Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 1350–1362 | Cite as

Centrifuge experiment and numerical analysis of an air-backed plate subjected to underwater shock loading

  • Zhijie Huang
  • Xiaodan RenEmail author
  • Zuyu Chen
  • Daosheng Ling
Research Article


In this study, systematic centrifuge experiments and numerical studies are conducted to investigate the effect of shock loads due to an underwater explosion on the dynamic responses of an air-backed steel plate. Numerical simulations with three different models of pressure time history generated by underwater explosion were carried out. The first model of pressure time history was measured in test. The second model to predict the time history of shock wave pressure from an underwater explosion was created by Cole in 1948. Coefficients of Cole’s formulas are determined experimentally. The third model was developed by Zamyshlyaev and Yakovlev in 1973. All of them are implemented into the numerical model to calculate the shock responses of the plate. Simulated peak strains obtained from the three models are compared with the experimental results, yielding average relative differences of 21.39%, 45.73%, and 13.92%, respectively. The Russell error technique is used to quantitatively analyze the correlation between the numerical and experimental results. Quantitative analysis shows that the simulated strains for most measurement points on the steel plate are acceptable. By changing the scaled distances, different shock impulses were obtained and exerted on the steel plate. Systematic numerical studies are performed to investigate the effect of the accumulated shock impulse on the peak strains. The numerical and experimental results suggest that the peak strains are strongly dependent on the accumulated shock impulse.


underwater explosion centrifuge experiment shock load dynamic response accumulated shock impulse 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This work was supported by the State Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51339006).


  1. 1.
    Kirkwood J G, Bethe H A. Basic Propagation Theory. OSRD, 1942, 588–595Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cole R H. Underwater Explosions. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1948Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keil A H. The Response of Ships to Underwater Explosions. Washington D.C.: David Taylor Model Basin, 1961Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reid W D. The Response of Surface Ships to Underwater Explosions. Defence Science and Technology Organization Canberra, 1996Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jin Q K, Ding G Y. A finite element analysis of ship sections subjected to underwater explosion. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2011, 38(7): 558–566Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rabczuk T, Gracie R, Song J H, Belytschko T. Immersed particle method for fluid-structure interaction. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2010, 81(1): 48–71MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X Y, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwon Y W, Cunningham R E. Comparison of USA-DYNA finite element models for a stiffened shell subject to underwater shock. Computers & Structures, 1998, 66(1): 127–144zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gong S W, Lam K Y. Transient response of floating composite ship section subjected to underwater shock. Composite Structures, 1999, 46(1): 65–71Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang A M, Zhou W X, Wang S P, Feng L H. Dynamic response of the non-contact underwater explosions on naval equipment. Marine Structures, 2011, 24(4): 396–411Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schiffer A, Tagarielli V L. The dynamic response of composite plates to underwater blast: Theoretical and numerical modelling. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2014, 70: 1–13Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shin Y S. Ship shock modeling and simulation for far-field underwater explosion. Computers & Structures, 2004, 82(23–26): 2211–2219Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    LeBlanc J, Shukla A. Dynamic response and damage evolution in composite materials subjected to underwater explosive loading: An experimental and computational study. Composite Structures, 2010, 92(10): 2421–2430Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    LeBlanc J, Shukla A. Dynamic response of curved composite panels to underwater explosive loading: Experimental and computational comparisons. Composite Structures, 2011, 93(11): 3072–3081Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kwon Y W, Fox P K. Underwater shock response of a cylinder subjected to a side-on explosion. Computers & Structures, 1993, 48(4): 637–646Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cichocki K. Effects of underwater blast loading on structures with protective elements. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1999, 22(6): 609–617Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zong Z, Zhao Y, Li H T. A numerical study of whole ship structural damage resulting from close-in underwater explosion shock. Marine Structures, 2013, 31: 24–43Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arora H, Del Linz P, Dear J P. Damage and deformation in composite sandwich panels exposed to multiple and single explosive blasts. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2017, 104: 95–106Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. A three-dimensional large deformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 196(29–30): 2777–2799MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabczuk T, Areias P M A, Belytschko T. A meshfree thin shell method for non-linear dynamic fracture. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2007, 72(5): 524–548MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A simple and robust three-dimensional cracking-particle method without enrichment. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010, 199(37–40): 2437–2455zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hamdia K M, Silani M, Zhuang X Y, He P F, Rabczuk T. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hamdia K M, Ghasemi H, Zhuang X Y, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for flexoelectric nanostructures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 337: 95–109MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De A, Zimmie T F. Centrifuge modeling of surface blast effects on underground structures. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 2007, 30(5): 427–431Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hung C F, Lin B J, Hwang-Fuu J J, Hsu P Y. Dynamic response of cylindrical shell structures subjected to underwater explosion. Ocean Engineering, 2009, 36(8): 564–577Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li J, Rong J L. Experimental and numerical investigation of the dynamic response of structures subjected to underwater explosion. European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids, 2012, 32: 59–69zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ramajeyathilagam K, Vendhan C P, Rao V B. Non-linear transient dynamic response of rectangular plates under shock loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2000, 24(10): 999–1015Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramajeyathilagam K, Vendhan C P. Deformation and rupture of thin rectangular plates subjected to underwater shock. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2004, 30(6): 699–719Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rajendran R, Narasimhan K. Linear elastic shock response of plane plates subjected to underwater explosion. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2001, 25(5): 493–506Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hung C F, Hsu P Y, Hwang-Fuu J J. Elastic shock response of an air-backed plate to underwater explosion. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2005, 31(2): 151–168Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kutter B L, O’Leary L M, Thompson P Y, Lather R. Gravity-scaled tests on blast-induced soil-structure interaction. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1988, 114(4): 431–447Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Plizzari G, Waggoner F, Saouma V E. Centrifuge modeling and analysis of concrete gravity dams. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1995, 121(10): 1471–1479Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Snay H G. The scaling of underwater explosion phenomena. White Oak, MD: Naval Ordnance Lab, 1962Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hu J, Chen Z Y, Zhang X D,Wei Y Q, Liang X Q, Liang J H, Ma G W, Wang Q S, Long Y. Underwater explosion in centrifuge part I: Validation and calibration of scaling laws. Science China. Technological Sciences, 2017, 60(11): 1638–1657Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vanadit-Ellis W, Davis L K. Physical modeling of concrete gravity dam vulnerability to explosions. In: Waterside Security Conference (WSS). Carrara, 2010: 1–11Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Song G, Chen Z Y, Long Y, Zhong M S, Wu J Y. Experimental and numerical investigation of the centrifugal model for underwater explosion shock wave and bubble pulsation. Ocean Engineering, 2017, 142: 523–531Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Long Y, Zhou H Y, Liang X Q, Song G, Chen Z Y, Hu J, Wang Q S, Zhang X D, Liang J H, Huang Z J. Underwater explosion in centrifuge Part II: Dynamic responses of defensive steel plate. Science China. Technological Sciences, 2017, 60(12): 1941–1957Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zamyshlyaev B V, Yakovlev Y S. Dynamic Loads in Underwater Explosion. Naval Intelligence Support Center Washington D. C. Translation Div, 1973Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang Z H, Wang Y, Zhang L J, Yuan J H, Zhao H F. Similarity research of anomalous dynamic response of ship girder subjected to near field underwater explosion. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 2011, 32(12): 1491–1504MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zong Z, Zhao Y J, Zou L. Numerical Computation for Structural Damages of Underwater Explosion. Beijing: Science Press, 2014 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yao X L, Zhang A M, Xu W J. Application of coupled acoustic-structural analysis to warship underwater explosion. Journal of Harbin Engineering University, 2005, 26(6): 707–712 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Xu Y G, Zong Z, Li H T. Numerical analysis of structure response due to the combined effects of underwater explosion shock wave and bubble pulse. Chinese Journal of Ship Research, 2011, 6(3): 8–11 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Russell D M. Error measures for comparing transient data: Part I: development of a comprehensive error measure. In: Proceedings of the 68th Shock and Vibration Symposium. Hunt Valley, MD, 1997, 175–184Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee A S, Kim B O, Kim Y C. A finite element transient response analysis method of a rotor-bearing system to base shock excitations using the state-space Newmark scheme and comparisons with experiments. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2006, 297(3-5): 595–615Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhijie Huang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Xiaodan Ren
    • 4
    Email author
  • Zuyu Chen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Daosheng Ling
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.MOE Key Laboratory of Soft Soils and Geoenvironmental EngineeringZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Institute of Geotechnical EngineeringZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  3. 3.China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower ResearchBeijingChina
  4. 4.School of Civil EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations