Blast loaded plates
R. Rajendran
a,
*
, J.M. Lee
b,1
a
BARC Facilities, Kalpakkam 603 102, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Pusan National University, 30 JangjeonDong, GeumjeongGu, Busan
609735, Republic of Korea
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 August 2006
Received in revised form 1 April 2008
Accepted 22 April 2008
Keywords:
Detonation
Shock wave propagation
Air blast
Underwater explosion
Plate damage
a b s t r a c t
Plates form one of the basic elements of structures. Landbased
structures may be subjected to air blast loads during combat
environment or terrorist attack, while marine structures may be
subjected to either air blast by the attack of a missile above the wa
ter surface or an underwater explosion by the attack of a torpedo
or a mine or a depth charge and an aircraft structure may be sub
jected to an inﬂight attack by onboard explosive devices. Further
more, gas explosion occurs in offshore installations and industries.
This review focuses on the phenomenological evolution of blast
damage of plates.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Plated structures are important in a variety of aero, marine and landbased applications including
aircrafts, ships, offshore platforms, box girder bridges, power/chemical plants, bins, bunkers and box
girder cranes. Internal explosion onboard commercial aircraft using explosive devices results in com
plete loss of aircraft. Landbased structures experience air blast loading during war or terrorist attack or
accidental gas explosion. Marine structures undergo air blast loading due to accidental gas explosions
and or the attack of rockets and missiles above the waterline and underwater explosion loading due to
the explosion of torpedoes, mines and depth charges below the waterline.
For an aircraft, frames (circumferential reinforcing members) and stringers (rows of longitudinal re
inforcements) are riveted or adhesively bonded to the thin aluminium fuselage skin. The curvature of
the fuselage is small compared to the individual shell size. Therefore, the individual panels are
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ91 44 27480282.
Email addresses: rajurajendr@yahoo.co.in (R. Rajendran), jaemlee@pusan.ac.kr (J.M. Lee).
1
Tel.: þ82 51 510 2342; fax: þ82 51 512 8836.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Structures
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/
marst ruc
09518339/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marstruc.2008.04.001
Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127
Nomenclature
A area of the plate (m
2
)/explosive constant
B, R
1
, R
2
, U explosive constants
a
c
crack length (m)
C structural damping matrix
c
a
ambient speed of sound in air (m/s)
c
p
peak wind velocity behind the shock front (m/s)/plastic wave speed of the plate material
(m/s)
c
sa
velocity of shock wave in air (m/s)
c
w
velocity of sound in water (m/s)
D material constant
E Young’s modulus of the plate material
E
p
shock energy transferred to the plate per unit area (J/m
2
)
Eq
TNT
TNT equivalent of the explosive
E
s
energy of the shock wave per unit area (J/m
2
)
E
TNT
energy of TNT explosive (J)
F peak load on the plate (N)
F(t) timedependent load on the plate (N)
G matrix relating structural degrees of freedom to the ﬂuid
I impulse per unit area (Ns/m
2
)
I
t
total impulse (Ns)
JWL Jones–Wilkins–Lee
K structural stiffness matrix
k stiffness of the plate (N/m)
M structural mass matrix
m mass per unit area of the plate (kg/m
2
)
n material parameter
P
m
peak pressure/peak overpressure (MPa)
P
o
atmospheric pressure (MPa)
p exponent of powertype strain law/pressure (MPa)
p
i
incident pressure (MPa)
q dynamic pressure (MPa)/material constant
r
e
radius of the explosive (m)
S stand off (m)
S
0
scaled distance (m/m)
T kinetic energy of the plate (J)
t time (s)/thickness (m)
t
c
cavitation time (m/s)
t
d
positive duration of the blast wave (s)
t
f
thickness of the ﬂuid element (m)
U internal energy of the explosive per unit volume (J/m
3
)
V volume (m
3
)/impact velocity (m/s)
V
m
maximum velocity attained by the plate (m/s)
v velocity of the water particle behind the shock front (m/s)
v
i
incident water particle velocity (m/s)
v
s
scattered ﬂuid particle velocity (m/s)
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 100
approximated as ﬂat plates [1]. The curvature of the ship plating is small and it is supported by welded
longitudinal and transverse stiffeners at its edges. The plate between the stiffeners is therefore consid
ered as a ﬂat plate [2].
The motivation for this review arises from the primary concern for the design of plated structures
against blast load. As elucidated in the preceding paragraph, plates form one of the basic elements of
the structures. Therefore, studying the blast response of plates helps understanding and improving
their blast resistance. The topic can be broadly categorized into (1) the detonation process or the rapid
chemical reaction of the explosive, (2) the shock wave propagation in the mediumin which detonation
takes place, (3) the interaction of the shock wave with the plate and (4) the response of the plate to the
input shock loading. These four aspects are brought out in this review with an attempt to gain greater
insight into the blast damage phenomenon.
W TNT equivalent of the explosive charge quantity (kg)/work imparted to the plate
structure (J)
x lateral displacement of the plate (m)
a waveform parameter
a
j
Johnson’s damage number
b aspect ratio
d central plastic deﬂection of the plate (m)
3
f
uniaxial fracture strain (m/m)
F dimensionless number
h coupling factor
h
m
moment ampliﬁcation factor
n Poisson’s ratio
q time constant of the underwater shock wave (s)/half angle of the petal (
)
r density of air behind the shock front (kg/m
3
)
r
o
ambient density of air (kg/m
3
)
r
p
density of the plate material (kg/m
3
)
r
w
density of water (kg/m
3
)
s
o
ﬂow stress of the material (MPa)
s
u
ultimate stress (MPa)
s
y
static yield stress (MPa)
s
yd
dynamic yield stress (MPa)
s burn time (s)
x shock factor (kg
0.5
/m)
x
e
effective shock factor (kg
0.515
/m
1.03
)
j inverse mass number (kg/kg)
z knockdown factor
Subscripts
a airbacked plate
c circular plate
cr critical
m maximum
p plate
r rectangular plate
t total
w waterbacked plate
y yield
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 101
2. The explosion process
The explosion is a rapid chemical reaction in a substance, which converts the original material into
a gas at very high temperature and pressure evolving large amount of heat (4389 kJ/kg of trinitrotol
uene (TNT) explosive) [3]. The explosion process is divided into two parts: (1) the detonation process
and (2) the interaction process between the product gases and the surrounding medium (air in atmo
sphere and water in underwater). During the detonation process, a detonation wave generates and
propagates in the explosive. The parameters that are used to assess the detonation performance of
an explosive are the Chapman–Jouguet (C–J) detonation pressure [4], the temperature of detonation
[5] and the detonation velocity [6]. Typically for an explosive (TNT) with a density of 1650 kg/m
3
,
the Chapman–Jouguet (C–J) detonation pressure [4] is 21,000 MPa, the detonation temperature [5] is
3720 K and the detonation velocity [6] is 6950 m/s. Once the process of detonation is completed, the
interaction of the product gases with the surrounding medium takes place. The product gases with
high pressure and temperature expand outward by generating a pressure wave. The gaseous products
are assumed to be inviscid at this high temperature and thus the viscous forces are not considered for
the explosive modeling. In the water medium, an instantaneous compression of the water surround
ing the gas emits a pressure pulse that propagates into water with a velocity that is three times higher
than the velocity of sound in water [7]. This higher velocity levels off rapidly and attains a velocity that
is only 20% higher than the sound velocity at a distance that is ﬁve times the charge radius after which
the pressure wave falls to the sound velocity at around 20 times the charge radius and propagates at
that constant velocity. The gas bubble expands at a velocity that is much slower than the pressure
pulse. In air explosion, the shock wave moves with the gas–air interface [8]. An equation of state
(EOS) of the explosive relating energy, pressure and volume is essential for the numerical modeling
of the detonation process. The most commonly used EOS to describe the state of detonation products
is Jones–Wilkins–Lee (JWL), which is given as [8]
p
JWL
ðV; U
in
Þ ¼ A
_
1 À
U
R
1
V
_
e
ðÀR
1
VÞ
þB
_
1 À
U
R
2
V
_
e
ðÀR
2
VÞ
þ
U
V
E
in
(1)
where A, B, R
1
, R
2
and U are constants [8], p
JWL
is the pressure, V is relative the volume compared to the
initial volume of the explosive and U
in
is the internal energy per unit volume. The ﬁrst term in JWL
equation known as the highpressure term dominates ﬁrst for V close to one, the second term is inﬂu
ential for V close to 2 and last term corresponds to the expanded state.
3. The shock wave propagation
Signiﬁcant contrast exists in the wave propagation phenomena between the air and the water me
dia due to (1) their different physical properties and (2) the interface phenomena between the explo
sive product gases and the surrounding medium [9]. The physical properties that matter for the
propagating medium are the velocity of sound, the density, the compressibility, the temperature and
the ambient pressure. While air is compressible water is considered as incompressible. Both air and
water are treated as inviscid. The velocity of sound in air at sea level is 340 m/s. The velocity of sound
in water is 1483 m/s (approximately 4.36 times the velocity of sound in air at sea level). The sound ve
locity increases with temperature. The density of air at sea level is 1.25 kg/m
3
and the density of water
is 1000 kg/m
3
(approximately 800 times the density of air). The relations between the shock wave pa
rameters and the charge quantity and stand off for both air blast and underwater blast are empirically
formulated and veriﬁed with a number of experiments.
3.1. Air blast
A schematic of the blast wave is shown in Fig. 1. The shock wave has an instantaneous rise and an
exponential fall [10]. The parameters of interest for the damage process are the peak overpressure (that
is the pressure above the atmospheric pressure), the positive duration and impulse with respect to the
scaled distance. The negative phase of the blast wave is generally ignored. An explosion of higher yield
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 102
will arrive at a point sooner than an explosion of lower yield. The higher the overpressure at the shock
front the greater is the velocity of the shock wave. As the blast wave progresses outward, the pressure
at the shock front decreases and the velocity falls of accordingly. At long ranges, when the overpressure
decreases to 7 kPa, the velocity of the blast wave approaches the ambient speed of sound. The duration
of the overpressure phase increases with the energy of the explosive yield and the distance from the
explosion. The instantaneous pressure p(t) of the positive phase of an ideal air blast wave is given by
the Friedlander equation as [10]
pðtÞ ¼ P
o
þP
m
_
1 À
_
t
t
d
_
e
Àat=t
d
_
(2)
where P
o
is the ambient pressure, t is the instantaneous time, t
d
is the positive duration of the pressure
pulse and a is called waveform parameter that depends upon the peak overpressure P
m
of the shock
wave. The waveform parameter a is regarded as an adjustable parameter which is selected so that
the overpressure–time relationships provide suitable values of the blast impulse. For chemical explo
sions, the peak overpressure is expressed as [10]
P
m
=P
o
¼
808
_
1 þ
_
S
0
4:5
_
2
_
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 þ
_
S
0
0:048
_
2
_ ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 þ
_
S
0
0:32
_
2
_ ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 þ
_
S
0
1:35
_
2
_ (3a)
and for nuclear explosions [10]
P
m
=P
o
¼ 3:2 Â10
6
S
0À3
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 þ
_
S
0
87
_
¸
_
1 þ
S
0
800
_
(3b)
The scaled distance S
0
is given as [11–13]
S
0
¼
S
W
1=3
(4)
where S is the stand off from the explosion in m and W is the TNT equivalent of the explosive charge
weight in kg. The time of arrival of the shock wave t
a
for a radial distance r from an explosive radius of
radius r
e
is given as [10]
p(t)
Positive phase
duration
Negative phase
duration
Ambient
pressure
Peak
overpressure
Fig. 1. A schematic of the blast wave.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 103
t
a
¼
1
c
a
_
r
r
e
_
1
1 þ
6P
m
7P
o
_
1=2
dr (5)
The duration of the shock pulse t
d
for the chemical explosion in ms is [10]
t
d
W
1=3
¼
980
_
1 þ
_
S
0
0:54
_
10
_
_
1 þ
_
S
0
0:02
_
3
__
1 þ
_
S
0
0:74
_
6
_
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 þ
_
S
0
6:9
_
2
_ (6a)
For a nuclear explosion [10]
t
d
W
1=3
¼
180
_
1 þ
_
S
0
100
_
3
_
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 þ
_
S
0
40
_
_
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 þ
_
S
0
285
_
5
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 þ
_
S
0
50;000
_
6
_
6
¸ (6b)
The shock wave velocity c
sa
is expressed as [12]
c
sa
¼ c
a
_
1 þ
6P
m
P
o
_
1=2
(7)
where c
a
is the ambient speed of sound. The particle velocity, c
p
(or peak wind velocity behind the
shock front) is given as [12]
c
p
¼
5P
m
7P
o
c
a
ð1 þ6P
m
=7P
o
Þ
1=2
(8)
The density, r, of the air behind the shock front is related to the ambient density r
o
as [12]
r=r
o
¼
7 þ6P
m
=P
o
7 þP
m
=P
o
(9)
The dynamic pressure q, which is the kinetic energy per unit volume of air immediately behind the
shock front, is given as [12]
q ¼
5
2
P
2
m
7P
o
þP
m
(10)
The peak overpressure P
m
in MPa is given as [14]
P
m
¼ 1:13S
0ðÀ2:1Þ
for 1 S
0
10 (11a)
P
m
¼ 0:183S
0ðÀ1:16Þ
for 10 S
0
200 (11b)
where S is in m.
The impulse of the shock wave I in Ns/m
2
is given as [14]
I ¼ 203S
0ðÀ0:91Þ
for 1 S
0
10 (12a)
I ¼ 335S
0ðÀ1:06Þ
for 10 S
0
200 (12b)
and also as [10]
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 104
I ¼
0:067
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 þ
_
S
0
0:23
_
4
2
_
S
0
2
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 þ
_
S
0
1:55
_
3
3
_ (12c)
3.2. Gas explosion
A gas explosion is a process where combustion of a premixed gas cloud, that is, fuel–air or fuel/
oxidizers causing rapid increase of pressure [15]. The pressure generated by the combustion wave
will depend on how fast the ﬂame propagates and how the pressure expands away from the gas cloud
(governed by conﬁnement). The consequence of gas explosion ranges from no damage to total
destruction.
3.3. Underwater explosion
The schematic of the blast wave in Fig. 1 is applicable for the underwater explosion too. The ambient
pressure is the hydrostatic pressure. In air blast, the peak overpressure is typically of the order of kPa,
which is comparable to the atmospheric pressure of 100 kPa, whereas in underwater explosion the
peak overpressure is of several orders of magnitude greater than the hydrostatic pressure. Therefore,
the hydrostatic pressure is ignored and the peak overpressure is simply called as peak pressure. The
parameters that are of interest for an underwater explosion wave from the point of view of the plate
damage are the peak pressure, P
m
, the time constant, q, the free ﬁeld impulse, I and the energy carried
by the shock wave E
s
. The pressure p(t) at a given point decays from its peak value P
m
exponentially
with time t as [3,16]
pðtÞ ¼ P
m
e
Àt=q
(13)
where q is the time taken by the shock wave to decay to 1/e of peak value. The peak pressure, P
m
, in MPa
is [3,16]
P
m
¼ 52:16
_
W
1=3
S
_
1:13
¼ 52:16S
0À1:13
(14)
The velocity of the water particle behind the shock front is given as [3]
vðtÞ ¼ pðtÞ=r
w
c
w
(15)
The time constant q in s is given as [3,16]
q ¼ 96:5 Â10
À6
_
W
1=3
_
_
W
1=3
S
_
À0:22
¼ 96:5 Â10
À6
_
W
1=3
_
S
0ð0:22Þ
(16)
The free ﬁeld impulse per unit area, I, in Ns/m
2
is given as [3,16]
I ¼ 5760
_
W
1=3
_
_
W
1=3
S
_
0:89
¼ 5760
_
W
1=3
_
S
0ðÀ0:89Þ
(17)
The energy carried by the shock wave per unit area in J/m
2
is given as [3,16]
E
s
¼ 98; 000
_
W
1=3
_
_
W
1=3
S
_
2:1
¼ 98; 000
_
W
1=3
_
S
0ðÀ2:1Þ
(18)
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 105
These formulae are applicable for a stand off that is greater than 10 times the explosive charge radius.
Avariation of the ratio of the underwater explosion impulse, I
w
, to the air blast impulse, I
a
, as a function
of reduced stand off is shown in Fig. 2. The underwater explosion load carries an impulse that is at least
22 times that of air blast for the same reduced stand off conﬁguration. The dip in the curve is due to the
change in the formula for the air blast impulse predictionwhen the reduced stand off changes from9 to
10 m/kg
(1/3)
.
4. Fluid–plate interaction
4.1. Air blast
When an air blast wave encounters a plate on which it impinges at zero angle of incidence, it gets
normally reﬂected. The peak plate overpressure (commonly known as reﬂected pressure), P
pm
, is
obtained from the Rankine Hugoniot relationship for an ideal gas as [17]
P
pm
¼ 2P
m
ð7P
o
þ4P
m
Þ=ð7P
o
þP
m
Þ (19)
The ratio of the plate impulse per unit area (commonly known as reﬂected impulse), I
p
, to the inci
dent impulse per unit area, I, is approximated as [17]
I
p
=I ¼ P
pm
=P
m
(20)
For a weak shock wave, P
m
(P
o
. This leads from Eqs. (19) and (20) that the plate peak overpressure is
double that of the incident peak pressure and hence the impulse imparted to the plate is double that of
the incident impulse.
The requirement for simulating the maximum uniform lateral impulse on the plate area to study
the blast response of plates, taking into account the minimum use of the quantity of the explosive
for the reasons of safety and economy leads to a genre of experiments [18–34]. For numerical modeling
0 20 40 60 80 100
S' (m/kg
1/3
)
10
20
30
40
I
w
/
I
a
Fig. 2. The variation of the ratio of free ﬁeld impulse for underwater explosion to air blast as a function of reduced standoff.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 106
of the deformation phenomena, the impulse that is measured experimentally during the zero stand off
ﬁring (that is, the explosive is separated fromthe test pate by a thin polystyrene sheet) is divided by the
burn time of the explosive to arrive at the assumed uniform rectangular lateral pressure [35]. A blast
peak pressure that is 10 times or bigger than the corresponding static collapse pressure is assumed as
a rectangular pressure pulse without loss of accuracy [36,37]. The step pressure, P
m
, is estimated as
a function of the measured total plate impulse, I
tp
, the exposed area of the plate, A, and the burn
time s as [38]
P
m
¼
I
tp
As
(21)
Shock tubes are built to simulate the blast waves with required plate peak pressure and plate im
pulse [39–44]. Spherical shock wave fronts generated by the direct detonation process lead to a com
plex space–time evolution of the pressure distribution on a plane plate, which results in poor
prediction of the plate deformation [40]. On the contrary, the plane shock wave fronts generated by
the shock tube allow precise modeling.
4.2. Underwater explosion
For the coupled ﬂuid–structure interaction, the motion of the plate is given as [45–49]
M
€
x þC
_
x þkx ¼ FðtÞ (22)
where M is the structural mass matrix, C is the structural damping matrix, K is the structural stiffness
matrix, x is the structural displacement and F(t) is the timevarying load applied to the structure. By
superimposing the imaginary ﬂuid mesh on the ﬂuid–plate boundary, the surface compatibility of
the submerged plate is written as [46]
FðtÞ ¼ ÀGA
f
ðp
i
þp
s
Þ (23)
where G is the matrix relating the structural degrees of freedomto the ﬂuid, A
f
is the matrix containing
the areas of the elements in the ﬂuid mesh, p
i
is the incident pressure of the underwater explosion and
p
s
is the scatted pressure of the plate. Compatibility requirements dictate that the surface normal ve
locity of the plate and the ﬂuid is equal, that is [46],
G
T
_
x ¼ v
i
þv
s
(24)
where v
i
is the incident water particle velocity from the underwater explosion, and v
s
is the scattered
water particle velocity from the plate.
The ﬂuid is assumed to be inviscid and incompressible. The scatted pressure and the scattered ﬂuid
particle velocity are related by [46]
p
s
¼ r
w
c
w
v
s
(25)
From Eqs. (24) and (25),
p
s
¼ rc
_
G
T
_
x Àv
i
_
(26)
Eq. (26) is substituted into Eq. (23) to obtain the load–time history as [46]
FðtÞ ¼ ÀGA
f
_
p
i
þrc
_
G
T
_
x Àv
i
__
(27)
The force–time history is ﬁnally substituted into Eq. (22) to obtain the differential equation for the
response of the plate as [46]
M
€
x þ
_
C þGA
f
G
T
r
w
c
w
_
_
x þKx ¼ ÀGA
f
ðp
i
þr
w
c
w
v
i
Þ (28)
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 107
The term r
w
c
w
represents the additional damping term to the plate due to the energy radiated away
from the plate into the ﬂuid. The only unknown term in Eq. (28) is the plate displacement x which
is solved by ﬁnite element method. The response equation of the plate is valid until the ﬂuid pressure
goes belowthe local atmospheric pressure or in other words, until cavitation occurs. Ignoring damping
and the nodal displacement for the duration the pressure pulse acts, for a one dimensional plate Eq.
(28) reduces to [3,7,50–52]
m
€
x þr
w
c
w
_
x ¼ 2P
m
e
Àt=q
(29)
where m is the mass per unit area of the plate. Applying initial conditions and introducing the dimen
sionless inverse mass number j
a
¼r
w
c
w
q/m, the plate pressure, P
p
(t), is [53]
P
p
ðtÞ ¼ 2p
m
e
Àt=q
À
2P
m
j
a
ðj
a
À1Þ
_
e
Àt=q
Àe
Àj
a
t=q
_
(30)
from which the plate peak pressure is given as
P
p
¼ 2P
m
j
1
1Àj
a
a
(31)
and the plate maximum velocity is
V
ma
¼
2P
m
q
m
j
j
a
1Àj
a
a
(32)
The shock energy transferred to the airbacked plate E
p
is
E
pa
¼
1
2
mV
2
ma
¼
2P
2
mm
q
2
m
j
2j
a
1Àj
a
a
(33)
The energy carried by the free ﬁeld shock wave is
E
s
¼
1
rc
_
N
0
p
2
ðtÞ dt ¼
1
rc
_
N
0
_
P
m
e
Àt=q
_
2
dt ¼
P
2
m
q
2
2mj
a
(34)
Theratioof theplate energytothefreeﬁeldshockenergy, h
a
, whichis alsoknownas couplingfactor is
h
a
¼
E
pa
E
s
¼
_
2P
2
m
q
2
m
_
j
2j
a
1Àj
a
a
_
P
2
m
q
2
2mj
a
_ ¼ 4j
1þj
a
1Àj
a
a
(35)
The time to reach the maximum velocity or the cavitation time, t
ca
, is given as
t
ca
¼
q ln j
a
j
a
À1
(36)
The impulse acting on the airbacked plate per unit area is given as
I
p
¼ 2P
m
qj
j
a
1Àj
a
a
(37a)
The maximum achievable impulse per unit area for an inﬁnitely rigid plate from Eq. (37a) is [54]
I
pm
¼ 2P
m
q (37b)
or
I
pa
¼ zI
pm
¼ 2z
a
I
f
(37c)
where z
a
is the knockdown factor for airbacked plate which is given as
z
a
¼ j
j
a
1Àj
a
a
(37d)
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 108
For j
a
¼1/2, the impulse imparted to the plate, I
p
, is equal to the free ﬁeld impulse. Or in other words,
I
p
¼I when 2r
w
c
w
q ¼m. As the plate becomes more and more rigid, the impulse ratio approaches unity,
meaning thereby, the underwater explosion impulse becomes double that of the free ﬁeld impulse as in
the case of the impulse imparted by a weak air blast wave on a plate. The ratio of the variation of the
plate impulse for airbacked underwater exploded plates, I
pw
, to air blasted plates, I
pa
, as a function of
reduced stand off is shown in Fig. 3.
For a waterbacked plate, the equation of motion of the plate is modiﬁed as [7,50]
m
€
x þ2r
w
c
w
_
x ¼ 2P
m
e
Àt=q
(38)
The maximum velocity of the waterbacked plate is [7]
V
mw
¼
P
m
q
m
j
j
w
1Àj
w
w
(39)
where j
w
¼2r
w
c
w
q/m. The maximum velocity for the waterbacked plate is reached when the plate
pressure equals the hydrostatic pressure of the water behind the plate. The energy imparted to the wa
terbacked plate, E
pw
, is
E
pw
¼
1
2
mV
2
mw
¼
P
2
m
q
2
2m
j
2j
w
1Àj
w
w
(40)
The ratio of the energy of the waterbacked plate to the shock wave energy, h
w
, is given as
h
w
¼
E
pw
E
s
¼
_
P
2
m
q
rc
_
j
1þj
w
1Àj
w
w
_
P
2
m
q
2rc
_ ¼ 2j
1þj
w
1Àj
w
w
(41)
0 20 40 60 80 100
S'(m/kg
1/3
)
0
10
20
30
I
p
w
/
I
p
a
Plate impulse ratio
m=15.6kg/sq m
m=31.2kg/sq m
m=62.4kg/sq m
m=289.5 kg/sq m
Fig. 3. The variation of the ratio of impulse for underwater explosion to air blast on a plate as a function of reduced standoff.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 109
The ratio of h
a
to h
w
gives the ratio of the strain energy of the airbacked plate to the waterbacked plate
during the elastic regime of deformation. This ratio from Eqs. (35) and (41) is given as
h
a
h
w
¼
_
E
p
=E
s
E
pw
=E
s
_
¼ 2
À4j
a
ð1À2j
a
Þ
j
À2j
a
ð1Àj
a
Þð1À2j
a
Þ
a
(42)
The time to reach the maximum velocity, t
cw
, is given as [7]
t
cw
¼
q ln j
w
j
w
À1
(43)
The impulse acting on the waterbacked plate per unit area is given as
I
pw
¼ 2P
m
qj
j
w
1Àj
w
w
¼ 2I
f
z
w
(44a)
where z
w
is the knockdown factor for waterbacked plate which is given as
z
w
¼ j
j
w
1Àj
w
w
(44b)
The ratio of the primary pulse plate impulse for an airbacked plate to a waterbacked plate gives the
plastic damage ratio of these plates for the primary shock. From Eqs. (37) and (44),
I
pa
I
pw
¼ 2
À2j
a
1À2j
a
j
Àj
a
ð1Àj
a
Þð1À2j
a
Þ
a
(45)
For j
w
¼1/2, the impulse imparted to the plate, I
pw
, is equal to half of the free ﬁeld impulse. Or in
other words, I
pw
¼I
f
/2 when 4r
w
c
w
q ¼m. As the plate becomes inﬁnitely rigid, the maximum plate im
pulse equals the free ﬁeld impulse. This is in contrast to the airbacked plate that undergoes twice the
free ﬁeld impulse for identical conditions. The variation of plate impulse, I
p
, and energy, E
p
, as a fraction
of the respective free ﬁeld parameters for air and waterbacked plates as a function of inverse mass
number is shown in Fig. 4.
0 4 8 12 16
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
I
p
/
I
f
Airbacked plate impulse
Waterbacked plate impulse
airbacked plate shock energy transfer
waterbacked plate energy transfer
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
E
p
/
E
s
Fig. 4. The variation of impulse and energy of air and waterbacked plates with the inverse mass number for underwater explosion.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 110
The damage caused by the reloading component of the underwater shock wave on an airbacked
plate is larger than the damage caused by the primary pulse itself. While reloading due to cavitation
is absent for waterbacked plates, reloading due to the gas bubble is present for both air and water
backed plates. Reloading occurs when the depth of explosion is at least half the stand off and reaches
it maximum when the depth of explosion becomes double the stand off [55].
5. Blast damage
5.1. Air blast
5.1.1. Uniform blast loading
Simple methods of structural dynamics were applied by Biggs [56] and Clough and Penzien [57] by
applying single degree of freedomsystem(SDOF) and idealizing the plate as the beamfor obtaining the
blast damage. The damage of plates that are subjected to noncontact air blast is conventionally
assessed by the simulated experimental methods or by taking the measured pressure–time history
on the plate for the simulated environment as the prescribed load and performing numerical analysis
[1,13,58,59].
5.1.1.1. P–I diagrams. Elastic and plastic response of single degree of freedom(SDOF) systems subjected
to blast loading can be presented in the formof pressure–impulse (P–I) diagrams [60]. According to the
P–I diagram of a speciﬁc structure or structural element, a certain load with the peak pressure and im
pulse above the critical value will result in the damage of the structures, vice versa, the structure is safe
if the peak pressure and impulse combination is located below the curve.
In quasistatic loading realm, the deformation depends only on the peak load F and the structural
stiffness k. The response is independent of the duration of loading and the mass of the structure.
The work done on the structure is equated to the strain energy for the quasistatic loading regime
(loading period to the natural period of the structure is greater than 6.36). For a linear elastic system,
the strain energy, U
E
, is given as [61]
U
E
¼
1
2
kx
2
max
(46)
The maximum permissible work imparted, W, to the structure by a constant force whose amplitude
decreases insigniﬁcantly is [61]
W ¼ Fx
max
(47)
where F is the force that is acting which is given by multiplying the area, A, with the pressure P
m
. From
Eqs. (46) and (47) [61],
x
max
ðF=kÞ
¼ 2:0 (48)
Eq. (48) is called quasistatic asymptote.
In the impulsive realm(loading period to the natural period of the structure is less than 0.0636), the
deformation is directly proportional to the impulse. The kinetic energy imparted to the structure, T, is
equated to the strain energy U
E
[61].
T ¼
_
mA
2
_
I
2
ðmAÞ
2
¼
I
2
2mA
(49)
Equating the kinetic energy, T, to the strain energy U
E
,
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
kmA
p
x
max
I
¼ 1:0 (50)
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 111
Eq. (50) is called impulsive asymptote. A combination of peak loads and durations with the same im
pulse will result in the same maximum deformation. The deﬂection is inﬂuenced by both structural
stiffness and structural mass. A dynamic load factor of 2 is conservative in this regime.
Between quasistatic realm and impulsive realm a transition realm exists which is known as dy
namic loading realm. The deformation here depends on the entire loading history. Here, the motion
of the structure depends on pressure and impulse as well as structural stiffness and mass. Computa
tion of the quasistatic and impulsive asymptotes yields an approximation to the entire shock
response.
For a rigidplastic system loaded in the pressure realm, the strain energy, U
P
, is given as [61]
U
P
¼ Rx
max
(51)
where R is the resistance. Equating the work done, W, to the strain energy [61]
F=R ¼ 1:0 (52)
Eq. (52) is the quasistatic asymptote for the rigidplastic structure. For the impulsive loading realm,
equating the kinetic energy to the strain energy U
P
,
I
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
x
max
mAR
p ¼
ﬃﬃﬃ
2
p
(53)
Eq. (53) is called impulsive asymptote for the rigidplastic structure.
The loading on a plate cause by gas or dust explosions is characterized ﬁnite rise time and a non
exponential fall. The quasistatic loading asymptote for a ﬁnite rise time is equivalent to a static
loading. In the range 1:15 < I=x
max
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
kmA
p
< 5:5, the loading with ﬁnite rise time is more severe than
a loading with zero rise time. This behaviour is produced by resonance between the loading rate
and the structural frequency. A typical P–I diagram for a blast loaded SDOF system is shown in Fig. 5.
5.1.1.2. Plastic deformation. The central deﬂection of plastically deformed plates is taken as the indica
tion of the measure of blast damage. Assumed modes method in which a shape function is used to rep
resent the global displacement function [62] was used in conjunction with rigidplastic material
behaviour and energy methods were applied by Schleyer et al. [63] and Langdon and Schleyer [64].
For the contact air blast, where a rectangular pressure pulse can be assumed [18,65] analytical [36]
and empirical [28] predictions are available based on the impulse imparted to the plate.
Johnson [66] proposed a guideline for assessing the behaviour of metals subjected to impact loading
using a dimensionless number that is deﬁned as
a
j
¼
r
p
V
2
s
d
(54a)
where V is the impact velocity, r
p
is the plate material density and s
d
is the damage stress which is
taken as equal to the plate material yield stress s
y
. Johnson’s damage number is applicable only
when plates have similar dimensions. The damage number can be written in terms of impulse as [67]
a
j
¼
I
2
tp
A
2
t
2
r
p
s
y
(54b)
where t is the thickness of the plate.
A modiﬁed damage parameter F was introduced by Nurick and Martin [28] that incorporated plate
dimensions and loading. For circular plates [29]
F
c
¼
I
pt
pRt
2
_
r
p
s
y
_
1=2
(55)
where R is the radius of the loaded portion of the circular plate. For rectangular plates [67]
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 112
F
r
¼
I
pt
2t
2
_
4abr
p
s
y
_
1=2
(56)
where 2a and 2b are the length and breadth of the plate.
For large plastic deformation (mode I failure) of clamped circular plates [28] the deﬂectionthick
ness ratio is empirically given as
_
d
t
_
c
¼ 0:425F
c
þ0:227 (57)
and for clamped rectangular plates [28] the empirical relationship is
_
d
t
_
r
¼ 0:471F
r
þ0:001 (58)
where d is the central deﬂection of the plate.
Jones [36] predicted analytically the deﬂectionthickness ratio for fully clamped circular plates
without strain rate effects as
Fig. 5. P–I diagram for SDOF systems undergoing blast load [61]. (a) Elastic response due to air blast, (b) plastic response due to air
blast, (c) elastic response due to gas explosion and (d) plastic response due to gas explosion [61].
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 113
_
d
t
_
c
¼ 0:817F
c
(59a)
Taking strain rate effect into account Eq. (59a) is modiﬁed as [36]
_
d
t
_
c
¼
0:817F
c
ﬃﬃﬃ
n
p (59b)
n ¼ 1 þ
_
I
2
p
3r
2
P
t
2
DR
_
r
p
3s
y
_
1=2
_
1=q
(59c)
For fully clamped rectangular plates without strain rate effects, the deﬂectionthickness ratio as
given by the analytical method of Jones is [36]
_
d
t
_
r
¼
ð3 À2
0
Þ
_
ð1 þGÞ
1=2
À1
_
2f1 þð2
0
À1Þð2
0
À2Þg
(60a)
G ¼
2r
p
V
2
a
2
b
2
3s
y
t
2
ð3 À22
0
Þ
_
1 À2
0
þ
1
2 À2
0
_
(60b)
2
0
¼ b
_
_
3 þb
2
_
1=2
Àb
_
(60c)
b ¼
b
a
(60d)
Taking strain rate effect into account Eq. (60a) is modiﬁed as
_
d
t
_
r
¼
ð3 À2
0
Þ
_
ð1 þG=nÞ
1=2
À1
_
2f1 þð2
0
À1Þð2
0
À2Þg
(60e)
n ¼ 1 þ
_
Vtð3 À2
0
ÞG
1=2
6
ﬃﬃﬃ
2
p
Db
2
f1 þð2
0
À1Þð2
0
À2Þg
_
1=q
(60f)
5.1.2. Localized blast loading
Localized impact is the explosion or impact process that occurs over a localized region of the plate
(in contrast to the uniform loading that occurs over the whole area of the unsupported plate). When
a localized explosion takes place on a plate petalling occurs [68]. For small amplitudes of impulse
the plate undergoes dishing. Dishing occurs until tensile necking and fracture takes over the critical
velocity, V
cr
, of the plate which is given by
V
cr
¼ 2:83c
p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
3
f
p
(61a)
where c
p
is the plastic wave speed which is given as
c
p
¼
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
s
o
r
p
¸
(61b)
where s
o
is the ﬂow stress which is given as
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 114
s
o
¼
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
s
y
s
u
1 þp
_
(61c)
where s
u
is the ultimate stress and p is the exponent in the powertype stress–strain law. The detona
tion blows out a central cap of the radius r
p
(where r
p
is the radius of the explosive). This occurs at a cen
tral deﬂection d, which is given as
d ¼ 2:47r
p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
3
f
p
(62)
When the impulse is above this value, the reminder of the initial kinetic energy goes into the petalling
process. For n
1
radial cracks that develop from a point in an inﬁnite plate dividing it into n
1
symmetric
petals, the central 2q angle of the petal equals 2p/n
1
. Taking the instantaneous crack length as a
c
, the
perpendicular distance l, which can be considered as process parameter is given by a
c
cos q. By energy
balance [68],
_
V
cr
c
_
2
_
_
V
V
cr
_
2
À1
_
¼ 5:2h
0:6
m
_
t
r
e
__
l
r
e
À1
_
1:4
(63a)
where V is the impact velocity and h
m
is the moment ampliﬁcation factor which takes into account the
larger bending resistance of the curved plate is given as [68]
h
m
¼ 1 þ2
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
23
f
_
q
2
r
e
t
(63b)
Normally 3–5 petals form in the plate [68]. The amount of impulse imparted to the plate is propor
tional to the weight of the explosive W.
_
V
V
cr
_
¼
_
I
p
I
pc
_
¼
_
W
W
cr
_
(63c)
where W
cr
is the critical weight of the explosive to generate the critical impulse, I
pc
, that is required to
blow out the central plot. Lee and Wierzbicki [69,70] reported analytical and numerical modeling on
the dishing, discing and petalling of plates subjected to localized impulse. Analytical and experimental
work was reported by Wierzbicki and Nurick [71] to determine the location of tearing failure and the
critical impulse to failure. Experimental work on clamped circular plates subjected to localized impulse
was reported by Nurick and Radford [72] to study the formation of petalling failure. Jacob et al. [73]
described the effect of varying both the loading conditions and the plate geometries on the deforma
tion of the plate and predicted numerically the plate response.
5.2. Underwater explosion
5.2.1. Uniform explosion loading
5.2.1.1. Elastic response. A near miss underwater explosion in a war scenario may result in the plate re
sponse varying from elastic to plastic and in an extreme case fracture. The designer is therefore inter
ested in predicting the range of responses of the ship plates. Both warships and merchant ships have
liquid ﬁlled side shells. Therefore it is of interest to know what happens to these side shells during an
underwater explosion environment. Although there is no permanent damage to the plate that un
dergoes elastic deformation, it is the interest to the designer to know in advance the transient state
of stress it develops. For a small intensity of explosion, the stresses developed in the plate are in its elas
tic range. During elastic deformation the airbacked plate undergoes tens of thousands of ‘g’s (acceler
ation due to gravity) [74]. Waterbacked plates, however, suffer relatively less damage. This is because
a considerable proportion of the shock wave transmits through the water at the rear of the plate. In
other words, waterbacked plates simply transmit the maximum part of the shock wave energy.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 115
5.2.1.1.1. Circular geometry. For airbacked plates [75–77] for the primary shock wave, the semian
alytical von Mises stress, s
a
, at the apex (center) of the plate is given as
s
a
¼
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
6Er
p
P
2
m
x
2=ð1Àx
a
Þ
a
r
2
w
c
2
w
ð1 ÀnÞ
¸
¸
¸
_
(64a)
where E is the Young’s modulus of the plate material. In terms of effective shock factor [77,78]
s
a
¼ 1179x
ea
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
E
ð1 ÀnÞt
¸
(64b)
where E is Young’s modulus of the material, n is the Poisson’s ratio, x
ea
is the effective shock factor for
the airbacked plates.
x
ea
¼ x
1:03
ﬃﬃﬃ
h
p
a
(64c)
where x is the normal shock factor which is given as [7]
x ¼ 0:445
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
W
p
S
(64d)
Traditionally, the shock factor is used to classify the severity of the attack. For x less than 0.15, the shock
damage is considered to be negligible; for x greater than 0.7, the shock damage is considered to be the
severest [7].
For waterbacked plates, assuming a strain distribution pattern of the target plate similar to that of
airbacked plate [76–78] the semianalytical von Mises stress is given as
s
a
¼
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
3Er
p
P
2
m
x
2=ð1Àx
w
Þ
w
2r
2
w
c
2
w
ð1 ÀnÞ
¸
¸
¸
_
(65a)
or in terms of effective shock factor [77,78]
s
a
¼ 1179x
ew
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
E
ð1 ÀnÞt
¸
(65b)
where x
ew
is the effective shock factor for a waterbacked plate
x
ew
¼ x
1:03
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
h
w
p
(65c)
A comparison of the apex (plate center) von Mises stress developed by the circular plate for various
shock factors is shown in Fig. 6. As expected, waterbacked plates undergo less stress. Furthermore, the
shock wave parameters based and the shock factor based stresses are in good agreement.
5.2.1.1.2. Rectangular geometry. For airbacked plates [76] and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 the semi
analytical von Mises stress is given as
s
a
¼ 0:867
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
14Er
p
P
2
m
x
2=ð1Àx
a
Þ
a
r
2
w
c
2
w
¸
¸
¸
_
(66a)
In terms of effective shock factor [77,78]
s
a
¼ 1584x
1:03
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
h
a
p
ﬃﬃﬃ
E
t
_
(66b)
Numerical and experimental underwater explosion simulations carried out [65] on aluminium plate
of 1 mÂ1 mÂ0.01 m are compared well with Eq. (66).
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 116
For waterbacked plates, assuming a strain distribution pattern of the target plate similar to that of
airbacked plates [76,77]
s
a
¼ 0:867
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
7Er
p
P
2
m
x
2=ð1Àx
w
Þ
w
2r
2
w
c
2
w
¸
¸
¸
_
(67a)
or in terms of effective shock factor [77,78]
s
a
¼ 1584x
1:03
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
h
w
p
ﬃﬃﬃ
E
t
_
(67b)
A comparison of the apex (plate center) von Mises stress developed by the rectangular plate for var
ious shock factors is shown in Fig. 7. A similar trend as for the circular plates is observed.
5.2.1.2. Limiting elastic range. As the intensity of explosion gradually increases, the plate reaches the
limit of the elastic range beyond which it undergoes permanent deformation. For all practical discus
sions here, elastic range limit is assumed to merge with the yield point without appreciable error. Mer
chant cargo vessels and warships are normally made up of mild steels whereas mine sweepers are
made up of austenitic steel (nonmagnetic) and aluminium alloys. For strain rate sensitive materials,
there are static and dynamic yield points, the dynamic yield stress, s
yd
, is higher than the static yield
stress s
y
, and is typically related by the Cowper–Symonds relation:
s
yd
¼ s
y
_
1 þ
_
_ 3
D
_
1=q
_
(68)
where _ 3 is the average strain rate, and D and q are material constants which are given by Jones [36].
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Shock factor (kg
1/2
/m)
0
200
400
600
A
p
e
x
V
o
n
M
i
s
e
s
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
ABPSWPB
ABPSFB
WBPSWPB
WBPSFB
ABPE
Fig. 6. A comparison of the elastic response of air and waterbacked circular plates as a function of shock factor. ABPSWPB: air
backed plate shock wave parameters based; WBPSWPB: waterbacked plate shock wave parameters based; ABPSFB: airbacked plate
shock factor based; WBPSFB: waterbacked plate shock factor based; and ABPE: airbacked plate experiment [76].
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 117
The effective shock factor x
e
remains the same for air and waterbacked plates for generating a spec
iﬁed stress level. The effective shock factor, x
eyc
, required for generating the static yield stress for cir
cular plates is given as [77,78]
x
eyc
¼ 848 Â10
À6
s
ys
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
ð1 ÀnÞt
E
_
(69)
and for rectangular plates as [77,78]
x
eyr
¼ 631 Â10
À6
s
ys
ﬃﬃﬃ
E
t
_
(70)
It was established fromexperiments [79] that the dynamic yielding of mild steel during an underwater
explosion occurs for a stress that is 1.4 times the static yield stress. The average strain rate for defor
mation during the elastic range was 0.5 s
À1
[70]. Therefore, the effective shock factor for circular
and rectangular plates for dynamic yielding of various hull materials is given by multiplying the right
side of Eqs. (69) and (70) by scaling factors (s
d
/s
y
). The Cowper–Symonds equations should be obtained
from dynamic tensile tests on the speciﬁc material being considered. Guideline values are derived by
applying the nominal material constants [36] and the average strain rate for the elastic range limit. The
scaling factors thus obtained are as follows: for mild steel 1.42, for high tensile steel 1.17, for aluminium
alloy 1.09, for atitanium (Ti 50A) 1.54 and for AISI 304 stainless steel 1.59.
A look at Eq. (64d) shows that a range of charge quantity and stand off combination is possible for
generating the desired shock factor. The charge quantity in kg and stand off in m required to generate
the shock factor for the given time constant are obtained from Eqs. (16) and (64d) as [80]
W ¼
_
x
0:445
_
0:5946
_
q
96:5 Â10
À6
_
2:7026
(71)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Shock factor (kg
1/2
/m)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
A
p
e
x
V
o
n
M
i
s
e
s
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
ABPSWPB
ABPSFB
WBPSWPB
WBPSFB
ABPE
Fig. 7. A comparison of the elastic response of air and waterbacked rectangular plates as a function of shock factor. ABPSWPB: air
backed plate shock wave parameters based; WBPSWPB: waterbacked plate shock wave parameters based; ABPSFB: airbacked plate
shock factor based; WBPSFB: waterbacked plate shock factor based; and ABPE: airbacked plate experiment [76].
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 118
S ¼
_
0:445
x
_
0:7027
_
q
96:5 Â10
À6
_
1:3513
(72)
5.2.1.3. Plastic deformation. When the effective shock factor exceeds the dynamic yield value, the plate
undergoes permanent deformation. The extent of permanent deformation is indicated by the central
deﬂection of the exploded plates and is proportional to the impulse imparted to the plate [3]. For
the underwater explosion of the airbacked plates based on the free ﬁeld impulse [81,82] the empirical
relationship is given as [81,82]
_
d
t
_
c
¼ 0:541F
c
À0:433 (73)
The variation of the deﬂectionthickness ratio as a function of the dimensionless parameter F
c
for cir
cular plates is shown in Fig. 8. A comparison of Eqs. (57), (59a), (59b) and (73) with experimental data
showed good agreement [80]. Eq. (59a) over predicts because strain rate effects are not accounted for.
For airbacked rectangular plates the empirical prediction is given as [80]
_
d
t
_
r
¼ 0:553F
r
þ0:741 (74)
The variation of the deﬂectionthickness ratio as a function of the dimensionless parameter, F
r
, for rect
angular plates is shown in Fig. 9. Acomparison of Eqs. (58), (60a), (60e) and (74) with experimental data
showed good agreement [80]. Eq. (60a) over predicts because strain rate effects are not accounted for.
Eqs. (73) and (74) assume that the total deﬂection caused by the impulse due to primary and the
reloading shock waves on the plate is equal to the deﬂection caused by the free ﬁeld impulse.
0 10 20 30 40
0
10
20
30
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
r
a
t
i
o
Circular plates
Nurick & Martin Equation (57)
Jones Equation (59a)
Jones Equation (59b)
Rajendran & Narsimhan Equation (73)
Experimental (Ref [81])
Fig. 8. Variation of deﬂectionthickness ratio of circular plates with the dimensionless parameter F.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 119
For waterbacked plates cavitation does not occur [7]. However, there will be shock loading on the
waterbacked plate due to the gas bubble pulse. The total impulse for waterbacked plates for the in
teraction of the primary shock pulse is given as
I
pt
¼ V
mw
Atr
p
(75)
fromwhich dimensionless parameters are obtained for waterbacked plates to calculate the central de
ﬂection. A photographic view of a rectangular steel plate that underwent mode I (inelastic deforma
tion) is shown in Fig. 10.
0 10 20 30 40
0
5
10
15
20
25
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
r
a
t
i
o
Rectangular plates
Nurick & Martin Equation (58)
Jones Equation (60a)
Jones Equation (60e)
Rajendran & Narasimhan
Equation (74)
Experimental (Ref [81])
Fig. 9. Variation of deﬂectionthickness ratio of rectangular plates (b ¼5/6) with the dimensionless parameter F.
Fig. 10. Photographic view of an underwater exploded plate that underwent mode I failure.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 120
5.2.2. Contact underwater explosion
In underwater explosion scenario, contact underwater explosion where the explosive comes in di
rect contact with the plate during the detonation process is equivalent to localized blast loading. The
physics of the contact underwater explosion phenomena is not yet well understood. However, it is of
great relevance to the naval warfare because underwater weapons for attacking the subsurface vessels
are so designed that they detonate on impact with the target. Keil [50] reported that the early work on
contact explosion damage of ships was carried out by the Japanese imperial navy on the discarded ship.
Experiments carried out by Keil [7] ruled out the depth of submergence on the damage of plates. Keil
[7] described that there is a deﬁnite relation between the radius, R, of the hole that is being bored by an
explosive quantity, W, during contact with a plate of thickness t.
R ¼ 0:0704
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
W
t
_
(76)
where R and t are in m and W is in kg. The boundary conditions were, however, not speciﬁed for this
empirical relationship. This relation is valid only above a certain charge quantity since a minimum
quantity of explosive is required for making a hole in the plate of speciﬁed thickness. The critical charge
weight, W
cri
, above which Eq. (76) is valid is given by [7]
W
cri
¼ 2:72t (77)
An analytical prediction for the radius of the hole that is bored on a clamped circular plate is given by
Rajendran and Narasimhan [83]
R ¼
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
2hWEq
TNT
E
TNT
J
pts
y
3
f
¸
(78)
A comparison of the radius of the crack by Wierzibicki [68], Keil [7] and Rajendran et al. [82] is pre
sented in Fig. 11. The model proposed by Wierzbicki [68] for localized air blast impact under predicts
for smaller charges and over predicts as the charge quantity increases beyond 20 g for localized under
water explosion in comparison with the prediction methodologies by Keil [7] and Rajendran and Nar
asimhan [83]. A photographic view of a circular plate that underwent contact underwater explosion is
shown in Fig. 12.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
TNT explosive quantity (g)
C
r
a
c
k
l
e
n
g
t
h
(
m
)
Equation (63)
Equation (76)
Equation (78)
Fig. 11. The variation of the plate crack length that is subjected to localized blast as a function of explosive charge quantity. Plate
thickness ¼1.6 mm; strain to rupture ¼0.3; ﬂow stress ¼330 MPa.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 121
6. Fracture
Mode I deformation of the plates under explosive loading continues with the increasing intensity of
the explosion. The moment the total strain at any point at the edge of the plate attains its rupture
strain, tensile tearing or fracture (mode II failure) occurs. A photographic viewof a steel plate that failed
in tensile tearing is shown in Fig. 13.
Lee and Wierzbicki [69] proposed that facture initiates at the critical point of a structure when the
accumulated equivalent plastic strain with suitable weighting function reaches a critical value. Rajen
dran and Narasimhan [83] equated equivalent plastic strain of thin plates to their uniaxial fracture
strain as fracture criterion. Balden and Nurick [84] proposed that fracture occurs when the summation
of the ratio of the incremental effective plastic strain to the failure strain becomes equal to one. The
failure strain is a function of mean stress, strain rate and temperature. Langdon and Schleyer [64]
equated the total strain to cause tearing at the outer ﬁbres of a rectangular crosssection beam to
the sumof the membrane strain and the strain due to the curvature. The interaction of mode II fracture
and mode III (shear) fracture is brought out by Rudhrapatna et al. [58,59].
Fig. 12. Photographic view of petalling of a steel plate during contact underwater explosion.
Fig. 13. Photographic view of an underwater exploded plate that underwent mode II failure (tensile tearing).
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 122
The ability of the hull structure to withstand large plastic deformation before fracture is a major cri
terion in naval structural design [85]. Explosion Bulge Test (EBT) has been used as the ﬁnal qualiﬁcation
test to verify the dynamic plasticity of defence structural materials [86]. Explosive loading promotes
brittle fracture due to high strain rate inﬂuence of material ﬂow properties. EBT has been developed
by Hartbower and Pellini [87,88] to investigate the response of steel weldments to air blast. MIL
STD2149A [89] formulated by the U.S. Navy recommends air blast as the source of energy to evaluate
the resistance of base materials and weldments to fracture under shock loading. It also recommends
repetitive loading on the test plate with a reduction in thickness in each shot until ﬁnal strain to frac
ture. Underwater EBT was developed by Sumpter [90] and Porter et al. [91] to minimize the charge
quantity and environmental noise nuisance. Sumpter [92] formulated pass/fail criterion for cracked
plates subjected to shock load. Fracture resistance of metal plates loaded into plastic regime by non
contact underwater explosion was reported by Gifford et al. [93,94].
7. Numerical methods
Elastic response of blast loaded plates was carried out by Veldman et al. [1] using ANSYS. The non
linear ﬁnite element analysis accounted for large deformation effects but neglected strain rate effects.
Pressure–time history was modeled as decaying exponential function based on experimental data. The
slight negative phase of the shock wave and round reﬂection peak that were present during the exper
iment were ignored. Numerical simulation and experiments showed good correlation to within 5.5%
for the plate central displacement. Jacinto et al. [13] performed numerical elastic analysis using ABA
QUS/standard 5.7. The plate was modeled using shell element. The boundary conditions were consid
ered as perfectly clamped. Dynamic analysis was performed using modal superposition and direct
integration method. Pressure–time history was input from the experiment. It was brought out that
the number of vibration modes was important because blast load excites high frequencies. The element
size of the model should agree with the quantity of modes. More reﬁned mesh captured high frequency
with less error.
Circular plate clamped at its edge and subjected to uniform blast load was simulated by Balden and
Nurick [84] using ABAQUS. A frictional contact was prescribed between upper and lower plate surfaces
and corresponding plate surfaces. The friction coefﬁcient was assumed to be 0.3. The bolt array was
simulated with single elastic spring having spring stiffness based on the axial elastic response of the
bolt array, acting between upper and lower ﬂanges. The bolt array preload was calculated using the as
sumed bolt tightening torque and applied as load during the analysis. Uniform blast pressure was dis
tributed over the entire exposed surface of the plate. The blast pressure was obtained by dividing the
impulse with the burn time of the explosive. von Mises plasticity with isotropic hardening/softening
behaviour together with strain rate sensitivity using Cowper–Symonds relationship was applied.
The hardening curve was linearly changed in magnitude based on the change in yield stress at various
temperatures. The variation of elastic response with reference to temperature was accounted for by
providing the variation of Young’s modulus of the material with temperature. Element failure criterion
was ﬁxed as 200% failure strain and on nodal temperature. Comparison of experimental and numerical
predictions of input energy for uniform blast loading was good. Veldman et al. [1] used ANSYS/
LS_DYNA–Release 7.1 for modeling the inelastic deformation of rectangular plates. The plate was mod
eled as fournode quadrilateral explicit thin shell elements ignoring strain rate effects. Bilinear isotro
pic plasticity was assumed. Pressure–time history was modeled as decaying exponential function
based on experimental data. The negative phase of the pressure pulse and the small ground reﬂection
were neglected. An agreement to within 5.3% was seen between numerical and experimental results.
Explicit ﬁnite element code DYNA3D was adopted by Pan and Louca [95] to model the response of
a plate to gas explosion. Reactiontime history of the support assembly was compared with experimen
tally obtained and ABAQUS/Explicit results to simulate the exact boundary conditions. Four noded thin
shell elements were used to model the frame–plate assembly. Pinned boundary condition was applied
to the outside part of the lower side of the specimen frame. To simulate the slip in bolt connections and
possible inplane movement of the test rig, beam elements were used. Good comparison was seen be
tween predicted and measured peak displacement.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 123
A detailed coupled ﬂuid–structure interaction that is applied for underwater shock loading is pre
sented in Section 4.2. LSDYNA and Underwater Shock Analysis (USA) codes were used by Shin [45] for
nonlinear structural analysis of a ship model that is subjected to an underwater explosion. Doubly as
ymptotic approximation (DAA) that is used for the ﬂuid–structure interaction eliminates the need for
modeling the surrounding ﬂuid volume by covering the wet surface of the structure with DAA boundary
elements. The ﬂuid element thickness, t
f
, in the direction normal to the wetted surface is deﬁned as [45]
2r
w
t
f
r
p
t
5 (79)
Velocity and acceleration response prediction by Shin [45] of a ship model using LSDYNA and USA
gave good comparison with shock test data
8. Conclusions
This paper brought out a detailed review of the phenomena of air and underwater explosions and
their effects on plane plates. The process of detonation of the explosive is marked by the generation of
large amount of heat with the associated pressure at a short interval. The shock wave parameters that
are signiﬁcant for an air blast are the peak overpressure and the impulse. For an underwater explosion,
the peak overpressure, time constant, free ﬁeld impulse and energy are the four vital parameters that
are considered for the damage process.
By and large, interest is shown on the plastic damage of plates that are subjected to an air blast. For
a generated pressure–time history on a plate, a simple single degree of freedom (SDOF) system, or as
sumed modes method or numerical method is applied to derive the plate response.
When rectangular air blast pressure–time history is imparted, with the magnitude of the pressure
more than 10 times that of static collapse pressure of the plate, analytical and empirical methods are
employed to obtain the central plastic deﬂection with the measured impulse on the plate as input. For
performing numerical analysis, the impulse is divided by the burn time of the explosive to get the pres
sure magnitude.
For underwater explosion, from the threat perception and survivability point of view, both elastic
and plastic responses are of interest. Methods of evaluating the elastic stresses and the limiting elastic
range are presented for a mild intensity explosion. Empirical methods are presented for predicting the
plastic central deﬂection for a severe explosion.
Localized blast leads to petalling of the plate. Analytical methods are available to compute the crack
length. Methods developed by Keil [7] and Rajendran and Narasimhan [83] for underwater explosion
are compared against the methodology developed by Wierzbicki [68] for air blast.
Various methods of numerical simulation of a plate that undergoes air blast, gas explosion and un
derwater explosion are brought out comparing their predictive accuracy with experimental results.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Advanced Ship Engineering Research Centre (ASERC) of Pusan
National University, Republic of Korea, as part of its research program.
References
[1] Veldman RL, AriGur J, Clum C, DeYong A, Folkert J. Effect of prepressurization on blast response of clamped aluminium
plates. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2006;32(10):1678–95.
[2] Fox EN. A review of underwater explosion phenomena. Compendium of Underwater Explosion Research, ONR 1947;1:
1–83.
[3] Cole RH. Underwater explosions. New York: Dover Publications Inc.; 1948.
[4] Keshawarz MH, Pouretedal HR. An empirical method for predicting detonation pressure of CHNOFCl explosives. Thermo
chimica Acta 2004;414:203–8.
[5] Keshawarz MH, Nazari HR. A simple method to assess detonation temperature without using any experimental data and
computer code. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2006;133(1–3):129–34.
[6] Keshawarz MH. Detonation velocity of pure and mixed CHNO explosives at maximum nominal density. Journal of Hazard
ous Materials 2007;141(3):536–9.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 124
[7] Keil. Introduction to underwater explosion research. Portsmouth, Virginia: UERD, Norfolk Naval Shipyard; 1956.
[8] Alia A, Souli M. High explosive simulation using multimaterial formulations. Applied Thermal Engineering 2006;26:
1032–42.
[9] Clutter JK, Stahl M. Hydrocode simulations of air and water shocks for facility vulnerability assessments. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 2004;106(1):9–24.
[10] Kinnery GF, Graham KJ. Explosive shocks in air. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1985.
[11] Formby SA, Wharton RK. Blast characteristics and TNT equivalence values for some commercial explosives detonated at
ground level. Journal of Hazardous Materials 1996;50(2–3):183–98.
[12] Glasstone S, Dolan PJ. Effects of nuclear weapons. Washington, DC: US Department of Defence and the Energy Research
and Development Administration; 1977.
[13] Jacinto AC, Abrosini RD, Danesi RF. Experimental and computational analysis of plates under air blast loading. Interna
tional Journal of Impact Engineering 2001;25(10):927–47.
[14] Alonso FD, Ferradas EG, Perez SJF, Gimeno JR, Alonso JM. Characteristic overpressure–impulse–distance curves for the det
onation of explosives, pyrotechnics or unstable substances. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2006;
19(6):724–8.
[15] Bjerketvedt D, Bakke JR, Wingerden KV. Gas explosion handbook. Journal of Hazardous Materials 1997;52:1–150.
[16] Bjorno L, Levin P. Underwater explosion research using small amount of chemical explosives. Ultrasonics 1976:263–7.
[17] Luccioni B, Ambrosini D. Blast load assessment using hydrocodes. In: Larreteguy A, editor. Mechanica Computational, vol.
XXIV; 2005. p. 329–44. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
[18] Florence AL. Circular plates under a uniformly distributed impulse. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1966;
2(1):37–47.
[19] Wierzbicki T, Florence AL. A theoretical and experimental investigation of impulsively loaded clamped circular viscoplastic
plates. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1970;6:553–68.
[20] Batra RC, Dube RN. Impulsively loaded circular plates. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1971;7(8):965–78.
[21] Bodner SR, Symonds PS. Experiments on viscoplastic response of circular plates to impulsive loading. Journal of Mechanics
and Physics of Solids 1979;27(2):91–113.
[22] Idczak W, Rymarz Cz, Spychala A. Studies on shockwave loaded circular plates. Journal of Technical Physics 1981;22(2):
175–84.
[23] Nurick GN. A new technique to measure the deﬂectiontime history of a structure subjected to high strain rates. Interna
tional Journal of Impact Engineering 1985;3(1):17–26.
[24] Nurick GN. Using photo voltaic diodes to measure the deformation response of a structure subjected to an explosive load,
SPIE. Highspeed Photography 1986;674:215–25.
[25] Nurick GN. The measurement of deformation response of a structure subjected to an explosive load using light interfer
ence technique. In: Proceedings of 1986 SEM spring conference on experimental mechanics. The Society of Experimental
Mechanics Inc.; 1986. p. 105–14.
[26] Nurick GN, Pearce HT, Martin JB. Predictions of transverse deﬂections and inplane strains in impulsively loaded thin
plates. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 1987;29(6):435–42.
[27] Nurick GN, Martin JB. Deformation of thin plates subjected to impulsive loadinga review. PartI: theoretical consider
ations. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1989;8(2):159–69.
[28] Nurick GN, Martin JB. Deformation of thin plates subjected to impulsive loadinga review. PartII: experimental studies.
International Journal of Impact Engineering 1989;8(2):171–86.
[29] TeelingSmith RG, Nurick GN. The deformation and tearing of thin circular plates subjected to impulsive loads. Interna
tional Journal of Impact Engineering 1991;11(1):77–91.
[30] Olson MD, Nurick GN, Fagnan JR. Deformation and rupture of blast loaded square plates – predictions and experiments.
International Journal of Impact Engineering 1993;13(2):279–91.
[31] Nurick GN, Olson MD, Fagnan JR, Levin A. Deformation and tearing of blastloaded stiffened square plates. International
Journal of Impact Engineering 1995;16(2):273–91.
[32] Nurick GN, Gelman ME, Marshall NS. Tearing of blast loaded plates with clamped boundary conditions. International Jour
nal of Impact Engineering 1996;7–8:803–27.
[33] Worznica K, Pennetier O, Renard J. Experimental and numerical simulations on thin metallic plates subjected to explo
sions. Journal of Engineering and Materials Technology 2001;123(2):203–9.
[34] Langdon GS, Cantwell WJ, Nurick GN. The blast response of novel thermoplasticbased ﬁbremetal laminates – some pre
liminary results and observations. Composites Science and Technology 2005;65(6):861–72.
[35] Gupta NK, Nagesh. Deformation and tearing of circular plates with varying support conditions under uniform impulsive
loads. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2007;34(1):42–59.
[36] Jones N. Structural impact. Cambridge University Press; 1989.
[37] Park BW, Cho SR. Simple design formulae for predicting the residual damage of unstiffened and stiffened plates under
explosion loadings. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2006;32(10):1721–36.
[38] Yuen SCY, Nurick GN. Experimental and numerical studies on the response of quadrangular stiffened plates. Part I:
subjected to uniform blast load. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2005;31(1):55–83.
[39] Schleyer GK, Lowak MJ, Polcyn MA, Langdon GS. Experimental investigation of blast wall panels under shock pressure
loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2007;42(6):1095–118.
[40] Stoffel M, Schmidt R, Weichert D. Shock waveloaded plates. International Journal of Solids and Structures
2001;38(42–43):7659–80.
[41] Stoffel M. Sensitivity of simulations depending upon material parameter variations. Mechanics Research Communications
2005;32(3):332–6.
[42] Stoffel M. An experimental method to validate viscoplastic constitutive equations in the dynamic response of plates.
Mechanics of Materials 2005;37(12):1210–22.
[43] Stoffel M. An experimental method for measuring the buckling shapes of thinwalled structures. Thinwalled Structures
2006;44(1):69–73.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 125
[44] Stoffel M. Shape forming of shock wave loaded viscoplastic plates. Mechanics Research Communications 2006;33(1):
35–41.
[45] Shin YS. Ship shock modeling and simulation for far ﬁeld explosion. Computers and Structures 2004;82(23–26):2211–9.
[46] Makinen K. Cavitation models for structures excited by a plane shock wave. Journal of Fluids and Structures 1998;12(1):
85–101.
[47] Makinen K. The transverse response of sandwich panels to an underwater shock wave. Journal of Fluids and Structures
1999;13(5):631–46.
[48] Liang CC, Tai YS. Shock response of a surface ship subjected to noncontact underwater explosions. Ocean Engineering
2006;33(5–6):748–72.
[49] Gong SW, Lam KY, Lu C. Structural analysis of a submarine pipeline subjected to underwater shock. International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping 2000;77(7):417–23.
[50] Keil AH. The response of ships to underwater explosions. Transactions of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
1961;69:366–410.
[51] Kennard AH. The effect of pressure wave on a plate diaphragm. Compendium of Underwater Explosion Research, ONR
1944;3:11–64.
[52] Taylor GI. The pressure and impulse of submarine explosion waves on plates. Compendium of Underwater Explosion
Research, ONR 1941;1:1155–74.
[53] Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. Onedimensional response of sandwich plates to underwater shock loading. Journal of Mechan
ics and Physics of Solids 2005;53(11):2347–83.
[54] Xue Z, Hutchinson JW. A comparative study of impulse resistant metal sandwich plates. International Journal of Impact
Engineering 2004;30(10):1283–305.
[55] Ezra AA. Principles and practice of explosive metal working, Part I, Industrial Newspapers Ltd.. Adelphi, London, WC2N
6JH: John Adams House; 1973.
[56] Biggs JM. Introduction to structural dynamics. New York: McGrawHill; 1964.
[57] Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures. New York: McGrawHill; 1975.
[58] Rudhrapatna RS, Vaziri R, Olson MD. Deformation and failure of blast loaded square plates. International Journal of Impact
Engineering 1999;22(4):449–67.
[59] Rudhrapatna RS, Vaziri R, Olson MD. Deformation and failure of blast loaded stiffened plates. International Journal of Im
pact Engineering 2000;24(5):457–74.
[60] Ma GW, Shi HJ, Shu DW. P–I diagram method for combined failure modes of rigidplastic beams. International Journal of
Impact Engineering 2007;34(6):1081–94.
[61] Baker WR, Cox PA, Westine PS, Kulesz JJ, Strehlow RA. Explosion hazards and evaluation. New York: Elsevier Scientiﬁc Pub
lishing Company; 1983.
[62] Craig RR. Structural dynamics. New York: Wiley; 1981. pp. 251–261.
[63] Schleyer GK, Hsu SS, White MD, Birch RS. Pulse pressure loading of clamped mild steel plates. International Journal of Im
pact Engineering 2003;28(2):223–47.
[64] Langdon GS, Schleyer GK. Inelastic deformation and failure of clamped aluminium plates under pulse pressure loading.
International Journal of Impact Engineering 2003;28(10):1107–27.
[65] Xue Z, Hutchinson JW. Preliminary assessment of sandwich plates subject to blast loads. International Journal of Mechan
ical Sciences 2003;45(4):687–705.
[66] Johnson W. Impact strength of materials. London: Edward Arnold; 1972.
[67] Nurick GN. An empirical solution for predicting the maximum central deﬂection of impulsively loaded plates. In: Interna
tional conference on mechanical properties of materials at high rates of strain. Oxford: Institute of Physics Society; 1989. p.
457–63. No.12, Session: 9.
[68] Wierzbicki T. Petalling of plates under explosive and impact loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1999;
22(9–10):935–54.
[69] Lee YW, Wierzbicki T. Fracture prediction of thin plates under localized impulse loading. PartI: dishing. International Jour
nal of Impact Engineering 2005;31(10):1253–76.
[70] Lee YW, Wierzbicki T. Fracture prediction of thin plates under localized impulse loading. PartII: discing and petalling. In
ternational Journal of Impact Engineering 2005;31(10):1277–308.
[71] Wierzbicki T, Nurick GN. Large deformation of thin plates under localized impulse loading. International Journal of Impact
Engineering 1996;18(7–8):899–918.
[72] Nurick GN, Radford AM. Deformation and tearing of clamped circular plates subjected to localised central blast loads. In:
Reddy BD, editor. Recent developments in computational and applied mechanics, A volume in honour of J.B.Martin; 1997.
p. 276–301.
[73] Jacob N, Yuen CH, Nurick GN, Bonorchis D, Desai SA, Tait D. Scaling aspects of quadrangular plates subjected to localised
blast loads – experiments and predictions. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2004;30(7–8):1179–208.
[74] Hung CF, Hsu PY, Fuu JJH. Elastic shock response of an airbacked plate to underwater explosion. International Journal of
Impact Engineering 2005;31(2):151–68.
[75] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Underwater shock response of circular HSLA steel plates. Shock and Vibration 2000;7:251–62.
[76] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Linear elastic shock response of plane plates subjected to underwater explosion. International
Journal of Impact Engineering 2001;25(5):493–506.
[77] Rajendran R, Paik JK, Kim BJ. Design of warship plates against underwater explosions. Ships and Offshore Structures 2006;
1(4):347–56.
[78] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. A shock factor based approach for the damage assessment of plane plates subjected to un
derwater explosions. Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design 2006;41(6):417–25.
[79] Rajendran R. Response of thin HSLA steel plates to underwater explosive shock loading. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay, Mumbai, India; 2001.
[80] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Deformation and fracture behaviour of plate specimens subjected to underwater explosion –
a review. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2006;32(12):1945–63.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 126
[81] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Performance evaluation of HSLA steel subjected to underwater explosion. Journal of Materials
Engineering and Performance 2001;10(1):66–74.
[82] Rajendran R, Paik JK, Lee JM. Of underwater explosion experiments on plane plates. Experimental Techniques 2007;31(1):
18–24.
[83] Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Damage prediction of clamped circular plates subjected to contact underwater explosion. In
ternational Journal of Impact Engineering 2001;25(4):373–86.
[84] Balden VH, Nurick GN. Numerical simulation of the postfailure motion of steel plates subjected to blast loading. Interna
tional Journal of Impact Engineering 2005;32(1–4):14–34.
[85] Sumpter JDG. Design against fracture in welded joints. In: Smith CS, Clarke JD, editors. Advances in marine structures.
Elsevier Applied Science Publishers; 1986. p. 326–46.
[86] Porter JF. Response of SMA and narrow gap SMA weldments to explosive shock. Technical Memorandum 88/206, DREA,
Atlantic, Canada; 1988.
[87] Hartbower CE, Pellini WS. Explosion bulge test studies on deformation of weldments. Welding Journal 1951:307s–18s.
[88] Hartbower CE, Pellini WS. Investigation factors which determine the performance of weldments. Welding Journal 1951:
499s–511s.
[89] U.S. Navy. Standard procedure for explosion bulge testing of ferrous and nonferrous metallic materials and weldments.
MILSTD2149A (SH); 1990.
[90] Sumpter JDG. Prediction of critical crack size in plastically strained weld panels. ASTMSTP995; 1989. p. 415–432.
[91] Porter JF, Morehouse DO. Development of the DREA underwater single shot explosion bulge procedure. In Canadian frac
ture conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia; 1990.
[92] Sumpter JDG. Design against fracture in welded joints. Journal of Naval Science 1987;13(4):258–70.
[93] Gifford LN, Dally JW. Fracture resistance of metal structures loaded into plastic regime. In: Smith CS, Dow RS, editors. Ad
vances in marine structures2. Elsevier Applied Science; 1991. p. 23–41.
[94] Gifford LN, Carlberg JR, Wiggs AJ, Sickles JB. Explosive testing of full thickness precracked weldments. In: Gudas JP,
Joyce JA, Huckett EM, editors. Fracture mechanics twenty ﬁrst symposium, ASTMSTP1074. Philadelphia: ASTM; 1990.
p. 157–77.
[95] Pan Y, Louca LA. Experimental and numerical studies on the response of stiffened plates subjected to gas explosions. Jour
nal of Constructional Steel Research 1999;52(2):171–93.
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 127
100
R. Rajendran, J.M. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127
Nomenclature A B, R1, R2, ac C ca cp csa cw D E Ep EqTNT Es ETNT F F(t) G I It JWL K k M m n Pm Po p pi q re S S0 T t tc td tf U V Vm v vi vs area of the plate (m2)/explosive constant U explosive constants crack length (m) structural damping matrix ambient speed of sound in air (m/s) peak wind velocity behind the shock front (m/s)/plastic wave speed of the plate material (m/s) velocity of shock wave in air (m/s) velocity of sound in water (m/s) material constant Young’s modulus of the plate material shock energy transferred to the plate per unit area (J/m2) TNT equivalent of the explosive energy of the shock wave per unit area (J/m2) energy of TNT explosive (J) peak load on the plate (N) timedependent load on the plate (N) matrix relating structural degrees of freedom to the ﬂuid impulse per unit area (N s/m2) total impulse (N s) Jones–Wilkins–Lee structural stiffness matrix stiffness of the plate (N/m) structural mass matrix mass per unit area of the plate (kg/m2) material parameter peak pressure/peak overpressure (MPa) atmospheric pressure (MPa) exponent of powertype strain law/pressure (MPa) incident pressure (MPa) dynamic pressure (MPa)/material constant radius of the explosive (m) stand off (m) scaled distance (m/m) kinetic energy of the plate (J) time (s)/thickness (m) cavitation time (m/s) positive duration of the blast wave (s) thickness of the ﬂuid element (m) internal energy of the explosive per unit volume (J/m3) volume (m3)/impact velocity (m/s) maximum velocity attained by the plate (m/s) velocity of the water particle behind the shock front (m/s) incident water particle velocity (m/s) scattered ﬂuid particle velocity (m/s)
Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 101 W x a aj b d 3f F h hm n q r ro rp rw so su sy syd s x xe j z TNT equivalent of the explosive charge quantity (kg)/work imparted to the plate structure (J) lateral displacement of the plate (m) waveform parameter Johnson’s damage number aspect ratio central plastic deﬂection of the plate (m) uniaxial fracture strain (m/m) dimensionless number coupling factor moment ampliﬁcation factor Poisson’s ratio time constant of the underwater shock wave (s)/half angle of the petal ( ) density of air behind the shock front (kg/m3) ambient density of air (kg/m3) density of the plate material (kg/m3) density of water (kg/m3) ﬂow stress of the material (MPa) ultimate stress (MPa) static yield stress (MPa) dynamic yield stress (MPa) burn time (s) shock factor (kg0. (3) the interaction of the shock wave with the plate and (4) the response of the plate to the input shock loading. J. Therefore.R. As elucidated in the preceding paragraph. . plates form one of the basic elements of the structures. The plate between the stiffeners is therefore considered as a ﬂat plate [2].515/m1. studying the blast response of plates helps understanding and improving their blast resistance. The topic can be broadly categorized into (1) the detonation process or the rapid chemical reaction of the explosive. These four aspects are brought out in this review with an attempt to gain greater insight into the blast damage phenomenon. (2) the shock wave propagation in the medium in which detonation takes place. The motivation for this review arises from the primary concern for the design of plated structures against blast load. Rajendran. The curvature of the ship plating is small and it is supported by welded longitudinal and transverse stiffeners at its edges.5/m) effective shock factor (kg0.03) inverse mass number (kg/kg) knockdown factor Subscripts a airbacked plate c circular plate cr critical m maximum p plate r rectangular plate t total w waterbacked plate y yield approximated as ﬂat plates [1].M.
Once the process of detonation is completed.1. The relations between the shock wave parameters and the charge quantity and stand off for both air blast and underwater blast are empirically formulated and veriﬁed with a number of experiments. the temperature and the ambient pressure. J.000 MPa. R1. the positive duration and impulse with respect to the scaled distance. Air blast A schematic of the blast wave is shown in Fig. The explosion process is divided into two parts: (1) the detonation process and (2) the interaction process between the product gases and the surrounding medium (air in atmosphere and water in underwater). While air is compressible water is considered as incompressible. 3. the detonation temperature [5] is 3720 K and the detonation velocity [6] is 6950 m/s. The explosion process The explosion is a rapid chemical reaction in a substance.102 R. The shock wave propagation Signiﬁcant contrast exists in the wave propagation phenomena between the air and the water media due to (1) their different physical properties and (2) the interface phenomena between the explosive product gases and the surrounding medium [9]. B. the Chapman–Jouguet (C–J) detonation pressure [4] is 21. the interaction of the product gases with the surrounding medium takes place. 3. pJWL is the pressure. During the detonation process. R2and U are constants [8]. This higher velocity levels off rapidly and attains a velocity that is only 20% higher than the sound velocity at a distance that is ﬁve times the charge radius after which the pressure wave falls to the sound velocity at around 20 times the charge radius and propagates at that constant velocity. the density. An explosion of higher yield . the temperature of detonation [5] and the detonation velocity [6]. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 2. the shock wave moves with the gas–air interface [8]. Uin Þ ¼ A 1 À R1 V R2 V V (1) where A. the second term is inﬂuential for V close to 2 and last term corresponds to the expanded state. Both air and water are treated as inviscid. The most commonly used EOS to describe the state of detonation products is Jones–Wilkins–Lee (JWL). The product gases with high pressure and temperature expand outward by generating a pressure wave. Typically for an explosive (TNT) with a density of 1650 kg/m3. The sound velocity increases with temperature.25 kg/m3 and the density of water is 1000 kg/m3 (approximately 800 times the density of air). The negative phase of the blast wave is generally ignored. The gaseous products are assumed to be inviscid at this high temperature and thus the viscous forces are not considered for the explosive modeling. 1. The ﬁrst term in JWL equation known as the highpressure term dominates ﬁrst for V close to one. The parameters of interest for the damage process are the peak overpressure (that is the pressure above the atmospheric pressure). which is given as [8] U U U eðÀR1 VÞ þ B 1 À eðÀR2 VÞ þ Ein pJWL ðV. The velocity of sound in water is 1483 m/s (approximately 4.36 times the velocity of sound in air at sea level). pressure and volume is essential for the numerical modeling of the detonation process. An equation of state (EOS) of the explosive relating energy. V is relative the volume compared to the initial volume of the explosive and Uin is the internal energy per unit volume. a detonation wave generates and propagates in the explosive. In the water medium. In air explosion. The density of air at sea level is 1. The shock wave has an instantaneous rise and an exponential fall [10]. which converts the original material into a gas at very high temperature and pressure evolving large amount of heat (4389 kJ/kg of trinitrotoluene (TNT) explosive) [3]. The gas bubble expands at a velocity that is much slower than the pressure pulse. The parameters that are used to assess the detonation performance of an explosive are the Chapman–Jouguet (C–J) detonation pressure [4].M. an instantaneous compression of the water surrounding the gas emits a pressure pulse that propagates into water with a velocity that is three times higher than the velocity of sound in water [7]. The velocity of sound in air at sea level is 340 m/s. Rajendran. the compressibility. The physical properties that matter for the propagating medium are the velocity of sound.
The duration of the overpressure phase increases with the energy of the explosive yield and the distance from the explosion. the velocity of the blast wave approaches the ambient speed of sound. t is the instantaneous time. the peak overpressure is expressed as [10] h À S0 2 i 808 1 þ 4:5 Pm =Po ¼ rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃrﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃrﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 0 2 0 2 0 2 S S S 1 þ 0:32 1 þ 1:35 1 þ 0:048 and for nuclear explosions [10] 6 0À3 (3a) Pm =Po ¼ 3:2 Â 10 S sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 0 0 ! S S 1þ 1þ 87 800 (3b) The scaled distance S0 is given as [11–13] S0 ¼ S W 1=3 (4) where S is the stand off from the explosion in m and W is the TNT equivalent of the explosive charge weight in kg. A schematic of the blast wave. The higher the overpressure at the shock front the greater is the velocity of the shock wave. 1. will arrive at a point sooner than an explosion of lower yield. td is the positive duration of the pressure pulse and a is called waveform parameter that depends upon the peak overpressure Pm of the shock wave. The instantaneous pressure p(t) of the positive phase of an ideal air blast wave is given by the Friedlander equation as [10] pðtÞ ¼ Po þ Pm 1 À ! t eÀat=td td (2) where Po is the ambient pressure. the pressure at the shock front decreases and the velocity falls of accordingly. For chemical explosions. The time of arrival of the shock wave ta for a radial distance r from an explosive radius of radius re is given as [10] . Rajendran. As the blast wave progresses outward.R. At long ranges.M. when the overpressure decreases to 7 kPa. J. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 103 Peak overpressure p(t) Ambient pressure Positive phase duration Negative phase duration Fig. The waveform parameter a is regarded as an adjustable parameter which is selected so that the overpressure–time relationships provide suitable values of the blast impulse.
r.104 R. of the air behind the shock front is related to the ambient density ro as [12] r=ro ¼ 7 þ 6Pm =Po 7 þ Pm =Po (9) The dynamic pressure q. Rajendran.000 (6b) The shock wave velocity csa is expressed as [12] 6Pm 1=2 csa ¼ ca 1 þ Po (7) where ca is the ambient speed of sound. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 1 ta ¼ ca Z r" re 1 1 þ 6Pm 7Po #1=2 dr (5) The duration of the shock pulse td for the chemical explosion in ms is [10] td ¼ h W 1=3 h 0 10 i S 980 1 þ 0:54 0 6 irﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 0 3 ih 0 2 S S S 1 þ 0:74 1 þ 0:02 1 þ 6:9 (6a) For a nuclear explosion [10] h 0 3 i S 180 1 þ 100 td ¼ rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃsﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 0 5 rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 06 0 W 1=3 6 S S S 1 þ 285 1 þ 40 1 þ 50. which is the kinetic energy per unit volume of air immediately behind the shock front. is given as [12] q ¼ 2 5 Pm 2 7Po þ Pm (10) The peak overpressure Pm in MPa is given as [14] Pm ¼ 1:13S0ðÀ2:1Þ for 1 S0 10 S0 200 (11a) (11b) Pm ¼ 0:183S0ðÀ1:16Þ for 10 where S is in m.M. cp (or peak wind velocity behind the shock front) is given as [12] cp ¼ 5Pm ca 7Po ð1 þ 6Pm =7Po Þ1=2 (8) The density. The impulse of the shock wave I in N s/m2 is given as [14] I ¼ 203S0ðÀ0:91Þ I ¼ 335S0ðÀ1:06Þ and also as [10] for 1 for 10 S0 S0 10 200 (12a) (12b) . The particle velocity. J.
Gas explosion A gas explosion is a process where combustion of a premixed gas cloud. which is comparable to the atmospheric pressure of 100 kPa. 1 is applicable for the underwater explosion too. fuel–air or fuel/ oxidizers causing rapid increase of pressure [15].R. that is. 000 W 1=3 S !2:1 ¼ 98.16] W 1=3 Es ¼ 98. The peak pressure. The parameters that are of interest for an underwater explosion wave from the point of view of the plate damage are the peak pressure.16] Pm ¼ 52:16 W 1=3 S !1:13 ¼ 52:16S0À1:13 (14) The velocity of the water particle behind the shock front is given as [3] vðtÞ ¼ pðtÞ=rw cw The time constant q in s is given as [3. in N s/m2 is given as [3. Pm. I and the energy carried by the shock wave Es. The ambient pressure is the hydrostatic pressure.2. whereas in underwater explosion the peak overpressure is of several orders of magnitude greater than the hydrostatic pressure.16] pðtÞ ¼ Pm eÀt=q (13) where q is the time taken by the shock wave to decay to 1/e of peak value. q. the peak overpressure is typically of the order of kPa. Therefore. the time constant. The consequence of gas explosion ranges from no damage to total destruction.3. The pressure generated by the combustion wave will depend on how fast the ﬂame propagates and how the pressure expands away from the gas cloud (governed by conﬁnement).M. Pm. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 105 rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ À S0 4 2 0:067 1 þ 0:23 rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ I ¼ S 02 3 1þ S0 1:55 3 (12c) 3. the hydrostatic pressure is ignored and the peak overpressure is simply called as peak pressure. In air blast. I. 000 W 1=3 S0ðÀ2:1Þ (18) . The pressure p(t) at a given point decays from its peak value Pm exponentially with time t as [3. 3.16] W 1=3 I ¼ 5760 W 1=3 S !0:89 ¼ 5760 W 1=3 S0ðÀ0:89Þ (17) The energy carried by the shock wave per unit area in J/m2 is given as [3. in MPa is [3. J. Rajendran. the free ﬁeld impulse. Underwater explosion The schematic of the blast wave in Fig.16] À6 (15) q ¼ 96:5 Â 10 W 1=3 W 1=3 S !À0:22 ¼ 96:5 Â 10À6 W 1=3 S0ð0:22Þ (16) The free ﬁeld impulse per unit area.
to the air blast impulse.1. 2. Iw. The requirement for simulating the maximum uniform lateral impulse on the plate area to study the blast response of plates. Fluid–plate interaction 4. it gets normally reﬂected. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 These formulae are applicable for a stand off that is greater than 10 times the explosive charge radius. (19) and (20) that the plate peak overpressure is double that of the incident peak pressure and hence the impulse imparted to the plate is double that of the incident impulse. Air blast When an air blast wave encounters a plate on which it impinges at zero angle of incidence. A variation of the ratio of the underwater explosion impulse. . This leads from Eqs. J. 4. The underwater explosion load carries an impulse that is at least 22 times that of air blast for the same reduced stand off conﬁguration. to the incident impulse per unit area. The dip in the curve is due to the change in the formula for the air blast impulse prediction when the reduced stand off changes from 9 to 10 m/kg(1/3). For numerical modeling 40 30 Iw/Ia 20 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 S' (m/kg1/3) Fig. taking into account the minimum use of the quantity of the explosive for the reasons of safety and economy leads to a genre of experiments [18–34]. I. The peak plate overpressure (commonly known as reﬂected pressure). is approximated as [17] Ip =I ¼ Ppm =Pm (20) For a weak shock wave.M.106 R. is obtained from the Rankine Hugoniot relationship for an ideal gas as [17] Ppm ¼ 2Pm ð7Po þ 4Pm Þ=ð7Po þ Pm Þ (19) The ratio of the plate impulse per unit area (commonly known as reﬂected impulse). Ppm. The variation of the ratio of free ﬁeld impulse for underwater explosion to air blast as a function of reduced standoff. 2. as a function of reduced stand off is shown in Fig. Ia. Ip. Rajendran. Pm ( Po.
_ GT x ¼ vi þ vs (24) where vi is the incident water particle velocity from the underwater explosion. (23) to obtain the load–time history as [46] (26) h i _ FðtÞ ¼ ÀGAf pi þ rc GT x À vi (27) The force–time history is ﬁnally substituted into Eq. (25) _ ps ¼ rc GT x À vi Eq.37]. A. that is [46]. J.R. the surface compatibility of the submerged plate is written as [46] FðtÞ ¼ ÀGAf ðpi þ ps Þ (23) where G is the matrix relating the structural degrees of freedom to the ﬂuid. The step pressure. x is the structural displacement and F(t) is the timevarying load applied to the structure.2. Af is the matrix containing the areas of the elements in the ﬂuid mesh. the plane shock wave fronts generated by the shock tube allow precise modeling. C is the structural damping matrix. Underwater explosion For the coupled ﬂuid–structure interaction.M. the impulse that is measured experimentally during the zero stand off ﬁring (that is. On the contrary. The ﬂuid is assumed to be inviscid and incompressible. the motion of the plate is given as [45–49] _ M€ þ C x þ kx ¼ FðtÞ x (22) where M is the structural mass matrix. 4. A blast peak pressure that is 10 times or bigger than the corresponding static collapse pressure is assumed as a rectangular pressure pulse without loss of accuracy [36. which results in poor prediction of the plate deformation [40]. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 107 of the deformation phenomena. Spherical shock wave fronts generated by the direct detonation process lead to a complex space–time evolution of the pressure distribution on a plane plate. K is the structural stiffness matrix. Rajendran. Pm. pi is the incident pressure of the underwater explosion and ps is the scatted pressure of the plate. the explosive is separated from the test pate by a thin polystyrene sheet) is divided by the burn time of the explosive to arrive at the assumed uniform rectangular lateral pressure [35]. (26) is substituted into Eq. Itp. Compatibility requirements dictate that the surface normal velocity of the plate and the ﬂuid is equal. The scatted pressure and the scattered ﬂuid particle velocity are related by [46] ps ¼ rw cw vs From Eqs. and the burn time s as [38] Pm ¼ Itp As (21) Shock tubes are built to simulate the blast waves with required plate peak pressure and plate impulse [39–44]. is estimated as a function of the measured total plate impulse. (22) to obtain the differential equation for the response of the plate as [46] _ M€ þ C þ GAf GT rw cw x þ Kx ¼ ÀGAf ðpi þ rw cw vi Þ x (28) . (24) and (25). and vs is the scattered water particle velocity from the plate. By superimposing the imaginary ﬂuid mesh on the ﬂuid–plate boundary. the exposed area of the plate.
is [53] Pp ðtÞ ¼ 2pm eÀt=q À i 2Pm ja h Àt=q e À eÀja t=q ðja À 1Þ (30) from which the plate peak pressure is given as 1 Pp ¼ 2Pm j1Àja a and the plate maximum velocity is (31) Vma ¼ j 2Pm q 1Àa a j j m a (32) The shock energy transferred to the airbacked plate Ep is Epa ¼ 2 2 1 2Pmm q 1Àjjaa 2 ja mVma ¼ m 2 2 (33) The energy carried by the free ﬁeld shock wave is Es ¼ 1 rc Z 0 N p2 ðtÞ dt ¼ 1 rc Z 0 N Pm eÀt=q 2 dt ¼ 2 Pm q 2mja 2 (34) The ratio of the plate energy to the free ﬁeld shock energy. Pp(t). which is also known as coupling factor is E ha ¼ pa ¼ Es 2 2Pm q m 2 j1Àja a 2ja q 2mja 2 2 Pm ¼ 4j1Àja a 1þja (35) The time to reach the maximum velocity or the cavitation time. until cavitation occurs.M.108 R. Applying initial conditions and introducing the dimensionless inverse mass number ja ¼ rwcwq/m. Ignoring damping and the nodal displacement for the duration the pressure pulse acts. J. for a one dimensional plate Eq. (28) reduces to [3. tca. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 The term rwcw represents the additional damping term to the plate due to the energy radiated away from the plate into the ﬂuid. The response equation of the plate is valid until the ﬂuid pressure goes below the local atmospheric pressure or in other words. Rajendran. (37a) is [54] Ipm ¼ 2Pm q or (37b) Ipa ¼ zIpm ¼ 2za If where za is the knockdown factor for airbacked plate which is given as (37c) za ¼ j1Àja a ja (37d) . The only unknown term in Eq. (28) is the plate displacement x which is solved by ﬁnite element method. ha . the plate pressure.50–52] _ m€ þ rw cw x ¼ 2Pm eÀt=q x (29) where m is the mass per unit area of the plate. is given as tca ¼ q ln ja ja À 1 (36) The impulse acting on the airbacked plate per unit area is given as 1À Ip ¼ 2Pm qja ja ja (37a) The maximum achievable impulse per unit area for an inﬁnitely rigid plate from Eq.7.
Epw. Ipw. The ratio of the variation of the plate impulse for airbacked underwater exploded plates. For a waterbacked plate. Ip ¼ I when 2rwcwq ¼ m. Rajendran. to air blasted plates. Ipa. the impulse imparted to the plate. J. Or in other words. Ip. The variation of the ratio of impulse for underwater explosion to air blast on a plate as a function of reduced standoff.M. The energy imparted to the waterbacked plate.R. as a function of reduced stand off is shown in Fig. is given as hw Epw ¼ ¼ Es 2 Pm q rc j1Àjw w q 1þjw 1À ¼ 2jw jw 1þjw 2 Pm (41) 2r c 30 20 Plate impulse ratio m=15.5 kg/sq m 10 Ipw/Ipa 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 S'(m/kg1/3) Fig. hw. meaning thereby. 3.2kg/sq m m=62. the impulse ratio approaches unity. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 109 For ja ¼ 1/2. is equal to the free ﬁeld impulse.4kg/sq m m=289. the equation of motion of the plate is modiﬁed as [7.6kg/sq m m=31. the underwater explosion impulse becomes double that of the free ﬁeld impulse as in the case of the impulse imparted by a weak air blast wave on a plate. is Epw ¼ 1 P 2 q 2jw 2 mVmw ¼ m j1Àjw 2m w 2 2 (40) The ratio of the energy of the waterbacked plate to the shock wave energy.50] _ m€ þ 2rw cw x ¼ 2Pm eÀt=q x The maximum velocity of the waterbacked plate is [7] (38) Vmw ¼ j Pm q 1Àww jwj m (39) where jw ¼ 2rwcwq/m. As the plate becomes more and more rigid. . 3. The maximum velocity for the waterbacked plate is reached when the plate pressure equals the hydrostatic pressure of the water behind the plate.
and energy. As the plate becomes inﬁnitely rigid.8 1 1.8 0.2 0.and waterbacked plates as a function of inverse mass number is shown in Fig.6 Ep/Es Ip/If 0. . Ip.and waterbacked plates with the inverse mass number for underwater explosion. The variation of impulse and energy of air. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 The ratio of ha to hw gives the ratio of the strain energy of the airbacked plate to the waterbacked plate during the elastic regime of deformation. Ipw. tcw. Rajendran.6 airbacked plate shock energy transfer waterbacked plate energy transfer 0. the impulse imparted to the plate. This is in contrast to the airbacked plate that undergoes twice the free ﬁeld impulse for identical conditions. 4. is given as [7] tcw ¼ q ln jw jw À 1 jw (43) The impulse acting on the waterbacked plate per unit area is given as Ipw ¼ 2Pm qj1Àjw ¼ 2If zw w where zw is the knockdown factor for waterbacked plate which is given as 1À zw ¼ jwjw (44a) jw (44b) The ratio of the primary pulse plate impulse for an airbacked plate to a waterbacked plate gives the plastic damage ratio of these plates for the primary shock. Àja À2ja Ipa ¼ 21À2ja jð1Àja Þð1À2ja Þ a Ipw (45) For jw ¼ 1/2. J. as a fraction of the respective free ﬁeld parameters for air. 2 Airbacked plate impulse Waterbacked plate impulse 1. 4. is equal to half of the free ﬁeld impulse. the maximum plate impulse equals the free ﬁeld impulse.110 R. Ep. This ratio from Eqs. From Eqs. Or in other words.M. (37) and (44). (35) and (41) is given as ha ¼ hw Ep =Es Epw =Es ¼ 2ð1À2ja Þ jð1Àja Þð1À2ja Þ a À4ja À2ja (42) The time to reach the maximum velocity. Ipw ¼ If/2 when 4rwcwq ¼ m. The variation of plate impulse.2 0 0 4 8 12 16 0 Fig.4 0.4 0.
R. J. Blast damage 5. In quasistatic loading realm. In the impulsive realm (loading period to the natural period of the structure is less than 0. According to the P–I diagram of a speciﬁc structure or structural element. 5. The kinetic energy imparted to the structure.1. T ¼ 2 mA I I2 ¼ 2 ðmAÞ2 2mA (49) Equating the kinetic energy.13. 5. The response is independent of the duration of loading and the mass of the structure. is given as [61] UE ¼ 1 2 kx 2 max (46) The maximum permissible work imparted. a certain load with the peak pressure and impulse above the critical value will result in the damage of the structures. is equated to the strain energy UE [61]. (46) and (47) [61]. pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ kmAxmax ¼ 1:0 I (50) .0636). The work done on the structure is equated to the strain energy for the quasistatic loading regime (loading period to the natural period of the structure is greater than 6.1. For a linear elastic system. reloading due to the gas bubble is present for both air. Rajendran.36). T. xmax ¼ 2:0 ðF=kÞ (48) Eq.59]. Reloading occurs when the depth of explosion is at least half the stand off and reaches it maximum when the depth of explosion becomes double the stand off [55]. T. The damage of plates that are subjected to noncontact air blast is conventionally assessed by the simulated experimental methods or by taking the measured pressure–time history on the plate for the simulated environment as the prescribed load and performing numerical analysis [1. the deformation is directly proportional to the impulse. Uniform blast loading Simple methods of structural dynamics were applied by Biggs [56] and Clough and Penzien [57] by applying single degree of freedom system (SDOF) and idealizing the plate as the beam for obtaining the blast damage. with the pressure Pm. A.1.M. vice versa. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 111 The damage caused by the reloading component of the underwater shock wave on an airbacked plate is larger than the damage caused by the primary pulse itself.1. W. UE.58. Air blast 5. the deformation depends only on the peak load F and the structural stiffness k.and waterbacked plates. the structure is safe if the peak pressure and impulse combination is located below the curve. P–I diagrams.1. While reloading due to cavitation is absent for waterbacked plates. (48) is called quasistatic asymptote.1. to the strain energy UE. Elastic and plastic response of single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems subjected to blast loading can be presented in the form of pressure–impulse (P–I) diagrams [60]. the strain energy. to the structure by a constant force whose amplitude decreases insigniﬁcantly is [61] W ¼ Fxmax (47) where F is the force that is acting which is given by multiplying the area. From Eqs.
The central deﬂection of plastically deformed plates is taken as the indication of the measure of blast damage. Rajendran. Here. [63] and Langdon and Schleyer [64]. For rectangular plates [67] . A dynamic load factor of 2 is conservative in this regime. (50) is called impulsive asymptote. In the range 1:15 < I=xmax kmA < 5:5.1. The quasistatic loading asymptote for a ﬁnite rise time is equivalent to a static pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ loading. the strain energy. 5. For a rigidplastic system loaded in the pressure realm.1. equating the kinetic energy to the strain energy UP. Johnson [66] proposed a guideline for assessing the behaviour of metals subjected to impact loading using a dimensionless number that is deﬁned as aj ¼ rp V 2 sd (54a) where V is the impact velocity. This behaviour is produced by resonance between the loading rate and the structural frequency. For the impulsive loading realm. The deﬂection is inﬂuenced by both structural stiffness and structural mass. The loading on a plate cause by gas or dust explosions is characterized ﬁnite rise time and a nonexponential fall. 5. where a rectangular pressure pulse can be assumed [18. A combination of peak loads and durations with the same impulse will result in the same maximum deformation. Plastic deformation. (53) is called impulsive asymptote for the rigidplastic structure. the loading with ﬁnite rise time is more severe than a loading with zero rise time. The deformation here depends on the entire loading history. A typical P–I diagram for a blast loaded SDOF system is shown in Fig. Johnson’s damage number is applicable only when plates have similar dimensions. W. rp is the plate material density and sd is the damage stress which is taken as equal to the plate material yield stress sy. Assumed modes method in which a shape function is used to represent the global displacement function [62] was used in conjunction with rigidplastic material behaviour and energy methods were applied by Schleyer et al. A modiﬁed damage parameter F was introduced by Nurick and Martin [28] that incorporated plate dimensions and loading. UP. pﬃﬃﬃ I pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ¼ 2 xmax mAR (53) Eq.65] analytical [36] and empirical [28] predictions are available based on the impulse imparted to the plate. J. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 Eq.112 R. is given as [61] UP ¼ Rxmax where R is the resistance.2. For circular plates [29] Fc ¼ pRt 2 rp sy Ipt 1=2 (55) where R is the radius of the loaded portion of the circular plate. Computation of the quasistatic and impulsive asymptotes yields an approximation to the entire shock response. Equating the work done. to the strain energy [61] (51) F=R ¼ 1:0 (52) Eq. The damage number can be written in terms of impulse as [67] aj ¼ 2 Itp 2t2 r s A p y (54b) where t is the thickness of the plate. For the contact air blast. (52) is the quasistatic asymptote for the rigidplastic structure. Between quasistatic realm and impulsive realm a transition realm exists which is known as dynamic loading realm. the motion of the structure depends on pressure and impulse as well as structural stiffness and mass.M.
Rajendran.M. (a) Elastic response due to air blast. Fr ¼ Ipt 1=2 2t 2 4abrp sy (56) where 2a and 2b are the length and breadth of the plate. (c) elastic response due to gas explosion and (d) plastic response due to gas explosion [61]. P–I diagram for SDOF systems undergoing blast load [61]. Jones [36] predicted analytically the deﬂectionthickness ratio for fully clamped circular plates without strain rate effects as . 5. J. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 113 Fig. For large plastic deformation (mode I failure) of clamped circular plates [28] the deﬂectionthickness ratio is empirically given as d t ¼ 0:425Fc þ 0:227 (57) c and for clamped rectangular plates [28] the empirical relationship is d t ¼ 0:471Fr þ 0:001 (58) r where d is the central deﬂection of the plate. (b) plastic response due to air blast.R.
of the plate which is given by pﬃﬃﬃﬃ Vcr ¼ 2:83cp 3f where cp is the plastic wave speed which is given as (61a) sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ cp ¼ so rp (61b) where so is the ﬂow stress which is given as . Dishing occurs until tensile necking and fracture takes over the critical velocity. Localized blast loading Localized impact is the explosion or impact process that occurs over a localized region of the plate (in contrast to the uniform loading that occurs over the whole area of the unsupported plate). Rajendran. the deﬂectionthickness ratio as given by the analytical method of Jones is [36] d t ¼ r n o ð3 À 20 Þ ð1 þ GÞ1=2 À1 2f1 þ ð20 À 1Þð20 À 2Þg 2 (60a) G ¼ 2rp V 2 a2 b 3sy t 2 & ð3 À 220 Þ 1 À 20 þ ' Àb 1 2 À 20 (60b) 20 ¼ b b a 3þb 2 1=2 (60c) b¼ (60d) Taking strain rate effect into account Eq. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 d t ¼ 0:817Fc c (59a) Taking strain rate effect into account Eq.1.114 R. Vcr. When a localized explosion takes place on a plate petalling occurs [68]. For small amplitudes of impulse the plate undergoes dishing. (60a) is modiﬁed as d t ¼ r n o ð3 À 20 Þ ð1 þ G=nÞ1=2 À1 2f1 þ ð20 À 1Þð20 À 2Þg " Vtð3 À 20 ÞG1=2 #1=q (60e) n ¼ 1þ pﬃﬃﬃ 6 2Db2 f1 þ ð20 À 1Þð20 À 2Þg (60f) 5.M.2. (59a) is modiﬁed as [36] d t ¼ c 0:817Fc pﬃﬃﬃ n (59b) 1=2 !1=q n ¼ 1þ rp 3r2 t 2 DR 3sy P 2 Ip (59c) For fully clamped rectangular plates without strain rate effects. J.
suffer relatively less damage. The detonation blows out a central cap of the radius rp (where rp is the radius of the explosive).70] reported analytical and numerical modeling on the dishing. Analytical and experimental work was reported by Wierzbicki and Nurick [71] to determine the location of tearing failure and the critical impulse to failure. Lee and Wierzbicki [69. Uniform explosion loading 5. [73] described the effect of varying both the loading conditions and the plate geometries on the deformation of the plate and predicted numerically the plate response. V Vcr ¼ Ip Ipc ¼ W Wcr (63c) where Wcr is the critical weight of the explosive to generate the critical impulse. This occurs at a central deﬂection d. Although there is no permanent damage to the plate that undergoes elastic deformation. This is because a considerable proportion of the shock wave transmits through the water at the rear of the plate. Experimental work on clamped circular plates subjected to localized impulse was reported by Nurick and Radford [72] to study the formation of petalling failure.1. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 115 so ¼ rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ sy su 1þp (61c) where su is the ultimate stress and p is the exponent in the powertype stress–strain law.2. For n1 radial cracks that develop from a point in an inﬁnite plate dividing it into n1 symmetric petals. For a small intensity of explosion. J. Waterbacked plates. however. the stresses developed in the plate are in its elastic range. The designer is therefore interested in predicting the range of responses of the ship plates. discing and petalling of plates subjected to localized impulse. Rajendran. Therefore it is of interest to know what happens to these side shells during an underwater explosion environment.M. it is the interest to the designer to know in advance the transient state of stress it develops. waterbacked plates simply transmit the maximum part of the shock wave energy.2. During elastic deformation the airbacked plate undergoes tens of thousands of ‘g’s (acceleration due to gravity) [74]. Underwater explosion 5. which can be considered as process parameter is given by ac cos q. the perpendicular distance l. that is required to blow out the central plot.R. By energy balance [68]. In other words. the reminder of the initial kinetic energy goes into the petalling process. the central 2q angle of the petal equals 2p/n1. which is given as d ¼ 2:47rp 3f pﬃﬃﬃﬃ (62) When the impulse is above this value. 5. Elastic response.1. Both warships and merchant ships have liquid ﬁlled side shells. . Vcr c 2 " V Vcr 2 # À1 ¼ 5:2h0:6 m 1:4 t l À1 re re (63a) where V is the impact velocity and hm is the moment ampliﬁcation factor which takes into account the larger bending resistance of the curved plate is given as [68] hm ¼ 1 þ 2 23f q2 pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ re t (63b) Normally 3–5 petals form in the plate [68]. Taking the instantaneous crack length as ac. Ipc. The amount of impulse imparted to the plate is proportional to the weight of the explosive W. A near miss underwater explosion in a war scenario may result in the plate response varying from elastic to plastic and in an extreme case fracture. Jacob et al.1.2.
For airbacked plates [75–77] for the primary shock wave. Circular geometry. sa. In terms of effective shock factor [77. xea is the effective shock factor for the airbacked plates.2. Furthermore.1. Rectangular geometry.78] (64a) sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ E sa ¼ 1179xea ð1 À nÞt (64b) where E is Young’s modulus of the material. As expected. the shock damage is considered to be the severest [7]. For airbacked plates [76] and a Poisson’s ratio of 0. Rajendran. assuming a strain distribution pattern of the target plate similar to that of airbacked plate [76–78] the semianalytical von Mises stress is given as vﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ u u3Er P 2 x2=ð1Àxw Þ sa ¼ t p m w 2r2 c2 ð1 À nÞ w w or in terms of effective shock factor [77. For x less than 0. waterbacked plates undergo less stress.01 m are compared well with Eq. the shock factor is used to classify the severity of the attack. at the apex (center) of the plate is given as vﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ u u6Er P 2 x2=ð1Àxa Þ m sa ¼ t 2p 2 a rw cw ð1 À nÞ where E is the Young’s modulus of the plate material.2.1. 5.1.78] sa ¼ 1:03 pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ha 1584x rﬃﬃﬃ E t (66b) Numerical and experimental underwater explosion simulations carried out [65] on aluminium plate of 1 m Â 1 m Â 0. the shock wave parameters based and the shock factor based stresses are in good agreement. For waterbacked plates. for x greater than 0. J. (66).M. xea ¼ x1:03 ha where x is the normal shock factor which is given as [7] pﬃﬃﬃ (64c) pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ W x ¼ 0:445 S (64d) Traditionally.78] (65a) sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ E sa ¼ 1179xew ð1 À nÞt where xew is the effective shock factor for a waterbacked plate (65b) xew ¼ x1:03 hw pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ﬃ (65c) A comparison of the apex (plate center) von Mises stress developed by the circular plate for various shock factors is shown in Fig. 6.2.1.1. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 5.15. n is the Poisson’s ratio. .7.3 the semianalytical von Mises stress is given as sa ¼ 0:867 vﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ u u14Er P 2 x2=ð1Àxa Þ p m a t r2 c2 w w (66a) In terms of effective shock factor [77. the shock damage is considered to be negligible. the semianalytical von Mises stress.116 R.
2. Rajendran.06 0. is higher than the static yield stress sy. elastic range limit is assumed to merge with the yield point without appreciable error.1. For strain rate sensitive materials. Merchant cargo vessels and warships are normally made up of mild steels whereas mine sweepers are made up of austenitic steel (nonmagnetic) and aluminium alloys. ABPSFB: airbacked plate shock factor based. WBPSWPB: waterbacked plate shock wave parameters based. ABPSWPB: airbacked plate shock wave parameters based. A similar trend as for the circular plates is observed. For all practical discussions here.2. A comparison of the elastic response of air. For waterbacked plates. 7. assuming a strain distribution pattern of the target plate similar to that of airbacked plates [76. . J. 5.and waterbacked circular plates as a function of shock factor. syd.M. and is typically related by the Cowper–Symonds relation: " syd ¼ sy 1 þ 1=q # _ 3 D (68) _ where 3 is the average strain rate. the plate reaches the limit of the elastic range beyond which it undergoes permanent deformation. there are static and dynamic yield points. 6.R. WBPSFB: waterbacked plate shock factor based. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 117 600 ABPSWPB ABPSFB WBPSWPB WBPSFB Apex Von Mises stress (MPa) ABPE 400 200 0 0 0. As the intensity of explosion gradually increases.1 Shock factor (kg1/2/m) Fig.78] (67a) sa ¼ ﬃ 1:03 pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ hw 1584x rﬃﬃﬃ E t (67b) A comparison of the apex (plate center) von Mises stress developed by the rectangular plate for various shock factors is shown in Fig. and ABPE: airbacked plate experiment [76].08 0.04 0. and D and q are material constants which are given by Jones [36]. Limiting elastic range. the dynamic yield stress.02 0.77] vﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ u u7Er P 2 x2=ð1Àxw Þ sa ¼ 0:867t p m2 w2 2rw cw or in terms of effective shock factor [77.
7.and waterbacked plates for generating a speciﬁed stress level. The charge quantity in kg and stand off in m required to generate the shock factor for the given time constant are obtained from Eqs. Therefore. (16) and (64d) as [80] W ¼ x 0:445 0:5946 q 96:5 Â 10À6 2:7026 (71) . (69) and (70) by scaling factors (sd/sy). Rajendran.5 sÀ1 [70]. xeyc.04 0. The Cowper–Symonds equations should be obtained from dynamic tensile tests on the speciﬁc material being considered.4 times the static yield stress.59. for aluminium alloy 1. A comparison of the elastic response of air. J. WBPSWPB: waterbacked plate shock wave parameters based. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 600 ABPSWPB ABPSFB 500 WBPSWPB WBPSFB ABPE 400 Apex Von Mises stress (MPa) 300 200 100 0 0 0.06 0. A look at Eq.42. The scaling factors thus obtained are as follows: for mild steel 1.78] xeyr ¼ 631 Â 10À6 sys (70) It was established from experiments [79] that the dynamic yielding of mild steel during an underwater explosion occurs for a stress that is 1. for atitanium (Ti 50A) 1.78] xeyc ¼ 848 Â 10 À6 rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ð1 À nÞt sys E rﬃﬃﬃ E t (69) and for rectangular plates as [77. The average strain rate for deformation during the elastic range was 0. The effective shock factor xe remains the same for air.17.M.08 Shock factor (kg1/2/m) Fig. (64d) shows that a range of charge quantity and stand off combination is possible for generating the desired shock factor.09. for high tensile steel 1. and ABPE: airbacked plate experiment [76]. The effective shock factor. required for generating the static yield stress for circular plates is given as [77.and waterbacked rectangular plates as a function of shock factor. the effective shock factor for circular and rectangular plates for dynamic yielding of various hull materials is given by multiplying the right side of Eqs. ABPSWPB: airbacked plate shock wave parameters based. ABPSFB: airbacked plate shock factor based.54 and for AISI 304 stainless steel 1. WBPSFB: waterbacked plate shock factor based.02 0. Guideline values are derived by applying the nominal material constants [36] and the average strain rate for the elastic range limit.118 R.
For airbacked rectangular plates the empirical prediction is given as [80] d t ¼ 0:553Fr þ 0:741 (74) r The variation of the deﬂectionthickness ratio as a function of the dimensionless parameter. (60e) and (74) with experimental data showed good agreement [80]. for rectangular plates is shown in Fig. Plastic deformation. (59a) over predicts because strain rate effects are not accounted for. Rajendran.1. (57). Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 119 S ¼ 1:3513 q 0:445 0:7027 x 96:5 Â 10À6 (72) 5.2. Fr.82] d t ¼ 0:541Fc À 0:433 (73) c The variation of the deﬂectionthickness ratio as a function of the dimensionless parameter Fc for circular plates is shown in Fig. J. (60a).M. A comparison of Eqs. 30 Circular plates Nurick & Martin Equation (57) Jones Equation (59a) Jones Equation (59b) Rajendran & Narsimhan Equation (73) Experimental (Ref [81]) Deflectionthickness ratio 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 Fig. the plate undergoes permanent deformation. 8. 9. (60a) over predicts because strain rate effects are not accounted for. Eq. (58).3. (73) and (74) assume that the total deﬂection caused by the impulse due to primary and the reloading shock waves on the plate is equal to the deﬂection caused by the free ﬁeld impulse. (59b) and (73) with experimental data showed good agreement [80]. When the effective shock factor exceeds the dynamic yield value. Eq. For the underwater explosion of the airbacked plates based on the free ﬁeld impulse [81. Variation of deﬂectionthickness ratio of circular plates with the dimensionless parameter F. (59a). Eqs. The extent of permanent deformation is indicated by the central deﬂection of the exploded plates and is proportional to the impulse imparted to the plate [3]. .82] the empirical relationship is given as [81. A comparison of Eqs. 8.R.
A photographic view of a rectangular steel plate that underwent mode I (inelastic deformation) is shown in Fig. J.120 R. 9. The total impulse for waterbacked plates for the interaction of the primary shock pulse is given as Ipt ¼ Vmw At rp (75) from which dimensionless parameters are obtained for waterbacked plates to calculate the central deﬂection. Photographic view of an underwater exploded plate that underwent mode I failure. However. For waterbacked plates cavitation does not occur [7]. Rajendran. there will be shock loading on the waterbacked plate due to the gas bubble pulse. . Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 25 20 Rectangular plates Nurick & Martin Equation (58) Jones Equation (60a) Jones Equation (60e) Rajendran & Narasimhan Equation (74) Experimental (Ref [81]) Deflectionthickness ratio 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 Fig. 10. Fig.M. Variation of deﬂectionthickness ratio of rectangular plates (b ¼ 5/6) with the dimensionless parameter F. 10.
M.20 0. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 121 5.60 0. strain to rupture ¼ 0. J. . it is of great relevance to the naval warfare because underwater weapons for attacking the subsurface vessels are so designed that they detonate on impact with the target. Wcri.2. Contact underwater explosion In underwater explosion scenario.R. This relation is valid only above a certain charge quantity since a minimum quantity of explosive is required for making a hole in the plate of speciﬁed thickness. Keil [7] described that there is a deﬁnite relation between the radius.20 Equation (63) 1. Rajendran. however. 11. Keil [50] reported that the early work on contact explosion damage of ships was carried out by the Japanese imperial navy on the discarded ship. The critical charge weight. Plate thickness ¼ 1. rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ W R ¼ 0:0704 t (76) where R and t are in m and W is in kg. W. However. Keil [7] and Rajendran et al.6 mm. Experiments carried out by Keil [7] ruled out the depth of submergence on the damage of plates. 12. The model proposed by Wierzbicki [68] for localized air blast impact under predicts for smaller charges and over predicts as the charge quantity increases beyond 20 g for localized underwater explosion in comparison with the prediction methodologies by Keil [7] and Rajendran and Narasimhan [83]. not speciﬁed for this empirical relationship. above which Eq. (76) is valid is given by [7] Wcri ¼ 2:72t (77) An analytical prediction for the radius of the hole that is bored on a clamped circular plate is given by Rajendran and Narasimhan [83] sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 2hWEqTNT ETNT J R ¼ pt sy 3f (78) A comparison of the radius of the crack by Wierzibicki [68]. ﬂow stress ¼ 330 MPa. R.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 TNT explosive quantity (g) Fig. A photographic view of a circular plate that underwent contact underwater explosion is shown in Fig. of the hole that is being bored by an explosive quantity.80 Crack length (m) 0.00 Equation (76) Equation (78) 0. [82] is presented in Fig.40 0. 1. The boundary conditions were. 11. contact underwater explosion where the explosive comes in direct contact with the plate during the detonation process is equivalent to localized blast loading. during contact with a plate of thickness t. The variation of the plate crack length that is subjected to localized blast as a function of explosive charge quantity.2. The physics of the contact underwater explosion phenomena is not yet well understood.3.
Fracture Mode I deformation of the plates under explosive loading continues with the increasing intensity of the explosion. Fig. Rajendran. The moment the total strain at any point at the edge of the plate attains its rupture strain. 13. Langdon and Schleyer [64] equated the total strain to cause tearing at the outer ﬁbres of a rectangular crosssection beam to the sum of the membrane strain and the strain due to the curvature. 12. strain rate and temperature.122 R. 6. Photographic view of petalling of a steel plate during contact underwater explosion. Lee and Wierzbicki [69] proposed that facture initiates at the critical point of a structure when the accumulated equivalent plastic strain with suitable weighting function reaches a critical value. J. 13. Balden and Nurick [84] proposed that fracture occurs when the summation of the ratio of the incremental effective plastic strain to the failure strain becomes equal to one. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 Fig. tensile tearing or fracture (mode II failure) occurs. A photographic view of a steel plate that failed in tensile tearing is shown in Fig. . The interaction of mode II fracture and mode III (shear) fracture is brought out by Rudhrapatna et al. The failure strain is a function of mean stress. Rajendran and Narasimhan [83] equated equivalent plastic strain of thin plates to their uniaxial fracture strain as fracture criterion. [58. Photographic view of an underwater exploded plate that underwent mode II failure (tensile tearing).59].M.
Explosion Bulge Test (EBT) has been used as the ﬁnal qualiﬁcation test to verify the dynamic plasticity of defence structural materials [86]. von Mises plasticity with isotropic hardening/softening behaviour together with strain rate sensitivity using Cowper–Symonds relationship was applied. To simulate the slip in bolt connections and possible inplane movement of the test rig. Numerical simulation and experiments showed good correlation to within 5. Circular plate clamped at its edge and subjected to uniform blast load was simulated by Balden and Nurick [84] using ABAQUS. Element failure criterion was ﬁxed as 200% failure strain and on nodal temperature. [1] used ANSYS/ LS_DYNA–Release 7. Reactiontime history of the support assembly was compared with experimentally obtained and ABAQUS/Explicit results to simulate the exact boundary conditions. The bolt array was simulated with single elastic spring having spring stiffness based on the axial elastic response of the bolt array. The negative phase of the pressure pulse and the small ground reﬂection were neglected. The friction coefﬁcient was assumed to be 0. The hardening curve was linearly changed in magnitude based on the change in yield stress at various temperatures. Numerical methods Elastic response of blast loaded plates was carried out by Veldman et al.1 for modeling the inelastic deformation of rectangular plates. The nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis accounted for large deformation effects but neglected strain rate effects.5% for the plate central displacement. J. The plate was modeled using shell element.7. Sumpter [92] formulated pass/fail criterion for cracked plates subjected to shock load. The bolt array preload was calculated using the assumed bolt tightening torque and applied as load during the analysis. Explicit ﬁnite element code DYNA3D was adopted by Pan and Louca [95] to model the response of a plate to gas explosion. MILSTD2149A [89] formulated by the U. Rajendran. Jacinto et al. Uniform blast pressure was distributed over the entire exposed surface of the plate. Pinned boundary condition was applied to the outside part of the lower side of the specimen frame. beam elements were used.3.S. Veldman et al. It also recommends repetitive loading on the test plate with a reduction in thickness in each shot until ﬁnal strain to fracture. The variation of elastic response with reference to temperature was accounted for by providing the variation of Young’s modulus of the material with temperature.3% was seen between numerical and experimental results. Dynamic analysis was performed using modal superposition and direct integration method.94]. Underwater EBT was developed by Sumpter [90] and Porter et al. Comparison of experimental and numerical predictions of input energy for uniform blast loading was good. Four noded thin shell elements were used to model the frame–plate assembly. Fracture resistance of metal plates loaded into plastic regime by noncontact underwater explosion was reported by Gifford et al.88] to investigate the response of steel weldments to air blast.M. The boundary conditions were considered as perfectly clamped. [93. More reﬁned mesh captured high frequency with less error. EBT has been developed by Hartbower and Pellini [87. [13] performed numerical elastic analysis using ABAQUS/standard 5. Explosive loading promotes brittle fracture due to high strain rate inﬂuence of material ﬂow properties. The slight negative phase of the shock wave and round reﬂection peak that were present during the experiment were ignored. [91] to minimize the charge quantity and environmental noise nuisance.R. [1] using ANSYS. Bilinear isotropic plasticity was assumed. acting between upper and lower ﬂanges. Pressure–time history was input from the experiment. An agreement to within 5. Pressure–time history was modeled as decaying exponential function based on experimental data. Good comparison was seen between predicted and measured peak displacement. It was brought out that the number of vibration modes was important because blast load excites high frequencies. . Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 123 The ability of the hull structure to withstand large plastic deformation before fracture is a major criterion in naval structural design [85]. The blast pressure was obtained by dividing the impulse with the burn time of the explosive. 7. A frictional contact was prescribed between upper and lower plate surfaces and corresponding plate surfaces. The plate was modeled as fournode quadrilateral explicit thin shell elements ignoring strain rate effects. The element size of the model should agree with the quantity of modes. Pressure–time history was modeled as decaying exponential function based on experimental data. Navy recommends air blast as the source of energy to evaluate the resistance of base materials and weldments to fracture under shock loading.
or assumed modes method or numerical method is applied to derive the plate response. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Conclusions This paper brought out a detailed review of the phenomena of air and underwater explosions and their effects on plane plates. AriGur J.124 R. from the threat perception and survivability point of view. [4] Keshawarz MH. Nazari HR. A review of underwater explosion phenomena. free ﬁeld impulse and energy are the four vital parameters that are considered for the damage process.M. both elastic and plastic responses are of interest. Empirical methods are presented for predicting the plastic central deﬂection for a severe explosion. LSDYNA and Underwater Shock Analysis (USA) codes were used by Shin [45] for nonlinear structural analysis of a ship model that is subjected to an underwater explosion. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2006. the peak overpressure. Methods of evaluating the elastic stresses and the limiting elastic range are presented for a mild intensity explosion. Detonation velocity of pure and mixed CHNO explosives at maximum nominal density. A simple method to assess detonation temperature without using any experimental data and computer code. analytical and empirical methods are employed to obtain the central plastic deﬂection with the measured impulse on the plate as input. Pouretedal HR. [5] Keshawarz MH. Effect of prepressurization on blast response of clamped aluminium plates. When rectangular air blast pressure–time history is imparted. The process of detonation of the explosive is marked by the generation of large amount of heat with the associated pressure at a short interval. a simple single degree of freedom (SDOF) system. References [1] Veldman RL. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2006. The shock wave parameters that are signiﬁcant for an air blast are the peak overpressure and the impulse. . Clum C. For an underwater explosion. tf. For underwater explosion. Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Advanced Ship Engineering Research Centre (ASERC) of Pusan National University.414:203–8.32(10):1678–95. For performing numerical analysis. For a generated pressure–time history on a plate. ONR 1947. with the magnitude of the pressure more than 10 times that of static collapse pressure of the plate. Folkert J. The ﬂuid element thickness.141(3):536–9.2. as part of its research program. Compendium of Underwater Explosion Research. Thermochimica Acta 2004.. [2] Fox EN.133(1–3):129–34. Localized blast leads to petalling of the plate. Republic of Korea. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 A detailed coupled ﬂuid–structure interaction that is applied for underwater shock loading is presented in Section 4. gas explosion and underwater explosion are brought out comparing their predictive accuracy with experimental results. in the direction normal to the wetted surface is deﬁned as [45] 2rw tf rp t 5 (79) Velocity and acceleration response prediction by Shin [45] of a ship model using LSDYNA and USA gave good comparison with shock test data 8. DeYong A. Doubly asymptotic approximation (DAA) that is used for the ﬂuid–structure interaction eliminates the need for modeling the surrounding ﬂuid volume by covering the wet surface of the structure with DAA boundary elements. Analytical methods are available to compute the crack length. Methods developed by Keil [7] and Rajendran and Narasimhan [83] for underwater explosion are compared against the methodology developed by Wierzbicki [68] for air blast.1: 1–83. 1948. [3] Cole RH. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2007. interest is shown on the plastic damage of plates that are subjected to an air blast. By and large. J. time constant. the impulse is divided by the burn time of the explosive to get the pressure magnitude. [6] Keshawarz MH. Various methods of numerical simulation of a plate that undergoes air blast. Underwater explosions. An empirical method for predicting detonation pressure of CHNOFCl explosives. Rajendran.
Danesi RF. Marshall NS. [13] Jacinto AC. Martin JB. [32] Nurick GN. 1977. [15] Bjerketvedt D.34(1):42–59. Berlin: Springer Verlag.25(10):927–47. Blast characteristics and TNT equivalence values for some commercial explosives detonated at ground level. Souli M. [8] Alia A. Predictions of transverse deﬂections and inplane strains in impulsively loaded thin plates. Weichert D.8(2):159–69. p. Alonso JM. Experimental and numerical studies on the response of quadrangular stiffened plates. The measurement of deformation response of a structure subjected to an explosive load using light interference technique. Journal of Technical Physics 1981. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1996. The blast response of novel thermoplasticbased ﬁbremetal laminates – some preliminary results and observations.16(2):273–91. Structural impact. p.52:1–150. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1989. [18] Florence AL. [41] Stoffel M.106(1):9–24. Underwater explosion research using small amount of chemical explosives. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1991. vol. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 125 [7] Keil. Mechanics of Materials 2005. Dolan PJ. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1989. [26] Nurick GN.44(1):69–73. Dube RN. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2006. 1985. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2006. Sensitivity of simulations depending upon material parameter variations. Deformation of thin plates subjected to impulsive loadinga review. [12] Glasstone S. [22] Idczak W. Levin P. Experimental investigation of blast wall panels under shock pressure loading. 1986. Ultrasonics 1976:263–7. High explosive simulation using multimaterial formulations.7(8):965–78. Nagesh. Symonds PS. Wharton RK. J. . International Journal of Impact Engineering 2001. Stahl M. Cantwell WJ. An experimental method to validate viscoplastic constitutive equations in the dynamic response of plates. [39] Schleyer GK. Schmidt R. Cho SR. Circular plates under a uniformly distributed impulse.42(6):1095–118. Lowak MJ.R. [33] Worznica K.7–8:803–27. Washington. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1995.31(1):55–83. 1989. 1956. Ferradas EG. Journal of Hazardous Materials 1996. [31] Nurick GN. Graham KJ. Simple design formulae for predicting the residual damage of unstiffened and stiffened plates under explosion loadings. [30] Olson MD. The deformation and tearing of thin circular plates subjected to impulsive loads. Levin A. Virginia: UERD. Deformation and rupture of blast loaded square plates – predictions and experiments. [23] Nurick GN. Introduction to underwater explosion research. XXIV. Gas explosion handbook.8(2):171–86. Using photo voltaic diodes to measure the deformation response of a structure subjected to an explosive load. Part I: subjected to uniform blast load. [37] Park BW. In: Larreteguy A. Rajendran. [35] Gupta NK.674:215–25. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2007. Spychala A. Gelman ME.22(2): 175–84. Pennetier O. Effects of nuclear weapons. [38] Yuen SCY. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2005. pyrotechnics or unstable substances. Bakke JR. Highspeed Photography 1986. [36] Jones N.27(2):91–113.13(2):279–91. Abrosini RD. Polcyn MA. Deformation of thin plates subjected to impulsive loadinga review. 2005. [25] Nurick GN. Deformation and tearing of circular plates with varying support conditions under uniform impulsive loads. Experimental and numerical simulations on thin metallic plates subjected to explosions. editor. Wingerden KV. Martin JB. Nurick GN. PartII: experimental studies. [28] Nurick GN.3(1):17–26. Experiments on viscoplastic response of circular plates to impulsive loading. SPIE. Shock waveloaded plates. Renard J. [20] Batra RC. DC: US Department of Defence and the Energy Research and Development Administration. 105–14. In: Proceedings of 1986 SEM spring conference on experimental mechanics. PartI: theoretical considerations. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1966.123(2):203–9. [11] Formby SA.32(3):332–6. [34] Langdon GS. Fagnan JR. Composites Science and Technology 2005. The Society of Experimental Mechanics Inc. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1979. Journal of Engineering and Materials Technology 2001. [21] Bodner SR. An experimental method for measuring the buckling shapes of thinwalled structures. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1985. Blast load assessment using hydrocodes.M.6:553–68. Applied Thermal Engineering 2006. Cambridge University Press.32(10):1721–36. Norfolk Naval Shipyard. [24] Nurick GN. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2004. Pearce HT. [19] Wierzbicki T. Studies on shockwave loaded circular plates. [17] Luccioni B.. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 1987. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2007.29(6):435–42. [40] Stoffel M. Langdon GS. Portsmouth. Buenos Aires.11(1):77–91. [14] Alonso FD. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2001. [27] Nurick GN.65(6):861–72. [10] Kinnery GF.50(2–3):183–98. Impulsively loaded circular plates.26: 1032–42. 2(1):37–47. Olson MD. [42] Stoffel M.37(12):1210–22. Tearing of blast loaded plates with clamped boundary conditions. Mechanica Computational. Ambrosini D. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1970. Mechanics Research Communications 2005. Nurick GN. Experimental and computational analysis of plates under air blast loading.38(42–43):7659–80. Hydrocode simulations of air and water shocks for facility vulnerability assessments. [43] Stoffel M. 329–44. Gimeno JR. A theoretical and experimental investigation of impulsively loaded clamped circular viscoplastic plates. Journal of Hazardous Materials 1997. Perez SJF. Florence AL. Nurick GN. Rymarz Cz. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1993. Nurick GN. [9] Clutter JK. Argentina. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1971. Thinwalled Structures 2006. [29] TeelingSmith RG. Martin JB. [16] Bjorno L. Fagnan JR. A new technique to measure the deﬂectiontime history of a structure subjected to high strain rates. Deformation and tearing of blastloaded stiffened square plates. 19(6):724–8. Characteristic overpressure–impulse–distance curves for the detonation of explosives. Explosive shocks in air.
pp. Nurick GN. Narasimhan K..33(1): 35–41. Schleyer GK. Ph. [74] Hung CF.32(12):1945–63. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2004. Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design 2006. [56] Biggs JM. Shu DW. [60] Ma GW. Principles and practice of explosive metal working. Olson MD. [54] Xue Z.3:11–64. [75] Rajendran R.41(6):417–25. [64] Langdon GS. [77] Rajendran R. Penzien J. [66] Johnson W.12. Ships and Offshore Structures 2006. Rajendran. [79] Rajendran R. 457–63. 1989. Tai YS. P–I diagram method for combined failure modes of rigidplastic beams. Desai SA. [68] Wierzbicki T. PartII: discing and petalling. Indian Institute of Technology. Structural dynamics. The effect of pressure wave on a plate diaphragm. Lam KY. The pressure and impulse of submarine explosion waves on plates. [50] Keil AH. Fleck NA. Vaziri R. In: Reddy BD. [57] Clough RW. Westine PS. Impact strength of materials.77(7):417–23. 1997. Onedimensional response of sandwich plates to underwater shock loading. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 2003. [61] Baker WR. Large deformation of thin plates under localized impulse loading. [67] Nurick GN. Lu C. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2005. . [65] Xue Z. [45] Shin YS. [69] Lee YW. Ship shock modeling and simulation for far ﬁeld explosion.12(1): 85–101. Part I. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2005. Computers and Structures 2004.28(2):223–47. [73] Jacob N. Deformation and failure of blast loaded stiffened plates.B. A comparative study of impulse resistant metal sandwich plates. WC2N 6JH: John Adams House. 1(4):347–56. ONR 1944. Hutchinson JW. Radford AM. The transverse response of sandwich panels to an underwater shock wave.33(5–6):748–72. 1973. No. New York: Wiley. [78] Rajendran R. A volume in honour of J. New York: McGrawHill. Petalling of plates under explosive and impact loading. Shock response of a surface ship subjected to noncontact underwater explosions. [46] Makinen K. p. thesis. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 [44] Stoffel M.18(7–8):899–918. [63] Schleyer GK. Deformation and failure of blast loaded square plates. Narasimhan K. In: International conference on mechanical properties of materials at high rates of strain. [76] Rajendran R.82(23–26):2211–9. [59] Rudhrapatna RS. Compendium of Underwater Explosion Research.53(11):2347–83.30(10):1283–305. White MD. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2007. Hsu SS. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2001. Shock and Vibration 2000. Wierzbicki T. 2001. Mechanics Research Communications 2006.31(10):1277–308. [80] Rajendran R. Design of warship plates against underwater explosions. Deformation and fracture behaviour of plate specimens subjected to underwater explosion – a review.25(5):493–506.28(10):1107–27. [52] Taylor GI. PartI: dishing. Journal of Fluids and Structures 1998. Nurick GN. [58] Rudhrapatna RS. editor. Recent developments in computational and applied mechanics. Transactions of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 1961. Bonorchis D. Olson MD. 1972. [51] Kennard AH. Session: 9. Kulesz JJ.31(10):1253–76. Shi HJ. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2004. Fuu JJH. Bombay. Shape forming of shock wave loaded viscoplastic plates. 1981. Introduction to structural dynamics. The response of ships to underwater explosions. Mumbai. Narasimhan K. Kim BJ. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1996. [49] Gong SW. Ocean Engineering 2006. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2003. [71] Wierzbicki T.7:251–62.22(4):449–67. Hutchinson JW. Elastic shock response of an airbacked plate to underwater explosion. [53] Deshpande VS. J. 22(9–10):935–54.45(4):687–705. 1964. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 2000.Martin.1:1155–74.34(6):1081–94. Vaziri R. New York: Elsevier Scientiﬁc Publishing Company. [72] Nurick GN. Hsu PY. Adelphi. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2006. Journal of Fluids and Structures 1999. Birch RS.30(7–8):1179–208. [70] Lee YW. Compendium of Underwater Explosion Research. Tait D. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2005. Dynamics of structures. Paik JK. Wierzbicki T. Underwater shock response of circular HSLA steel plates. An empirical solution for predicting the maximum central deﬂection of impulsively loaded plates. 1975. [55] Ezra AA. Linear elastic shock response of plane plates subjected to underwater explosion. A shock factor based approach for the damage assessment of plane plates subjected to underwater explosions.24(5):457–74. Preliminary assessment of sandwich plates subject to blast loads. Industrial Newspapers Ltd.31(2):151–68. Cavitation models for structures excited by a plane shock wave.69:366–410. 276–301. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2000. Response of thin HSLA steel plates to underwater explosive shock loading. Yuen CH. Oxford: Institute of Physics Society. Cox PA. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1999.126 R. New York: McGrawHill. Fracture prediction of thin plates under localized impulse loading. Scaling aspects of quadrangular plates subjected to localised blast loads – experiments and predictions. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2003. ONR 1941. Explosion hazards and evaluation. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 2005. London. India. Pulse pressure loading of clamped mild steel plates. Fracture prediction of thin plates under localized impulse loading. Deformation and tearing of clamped circular plates subjected to localised central blast loads. Structural analysis of a submarine pipeline subjected to underwater shock. Inelastic deformation and failure of clamped aluminium plates under pulse pressure loading. [47] Makinen K. London: Edward Arnold. [48] Liang CC. [62] Craig RR.D. Narasimhan K. Strehlow RA. 251–261. p.13(5):631–46. 1983. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1999.M.
Of underwater explosion experiments on plane plates. Lee / Marine Structures 22 (2009) 99–127 127 [81] Rajendran R.S. Joyce JA. [90] Sumpter JDG. p. Numerical simulation of the postfailure motion of steel plates subjected to blast loading. Investigation factors which determine the performance of weldments. Carlberg JR. [87] Hartbower CE. Technical Memorandum 88/206.M. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 2001. [95] Pan Y. Lee JM. editors. Pellini WS. In: Smith CS. Clarke JD.31(1): 18–24. Paik JK. In Canadian fracture conference. 1989. Canada. [82] Rajendran R. Pellini WS. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2001. Design against fracture in welded joints. Damage prediction of clamped circular plates subjected to contact underwater explosion. [92] Sumpter JDG. [83] Rajendran R. Explosive testing of full thickness precracked weldments. editors. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers. Navy. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2005. Standard procedure for explosion bulge testing of ferrous and nonferrous metallic materials and weldments. Dow RS. [86] Porter JF. Wiggs AJ. 1990.10(1):66–74. Fracture resistance of metal structures loaded into plastic regime. 1986. Welding Journal 1951:307s–18s. Dally JW. 415–432. Experimental Techniques 2007. [85] Sumpter JDG. MILSTD2149A (SH). Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1999. Journal of Naval Science 1987. [84] Balden VH. Fracture mechanics twenty ﬁrst symposium. Response of SMA and narrow gap SMA weldments to explosive shock. 1990. Experimental and numerical studies on the response of stiffened plates subjected to gas explosions.32(1–4):14–34. 1990. Morehouse DO. Performance evaluation of HSLA steel subjected to underwater explosion. In: Gudas JP. p.52(2):171–93. Explosion bulge test studies on deformation of weldments.25(4):373–86. DREA. [94] Gifford LN. Louca LA.R. 1991. Halifax. Philadelphia: ASTM. In: Smith CS. Huckett EM. Advances in marine structures. [93] Gifford LN. [91] Porter JF. Elsevier Applied Science. Advances in marine structures2. p. . Sickles JB. Welding Journal 1951: 499s–511s. p. [88] Hartbower CE. Development of the DREA underwater single shot explosion bulge procedure. 157–77. J. Nova Scotia. 326–46. Nurick GN. editors. Atlantic. ASTMSTP1074. Narasimhan K. Design against fracture in welded joints. ASTMSTP995. 1988. Narasimhan K.13(4):258–70. Rajendran. 23–41. Prediction of critical crack size in plastically strained weld panels. [89] U.