eff
ratio of vented area to total area of enclosure walls
st
Kronecker delta
t time increment
angle
xy
shear strain in plane xy
naturalstrain
eng
engineering strain
& strain rate
el
& elastic strain rate
pl
& plastic strain rate
pl
&
equivalent plastic strain rate
angle of attack
stretch ratio
i
eigenvalue of principal direction i
v
damping
pi
density of material
stress
0
reference yield strength
eng
engineering stress
partial derivative operator
Vector
{I} internal force vector
{n}
i
unit vector of eigenvector, direction i
{N}
i
eigenvector to principal direction i
{N} vector of shape functions
{P} external force vector
{ } p& time derivative of momentum vector
{u} displacement vector
{ } u& velocity vector
{ } u& & acceleration vector
{x} trajectory at current configuration
{X} trajectory at initial configuration
Matrix
[F] deformation gradient matrix
[D] rate of deformation matrix
[e] deviatoric strain matrix
[I] identity matrix
[M] lumped mass matrix
[M]
c
consistent mass matrix
[n] unit surface normal of a nine dimensional yield surface
[S] deviatoric stress matrix
  strain matrix
 
el
elastic strain matrix
vi
 
pl
plastic strain matrix
  strain matrix at initial coordinate system
 
pl
& plastic strain rate matrix
  stress matrix
  stress matrix at initial coordinate system
Tensor
n
r
outward unit normal of a surface
t
r
traction
second order stress tensor
Abbreviation
FEM Finite Element Method
DOF Degree of Freedom
PEEQ Equivalent Plastic Strain
TNT Trinitrotoluene
Voights notation
a a scalar value
{a} a column vector
{a}
T
a transpose of a column vector
[a] a square matrix
[a]
T
a transpose of a square matrix
Tensorial notation
a
r
a first order tensor
A a second order tensor
 1 
1 Introduction
The purpose of this Masters Thesis is to estimate the effects of an explosion inside a
naval vessel. The structural behavior of the steel structure is the primary objective of
the study. The explosion phenomenon is covered in order to make structural analysis
in the computational part of the study. The nature of the structural response, under
impulsive loading, has been an interest of militaries after World War I. Also, oil
companies and nuclear power industry are interested in the shock resistance of their
structures. The understanding of the structural behavior guidelines the design of
naval vessels, offshore structures, and nuclear power plants. Explosions in naval
vessels and oil platforms have had catastrophic consequences in history. Also,
nuclear power industry is prepared to possible hydrogen explosions inside their
facilities. Therefore, the estimation of the structural response under an impulsive load
is important in preservation of human lives. Full scale explosion tests are expensive;
testing requires special sensors, high velocity cameras, and other measurement
equipment to analyze such a rapid event reliably. Numerical modeling of the
explosion events and the structural behavior is coming more accurate and efficient
due to cheaper computational time. Personal computers are adequate in computation
of smaller but effective calculation models. The need of supercomputers is the case
only when the entire structure is modeled, or the analysis is a coupled problem where
the dynamics of the explosion and the structure are combined into one large model.
Several studies on this subject have been conducted by different institutes. However,
the used methods vary greatly. (ISSC committee V.5: Naval Ship Design, 2006;
Saarenheimo, 1996)
1.1 Previous studies
An explosion is a complex phenomenon. The primary interest in this study,
concerning the explosion, is to evaluate the occurring loading when the shock wave
confronts a structural object. In the previous studies, the evaluation of the loading
due to an explosion has been submitted by doing fullscale tests, and by using
computational fluid dynamics to simulate the explosion phenomenon. The former has
been general approach since World War I and the use of latter has increased since the
 2 
numerical modeling has developed and the computational time has become cheaper
within time. (Jacinto, 2001)
The structural responses have been evaluated with several different techniques in the
previous studies. An explosion is a rapid release of energy and therefore, highly
dynamic. When structures confront a loading which nature is impulsive then the
proper analysis technique would be, most likely, dynamic analysis. Yet, several
studies have been performed with quasistatic techniques. Modal analysis has been
utilized generally in the estimation of the structural behavior under blast loading.
That is an appropriate method when small displacements are the concern. When the
failure mode of a structure is one objective then direct time integration is more
adequate as an analysis method. As structures undergo heavy loading, with impulsive
characteristics, then one objective of the study should be the failure mode of the
structure. Therefore, linear analyses, such as modal methods in finite element
analysis are not proper methods. Direct time integration with nonlinear material
model and finite strain considerations will conclude, presumably, to much more
realistic result. (ISSC committee V.5: Naval Ship Design, 2006; Saarenheimo, 1996;
Boh, 2004; Kim; Luccioni, 2006)
1.2 Objective of the study
The goal is to find out the structural response when a large amount of chemical
explosives explode inside a naval vessel. The primary objective is the structural
behavior at the distance of 3 to 6 meters from the explosion source. It is important to
know if the structure fails locally or if the failure mode of the structure is a global
type. The structure undergoes deformation during the loading. If plastic deformation
takes place then the structure functions differently than the initial structure after the
explosion. The secondary objective is to find out the computational properties which
affect the most to the computed results.
1.3 Methods
The evaluation of the explosion load is based on previous examinations and high
explosive theory. The equations that evaluate the formed loading are semiempirical,
meaning that the high explosive theory has been utilized in the adaptation of the test
 3 
data to the evaluative equations. The dynamics of the explosion is not the objective
of the study, but the formed loadtime dependence is in order to submit the structural
dynamic analysis. The behavior of the structure under the explosion load is modeled
by using finite element method in the computational part of the study.
The behavior of the steel structure after an explosion is estimated by using a number
of calculation models. There are several conditions in finite element computation that
have to be assumed in order to get results. Those assumptions have to be carefully
made and realistic to achieve trustworthy results. Such a rapid event, as an explosion,
is very sensitive to the assumptions because of its highly dynamic nature. Therefore,
one objective of this study is also to note the computational properties that affect the
most to the computed results.
 4 
2 Explosion
The impulsive load inside a naval vessel is due to an explosion. The explosion
source, in this case, is assumed to be a navy antiship missile, striking just above the
waterline. Internal blast occurs when the hull is breached before detonation.
Weapons that are designed to explode inside targets have armor piercing or semi
armor piercing capability with delayed action detonation to optimize the caused
damage. Relatively small amount of explosive can have as dramatic affect as an old
fashion sea mine or a torpedo, concerning the survivability of a naval vessel. (ISSC
committee V.5: Naval Ship Design, 2006; van der Wal, 2006)
2.1 Anatomy of a chemical explosion
An explosion is a rapid release of energy. Chemical explosives, such as TNT
1
,
convert the chemical reaction to expanding gases which are in high state of pressure
and temperature. The gases expand violently and force the surrounding air out of the
volume it occupies. Chemical explosives decompose or rearrange rapidly, yielding
gas and heat in detonation. The detonation system for high explosives is an influence
of shock, or an amount of heat. A missile that contains high explosive material forms
four kinds of loads: shock wave in the surrounding atmosphere, fragments, ground
shock, and high temperatures. The shock wave in the surrounding atmosphere is the
primary load in this study and it is discussed in the following sections. The ground
shock does not take place in this study because of the assumption that the missile
explodes midair inside a naval vessel. (Baker, 1983)
In high explosion phenomenon the occurring temperatures are higher than 1000 C.
Commonly, naval vessels have a steel structure and the strength properties of steels
decrease as a function of rising temperature. The strength properties decrease
significantly after the temperature is higher than 300 C. Nevertheless, the explosion
is such a rapid event that there is not enough time for the heat load to conduct to the
solid material. Therefore, the effect of the thermal load is negligible to the steel
1
TNT = Trinitrotoluene, used as a reference explosive to compare the amount of energy release
between different chemical explosives.
 5 
structure when only a short period of time is concerned. So, in this study, the
temperature load is not counted in computation for its small significance. Though, an
explosion can start a fire inside a naval vessel but the load due to a fire does not
occur immediately, and therefore, it has no immediate effect to the structure. So, in
this study the loads from the high explosive explosion are those which take place in
very short time, in other words are impulsive in their nature. Also, the fragments are
ignored because of their statistical predictability methods. Most likely, if fragments
were considered as a part of the loading that would create more uncertainty for the
results and it would be harder to find similarities in the structural responses and the
applied loads. (Frost, 1982; Clarke, 1992; Baker, 1983; Bulson, 1989)
2.2 Explosion in unlimited atmosphere
Ideal explosion in air has the shape of a sphere. It is expanding radially and losing
shock wave front pressure as it occupies more volume. This is called an unlimited
atmosphere explosion, free air explosion, or free field explosion. An ideal shock
wave pressuretime relationship is illustrated in Figure 1, where P
max
is the maximum
shock wave pressure, P
0
is the ambient pressure, and P
min
is the minimum shock
wave pressure. (Henrych, 1979; Baker, 1983)
Figure 1. Ideal shock wave structure according to Baker (1983). The hatched area is the created
impulse per unit area.
 6 
2.3 Contained explosion
When the explosion occurs in limited or partially limited space it is called contained
explosion. The shock wave from the explosion is not free to expand because the
volume of the space limits the expanding shock wave. A simplified visualization of a
contained explosion, the following pressure fields, and the reflected shock waves is
in Figure 2.
Figure 2. A simplified pressure distribution and shock wave reflections in a contained explosion
is in the figure according to Baker (1983).
The shock wave will reflect on the walls, the ceilings and the floor forming a number
of pressure peaks concerning the surfaces of the space. A typical pressure variation
as a function of time in a contained explosion is illustrated in Figure 3. (Baker, 1983;
Anderson, 1983; Beshara, 1992)
 7 
Figure 3. A typical time history for pressure in contained explosion according to Baker (1983).
Figure 3 shows that the first occurring pressure peak is the highest. That is the first
shock wave and its properties are the same as in open air explosion. The following
pressure peaks are due to the reflections of the shock waves. This kind of pressure
time dependence, which is highly nonlinear and complex, is not to be used in FE
modeling. The data is accurate only in the space where the test was conducted. Also,
the amount of explosive material affects to the formed shape of the pressuretime
curve, and therefore, the scaling of the curve would cause incorrect data to another
explosion event. The approximation of the contained explosion load is done by
Beshara (1992). The approximation is formed of two elements. The first element is
the open air explosion representing the first peak of the test data. The second element
is called quasistatic pressure. Quasistatic pressure is a process taking place
relatively slowly, so that all the variables can have definite values through the entire
path taken by the process. Quasistatic pressure occurs in situations where the
duration of a pressure event, from the liberation of gas and heat from an explosion
event, is significantly longer than the response time of the structure. This is a
common phenomenon for internal explosions in poorly vented structures. (Beshara,
1992)
The maximum quasistatic pressure is the value of point B in Figure 3. Point B is
closer to point A when the vented area of the chamber closes to zero. According to
 8 
Anderson et al. (1983), several reflections must occur before the energy from the
shock waves form the quasistatic pressure. Therefore, the maximum quasistatic
pressure takes place in point B. Only, when the vented area is zero points A and B
are coincident. Although, the venting process is complicated in vented chambers, the
gas pressures and the corresponding duration times can be predicted quite accurately.
Anderson et al. (1983) had a large quantity of experimental data from a variety of
sources in their study. The equations for the pressures and the corresponding
durations for the maximum shock wave pressure and the quasistatic pressure are
presented in the next sections.
The approximation for contained explosions in vented structures is shown in Figure
4. The idea is to linearize the complex pressure variation. Two pressure elements are
formed. The first element is the loading due to the first shock wave and the second
element is the quasistatic pressure P
qs
, which lasts a longer time. (Beshara, 1992)
Figure 4. Approximation of a contained explosion loading. The upper figure represents the
actual test data and the lower figure represents the approximated loading. (Beshara, 1992)
The main feature for all experiments and the experimental data (examples Figure 3,
Figure 4, Figure 5) for contained explosions is the highly nonlinear pressure variation
with respect to time. The similarity of pressuretime curves is noticeable. The first
couple of the pressure peaks are significantly higher than the following pressure
 9 
peaks. The amplitude of the peaktopeak pressure decays as the time increases. The
mean value of the peaktopeak pressures represents the quasistatic pressure P
qs
, and
the deviation of the pressure peaks decrease towards the quasistatic pressure within
time. (Baker, 1983; Beshara, 1992; Department of Defense, USA, 1987)
Figure 5. Pressure history at a point on wall of an enclosure for internal high explosive burst
(confined airblast). (military hand book, USA, department of defense, 1987)
The measurement of the occurring pressures in a contained explosion is not a trivial
matter. The measured data can be distorted due to the breakdown of the censors for
example. Also, the measurements could have been conducted in the vicinity of the
construction but not on the actual surface of the structure. The pressure difference
can be large between those two different places. The structural response takes place
with a delay because of the inertia, and the stiffness of the structure, and therefore,
the test data can be reliable only in the same kind of test chamber where the tests
were conducted. These are the reasons why linearized loading is used in this study.
The used semiempirical equations evaluate the overall impulse which is the loading
that affects to a structural object in a contained explosion. (Baker, 1983)
2.4 Occurring pressures
The most used factor in shock wave pressure prediction is cuberoot scaling law. At a
range of R
1
, from a reference explosive of mass W
1
, an overpressure P, will occur.
According to cuberoot scaling, if the explosive mass is changed to W
2
, the same
overpressure P, will occur at a distance R
2
. Scaled distance Z, is (Baker, 1983;
Wilkinson, 2003)
 10 
3
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
W
R
W
R
Z = = . ( 1 )
The confronting pressure is evaluated with Equation (2) in a free field explosion.
Confronting pressure is the overpressure of the expanding shock wave. The variables
are the ambient pressure P
0
, and the scaled distance Z. Confronting pressure is
(Beshara, 1992)
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2
35 . 1
2
32 . 0
2
048 . 0
2
5 . 4 0
1 1 1
1 808
Z Z Z
Z
conf
P
P
+ + +
+
= . ( 2 )
The confronting pressure for a contained explosion can be evaluated by multiplying
the confronting pressure, P
conf
, with a constant 1.75. The idea is that the first three
pressure peaks are integrated in contained explosion, see for example Figure 3.
(Baker, 1983; Beshara, 1992)
According to Finnish Navy
2
(2005), the empirical equations for the occurring
pressures in a contained explosion differ from the equations by Baker (1983) and
Beshara (1992). At this point, the pressure of the shock wave is defined more
accurately. The interest is the magnitude of the pressure which occurs on the surface
of the structure. Baker (1983), and Beshara (1992) computed the magnitude of the
expanding spherical pressure field in a contained explosion. They consider the
pressure reflections only with a constant multiplier 1.75, and the idea is only to
combine first three reflections before the quasistatic pressure takes place inside an
enclosure. They do not consider the effect of a reflected shock wave to the total
magnitude of the pressure affecting the surface of a solid and relatively stiff object.
(Beshara, 1992; Baker, 1983; PVTeknTL Asetos, 2005)
According to Finnish Navy (2005), the reflection of a shock wave from a solid and
stiff surface creates the so called reflection pressure and that has a great effect to the
magnitude of the pressure fields inside an enclosure. So, the magnitude of the shock
wave pressure field affecting a surface has two features. The first one is the
2
The reference PVTeknTL Asetos is made in collaboration with Finnish and Swedish Navy.
 11 
confronting pressure P
conf
. That has the same properties which were described by
Baker (1983) and Bashara (1992). Equations (2) and (3) evaluate approximately the
same magnitude for the confronting pressure field. The second feature is the
reflection pressure, which differ from the idea of multiplying the confronting
pressure P
conf
with a constant, 1.75. In this case, the reflection pressure means the rise
in pressure which takes place when the shock wave is reflecting back from a solid
and stiff object. (PVTeknTL Asetos, 2005)
The reflection pressure of the shock wave is the maximum occurring value for the
pressure in absolute vicinity of the surfaces in a contained explosion. When the
shock wave confronts a solid and stiff object the shock wave reflects back from the
object. In process, the movement of the air molecules is restricted and extra pressure
forms in the direction of the shock wave. The formed extra pressure has the same
analogy as in the fluid mechanics is the stagnation pressure. The equation for the
pressure of the confronting shock wave is given as (PVTeknTL Asetos, 2005)
+ 
\

+ 
\

=
3 3 3
0
7 7 . 2 84 . 0
3
2
3
1
R
W
R
W
R
W
P P
conf
, ( 3 )
where W is the mass of the TNT equivalent explosive in kilograms and R is the
distance from the explosion source in meters. The magnitude of the reflection
pressure depends on the angle , between the surface normal n
r
, and the position
vector R
r
, from the concerned point to the explosion source (see Figure 6). The angle
of attack , is evidently



\

= =
R n
R n
r
r
r
r
arccos
2 2
. ( 4 )
The reflection pressure P
refl
, depends on the angle of attack , in the following way.
When is
2
\



\

+
+
+ =
1
10 7
10 8 14
sin 1 (
5
5
conf
conf
conf refl
P
P
P P , ( 5 )
where P
conf
is in pascals.
Figure 6. The red dot is the explosion source of the concerned situation. The global origin is at
the explosion source. The coordinate system is right handed.
Thus, the occurring pressure in a contained explosion is dependent on the weight of
the explosive W, the position vector from the explosion source to the concerned point
R
r
, and the angle of attack ; R
r
and depend on the global coordinates X, Y, Z.
(PVTeknTL Asetos, 2005)
2.5 Duration time of the pressure impulse
According to Beshara (1992), the duration time of an idealized explosion, in
milliseconds, can be evaluated with equations
 13 
2
1
3
1
44 . 12
P
W
t
i
= when bar P 70 < and ( 6 )
3
2
3
1
92 . 24
P
W
t
i
= when bar P 70 , ( 7 )
where W is the TNT equivalent mass in metric tons and P is the pressure from
Equation (2) in bars. According to Finnish Navy, the duration of the reflection
pressure, in seconds, is
2
1
6
1
3
10 3 . 1 R W t
i
=
, ( 8 )
where W is the TNT equivalent mass in kilograms and R is the distance from the
explosion source in meters. Equation (8) gives a longer impulse time for the pressure
than Equations (6) and (7). Equation (8) is used in this study because Equations (6)
and (7) are more suitable for open air explosions. Also, the shock wave reflection
pressure, P
refl
, in a contained space, according to Equation (2), is approximately the
same as the quasistatic pressure defined by Anderson et al. (1983). That is not
consistent, since the reflection pressure is the maximum occurring pressure in a
contained explosion. The shock wave reflection pressure, according to Finnish Navy,
has rational ratio against the quasistatic pressure in a contained explosion. In
general, the reflection pressure is approximately two times higher than the quasi
static maximum pressure. (Beshara, 1992; Baker, 1983; PVTeknTL Asetos;
Anderson, 1983)
2.6 Maximum quasistatic pressure in a contained explosion
Anderson et al. (1983), derived reasonably reliable empirical equations based on the
numerous tests in vented chambers. They plotted the maximum quasistatic pressure
against reduced energy density. The experimental data points and fitted slopes are in
Figure 7, where P
qs
is the quasistatic pressure, E is the released energy in the
explosion, V is the volume of the enclosure, and P
0
is the ambient pressure.
 14 
Figure 7. Reduced pressure vs. reduced energy density. Experimental data has been plotted in
logarithmic scale and the slope fitting is performed with linear leastsquares by Anderson et al.
(1983).
The semiempirical equations, based on the slope fitting in Figure 7 are
0
6717 . 0
0
0
336 . 1 P
V P
E
P P
qs


\

= , when 350
0
V P
E
( 9 )
and
0
0
0
1388 . 0 P
V P
E
P P
qs


\

= , when 350
0
>
V P
E
. (10)
The magnitude of the quasistatic pressure is independent of the global coordinates
of an arbitrary point (X, Y, Z). It depends only on the ambient pressure P
0
, the
released energy E, and the volume of the enclosure V. (Anderson, 1983)
2.7 Duration time of the quasistatic pressure
The duration time of the quasistatic pressure in vented chamber is calculated from
Equation (11) by Anderson et al. (1983). The variables of the semiempirical
equation for the maximum duration time of the quasistatic pressure are the ambient
 15 
pressure P
0
, the quasistatic pressure P
qs
, the volume of the enclosure V, the speed of
sound at the ambient pressure and temperature a
0
, the ratio of the vented area to the
total area of the enclosure walls
eff
.
( )
3638 . 0
0
0
0
max
4284 . 0
+
=
P
P P
A a
V
t
qs
eff
, for 3246 . 0 0
3
2
V
A
eff
. (11)
The total vented area of the enclosure is
vent eff
A A = . (12)
If the condition in Equation (11) does not fulfill then the duration time of the quasi
static pressure is concerned as a free field explosion. (Anderson, 1983)
2.8 Time history and the impulse
A complex pressure load affecting to the concerned structure is approximated with
equations by Anderson et al. (1983) and Finnish Navy (2005). An example of the
amplitudes of the pressure components, the reflection pressure, P
refl
; and the quasi
static pressure, P
qs
; are shown in Figure 8. The impulse of an explosion represents
the energy of formed pressure field. The reflection pressure contains less energy than
the quasistatic pressure. The impulse is defined by time integration
=
f
i
t
t
dt t P I ) (
, (13)
where t
i
is the initial time and t
f
is the final time in the integration. (Beshara, 1992;
Baker, 1983; Anderson, 1983)
In this study the pressure variation over time is assumed to take place immediately
and decrease to zero linearly. The assumption that the maximum reflection pressure
occurs immediately is based on the factor that the detonation velocity of TNT is
nearly 7000 m/s. The quasistatic pressure does not occur immediately because its
origin is the several reflected shock waves and the liberated heat. The approximation
for the time when the peak quasistatic pressure occurs is defined, in this study, at the
 16 
time that the reflection pressure has descended to the maximum value of the quasi
static pressure. Figure 8 shows the reflection pressure and the quasistatic pressure.
The distance from the explosion is 5 meters and the angle of attack is 90 degrees.
The amount of TNT is 50 kilograms. The quasistatic pressure reaches the maximum
overpressure 10 bars at the time approximately 0.003 s. (Baker, 1983)
Pressure history
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,1
Time [s]
O
v
e
r
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
[
b
a
r
]
reflection pressure
quasistatic pressure
Figure 8. The overpressuretime relationship in an explosion event. The amount of TNT is 50 kg
and the distance from the explosion source is 5 m. The blue slope is the reflection pressure as a
function of time; the red slopes form the quasistatic pressure history.
Figure 9 is formed to show the radical relationship between the occurring pressure
and the location. The magnitude of the reflection pressure depends strongly on the
angle of attack and the distance from the explosion source. The locations of the
calculated reflection pressures are at the line between points A and B in Figure 6.
Both, the distance and the angle of attack are varied in Figure 9 because when a
surface is concerned then both variables change when moved from a point to another.
The first curve, P(R=1.8, theta=90), is the reflection pressure as a function of time at
the point A of Figure 6. It is plotted purposely out of scale because its maximum is
546 bar. Otherwise, the lower curves were perishable to an eye.
 17 
Reflection pressure(R, theta, time)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 0,001 0,002 0,003 0,004 0,005 0,006
Time [s]
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
[
b
a
r
]
P(R=1.8,theta=90)
P(R=1.9,theta=72)
P(R=2.1,theta=57)
P(R=2.5,theta=46)
P(R=2.9,theta=38)
P(R=3.4,theta=32)
P(R=3.9,theta=27)
P(R=4.4,theta=24)
P(R=5.0,theta=21)
P(R=5.5,theta=19)
Figure 9. The reflection pressure as a function of time. The origin is the explosion moment and
the formed pressures occur approximately 0.00026 0.00035 seconds later. The amount of TNT
is 50 kg. The change in occurring maximum reflection pressure decrease rapidly as a function of
radius, R, and as a function of angle of attack, theta. For example, the first curve,
P(R=1.8,theta=90), is the reflection pressure for a point which is 1.8 m from the explosion source
and the angle of attack is 90 degrees. Higher pressure impulses last shorter time than lower
pressure impulses.
2.9 Location of the explosion source
The prediction of the exact location of the missile explosion inside a naval vessel is
not reasonable since the structures of the naval vessels vary. Also, the delayed
detonation time of the missile and the flying altitude affect to the location of the
explosion source. So, the assumption is that the missile explodes inside the naval
vessel. The space is ventilated due to the ventilation system of a naval vessel, the
penetration hole of the missile in the hull, and by the possible doors. In this
approach, the vented area of the concerned space is 6.5 square meters. In the
computational part of the study, the explosion is assumed to explode in the center of
a space. The location of the explosion is not altered; instead, the amount of explosive
material is. (ISSC committee V.5: Naval Ship Design)
 18 
3 Finite Element Method
The used FEMprogram in the computation is ABAQUS/Explicit version 6.6.
ABAQUS/Explicit uses explicit time integration procedure in dynamic analyses. The
explicit time integration is suitable in the computation when the observed time is
short. The dynamic nonlinear analysis procedure, the strain and the stress measures,
and the used elements are discussed more accurately in the following sections.
(ABAQUS 6.6 Theory Manual)
3.1 Computation procedure in dynamic analysis
Linear dynamic analysis is usually solved with modal methods. Linear problems
mean that the displacements are small and the stiffness matrix is computed at the
initial position. Also, the material behavior is in the linear elastic region. Modal
methods are not discussed here because they are not suitable for the concerned
nonlinear study.
In this study, the interest is the structural response to an impulsive load with great
intensity. That leads to nonlinear structural analysis. Nonlinearity can be divided into
three categories: material nonlinearity, nonlinearity due to boundary conditions, and
nonlinearity due to large deformation. The material model is nonlinear when the
metals plasticity is included. Generally, nonlinear boundary conditions are related to
contact analysis and that is not used in this approach. Large deformations might
change the loading direction during the analysis and that leads also to nonlinear
response. One simple example of nonlinearity is large deflection of a beam. During
the loading, the beam functions as a beam but also due to the large deflection it
functions as a truss.
Direct time integration of the system must be used when nonlinear dynamic response
is observed. The time integration, in FEM, means the solving of the structural
response of the system throughout the considered time in the dynamic analysis. The
time integration represents the time scale of the entire considered structural analysis.
The time integration procedure begins with an initial time increment. The evaluation
 19 
of the initial time increment and the following increments depends on the method of
the solution procedure. That is discussed further in Section 3.3.
ABAQUS/Standard uses implicit time integration and it is suitable for smaller FE
models, and also, when the observed time is longer. The computational time rises
exponentially as the DOFs of the model rise in implicit time integration. Larger
models are usually solved with ABAQUS/Explicit which uses explicit time
integration. Explicit time integration is more effective for larger models than implicit
methods. The used computational time versus the number of DOFs is constant in
explicit time integration. Also, the explicit time integration is valid for parallel
processing in the computation, whereas implicit is not. Explicit time integration is
feasible especially when a short period of time is concerned. That is generally used in
impact and shock analysis. (ABAQUS 6.6 Analysis Users Manual; Belytschko,
2001)
3.2 Equations of motion in explicit computation procedure
The dynamic analysis procedure in ABAQUS/Explicit is based on explicit
integration and use of diagonal mass matrices. The equations of motion for the body
3
are integrated by using the explicit central difference integration rule
{ } { } { }
(i)
i i
) (i i
u
t t
u u & & & &
2
) ( ) 1 (
) (
2
1
2
1
+
+ =
+
+
, (14)
{ } { } { }
) ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) 1 (
2
1
+ + +
+ =
i i i i
u t u u & , (15)
where {u} is displacement; { } u& is the time derivative of displacement, velocity; { } u& &
is the second time derivative of displacement, acceleration. The superscripts (i) and
(i+1) refer to the increment numbers. Superscripts (i) and (i+) refer to the
midincrement values. The central difference integration operator is explicit, meaning
that the kinematic state {u}
(i+1)
can be approximated by using known values of
{ }
) (
2
1
i
u& and { }
(i)
u& & from the previous increment. (Belytschko, 2001; ABAQUS 6.6
Theory Manual)
3
Body is the collection of masses in the concerned object.
 20 
The Newtons second law of motion is
{ } { }  { }
i i
u M p F & & & = =
, (16)
where } {p& is the time derivative of momentum. The sum of forces affecting to the
body is equal to the change in momentum. The sum of forces, in Equation (16), is
internal force vector, {I}
i
, subtracted from applied force vector, {P}
i
. Both sides of
the Equation (16) are multiplied by the inverse of a mass matrix, [M]
1
. Newtons
second law of motion receives the form
{ }   ) } { } ({
1 i i (i)
I P M u =
& & . (17)
The acceleration vector at time (i) is substituted to the Equation (14), in the explicit
dynamic analyses procedure. The inversion of mass matrix, [M]
1
, is used in
computation of accelerations at the beginning of the increment, in the explicit
integration. The mass matrix is diagonal and contains information of mass quantities
of each node. The mass quantities are translational quantities and rotational
quantities respect to each node. The efficiency of the explicit solution procedure is
based on the use of diagonal mass matrices, [M], also known as lumped mass
matrices. The inversion of a diagonal mass matrix, [M]
1
, is easy to form, since it is
diagonal. It is done by taking an inverse of each element in the matrix. The diagonal
mass matrix can be computed in several ways. Herein the procedure is described by
using HRZ Lumping. The name HRZ identifies the authors of the procedure (Hinten,
Rock, and Zienkiewicz). First, the diagonal of a consistent mass matrix, [M]
c
, is
computed with the equation (Zienkiewicz, 2000)
  { }{ }
=
V
T
dV N N M
c
, (18)
where is the density of the body, {N} is the vector of the shape functions of the
elements, and the integral is volume integral covering the entire volume of the
elements. The consistent mass matrix, [M]
c
, is used generally in finite element
method in dynamic analysis. The idea in computation of a diagonal matrix, [M], is in
conservation of mass quantities. For each coordinate direction, the DOFs are selected
 21 
that contribute to motion in that direction. From this set, the translational and
rotational subsets are separated. The matrix cells concerning the translational DOFs
are summarized. The sum is called s. Each diagonal matrix cell, both translational
and rotational, are multiplied by
s
m
, where m is the total mass of the element. The
lumped matrix is
 
=
n
m
m
M
L
M O M
K
0
0
1
, (19)
where m
1
is the first mass quantity respect to first degree of freedom and m
n
is the n
th
mass quantity respect to n
th
degree of freedom. (Belytschko, 2001; ABAQUS 6.6
Theory Manual; Cook, 2002; Zienkiewicz, 2000)
The explicit procedure requires no iterations or tangent stiffness matrices in time
integration. ABAQUS/Standard uses implicit time integration; both, iterations, and
tangent stiffness matrices are required, and that is the reason for its expensive
computational time. (ABAQUS 6.6 Theory manual)
3.3 Stability in explicit time integration
The time increment is smaller in explicit time integration than in implicit time
integration throughout the integration time. The time increment depends on the
physical dimension of the computational model. The time increment is estimated via
the smallest element and the wave propagation in the considered solid material. The
time increment, t, must be smaller than the time that it takes a stress wave to
progress over the smallest element in the considered structure. The velocity of wave
propagation in elastic material is generally
E
v = , (20)
where E is the Youngs modulus and is the density of the material. The
approximate time for dilatational wave to cross one element is
 22 
E
elem
s
t = , (21)
where s
elem
is the diameter of the smallest element. However, the explicit time
integration step is defined in ABAQUS/Explicit with some additive features. Small
damping is introduced in order to control high frequency oscillations. The dominant
frequencies and the respective eigenmodes in structures are those with low
frequencies. Often the high frequencies have geometrically odd eigenmodes, and
that is why in ABAQUS/Explicit time integration procedure a small damping is
introduced. The damping parameter b
1
is introduced purely to control the numeric
effects and it is not considered as a part of the constitutive response of the material,
and therefore, is not included to material point stresses. With damping, the stable
time increment t is
) 1 (
2
+ =
E
elem
s
t , (22)
where is damping. The numerical damping parameter b
1
=0.06 is equal to damping
when other than continuum elements are used. The effect of the damping parameter
b
1
is that it reduces the value of the stable time increment. (Belytschko, 2001; Cook,
2002; ABAQUS 6.6 Theory manual)
3.4 Largestrain considerations
The strains in the used calculation models are assumed to be large. The amount of
the explosive material is large in navy antiship missiles. That generates high
pressure fields and forces to the structure in a contained explosion. The large amount
of explosives is assumed also because the failure mode of the structure is one goal of
the study. (Boh, 2004)
The material properties for finite strain computation, in ABAQUS, are in form of
logarithmic strain and true stress, covering the linear and nonlinear region. True
stress, also known as Cauchy stress, is defined via surface traction, t
v
. The definition
in tensorial form is
 23 
= n t
r
r
, (23)
where n
r
is outward unit normal of the surface of the body, and is second order
stress tensor. Both sides in Equation (23) must be compatible; the dot product is
n t tn s s n n
i i i n i t
r r r r
= , (24)
where
n
i
r
,
s
i
r
, and
t
i
r
are base vectors. The dot product in Equation (24) is
n sn s n tn st s n n
i n i n i t
r r r
= = , (25)
where
st
is Kronecker delta; it is defined to be zero when s and t differ, and to be
unity when s equals t. The indices n and t receive values 1, 2, 3 in Equation (25).
Therefore, it can be written
+ + + + + + = + +
2 32 3 22 2 12 1 1 31 3 21 2 11 1 3 3 2 2 1 1
) ( ) ( i n n n i n n n i t i t i t
r r r r r
3 33 3 23 2 13 1
) ( i n n n
r
+ + . (26)
The tensorial notation in Equation (23) is a compact way to write Equation (26).
Both sides of Equation (26) are compatible since the base vectors related to the
respective scalar components are identical at the both sides of the equation; Equation
(26) is
31 3 21 2 11 1 1
n n n t + + =
32 3 22 2 12 1 2
n n n t + + = (27)
33 3 23 2 13 1 3
n n n t + + =
Therefore, the tensorial notation in Equation (23) is
{ } { }  
T
n t = , (28)
with Voights notation. (Malvern, 1969; Santaoja, 2006)
 24 
Conventionally in engineering, the strain measure is defined as a change in length
per initial length. This strain measure is called often as engineering strain and in
future it is denoted as
eng
. In engineering strain, a differential strain increment, de,
is defined as
0
L
dl
de = . (29)
The engineering strain is
0
0
0
L
L L
de
L
L
eng
= =
, (30)
where L is the deformed length and L
0
is the initial length. When large strains are
considered then the strain measure is naturalstrain. Differential strain increment, d ,
is the change in length per contemporary length
L
dl
d = . (31)
This means that the naturalstrain is


\

= =
L
L
L
L
l
dl
0
0
ln . (32)
The definition of strain, by Equation (32), is called naturalstrain, logarithmic strain,
or in some cases true strain. The proper strain measure depends on the purpose of the
computation. The logarithmic strain measure is used when large deformations are
concerned. (Malvern, 1969; Parnes, 2001)
In linear finite element computation the strains are assumed to be small when metals
are concerned. The strain matrix includes information on both strains and shear
strains. Shear strain, for example in plane xy, is defined as
xy xy
y
u
x
v
=


\

=
2
1
2
1
, (33)
 25 
where u and v are displacement components of a displacement vector {u}. This
applies only when small strains are considered. With largestrain considerations, the
shear strain, , is undefined. The strains and the stresses are computed with respect
to principal directions at every time increment. The shear strains and the shear
stresses vanish in the principal directions. The strain and the stress matrices are in
diagonal form in the principal directions
 
=
3
2
1
0 0
0 0
0 0
, and  
=
3
2
1
0 0
0 0
0 0
. (34)
The method to define the principal directions, in the concerned finite element
approach, is discussed more in Chapter 3.5.2. First, the strains and the stresses are
computed in the principal directions, and then converted to the initial global
coordinate system yielding the conventional strain matrix   , and the stress matrix
  , with six independent variables
 
=
zz zy zx
yz yy yx
xz xy xx
, and  
=
zz zy zx
yz yy yx
xz xy xx
(35)
where indices x, y, z refer to coordinate axes in three dimension. The strain and the
stress matrices are symmetric, where
yx xy
= ,
zx xz
= ,
zy yz
= , and
yx xy
= ,
zx xz
= ,
zy yz
= . The conversion from the principal directions to the initial
global coordinate system is described in Section 3.5.3. (Malvern, 1969; Parnes, 2001;
ABAQUS 6.6 Theory Manual)
3.5 Continuity of a deformable material
In structural problems, the observed structure is described in the initial configuration.
One interest is the deformation of the structure respect to the initial configuration. In
the dynamic analysis, the deformed state of the structure is solved throughout the
entire loadingtime path, and usually the interest reaches further than the loading
affects because the structure is most likely in motion even though the loading has
 26 
ended. A material particle initially located at a position {X} will move to a position
{x} due to loading. The history of the location for the particle can be written as
{ } { }{ } ( ) t X x x , = , and inversely { } { }{ } ( ) t x X X , = . (36)
The position vectors of the particle, {X} and {x}, are column vectors including three
coordinates and the respective time. Therefore, they can be called as trajectories
because they describe the path of the particle. Two neighbor particles have positions
{X} and {X}+{dX} in the initial configuration. Since the material can not disappear
or appear, continuity prevails between two neighbor particles. This yields the
relationship for the initial position and the deformed position
{ }
{ }
{ }
{ } dX
X
x
dX
T
= . (37)
The square matrix
 
{ }
{ } X
x
F
T
= (38)
is called deformation gradient. Equation (37) and Equation (38) are combined
yielding
{ }  { } dX F dx = . (39)
The strainstress relationships in finite elasticplastic conditions are defined
originally by Lee (1969). The idea is that the total deformation gradient [F] is
     
p e
F F F = (40)
where  
e
F is elastic, fully recoverable part of the deformation at the considered
point.   ( )
1
e
F is the deformation that would take place if, after the deformation [F]
the inelastic response were somehow (just a theoretical thinking) prevented but at the
same time the stress at the considered point reduced to zero. Hence, the plastic
 27 
deformation gradient  
p
F is defined as (Malvern, 1969; ABAQUS 6.6 Theory
Manual)
    ( )   F F F
e p
1
= . (41)
3.5.1 Rate of deformation
With metals, and especially with steels, the elastic deformations are small compared
to the plastic deformations. Therefore, the elastic deformations are infinitesimal, very
small compared to unity. This leads to an important feature in finite element
computation procedure; elastic and plastic deformation can be evaluated separately.
Square matrix [D] is rate of deformation and can be derived to an approximate form
(Malvern, 1969; ABAQUS 6.6 Theory Manual)
     
pl el
D D D + = . (42)
The relationship between the square matrix [D], and the strain rate   & is
       F D F
T
= & . (43)
With these notations and definitions the elastic and inelastic part of the deformation
rate can be considered separately, yielding
     
pl el
& & & + = . (44)
  & is the time derivative of the strain matrix. (ABAQUS 6.6 Theory Manual;
Malvern, 1969)
3.5.2 Transformation to principal directions
Material behavior depends on the straining of the material and not on its rigid
4
body
motion. A material particle will move to a new position under loading. One part of
the new position is due to the rigid body motion and one part is due to the straining.
4
Rigid body is an analytical mindset for body; the assumption is that the body is infinite stiff in rigid
body motion.
 28 
The initial squared length of an infinitesimal gauge length {dX}, which was
originally referred at the position {X}, can be measured as
{ } { } dX dX dL
T
=
2
, (45)
and the current squared length as
{ } { } dx dx dl
T
=
2
. (46)
The stretch ratio of the gauge length is
dL
dl
dL
dl
= =
2
2
. (47)
There occurs only rigid body motion if 1 = , or if there occurs straining then 1 .
When 1 there can also be rigid body motion. A transpose is taken from Equation
(39) yielding
 
T T T
F dX dx } { } { = . (48)
Equation (39) is multiplied from the left side by Equation (48) yielding
{ } { } { }    { } dX F F dX dx dx
T T T
= . (49)
Equations (45), (46), (47), and (49) are combined, resulting
{ } { }
{ } { }
{ } { }
{ } { } dX dX
dx dx
dX dX
dx dx
T
T
T
T
=
2
(50)
{ }
{ } { }
{ } { }
{ }
{ } { } dX dX
dX
F F
dX dX
dX
T
T
T
T
=
Hence,
{ }
{ } { } dX dX
dX
T
T
and
{ }
{ } { } dX dX
dX
T
, (51)
 29 
represent unit vectors, {N}
T
and {N}, in the direction of gauge length, {dX}, and
therefore, Equation (50) is
{ }    { } N F F N
T T
=
2
. (52)
Equation (52) shows how to measure the stretch ratio associated with any direction
{N}, of a material point in a body, defined by {X} or {x}. Since, vectors {N} and
{N}
T
are unit vectors
{ } { } 1 = N N
T
(53)
holds true. Equation (52) can be derived to an eigenvalue problem
      ( ){ } 0 N I F F
T
=
2
, (54)
where [I] is an identity matrix. The solution gives three positive eigenvalues,
1
,
2
,
and
3
, which are the principal stretches. The corresponding eigenvectors, {N}
1
,
{N}
2
, and {N}
3
are orthogonal. The unit vectors for the eigenvectors {N}
1
, {N}
2
, and
{N}
3
are {n}
1
, {n}
2
, and {n}
3
. The direction of the principal strain is {n}
1
. The other
directions of the principal strains are {n}
2
and {n}
3
, which are also orthogonal.
(ABAQUS 6.6 Theory Manual; Malvern, 1969)
3.5.3 Strains in principal directions and in initial coordinate
system
The used method of measuring strains is logarithmic. That is appropriate when
metals plasticity is considered; when true stress (Cauchy stress) is plotted against
logarithmic strain then the compression, tension, and torsion tests are closely
coincident. Logarithmic strain matrix [], in the principal directions is
 
=
3
2
1
3
2
1
0 0
0 0
0 0
) ln( 0 0
0 ) ln( 0
0 0 ) ln(
. (55)
 30 
The strain matrix in the principal directions, [], is converted to initial global
coordinate system after each time increment. The strain matrix in the initial
coordinate system,   , is (ABAQUS 6.6 Theory Manual; Malvern, 1969)
 
T T T
n n n n n n
3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
} { } { } { } { } { } { + + = . (56)
3.6 Isotropic elastoplasticity
The isotropic and elastoplastic behavior of the material is considered in this study.
Elastoplastic behavior means that during the analysis there occurs permanent, plastic
deformation. Also, the used plasticity model is ratedependent and that is discussed
further in Chapter 4. The interest of the study is dynamic analysis. Therefore, at this
point is made the notation that the strain and stress variables are evaluated after each
time increment and the dynamics are not included into this section to ensure the
understandability of the following theory.
The strain and the stress matrices can be derived into two parts. One is the deviatoric
strain/stress and the other is the volumetric strain/stress. Deviatoric stress is the part
that distorts the body. The volumetric stress is the part that changes the volume of the
body. The von Mises yield function, associated with plastic flow rule, means that
there is no volumetric plastic strain. The plastic strain component consists only of the
deviatoric part.
The volumetric strain
5
is
  ( )
33 22 11
trace + + = =
vol
. (57)
The deviatoric strain matrix, [e], is given as
      I
vol
3
1
e = , (58)
where [I] is an identity matrix. The strain was defined in the previous section as
5
Operator trace(*) sums the diagonal elements of a square matrix, or a second order tensor, resulting a
scalar.
 31 
     
pl el
+ = . (59)
Elastic strain matrix,  
el
, in Equation (59) is assumed to be linear and isotropic, and
therefore, can be determined with two material parameters. Bulk modulus K and
shear modulus G are
) 2 1 ( 3
=
E
K and
) 1 ( 2 +
=
E
G . (60)
The volumetric component of elasticity is
vol
K P = , (61)
where P is the equivalent pressure stress which is
  ( ) trace
3
1
= P . (62)
The deviatoric component of elasticity is
   
el
G S e 2 = , (63)
where [S] is the deviatoric stress matrix
      I p S + = . (64)
The plastic strain matrix [e]
pl
is only the plastic deviatoric component. The plastic
strain rate matrix is
    n e
pl pl
&
& = e , (65)
where [n] is
 
 
q
S
n
2
3
= , and (66)
  
T
S S q
2
3
= , (67)
 32 
and where
pl
e is the scalar equivalent plastic strain. Scalar equivalent plastic strain
is the magnitude of plastic strain to the direction of [n] (see Figure 10). That can be
interpreted as unit surface normal of a nine dimensional yield stress surface (see
Figure 10 for a two dimensional yield surface).
Figure 10. Yield surface and normality criterion in twodimensional stress space. (Zienkiewicz,
2000)
The variables of the nine dimensional yield stress surface are the components of the
stress matrix, []. The multiplier,
2
3
, is required in Equations (66) and (67) because
the stress is converted to von Mises stress.
This elastoplastic theory requires that the material satisfies the uniaxialstress, the
plastic strain, and the strain rate relationships. If the material is rateindependent then
the yield criteria is
q =
0
, (68)
where
0
is the quasistatic reference value for the yield stress, meaning that the
stresses above the quasistatic yield stress leads to plasticity.
It was mentioned previously that the used plasticity model is ratedependent; non
quasistatic strain rates enlarge the yield surface. The yield criteria is
 33 
p
pl
q
D e


\

= 1
0
&
, (69)
where D and p are material parameters (see more in Section 4.2). Equation (69) is
known as CowperSymonds equation for strainrate sensitivity. The isotropic and
elastoplastic behavior of the material is defined with this classical approach. As
mentioned, the nonquasistatic strain rates upraise the value of yield stress. The
upraised yield stress, q, is solved implicitly from Equations (65) and (69) after each
step during the analysis. Implicit solving method is used only to get q; the kinematic
state of the whole model is solved otherwise purely explicitly. The ratedependence
of the material has great influence to the internal forces (stresses) which take place in
the material. That is shown in the computational part of the study in Chapter 8.4.
(Malvern, 1969; ABAQUS 6.6 Theory Manual; Cook, 2002; Zienkiewicz, 2000)
3.7 Used Shell elements
The used element type is shell element. Shell elements are usually triangular or
rectangular with different number of node points depending on the element. The used
rectangular shell elements have four node points, each node includes five degrees of
freedom in a three dimensional situation, three displacements and two rotations.
According to Boh (2004), the shell elements that are capable for both thin and thick
shell applications involving large displacements and finite membrane strains are
adequate in analysis of blast wall and blast barrier kind of structures. (ABAQUS 6.6
Analyses Users Manual; Boh, 2004)
The name of the used element in ABAQUS/Explicit is S4R. It is illustrated in Figure
11. The used shell element is for general purpose with double curvature, 4 node,
reduced integration with hourglass control, and finite membrane strains. Reduced
integration means, in this case, that the integration at the shell volume is done by
using Gaussian points. Hourglass control means that the user can define the stiffness
for the rotation with respect to the surface normal of the shell element. Hourglass
control is important, especially with impulsive forces and large strains when material
and geometry are nonlinear. The formulation for reduced integration elements
considers only the linearly varying part of the incremental displacement field in the
 34 
element for the calculation of the increment of physical strain. The remaining part of
the nodal incremental displacement field is the hourglass field and can be expressed
in terms of hourglass modes. Excitation of these modes may lead to severe mesh
distortion, with no stresses resisting the deformation. Hourglass control attempts to
minimize this problem without introducing excessive constraints on the elements
physical response. (ABAQUS 6.6 Theory Manual)
Figure 11. The element is S4R. (ABAQUS 6.6 Analysis Users Manual)
 35 
4 Material model
The material of the considered structure is S235 A, steel for marine industry. The
difference to the basic construction steel, S235, is the uniform strength properties
throughout the entire crosssection. For S235 A the yield strength is defined by the
manufacturer into the actual name of the product, Steel 235 MPa. That is the design
criteria for the maximum stress for most of the steel structures. The yield strength is
defined by the manufactures as a certain value but the actual yielding point is higher
than nominal yield strength 235 MPa. A curve representing a tensile strength test
conducted by Rautaruukki is in Figure 12. In the test, the measured variables are
displacement in xaxis, and applied force per initial crosssectional area in yaxis.
This kind of curve is useful in the definition of the upper and the lower yield point,
the Youngs modulus, and the ultimate strength of the material. (Parnes, 2001; Frost,
1982; Rautaruukki, 2007)
Figure 12. The engineering stress strain relationship for S235 A. The tensile strength test is
made for a specimen with initial length of l
0
98,75 mm. The xaxis is displacement but represents
approximately the strain in %. The Yield Stress value 235 MPa is the value that over 99 % of
the products will achieve. In figure, it is possible to see the upper Yield Stress 290 MPa which is
the approximate mean value for upper Yield Stress for S235 A, used in marine industry.
(Rautaruukki, 2007)
 36 
Oneaxial material tensile strength tests are easy to conduct compared to three
dimensional tests. In macroscopic point of view, steel is a homogenous material. In
this study, the hardening mechanism is assumed to be isotropic. Isotopic hardening
means that after the load is reversed at the plastic region (518 MPa in Figure 13) then
the stressstrain curve descents to the corresponding negative stress value (518 MPa
in Figure 13). The slope of the descending curve is the elastic modulus, E.
Isotropic hardening
0
280
518
518
752
800
600
400
200
0
200
400
600
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s
[
M
P
a
]
isotropic
Figure 13. Isotropic hardening for a bilinear material. The arrow indicates the path of the
hardening curve.
Oneaxial material properties are applied to the 3D material model in this study; that
is also the requirement for isotropic elastoplasticity. (Frost, 1982; Cook, 2002)
The data from the engineering curve, in Figure 12, is utilized in the formation of the
desired logarithmic straintrue stress curve which represents strainstress relationship
in deformable nonlinear material. The problem with engineering curve is that the
necking of the specimen is not considered. The necking means the diminution of the
crosssectional area in the plastic deformation in a tensile strength test. The
engineering curve plots the applied force per the initial crosssectional area instead of
the applied force per the current crosssectional area.
The engineering stressstrain curve is decreasing after the ultimate strength. Figure
14 shows the true stresslogarithmic strain curve where the necking of the specimen
 37 
is noted and the curve is progressive in every state. (Parnes, 2001; Frost, 1982;
Rautaruukki, 2007)
Stress  Strain
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s
[
M
P
a
] Used material data for FEM
True stresslog.strain
Engineering curve
Figure 14. The red curve is the engineering curve. The blue curve is the converted true stress
logarithmic strain curve. The green curve is used as the true stress logarithmic strain
relationship in FEM computation in this study.
The effect of the necking can be eliminated with the following equations. The
procedure gives the true stresslogarithmic strain points for the curve. As mentioned
in Section 3.4, the strain can be defined in many ways; when plasticity is concerned
then the logarithmic strain measure is proper, since the tension, the compression, and
the torsion tests gives coincident data curves for strainstress relationship. The
definitions of the logarithmic strain, , and the engineering strain,
eng
, were derived
in Section 3.4; they are


\

=
0
ln
l
l
(70)
0
0
l
l l
eng
= . (71)
Variable l is solved from Equation (71) and substituted to Equation (70), yielding the
relationship for the logarithmic strain and the engineering strain
) 1 ln(
eng
+ = . (72)
 38 
The volume of the specimen does not change significantly in the tensile strength test.
The volume can be written as
A l A l V = =
0 0
, (73)
where l
0
is the initial length, l is the current length, A
0
is the initial crosssectional
area, A is the current crosssectional area of the specimen. Hence, Equation (70) can
be rewritten as
e l l
0
=
, (74)
Equation (74) gets the form
e
l
l
A
A
= =
0
0
. (75)
The definition for true stress, , in oneaxial situation, is force, F, per current cross
sectional area, A, yielding
A
A
A
A
A
F
A
A
A
F
A
F
eng
0 0
0 0
0
= = = = . (76)
When equations (75) and (76) are combined the true stress and engineering stress
have the relationship
e
eng
= . (77)
The correction with Equations (72) and (77) is not enough between the upper and the
lower yield points. In order to make a proper and a reasonable material model true
stresslogarithmic strain points must be fixed between the upper and the lower yield
points (see the curve True stresslog. Strain for improper material model in Figure
14). Therefore, the curve has been lifted up from the upper yield point to the
progressive curve linearly without taking those points near the lower yield point to
the material data (see the curve Used material data for FEM for proper material
model in Figure 14). The numerical values for the true stresslogarithmic strain
 39 
points, which were used in finite element computation, are presented in Appendix B.
(Malvern, 1969; Parnes, 2001)
4.1 Quasistatic mechanical properties of steel
Quasistatic properties of steel mean that the mechanical properties are independent
with respect to time. The tensile strength tests are conducted with low strain rates,
lower than approximately 10
3
1/s. The mechanical properties of concerned steel for
marine industry are in Table 1. (Meyers, 1994; Johnson)
Table 1. Quasistatic mechanical properties of steel 235 A. (Rautaruuki, 2007)
Material
Density
[kg/m
3
]
Young
modulus
[GPa]
Poisson's
ratio
Yield
stress
[MPa]
Ultimate
stress
[MPa]
Ultimate
strain
[%]
S235 A
nominal 7850 200 0.3 235 400 22
S235 A used 7850 204 0.3 289 520 30
Yield stress represents a point on stress axis that above this point permanent
deformation appears in the material. The ultimate strength is the ultimate value for
the stress that can take place in the concerned material with low strain rates.
Surprisingly, for the concerned material the ultimate strength varies a lot in the
literature. The used value for the ultimate quasistatic strength is 520 MPa with 30 %
strain. Those values are according to the steel supplier Rautaruukki. (Parnes, 2001;
Rautaruukki, 2007; ABAQUS 6.6 Analysis Users Manual)
4.2 Dynamic properties of steel
Most of the mechanical properties of steels are based on tests conducted in quasi
static conditions. In general, the dynamic mechanical properties of materials are quite
different than quasistatic properties. As early as 1905, Hopkinson conducted series
of dynamic experiments on steel. His conclusion was that the dynamic strength of
steel is at least twice as high as its quasistatic strength. (Myers, 1994)
In an explosion event, the material behavior is dynamic and has real time
dependence. High strain rates ( )
s
1
3
10
\

+ =
D
q
pl pl
& &
. (79)
The constants D and p have values 40 1/s and 5 for typical steel in dynamic
responses.
0
is the reference yield stress of the material. The material constants D
and p appear generally in the literature when nonlinear dynamic analysis for steel is
submitted. According to Symonds (1972), the strainrate sensitivity model provides a
reasonably good representation of test results up to strain rates of 1000 1/s. The
illustration of strainrate sensitivity model is in Figure 15. (Symonds, 1972;
Wierzbicki, 1989; ABAQUS 6.6 Theory Manual; Saarenheimo, 1996)
 41 
Strainrate sensitivity
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s
[
M
P
a
]
de/dt 1000
de/dt 100
de/dt 10
de/dt 1
de/dt 0
Figure 15. The effect of the strain rate on the stressstrain curves according to Cowper
Symonds, Equation (79). The highest curve is rough estimation for the limit of highest plastic
strain rate for steel in considered structural analysis. The Youngs modulus is the same for
every strain rate. The strain rate increases the value of yield stress.
According to Meyers (1994), the strain rate has the effect on stress strain curves as
plotted in Figure 16. Meyers conducted his tests for titanium, and tantalum. The test
for titanium has upraised yield values with higher strain rates. The test for tantalum is
clearer that the test for titanium. It is easy to see upraised stress strain curve with
higher strain rate. The effect of strain rate has the same form and effect on the stress
strain curves when compared to CowperSymonds equation and Meyers
measurements. However, the yield stress is a function of plastic strain rate, not a
function total strain rate. So, in any measurement the plastic strain rate is not a
constant value but is changing within time. That is discussed further in the
computational part of the study, in Section 5.1, where dynamic tensile strength test
were performed with ABAQUS/Explicit. The results were compared to the analytical
values. (Meyers, 1994)
 42 
Figure 16. In the upper figure is the strainrate sensitivity of titanium. xaxis is true strain and
the yaxis is the true stress in megapascals in both figures. In the lower figure is the strainrate
sensitivity of tantalum. Higher strain rate upraises the yield point. The dynamic strength
properties are much higher than quasistatic strength properties (strain rate d/dt < 104).
(Meyers, 1994)
The strainrate sensitivity is not as clear phenomenon as it might be illustrated here.
CowperSymonds equation and Meyers measurements are just a part of the study on
high strain rates. The effect of high strain rates includes also such features as
isothermal and adiabatic deformation processes. When strain rate increases, the
 43 
deformation process changes gradually from fully isothermal to fully adiabatic
because there is not enough time for the heat, generated in the deformation, to escape
out of the material. Clifton (1983) reported dramatic increases in flow stress as strain
rates were order of 10
5
1/s. This report lead some scientists to believe that there is
limiting strain rate at which the strength of the material closes infinity. The results of
Cliftons study are shown in Figure 17. In the current study, the plastic strain rates
are observed in finite element computation because the CowperSymonds equation is
feasible for plastic strain rates below 1000 1/s. If the strain rates exceed that value
then computed results may be questionable. (Meyers, 1994; Clifton, 1983)
Figure 17. Shear stress vs. shear strain rate is plotted in the figure. The shear stresses in the
specimens seem to rise extremely rapidly after the shear strain rates are above 10
5
1/s. The test
specimens were 11000 aluminum. (Clifton, 1983)
4.3 Deformation mechanism of steel
In microscopic perspective, the material is full of flows, defects, and irregularities,
witch are the carriers of plastic deformation. The defects allow the movement of
material particles when enough shear stress or tension is applied to the material. The
 44 
shear strain rate
6
& and strain rate & reflects the density of deformation carriers and
the intensity of applied load. Dislocations are generated in deformation process. A
sketch of dislocation movement and the formation of plastic deformation are in
Figure 18. (Frost, 1982; Ashby, 1999)
Figure 18. The figures outline the edge dislocation which is also called a slip in a material. (a)
Dislocation, an incomplete row of atoms above slip plane. (b) The bond between two atoms is
breaking due to the shear force P. (c) The dislocation is moving one row to the left. (d) The
dislocation reaches the surface of crystal, producing plastic deformation. (Ashby, 1999)
Plasticity is a kinetic process and it includes plastic flow in material. For materials,
such as metals, it is often assumed in macroscopic view that yield strength has an
absolute and well defined value. This means that below yield strength there is no
6
Shear strain rate, & , is introduced here because material scientists use often shear strain instead of
strain. A dislocation is illustrative to outline as an edge dislocation (see Figure 18). In a case of edge
dislocation type of deformation and in macroscopic perspective the measured variable is usually shear
strain .
 45 
flow of dislocations and above yield strength there is flow of dislocations. In
microscopic level this is true only at absolute zero temperature. (Frost, 1982)
At high strain rates and at low temperatures the dislocation movement of the material
is limited by forces due to the phonon
7
and electron drags. In a case of explosion, the
strain rates are high. Also, the temperature of the material is assumed to stay low (~
0.1T
m
) when a short period of time is observed. Even though, there occur high
temperatures due to the explosion but the explosion event is rapid and there is not
enough time for heat to conduct to the solid material. T
m
is the melting temperature of
material and for concerned steel it is about 1500C. The phonon and electron drag
limits the dislocation flow. The materials are strainrate dependent for this reason.
One factor to limit dislocation flow is called relativistic effect, according to Frost
(1982). That is simply defined as a limiting factor due to the theory of relativity. That
will not be discussed here. In other words, the dislocation flow is limited by a
number of reasons and the experimental effect can be seen in Figure 15 (Cowper
Symonds) and in Figure 16 (Meyers measurements). (Frost, 1982; Argon, 1969;
Meyers, 1994)
The CowperSymonds equation of strainrate sensitivity is applied to the material
model, used in this thesis. Further discussion on dislocation theory and strainrate
characteristics is passed because of their complicity and impracticality for this study
and it is simply taken as the reaction for the behavior of metals under fast affecting
loads. (Frost, 1982; Meyers, 1994)
7
Phonon is quantum mechanical version of spherical vibration mode. This occurs in crystal materials
such as metals. In classical mechanics the normal modes in vibration is the equivalent to the quantum
mechanics phonons.
 46 
5 Computational part of the study
There are several features in numerical modeling which affect strongly to the
computed results. In this study, three major features are: the dynamic behavior of the
material, the boundary conditions, and the nonlinear finite element computation.
Generally, these features have effect on all types of structural dynamic analysis. The
explosion phenomenon generates strong impulse loading; reasonable evaluation of
the structural response depends strongly on the former features in numerical
modeling. All three features are crucial for the computed results. The successfulness
of the implemented strainrate sensitivity of the material model is confirmed in
Section 5.1. The geometry of the concerned space inside the naval vessel is described
in Chapters 6 and 8. Chapter 8 presents the results for a 50 kg TNT explosion in a
contained space inside a naval vessel. The computational requirements for the finite
element computation are presented and compared in Sections 8.4 to 8.7. The final
results are shown in Chapter 9, where the relationship between the applied loading
and the structural behavior is illustrated.
5.1 Dynamic tensile strength test with ABAQUS/Explicit
The used strainrate sensitivity of steel was introduced by Cowper and Symonds in
1969. The CowperSymonds model combines the dynamic flow stress and the plastic
strain rate with non quasistatic strain rates. Command
*RATE DEPENDENT, TYPE=POWER LAW
40, 5
defines the CowperSymonds strainrate sensitivity, Equation (79), in
ABAQUS/Explicit. Number 40 is the strainrate sensitivity coefficient and number 5
is the strainrate sensitivity exponent for the concerned steel. The verification of the
used strainrate sensitivity of the material is conducted in order to be sure of the
computation procedure in ABAQUS/Explicit. The aim is to confirm the strainrate
effect on the stressstrain relationship for steel with high strain rates.
The tensile strength test was made for a onedimensional case. The used element is
3D beam element, named B31 in ABAQUS. That is a 2node beam element. Herein
 47 
it does not matter if a beam or a truss element is used since only the axial properties
of the element are observed; both beam and truss elements have the same
interpolation functions in axial direction. Figure 19 shows the used element. The
arrow, pointing to the right from point B, indicates the only degree of freedom of the
element.
Figure 19. The only degree of freedom is the displacement to direction 1 at point B.
The other node displacement, point A in Figure 19, was set to be zero. The length of
the modeled beam is one centimeter. The crosssection is uniform and circular with
one millimeter diameter. The crosssectional diameter has no effect because the used
beam element is analytical.
The movement of the element is restricted at point A. At point B there is forced
displacement, u
11
, 3.5 millimeters in axial direction. The movement of the forced
displacement is constant, meaning that the displacement is linear with respect to
time. This means that the total logarithmic strain, Equation (70), is
300 . 0
01 . 0
0035 . 0 01 . 0
ln ) ln(
0
11

\
 +
= =
l
l
. (80)
The CowperSymonds equation for strainrate sensitivity is a function of plastic
strain rate,
pl
& , Equation (79). The plastic strain is much larger than the elastic strain
for steels. The analytical solution is formed with following equations. The total strain
is


\

+
=
0
) (
11 0
) (
11
ln
l
u l
i
i
, (81)
 48 
where superscript (i) refers to a point on the known quasistatic stressstrain curve.
Therefore, the displacement, u
11
(i)
, is
( ) 1
) (
11
0
) (
11
=
i
e l u
i
. (82)
The total quasistatic strain points are known values and they were defined in
Chapter 4, and the numerical values can be seen in Appendix B. The respective time,
for a strain, has to be computed in order to get the plastic strain rate. The time is
v
u
t
i
i
) (
11 ) (
= , (83)
where v is the constant velocity of the forced displacement. Plastic strain is
E
q
i
i
i
el i
i
pl
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
= = . (84)
Plastic strain rate is
) ( ) 1 (
) ( ) 1 (
i i
i pl i pl pl
pl
t t t
=
+
+
& , (85)
The analytical curves and the numerical approximations in ABAQUS/Explicit are
plotted in Figure 20. The durations of the forced displacements are 0.01, 0.001, and
0.0003 seconds. The plastic strain rate is not constant and therefore, in the Cowper
Symonds equation the plastic strain rate is a function of time. The velocities of the
compelled movements are 0.35, 3.5, and 11.67
s
m
. The velocity 11.67
s
m
generates
approximately the ultimate feasible plastic strain rate 1000 1/s. The curves are named
as ABAQ and CS, ABAQ referring to the finite element computation and CS
referring to the analytical solution. The following numerical value in the curve name,
for example 0.35
s
m
, indicates the velocity of the forced displacement.
The explicit time integration step should be less than the time of wave propagation in
the material across the smallest element, Equation (22) in Section 3.3. Since there is
only one element in the model, the stable time increment at initial conditions is
 49 
( ) s 10 85 . 1 06 . 0 06 . 0 1
01 . 0
1
6 2
7850
204
1
2
1
3
= + = 
\

+ <
m
kg
GPa E
elem
m
b b
s
t
. (86)
However, the used time increment was 10
7
s for all strain rates because the data
collection is possible only at the end of a time increment. If larger time increments
were used then the stressstrain curves consist of fewer points, and some interesting
points were missed at the elastic region when the duration of compelled movement
was 0.0003 s.
Numerical tensile strength test, ABAQUS vs. analytical
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s
[
M
P
a
]
ABAQ 11.7 m/s
CS 11.7 m/s
ABAQ 3.5 m/s
CS 3.5 m/s
ABAQ 0.35 m/s
CS 0.35 m/s
Quasistatic
Figure 20. The comparison of strainrate sensitivity between the numerical evaluation and the
analytical evaluation. The analytical evaluation is highly coincident to the numerical evaluation
made with ABAQUS/Explicit.
The test confirms that the computation procedure in ABAQUS/Explicit gives the
desired stressstrain relationship with non quasistatic strain rates. Figure 20 shows
that the velocities of the forced displacement (0.35, 3.5, and 11.67
s
m
) give the same
stressstrain paths as the implemented CowperSymonds equation gives with the
known exact values. However, this implementation of strainrate sensitivity is not as
simple to confirm as it might seem, based on Figure 20. Further discussion and test
results are presented in Appendix A. The main problem encountered were the
occurring elastic stress waves when physically longer beam elements were used in
the numerical computation procedure.
 50 
The reason why plastic strain rate is used in the CowperSymonds constitutive
equation, instead of total strain rate, is that the total strain is sum of elastic strain and
plastic strain. The yield stress of the material upraises in the strainhardening
process. That enlarges the elastic region. So, in strain hardening, the elastic region
enlarges but the plastic region stays the same as in the quasistatic conditions. It is
natural that the strainrate sensitivity is a function of plastic strain rate since that is
constant between two given material points, independent to high strain rates.
Therefore, for example, the given quasistatic stressstrain points in ABAQUS are in
form of stressplastic strain.
Figure 21 shows the plastic strain rates as a function of time.
Plastic strain rate
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0,00000 0,00005 0,00010 0,00015 0,00020 0,00025 0,00030
Time [s]
P
l
a
s
t
i
c
s
t
r
a
i
n
r
a
t
e
[
1
/
s
]
CS 11.7 m/s
ABAQ 11.7 m/s
Figure 21. Plastic strain rate as a function of time. The movement of forced displacement was
11.7
s
m
.
The curves are not exactly coincident. The analytical curve consists of 20 stress
strain points. On the contrary, the numerical evaluation with ABAQUS/Explicit
consists approximately of 1000 stressstrain points. The numerical effect is that the
plastic strain rate is smoother during the solution. Therefore, the entire history of
plastic strain rate and especially the upper corner, in Figure 21, is different between
the analytical and the numerical solution. Although, the given material points are the
same but still the numerical evaluation is different than the exact analytical solution.
 51 
5.2 Failure criterion of the material
The stresses which take place in the model can be significantly higher than in purely
static analysis. See Figure 20 in Section 5.1 where the numerical dynamic tensile
strength tests were conducted for the used material. Also, when high strain rates
occur in the material then the failure can not be concluded from the quasistatic strain
in the tensile strength test. The quasistatic failure criterion for the concerned
material is approximately 30 % logarithmic strain. The presence of high strain rates,
up to 1000 1/s and over, upraises the failure criteria of the material. A typical failure
criterion for mild steel is 100 % equivalent plastic strain with high strain rates.
(Rusinek, 2007; ABAQUS 6.6 Analysis Users Manual, 2007)
The equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) is
    ( ) dt
t
T
pl pl pl pl
+ =
0
3
2
0
 & & . (87)
 52 
6 Geometry of the concerned structure
Naval vessels are designed to destroy or avoid missiles before the impact. Therefore,
the vessels are lighter for better maneuverability than in earlier days. Thick armor
that protects the hull of naval vessels is too heavy for lighter structures. A naval
vessel is, in a way, a lightweight structure whereas any other transport equipment.
Typical property of a lightweight structure is relatively thin shell structure which is
enforced with stiffeners. A Frigate F124, in Figure 22, is a typical naval vessel.
Generally, the outer shell is 12 millimeters thick and the shell structures inside the
vessel are 6 millimeters thick. All the shell structures are enforced with stiffeners.
The stiffeners of the outer shell can be seen in the upper right corner in Figure 22. In
this study, the analyzed structure is a part of the steel structure inside the naval
vessel. It is located in the middle of the ship and just above the water line.
Figure 22. A Frigate F124 is illustrated in the figure. A crosssection of the steel structure is in
the upper right corner. The shell structures are generally enforced with stiffeners in two
directions. Two transversal bulkheads are pointed with red lines. (Scherr M Frigate, 2004)
First, a transversal bulkhead is observed separately. Typically, a compartment inside
a naval vessel consists of two transversal bulkheads, two longitudinal bulkheads,
upper deck, and lower deck. In the observed compartment, the transversal bulkhead
 53 
is 3.6 m wide and 2.6 m high. The length of the longitudinal bulkhead is 10.4 m. The
volume of that space is 97 m
3
. The vented area is assumed to be 6.5 m
2
. The volume
of the space affects to the quasistatic pressure and the duration of the quasistatic
pressure. The vented area affects to the duration of the quasistatic pressure. The
transversal bulkhead is illustrated in Figure 23. The complete space is illustrated in
Figure 31 in Chapter 8.
Figure 23. Transversal bulkhead
The dimensions of the Lshaped crosssections are in Table 2. Figure 24 shows the
real crosssection of a bulb stiffener and the used Lshaped approximation. The
approximation was made in order to avoid solid elements and to keep the model
simple. The approximation makes possible to use only shell elements which makes
the meshing procedure easier. Also, the amount of required solid elements to fulfill
the nonrectangular part of the real stiffener would be large, and the DOFs would
increase remarkably in the whole modeled structure.
 54 
Figure 24. The crosssection of the actual bulb stiffener and the crosssection of the simplified
stiffener are in the figure. Dimensions are in millimeters.
Table 2. The crosssectional dimensions of
the bulb stiffener.
The crosssectional properties of the simplified and the actual geometry of the
stiffener are presented in Table 3; the location of the center of the gravity for the
crosssection, e, and the moment of inertia respect to the centerline, I
xx
, are compared
between the actual stiffener and the simplification.
Table 3. The crosssectional properties of the actual
bulb stiffener and the simplified stiffener.
e [cm] I
xx
[cm
4
]
Actual 59.6 7.63
Simplified 60.8 7.75
Dimensions in mm
a s c r
100 6 15.5 4.5
 55 
7 Structural analysis of the transversal bulkhead
If only one wall type structure, in this case, a transversal bulkhead inside Frigate
F124, is under consideration then the definition of the realistic boundary conditions
is hard. In linear analysis, zero displacements and zero rotations are adequate as
typical boundary conditions. In nonlinear dynamic situations, especially with
explosion loads, the boundary conditions have significant effect on the results. This
is shown with three different models of the transversal bulkhead, each with different
boundary conditions.
7.1 Effect of the boundary conditions
The models have the same features except the boundary conditions. The applied
loading is due to 50 kg TNT detonation in the contained space described in Chapter
6. The shock wave impulse depends on the distance and the angle of attack.
Therefore, the transversal bulkhead, in Figure 23, is divided into 36 areas. For each
area, the respective shock wave pressure and the duration are computed. The
pressures are shown in Appendix C. Since the pressure does not vary much along the
transversal bulkhead the mean value is used. The mean shock wave impulse is 18 bar
overpressure and the duration is 0.00574 seconds. The created quasistatic pressure is
10 bar overpressure at the time of 0.00315 seconds and the total duration of the
quasistatic pressure is 0.045 s. The overpressure has the form as is shown in Figure
8 in Section 2.8. The pressure distribution is assumed to be uniform because the
distance and the angle of attack are close to the average at all points in the structure.
Also, the purpose of these models is to compare and to find realistic boundary
conditions, so the light change in pressure distribution along the surface would be
irrelevant. In the models are 12180 quadrilateral elements and 12408 nodes. The L
shaped stiffeners have zero rotational boundary conditions at the ends. The plate
thickness is 6 mm and the shape of the stiffeners can be seen in Figure 24. The
distance between the stiffeners is 600 mm. The initial geometry of the structure is
illustrated in Figure 23. In the figure is presented the global coordinate system, X, Y,
Z. The respective local coordinate system is referred as 1, 2, 3 when the boundary
conditions are described.
 56 
The first model has the following boundary conditions: displacement U3 = 0 at all
exterior edges, meaning that the displacements are restrained in the direction of the
oncoming shock wave. In future, the model is referred as BC_U3=0. This kind of
boundary condition has the analogy of a typical beam in bending; one end of the
beam is free to move in axial direction, see Figure 25.
Figure 25. A Simply supported beam. The axial movement of the beam is not restricted.
The structural response of the first model, BC_U3=0, indicates that the boundary
conditions are not adequate and the deformed structure has unrealistic shape. The
deformed shape of the model is illustrated in Figure 26. This kind of deformed shape
is due to the unrealistic boundary conditions, although, the intensity of the applied
loading is large. The analogy of simply supported beam with a free end is not
applicable in the evaluation of blast wall type of structures.
 57 
Figure 26. The deformed state of the model BC_U3=0. The butterfly shaped deformed structure
is against typical engineering intuition of structural deformation of a blast wall type of
structure. The red color indicates the largest displacement in the structure.
The generated membrane forces in the structure carry remarkable quantity of the
applied load when a blast wall type of structure is under heavy loading. The analogy
is the same as with beams with or without membrane forces; a simply supported
beam, one end fixed and the other end with rolls can carry much less load as a beam
with fixed boundary conditions in both ends of the beam. That kind of beam can
carry much more load than one with a free end (confer Figure 25 and Figure 27).
Figure 27. A simply supported beam. The movement of the beam ends is restricted. This kind of
boundary conditions generates membrane forces, which carry a large proportion of the loading.
 58 
The next model has the following boundary conditions: U3=0 at all exterior edges,
U1=0 at the edges 3 and 4, U2=0 at the edges 1 and 2. In future, the model is referred
as BC_U123=0. The deformed state of the model BC_U123=0 is in Figure 28.
Figure 28. The deformed state of the model BC_U123=0 is in the figure. The deformation is
more discreet than the deformed state of the model BC_U3=0, in Figure 26.
The possible structural failure is observed for the models because if structural failure
occurs then the failed part forms discontinuities in the structure. The condition for
the structural failure is concluded from the occurring strains and not the stresses. For
example, in the model BC_U123=0 there occurred stresses above 1000 MPa; in
quasistatic situation that would mean structural failure for certainty. In a rapid
dynamic situation that indicates high strain rates in the material. The maximum von
Mises stress (at the time 0.0055 s) is 1096 MPa. The corresponding equivalent plastic
 59 
strain is approximately 28 %. The criterion for the structural failure is 100 %
equivalent plastic strain (see Section 5.2).
Figure 29 shows the displacement in the shock wave direction (global Z) of the
midpoint of the concerned structure. The structural response of the model BC_U3=0
is dramatic in direction Z. The maximum is nearly three times larger than for the
model BC_U123=0. Both models seem to achieve permanent deformation during the
computed time period. The occurring vibration period is larger for the model
BC_U3=0 than for the model BC_U123=0. That is because the BC_U3=0 is more
resilient than the BC_U123=0. Also, for the model BC_U3=0 can be seen strong
variation near the maximum displacement. Those are the butterfly shaped
deformation forms (see Figure 26). The fully plastic deformed shape is more
conservative and has displacement about one meter at the center of the structure.
There occurs vibration in both models. The vibration will die out within time. The
observer time interval is 0.1 s with the model BC_U123=0, and 0.2 s with the model
BC_U3=0. Both models are still in small vibratory motion when the computation
ended. That does not matter since the vibratory motion is very small and has no
immediate effect to the occurring strain fields. The observed time is kept as short as
possible to maintain the computational time short. Figure 30 shows the small
vibratory motion of the center point of the model BC_U123=0.
 60 
Displacement of the midpoint
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2
Time [s]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
[
m
]
BC_U3=0
BC_U123=0
Figure 29. The comparison of the displacement of the midpoint of the structure in shock wave
direction. Blue curve is the one with boundary conditions U3=0 and the pink curve is the one
with boundary conditions U123=0.
A model with zero rotational boundary conditions at the edges is made; the boundary
conditions are: U3=0 at all exterior edges, U1=0 at the edges 3 and 4, U2=0 at the
edges 1 and 2, UR1=0 at the edges 1 and 2, UR2=0 at the edges 3 and 4. In future,
the model is referred as BC_UR=0. The models BC_U123=0 and BC_UR=0 are
compared in Figure 30. The plotted curves are the displacement of the midpoint as a
function of time. Figure 30 shows the insignificant effect of the rotational boundary
conditions to the displacement of the midpoint.
 61 
Displacement of the midpoint
0,44
0,445
0,45
0,455
0,46
0,465
0,47
0,475
0,48
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
Time [s]
D
i
s
p
l
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
U
3
[
m
]
BC_U123=0
BC_UR=0
Figure 30. Comparison of the boundary conditions
The plastic displacement is larger with the model BC_U123=0 than with the model
BC_UR=0. That is consistent, since the zero rotational boundary conditions stiffen
the construction. However, the difference between the models is small when blast
wall types of structures are analyzed. The other factors, such as explosion load,
create more ambiguity. At this point, the engineering intuition tells that models
BC_U123=0 and BC_UR=0 have relatively realistic boundary conditions. Yet, that is
not a certain fact, based on the computations presented in this section. The following
computations, in Section 8.2, indicate the rightfulness of the boundary conditions
used in models BC_U123=0 and BC_UR=0.
Figure 30 shows that the plotted curves are not continuous. That is because the data
collection is coarse; it is done in every 0.0003 seconds, resulting 333 time points in
the computation when the requested data is collected. Otherwise, if smaller time
interval was used in data collection the output databases would increase in size
remarkably.
 62 
8 Modeling of a complete space inside the vessel
The aim is to create a model which boundary conditions tend to the real boundary
conditions inside a naval vessel. Therefore, one eight of a complete space is
modeled. The complete geometry can be described exactly when the symmetric
boundary conditions are used. The geometry and the boundary conditions are
illustrated in Figure 31. An assumption is made; other than symmetry directions are
modeled two meters further than the described complete space. Two extra meters are
modeled to keep the boundary conditions far from the observed structure. Chapter
7.1 presented the strong effect of the boundary conditions if they are modeled
improperly. When a larger piece of the structure is modeled and the boundary
conditions are far from the observed structure then the effect of the boundary
conditions is smaller.
Figure 31. The concerned structure is 1/8 of a complete space inside Frigate F124. The
construction is extended 2 m in every direction (black arrows), other than symmetry directions,
to model real boundary conditions. The red dot is the assumed location of the explosion.
Stiffeners are the L and T shaped parts of the structure. The plating is 6 mm thick.
The web thickness of the Tshaped crosssections is 8 mm and the flange thickness is
10 mm. The height of the Tshaped crosssections is 300 mm and the width of the
flange is 120 mm. The geometry of the Lshaped stiffeners was described in Chapter
 63 
6. A longitudinal and a transversal Lshaped stiffener are located at the symmetry
plane 23. Therefore, only half of the web thickness and half of the length of the
flange are modeled for those Lshaped stiffers at the symmetry plane 23.
The explosion load depends on the coordinates X, Y, Z of a point, and the amount of
TNT. Both, the occurring pressures and the durations of the occurring pressures
depend on the coordinates and the amount of TNT. The pressuretime dependence,
respect to all surfaces, can not be described continuously because the magnitude of
the pressure and the duration of the pressure depend on the global coordinates. The
loading is approximated with uniform pressure fields, meaning that the surfaces of
the space are divided into 45 areas. For each area, the respective pressure and the
respective duration are computed. The magnitude of the quasistatic pressure field is
uniform at all 45 areas. Sections 2.6 and 2.7 presented that the quasistatic pressure is
independent of the coordinates of a point. The duration of the quasistatic pressure is
also independent of the coordinates. The computed values for the confronting
pressure, the reflection pressure, and the respective duration times are presented in
Appendix C. The amount of TNT is 50 kilograms. The origin is the location of the
explosion source, see Figure 31. The structure is modeled with 92152 quadrilateral
fournode elements. The amount of nodes in the model is 92561.
The deformed structure, at the time 0.0007 seconds, is shown in Figure 32. The
maximum equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) is above 100 % at the white area. The
structure undergoes permanent damage before the loading has ended. The failure
mode of the structure is local type.
 64 
Figure 32. Deformed state of the structure. The white contour illustrates the regions where
equivalent plastic strain is above 100 %.
The used element density is quite low to evaluate strains accurately. Still, it is dense
enough to make the conclusion that the structure undergoes significant local damage.
When the computation was resumed further from the illustrated point then the
deformed geometry received unrealistic shapes, see Figure 33.
(Therefore, the evaluation of the breaking time of the structure can be inaccurate.
Nevertheless, it does not matter a great deal since, most likely, the structure breaks
locally anyhow. The importance of this model is that the breaking mode is local type
when the distance from the explosion source is approximately 1.3 meters and the
amount of TNT is 50 kg. In this study, the primary interest is the structural behavior
at a longer distance from the explosion source. Also, the amount of TNT in the navy
antiship missiles is larger than 50 kg; it is desirable to model explosion events with
larger amounts of TNT in this study.)
 65 
Figure 33. Deformed state of the structure. Maximum equivalent plastic strain is approximately
300 %. The white contour illustrates the regions where equivalent plastic strain is above 100 %.
The further analysis of the structure reveals an unwanted feature in dynamic
behavior. According to Symonds (1972), the used material model is feasible at
plastic strain rates below 1000 1/s. In this case, the plastic strain rates were above
1200 1/s at some integration points in the model. Therefore, the material model is not
accurate, but still indicative. Section 4.2 described the dynamic properties of steel.
The conclusion was that in the material can take place high stresses when the strain
rates are high. The stresses represent the internal forces in the structure. The
occurring internal forces affect the kinematic state of the structure, as presented in
Section 3.2. Still, the largest error to the computed results is probably the
implemented loading. More inaccuracy is related to the evaluation of the explosion
load than to the dynamic behavior of the material, even though, the occurring plastic
strain rates are higher than the feasibly limit, defined by Symonds (1972).
 66 
8.1 Model with failing elements
The previous section described the encountered problems when failure criterion was
not used in the modeling. ABAQUS/Explicit provides a wide selection of failure and
damage initiation models. The simplest way to define failure criterion for the
elements is command *SHEAR FAILURE. This command can not be used in
conjunction with command *RATE DEPENDENT, TYPE=POWER LAW. The Cowper
Symonds strainrate sensitivity has to be defined in tabular form (see Table B1 at
Appendix B for the stressplastic strain points at different strain rates). The failure
criterion is equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) with command *SHEAR FAILURE.
Previously were mentioned that quasistatic failure criterion is approximately 30 %
logarithmic strain. The presence of high strainrates upraises the value of the failure
criterion. In impact and shock analysis, a typical value for equivalent plastic strain as
a failure criterion is 100 % (see section 5.2). In the computation procedure, the
stresses of the element are set to be zero when the equivalent plastic strain exceeds
the given failure criterion at the integration point of the element. The geometry of the
element is still present at the physical model but no internal forces are affecting in
the volume of the element. The mass of the element is considered as a point mass at
the volumetric center of the failed element. The material does not disappear because
that would be against the law of balance of momentum. (ABAQUS 6.6 Theory
Manual, ABAQUS Analysis Users Manual)
The previous models were computed with single precision, meaning that the floating
numbers in computation were stored with 32bit. The use of failure criterion compels
to use double precision, storing the number with 64bit, because the failed parts of
the model changes place significantly during the computation, and single precision is
not enough to complete the analysis near to the desired time.
Figure 34 shows the status of the elements. The blue elements have failed, meaning
that the equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) has exceeded the given value 1.0. The shell
elements deform locally between the stiffeners as in the previous, unfailing model.
 67 
Figure 34. Status of the elements. Red elements are active and blue elements are inactive. The
stress field is zero at blue elements.
The outcome of the 50 kg TNT explosion with failing elements is illustrated in
Figure 37. The failed elements are not displayed in Figure 35, 36, and 37. The failed
elements form stress discontinuities in the structure and therefore, the disconnected
elements are flying in Figure 35, 36, and 37.
 68 
Figure 35. Deformed state of the structure. Some parts of the initial structure are disconnected
and no forces attach them to the undamaged structure.
The model is failing progressively. The deck and the longitudinal bulkhead have
undergone massive destruction at the time 0.011058 s (see Figure 37). After this time
an error encountered in the computation procedure in ABAQUS/Explicit. The
disconnected elements have moved too far from the initial configuration, and
therefore, the computation procedure ended automatically. It is desired to continue
the computation further and to see the final deformed structure but at these
circumstances it is impossible. Based on the illustrations in Figure 36 and Figure 37
the result is clear. The longitudinal bulkhead and the deck have destructed almost
completely. The transversal bulkhead sustains its water tightness but still undergoes
heavy plastic deformation.
 69 
Figure 36. The damaged structure at time 0.0053 s. Approximately one third of the longitudinal
bulkhead has torn apart.
No surface contacts were defined in the modeling; therefore, against real physical
behavior, some parts of the deck have displaced through the longitudinal bulkhead.
However, the lack of surface contact and the intersecting structures does not create a
severe error to the result because the failure of the deck is obvious, based on Figure
35, Figure 36, and Figure 37. The explosion load damages also the deck at the
neighbor compartment and the deck undergoes heavy plastic deformation, which can
be seen in Figure 37.
 70 
Figure 37. Deformed state of the structure. Approximately two thirds of the longitudinal
bulkhead has torn apart.
The result of the model is that the deck and the longitudinal bulkhead have
destructed severely. The following interest is the structural behavior of the
transversal bulkhead. Section 8.2 describes the partial modeling of the transversal
bulkhead. The explosion event is the same as in the current section but only the
transversal bulkhead is modeled.
8.2 Partial modeling of the transversal bulkhead
The modeled structure is the transversal bulkhead. The perpendicular distance from
the explosion source is 5.2 meters, see Figure 31. In this study, it is desired to create
a model with realistic boundary conditions and resume the computation further than
with the previous model with failing elements. The transversal bulkhead is modeled
as it is in the previous model. The other structures, the deck and the longitudinal
bulkhead that join to the transversal bulkhead, are modeled only 0.200 m further
from the transversal bulkhead and the boundary conditions are set to those edges.
The structure and the boundary conditions are shown in Figure 38. The symmetry
boundary conditions are utilized in two directions.
 71 
Figure 38. One fourth of the transversal bulkhead
The explosion load is the same as in the previous model. The pressure fields due to
50 kg TNT explosion are presented in Appendix C. The deformed structure is
illustrated in Figure 39 at the time 0.1 s. The angle of view is from the opposite side
of the structure than in Figure 38. The equivalent plastic strains are below 100 %,
which is the failure criterion. The structure sustains its water tightness, still
undergoing plastic deformation.
 72 
Figure 39. The deformed state of the transversal bulkhead. The maximum equivalent plastic
strain is located at the center of the red circle.
In future the model with failing elements, described in Section 8.1, is referred as
FE50kg, and the model described in this section is referred as TB50kg. The
comparison between the model FE50kg and the model TB50kg indicates the
successes of the boundary conditions in the partially modeled structure, TB50kg. The
compared variable is the displacement history of the midpoint of the transversal
bulkhead. The result is plotted in Figure 40. The small difference between the curves
TB50kg and FE50kg verifies the success of the boundary conditions in partial
modeling.
 73 
Displacement of the midpoint
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
0,40
0,45
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,1
Time [s]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
[
m
]
TB50kg
FE50kg
Figure 40. The comparison between models TB50kg and FE50kg.
Figure 41 shows the magnification of Figure 40. The vibration period of the model
TB50kg is shorter than for the model FE50kg, meaning that the partially modeled
structure, TB50kg, is slightly stiffer than the model FE50kg. Based on Figure 40 and
Figure 41 can be concluded that the boundary conditions are with adequate accuracy
in the model TB50kg when only the transversal bulkhead is analyzed.
Figure 41. The difference between the maximum displacements is less than 3 %.
The displacement of the midpoint is larger for models BC_U123=0 and BC_UR=0,
described in Section 7.1, than for models TB50kg and FE50kg. The difference
between the largest displacement (for model BC_U123=0) and the smallest
displacement (for model FE50kg) is approximately 9 %. When a larger piece of the
structure is modeled then more energy from the explosion load is absorbed to the
 74 
strain energy in the structure. The mass of the bulkhead is the same for all compared
models. However, the total mass, including the structures where the transversal
bulkhead is attached, is larger for FE50kg than for TB50kg, and both models are
heavier than models described in Section 7.1. A lighter model undergoes higher
accelerations during the loading and that initiates larger displacements to the
structure. The last reason for the larger displacement of the smaller models compared
to the larger models is the stiffness at the edges where the bulkhead is attached to
other structures. For example, the model BC_U123=0 had no rotational stiffness at
the edges. For these reasons, the displacement of the midpoint is larger for the
models BC_U123=0 and BC_UR=0 than for the models TB50kg and FE50kg.
8.3 Failure mode of the transversal bulkhead
When the model TB50kg was analyzed a major feature was obvious. The strain field
is relatively uniform except at the areas where the stiffeners are attached to the plates
in the structure. One location is marked with red circle in Figure 39, where the
maximum equivalent plastic strain is approximately 60 %. The stiffeners are
modeled through the plate. That creates a very stiff point in the physical model at
that location, resulting high values for the strains and the stresses. This result
compels to create a more realistic finite element model. The longitudinal stiffeners
go through the transversal bulkheads in naval vessels. There is a cut made to the
plate in order to get the stiffeners continuously between the bulkheads. The structure
is made water tight by welding 10 mm thick collars to the stiffeners at both sides.
Figure 42 shows a sketch of the bond. The hatched areas are the crosssections of a
plate and a stiffener, the blue area is the cut part of the vertical shell, the red line
indicates the edges of the collars. This leads us to use thicker plates (20 mm) at every
bond location in the finite element models.
Figure 42. Collar is the red marked area in the figure.
 75 
The result can be seen in the comparison between Figure 39 and Figure 43. Figure 43
indicates that no significantly higher strains occur since the modeled shell elements
are thicker at the bond locations. Figure 43 shows the deformed state of the model
TBC50kg. Also, only one symmetry direction was utilized because there is a vertical
stiffener at the middle of the structure. In the previous models, TB50kg and FE50kg,
the stiffener was cut into half to fulfill the symmetry conditions. However, the
stiffeners tent to twist during the deformation. Therefore, the observed structure was
modeled only with one symmetry condition.
Figure 43. The effect of the thicker plates can be seen in the figure. In the previous model
(TB50kg) there occurred equivalent plastic strains above 60 % at the circled location.
Equivalent plastic strains are below 20 % at the circled location when the collars were modeled.
There are discontinuous strain fields between the collar and the 6 mm thick plate.
That is the color change near the stiffeners in Figure 43. The next sections illustrate
the strong effect of the nonlinear material model, the effect of the used element
density, the effect of the largestrain considerations in the computation procedure,
and the effect of the direction of the oncoming shock wave.
8.4 Effect of the strainrate sensitivity
The strainrate sensitivity of the material has remarkable effect on the results when
highly dynamic phenomena are modeled by using finite element method. The effect
 76 
can be seen in Figure 44. The plotted curves are the displacement of the midpoint of
the model TBC50kg. The applied reflection pressure is assumed to be uniform at the
surface of the structure. The mean value for the maximum reflection pressure is 18
bar, presented in Appendix C. The mean value is used because the light change is
pressure distribution along the surface of the structure does not effect to the
comparison of two models, with or without the strainrate sensitivity. The curve
50_kg_strain_rate, in Figure 44, is from the model TBC50kg, which was computed
with strainrate sensitivity. The curve, 50kg_no_strain_rate, is from the same model
but without the strainrate sensitivity in the material definitions. The value of the
maximum permanent displacement of the midpoint of the transversal bulkhead
without strainrate sensitivity is 60 % larger than the corresponding value of the
model with strainrate sensitivity.
The displacement of the midpoint
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
time [s]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
[
m
]
50kg_no_strain_rate
50kg_strain_rate
Figure 44. The effect of the strainrate sensitivity to the displacement of the midpoint of the
model.
The maximum equivalent plastic strain is almost 90 % in the model without the
strainrate sensitivity. The maximum equivalent plastic strain is below 30 % in the
model with strainrate sensitivity. This result is reasonable since the displacement
magnitudes; acceleration, velocity, and displacement; originate from the Newtons
second law of motion. The internal forces are subtracted from the external forces and
the residual force causes the acceleration of the body. In Chapter 4 was discussed
that high strain rates will rise the yield strength of the material, meaning that in the
 77 
material can occur higher stresses when high strain rates are present in the
deformation process. The internal forces derive from the stresses. The permanent
global displacement is significantly lower when strainrate sensitivity is included to
the material model. This result confirms the significance of the applied material
model in the finite element computation in the presence of high strain rates.
8.5 Effect of the element density
Three element densities were applied to the model TBC50kg. The model is same as
in the previous comparison, and obviously with strainrate sensitivity included in the
material definitions. In the previous models were 25180 elements. The comparison is
made with model with 45608 and 100720 elements. First, the global element size
was cut into half, resulting four times more elements than in the previous model. The
global dynamic behavior of the models with 25180 and 100720 elements are almost
the same. The difference in permanent displacement of the center points is less than 2
%. The difference in local behavior is larger. For example, the maximum principal
strain at the section point of the collar and the vertical plate is 0.142 with lower
element density and 0.164 with higher element density at the time 0.1 s. The global
convergence is better than the local. Higher element density derives more accurate
results than lower element density when physical event is approximated with finite
element method. A third model with 45608 elements should derive results that are
closer to real results. The real results are unknown, but higher element density
closes to the real results. Results with 100720 elements are closer to real results than
with 25180 elements, meaning that 45608 elements should derive results between the
lower and higher element densities. This analogy is valid with these three models
with 25180, 45608 and 100720 elements. That can be seen in the Figure 45. The
curve, 50kg_45608_elem. is between the curve, 50kg_25180_elem. and the curve,
50kg_100720_elem. Also, the maximum principal strain at considered point is
between the values of the lower and higher element densities. The strain with 45608
elements is 0.150 at the observed point. However, in this study, the lower element
density is acceptable since the other approximations, e.g. the loading and the
boundary conditions, result, most likely, larger error limits. Also, the computation
time is longer for higher element density because the smallest element has shorter
diameter in the model. The number of required time increments to cover 0.1 second
 78 
time interval were 44672 for lower element density and 104291 for higher element
density. Also, the number of DOFs is approximately four times larger for the higher
element density. Therefore, the computational time is longer due to the shorter time
increment and the increased DOFs.
Displacement of the midpoint
0,40
0,41
0,42
0,43
0,44
0,45
0,46
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
Time [s]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
[
m
]
50kg_100720_elem.
50kg_45608_elem.
50kg_25180_elem.
Figure 45. Plotted curves are the displacements of the midpoints as a function of time. The
comparison is made between models with 25180, 45608, and 100720 elements.
8.6 Effect of the nonlinear procedure
All the previous models were computed with nonlinear finite element method.
Chapter 3 classified the forms of nonlinearity in finite element computation, and the
largestrain considerations was one those classifications. If largestrains are
neglected in the computation then the solution method, considering the deformation,
is linear. The displacements are computed in the original coordinate system. The
model, TBC50kg, was computed without largestrain considerations. The
comparison of the displacement of the midpoint between nonlinear and linear
computation models is in Figure 46. The curve, 50kg_nonlinear, is the displacement
as a function of time for the nonlinear model and the curve, 50kg_linear, is the
corresponding displacement for the linear model.
 79 
The displacement of the midpoint
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
time [s]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
[
m
]
50kg_linear
50kg_nonlinear
Figure 46. The comparison between nonlinear and linear computation.
The difference is enormous in the displacement history. In the end, the computation
procedure of 50kg_linear was stopped automatically by ABAQUS/Explicit since the
element distortion of most of the elements developed to be beyond the default
tolerances during the analysis.
8.7 Effect of the oncoming shock wave direction
In the previous models the oncoming shock wave is applied to effect on the opposite
side of the structure where the stiffeners are attached. Figure 47 shows that the
direction of the oncoming shock wave has no effect to the global behavior of the
structure. That confirms the once concluded factor that the membrane forces in the
structure carry a large proportion of the applied loading. The loading is applied to the
side of the stiffeners with models 50kg_reversed, and 75kg_reversed. The cross
sectional properties of the stiffener are small compared to the total length of the
stiffener. Therefore, there could appear instability for the stiffeners. However, the
instability of the stiffeners does not occur during the analysis; the structure sustains
the applied loading globally as well as the models which were loaded from the
opposite side of the structure.
 80 
The displacement of the midpoint
0,4
0,5
0,6
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,1
Time [s]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
[
m
]
75kg
75kg_reversed
50kg
50kg_reversed
Figure 47. The comparison of the applied shock wave direction to the global displacement.
 81 
9 Effect of the applied loading
The optimal computational conditions were defined in the previous chapters. Figure
48 shows the displacement of the midpoint of the transversal bulkhead as a function
of time. Naturally, the displacement is heavier when the amount of the explosive is
greater. Also, the structural response is faster when larger load is applied. The
duration of modeled reflection pressure is approximately 0.00550.0065 s. The quasi
static pressure ends at the time approximately 0.0450.053 s.
Displacement of the midpoint
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,1
Time [s]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
[
m
]
150kg
125kg
100kg
75kg
50kg
Figure 48. The applied loading is due to a chemical explosion. The amounts of TNT were 50, 75,
100, 125, and 150 kilograms.
Plastic displacement of the midpoint is plotted against the applied total impulse in
Figure 49. The plastic displacement of the midpoint is the permanent maximum
displacement in the structure when the applied loading has ended and the vibratory
motion is insignificant.
 82 
Plastic displacement as a fuction of total impulse
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000
Total impulse [Ns]
P
l
a
s
t
i
c
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
U
3
[
m
]
U3(total impulse)
Linear (U3(total
impulse))
Figure 49. The plastic displacement as a function of applied total impulse
The relationship between the maximum plastic displacement in the structure and the
applied total impulse seems to be linear. Figure 48 and Figure 49 show the global
behavior of the transversal bulkhead. The maximum equivalent plastic strain
(PEEQ), occurring in the model, is plotted against the applied total impulse in Figure
50. The locations of the maximum PEEQ vary between the models. When amount of
TNT was 50, 75, 100, and 125 kilograms then the maximum PEEQ was located at
the flange of the stiffener, connected to the transversal bulkhead. When the amount
of TNT was 150 kilograms then the maximum PEEQ was located at the edge of the
collar.
PEEQ at the trasversal bulkhead
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000
Total impulse [Ns]
P
E
E
Q
PEEQ(total impulse)
Failure
Linear (PEEQ(total impulse))
Figure 50. Maximum equivalent plastic strain against the total impulse.
 83 
The horizontal line is the failure criterion, 100 % equivalent plastic strain. The
structure undergoes local damage above that line. The transversal bulkhead sustains
the applied total impulse approximately below 730000 Ns, which is equivalent to 135
kilograms TNT in the observed circumstances.
 84 
10 Conclusions
Three essential factors have to be used in order to submit reliable computation of a
rapid dynamic event in finite element analysis. They are the strainrate sensitivity of
the material, the largestrain considerations, and the realistic boundary conditions.
Proper material model is the key to reliable computation when structures are
observed at their ultimate sustainable limits. In this study, the material model is
elastoplastic with isotropic hardening. Also, the material model is strainrate
sensitive. The effect of strainrate sensitivity was shown in Section 8.4. The use of
strainrate sensitive material model stiffens the observed structure; the material can
carry higher stresses when high plastic strain rates occur during the dynamic event. A
simple comparison of stressstrain curves, with different strain rates, was conducted
in Section 5.1. The effect of high strain rates is, in a way, the same as with a material
which has higher strength properties. When the material is modeled with quasistatic
properties then the structural analysis is not accurate in the presence of high strain
rates.
It was mentioned in the introduction that some structural analyses have been
performed with modal analysis and with linear finite element computation. Section
8.6 showed that linear analysis results unrealistic displacement field in the observed
structure. The use of linear finite element method leads to severe distortion of the
results when the applied loading is large.
The only significant requirement for the boundary conditions is that the
displacements are restricted in two directions at the edges of the structure (see the
directions in Section 7.1). If only the displacement in the direction of the upcoming
shock wave is restricted then the formed membrane forces can carry less loading.
The pressuretime dependence was evaluated with semiempirical equations in
Chapter 2, and that was applied to the finite element computation. The accuracy of
pressure prediction can be questionable because an explosion, as a phenomenon, is
complex, and some inaccuracy takes place with certainty. However, the importance
 85 
in this study is the relationship between the applied total impulse and the structural
behavior. The deck and the longitudinal bulkhead destroyed almost completely when
the amount of TNT was 50 kilograms. The transversal bulkhead sustained the water
tightness as far as 135 kilograms TNT because the explosion source was further from
the transversal bulkhead. The result of this study is that a contained explosion inside
a naval vessel has serious consequences. The structural failure does not restrict to the
space where the explosion source was located but it extends to the neighbor
compartments as well.
10.1 Recommendations
It is possible to model coupled problems in finite element computation, meaning that
the air, inside a naval vessel, can be modeled. The bulk modulus and the density of
air define the shock wave velocity in the concerned medium. The source of the
loading could be a point in which the initial propagation velocity of the explosion is
defined. The air as a medium would compress during the analysis and that would
create the pressure fields with respect to time since a contact surface between the
acoustic medium (air) and the steel structure is defined in the modeling. Also,
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) could be utilized in the evaluation of the
occurring pressure fields. The comparison of the computed pressure fields and the
pressure fields evaluated with semiempirical equations could eliminate some
uncertainties related to the pressure prediction.
The strainrate sensitive material model, used in this study, is feasible for plastic
strain rates below 1000 1/s. The comparison between some other strainrate
sensitivity model, e.g. JohnsonCook, and CowperSymonds model would also be
beneficial. It was mentioned previously in Section 4.2 that the strainhardening
process changes gradually from fully isothermal to adiabatic. The adiabatic effects
lower the stiffness of the material and that can have significance to the shock
resistance of the structures.
 86 
11 References
16
th
International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, 2025 August 2006,
Southampton, UK, Vol. 2, pp. 217263
ABAQUS 6.6 Analysis Users Manual
ABAQUS 6.6 Theory Manual
Anderson, C. et al., QuasiStatic Pressure, Duration, and Impulse for Explosions in
Structures. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 25 (1983)6, pp.455464
Argon, A.S., Physics of strength and plasticity, Cambridge Massachusetts, and
London England, 1969, M.I.T. Press, 404 p.
Ashby, M. F., Material Selection in Mechanical Design, 2. print, GB: Butterworth
Heinemann, 1999, 502 p.
Baker, W. E., Explosion Hazards and Evaluation, 1. print, Amsterdam: Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, 1983, 807 p.
Belytschko, T., Nonlinear Finite Element for Continua and Structures, 2001, John
Wiley & Sons Ltd., England, 650 p.
Beshara, F. B A., Modeling of Blast Loads on Aboveground Structures 1. General
Phenomenology and External Blast, G.B, Computers & Structures, Vol. 51 (1992) 5,
pp. 585596
Beshara, F. B A., Modeling of Blast Loads on Aboveground Structures 2. Internal
Blast and Ground Shock, G.B, Computers & Structures, Vol. 51 (1992) 5, pp. 597
606
 87 
Boh, J. W. et al., Numerical Assessment of Explosion Resistant Profiled Barriers,
Journal of Marine Structures, 17 (2004), pp.139160
Bulson, B.S., Structures under Shock and Impact, 1. edition, Southhampton U.K.,
Computational Mechanics Publications, 1989, 533 p.
Clarke, J. L. etc, Structural Design for Hazardous Loads  the Role of Physical
Testing, 1. edition, London, E & FN Spon, 1992, 464 p.
Clifton, R. J., Dynamic Plasticity, Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME, 50 (1983),
pp.941952
Cook, R. D., Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, 2002, John
Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, N. Y., 719 p.
Frost, H.J. etc, Deformation Mechanism Maps, 1. edition, Oxford U.K., Pergamon
press Ltd., 1982, 166 p.
Henrych, J., The Dynamics of Explosion and Its Use, 1. print, Amsterdam: Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, 1979, 558 p.
Jacinto, A. C. et al., Experimental and computational analysis of plates under air
blast loading, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 25 (2001), pp. 927947
Johnson, G.R., A constitutive models and data for metals subjected to large strains,
high strain rates and high temperatures, Florida / Minnesota, U.S. Air force and a
Honeywell Independent Development Program
Kim, J., Air Explosion Analysis of Naval Ship Considering Survivability, Hyundai
Maritime Research Institute, Korea
Luccioni, B. et al., Blast load assessment using hydrocodes, Journal of Engineering
structures, 28 (2006), pp. 17361744
 88 
Malvern, L. E., Introduction to Mechanics of a Continuous Medium, 1969, Prentice
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 713 p.
Meyers, M.A., Dynamic behavior of material, 1994, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 668 p.
Military Handbook 297 (HS), Introduction to Weapon Effects for Ships (metric),
Department of Defense, United States of America, 28. December 1987, 89 p.
Parnes, R., Solid Mechanics, 2001, John Wiley & Sons, LTD, England, 728 p.
PvTeknTL Aset0S, (The technical research center of Finnish defense forces), 2005
Rusinek, A. et al., Finite element simulation of steel ring fragmentation under radial
expansion, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Elsevier, England, 2007,
Vol. 34, pp.799822
Saarenheimo, A. et al., Finite element analysis of a steel containment under
detonation conditions, Structures under Shock and Impact, WIT Press, England,
1996, pp.1524
Santaoja, K., Lecture Notes on Continuum Thermodynamics, 2006, Picaset Oy,
Helsinki, 231 p.
Scherr M Frigate F124 SACHSEN Class. Naval Forces, vol.25, n. 1, 2004, p. 80
95
Symonds, P. S. etc, Impulsive Loading of Fully Clamped Beams with Finite Plastic
Deflections and StrainRate Sensitivity, G.B., Int. J. mech. Sci. Pergamon press,
1972, Vol 14, pp. 49 69
van der Wal, R. et al., Affordable Protection of Ships against Blast & Fragmentation,
Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 2006, London, pp. 157160
 89 
Wierzbicki, T., Structural Failure, 1989, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Massachusetts,
551 p.
Wilkinson, C. R. et al., An Introduction to Detonation and Blast for NonSpecialist,
DSTO System Scientist Laboratory, Edinburg Australia, Department of Defense,
November 2003, p.21
Zienkiewicz, O. C., The Finite Element Method, Volume 2  Solid Mechanics, 2000,
ButterworthHeinemann, London, England, 459 p.
 90 
Appendix A, Elastic stress waves
A phenomenon occurred in the computational tensile strength tests that hindered the
verification of the dynamic behavior of the material in finite element method. A
dilatational elastic wave upraised temporary the occurring stress at the end of the
beam. The stressstrain curves, in Figure 20, were conducted with a beam element
which length was 0.01 m. The elastic waves upraised the occurring stresses in the
computation with longer beam elements and that is the reason why a short beam
element was used. The lengths of the beam elements are 0.200, 0.100, and 0.01 m in
Figure A1. The stress wave upraises the stress temporarily for the 0.100 m and 0.200
m long beam elements.
Stress as a function of time
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0,00000 0,00005 0,00010 0,00015 0,00020 0,00025 0,00030 0,00035 0,00040 0,00045 0,00050
Time [s]
S
t
r
e
s
s
[
M
P
a
]
beam 0.200 m
beam 0.100 m
beam 0.01 m
Figure A1. Elastic wave in the beam element upraises the occurring stress at the measured
point. The elastic wave is the strongest for the longest beam element.
 91 
Appendix B, Stressstrain points
The used quasistatic stressstrain points are in Table B1 on the left side columns.
The stressstrain points are computed with Equations (72) and (77). The plastic
strains are computed with Equation (84).
Table B1. Quasistatic stressstrain points for S235 A
stress
[MPa] strain
stress
[MPa]
plastic
strain
0 0.00000 280 0.00000
280 0.00137 290 0.00058
290 0.00200 315 0.01303
315 0.01457 340 0.02547
340 0.02714 363 0.03793
363 0.03971 398 0.05703
398 0.05899 427 0.07580
427 0.07790 449 0.09426
449 0.09646 468 0.11239
468 0.11468 481 0.13022
481 0.13258 492 0.14775
492 0.15016 501 0.16499
501 0.16744 511 0.18192
511 0.18443 518 0.19859
518 0.20113 522 0.21500
522 0.21756 523 0.23744
523 0.24000 524 0.26743
524 0.27000 525 0.29743
525 0.30000 526 0.34742
526 0.35000
The material data for ABAQUS/Explicit is given in form of stressplastic strain. The
elastic region is computed with the Youngs modulus, E = 204 GPa. The stresses and
the respective plastic strains are in Table B1 on the right side columns.
When command *Shear Failure is used in conjunction with CowperSymonds
strainrate sensitivity then the given stressplastic strain points must be defined in
tabular form in ABAQUS/Explicit. The stressplastic strain points are given for
strain rates 0, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000, 3000 1/s. The stressplastic strain points
between the given plastic strain rates are extrapolated by ABAQUS. The tabular data
is computed with Equation (79). After the command *Plastic is given the plastic
strain rate, for example for plastic strain rate 0 1/s, rate=0. Next line contains the
 92 
material stress and the respective plastic strain. Table B2 contains the given stress
plastic strain points for different strain rates.
Table B2. Ratedependent stressplastic strain points for S235_A
*Plastic, rate=0. *Plastic, rate=0.01
2.80e+08, 0. 3.33e+08, 0.
2.90e+08, 0.00058 3.45e+08, 0.00058
3.15e+08, 0.01303 3.75e+08, 0.01303
3.40e+08, 0.02547 4.05e+08, 0.02547
3.63e+08, 0.03793 4.32e+08, 0.03793
3.98e+08, 0.05703 4.74e+08, 0.05703
4.27e+08, 0.0758 5.08e+08, 0.0758
4.49e+08, 0.09426 5.35e+08, 0.09426
4.68e+08, 0.11239 5.57e+08, 0.11239
4.81e+08, 0.13022 5.72e+08, 0.13022
4.92e+08, 0.14775 5.85e+08, 0.14775
5.01e+08, 0.16499 5.97e+08, 0.16499
5.11e+08, 0.18192 6.08e+08, 0.18192
5.18e+08, 0.19859 6.17e+08, 0.19859
5.22e+08, 0.215 6.21e+08, 0.215
5.23e+08, 0.23744 6.23e+08, 0.23744
5.24e+08, 0.26743 6.24e+08, 0.26743
5.25e+08, 0.29743 6.25e+08, 0.29743
5.26e+08, 0.34742 6.26e+08, 0.34742
*Plastic, rate=0.1 *Plastic, rate=0.01
3.64e+08, 0. 3.33e+08, 0.
3.77e+08, 0.00058 3.45e+08, 0.00058
4.10e+08, 0.01303 3.75e+08, 0.01303
4.43e+08, 0.02547 4.05e+08, 0.02547
4.73e+08, 0.03793 4.32e+08, 0.03793
5.18e+08, 0.05703 4.74e+08, 0.05703
5.56e+08, 0.0758 5.08e+08, 0.0758
5.85e+08, 0.09426 5.35e+08, 0.09426
6.09e+08, 0.11239 5.57e+08, 0.11239
6.26e+08, 0.13022 5.72e+08, 0.13022
6.40e+08, 0.14775 5.85e+08, 0.14775
6.53e+08, 0.16499 5.97e+08, 0.16499
6.65e+08, 0.18192 6.08e+08, 0.18192
6.75e+08, 0.19859 6.17e+08, 0.19859
6.80e+08, 0.215 6.21e+08, 0.215
6.81e+08, 0.23744 6.23e+08, 0.23744
6.82e+08, 0.26743 6.24e+08, 0.26743
6.83e+08, 0.29743 6.25e+08, 0.29743
6.85e+08, 0.34742 6.26e+08, 0.34742
*Plastic, rate=1. *Plastic, rate=10.
4.14e+08, 0. 4.92e+08, 0.
4.29e+08, 0.00058 5.1e+08, 0.00058
4.66e+08, 0.01303 5.54e+08, 0.01303
5.03e+08, 0.02547 5.98e+08, 0.02547
5.37e+08, 0.03793 6.38e+08, 0.03793
5.88e+08, 0.05703 6.99e+08, 0.05703
6.31e+08, 0.0758 7.51e+08, 0.0758
6.64e+08, 0.09426 7.90e+08, 0.09426
 93 
6.91e+08, 0.11239 8.22e+08, 0.11239
7.11e+08, 0.13022 8.45e+08, 0.13022
7.27e+08, 0.14775 8.64e+08, 0.14775
7.41e+08, 0.16499 8.81e+08, 0.16499
7.55e+08, 0.18192 8.98e+08, 0.18192
7.66e+08, 0.19859 9.11e+08, 0.19859
7.72e+08, 0.215 9.18e+08, 0.215
7.73e+08, 0.23744 9.19e+08, 0.23744
7.75e+08, 0.26743 9.21e+08, 0.26743
7.76e+08, 0.29743 9.23e+08, 0.29743
7.78e+08, 0.34742 9.25e+08, 0.34742
*Plastic, rate=100. *Plastic, rate=1000.
6.16e+08, 0. 8.13e+08, 0.
6.38e+08, 0.00058 8.42e+08, 0.00058
6.93e+08, 0.01303 9.15e+08, 0.01303
7.48e+08, 0.02547 9.87e+08, 0.02547
7.99e+08, 0.03793 1.05e+09, 0.03793
8.76e+08, 0.05703 1.16e+09, 0.05703
9.40e+08, 0.0758 1.24e+09, 0.0758
9.89e+08, 0.09426 1.30e+09, 0.09426
1.03e+09, 0.11239 1.36e+09, 0.11239
1.06e+09, 0.13022 1.4e+09, 0.13022
1.08e+09, 0.14775 1.43e+09, 0.14775
1.1e+09, 0.16499 1.46e+09, 0.16499
1.12e+09, 0.18192 1.48e+09, 0.18192
1.14e+09, 0.19859 1.51e+09, 0.19859
1.15e+09, 0.215 1.52e+09, 0.215
1.15e+09, 0.23744 1.52e+09, 0.23744
1.15e+09, 0.26743 1.52e+09, 0.26743
1.16e+09, 0.29743 1.52e+09, 0.29743
1.16e+09, 0.34742 1.53e+09, 0.34742
*Plastic, rate=3000.
9.44E+08, 0.00000
9.78E+08, 0.00058
1.06E+09, 0.01303
1.15E+09, 0.02547
1.22E+09, 0.03793
1.34E+09, 0.05703
1.44E+09, 0.07580
1.51E+09, 0.09426
1.58E+09, 0.11239
1.62E+09, 0.13022
1.66E+09, 0.14775
1.69E+09, 0.16499
1.72E+09, 0.18192
1.75E+09, 0.19859
1.76E+09, 0.21500
1.76E+09, 0.23744
1.77E+09, 0.26743
1.77E+09, 0.29743
1.77E+09, 0.34742
 94 
Appendix C, Pressure fields
The reflection pressure is computed with Equations (3), (4), and (5). The mean value
of the pressure is used for models BC_*=0 and for the models TBC_*, where * = all.
The pressure variations at the surface of the transversal bulkhead are shown in
FigureC1. The amount of TNT is 50 kg.
1
2
3
Y
=

0
.
2
9
0
7
5
Y
=

0
.
8
9
0
7
5
Y
=

1
.
2
5
0
0
0
m
e
a
n
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Pressure [bar]
Location X
Location Y
Reflection pressure with respect to location
Y=0.29075
Y=0.89075
Y=1.25000
mean
Figure C1. Pressure variation and the used mean value for 50 kg TNT explosion at the surface
of the transversal bulkhead.
Figures C2 and C3 show the reflection pressures along the surface of the deck and
the longitudinal bulkhead.
 95 
1
2
3
Z
=

0
.
2
3
5
Z
=

0
.
7
6
5
Z
=

1
.
4
8
0
Z
=

2
.
3
8
0
Z
=

3
.
4
4
5
Z
=

4
.
6
1
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Pressure [bar]
Location X
Location Y
Reflection pressure with respect to location
Z=0.235
Z=0.765
Z=1.480
Z=2.380
Z=3.445
Z=4.615
Figure C2. Reflection pressure along the deck.
1
2
3
Z
=

0
.
2
3
5
Z
=

0
.
7
6
5
Z
=

1
.
4
8
0
Z
=

2
.
3
8
0
Z
=

3
.
4
4
5
Z
=

4
.
6
1
5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Pressure [bar]
Location X
Location Y
Reflection pressure with respect to location
Z=0.235
Z=0.765
Z=1.480
Z=2.380
Z=3.445
Z=4.615
Figure C3. Reflection pressure along the longitudinal bulkhead.
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.