0
SPECIAL SECTION PAPERS

Experimental Investigation on Underwater Buckling of Thin-Walled Composite and Metallic Structures

[+] Author and Article Information
Michael Pinto, Helio Matos, Sachin Gupta

Dynamic Photomechanics Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical,
Industrial and Systems Engineering,
University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI 02881

Arun Shukla

Dynamic Photomechanics Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical,
Industrial and Systems Engineering,
University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI 02881
e-mail: shuklaa@uri.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 26, 2015; final manuscript received January 26, 2016; published online July 18, 2016. Editor: Young W. Kwon.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 138(6), 060905 (Jul 18, 2016) (8 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1202; doi: 10.1115/1.4032703 History: Received August 26, 2015; Revised January 26, 2016

An experimental study on the underwater buckling of composite and metallic tubes is conducted to evaluate and compare their collapse mechanics. Experiments are performed in a pressure vessel designed to provide constant hydrostatic pressure through the collapse. Filament-wound carbon-fiber/epoxy, glass/polyester (PE) tubes, and aluminum tubes are studied to explore the effect of material type on the structural failure. Three-dimensional digital image correlation (DIC) technique is used to capture the full-field deformation and velocities during the implosion event. Local pressure fields generated by the implosion event are measured using dynamic pressure transducers to evaluate the strength of the emitted pressure pulse. The results show that glass/PE tubes release the weakest pressure pulse and carbon/epoxy tubes release the strongest upon collapse. In each case, the dominating mechanisms of failure control the amount of flow energy released.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Experimental facility (left) and test specimen configuration (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Representative pressure data and high-speed photographs recorded in the implosion of aluminum tubes: (a) local pressure history at midspan and (b) corresponding high-speed photographs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

DIC contours of displacement and velocity across the length of aluminum specimens. Data are extracted from the dotted line shown in the image.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Representative pressure data and high-speed photographs recorded in the implosion of carbon/epoxy tubes: (a) local pressure history at midspan and (b) corresponding high-speed photographs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

DIC contours of displacement and velocity across the length of carbon/epoxy specimens. Data are extracted from the dotted line shown in the image.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Postmortem images of carbon/epoxy tubes, showing (A) through-thickness longitudinal cracking, (B) interfibrillar matrix cracking, and (C) fractured fibers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Representative pressure data and high-speed photographs recorded in the implosion of glass/PE tubes: (a) local pressure history at midspan and (b) corresponding high-speed photographs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

DIC contours of displacement and velocity across the length of glass/PE specimens. White regions indicate loss of correlation due to material damage. Data are extracted from the dotted line shown in the image.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Postmortem images for glass/PE specimens, showing (A) matrix cracking, (B) delamination of outer hoop ply, (C) delamination of inner helical ply, and (D) long pulled-out glass fibers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of underpressure regions for different material types

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Flow energy as a percentage of potential hydrostatic energy for each material type

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

DIC contours of velocity across the circumference of the center of (left) aluminum and (right) carbon/epoxy tubes. Data are extracted from the dotted line shown in the image.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In