Abstract
Researchers have a great interest in determining the characteristics of shock wave propagation by an underwater explosion. But it involves complex physical processes near boundaries during the underwater explosion. The major issues are explosions, fluid interactions, fluid–structure interactions, and shock wave propagation. In general, the underwater explosion leads to shock wave propagation and it moves toward two types of boundaries. The first one is the free surface of the water, and the second is fluid–structure interaction. The underwater explosion also deals with bulk cavitation behind shock waves. This paper deals with the shock wave propagation and bulk cavitation because of the underwater explosion near the free surface. The computation and analytical results of the underwater explosion were discussed and compared. Also, polynomial and Mie–Gruneisen (shock) equation of state (EOS) of water was implemented to determine the incompressible nature of water and to get realistic results. The results of both the EOS of water were compared against each other and validated against analytical results. These results show that the equation of state of water and water–air interface has a significant influence on the characteristics of the shock wave propagation and unsteady cavitation near the free surface.
Graphic abstract
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A-man Z, Wen-shan Y, Xiong-liang Y (2012) Numerical simulation of underwater contact explosion. Appl Ocean Res 34:10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2011.07.009
Brett JM, Yiannakopoulos G, Van Der Schaaf PJ (2000) Time-resolved measurement of the deformation of submerged cylinders subjected to loading from a nearby explosion. Int J Impact Eng 24:875–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-743X(00)00023-3
Clutter JK, Stahl M (2004) Hydrocode simulations of air and water shocks for facility vulnerability assessments. J Hazard Mater 106:9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2003.09.003
Cole R (1948) Underwater explosions. Dover Publ Inc, New York
Cui P, Zhang AM, Wang SP (2016) Small-charge underwater explosion bubble experiments under various boundary conditions. Phys Fluids. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4967700
Century Dynamics Inc (2007) Ansys AUTODYN theory manual, Century Dynamics, Concord, CA
Henderson LF, Jia-Huan M, Akira S, Kazuyoshi T (1990) Refraction of a shock wave at an air-water interface. Fluid Dyn Res 5:337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5983(90)90003-H
Kedrinskii VK (1976) Negative pressure profile in cavitation zone at underwater explosion near free surface. Acta Astronaut 3:623–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-5765(76)90166-1
Liu TG, Khoo BC, Yeo KS (2001a) The simulation of compressible multi-medium flow. I. A new methodology with test applications to 1D gas-gas and gas-water cases. Comput Fluids 30:291–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7930(00)00022-0
Liu TG, Khoo BC, Yeo KS (2001b) The simulation of compressible multi-medium flow II. Applications to 2D underwater shock refraction. Comput Fluids 30:315–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7930(00)00021-9
Liu TG, Khoo BC, Yeo KS, Wang C (2003) Underwater shock-free surface-structure interaction. Int J Numer Methods Eng 58:609–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.791
Liu TG, Khoo BC, Xie WF (2004) Isentropic one-fluid modelling of unsteady cavitating flow. J Comput Phys 201:80–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2004.05.010
Moon SJ, Il KJ, Park JW, Chung JH (2017) Assessment on shock pressure acquisition from underwater explosion using uncertainty of measurement. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 9:589–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2017.04.002
Shi RC, Huang RY, Wang GY et al (2015) Numerical simulation of underwater shock wave propagation in the vicinity of rigid wall based on ghost fluid method. Shock Vib. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/467376
Shin YS, Chisum JE (1997) Modeling and simulation of underwater shock problems using a coupled Lagrangian–Eulerian analysis approach. Shock Vib 4:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/1997/123617
Sochet I, Gardebas D, Calderara S et al (2011) Blast wave parameters for spherical explosives detonation in free air. Open J Saf Sci Technol 01:31–42. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojsst.2011.12004
Steinberg DJ (1987) Spherical explosions and the equation of state of water. Natl Tech Inf Serv, Springfield
Wang G, Zhang S, Yu M et al (2014) Investigation of the shock wave propagation characteristics and cavitation effects of underwater explosion near boundaries. Appl Ocean Res 46:40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2014.02.003
Wang G, Wang Y, Lu W et al (2016) On the determination of the mesh size for numerical simulations of shock wave propagation in near field underwater explosion. Appl Ocean Res 59:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.05.011
Wu ZD, Sun L, Zong Z (2013) Computational investigation of the mitigation of an underwater explosion. Acta Mech 224:3159–3175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00707-013-0909-z
Wu K, Zhang G, Kim HD (2019) Study on the Mach and regular reflections of shock wave. J Vis 22:283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12650-018-00542-5
Xiao W, Peng WH, Feng L (2017) Investigation on the cavitation effect of underwater shock near different boundaries. China Ocean Eng 31:396–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13344-017-0046-x
Xie WF, Liu TG, Khoo BC (2007) The simulation of cavitating flows induced by underwater shock and free surface interaction. Appl Numer Math 57:734–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2006.07.014
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. NRF-2016R1A2B3016436).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rajasekar, J., Kim, T.H. & Kim, H.D. Visualization of shock wave propagation due to underwater explosion. J Vis 23, 825–837 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12650-020-00664-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12650-020-00664-9