Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Dynamic response of the non-contact underwater

explosions on naval equipment
Zhang Aman a, b, *, Zhou Weixing a, Wang Shiping a, Feng Linhan a
a
College of Shipbuilding Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University College London, Torrington Place, London WC1E 7JE, UK

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

Article history: Shock resistance capacity of the shipboard equipment especially for
Received 8 November 2010 large ones, has been a strong concern of navies all over the world for
Received in revised form 1 April 2011 a long time. The shipboard equipment have previously generally
Accepted 18 May 2011
been studied separate from hull structure before. In this paper the
coupling elastic effect between equipment and hull structure is taken
Keywords:
into account. With the ABAQUS software, the integrated model of the
Underwater explosion
equipment coupled with the hull structure is established to study the
Shipboard equipment
Hull structure dynamic response of the shipboard equipment to the shock wave
Integration load as well as the bubble pulsation load. In order to verify the
Impact response numerical method, the simulated results are compared to the
experimental data, which are from a specific underwater explosion
on an actual ship. On this basis, by changing the charge location,
attack angle, equipment installation location and other parameters,
the characteristics of dynamic response under different conditions
can be obtained. In addition, the results of the integrated calculation
and the non-integrated one are compared and the characteristic
parameters which affect the equipment shock response are analyzed.
Some curves and conclusions are obtained for engineering applica-
tions, which provides some insights into the shock resistance of
shipboard equipment.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As is known, it is inevitable for a warships to encounter impact environment during his service life.
The contact explosions cause direct damages to the ship structure as well as the internal equipment,

* Corresponding author. College of Shipbuilding Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China.
Tel.: þ86 0451 8251 8296.
E-mail address: amanzhang@gmail.com (Z. Aman).

0951-8339/$ – see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marstruc.2011.05.005
 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411 397

while the non-contact explosions [1–5] will usually not cause the breakdown of the ship structure but
will cause large-scale damages to the naval equipment [6–8]. Therefore, the anti-shock performance of
shipboard equipment plays an important role in service life of a warship. Besides, both the full-scale
ship explosion tests and the model ship experiments have shown that the bubble load will cause
damages not only to the general ship structure, but also to the large-scale shipboard equipment [9,10].
The shock wave load resulting from underwater explosions mainly causes local damages to ships, while
the bubble pulsation load with low-frequency characteristic could trigger the general step displace-
ment of warships [11]. According to the experimental study on the floating impacted platform, several
researchers have found that step displacements are the main cause of damages to the shipboard
equipment with 10 Hz installation frequency [12].
Resulting from the large volume and mass of the shipboard equipment, it is difficult and expensive
to perform the impact tests for a full-scale ship. Instead the numerical calculation becomes an effective
method to the study of the anti-shock performance of the shipboard equipment. In previous evalua-
tions, the equipment and the ship hull were studied separately according to the relevant standards,
such as Germanic military standard BV0430-85 [13], with the coupling effect between them rarely
considered. Some relevant studies have showed that this simplified method could not precisely match
the full-scale ship shock environment for shipboard equipment. In this paper, the warship super-
charging boiler is chosen as the study object, Based on the theory of master-slave system coupling
vibration [14], a finite element model of integrated shipboard equipment and hull is created by
considering the coupled effects between them.
Based on the ABAQUS software, the Geers-Hunter theory [15] to calculate the shock wave and
bubble load in the underwater explosions, and the acoustic medium is to simulate the shock wave and
bubble propagation in water. Once the load arrives at the ship hull, the interaction between the ship’s
wet surface and surrounding flow field can be calculated by acoustic-structure coupling method. Then
the damages to the shipboard equipment resulting from bubble load during underwater explosion can
be analyzed based on the integrated ship-equipment model. Furthermore, in order to study the
mechanism of the damage to the shipboard equipment caused by underwater explosion load, the effect
of different parameters on the equipment response is investigated, including the explosion depth, the
attack angle, and the position of the detonation point along the ship’s length. Some curves are then
shown to represent the results obtained.

2. Numerical Calculation Method

Based on the ABAQUS software, the acoustic-structure coupling method is used to calculate the
propagation of the underwater explosion pressure in water and the interaction between the ship’s wet
surface and the surrounding water. Different boundary conditions in the flow field, such as the free surface
boundary condition and the non-reflective boundary condition are all considered in the analysis. The basic
theory of the acoustic-structure coupling method can be found in references [16,17].
Further assuming that the fluid is compressible [16], adiabatic and its motion is small, the
momentum equation for the fluid with velocity-dependent momentum losses can be expressed as [16]:

vp
þ aðx; Ki Þv_ f þ Df ðx; Ki Þ€vf ¼ 0 (1)
vx
Where, p is the dynamic pressure in the fluid (the pressure in excess of any static pressure); x is the
fluid particle’s spatial position; v_ f and €
vf is the fluid particle velocity and acceleration separately; Df is
fluid density; a is the force per unit volume per velocity; and Ki are dependent field variables such as
temperature, humidity, or salinity, etc.
Further assuming the fluid to be inviscid, linear and compressible [16], the constitutive equation of
the fluid can be expressed as:

vvf
p þ Rf ðx; Ki Þ ¼ 0 (2)
vx
Where, vf is the fluid particle displacement, Rf is the bulk modulus of the fluid.
398 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411

In order to obtain the partial differential equation used in direct integration transient analysis,
divide equation (1) by Df and derive the result with respect to x. Assuming that the analysis is transient
and neglecting the derivative ofa/Df, combine the result with the time derivatives of equation (2), and
then get the differential equation for the fluid in terms of the fluid pressure can be obtained as [16]:
!
1 a v 1 vp
€
pþ _
p , ¼ 0 (3)
Rf Df Rf vx Df vx

Introducing an arbitrary variation field dp, and integrating equation (3) over the whole fluid field, an
equivalent weak form for the equation of motion can be obtained [16]:
Z " !#
1 a v 1 vp
dp p€ þ p_ þ dV ¼ 0 (4)
Rf Df Rf vx Df vx
Vf

Through the coupled acoustic-structural medium analysis from ABAQUS [16], we obtain the fluid
field equilibrium equation [16]:
Z Z " ! # Z   Z "
 1 a 1 vdp vp 1 1 a 1
m
dpn ,€v dS ¼ dp €þ
p p_ þ , dV þ dp _
pþ p dSþ dp p
Rf Df Rf Df vx vx d1 a1 Df d1
Sfs Vf Sfi Sfr
! # Z Z !
a 1 1 1 a a 1
þ þ _
pþ € dSþ
p dpT0 dSþ dp pþ þ p_
Df b1 d1 b1 Df d1 Df b1 d1
Sft Sfrs
!
1
þ p € n ,€
vm dS (5)
b1

The structural behavior can be derived by using the virtual work principle [16]:
Z Z Z Z Z
dvm ,tdV ¼ de : sdV þ ac pdvm ,v_ m dV þ vm dV þ
pdvm ,€ pdvm ,ndV (6)
V V V V V

Where, dvm is a variational displacement field, t is the drag force of the structure, s is the nodal stress
in structure, p is the pressure applied on the structural wet surface, n is the normal of the structure
surface, pointing inside the fluid, D is the density of the structure, ac is the mass proportional damping
vm are the displacement, velocity and acceleration of the structure at one point
factor, vm,v_ m and €
separately, and de is the virtual displacement with respect to the virtual strain.
As above, the structure equilibrium equation in the fluid field can be obtained. Then we discretize
the structure and the acoustic medium with Finite Element Method (FEM), and define the surfaces on
which the pressure is applied. Finally, the pressure load from the underwater explosion by Geers and
Hunters model (2002) [15] is exerted on the discretized surfaces. As a consequence, the response of the

Fig. 1. The finite element model.

 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411 399

Fig. 2. The fluid field model.

structure together with the pressure propagation in the fluid field can be obtained by solving dis-
cretized equation of (5) and (6) with the explicit time integration method.

3. Verification of the numerical simulation method

In order to verify the numerical method, the numerical results are compared to the experimental
data of the warship underwater explosion. The general water displacement is D, with the ship length L,
the width 0.14 L, and the draft 0.04 L, and the interval of the frame is 0.008 L. The finite element model
and the fluid field model are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 respectively.
The origin of the coordinate system is the intersection point of central longitudinal section, midship
section and base plane; the X,Y, Z axis points towards the starboard, the bow and upwards respectively.
N kg TNT charge is placed 1.1 L away from the broadside, 0.8 L away from the free surface and 0.3 L away
from the midship section near the stern. The time-acceleration history curves of typical position on the
main deck are showed in Fig. 3.
It can be seen from Fig. 3 that the result of our model coincides well with the experimental data. At
the shock and pulsation stages, the time-acceleration history curve of the numerical result is similar to
that of the experimental data. The bubble pulsation begins at 0.57 s which can be observed in Fig. 3. The
peak strain at typical places of the ship is shown in Table 1, with the error defined as

jE  Rj
relative error ¼  100%
E
Where E denotes the experimental value and R is the numerical value.

Fig. 3. (a) Measured value in experiment (b) Numerical result in simulation.

400 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411

Table 1
Comparison of the strain peak values of typical position.

Measuring position Experimental Numerical Error Average

results (me) results (me) error
Longitudinal direction of the 63# center girder of main deck of the main 617 461 25.2% 26.3%
engine room
Cross direction of sideboard of 55# stringer toward the explosion of main 294 430 46.3%
deck of the main engine room
Cross direction of sideboard of 84# stringer away the explosion of the rear 267 300 12.4%
soldier compartment of the main deck
Vertical direction of the rib of 59# plane toward the explosion of the main 541 352 35.0%
engine room of the platform
Longitudinal direction of shell plate of 57# plane toward the explosion of 367 450 22.6%
the main engine room of the platform
Vertical direction of the rib of 55# plane away the explosion of the main 360 302 16.1%
engine room of the platform

It can be seen from Table 1 that the numerical results of strain coincide well with the experiment
data with maximum error as 46.3%, minimum 12.4% and average error approximately 26.3%. Further
more, the comparison between the numerical and experimental results of the shell plate deformation
under the explosion load is shown in Fig. 4.
From Fig. 4 we see that the shell plate generates large plastic deformation under the load of
underwater explosion, and serious damage is caused to the hull structure and internal equipment.

4. The integrated analysis model of shipboard equipment and ship hull

4.1. Integrated analysis model

Nowadays, most calculations on the anti-shock of the shipboard equipment are based on relevant
standards, such as Germanic military standard BV0430-85 [13], Chinese military standard GJB1060 [18]
etc., it is helpful to determine the input load and to check the anti-shock safety but not sufficient to
consider the coupling effect of equipment and the ship structure. However, the explosion of the charge,
the formation of shock wave and bubble pulsation, and their transmission to the ship structure and the
equipment all occur continuously and are inter-coupling and interactive. Therefore, the integrated
effect of the equipment and the ship hull should be paid enough in the analysis.
Based on the theory of master-slave system coupling vibration, the supercharging boiler is installed
on the ship for the hull-equipment integrated calculation. During the calculation, the equipment

Fig. 4. Comparison of shell plate deformation (a) Deformation of ship under underwater explosion load. (b) Deformation of
simulated result.
 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411 401

Fig. 5. The finite element model of the equipment and the ship hull.

installation frequency and damping are considered, and the spring-damping element is adopted to
simulate the shock absorber fixed between the boiler and the ship hull. The final installation frequency
of the supercharging boiler is about 10 Hz. The finite element model of the equipment and the ship hull
is shown in Fig. 5, where the red stands for equipment and the local model of the supercharging boiler
located on the ship’s equipment base is shown in Fig. 6.
The position of the charge is shown in Fig. 7. The length, width and draft of XXX ship are denoted as
L, B and T. A charge of N kg TNT is located at the position of 0.22 L below the naval equipment’s
installation position. Generally, the underwater explosion load consists of two stages, the shock wave
stage and the bubble pulsation stage. During the shock wave stage, the head of the shock wave is the
step form. Its amplitude value peaks sharply before decays exponentially in a short time after the phase
step. After the shock wave, the gas product of the explosion (the bubble) expands and contracts in
cycles, whilst the low-frequency pressure is radiated outwards. The underwater explosion shockwave
and bubble pulsation load in this paper are obtained by Geers and Hunters model.

4.2. Response of Warships Subjected to Underwater Explosions

Subjecting to the explosion load, the integrated model of the hull and the equipment is analyzed
numerically. The shock wave and bubbles loads act on the integrated model and generate dynamic
response. The response of the supercharging boiler depends largely on that of the equipment base on
the hull, so the latter is analyzed first. Fig. 8 displays the velocity-time response curve of the equipment
base and Fig. 9 shows the corresponding displacement-time curve.
It can be seen from Fig. 8 that the high frequency response appears in the first 0.1s which resulting
from the impact of the shock wave on the ship hull and the low-frequency part shows after 0.5 s
because of the secondary pulsation pressure, and there are multiple peaks as well. When the bubble

Fig. 6. The local model of the supercharging boiler located on the ship’s equipment base.
402 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411

Fig. 7. Charge position and equipment’s install position.

collapses at about 0.55 s, the response velocity peaks around 1.3m/s, which is only 20% of the first peak
velocity caused by the shock wave. As shown in Fig. 9, the displacement response of the equipment
base is caused by the long-time pulsation pressure. The equipment base reaches the max-
imumdisplacementof about 0.2 m at 0.3 s during the period of the shock wave. However, the response
velocity reaches another peak in a shorter time (about 0.2 s) with an obvious step property resulting
from the secondary pressure wave of the bubble load.
Both the analytical and experimental results show that the shock wave is in high frequency and
the bubble load is in low frequency. Compared with the high frequency of the shock wave, that of the
bubble load pulse is much lower, which is close to the overall ship’s vertical natural vibration
frequency and often tends to lead to the overall vibration of the hull. Under the act of the bubble pulse
load, the main character of low-frequency response for warships is that the warship heaves with the
expansion and contraction of explosion bubbles, usually accompanied with the whipping movement
of the entire ship [19,20]. The motion of the entire ship at different moments caused by underwater
explosion load is comprehensively studied and the motion at specified moments can be seen in
Fig. 10.
The motion of the whole warship at different moments (0.1 s, 0.3 s, 0.5 s, 0.6 s and 0.8 s) is shown in
Fig. 10. For an easier description, the warship is divided into 20 stations along the longitudinal
direction, and installation position for the supercharging boiler is between the 11th and the 12th
station (indicated by the blue broken line). As is clearly shown in Fig. 10, the ship hull makes a first-
order vibration motion in the vertical direction during the heave oscillation.

4.3. Dynamics of Equipment Responses with the Ship hull

Through the simulated analysis for the whole process of the hull subjecting to underwater explosive
load, the dynamic response of the warship and the supercharging boiler under the combined load of
the shock wave and the bubble is obtained. As two important factors of the hull and equipment

Fig. 8. Velocity-time response curve of the equipment base.

 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411 403

Fig. 9. Corresponding displacement-time curve.

response, the dynamic interaction and structural Mises-stress of the ship and the supercharging boiler
are shown in Fig. 11.
From Fig. 11 we can see that the ship whips under the coupled act of the shock wave and the bubble
pulsation. Intensively coupling effect exists between the boiler and the ship structure. The shock load is
transmitted through the fluid and reaches the boiler through the hull plate, the base and connecting
pieces. The strain of the boiler changes alternately under the shock load. At the initial time t ¼ 0 s, the
bubble expands outward rapidly with high pressure inside and has no influence on the ship, so there is
no response; at t ¼ 0.027 s, the velocity of the equipment base is in a high frequency form with high
peak values, and the response frequency of the supercharging boiler is lower resulting from the
existence of the Shock absorber which isolates the transfer of high frequency response between the
equipment base and the ship structure. In addition, the shock absorber is compressed to its minimum
length for the first time at this moment, storing large amount of energy which is to transfer to the
device in a low-frequency form. At t ¼ 0.28 s, the vertical displacement of the equipment base reaches
its maximum value. The movement amplitude of the equipment relative to the equipment base
reduces. At t ¼ 0.47 s, the whole warship begins to move in the opposite direction to that at t ¼ 0.027 s;
at t ¼ 0.53 s, the speed of the equipment base increases rapidly, and the high-speed peak value lasts for
a long period with step displacement. The shock reducer device is compressed to the shortest length
for the second time, and then the movement amplitude of the device relative to the equipment base
reaches the maximum value. Moreover, the stress on the internal and external shell of the super-
charging boiler is relevantly large. At t ¼ 0.62 s, the vertical displacement of the equipment base
reaches the maximum value again, and the whole vessel moves downwards with the underwater
explosion loads.
As the expansion and the collapse of the bubble go on, the flow field is driven to move, and the
whole warship displacement and shape vary with time. On the whole, the warship takes a whipping
movement predominated by the first-order vertical mode of vibration under the bubble load; while the
equipment takes deep vibration after the impact of shock wave, which decays gradually due to

Fig. 10. The motion of the entire ship at different moments.

404 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411

Fig. 11. The dynamic response of the warship and the supercharging boiler under the combination load of the shock wave and the
bubble.

damping. The base of the supercharging boiler manifests phase-step displacements after the act of
bubble collapse, and the response vibration of the equipment increases again and is more violent than
that of shock wave impact. To further explain this phenomenon, the response curve of vertical velocity
for typical parts of the equipment is shown in Fig. 12 corresponded with the velocity, and the curve of
the displacement of the equipment relative to the base of ship is shown in Fig. 13.
It can be seen from Fig. 12that before t ¼ 0.5 s the velocity of the supercharging boiler increases
rapidly resulting from the impact of shock wave and then decays gradually with the same trend as the
hull, and the oscillation of the supercharging boiler is based on the natural installation frequency of the
 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411 405

Fig. 12. Response curve of vertical velocity for typical parts.

equipment in this process. After the bubble collapsing, i.e. after t ¼ 0.53 s, the vertical speed of the
equipment peaks at 3.3 m/s and exceeds the maximum speed value of 3 m/s induced by shock wave.
As shown in Fig. 13, the vertical displacement of the equipment relative to the ship hull manifests the
vibration of the supercharging boiler after being shocked. Because the equipment is connected to the hull
base by the absorber in the model, the positive and negative values of the vertical displacement in Fig. 13
represent the tension and compression of the absorber respectively. The absorber of the equipment is
compressed with the rising of the whole hull at initial stage, and the vibration amplitude of the equip-
ment is relatively large in the first tension with a maximum value of 33 mm, before the movement begins
to decay. The absorber is compressed during the bubble collapsing; the vibration amplitude value of the
equipment in the first tension reaches 44 mm after the bubble collapse, which increases by 33%
comparing to that caused by the shock wave. From the analysis above, it can be seen that the movement
of the equipment induced by the bubble is much more severe than that induced by shock wave as for the
selected model in this calculation.
In order to check the safety of the equipment, the stress response curve of the supercharging boiler
at typical positions is shown in Fig. 14. The elements at the internal and external shell of the super-
charging boiler have been selected for stress analyses in the process of the calculation. The impact of
shock wave on the external shell of the supercharging boiler produces high stress with a peak value up
to 60 MPa. The vibration amplitude and stress reduce resulting from damping. The stress response of
the equipment increases rapidly and the peak value reaches about 70 MPa after the bubble collapsing,
which exceeds that induced by shock wave. However, the stress response at the internal shell of the
supercharging boiler is very low under the load of shock wave, and the peak value of the stress
increases gradually after the bubble collapsing and reaches 61 MPa at 0.72 s, which exceeds the stress
response caused by shock wave.
The analysis of the equipment stress response shows that the stress caused by underwater
explosion bubble is more severe than that caused by shock wave. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the equipment installed with absorber can be severely damaged by bubble load.

Fig. 13. Curve of displacement of equipment relative to ship base.

406 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411

Fig. 14. The stress response curve of the supercharging boiler.

4.4. The effect of different parameters on the dynamic response of equipments

Based on the analysis above, different initial conditions are selected study the effect of different
parameters on the dynamic response during the underwater explosion. From the perspective of the
equipment vibration amplitude, stress and equivalent plastic strain, some sensitivity analyses (such as
the depth of underwater explosion, the attack angle, and the explosion position along the length of the
ship) have been performed to find out their effects on the equipment response. Firstly, the effect of
different water depths and attack angles on the equipment is considered at the same transverse section
of the warship, as is shown in Fig. 15, where q is the attack angle and H represents the water depth
beneath the free surface. In the calculation, q equals 30 , 45 and 90 respectively and the water depth
increases from 15 m to 60 m with an interval of 5 m to ensure the existence of bubble pulse
phenomenon.
For different initial conditions, the weight of the charge is kept as N kg. The selected transverse
section is the one where the equipment is installed. When the supercharging boiler suffers the bubble
load after the underwater explosion, the stress amplitude curves, which change with the variation of
attack angle and water depth, are shown in Fig. 16.
From Fig. 16, it can be seen that the variation trend of Mises-stress amplitude of the equipment is
almost the same for different attack angles in a specific water depth. Generally speaking, Mises-stress
increases gradually with the diminution of the water depth H, and the increment trend of the stress
becomes more obvious when H is less than 24 m. There is a small peak value on the curve when H is
around 50 m, and the peak shape on the amplitude curve becomes much more obvious with the
increment of the attack angle. Further analysis of this phenomenon shows that it is caused by the
resonance effect, which appears when the frequency of the bubble pulse is quite close to the first-order

Fig. 15. The sketch map of underwater explosion.

 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411 407

Fig. 16. Stress amplitude curves with water angle and depth.

vertical natural frequency of the ship hull at that water depth, which is about 1.5 Hz. The amplitude of
whipping movement increases with the emergence of resonance and the stress response of the
equipment becomes more severe resulting from the large amplitude movement of the equipment base.
As a consequence of the bubble load, plastic deformations occur on certain joint shell parts of the
equipment when the stress values are higher than the Specific Minimum Yield Stress (SMYS) of the
material. Fig. 17 shows the curve of Equivalent Plastic Strains (PEEQ) on some joint parts with
the variation of attack angle and water depths. It indicates that PEEQ is 0 when attack angle is 30 and
water depth is deeper than 25 m, and the critical water depth of the emergence of equivalent plastic
strain is 30 m when the attack angle is 90 . When the water depth H is larger than this critical value, the
material of the structure is in the elastic range and there is no material yielding. On the contrary, when
the explosion depth H is less than the critical value, the equivalent plastic strain increases rapidly with
the decrease of water depth and the structure of the equipment is in great danger. The equivalent
plastic strain of the equipment increases exponentially with the increase of charge weight and the
decrease of water depth.
Besides, in order to analyze the impact on the equipment from different charge locations along the
hull, five different transverse sections have been selected for the sensitivity analysis in this paper, i.e.
sections at bow, L/4 from bow, midship, L/4 to stern and stern, which are labeled as S.0, S.5, S.10, S.15 and
S.20. For the selected cross sections, the amount of TNT, water depth and position of the explosion charge
are all the same. Fig. 18 shows the response amplitudes of the equipment from different explosion.
According to Fig. 18, the dynamic response of the equipment is relatively small when the charge is
located at the bow or stern section, with the vibration amplitude around 22 mm. While the charge is
located in the middle area of ship, i.e. the area between L/4 to bow and L/4 to stern, the response is
relatively large and the amplitude of which is about 45 mm. This phenomenon further proves that the

Fig. 17. PEEQ curve on joint parts with angle and depth.
408 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411

Fig. 18. Response amplitudes of the equipment along ship.

majority energy of the vibration comes from the bubble load during underwater explosions. Because
shock wave normally has high frequencies and can only be a threat to the equipment within a limited
range, the damages caused by them are usually in local areas. However, the bubble load has low-
frequency property and can trigger the vibration of the whole hull. In Fig. 18, the vibration amplitude is
almost the same within the middle half ship length, by which it can be concluded that the main energy
of the equipment vibration derives from the bubble load. Therefore, it can be seen that the bubble load
could do effective damages to the shipboard equipment which are installed around the wide ranges of
the charge location.

5. Comparison between the integrated and the non-integrated model

As mentioned in introduction, there might be a significant difference between the anti-shock check
of non-integrated equipment (e.g. the check with the BV043/85 standard) and that of the integrated
equipment and the hull. Now consider the following
pffiffiffiffiffi
ffi example, the explosion is right under the hull, and
we define the impact factor [1] as C ¼ W =R, where W is the amount of charge and R is the stand-off
distance. Here c is set as 0.53 and Fig. 19 shows the numerical results of the two cases.
As is known, the equipment is weak where the strain is large. From the contour shown in Fig. 19,
significant difference exits between the results with different calculating methods and the strain of the
weak part obtained through the integrated calculation is larger. It means, on the other hand, that the
result of separate anti-shock check calculation is relatively dangerous in actual situations. The time-
strain and time-acceleration history curves of the equipment are also compared in Fig. 20.
In Fig. 20 the green curves stand for the numerical results of the integrated anti-shock analysis and
the red for the results of the non-integrated one. And the former is larger than the latter in terms of the
strain response and acceleration shock response. It can also be seen that the peak strain of different
units shows the same trend, as shown in Fig. 21.
From Fig. 21 we can see that the horizontal and the vertical shock response share the same regu-
larity with obvious differences in the numerical results between the integrated and the non-integrated
methods. These differences may be caused by the following reasons:

Fig. 19. Mises strain contour of equipment at 2 ms

 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411 409

Fig. 20. (a) Time-strain curves at typical position. (b) Time-acceleration curves at typical position.

1) There is a strong coupling effect between the hull and the equipment under the shock load, both of
which are elastic structures, while the coupling effect is just neglected in the non-integrated
analysis;
2) The shock environments at different spatial locations of the large equipment are different, while
they are taken as the same in the non-integrated analysis which ignored the multi-point and multi-
direction input characteristics. Therefore, the non-integrated analysis will cause a large error of
more than 20%.

We analyzed the effect of the impact factor on the results of integrated analysis and non-integrated
analysis, with its value varying from 0.1 to 1.2. Simulated results show that when the impact factor
c < 0.45 (i.e. mid and far-field underwater explosions), the value of acceleration and stress response

Fig. 21. (a) Comparisons of responses under horizontal shock. (b) Comparisons of responses under vertical shock.
410 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411

from the non-integrated analysis is relatively larger, which means that we can adopt non-integrated
analysis in the mid and far-field underwater explosions to evaluate the anti-shock features of large
equipment. However, when the impact factor c  0.45 (i.e. the near-field underwater explosion),
smaller responses will generate for the non-integrated anti-shock analysis of equipment compared to
actual situations, which means non-integrated analysis is somewhat dangerous for engineering
application for near-field explosion.

6. Conclusions

Based on ABAQUS software, the numerical method is verified by comparing the numerical results
with the experimental data from the warship underwater explosion. The dynamic response can be
obtained based on the integrated model of the equipment coupling with the hull structure which is
compared with that of the non-integrated calculation. The suggestions and conclusions are shown as
follows.

1) Shock wave and bubble pulsation of underwater explosion will induce intensive impact to the hull
and shipboard equipment. From the strain and displacement response it can be seen that the
amplitude of equipment caused by the bubble pulse is greater. Therefore, bubble load which
influences the dynamic response of the equipment can not be ignored.
2) The dynamic response of the equipment changes with water depth and attack angle, if charges are
located at a particular water depth, where pulsation frequency of the bubble is quite close to the
natural frequency of the ship hull, system resonance and relatively large equipment stress
responses.
3) Based on the sensitivity analyses of the equipment response with different positions of the charge
in longitudinal direction, it is found that the bubble load provides most of the energy for the
vibration of the equipment. Wherever the explosion is located within the middle half of the whole
hull length, the dymamic responses of the equipment are similar. Consequently, the bubble load
could cause effective damages to the shipboard equipment installed within a wide range of the
charge location.
4) There is a strong elastic coupling effect in integrated calculation of the equipment and the hull
structure and the impact on the equipment is multi-point and non-uniformity inputs, so the non-
integrated calculation of equipment and hull structure will make a large error when applied to
study the shock resistance.
5) When the impact factor c < 0.45 (underwater explosion of the mid and far-field), the acceleration
and stress responses obtained by the non-integrated calculation in anti-shock analysis are rela-
tively larger than that by integrated calculation. That is to say, we can carry out the evaluation of
the equipment anti-shock performance with the non-integrated calculation for mid or far-field
explosion. However, when the impact factor (the near-field underwater explosion)c  0.45, smaller
response will generate for the non-integrated anti-shock analysis of equipment, which means non-
integrated analysis is somewhat dangerous for engineering application for near-field explosion.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of ChinadNSAF Grant No:
10976008 and the State Key Program of National Natural Science of China Grant No:50939002. Authors
would like to acknowledge Professor Wu Guo-xiong of University College London for valuable
suggestions.

References

[1] Cole RH. Underwater explosion. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1948. pp. 118–231.
[2] Kalumuck KM, Chahine GL, Duraiswami R. Bubble dynamics fluid-structure interaction simulation by coupling fluid BEM
and structural FEM codes. J Fluid Struct 1995;9:861–83.
[3] Klaseboer E, Khoo BC, Hung KC. Dynamics of an oscillating bubble near a floating structure. J Fluid Struct 2005;10:1–10.
[4] Pozrikidis C. Three-dimensional oscillations of rising bubbles. Eng Anal Bound Elem 2004;28:315–23.
 Z. Aman et al. / Marine Structures 24 (2011) 396–411 411

[5] Klaseboer E, Hung KC, Wang C, Wang WC, Khoo BC, Boyce P, et al. Experimental and numerical investigation of the
dynamics of an underwater explosion bubble near a resilient/rigid structure. J Fluid Mech 2005;537:387–413.
[6] Keil AH. The response of ships to underwater explosions. Trans Soc Nav Archit Mar Eng 1961;69:366–410.
[7] Zamyshlyayev BV. Dynamic load in underwater explosion; 1973. AD-757183.
[8] Brooks RP, McNaight BC. Mathematical model of a typical floating shock platform subjected to underwater explosion. The
43rd Shock and Vibration Bulletin, Pt2, 1973.
[9] Li GH, Li LJ, Zhang XC. Study of power source for shock environment of ship equipment. The 69th Shock and Vibration
Symposium Minnesota(U-47), 1998. 10.
[10] Yao XL, Dai SS, Zhou QX, Zhang AM, Wen XY. Numerical experiment methods for ship hull and equipment integrated
analysis on shock resistance of shipboard equipments. Explo Shock Wave 2009;29(4):367–74.
[11] Zong Z. A hydro plastic analysis of a free–free beam floating on water subjected to an underwater bubble. J Fluid Struct
2005;20:359–72.
[12] Li GH, Li YJ, Zhang XC, et al. Verification of the relationship between the bubble motion and ship equipment vibration by
test(in Chinese). Ship Mechanics 2005;9(1):98–105.
[13] BV0430–85, Germany defense warship construction code-impact security. Koblenz, 1987.
[14] Thomson William Tyrrell. Theory of vibration with applications. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1993. pp. 126–147.
[15] Geers TL, Hunter KS. An integrated wave-effects model for an underwater explosion bubble. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;111(4):
1584–601.
[16] ABAQUS user’s and theory manuals, version 6.8., RI, USA: Dassault Systèmes; 2008.
[17] Everstine G. A symmetric potential formulation for fluid-structure interaction. J Sound Vib 1981;79:157–60.
[18] GJB 1060,1–1991. General requirement for environmental conditions of naval ships mechanical environments. Beijing;
1991.
[19] Hicks AN. The theory of explosion induced ship whipping motions, NCRE Report R579, naval construction Research
Establishment 1972.
[20] Vernon TA. Whipping response of ship hulls from underwater explosion bubble load. ADA; 1986.