from test craft to production design. in 7th Marine Systems
Conference. 1983.
[26] Amiruddin, A., et al., Analysis of glass fibre reinforced epoxy composite
hovercraft hull base. 2008. 29(7): p. 1453-1458.
[27] Aiman A et al. A study on fiber glass composite hovercraft hull with different wall
thickness using generative structural analysis. Int Rev Mech Eng 2012;6
(6):1307–11.
[28] Brown, D., Design considerations for MCMV. 1990.
[29] Chalmers, D., R. Osborn, and A. Bunney, Hull construction of MCMVs in the
United Kingdom. 1984.
[30] Dixon, R., B. Ramsey, and P. Usher. Design and build of the GRP hull of HMS
Wilton. in ROYAL institution of naval symposium on GRP ship construction
(LONDON). 1972.
[31] Sjogren, J. and C. Celsing, Swedish development of MCMV-hull design and
production. 1984.
[32] Mathijsen D. Now is the time to make the change from metal to composites in
naval shipbuilding. Reinf Plast 2016;60(5):289–93.
[33] Lindblom F. Use of composites in the Visby-class stealth corvette. Proceedings of
the Conference on Marine Composites, 2003.
[34] Lonno A, Hellbratt S. Use of carbon fibre in a 63M high speed vessel, YS2000, for
the Swedish Navy. Sandwich Constructions 3, Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on Sandwich Constructions, 1996.
[35] Remy, J., et al., 2006 corvette Z06 carbon fiber structural composite panels-
design, manufacturing and material development considerations. 2005: p. 137-
141.
[36] Dabrowski Z, Dziurdz J, Skorski W. Fault Diagnosis of Carbon Fibre Composite
Masts. In: Engineering Asset Management. Springer; 2006. p. 990–7.
[37] Edwards AK et al. Examination of F/A-18 honeycomb composite rudders for
disbond due to water using through-transmission ultrasonics. Ultragarsas
“Ultrasound” 2011;66(2):36–44.
[38] Ochoa, O.O., M.M.J.C.S. Salama, and Technology, Offshore composites:
Transition barriers to an enabling technology. Composites Science and
Technology, 2005. 65(15-16): p. 2588-2596.
[39] Tamarelle, P. and C. Sparks. High-performance composite tubes for offshore
applications. in Offshore technology conference. 1987. Offshore Technology
Conference.
[40] Williams, J.G. Composite material offshore corrosion solutions. in International
Workshop on Corrosion Control of Marine Structures and Pipelines. Galveston,
TX. 1999.
[41] Yousif B, Ku H. Suitability of using coir fiber/polymeric composite for the design
of liquid storage tanks. Mater Des 2012;36:847–53.
[42] Lopato P, Chady T, Rebello JM. Terahertz time domain inspection of
composite coatings for corrosion protection. Stud Appl Electromagn Mech
2011;35:417.
[43] Dharsini SP et al. Fea studies on the interfacial behavior of epoxy-cfrp composites.
J Civ Eng Res 2014;4:26–30.
[44] Prabhakar K et al. A review of mechanical and tribological behaviour of polymer
composite materials. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering. IOP Publishing; 2018.
[45] Allison, D., A. Marchand, and R.J.M.S. Morchat, Fire performance of composite
materials in ships and offshore structures. 1991. 4(2): p. 129-140.
[46] Hale J et al. High temperature failure envelopes for thermosetting composite
pipes in water. Plast, Rubber Compos 2000;29(10):539–48.
[47] Marsh G. Applying appropriate composites technology. Reinf Plast 2005;49
(9):22–9.
[48] Selvaraju S, Ilaiyavel S. Applications of composites in marine industry. J Eng Res
Stud 2011;2(2):89–91.
[49] Gu H. Behaviours of glass fibre/unsaturated polyester composites under seawater
environment. Mater Des 2009;30(4):1337–40.
[50] Kootsookos A, Mouritz A. Seawater durability of glass-and carbon-polymer
composites. Compos Sci Technol 2004;64(10–11):1503–11.
[51] Slater, J.J.M.s., Selection of a blast-resistant GRP composite panel design for
naval ship structures. 1994. 7(2-5): p. 417-440.
[52] Slater J. Selection of a blast-resistant GRP composite panel design for naval ship
structures. Mar struct 1994;7(2–5):417–40.
[53] Hall D. Examination of the effects of underwater blasts on sandwich composite
structures. Compos Struct 1989;11(2):101–20.
[54] Diyaroglu C et al. Peridynamic modeling of composite laminates under explosive
loading. Compos Struct 2016;144:14–23.
[55] Mouring SE. Composites for naval surface ships. Marine Technology Society
1998;32(2):41.
[56] Junhou P, Shenoi R. Examination of key aspects defining the performance
characteristics of out-of-plane joints in FRP marine structures. Compos A Appl Sci
Manuf 1996;27(2):89–103.
[57] Edition SC. Consolidated text of the International Convention of Safety of Life at
Sea, 1974, and its Protocol of 1988: articles, annexes and
certificates. London: IMO; 2004.
[58] Ramsauer C. Die Massenbewegung des Wassers bei Unterwasserexplosionen. Ann
Phys 1923;377(20):265–84.
26
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
[59] Lamb, H., XXIII. The early stages of a submarine explosion. The London,
Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 1923. 45
(266): p. 257-265.
[60] Butterworth, S., Report on the Theoretical Shape of the Pressure-Time Curve and
on the Growth of the Gas Bubble. Compendium on Underwater Explosions
Research. 1.
[61] Hillair H. Experiments on the pressure wave thrown out by submarine
explosions. Admiralty: Department of Scientific Research and Experiment; 1919.
[62] Glasstone, S. and P.J. Dolan, Effects of nuclear weapons. 1977, Department of
Defense, Washington, DC (USA); Department of Energy, Washington, DC (USA).
[63] Keil A. The response of ships to underwater explosions. DTIC Document; 1961.
[64] Lyson J. The underwater explosion response of a GRP mine countermeasures
vessel. J Naval Sci 1979;5:182–90.
[65] Reid, W.D., et al., Experimental Techniques and Testing of Lightweight Naval
Structures Against Weapons Effects, in Explosion Blast Response of Composites.
2017.
[66] Rolfe E et al. Failure analysis using X-ray computed tomography of composite
sandwich panels subjected to full-scale blast loading. Compos B Eng
2017;129:26–40.
[67] Gauch E, LeBlanc J, Shukla A. Response of preloaded thin composite panels
subjected to underwater explosive loading. Comput Struct 2012;112:342–53.
[68] LeBlanc J, Gardner N, Shukla A. Effect of polyurea coatings on the response of
curved E-glass/vinyl ester composite panels to underwater explosive loading.
Compos B Eng 2013;44(1):565–74.
[69] LeBlanc J, Shukla A. Underwater explosive response of submerged, air-backed
composite materials: experimental and computational studies. In: Blast
Mitigation. Springer; 2014. p. 123–60.
[70] LeBlanc J, Shukla A. Dynamic response and damage evolution in composite
materials subjected to underwater explosive loading: an experimental and
computational study. Compos Struct 2010;92(10):2421–30.
[71] LeBlanc J, Shukla A. Dynamic response of curved composite panels to underwater
explosive loading: experimental and computational comparisons. Compos Struct
2011;93(11):3072–81.
[72] LeBlanc J, Shukla A. Response of E-glass/vinyl ester composite panels to
underwater explosive loading: Effects of laminate modifications. Int J Impact
Eng 2011;38(10):796–803.
[73] LeBlanc J, Shukla A. Underwater explosion response of curved composite plates.
Compos Struct 2015;134:716–25.
[74] LeBlanc J, Shukla A. Response of polyurea-coated flat composite plates to
underwater explosive loading. J Compos Mater 2015;49(8):965–80.
[75] Avachat, S. and M. Zhou. Dynamic response of composite sandwich structures
subjected to underwater impulsive loads: experiments and simulations in 16th
international conference on composite structures (ICCS-16). 2011. Porto: FEUP.
[76] Avachat, S. and M. Zhou. Dynamic response of submerged composite sandwich
structures to blast loading. in IMPLAST. 2010. Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
[77] Avachat S, Zhou M. Effect of facesheet thickness on dynamic response of
composite sandwich plates to underwater impulsive loading. Exp Mech 2012;52
(1):83–93.
[78] Avachat S, Zhou M. Compressive response of sandwich plates to water-based
impulsive loading. Int J Impact Eng 2016;93:196–210.
[79] Avachat S, Zhou M. High-speed digital imaging and computational modeling of
dynamic failure in composite structures subjected to underwater impulsive loads.
Int J Impact Eng 2015;77:147–65.
[80] Avachat S, Zhou M. Response of cylindrical composite structures to underwater
impulsive loading. Procedia Eng 2014;88:69–76.
[81] Avachat S, Zhou M. Novel experimental and 3D multiphysics computational
framework for analyzing deformation and failure of composite laminates
subjected to water blasts. Int J Impact Eng 2017.
[82] Avachat S, Zhou M. Experimental analysis of dynamic deformation and damage
in composite sandwich structures subjected to underwater impulsive loads.
Dynamic Behavior of Materials, Volume 1. Springer; 2013. p. 275–86.
[83] Avachat S, Zhou M. High-speed digital imaging and computational modeling of
hybrid metal-composite plates subjected to water-based impulsive loading. Exp
Mech 2016;56(4):545–67.
[84] Qu T, Avachat S, Zhou M. Response of cylindrical composite structures subjected
to underwater impulsive loading: experimentations and computations. J Eng
Mater Technol 2017;139(2):021020.
[85] Schiffer, A. and V. Tagarielli, Observations and Numerical Modeling of the
Response of Composite Plates to Underwater Blast, in Explosion Blast Response of
Composites. 2017.
[86] Tagarielli, V. and A. Schiffer, The response to underwater blast, in Dynamic
Deformation, Damage and Fracture in Composite Materials and Structures, V.V.
Silberschmidt, Editor. 2016, Woodhead Publishing. p. 279.
[87] Schiffer A, Tagarielli V. One-dimensional response of sandwich plates to
underwater blast: fluid-structure interaction experiments and simulations. Int J
Impact Eng 2014;71:34–49.
[88] Schiffer A, Tagarielli V. The one-dimensional response of a water-filled double
hull to underwater blast: experiments and simulations. Int J Impact Eng
2014;63:177–87.
[89] Schiffer A, Tagarielli V. The response of circular composite plates to underwater
blast: Experiments and modelling. J Fluids Struct 2015;52:130–44.
[90] Schiffer, A. and V.L. Tagarielli. The response of rigid plates to blast in deep water:
fluid–structure interaction experiments. in Proc. R. Soc. A. 2012. The Royal
Society.
P. Tran et al.
[91] Espinosa HD, Lee S, Moldovan N. A novel fluid structure interaction experiment
to investigate deformation of structural elements subjected to impulsive loading.
Exp Mech 2006;46(6):805–24.
[92] Latourte F et al. Failure mechanisms in composite panels subjected to underwater
impulsive loads. J Mech Phys Solids 2011;59(8):1623–46.
[93] Latourte F et al. Design and identification of high performance steel alloys for
structures subjected to underwater impulsive loading. Int J Solids Struct 2012;49
(13):1573–87.
[94] Mori L et al. Deformation and fracture modes of sandwich structures subjected to
underwater impulsive loads. J Mech Mater Struct 2007;2(10):1981–2006.
[95] Wei X et al. Three-dimensional numerical modeling of composite panels
subjected to underwater blast. J Mech Phys Solids 2013;61(6):1319–36.
[96] Mouritz A, Saunders D, Buckley S. The damage and failure of GRP laminates by
underwater explosion shock loading. Composites 1994;25(6):431–7.
[97] Mouritz, A.P., Underwater Explosive Blast Response of Fiberglass Laminates, in
Explosion Blast Response of Composites. 2017.
[98] LeBlanc J et al. Near field underwater explosion response of polyurea coated
composite plates. Exp Mech 2016;56(4):569–81.
[99] Pinto M, Gupta S, Shukla A. Study of implosion of carbon/epoxy composite
hollow cylinders using 3-D digital image correlation. Compos Struct
2015;119:272–86.
[100] Pinto M, Gupta S, Shukla A. Hydrostatic implosion of GFRP composite tubes
studied by digital image correlation. J Pressure Vessel Technol 2015;137
(5):051302.
[101] Pinto M, Shukla A. Dynamic collapse mode evolution in carbon composite tubes.
Extreme Mech Lett 2015;3:55–8.
[102] Pinto M, Shukla A. Mitigation of pressure pulses from implosion of hollow
composite cylinders. J Compos Mater 2016;50(26):3709–18.
[103] Pinto M, Shukla A. Shock-initiated buckling of carbon/epoxy composite tubes at
sub-critical pressures. Exp Mech 2016;56(4):583–94.
[104] Cole, R.H., Underwater explosions. 1948: Princeton university press.
[105] International, S., et al. Proceedings of the 18th International Ship and Offshore
Structures Congress. Volume 2 Volume 2.
[106] Hall, D. and B. Robson, A review of the design and materials evaluation
programme for the GRP/foam sandwich composite hull of the RAN minehunter.
1984. 15(4): p. 266-276.
[107] Hatt, D., et al., Minehunter Inshore Shock Trials. Phase 2. A Limited Shock Trial
for Developing Trial Methodology and Logistics. 1988, MATERIALS RESEARCH
LABS ASCOT VALE (AUSTRALIA).
[108] Elischer, P. and J. Howe, Australia’s Shock Testing Capability. Dynamic Loading
in Manufacturing Service: Preprints of Papers, 1993: p. 149.
[109] Qiankun, J. and D.J.I.J.o.I.E. Gangyi, A finite element analysis of ship sections
subjected to underwater explosion. 2011. 38(7): p. 558-566.
[110] Arora H et al. Full-Scale Air and Underwater-Blast Loading of Composite Sandwich
Panels, in Explosion Blast Response of Composites. Woodhead Publishing; 2017.
[111] Arora H, Hooper P, Dear J. The effects of air and underwater blast on
composite sandwich panels and tubular laminate structures. Exp Mech 2012;52
(1):59–81.
[112] Mouritz A. The effect of underwater explosion shock loading on the fatigue
behaviour of GRP laminates. Composites 1995;26(1):3–9.
[113] Mouritz A. The damage to stitched GRP laminates by underwater explosion shock
loading. Compos Sci Technol 1995;55(4):365–74.
[114] Mouritz A. The effect of underwater explosion shock loading on the flexural
properties of GRP laminates. Int J Impact Eng 1996;18(2):129–39.
[115] Javier C, LeBlanc J, Shukla A. Hydrothermally degraded carbon fiber/epoxy
plates subjected to underwater explosive loading in a fully submerged
environment. Mar Struct 2020;72:102761.
[116] Matos H et al. Underwater nearfield blast performance of hydrothermally
degraded carbon–epoxy composite structures. Multiscale Multidiscip Model
Experim Des 2018;1(1):33–47.
[117] Elamin M, Li B, Tan K. Impact damage of composite sandwich structures in arctic
condition. Compos Struct 2018;192:422–33.
[118] Kara M et al. Impact behavior of carbon fiber/epoxy composite tubes reinforced
with multi-walled carbon nanotubes at cryogenic environment. Compos B Eng
2018;145:145–54.
[119] Ma H-L et al. Impact properties of glass fiber/epoxy composites at cryogenic
environment. Compos B Eng 2016;92:210–7.
[120] Salehi-Khojin A et al. The role of temperature on impact properties of
Kevlar/fiberglass composite laminates. Compos B Eng 2006;37(7–8):593–602.
[121] Yu YH, Nam S, Lee D. Cryogenic impact resistance of chopped fiber reinforced
polyurethane foam. Compos Struct 2015;132:12–9.
[122] Garcia-Gonzalez D et al. Low temperature effect on impact energy absorption
capability of PEEK composites. Compos Struct 2015;134:440–9.
[123] Taraghi I, Fereidoon A, Taheri-Behrooz F. Low-velocity impact response of woven
Kevlar/epoxy laminated composites reinforced with multi-walled carbon
nanotubes at ambient and low temperatures. Mater Des 2014;53:152–8.
[124] Gómez-del Rıo T et al. Damage in CFRPs due to low velocity impact at low
temperature. Compos B Eng 2005;36(1):41–50.
[125] Li, D.-s., et al., Charpy impact properties and failure mechanism of 3D MWK
composites at room and cryogenic temperatures. 2014. 62: p. 37-47.
[126] Roberts S et al. Cryogenic Charpy impact testing of metallic glass matrix
composites. Scr Mater 2012;66(5):284–7.
[127] Shokrieh, M.M., M.A. Torabizadeh, and A. Fereidoon, Dynamic failure behavior
of glass/epoxy composites under low temperature using Charpy impact test
method. 2011.
27
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
[128] Dutta, P.K., Low-temperature compressive strength of glass-fiber-reinforced
polymer composites. 1994.
[129] Gupta S, Shukla A. Blast performance of marine foam core sandwich composites
at extreme temperatures. Exp Mech 2012;52(9):1521–34.
[130] Pan Z, Gu B, Sun B. Experimental investigation of high-strain rate properties of 3-
D braided composite material in cryogenic field. Compos B Eng 2015;77:379–90.
[131] López-Puente J, Zaera R, Navarro C. The effect of low temperatures on the
intermediate and high velocity impact response of CFRPs. Compos B Eng 2002;33
(8):559–66.
[132] Liu MB et al. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics for numerical simulation of
underwater explosion. Comput Mech 2003;30(2):106–18.
[133] Brett JM, Yiannakopolous G. A study of explosive effects in close proximity to a
submerged cylinder. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35(4):206–25.
[134] Veldman, R.L., J. Ari-Gur, and C.J. Folkert. Effects of Pre-Pressurization on Plastic
Deformation of Blast-Loaded Square Aluminum Plates. in 8th International LS-
DYNA Conference. 2004. Dearborn, Michigan.
[135] Riley, M., Modeling of Gas Bubble Behaviour and Loading on a Rigid Target due
to Close-Proximity Underwater Explosions - Comparison to Test Data Conducted
at DRDC Suffield. 2010, Defence R & D Canada - Atlantic.
[136] Lee, J.M., G. Rude, and G.T. Paulgaard, Loading Regimes for Close-Proximity
Underwater Explosions, in Proceedings of the 81st Shock and Vibration
Symposium. 2010: Orlando, FL.
[137] Riley M et al. Loading on a rigid target from close proximity underwater
explosions. Shock Vib 2012;19(4):555–71.
[138] Kalavalapally R, Penmetsa R, Grandhi R. Multidisciplinary optimization of a
lightweight torpedo structure subjected to an underwater explosion. Finite Elem
Anal Des 2006;43(2):103–11.
[139] Zong Z, Zhao Y, Li H. A numerical study of whole ship structural damage
resulting from close-in underwater explosion shock. Mar Struct 2013;31:24–43.
[140] Sprague MA, Geers TL. A spectral-element method for modelling cavitation in
transient fluid–structure interaction. Int J Numer Meth Eng 2004;60
(15):2467–99.
[141] Coombs A, Thornhill C. An underwater explosive shock gun. J Fluid Mech
1967;29(02):373–83.
[142] Poche, L.B. and J.F. Zalesak, Development of a Water-Filled Conical Shock Tube
for Shock Testing of Small Sonar Transducers by Simulation of the Test
Conditions for the Heavyweight Test of MIL-S-901D (NAVY). 1992, DTIC
Document.
[143] Chen, W.W. and B. Song, Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) bar: design, testing and
applications. 2010: Springer Science & Business Media.
[144] LeBlanc J et al. Shock loading of three-dimensional woven composite materials.
Compos Struct 2007;79(3):344–55.
[145] Silva-Muñoz RA, Lopez-Anido RA. Structural health monitoring of marine
composite structural joints using embedded fiber Bragg grating strain sensors.
Compos Struct 2009;89(2):224–34.
[146] Measures, R.M., Structural monitoring with fiber optic technology. 2001:
Academic Press, Inc.
[147] Kuang K et al. Damage monitoring in aluminum-foam sandwich structures based
on thermoplastic fibre-metal laminates using fibre Bragg gratings. Compos Sci
Technol 2005;65(11–12):1800–7.
[148] Herszberg I et al. Damage assessment and monitoring of composite ship joints.
Compos Struct 2005;67(2):205–16.
[149] Li H et al. Health monitoring of marine composite structural joints using fibre
optic sensors. Compos Struct 2006;75(1–4):321–7.
[150] Jones R, Galea S. Health monitoring of composite repairs and joints using optical
fibres. Compos Struct 2002;58(3):397–403.
[151] Huang W et al. Dynamic response of circular composite laminates subjected to
underwater impulsive loading. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2018;109:63–74.
[152] Wooh S-C, Wei C. A high-fidelity ultrasonic pulse-echo scheme for detecting
delaminations in composite laminates. Compos B Eng 1999;30(5):433–41.
[153] Kerber A et al. Explosive blast damage resistance of three-dimensional textile
composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2017;100:170–82.
[154] Hosur, M., et al., Estimation of impact-induced damage in CFRR laminates
through ultrasonic imaging. 1998. 31(5): p. 359-374.
[155] Zhang Z et al. Vibration-based inverse algorithms for detection of delamination in
composites. Compos Struct 2013;102:226–36.
[156] Cawley P, Adams RD. A vibration technique for non-destructive testing of fibre
composite structures. J Compos Mater 1979;13(2):161–75.
[157] Paolozzi A, Peroni I. Detection of debonding damage in a composite plate
through natural frequency variations. J Reinf Plast Compos 1990;9(4):369–89.
[158] Li Z et al. Damage evaluation of carbon-fibre reinforced polymer composites
using electromagnetic coupled spiral inductors. Adv Compos Lett 2015;24(3).
096369351502400303.
[159] Salski, B., W. Gwarek, and P. Korpas. Non-destructive testing of carbon-fiber-
reinforced polymer composites with coupled spiral inductors. in 2014 IEEE MTT-
S International Microwave Symposium (IMS2014). 2014. IEEE.
[160] Salski B, Gwarek W, Korpas P. Electromagnetic inspection of carbon-fiber-
reinforced polymer composites with coupled spiral inductors. IEEE Trans Microw
Theory Tech 2014;62(7):1535–44.
[161] Salski B et al. Non-destructive testing of carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer
materials with a radio-frequency inductive sensor. Compos Struct
2015;122:104–12.
[162] Montanini R, Freni F. Non-destructive evaluation of thick glass fiber-reinforced
composites by means of optically excited lock-in thermography. Compos A Appl
Sci Manuf 2012;43(11):2075–82.
P. Tran et al.
[163] Montesano J, Fawaz Z, Bougherara H. Non-destructive assessment of the fatigue
strength and damage progression of satin woven fiber reinforced polymer matrix
composites. Compos B Eng 2015;71:122–30.
[164] Genest M et al. Pulsed thermography for non-destructive evaluation and damage
growth monitoring of bonded repairs. Compos Struct 2009;88(1):112–20.
[165] Avdelidis N et al. A thermographic comparison study for the assessment of
composite patches. Infrared Phys Technol 2004;45(4):291–9.
[166] Avdelidis N, Moropoulou A, Riga ZM. The technology of composite patches and
their structural reliability inspection using infrared imaging. Prog Aerosp Sci
2003;39(4):317–28.
[167] Gardner N et al. Blast response of sandwich composites: effect of core gradation,
pre-loading, and temperature. In: Blast Mitigation. Springer; 2014. p. 279–330.
[168] Rolfe E et al. X-ray CT analysis after blast of composite sandwich panels. Proc Eng
2016;167:176–81.
[169] Lambrineas, P., et al., X-ray computed tomography examination of inshore
minehunter hull composite material. 1991. 24(4): p. 207-213.
[170] Gargano A et al. Effect of fibre-matrix interfacial strength on the explosive blast
resistance of carbon fibre laminates. Compos Sci Technol 2017;138:68–79.
[171] Schilling, P.J., et al., X-ray computed microtomography of internal damage in
fiber reinforced polymer matrix composites. 2005. 65(14): p. 2071-2078.
[172] Garcea S, Wang Y, Withers P. X-ray computed tomography of polymer
composites. Compos Sci Technol 2018;156:305–19.
[173] Bull D et al. Three-dimensional assessment of low velocity impact damage in
particle toughened composite laminates using micro-focus X-ray computed
tomography and synchrotron radiation laminography. Compos A Appl Sci
Manuf 2013;52:62–9.
[174] Adams, R. and P.J.N.i. Cawley, A review of defect types and nondestructive
testing techniques for composites and bonded joints. 1988. 21(4): p. 208-222.
[175] Sutton, M.A., J.J. Orteu, and H. Schreier, Image correlation for shape, motion and
deformation measurements: basic concepts, theory and applications. 2009:
Springer Science & Business Media.
[176] Gupta, S., et al., Study of dynamic underwater implosion mechanics using digital
image correlation. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical
Engineering Sciences, 2014. 470(2172): p. 20140576.
[177] Zhou W et al. Fundamentals of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). In: Scanning
microscopy for nanotechnology. Springer; 2006. p. 1–40.
[178] Yin J-F, Bai Q, Zhang B. Methods for detection of subsurface damage: a review.
Chin J Mech Eng 2018;31(1):41.
[179] McCoy R, Sun C. Fluid-structure interaction analysis of a thick-section composite
cylinder subjected to underwater blast loading. Compos Struct 1997;37
(1):45–55.
[180] Langrand B et al. Submarine hull integrity under blast loading. Int J Impact Eng
2009;36(8):1070–8.
[181] A-man Z, Wen-shan Y, Xiong-liang Y. Numerical simulation of underwater
contact explosion. Appl Ocean Res 2012;34:10–20.
[182] Li J, Rong J-L. Experimental and numerical investigation of the dynamic response
of structures subjected to underwater explosion. Eur J Mech B Fluids
2012;32:59–69.
[183] Liu MB et al. Computer simulation of high explosive explosion using smoothed
particle hydrodynamics methodology. Comput Fluids 2003;32(3):305–22.
[184] Liu MB, Liu GR, Lam KY. Comparative study of the real and artificial detonation
models in underwater explosions. Electron Model 2003;25(2):113–24.
[185] Shin YS, Santiago LD. Surface ship shock modeling and simulation: two-
dimensional analysis. Shock Vib 1998;5(2):129–37.
[186] Sanal Z. Nonlinear analysis of pressure vessels: some examples. Int J Press Vessels
Pip 2000;77(12):705–9.
[187] Ramajeyathilagam K, Vendhan CP, Rao VB. Non-linear transient dynamic
response of rectangular plates under shock loading. Int J Impact Eng 2000;24
(10):999–1015.
[188] Radha P, Rajagopalan K. Ultimate strength of submarine pressure hulls
with failure governed by inelastic buckling. Thin-Walled Struct 2006;44
(3):309–13.
[189] Jing, L., et al., Finite element modelling of collapse experiments of ring stiffened
cylinders with simulated corrosion damage, in Warship 2008: Naval Submarines
9, R.I.o.N. Architects, Editor. 2008: Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
[190] Gannon, L., Submarine Pressure Hull Collapse Considering Corrosion and
Penetrations. 2010, Defence R&D Canada - Atlantic.
[191] Swegle JW, Attaway SW. On the feasibility of using Smoothed Particle
Hydrodynamics for underwater explosion calculations. Comput Mech 1995;17
(3):151–68.
[192] Zhang N, Zong Z, Zhang W. Dynamic response of a surface ship structure
subjected to an underwater explosion bubble. Mar Struct 2014;35:26–44.
[193] Sprague MA, Geers TL. A spectral-element/finite-element analysis of a ship-like
structure subjected to an underwater explosion. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
2006;195(17–18):2149–67.
[194] Xie W, Liu Z, Young YL. Application of a coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian method to
simulate interactions between deformable composite structures and compressible
multiphase flow. Int J Numer Meth Eng 2009;80(12):1497–519.
[195] Young YL, Liu Z, Xie W. Fluid-structure and shock-bubble interaction effects
during underwater explosions near composite structures. J Appl Mech 2009;76
(5).
[196] Liu Z, Xie W, Young YL. Numerical modeling of complex interactions between
underwater shocks and composite structures. Comput Mech 2009;43(2):239–51.
[197] Askes, H., et al., An ALE formulation based on spatial and material settings of
continuum mechanics. Part 2: Classification and applications. 2004. 193(39-41):
p. 4223-4245.
28
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
[198] Bakroon, M., et al., Multi-material arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian and coupled
Eulerian-Lagrangian methods for large deformation geotechnical problems.
Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, 2018. : p. 8.
[199] Donea J, Giuliani S, Halleux J-P. An arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian finite element
method for transient dynamic fluid-structure interactions. Comput Meth Appl
Mech Eng 1982;33(1–3):689–723.
[200] Özarmut, B., et al., Fluid-Composite Structure-Interaction in Underwater Shock
Simulations. 2019.
[201] Trevino, T., Applications of arbitrary lagrangian eulerian (ALE) analysis approach
to underwater and air explosion problems. 2000, NAVAL POSTGRADUATE
SCHOOL MONTEREY CA.
[202] Wei X et al. A new rate-dependent unidirectional composite model–application to
panels subjected to underwater blast. J Mech Phys Solids 2013;61(6):1305–18.
[203] Tran P, Ngo TD, Mendis P. Bio-inspired composite structures subjected to
underwater impulsive loading. Comput Mater Sci 2014;82:134–9.
[204] Tran P, Ngo TD, Mendis P. Underwater impulsive loading-induced dynamic
failures of monolithic composite panel. Applied Mechanics and Materials. Trans
Tech Publ; 2014.
[205] Bachynski EE, Motley MR, Young YL. Dynamic hydroelastic scaling of the
underwater shock response of composite marine structures. J Appl Mech 2012;79
(1).
[206] McShane, G., V. Deshpande, and N. Fleck, The underwater blast resistance of
metallic sandwich beams with prismatic lattice cores. 2006.
[207] Motley MR, Young YL, Liu Z. Three-dimensional underwater shock response of
composite marine structures. J Appl Mech 2011;78(6):061013.
[208] Tilbrook M, Deshpande V, Fleck N. Underwater blast loading of sandwich beams:
regimes of behaviour. Int J Solids Struct 2009;46(17):3209–21.
[209] Hayman B. Underwater Explosion Response of Sandwich Structures with
Compliant Cores. In: Blast Mitigation Strategies in Marine Composite and
Sandwich Structures. Springer; 2018. p. 23–52.
[210] Rahaman M, Zheng K, Akimoto H. Numerical investigation of bow slamming on
ships with large flare. Proceedings of MARTEC 2010.
[211] Rigas F, Sklavounos S. Experimentally validated 3-D simulation of shock waves
generated by dense explosives in confined complex geometries. J Hazard Mater
2005;121(1–3):23–30.
[212] Ming F et al. Damage characteristics of ship structures subjected to shockwaves of
underwater contact explosions. Ocean Eng 2016;117:359–82.
[213] Xiong-liang Y, Juan C, Zhang A. Computation of the blast loading of two-
dimensional underwater explosion using SPH method. J Harbin Eng Univ
2010;31(10):1303–10.
[214] Messahel R, Souli M. SPH and ALE formulations for fluid structure coupling.
Comput Model Eng Sci 2013;96(6):435–55.
[215] Hung C, Hsu P, Hwang-Fuu J. Elastic shock response of an air-backed plate to
underwater explosion. Int J Impact Eng 2005;31(2):151–68.
[216] Everstine GC, Henderson FM. Coupled finite element/boundary element
approach for fluid–structure interaction. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;87(5):1938–47.
[217] Geers TL, Felippa CA. Doubly asymptotic approximations for vibration analysis of
submerged structures. J Acoust Soc Am 1983;73(4):1152–9.
[218] Gong S, Lam K. Transient response of floating composite ship section subjected to
underwater shock. Compos Struct 1999;46(1):65–71.
[219] Benson DJ. A new two-dimensional flux-limited shock viscosity for impact
calculations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1991;93(1):39–95.
[220] Fedkiw RP. Coupling an Eulerian fluid calculation to a Lagrangian solid
calculation with the ghost fluid method. J Comput Phys 2002;175(1):200–24.
[221] Wang, G., et al., Investigation of the shock wave propagation characteristics and
cavitation effects of underwater explosion near boundaries. 2014. 46: p. 40-53.
[222] Marcus MS. A finite-element method applied to the vibration of submerged
plates. J Ship Res 1978;22(2).
[223] Schiffer A, Tagarielli V. The dynamic response of composite plates to underwater
blast: theoretical and numerical modelling. Int J Impact Eng 2014;70:1–13.
[224] McMeeking RM et al. An analytic model for the response to water blast of
unsupported metallic sandwich panels. Int J Solids Struct 2008;45(2):478–96.
[225] Geers TL. Doubly asymptotic approximations for transient motions of submerged
structures. J Acoust Soc Am 1978;64(5):1500–8.
[226] Swegle J et al. An analysis of smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Albuquerque,
NM (United States): Sandia National Labs; 1994.
[227] Schiffer A, Tagarielli V. Underwater blast loading of water-backed sandwich
plates with elastic cores: theoretical modelling and simulations. Int J Impact Eng
2017;102:62–73.
[228] Xin C, Gengguang X, Liu K. Numerical simulation of underwater explosion loads.
Trans Tianjin Univ 2008;14(1):519–22.
[229] Kira A, Fujita M, Itoh S. Underwater explosion of spherical explosives. J Mater
Process Technol 1999;85(1–3):64–8.
[230] McShane G, Deshpande V, Fleck N. Underwater blast response of free-standing
sandwich plates with metallic lattice cores. Int J Impact Eng 2010;37
(11):1138–49.
[231] Zhang Z et al. Underwater explosion of cylindrical charge near plates: analysis of
pressure characteristics and cavitation effects. Int J Impact Eng
2018;121:91–105.
[232] Wang L et al. Study on load characteristics of underwater explosion using RKDG-
LS-DGF and BEM. Shock Vib 2015;2015.
[233] Harris P, Verma A, Chakrabarti R. Interaction of an explosion bubble with a fixed
rigid structure. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 1999;29(4):389–96.
[234] Klaseboer E, Khoo B, Hung K. Dynamics of an oscillating bubble near a floating
structure. J Fluids Struct 2005;21(4):395–412.
P. Tran et al.
[235] Pearson A et al. Bubble interactions near a free surface. Eng Anal Boundary Elem
2004;28(4):295–313.
[236] Wang Q et al. Nonlinear interaction between gas bubble and free surface. Comput
Fluids 1996;25(7):607–28.
[237] Zhang A, Yao X, Yu X. The dynamics of three-dimensional underwater explosion
bubble. J Sound Vib 2008;311(3–5):1196–212.
[238] Abe A et al. Numerical study of underwater explosions and following bubble
pulses. AIP Conference Proceedings. American Institute of Physics; 2007.
[239] Barras G et al. Numerical simulation of underwater explosions using an ALE
method. The pulsating bubble phenomena 2012;41:53–66.
[240] Menon, S., Experimental and Numerical Studies of Underwater Explosions. 1996,
GEORGIA INST OF TECH ATLANTA SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING.
[241] Szymczak, W.J.A.-P.-P., Computations and experiments of pressure loadings from
underwater explosion bubbles. 1996. 351: p. 17-28.
[242] Link, R., et al. Cfd modeling of close proximity underwater explosions. in 73rd
Shock and Vibration Symposium, Newport, USA. 2002.
[243] Lamb, H., Hydrodynamics. 1924: University Press.
[244] Hughes TJ, Liu WK, Zimmermann TK. Lagrangian-Eulerian finite element
formulation for incompressible viscous flows. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng
1981;29(3):329–49.
[245] Avachat S, Zhou M. Effect of core density on deformation and failure in sandwich
composites subjected to underwater impulsive loads. Int J Multiphys 2016;6(3).
[246] Bellur-Ramaswamy R et al. Numerical study of composite panels subjected to
underwater blasts. Dynamic Behavior of Materials, Volume 1. Springer; 2011. p.
169–70.
[247] Lemmen P, Meijer G-J, Rasmussen EA. Dynamic behavior of composite ship
structures (DYCOSS) failure prediction tool. 70th shock and vibration
symposium, 1999.
[248] Bishop, C.M., Pattern recognition and machine learning. Information science and
statistics. 2006, New York: Springer. 738.
[249] Vapnik, V., The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. 2 ed. Information Science
and Statistics. 2000, New York: Springer-Verlag.
[250] Grosan, C. and A. Abraham, Intelligent Systems. Intelligent Systems Reference
Library, ed. J. Kacprzyk and L.C. Jain. Vol. 17. 2011, Berlin, Germany: Springer.
[251] Ryan, S., S. Kandanaarachchi, and K. Smith-Miles, Support Vector Machines for
Characterising Whipple Shield Performance. Procedia Engineering, the 13th
Hypervelocity Impact Symposium (HVIS 2015), 2015. 103: p. 522-529.
[252] Ryan S, Thaler S. Artificial neural networks for characterising Whipple shield
performance. Int J Impact Eng 2013;56:61–70.
29
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113684
[253] Ryan S, Thaler S. Artificial Neural Networks for Characterizing Whipple Shield
Performance. Procedia Engineering, The 12th Hypervelocity Impact Symposium
2013;58:31–8.
[254] Ryan S, Thaler S, Kandanaarachchi S. Machine learning methods for
predicting the outcome of hypervelocity impact events. Expert Syst Appl
2016;45:23–39.
[255] Bortolan Neto L et al. Rapid assessment of structures subjected to localised blast.
25th International Symposium on Military Aspects of Blast and Shock, 2018.
[256] Remennikov AM, Mendis PA. Prediction of airblast loads in complex
environments using artificial neural networks. WIT Press; 2006.
[257] Remennikov AM, Rose TA. Predicting the effectiveness of blast wall barriers
using neural networks. Int J Impact Eng 2007;34(12):1907–23.
[258] Bortolan Neto L et al. Rapid mechanical evaluation of quadrangular steel plates
subjected to localised blast loadings. Int J Impact Eng 2020;137:103461.
[259] Bewick B, Flood I, Chen Z. A neural-network model-based engineering tool for
blast wall protection of structures. Int J Protect Struct 2011;2(2):159–76.
[260] Flood I, Bewick BT, Dinan RJ. A New Method for Very Fast Simulation of Blast
Wave Propagation in Complex Built Environments. Nottingham University Press;
2010.
[261] Flood, I., B.T. Bewick, and E. Rauch, Rapid Simulation of Blast Wave Propagation
in Built Environments Using Coarse-Grain Based Intelligent Modeling Methods:.
2011, Defense Technical Information Center: Fort Belvoir, VA.
[262] Flood I et al. Modeling blast wave propagation using artificial neural network
methods. Adv Eng Inf 2009;23(4):418–23.
[263] Ibrahim A, Salim H, Flood I. Damage prediction for RC slabs under near-field
blasts using artificial neural network. Int J Protect Struct 2011;2(3):315–32.
[264] Stewart LK, Morrill KB. Residual capacity prediction of blast-loaded steel columns
using physics-based fast running models. Int J Safety Security Eng 2015;5
(4):289–303.
[265] Teferra K et al. Mapping model validation metrics to subject matter expert scores
for model adequacy assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2014;132:9–19.
[266] Zhang M et al. Machine-learning prediction of underwater shock loading on
structures. Computation 2019;7(4):58.
[267] Alexander Gargano, Raj Das, Adrian P. Mouritz. Explosive Blast Response of
Marine Sandwich Composites. Advances in Thick Section Composite and
Sandwich Structures. Springer; 2020. p. 121–44. In press.
[268] Mouritz Adrian P. Advances in understanding the response of fibre-based
polymer composites to shock waves and explosive blasts. Composites Part A:
Applied Science and Manufacturing 2019;125. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesa.2019.105502. In press.