Underwater Implosion and Energy Mitigation of Hybrid Glass-Carbon Composite Shells
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Procedures
2.1. Specimen Design and Preparation
2.2. Material Characterization
2.3. Experimental Setup
2.4. Digital Image Correlation (DIC)
3. Theoretical Procedures
3.1. Laminate Composites
3.2. Critical Buckling Pressure Prediction
3.3. Normalization of Collapse Velocity, Pressure, and Time History
3.4. Impulse Analysis
3.5. Energy Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Collapse Pressure (CP)
4.2. Collapse Behavior
- I.
- Initially, there is a force imbalance on the structure due to the difference between the internal pressure and the ambient hydrostatic pressure as the external pressure increases.
- II.
- As the external pressure reaches a critical point, the structure becomes unstable and starts buckling inward.
- III.
- During the collapse, the surrounding fluid also accelerates along with the shell walls, decreasing the ambient pressure. The shell continues to accelerate inward until the walls of the shell make contact, resulting in a high-amplitude pressure pulse being emitted into the surrounding fluid. This pressure pulse arises from the change in momentum of the fluid as it is abruptly stopped.
- IV.
- The wall contact propagates longitudinally along the shell until it is arrested at the endcaps, generating additional positive pressure waves.
4.3. Collapse Velocity and Pressure Comparison
4.3.1. Pressure Comparison
4.3.2. Velocity Comparison
4.4. Post-Mortem Analysis
5. Discussion
5.1. Analytical Predictions
5.2. Impulse Analysis
5.3. Energy Calculations
6. Conclusions
- The thickness of the internal ply layers significantly influences the bending stiffness of composite laminates and, consequently, the critical buckling pressure. Glass fiber layers, being 1.5 times thicker than carbon fiber layers, resulted in the Hybrid–[C/G/G/G/G/C] configuration exhibiting the highest collapse pressure among all tested specimens. Analytical predictions of the buckling pressures for different thin hybrid configurations further emphasized the importance of internal layer thickness in determining the bending stiffness of composite laminates. Therefore, to achieve maximum strength in a hybrid layup, it is preferable to use thicker plies for the internal layers and stiffer plies for the outer sheets.
- In general, glass fiber used as internal layers emits less energy during implosion compared to pure carbon fiber tubes due to the more energy-intensive failure mechanisms exhibited by glass fibers. This implies that structures with internal plies possessing higher energy absorption capabilities will release less energy into the environment upon failure, in contrast to structures with the opposite configuration.
- Changing the location of carbon and glass layers in an asymmetric hybrid configuration with a 1:1 carbon/glass ratio had an insignificant effect on the energy release. This is mainly attributed to the presence of an equal number of glass fiber plies in the inner layers of the hybrids, which leads to a similar energy dissipation behavior.
- The presence of carbon fiber as internal layers leads to a more catastrophic failure mechanism characterized by longitudinal through-thickness openings with complete fiber breakage, as compared to glass fiber.
- Hybrid composite tubes with very high buckling pressures exhibit a more catastrophic failure mechanism regardless of the properties of the individual plies.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Tube Stiffness Evaluations
Appendix B. Analytical Stiffness Results
References
- Mouritz, A.P.; Gellert, E.; Burchill, P.; Challis, K. Review of advanced composite structures for naval ships and submarines. Compos. Struct. 2001, 53, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; LeBlanc, J.M.; Shukla, A. Sympathetic underwater implosion in a confining environment. Extrem. Mech. Lett. 2015, 3, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kishore, S.; Parrikar, P.N.; Shukla, A. Response of an underwater cylindrical composite shell to a proximal implosion. J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 2021, 152, 104414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, S.; Zhao, M. Numerical simulation and analysis of the chain-reaction implosions of multi-spherical hollow ceramic pressure hulls in deep-sea environment. Ocean. Eng. 2023, 277, 114247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wanchoo, P.; Kishore, S.; Pandey, A.; Shukla, A. Advances in naval composite and sandwich structures for blast and implosion mitigations. J. Sandw. Struct. Mater. 2022, 109963622211395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weingarten, V.I.; Seide, P.; Paterson, J.P. Buckling of Thin-Walled Circular Cylinders. NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria. 1–49. 1968. Available online: http://www.sti.nasa.gov (accessed on 18 April 2022).
- Orr, M. Acoustic signatures from deep water implosions of spherical cavities. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1976, 59, 1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urick, R.J. Implosions as sources of underwater sound. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1963, 35, 2026–2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grimston, M.; Nuttall, W.J.; Vaughan, G.; de Lima, M.C.M.A.R.; Hunt, J.G.; Da Silva, F.C.A. Particle astrophysics: Accident grounds neutrino laboratory. Phys. World 2001, 14, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robotic Deep-Sea Vehicle Lost on Dive to 6-Mile Depth—Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Available online: https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/Nereus-Lost/ (accessed on 18 April 2022).
- Wei, C.; Chen, G.; Sergeev, A.; Yeh, J.; Chen, J.; Wang, J.; Ji, S.; Wang, J.; Yang, D.; Xiang, S.; et al. Implosion of the Argentinian submarine ARA San Juan S-42 undersea: Modeling and simulation. Commun. Nonlinear. Sci. Numer. Simul. 2020, 91, 105397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Missing Titanic Submersible: ‘Catastrophic Implosion’ Likely Killed 5 Aboard Submersible—The New York Times. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/22/us/titanic-missing-submarine (accessed on 26 June 2023).
- Turner, S.E. Underwater implosion of glass spheres. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 121, 844–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, S.E.; Ambrico, J.M. Underwater implosion of cylindrical metal tubes. J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME 2013, 80, 011013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; LeBlanc, J.M.; Shukla, A. Mechanics of the implosion of cylindrical shells in a confining tube. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2014, 51, 3996–4014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sridharan, S. Delamination Behaviour of Composites; Woodhead: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wonderly, C.; Grenestedt, J.; Fernlund, G.; Cěpus, E. Comparison of Mechanical Properties of Glass Fiber/Vinyl Ester and Carbon Fiber/Vinyl Ester Composites. Compos. Part B 2005, 36, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, M.; Matos, H.; Gupta, S.; Shukla, A. Experimental investigation on underwater buckling of thin-walled composite and metallic structures. J. Press. Vessel. Technol. Trans. ASME 2016, 138, 060905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swolfs, Y.; Gorbatikh, L.; Verpoest, I. Fibre hybridisation in polymer composites: A review. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2014, 67, 181–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolfe, E.; Kaboglu, C.; Quinn, R.; Hooper, P.A.; Arora, H.; Dear, J.P. High Velocity Impact and Blast Loading of Composite Sandwich Panels with Novel Carbon and Glass Construction. J. Dyn. Behav. Mater. 2018, 4, 359–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandya, K.S.; Pothnis, J.R.; Ravikumar, G.; Naik, N.K. Ballistic impact behavior of hybrid composites. Mater. Des. 2013, 44, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy, P.R.S.; Reddy, T.S.; Mogulanna, K.; Srikanth, I.; Madhu, V.; Rao, K.V. Ballistic impact studies on carbon and E-glass fibre based hybrid composite laminates. Procedia Eng. 2017, 173, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM D3039/D3039M-17; Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2008. [CrossRef]
- ASTM D5379/D5379M-12; Standard Test Method for Shear Properties of Composite Materials by the V-Notched Beam Method. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; Parameswaran, V.; Sutton, M.A.; Shukla, A. Study of dynamic underwater implosion mechanics using digital image correlation. Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2014, 470, 20140576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; Matos, H.; Shukla, A.; LeBlanc, J.M. Pressure signature and evaluation of hammer pulses during underwater implosion in confining environments. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2016, 140, 1012–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matos, H.; Gupta, S.; Shukla, A. Structural instability and water hammer signatures from shock-initiated implosions in confining environments. Mech. Mater. 2018, 116, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, R.F. Principles of Composite Material Mechanics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; p. 676. [Google Scholar]
- Koudela, K.L.; Strait, L.H. Simplified Methodology for Prediction of Critical Buckling Pressure for Smooth-Bore Composite Cylindrical Shells. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 1993, 12, 570–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matos, H.; Kishore, S.; Salazar, C.; Shukla, A. Buckling, vibration, and energy solutions for underwater composite cylinders. Compos. Struct. 2020, 244, 112282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikeda, C.M.; Wilkerling, J.; Duncan, J.H. The implosion of cylindrical shell structures in a high-pressure water environment. Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2013, 469, 20130443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, M.; Shukla, A. Mitigation of pressure pulses from implosion of hollow composite cylinders. J. Compos. Mater. 2015, 50, 3709–3718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arons, A.B.; Yennie, D.R. Energy partition in underwater explosion phenomena. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1948, 20, 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, R.H. Underwater Explosions; Princeton University: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1948. [Google Scholar]
- Pinto, M.; Gupta, S.; Shukla, A. Hydrostatic implosion of GFRP composite tubes studied by digital image correlation. J. Press. Vessel. Technol. Trans. ASME 2015, 137, 051302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, M.; Gupta, S.; Shukla, A. Study of implosion of carbon/epoxy composite hollow cylinders using 3-D Digital Image Correlation. Compos. Struct. 2015, 119, 272–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngwa, A.; Rossell, V.; Matos, H.; Shukla, A. Effects of ring stiffeners on the underwater collapse behavior of carbon/epoxy composite tubes. J. Compos. Mater. 2023, 57, 002199832311626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, C.; Ranaweera-Jayawardena, H.A.; Davies, I.J. Flexural properties of hybrid composites reinforced by S-2 glass and T700S carbon fibres. Compos. B Eng. 2012, 43, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kishore, S.; Senol, K.; Parrikar, P.N.; Shukla, A. Underwater implosion pressure pulse interactions with submerged plates. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2020, 143, 104051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sands, A.G.; Clark, R.C.; Kohn, E.J. Microvoids in glass-filament-wound structures: Their measurement, minimization, and correlation with interlaminar shear strength. NRL Rep. 1967, 6498, 31. [Google Scholar]
- Matos, H.; Chaudhary, B.; Ngwa, A.N. Optimization of composite cylindrical shell structures for hydrostatic pressure loading. J. Press. Vessel. Technol. 2023, 145, 011504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
E11 (GPa) | E22 (GPa) | ν12 | G12 (GPa) | Density (kg/m3) | Fiber Diameter (µm) | Fiber Mass Fraction | Fiber Volume Fraction | Ply Thickness Post-Cure (mm) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Carbon | 127 | 7.25 | 0.35 | 5.53 | 1440 | 7 | 28.8 | 58.4 | 0.145 |
Glass | 49 | 11.31 | 0.33 | 5.38 | 1890 | 15 | 22.7 | 56.3 | 0.218 |
Experiment Name | Critical Collapse Pressure CP (MPa) | Nominal Thickness, t (mm) | Specimen Mass, M (g) |
---|---|---|---|
CFRP | 1.04 ± 0.01 | 0.98 ± 0.03 | 79.3 ± 1.0 |
Hybrid–[C/G/G/G/G/C] | 1.95 ± 0.06 | 1.39 ± 0.04 | 130.2 ± 1.3 |
Hybrid–[G/C/C/C/C/G] | 0.89 ± 0.02 | 1.17 ± 0.03 | 101.6 ± 1.0 |
Hybrid–[G/G/G/C/C/C] | 1.21 ± 0.03 | 1.37 ± 0.03 | 118.0 ± 0.7 |
Hybrid–[C/C/C/G/G/G] | 1.14 ± 0.04 | 1.28 ± 0.03 | 117.7 ± 1.0 |
GFRP | 1.35 ± 0.07 | 1.50 ± 0.03 | 149.3 ± 1.4 |
Experimental Name | Critical Collapse Pressure (MPa) | Minimum Pressure, dPmin/Pcr | Underpressure Duration (ms) | Maximum Pressure, dPmax/Pcr | Overpressure Duration (ms) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CFRP | 1.04 ± 0.01 | 0.32 ± 0.02 | 2.59 ± 0.05 | 0.59 ± 0.06 | 1.13 ± 0.05 |
Hybrid–[C/G/G/G/G/C] | 1.95 ± 0.06 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 2.20 ± 0.14 | 0.74 ± 0.25 | 1.89 ± 0.18 |
Hybrid – [G/C/C/C/C/G] | 0.89 ± 0.02 | 0.30 ± 0.01 | 3.67 ± 0.01 | 0.47 ± 0.01 | 1.24± 0.06 |
Hybrid – [G/G/G/C/C/C] | 1.21 ± 0.03 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 3.01 ± 0.05 | 0.75 ± 0.02 | 0.93 ± 0.02 |
Hybrid – [C/C/C/G/G/G] | 1.14 ± 0.04 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 3.25 ± 0.05 | 0.72 ± 0.10 | 1.16 ± 0.07 |
GFRP | 1.35 ± 0.07 | 0.29 ± 0.01 | 2.93 ± 0.13 | 1.22 ± 0.24 | 1.08 ± 0.03 |
Experiment Name | Critical Collapse Pressure | Maximum Local Center Velocity (m/s) | Pre-Buckling Deformation (mm) |
---|---|---|---|
CFRP | 1.04 ± 0.01 | 17.0 ± 0.6 | 1.9 ± 0.1 |
Hybrid–[C/G/G/G/G/C] | 1.95 ± 0.06 | 24.8 ± 1.4 | 2.2 ± 0.0 |
Hybrid–[G/C/C/C/C/G] | 0.89 ± 0.02 | 11.0 ± 0.3 | 1.8 ± 0.4 |
Hybrid–[G/G/G/C/C/C] | 1.21 ± 0.03 | 20.6 ± 3.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 |
Hybrid–[C/C/C/G/G/G] | 1.14 ± 0.04 | 23.3 ± 0.4 | 1.7 ± 0.4 |
GFRP | 1.35 ± 0.07 | 17.1 ± 1.1 | 5.1 ± 0.1 |
Specimen Name | Summary of Damage |
---|---|
CFRP |
|
Hybrid–[C/G/G/G/G/C] |
|
Hybrid–[G/C/C/C/C/G] |
|
Hybrid–[G/G/G/C/C/C] |
|
Hybrid–[C/C/C/G/G/G] |
|
GFRP |
|
Configuration | CP (MPa) |
---|---|
[G/G/C/C/G/G] | 1.08 |
[C/C/G/G/C/C] | 1.45 |
[G/G/G/G/G/C] | 1.67 |
[C/C/C/C/C/G] | 0.87 |
[C/G/C/C/G/C] | 1.44 |
[G/C/G/G/C/G] | 1.10 |
Experimental Name | Under Pressure Impulse (N.s.m−2) | Under Pressure, Impulse Normalized (%) | Radiated Energy (J) | Radiated Energy Normalized (%) | After-Flow Energy (J) | After-Flow Energy Normalized (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CFRP | 307.1 ± 21.9 | 5.71 ± 0.335 | 3.15 ± 0.45 | 0.98 ± 0.12 | 45.40 ± 6.66 | 14.04 ± 1.81 |
Hybrid–[C/G/G/G/G/C] | 369.1 ± 6.4 | 4.03 ± 0.17 | 5.15 ± 0.55 | 0.94 ± 0.04 | 65.25 ± 2.25 | 11.86 ± 0.3 |
Hybrid– [G/C/C/C/C/G] | 289.2 ± 16.0 | 6.20 ± 0.24 | 2 ± 0.02 | 0.72 ± 0.14 | 40.15 ± 4.45 | 14.30 ± 1.32 |
Hybrid– [G/G/G/C/C/C] | 317.8 ± 13.2 | 5.04 ± 0.11 | 3.05 ± 0.35 | 0.80 ± 0.08 | 48.50 ± 4.00 | 12.82 ± 0.82 |
Hybrid– [C/C/C/G/G/G] | 306.4 ± 15.7 | 5.20 ± 0.07 | 3.05 ± 0.35 | 0.86 ± 0.06 | 45.00 ± 4.5 | 12.72 ± 0.84 |
GFRP | 310.4 ± 15.6 | 4.45 ± 0.01 | 3.22 ± 0.52 | 0.76 ± 0.08 | 46.3 ± 4.9 | 11.00 ± 0.56 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ngwa, A.N.; Chaudhary, B.; Matos, H.; Shukla, A. Underwater Implosion and Energy Mitigation of Hybrid Glass-Carbon Composite Shells. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 2147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11112147
Ngwa AN, Chaudhary B, Matos H, Shukla A. Underwater Implosion and Energy Mitigation of Hybrid Glass-Carbon Composite Shells. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2023; 11(11):2147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11112147
Chicago/Turabian StyleNgwa, Akongnwi Nfor, Birendra Chaudhary, Helio Matos, and Arun Shukla. 2023. "Underwater Implosion and Energy Mitigation of Hybrid Glass-Carbon Composite Shells" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 11, no. 11: 2147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11112147