Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
NARROW
Date
Availability
1-20 of 20156
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Article Type: Research Papers
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. December 2022, 144(6): 061901.
Paper No: OMAE-22-1009
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 1 Illustration of the North Sea Mine Barrage from World War I (WWI), based on Ducan [ 20 ]. The black dot in the figure indicates the location of the Johan Sverdrup Oil and Gas field. More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 2 ( a ) Close multibeam digital terrain model (DTM) image of charge canister and corroded outer shell and ( b ) Video of mine charge canister. (The pictures are both provided by Deep Ocean during a field survey in 2018 in the North Sea.) More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 3 Cross section view of the FE model More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 4 Isotropic view of the 3D FE Abaqus model with mesh turned on. The blue part is the water domain and the greyed part is the soil domain. (Color version online.) More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 5 Dynamic stress under different strain rates ε ˙ and plastic strain ɛ p More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 6 Equivalent plastic strain at failure under different strain rates ε ˙ and triaxiality η T More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 7 Pressure extraction locations within the Eulerian domain. The vertical interval is 0.6 m. More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 8 Pipeline laid on seabed, penetration distance 0.2 m. Left: Isotropic view. Right: Front view. More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 9 Shock wave pressure distribution at the center cross-section, offset = 2.5 m, t = 1.1 ms. Left: case A1. Middle: case A2. Right: case A3. More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 10 Shock wave pressure development in cases A1, A2, and A3, offset = 2.5 m. Upper: at position 1. Middle: at position 2. Lower: at position 3. More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 11 Crater dimension after the explosion, offset = 2.5 m More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 12 Bubble evolution comparison between three models, offset = 2.5 m. Left: seabed included. Middle: no seabed. Right: no seabed and TNT mass doubled. More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 13 Pipeline damage comparison between three models, offset = 2.5 m. Left: case A1. Middle: case A2. Right: case A3. More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 14 Axial reaction force (RF) of pipeline during explosion, offset = 2.5 m More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 15 Shock wave pressure distribution at the center cross-section, offset = 5 m, t = 2.9 ms. Left: case B1. Middle: case B2. Right: case B3. More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 16 Shock wave pressure development in cases B1, B2, and B3, offset = 5 m. Upper: at position 1. Middle: at position 2. Lower: at position 3. More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 17 Crater dimension after the explosion in case B1, offset = 5 m More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 18 Bubble evolution comparison between three models, offset = 5 m. Left: case B1. Middle: case B2. Right: case B3. More
Image
in Numerical Simulation of a Subsea Pipeline Subjected to Underwater Explosion Loads With the Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
> Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Published Online: July 29, 2022
Fig. 19 Pipeline damage comparison between three models, offset = 5 m. Left: case B1. Middle: case B2. Right: case B3. More