Advertisement

Vulnerability of Harbours and Near-Shore Infrastructure to Underwater Explosions

  • L. Koene
  • A. J. M. Schmets
Chapter
Part of the NL ARMS book series (NLARMS)

Abstract

Underwater explosive devices, such as improvised explosive devices (IED), offer a high-risk threat within the maritime domain. An attack on ships in harbours, coastal infrastructure, such as locks and quays, by underwater explosives could have a detrimental effect on infrastructure functionality and national economy. Here, the physical effects of underwater explosives are reviewed and compared to surface firings. Next, a few examples in the maritime domain are treated in more detail: ships, divers and swimmers, tourist beaches, dikes, infrastructural assets and near-shore sea-bed communication. Moreover, possible detection methods and counter-strategies are discussed. A methodology for risk analysis of underwater explosion threats is outlined. Finally, conclusions and challenges for the future, focused on scientific research and preventive approaches are given.

Keywords

Underwater explosions shock wave effects risk assessment protection underwater unmanned vehicle (UUV) unmanned surface vehicle (USV) drones harbours near-shore ships infrastructure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Mr. D. Krabbenborg has been instrumental in the design and construction of experimental test set-ups, as well as for fruitful discussions on the subject matter of experimentally accessing the nature of air and underwater explosions. S.T.P. Blankestijn, C.G. Leibbrandt and K.M. Elsing, all Aspirant Officers of the Dutch Corps of Engineers, are thanked for their practical work during their lab session for the course Pyrotechniek I: they enabled the (mayonnaise) bucket experiment, under abominable field conditions. Sergeant-major M.H.M.T. Franken was the Safety Supervisor of the Explosive Experiment (in Dutch, LDSO: Leider der Springoefening) during the experiments. Lieutenant J.G.M. Albers provided the air blast pressure-time data for bare explosives in air. The underwater demolition of steel study was initiated and performed by lieutenant S.W. de Both, assisted by the Engineer Divers of the 105th Engineer Company. Finally, KLTZ E.C.L. Jolink from the Royal Dutch Navy is acknowledged for fruitful discussions on the topic of underwater explosions at large.

References

  1. Arons AB (1954) Underwater explosion shock wave parameters at large distances from the charge. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 26(3):343–346Google Scholar
  2. Baker WE, Cox PA, Westine PS (1983) Explosion hazards and evaluation. Elseviers Scientific Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes RA, Hetherington JG, Smith PD (1988) Bubble screens for underwater shock attenuation. Explosives Engineering 2(3):6–9Google Scholar
  4. Barrie A (2016) The “Sea Wasp” will be a potent threat to terrorists and their underwater bombs. bgr.com/2016/05/19/the-sea-wasp-will-be-a-potent-threat-to-terrorists-and-their-underwater-bombs/ Accessed on 15 December 2017Google Scholar
  5. Bedford T, Cooke R (2001) Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornstein H, Ryan S, Mouritz AP (2018) Blast mitigation with fluid Containers: Effect of mitigant type. International Journal of Impact Engineering 113:106–117Google Scholar
  7. Brode HL (1955) Numerical solutions of spherical blast waves. Journal of Applied Physics26(6):766–775Google Scholar
  8. Bulson PS (1997) Explosive loading of engineering structures: A history of research and a review of recent developments. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Care (2010) Facts About LandminesGoogle Scholar
  10. Chalk P (2008) The maritime dimension of international security: terrorism, piracy, and challenges for the United States. Rand CorporationGoogle Scholar
  11. Cole RH (1965) Underwater explosions. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Costanzo FA (2011) Underwater explosion phenomena and shock physics. Structural Dynamics. Volume 3, Springer, pp 917–938Google Scholar
  13. Cranz C (1926) Lehrbuch der Ballistik (Band II). Julius Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies R (2018) Hellburner Hoop. Standing Well Back : IED & EOD evolutions. www.standingwellback.com/home/2011/9/16/hellburner-hoop.html Accessed 6 February 2018
  15. DCSI (2006) Critical Infrastructure Threats and TerrorismGoogle Scholar
  16. de Both SW (2017) Een experimenteel onderzoek naar de uitwerking van explosieven op staal onder water. Faculteit Militair Technische Wetenschappen, Nederlandse Defensie Academie, Den HelderGoogle Scholar
  17. Eisenbud DK (2017) Drones becoming greatest threat to planes, says expert. Jerusalem Post. Accessed 15 December 2017Google Scholar
  18. Eski Y (2011) Port of call: Towards a criminology of port security. SAGE Publications  https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895811414593
  19. Fickett W, Davis WC (1979) Detonation: theory and experiment. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Geers TL, Hunter KS (2002) An integrated wave-effects model for an underwater explosion bubble. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111(4):1584–1601Google Scholar
  21. Glaser A (2017) The U.S. government showed just how easy it is to hack drones made by Parrot, DBPower and Cheerson. www.recode.net/2017/1/4/14062654/drones-hacking-security-ftc-parrot-dbpower-cheerson, Accessed 18 December 2017
  22. Groen P (ed) (2013) De tachtigjarige oorlog: Van opstand naar geregelde oorlog, 1568–1648. NIMH, Boom, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris GS (1988) Introduction to the Underwater Explosion Problem. Conventional weapons underwater explosions. Office of Naval Research Report, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawass A et al (2015) Cornstarch liquid armour for underwater shock wave mitigation. In: International Autumn Seminar on Propellants, Explosives and Pyrotechnics. Qingdao, Shandong Province, China, pp 711–720Google Scholar
  25. Henrych J (1979) The dynamics of explosion and its use. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. Hsu CY et al (2015) The Study on the Dynamic Response of Cylindrical Pressure Hull on the Different Shock Loading Empirical Formula. In: Mechanical and Electrical Technology VII. Applied Mechanics and Materials. Trans Tech Publications, pp 604–609Google Scholar
  27. IMO (2003) International convention for the safety of life at sea. International Maritime OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  28. Jarrett DE (1968) Derivation of the British explosives safety distances. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 152(1): 18–35Google Scholar
  29. Kaye SM (1983) Encyclopedia of Explosives and Related Items. Volume 8, New Jersey, USA: US army research and development command: warheads, energetics and combat support centerGoogle Scholar
  30. Kingery CN, Bulmash G (1984) Airblast Parameters from TNT Spherical Air Burst and Hemispherical Surface Burst. US Army Armament Research and Development Center, Balistics Research Lab, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, ARBRL-TR-02555Google Scholar
  31. Kinney GF, Graham KJ (2013) Explosive shocks in air. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  32. Klaseboer E, Khoo BC, Hung KC (2005) Dynamics of an oscillating bubble near a floating structure. Journal of Fluids and Structures 21(4):395–412Google Scholar
  33. Klopper R (2017) Provocaties op zee: Russen en Chinezen koersen vaker en dichter langs onze kust. De Telegraaf. Accessed 15 December 2017Google Scholar
  34. la Cour-Harbo A (2017) Mass threshold for “harmless” drones. International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles 9(2):77–92Google Scholar
  35. Lance RM et al. (2015) Human Injury Criteria for Underwater Blasts. PLOS ONE 10(11):1–18.Google Scholar
  36. Landau LD, Lifshitz EM (1987) Fluid mechanics. Pergamon PressGoogle Scholar
  37. Le Méhauté B, Wang S (1996) Water waves generated by underwater explosion. World Scientific.Google Scholar
  38. Li S, Li Y, Zhang, A (2015) Numerical analysis of the bubble jet impact on a rigid wall. Applied Ocean Research 50:227–236Google Scholar
  39. Mays G, Smith PD (1995) Blast effects on buildings: Design of buildings to optimize resistance to blast loading. Thomas Telford, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. McKeown HR, Dengel O, Harris G, Diekhoff HJ (2004) Development and Evaluation of DYSMAS Hydrocode for Predicting Underwater Explosion Effects. Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  41. Mueller JE (2006) Overblown: How politicians and the terrorism industry inflate national security threats, and why we believe them. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. NRC (National Research Council) (2000) Oceanography and Mine Warfare. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, www.nap.edu/catalog/9773/oceanography-and-mine-warfare Accessed 12 January 2018
  43. Payne CM (2006) Principles of naval weapon systems, 2nd edn. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MDGoogle Scholar
  44. Rajendran R, Narasimhan K (2006) Deformation and fracture behaviour of plate specimens subjected to underwater explosion—a review. International Journal of Impact Engineering 32(12): 1945–1963Google Scholar
  45. Revill J (2016) From the Gunpowder Revolution to Dynamite Terrorism. In: Improvised Explosive Devices : The Paradigmatic Weapon of New Wars. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  46. Sandler T (2015) Terrorism and counterterrorism: an overview. Oxford Economic Papers 67(1):1–20Google Scholar
  47. Smith PD, Hetherington JG (1994) Blast and ballistic loading of structures. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Sneiderman P (2016) Johns Hopkins scientists show how easy it is to hack a drone and crash it. hub.jhu.edu/2016/06/08/hacking-drones-security-flaws/ Accessed 23 January 2018Google Scholar
  49. Snyman I, Dyk T van (2010) The imparted impulse of a PMN anti-personnel mine. In: Proceedings of the National Ballistics Symposium of South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  50. Sunak R (2017) Undersea Cables: Indispensable, insecure. Policy Exchange, policyexchange.org.uk Accessed 7 February 2018Google Scholar
  51. Swisdak MM (1975) Explosion Effects and Properties. Part I. Explosion Effects in Air. Naval Surface Weapons Center White Oak Lab Silver Spring, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  52. Swisdak MM (1978) Explosion effects and properties. Part II. Explosion Effects in Water, Naval Surface Weapons Center White Oak Lab Silver Spring, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  53. Szturomski B (2015) The effect of an underwater explosion on a ship. Scientific Journal of the Polish Naval Academy 201(2):52–73Google Scholar
  54. Taylor GI (1946) Dynamics of a mass of hot gas rising in air. Technical Information Division, Oak Ridge OperationsGoogle Scholar
  55. Various Authors (2015) Factsheet IED attackGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang G, Zhang S (2014) Damage prediction of concrete gravity dams subjected to underwater explosion shock loading. Engineering Failure Analysis 39:72–91Google Scholar
  57. Wang J (2007) Electrochemical Sensing of Explosives. In: Yinon J (ed) Counterterrorist detection techniques of explosives. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 91–107Google Scholar
  58. Wikipedia (2018) List of torpedoes by nameGoogle Scholar
  59. Zel’dovich YB, Raizer YP (2002) Physics of shock waves and high-temperature hydrodynamic phenomena. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang AM, Yao XL, Li J (2008) The interaction of an underwater explosion bubble and an elastic–plastic structure. Applied Ocean Research 30(3):159–171Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser press and the authors 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Military SciencesDen HelderThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations