BUBBLE DYNAMICS NEARA CYLINDRICAL BODY: 3-D BOUNDARY ELEMENT SIMULATION OF BENCHMARKPROBLEMS1

G. L. Chahine and S. Prabhukumar DvNeruow, INC. 7210Pindell SchoolRoad Fulton, Maryland20759. ow-inc.com E-mail : glchahine@dynafl http ://www. dynaflow-inc. com
Feb.2000 Feb.1999 Revised: Received:

l.Introduction An accurate three-dimensional numerical prediction of the dynamics of the interaction between an underwater explosion bubble and a nearby many situations. valuable in strucfure is Consequently, an increasing number of specialized simulation tools are being developed by various researchersto addressthe problem, and some existing general hydrocodes are being modified and adapted for this purpose. Most of the published results of these codes appear to be qualitatively realistic, i.e. deformed bubble shapes,the formation of re-entering jets, etc. However, there is a definite need for benchmark problems for validation so that the accuracy of the various codes can be quantified. Often in practical applications, the combined effects of the forces due to gravlty and the presence of a nearby structure lead to highly distorted bubble shapes that cannot be predicted with a twoand dimensional code. Engineering intuition experience cannot determine, even qualitatively, the results of such complex combinations of forces. It is therefore essential to confront any developed code with known exact solutions in simple geometries, and with well-conducted and documented experimental geometrical more complex observations in configurations. A first test of validity is the simple case of a spherical bubble's growth and collapse, which has a theoretical exact solution. This supposedly simple test is generally good enough to weed out inaccurate codes. Another set of validation tests, prescribed by the ONR Modeling and Simulation Program, refers to carefully conducted tests by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, including the so-called 3D Snay and Goertner underwater explosionsnear cylindrical targets[ 1,17]. DvNerr,ow has developed a 3D Boundary Element Code, 3DvNa,FSt (fot 3D dvr,la,micsof Free Surfaces), which has been successful in predicting and reproducing several practical underwater

Abstract In many practical applications involving underwater explosions near a solid strucfure, competition between the forces due to gravity and those due to the presence of a nearby structure leads to highly distorted bubble shapes. In order to accurately simulate such problems, a threedimensional model is required. In this paper, we present results of a validation study of DyNerlow's 3-D Boundary Element Code, 3DvN.lFS@,which has been successful in predicting and reproducing a host of Navy underwater explosion problems. We present comparisons of these simulations with carefully conducted and well documented experiments conducted by the Naval Surface Warfare center that have been chosen as benchmark problems for the ONR Modeling and Simulation Program. These include the Snay and Goertner explosion bubble tests and some spark-generatedbubble tests. The results indicate the high accuracy of 3DvNlFS@ even under these highly three-dimensional bubble dynamics conditions. This is achieved with significantly smaller CPU time and memory requirements than with general-purposehydrocodes and other non-Boundary Element methods.

'Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agenciesand their contractors; administrative/operational use (February 2000). Other requestsshall be referred to NSWCIHDIV Code 420, Indian Head, MD 20640-5035

1 L

explosion experiments conducted by the Navy. In this paper, we validate 3DvNaFSo against the experimental tests of Snay and Goertner and against controlled experiments we performed at DYNAFLow using spark generatedbubbles. The results indicate that the code perfonns very well even under highty three-dimensionalconditions. The code is basedon a Boundary Element Method (BEM) that requires discretization of the boundaries only, as opposed to based codes that require other non-BEM discretization of the entire 3D fluid domain. Therefore, the BEM requires orders of magnitude less computational resources (both CPU time and memory) when compared to most other non-BEM appears to be basedcodes. As a result, 3DvNnFS@ very competitive and promising for such problems In addition, compared to non-BEM codes. 3DynnFS@ is being fully coupled to the wellaccepted structures code DYNA3D, developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [8].' 2. Numerical Model Due to the complexity of the problem at hand only specialized numerical methods presently offer hope for efficient and accurate solution to the problem. One numerical method that has proven to be very efficient in solving the type of free boundary problem associated with bubble dynamics is the Boundary Element Method. In addition to our work, Guerri et al [2], Blake et al ll,2f, and Wilkerson [9] used this method in the solution of axisymmetric problems of bubble growth and collapse near boundaries. Chahine et al [4-10] extended this method to irrotational three-dimensional bubble dynamics problems, and more recently to more generalthree-dimensional flows [3,13-14].The great methods is that once a of numerical advantage method has been validated, it can with guidancefrom analytical, experimental, and order of magnitude or phenomenologicalstudiesenableone to minimize the number of physical phenomena or parameters to considerfor testing. 2.1. Bubble Flow Equations Shortly after the detonation of an explosive charge, and following propagationof a shock wave away from the explosion center, a bubble of highpressure gas is formed with large subsonic bubble wall velocities. Due to the large -velocities and Reynolds numbers involved (R">10'), it has been analytically and observed demonstrated experimentally that viscous effects can be ignored for the bubble wall motion studies. This, added to the

fact thatfor the problems studied below, the liquid is initially at rest, allows us to assume that the fluid is inviscid and the flow irrotational. The relatively slow motion of the bubble wall in comparison with the sound speed in the liquid, just a short time after detonation also justifies the approximation of liquid incompressibility. In fact, for a explosion of energy Es in a liquid of density p, the Mach number of the flow, M, can be written at time t ll6],

l r3s. M - L l ? u ^ "J
5cl8np

-ll5

(r)

Because of the dependenceto t-''t , ,"ry shortly after the explosion M drops significantly below 1. This enables one to model the fluid dynamics of the phenomenon assuming the liquid to be inviscid and incompressible. These assumptions result in a potential flow field (velocity potential, @ ) satisffing the Laplace equation,

v ' @- 0 .

(2)

The potential O must in addition satisfy initial conditions and boundary conditions at infinity, at the bubble walls, and at the boundaries of any nearby bodies. At all moving or fixed surfaces(such as a bubble surface or a nearby structure) an identity between fluid velocities normal to the boundary and the normal velocities of the boundary itself is to be satisfied:

VO .n = \/, .r,

(3)

where n is the local unit vector normal to the bubble surface and V. is the local velocity vector of the moving surface. The bubble is assumed to contain noncondensable gas as well as vapor from the surroundingliquid. The pressurewithin the bubble is consideredto be the sum of the partial pressuresof gases,Pr, and that of the liquid the non-condensable vapor, P,. Vaporization of the liquid is assumed to occur at a fast enough rate so that the vapor pressure may be considered to remain constant throughout the simulation and equal to the equilibrium vapor pressure at the liquid ambient temperature. In contrast, since time scales associated with gas diffusion are much larger, the amount of noncondensable gas inside the bubbles is assumed to remain constant. The gas is assumed to satisfy the polytropic relation, P'7 k = constant, where ? is the bubble volume and k the polytropic constant, with lrl for isothermal behavior and k = crlcu, the gas specific heat ratio, for adiabatic conditions. Other models of gas diffrrsion and vaporization at the interfacecan be easily incorporatedinto the code.

The pressure in the liquid at the bubble surface,P7,is obtained at any time from the following pressurebalanceequation:

nodes. Equation (5) then becomes a set of N equationsof index i of the type:

-0o, P,=1.r,,1t)

/ a, \k

(4\

- '\j {, , -o l - Y ( n m \ - o o*e 6 ) '*l, lln u ' -, .- I ) ( \/) o d, )- ?"\"r*i t

Jif

of matriceswhich are where A, and B,rare elements where Pgo and 1o are the initial gas pressure and volume respectively, o is the surface tension, and 0 is the local curvature of the bubble. In the numerical procedure Pgo and 1/o arc known quantities at t=0 deduced from the available observations of the particular explosive behavior in free field at large depths, i.e. for sphericalbubbles (see Chahine et al 16,71). 2.2. Boundary Integral Method for 3D Bubble Dynamics In order to enable the simulation of bubble behavior in complex geometries and flow configurations including the full non-linear boundary conditions, we developed and implemented a threedimensional Boundary Element Method (BEM). The BEM was chosen because of its computational efficiency. By considering only the boundariesof the fluid domain, it reducesthe dimension of the problem by one (e.g., a 3D problem is reduced to a 2D problem). This method is based on Green'sequation, which provides O anywhere in the domain of the fluid (field points P) if the velocity potential, @ , and its normal derivatives are known on the fluid boundaries(points M): the discrete equivalent of the integrals given in Equation(5). To evaluate the integrals in (5) over any particular panel, a linear variation of the potential and its normal derivative over the panel is assumed.In this manner, both <Dand AAIAI are continuous over the bubble surface, and are expressedas functions of the values at the three nodes which delimit a particular panel. In order to compute the curvature of the bubble surface a three-dimensionallocal bubble surface frt, f(x,y,z)=O, is first computed. The unit as: normal at a node can then be expressed

r:*

vf

rrfr'

(7)

with the appropriate sign chosen to insure that the normal is always directed towards the fluid. The local curvature is then computed using

C - V.n.

(8)

To obtain the total fluid velocity at any point on the surface of the bubble, the tangential velocity, 21,must be computed at each node in addition to the normal velocity. This is also done using a locaL surfacefit to the velocity potenti al, Q, -- h(*, y, z) . Taking the gradient of this function at the considered node, and eliminating any normal component of velocity appearing in this gradient gives a good approximation for the tangential velocity

d I I ,r[ da r lfl+ O - - h r - a n D ( P \ . \ /' et lN{.IPl) t L At lMPl

where Atr =O is the solid angleunder which t ,::] the fluid: e = 4, if P is a point in the fluid, a = 2, if P is a point on a smooth surface,and a < 4, if P is a point at a sharp corner of the surface. If the field point is selectedto be on the boundaries of the fluid domain (bubble and nearby structures), then a closed set of equations can be obtained and used at each time step to solve for values of 0@l0n (or <D)assuming that all values of O (or 6OlDn) are known at the preceding step. To solve Equation (5) numerically, it is necessary to discretize the boundaries into panels, perform the integration over each panel, and then sum up the contributions of all panels. Triangular panels were used in our study resulting in a total of N

V,:ax(Vo,xn).

(e)

The basic procedure can then be summarizedas follows. With the problem initialized and the velocity potential known over the surface of the bubble, an updated value of O<D/dncan be obtained by performing the integration in (5) and solving the corresponding matrix equation (6). The time derivative of O while moving with the boundary (D@/D|, needed to update the value of O, is then obtained using the Bernoulli equation, which can be written after accounting for the pressure balance at the interface:

%\* p-^( -ps,. - \uo p -r .n o - p+ v - .t o\q t) r v , * *tyr, f ' t' 2t,t Dt

(10)

3.1. Validation in Simple Geometries This ensuresthat the potential is advancedin a Lagrangian fashion. New coordinate positions of the nodesare then obtainedusing the displacement: The various authors quoted earlier have validated the use of the Boundary Element Method to study axisymmetric bubble dynamics. This has included both comparisons with a semi-analytical solution for spherical bubbles -- the Rayleigh-Plesset and experimental validation for the Equation relatively simple casesof spherical bubble pulsations and axisymmetric bubble collapse near flat solid walls. We have conducted similar comparisons using our axisymmetric code 2DvNlFS@, and our 3D code 3DyiraFS@. Figures la and lb show, for example, the comparative results between 3DvnaFS@, 2DvN,q.FS@ and the Rayleigh-Plesset semi-analytical solution. As illustrated in the figure, comparison with the Rayleigh-Plesset solution reveals that numerical effors fot a very coarse discretization of an 18-nodes (32 panels) bubble is about I percent of the achieved maximum radius, and is about 2 percent for the bubble period. The error on the maximum radius drops to 0.1 percent for a 3D discretized bubble of 198 nodes (392 panels),and is less than 0.05 percent on the period. Similar precise results are obtained with a 2D 64-panels discretization. Comparisons were also made with studies of axisymmetric bubble and collapse available in the literature 11,2,12,191, have shown, for the coarse discretization, differences with these studies on the bubble period of the order of 1 percent 16,77. Our reference [7] includes detailed grid and time-step convergenceanalysesfor

=(#n+v, ",)at:, dwr

(11)

where n and e, are the unit normal and tangential vectors. This time stepping procedure is repeated throughout the bubble growth and collapse, resulting in a shape history of the bubble. Time stepping is done using a simple Euler stepping schemewith time step, A/ chosen in an adaptive fashion that ensures that smaller time steps are used when rapid changes in the potential occur, while larger ones are used for less rapid changes:

Lt-"*,

(r2)

where a is a user specified parameter. V*or is the maximum of all velocities obtained at time t, and l^i, is the minimum panel length in the discretization. This adaptive scheme enables accurate, though efficient description of the full bubble dynamics history. In more recent versions of 3DyNnFS@ a higher order scheme for time stepping is implemented. In this scheme a predictor-corrector method is implemented, and more importantly, a direct application of the boundary element method to the potential time derivative, AO I 0t , enableseven more accuratecomputations.

3. Numerical Results and Discussion

I
/' 3 4 """ ----* **-

?*ytctgh*fltcaset 2DyorFli 6{ prntls dg*.sixl["

ll]gnaFS 392 panzlr. t96 nodsr ?DynoFS tE piElr ,19*=Sri0-r

Gr'! vl

\
Baylefb-Flesset --"" ----

cl rt
n $

-5

SDyaafS 3? Ftnats, [E nodqr

il,n
dP*=?rl$-r 190 nDde

E'-o

SDynrF$ 6* glnrl+

3DlrrrFS s$a prnctr, S0yn*FS !S pa*cl* 08p.rFS

T
I

dg.o=5rlo-3

3? panetc. l8 aadcs
c,a roJn
5.Tr Ozl! UJJ2

4g

u,00

L-

ttme tsec)
Lirne (serl

solution,the a:risymmetricBEM code 2DvrqaFSand Figure 1: ComparisonbetweenRayleigh-Plesset the 3D BEM code3Drttq,FS. a) Over bubbleperiod, b) End of collapse.

*ylinder

tk
f*r11
n'lse*

h f f i p @P #
f * 72 msss
T x $S.S m$sc

T * "S.*.t rrrss#

Cylinder

\l

:' ] ::i ijli

*
.. '': ':" {"}:o .q*t ti:r'it

!ib' *. ,.t .'".f-"+*[

ro'

A '

i, t ,t{
*

r i

,:-

:f

:;;'i i|:

|i'. i'!,ja

'i

*-s

' ::

::: L i

.t

f * 4S.Sm$ss I T I R S TM A X I M U M }

f-?3
ilTtsss

T * $ ? msss

f ,* pt"s
$Tt*sfr

experimentwith those computedusing 3DvNlFS@. Figure 2: Comparisonof bubble shapesfrom the Snay/Goertner Experiment was conductedin a small vacuum tank with a pressureof 256 feet of water above the free surface. A 0.2 gm lead azide chargewas exploded at a depth of 2 feet below the free surface,at a standoff distanceof 5.54 inches from the surfaceof a 5.33 inch diameterrigid cylinder that is barely visible on the left side of the photos (Taken from Reference[7]).

the axisymmetric, 2DvNnFS@, and the threeversions of our code. dimensional3DvNaFS@, 3.2. Validation for 3D geometry cases
0.6

' i' c,nt,rr

Word.Picture.6

Figure 2 comparesthe results obtained from with those obtained from a small-scale 3DvN.q.FS@ underwater explosion test conducted at NSWC in a cylindrical metallic vacuum tank by Snay et al ll7l. Under reduced ambient pressure,a 0.2 g lead azide charge was exploded at a depth of 2 feet below the free surface at a stand-off distance of 5.54 inches away from the surface of a rigid cylinder. This standoff distance was chosen to be approximately equal to the expected maximum radius of the generated bubble. The ambient pressure above the free surface of the tank was 2.56 feet of water and the cylinder had a diameterof 5.33 inches.The figure showsthat

- 0.5

t'26

0,5

!.?5 ,,,1,,

l.zt

Lt

t.?t

Figure 3: Motion of top andbottompointson the bubbleaxis in an infinite mediumandwithin the 4-foot for an explosion tank.Simulations using3DvxaFS@. NSWCvacuum diameter

under the combined effects of gravity and the presenceof the structure, a highly distorted bubble shape is produced with a re-entering jet directed mostly upward. In this case, a portion of the bubble tended to adhere to the nearby cylinder, while the remainder of the bubble behaved as if gravity were the primary influencing factor. The figure also illustrates the capability of 3DvNlFS@ to reproduce the highly distorted bubble dynamics. One discrepancy between the numerical and experimental results is the period of bubble growth and collapse. The measured bubble period is about 9 percent longer than the computed bubble period. The discrepancy arises from the fact that while the

simulation was done in an infinite medium surroundingthe bubble and body, the experimentwas conducted in a 4-foot diameter cylindrical vacuum tank. Additional numerical studies have shown that this confinement has a significant lengthening effect on the bubble period (Chahine et al [6]). This is illustrated in Figure 3, which compares axisymmetric bubble behavior (motion of top and bottom points on the bubble axis) in a gravity field in the cylindrical vacuum tank and in an infinite medium. These computations were done using the 3D code, 3DyNlFS@, even though the configuration was axisymmetric.

Time = 77.40 ms

Time = 142.43 ms

-5 - 1.5

Feet

from the NSWC Hydrotank experimentwith thosecomputedusing Figure 4. Comparisonof bubble shapes
3DvN.q.FS@

Fruqolc. i@got

Crdr.

tl@!: anar

Dnl.Gdrda delodbr 7t -,

0.0

0.5

t.o

t.5

Amax o.o 0.5 t.o Feet t.5 ?_o

-t-sh
fL'

(a) Experiment Front View

(b) Simulation Front View

Tlr3: rnllracondr altar dalNllo.

130 a9.o r0r.0 r0e .0 ilg0 r25 0 rlr.0 r33.0 r39.0 tat.0 t rJ.0 t.!.0 lat.0
J

-o.

0.5

t.0

t.5

?.0

AmBx

- r.!i= (a) Experiment Side View

-o.5

rt. (b) Simulation Side View

o.5

from thePETNcharge Figure5: Comparison of Uoi:.:ld sideviewsof bubblecontours with thosefrom 3DyN,lFS@. expenment
Figure 4 shows an explosion near a cylindrical body using a I .l gm PETN charge exploded at a depth of 3.94 feet below the free surface.This test was conductedin the hydroballistic tank at NSWC and was therefore much less prone to container boundary effects. Detailed analysis of the test results is presentedby Goertner et al. llll. The distance of the bubble from the surface of the cylinder was once again chosen to be approximately equal to the bubble radius at its maximum. The figure shows very good comparisons between the experiment and the simulation at the two times shown. Figure 5 compares the front and side view outlines of the bubble at selected times from the experiment with those from the 3DvNlFS@ simulation. Both figures show a good agreementfor the whole collapsephaseof the bubble dynamics. the 3DvNnFS@ The sensitivity of calculations to scatter inherent to the empirically derived explosion bubble parameters is illustrated in Figure 6. The code is run using the following input. In order to simulate an explosion of weight W, detonated at depth D and at an atmospheric pressure of Po*6 feet of water (33 feet for an explosion in the ocean), two free field spherical bubble parametersare

pre-computed. The maximum and minimum bubble are obtained from Navy derived radii R,,,o,and Ro,i,, empirical relationshipsas follows:

the values of R,nu*are not too significant, and the difference in the computed results are within experimental errors.

R , n u * = /,l- r , - , I ' - t
\/ amb )

( w ) t
1

(r2)
(l3)

3.3 Spark-Cell Tests Figure 7 compares the bubble shapesat four different times for a spark cell simulation [7,8] of an explosion that takes place above a cylindrical body sitting on the bottom of a tank with the results from 2DvrrtnFSt. Since the bottom is close to the bubble, the 3DvnAFS@simulation also included the effect of the bottom. The experiment was performed in a DyNerr-ow spark cell. The spark was triggercd at 4 inches below the free surface, the cell ambient pressurewas 0.41 psi, and the standoff distancewas 0.79 times the maximum radius that would have been attained by a bubble in an infinite medium with no gravity. The figure shows a very good comparison between the experiment and the 3DvNnFS@ simulation. In this case,the competing forces (gravity and attraction to the cylinder) are collinear and The force due to directly oppose each other. buoyancy acts upward and those due to the body and bottom act downward. As a result, the bubble becomes elongated before finally detaching itself from the cylinder. The detachment occurs because the force due to buoyancy was, in this case, greater than the attraction force actine downward.

Rn,'in :

a,W3 .

where J and cL are characteristics of the particular / and explosive. It is obvious that theseparameters, C[, are known within some experimentalerror, and it is reasonable to question the influence of this accuracy on the numerical (and experimental) results. In Figures 6a and 6b, we explore, for illustration, the In the particular case of the influence of J. experiments of Figure 4, the value used for -/ was 14.5 which leads to R^o, = 1.05 feet. Figure 6a illustrates for the time t=146.6 ms, the influence of choosing-/ as the nominal value, as well as 0.9 J and l.l J. Also shown are the experimentallyobserved shapes at two different times. Note that the experiment does not allow observation of the reentering jet; rather, the picture shows the outside outline of the bubble. Figure 6b compares the predicted movement of the top-most and bottomsimulations most bubble points for the 3DvN,q,FS@ with he three different / values with the experiments at two different times. It is obvious from this comparison that the deviations due to small errors in

f.Ig

PETN @3.94ft, Pa=2.O5ft

(top

& bottom

nodes)

-J.b

-3.8

N -4.0
N

-J=14.52 'J=14.7 - J= 1 4 . 3 . Experiment

-4.2

-0.8 -0.6 -o.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

v (rt)

1.0 1.2

-5.0 L

25

50

75 Time

100 (ms)

125

150

175

Figure 6: Sensitivity of the 3DynaFS simulation resultsto scafferin explosion bubble parameters: (a) Bubble contoursfrom the experimentat two different times comparedwith those from the simulation for three different values of-I@quation 12) (b) Correspondingmotion of the top and bottom points on the bubble.

4. Conclusions We have described in this paper a 3-D Boundary Element Method that is capable of capturing the details of the behavior of an explosion bubble in complex geometries. Examples of code validation tests were presented which included test cases selected as benchmark tests by the Office of Naval Research.Several other aspectsof the code of great interest to the community have not been discussed here but are the subject of on-going investigations or development at DvNAFLow. These include accounting for fluid structureinteraction,and continuation of the bubble dynamics computations for multiple cycles of bubble oscillations. The first issue has been the subject of previous publications [0,13,14]), where a full coupling between our axisymmetric version 2DvNaFS@ and Nike2D, and between 3DvnaFS@ and the Lawrence Livernore In 3DvNaFS@. structure code DYNA3D. continuation of the computations beyond the reenteringjet impact on the other side of the bubble is a problem for the boundary element methods that

for the axisymmetric addressed hasbeensuccessfully (Chahine et al 19,201). We are presently case in 3DvNaFSo. concepts the same implementing

5. Acknowledgments by the Mechanics This work was supported and Energy Conversion,Scienceand Technology We would Divisionof the Office of Naval Research. like to particularly acknowledge very useful by Gregory Harris, and suggestions discussions Indian HeadDivision, WarfareCenter, Naval Surface helpfrom the DvNnFLow, Code420,andsignificant INC.staff,andmostparticularlyGaryFrederick.

REFERENCES 1. J.R. Blake and D. C. Gibson. Cavitation bubbles near boundaries, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics,Vol. 19, (1987), pp. 99-123

Time = l5.O ms

Time = 51.9 ms

Time = 54.9 ms

Tirne = 57.8 rns

@
-0.16 -0.06 0.06 0.16 0.?6

-0.c r-o.?5

@
-o.c' " -0.26
0.t5
-0.0q -0.96

@
-0.orJ) -0.26 -0.t6 -0.(b 0,1t6 0.15 0.86

0.16

-0.c l-r: -0.a6

acvlindricar bodv sitting Figure 7:comparison orbubbleshane:ff#;iir1?TJJ::ilil,,1i*il;il,JiTitabove

10

2. J.R. Blake, B.B. Taib, and G. Doherty, Transient

cavities near boundaries.Part I. Rigid Boundary, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 170, (1986), pp. 479-497. 3 . O. Boulon and G.L. Chahine, Numerical simulation of unsteady cavitation on a 3D hydrofoil, 3rd International Symposium on Cavitation, Grenoble, France, ProceedingsVol. 2, pp. 249-257,April I 998. 4. C.L. Ctratrine,Bubble Interaction with Vortices, Chapter 18 pp. 783-819, in: Fluid Vortices,SJ. Green, editor, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1995. 5 . G.L. Chahine, and T.O. Perdue, Simulation of the 3-D behavior of an unsteady large bubble near a structure, 3rd Int. Colloquium on Drops and Bubbles, California, 1988. 6 . G.L. Chahine, T.O. Perdue and C.B. Tucker, Interaction between an underwater explosion bubble and a solid submergedbody, DvNRrLow, INc. TechnicalReport,89001-1,1988. 7 . G.L. Chahine and R. Duraswamio Boundary element method for calculating 2D and 3D underwater explosion bubble behavior in free water and near structures, NSWCDDITR-93144 (Limited Distributi on), 1994. 8 . G.L. Chahine, G.S. Frederick, C.J. Lambrecht, G.S. Harris, and H.U. Mair, Spark-generated bubbles as laboratory scale models of underwater explosions and their use for of the validation of simulation tools, Proceedings 66th Shock and Vibration Symposium, Biloxi, pp. 265-277,1995. Mississippi, 9 . G. L. Chahine, R. Duraswami, K.M. Kalumuck, Boundary Element Method for calculating 2D and 3D underwater explosion bubble loading on nearby structures including Fluid-Structure Interaction Effects, NSWC Weapons and Technology Department Report NSWCDD/TR93146.(Limited Distribution), I 996. 1 0 . G.L. Chahine, and K. Kalumuck, "BEM Software for Free Surface Flow Simulation Including Fluid Structure Interaction Effects," International Journal of Computer Applications for Technology, (1998), No. 11, Vol. 31415, pp.l77-198.

I l. J. F. Goertner,G.S. Harris, J. M. Koenig, and R. Thrun, Interaction of an underwater explosion bubble with a nearby cylinder: 1983 NSWC hydrotank test series data report (U), NSWCDD/TR-93/1 62 (Confidential), 1995. 12. L. Guerri, G. Lucca, and A. Prosperetti, A Numerical method for the dynamics of nonspherical cavitation bubbles, Proceedingsof the 2"d International Colloquium on Drops and Bubbles,California,JPL Publication82-7, I 98 1. 13. K.M. Kalumuck, G.L. Chahine, R. Duraisami, "Bubble -Structure Interaction Dynamics simulation on coupling fluid BEM and structural FEM codes'', Journal of Fluids and Structures, (1995), V ol . 9, pp. 861-883 14. K.M. Kalumuck, G.L. Chahine, R. Duraisami, Analysis of the response of a deformable structure to underwater explosion bubble loading using a fully coupled fluid-structure interaction procedure, Proceedings of the 66th Shock and Vibration Symposium, Biloxi, Mississippi, pp. 277-287,1995. Preliminary compilation of Mair, 15. H.U. underwater explosion benchmark, Shock and Vibration Journal, Vol. 6, No. 4, (1999), pp. 169-181. "An Evaluation of Various 16. J. W. Pritchett, Theoretical Models for Underwater Explosions Near the Water Surface," (Jniv. of California, Los Alamos Inf. ReportLa-5548-Ms,1974. I7. G. Snay, J.F. Goertner and R.S. Price, Small scale experiments to determine migration of explosion gas globes towards submarines',U S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, MD, NAVORD Report 2280, 1952. 18. R"G. Whirley, and J.O. Hallquist, Dyna3D a nonlinear, explicit, three-dimensional finite element code for solid and structural mechanics User manual,UCRL-M A-107254, 1991. 19. S.A. Wilkerson, Boundary integral technique for bubble dynamics, Ph.D. Thesis, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD., 1989. 20. S. Zhang, J. Duncan, and G.L. Chahine, The Final Stage of the Collapse of a Cavitation Bubble Near a Rigid Wall, (1993), Journal of Vol. 257,pp. 147-181. Fluid Mechanics,