Next Article in Journal
Optimizing Conductive Polymer Composites: The Role of Graphite Particle Size and Concentration in PVDF, PP, and PET Matrices
Next Article in Special Issue
Preparation and Photoelectric Properties of Nanostructured Native Oxide of Gallium Monoselenide with Applications in Gas Sensors
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancement of Mechanical and Tribological Properties of MWCNT-Reinforced Bio-Based Epoxy Composites Through Optimization and Molecular Dynamics Simulation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Alkaline and Carboxilated Graphene Oxide (CGO) Treatment on Mechanical, Thermal, and Electrical Properties of Jute Fiber-Reinforced Epoxy Composites
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Underwater Explosion Analysis on Composite Marine Structures: A Comparison Between CEL and UEL Methods

by
Jacopo Bardiani
1,*,
Giada Kyaw Oo D’Amore
2,
Claudio Sbarufatti
1 and
Andrea Manes
1
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via G. La Masa 1, 20156 Milano, Italy
2
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Trieste, Via A. Valerio 6, 34127 Trieste, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9(4), 177; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9040177
Submission received: 21 February 2025 / Revised: 20 March 2025 / Accepted: 2 April 2025 / Published: 5 April 2025

Abstract

Underwater explosion (UNDEX) problems are typically simulated using numerical coupled techniques, such as the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian (CEL) method, to accurately capture fluid–structure interaction (FSI) effects, which are non-negligible in such scenarios. While highly accurate, coupled methods are computationally expensive. Alternatively, uncoupled (or decoupled) techniques, like the Uncoupled Eulerian–Lagrangian (UEL) approach, offer greater computational efficiency by neglecting FSI effects, but at the cost of reduced predictive accuracy. This study provides a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of how far UEL results deviate from the more realistic CEL solutions in UNDEX scenarios. The comparison focuses on the structural response of a floating double-bottom fiber-reinforced composite structure subject to a near-field UNDEX. The numerical results indicate that the UEL approach overestimates structural response by up to 190% compared to CEL when added mass effects are considered, and up to 400% when they are not. However, a correction strategy based on modifying the Hull Shock Factor (HSF) is proposed to bridge the gap between UEL and CEL predictions. This study demonstrates that, with proper calibration, UEL simulations can serve as a computationally efficient alternative for preliminary UNDEX assessments in naval engineering.
Keywords: underwater explosion; Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian; Uncoupled Eulerian–Lagrangian; fluid–structure interaction; composite structure; computational efficiency underwater explosion; Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian; Uncoupled Eulerian–Lagrangian; fluid–structure interaction; composite structure; computational efficiency

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bardiani, J.; Kyaw Oo D’Amore, G.; Sbarufatti, C.; Manes, A. Underwater Explosion Analysis on Composite Marine Structures: A Comparison Between CEL and UEL Methods. J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9, 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9040177

AMA Style

Bardiani J, Kyaw Oo D’Amore G, Sbarufatti C, Manes A. Underwater Explosion Analysis on Composite Marine Structures: A Comparison Between CEL and UEL Methods. Journal of Composites Science. 2025; 9(4):177. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9040177

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bardiani, Jacopo, Giada Kyaw Oo D’Amore, Claudio Sbarufatti, and Andrea Manes. 2025. "Underwater Explosion Analysis on Composite Marine Structures: A Comparison Between CEL and UEL Methods" Journal of Composites Science 9, no. 4: 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9040177

APA Style

Bardiani, J., Kyaw Oo D’Amore, G., Sbarufatti, C., & Manes, A. (2025). Underwater Explosion Analysis on Composite Marine Structures: A Comparison Between CEL and UEL Methods. Journal of Composites Science, 9(4), 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9040177

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop