See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270631160

Measurement of Naval Ship Responses to Underwater Explosion Shock

Loadings

Article in Shock and Vibration · January 2003

DOI: 10.1155/2003/803475

CITATIONS READS

24 2,183

4 authors, including:

Dae-Seung Cho
Pusan National University
138 PUBLICATIONS 1,210 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dae-Seung Cho on 19 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Shock and Vibration 10 (2003) 365–377 365
IOS Press

Measurement of naval ship responses to

underwater explosion shock loadings
Il-Kwon Parka,∗ , Jong-Chul Kima , Chin-Woo Ana and Dae-Seung Cho b
a
Naval Weapon Systems Test Range, Agency for Defense Development (ADD), P.O. Box 18, Chinhae, Kyungnam,
645-600, Korea
b
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Pusan National University, 30 Jangjeon-Dong,
Kumjung-Ku, Pusan, 609-735, Korea

Received 20 March 2003

Abstract. The shock-resistance capability of battle ships against a non-contact underwater explosion (UNDEX) is a very critical
factor of survivability. In July 1987 and April 2000, we successfully conducted UNDEX shock tests for a coastal mine hunter
(MHC) and a mine sweeper/hunter (MSH) of Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN), at the Chinhae bay, Korea. Test planning for
conducting these shock tests included responsibilities, methods, and procedures. Test instruments were developed and tested on
a drop shock machine to confirm availability in the actual shock tests with emphasis on shock resistance, remote control and
reliability. All vital systems of the ships were confirmed to be capable of normal operational condition without significant damages
during the explosion shot. By analyzing the test results, the tactical operational safety zone of the ships in underwater explosion
environments was estimated. In this paper, we described the results of measurement of naval ship responses to underwater
explosion shock loadings including test planning, sensor locations, data reduction, explosive devices, instrumentation and damage
assessments of MSH.

Keywords: Underwater shock test, test instrumentation, shock loading, underwater shock analysis

1. Introduction any other weapon. Between 1939 and 1945 the U.K.
lost 650 ships to mines; Germany and Italy lost over
An underwater shock test is the controlled demon- 1,100 with 600 to 800 damaged; Japan lost more than
stration of the resistance of hull, machinery, and pay- 500 with 1,000 damaged [2].
load equipment to the hostile environments where a MHC and MSH may be easily exposed to an under-
combatant or support ship may be exposed during its water shock because of the role of these ships. Es-
life. Underwater shock is a more potentially serious pecially, ROKN has taken an interest in the shock-
threat. A large number of weapons (e.g., mines, bombs, resistance of these ships during design and construction
and torpedoes) capable of producing a shock attack can periods.
be effective at a considerable long distance because the ADD successfully conducted underwater explosion
water is a very efficient shock transmitting medium [1]. shock tests of ROKN’s two ships, MHC and MSH. In
Minelaying is one of the most cost effective ways July 1987, MHC was tested with five kinds of 50 sen-
of exerting maritime power. In World War II, more sors. At that time, shock tests with a scaled model
than half a million mines were laid defensively and of the ship were conducted before actual tests. Tran-
offensively in waters and made more damages than by sient signals of shock response were stored in analog
tape recorders and the firing system was manually con-
trolled. In April 2000, MSH was directly tested with
∗ Corresponding author: Tel.: +82 55 540 6817; Fax: +82 55 542 six kinds of 200 sensors without a pre-test with a scaled
3737; E-mail: ikpark@add.re.kr. model ship. The instrumentation was set up consid-

ISSN 1070-9622/03/$8.00  2003 – IOS Press. All rights reserved

366 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings

ering the numerically estimated shock response of the 2.3. Shock factors
whole ship, and the operation of instrumentation was
controlled and monitored from the main controller. A shock factor is the relative measure of the shock
This paper describes the measurement of naval ship
intensity delivered to a ship by an underwater explo-
responses to underwater explosion shock loadings in
sion. The shock factor is a function of the type and size
ROKN MSH. In Section 2, general guidelines for the
underwater shock test of ships are reviewed. In Sec- of the explosive charge, the distance from the ship and
tion 3, we introduce the specially-designed test instru- the orientation relative to the ship. Ship shock test gen-
mentation developed by us, which has a capability of erally consists of several shots (typically three or four)
acquiring 200 channel data. In Section 4, we describe with succeedingly more intense shocks. Intermediate
the shock tests for ROKN MSH, data reduction and level shots may include two shots of equal intensity but
analysis, and assessments of tactical operational safety from the port and starboard sides. When it is possible,
zones. Section 5 presents the conclusions. consider alternating shot sides for all shots. Generally,
Keel Shock Factor (KSF) or Hull Shock Factor (HSF)
are used as the shock factor, KSF is used as the shock
2. General guidelines for the underwater shock
intensity of MSH. After determination of KSF, vari-
test of ships
ous shock wave parameters such as maximum pressure,
Concerning the test objectives, shock test is catego- decay constant, impulse, energy, bubble period, and
rized into the full-scale ship test for the ship’s shock bubble radius, etc. are calculated using the empirical
proofing, the model test for the research, the floating formula [5].
shock platform (FSP) and the submerged shock test ve-
hicle (SSTV) for the large equipment development [1].
The guidelines for the underwater shock test of the 2.4. Explosive charges
ROKN MSH are summarized as follows.
According to the NAVSEA [4], three sizes of spe-
2.1. Objectives cially designed HBX-1 explosive charges are recom-
Primary objectives of a shock test are well defined mended to be used during shock tests. The weight
in Pusey [3] and NAVSEA [4] as follows; of charges and the general application related to the
overall length of the ship are individually 1,200 lbs for
(a) to demonstrate the capability to operate, or fight
less than 425 ft (130 m), 10,000 lbs for 425 to 625 ft
the ship in a combat shock environment,
(130 to 191 m), and 40,000 lbs for greater than 625
(b) to evaluate the shock hardening modifications
that have been made and define any additional ft (191 m). A smaller charge than indicated in the
modification required for the class and for other above may be used when less intense shock levels are
applicable ships, required. For MSH’s shock tests, four MK25 mines
(c) to validate the shock criteria and standards spec- (1,200 lbs) of HBX-1 explosive charges which were
ified for the class, managed in ROKN were successfully exploded by the
(d) to provide a basis for refinement of shock hard- remote firing control device.
ening criteria for future ships,
(e) to diagnose the causes of equipment damage or
malfunction aboard the ship. 2.5. Methods of support

2.2. Test planning In order to obtain the desired shock factor in the test,
the depth of the charge and the distance from the ship
Shock test planning begins approximately three
must be closely controlled. Ship should not be moored
years prior to the conduct of the test. The pretest plan-
ning such as development of a management plan, con- during the tests to allow all systems and equipments to
duct of readiness reviews and training of ship’s force be normally operated. The bridle method and the par-
are included. Early participation of ship’s forces is allel method are generally used. For MSH, the bridle
very important in conducting a successful shock test be- method was applied to obtain the proper distance be-
cause they should be familiar with guidelines concern- tween the ship under test and the explosive charge, and
ing shock test security and be able to safely perform a pontoon was used to suspend the explosive charge at
their responsibilities. the desired depth.
 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings 367

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of test instrumentation.

Table 1
Characteristics of sensors
2.7. Test ranges
Type Model Range
No special range facilities are required for shock
Accelerometer PCB305A05 2500 g
Displacement gage GE-4.01 6 inch tests. A requirement is sufficient water depth to re-
Pressure gage PCB138A10 10,000 psi duce the effect of the reflected shock wave. In gen-
Strain gage M/M CO. 50,000 µε eral, water depth of 100 fathoms (180 m) is required in
Velocity meter GE-2.75 20 ft/s NAVSEA [4].
High speed camera KODAK HG2000 1,000 fr/s
Tests must be conducted in an area where swimmers
and divers can be cleared from the waters to a distance
2.6. Target ships for the test
of 20 miles from the point of test explosions. It is
necessary to avoid conducting trials in shipping lanes
Generally, the crew and basic hull possess an inher-
or in commercial fishing areas. The waters must be
ently high degree of shock resistance compared to the
checked in advance to be satisfactory with respect to
payload equipments aboard the ship. The use of highly
sea and weather conditions, environmental factors.
sophisticated and complex systems aboard the ship has
tended to increase the susceptibility of equipment to
2.8. Sensors
high shock loadings.
For combatant ship construction programs, a ship of
Six kinds of sensors are attached throughout the ship
the class will be recommended to undergo a shock test.
according to their purposes. Specially designed, size
The lead ship of a class is usually designated to undergo
of 60 × 60 × 10 mm, aluminum accelerometer mounts
a shock test so that shock-hardening modifications can
are positioned and tightly glued with GRP resin on the
be incorporated into the following ships during con-
hull bottoms to adequately obtain transient signals.
struction. For non-combatant ships, a representative
The primary purposes of the sensors are as follows;
ship of each class is selected in the same manner as
above. Service craft and small landing craft normally – pressure gages for recording underwater shock en-
don’t need shock tests. vironments,
Shock tests are highly recommended to be performed – strain gages for structural and material response
just prior to the Post-Shakedown Availability (PSA), so evaluations,
that any damage can be repaired and shock-hardening – displacement gages for relative motions of equip-
modifications can be installed during PSA. ment foundations,
368 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings

Table 2
Characteristics of controller
Type Specification & Capability
Hardware ◦ Rugged PC (Pentium Pro)
◦ 64 MB RAM Memory/Super VGA card
◦ Equipment control/data communication interface card
◦ Recorder, high-speed camera and firing system interface card
Software ◦ Control of recorder, high-speed camera and firing system
◦ Countdown, timer and display
◦ Checking the synchronous operation of recording system and display
◦ Monitoring measurement system
◦ Data back-up, play back and analysis

Table 3
Characteristics of recorder system
Type Capability
Recording type Digital recording (SRAM)
Storage memory 200CH*2MByte/Ch.
A/D converter 12 bit resolution
Sampling frequency 200 kHz (variable/channel)
Anti-aliasing filter 10 k, 20 k, 80 kHz (variable
in steps)
Input range 10V (variable in steps)
Model (40ch/set) PSO5570C+PSO9000*2ea

are performed as post-shot evaluation. The details of

software utilized by ADD for shock analyses are as
follows;
– ASRA for the approximate ship shock response
analysis due to shock wave (ADD code),
– SSRA3D based on the DAA(Doubly Asymptotic
Approximation) for the 3D ship shock response
analysis due to shock wave (ADD code),
– Filtering, FFT and shock response spectrum soft-
ware for the analysis of test results [6].

3. Instrumentation

Fig. 2. View of drop shock test. 3.1. Test instrumentation

– accelerometers for structural and equipment shock
response motions, Specially-designed test instrumentation capable of
– velocity-meter for structural shock response mo- acquiring 200 channel data, composed of various sen-
tions at keel position. sors, signal and control cables, signal conditioning unit,
– In addition, high-speed motion cameras with lights digital tape recording unit and controller were installed
for structural motion behaviors are installed at se- prior to the tests.
lected positions. A central control instrumentation for recording and
firing control device was located on the 02-deck of
2.9. Underwater shock analysis MSH with an awning stanchion to prevent sea water
splashing on near explosions.
Pre-shot analyses for the whole ship are performed The schematic diagram of test instrumentation is
to obtain measuring ranges and to assess the integrity shown in Fig. 1 and principal characteristics of test
of target ship. Comparisons between test and analysis instrumentation are summarized in Tables 1–4.
 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings 369

Fig. 3. Input-output response characteristics of test instrumentation.

Table 4
Characteristics of signal conditioner
show that the maximum allowable input shock level is
177 g due to the duration time of 4msec.
Type Model No. of Ch. Freq. Range (kHz)
In order to confirm the shock-resistance capability
Acceleration PCB584A 120 0.05–100
Pressure PCB584A 10 0.05–100 of instrumentation due to the variation of shock du-
Strain MM2310 60 DC-65 ration time, transfer functions are extracted from the
Displacement DGPS10073 10 – measured input-output data of the shock machine test.
From these measured data, theoretical transfer func-
3.2. Shock-resistance capability of instrumentation tion is estimated. The estimated results compared with
the measured results are shown in Fig. 4. The shock-
Shock test of instrumentation developed by ADD resistance capability of test instrumentation due to the
was performed to confirm the shock resistance capabil- variation of duration time and the peak acceleration
ity by using a drop shock machine. A half-sine wave levels of shock input are also shown in Fig. 5. The
was used as the input signal of the drop shock machine test instrumentation was confirmed to be available in
as defined in MIL-STD-901D [7]. real shock tests considering the duration time and the
The view and the characteristics of the drop shock magnitude of the estimated shock response of MSH.
machine test are described in Figs 2 and Table 5. In-
strumentation rack was specially made of three-layered
shock mounts and urethane-foam cases to absorb se- 4. Conduct of shock tests
vere shock impulses. To confirm its shock-resistance
capability, input-output acceleration was measured be- Naval Weapon Systems Test Range (NWSTR), ADD
low and above shock mounts, and inner parts of the in association with ROKN conducted the underwater
instrumentation rack, respectively. Measured input- explosion shock test of MSH in April 2000 as shown
output response characteristics of instrumentation rack in Fig. 6. ADD commenced a test project in early
are shown in Fig. 3, and the shock machine test results 1998, prepared the test plan, and performed readiness
370 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings

Table 5
Characteristics of shock machine
Type Specification
Shock table 95 cm × 95 cm (longitudinal)
Shock wave & acceleration maximum level Sine wave: 1,000 g
Pulse wave: 130 g
Saw tooth wave: 200 g
Shock duration time 0.5 ∼ 65 msec
Maximum test weight 2,500 lbs
Maximum velocity 25 ft/sec

Fig. 4. Comparison of estimated and tested results.

reviews, pre-test inspections, crew’s training and ship ship’s equipment and to determine the readiness of the
preparations, etc. ship for the next test. MSH’s ballast and fuel tanks were
MSH made of glass reinforced plastic (GRP) mate- kept in a normal load condition. The standoff-distance
rial was designed and constructed by Kangnam ship-
was measured by using three fixed distance wires.
yard under ROKN’s supervision. The principal di-
mensions of MSH are; length between perpendiculars The actual schedule of underwater shock tests on
(55.6 m), length overall (59.4 m), breadth (10.5 m), MSH in 2000 is;
draft (3.0 m), and displacement (880 ton).
(a) Ship preparations (22 March to 5 April) for in-
4.1. Schedule of shock tests stallation, calibration and interface check-up of
sensors, cables, instrumentation, firing system
Four shots on MSH were scheduled at an interval of
and explosive, training and pre-test inspection.
one week, but delayed a few days due to the weather
conditions. After each shot, a detailed survey of MSH (b) Four shots were individually performed on 6
was performed to identify any malfunctions of the April, 18 April, 25 April and 2 May.
 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings 371

Fig. 5. Shock response level of instrumentation due to duration time and peak acceleration.

Fig. 6. View of MSH shock test.

4.2. Test sites assisted in the sea area surveillance and served as a
photo platform.

Two test sites, the Chinhae bay and the 4.3. Locations of sensors
Namhyung Island, were reviewed considering shock
test conditions, but finally the Chinhae bay was se- During four shots, all data were obtained as time-
lected due to sea weather conditions and efficient lo- history recordings of acceleration, displacement, strain
gistic supports, off the distance of 10 miles from the and pressure through test instrumentation installed
ROKN commanding post. aboard the ship. Six kinds of 200 sensors were installed
ROKN and coast guard patrol boats supported on- according to their purposes throughout the ship.
site operations during shots. A helicopter was also The number and locations of sensors are;
372 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings

Fig. 7. Shock pressure profile at outside hull.

Fig. 8. Filtered(2.5 kHz) time-history signal.

(a) one hundred fifty accelerometers for main equip- (f) and three high speed motion cameras for motion
ments and foundations of shock grade A, B, and of mast, swimmer delivery vehicle (SDV), gas
each deck plate, turbine generator.
(b) ten displacement gages between main equip-
ments and their foundations, 4.4. Acquisition of shock response data
(c) thirty strain gages for main equipment founda-
tions, deck plates, mast and local position of hull Firing system to synchronize the start of transient
structure, recorders, and high-speed cameras was located in the
(d) ten pressure gages for shock wave measure- instrumentation camp on 02-deck of MSH. Every chan-
ments, nel signal, which was synchronous with high-speed
(e) one velocity-meter for structural shock response camera, was stored on SRAM memory of the transient
motions at keel position, recorder. The operation of these devices was controlled
 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings 373

Fig. 9. Shock Response Spectrum at the foundation of main equipment.

Fig. 10. Estimation of maximum acceptable acceleration.

and monitored from the main controller in the instru- 4.5. Data reduction and analysis
mentation camp. In the bridge, the operation status
and the countdown clock on a computer monitor were Shock factors of the real tests are reviewed by us-
displayed. ing the shock pressure wave profile of the underwater
For reliable data acquisition, the input-ranges of sig- explosion as shown in Fig. 7. For data reduction of
acceleration, strain, velocity, and displacement signals,
nals in transient recorders should be adjusted to proper
primary time-history signals are filtered by 2.5 kHz
values. The instrumentation was set up considering the low-pass filter as shown in Fig. 8. From the analysis
numerically estimated peak values of the whole ship for shock response spectra of the main equipments and
analysis. Accordingly, reliable data were measured on the hull structure, the peak responses during the pulse
every shots. are estimated as shown in Fig. 9. The principal normal
374 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings

Fig. 11. Modeling of shock input loading using JWL equations (after time of 8 msec).

Fig. 12. Comparison of measured and simulated vertical acceleration at bottom structure.

stresses in ship’s structure are calculated by using the shock tests as shown in Fig. 10. Test result data are
measured data of 0 ◦ /45◦ /90◦ rosettes type strain gages. summarized to database as forms of time histories and
The shock hardening criteria of ship’s structure and shock spectra.
equipments are validated by extrapolation, curve fitting Prior to the tests, numerical shock analyses were per-
and regression methods using the processed data of formed. ADD used their analysis code, which is based
 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings 375

Fig. 13. Comparison of measured and simulated vertical velocity at bottom structure.

Fig. 14. Comparison of measured and simulated axial strain at mast pipe.

on the DAA method and adapted to the surface ship tors were below 0.3 for 60% of comparison positions.
problems, to calculate the ship shock response. Pres- The phase error factors were below 0.5 for most com-
sure wave was calculated by empirical-exponential for- parison positions. Correlations between the measured
mula. In case of having no empirical-exponential for- data and the analysis results were satisfactory compar-
mula, pressure waves were calculated by hydro-code ing the magnitude error factors of 0.2 by the Russel-
using the Jones-Wilkins-Lee (JWL) equations. Fig- l’s laboratory experiments. Figure 15 shows sampled
ure 11 shows the pressure profile from the results of the stress distribution from the calculation using the DAA
hydro-code. method.
In Figs 12–14, shock responses from the DAA
method are displayed with measured data. On 41 po- 4.6. Assessments of tactical operational safety zones
sitions of ship, Russell’s error factors were calculated
within the time durations of 250 ms for the purpose The damage criteria of a ship are classified into three
of comparison study [8,9]. The magnitude error fac- grades of Kill (K), Mission Aborted (M) and Commu-
376 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings

Fig. 15. Simulation results of whole structure’s stress.

Fig. 16. Damage estimation due to charge weight and depth.

nication Impaired (C) by US Navy Standard [10]. The results of MSH are described in the classified ADD
damage criteria K, M, C of MSH due to various charge technical report [11].
depths and explosive types are estimated by analyzing
the post-processed data of shock test results which are
extracted from the extrapolation, curve fitting and re- 5. Conclusions
gression methods. Then, we evaluate MSH’s tactical
ADD successfully conducted underwater explosion
operational safety zones considering the shock harden-
shock tests of two ROKN ships, MHC in July 1987 and
ing criteria of ship’s structures and the technical data MSH in April 2000, respectively. The responsibilities,
of onboard equipments supplied by makers. Sample methods, and procedures for conducting these shock
result is shown in Fig. 16. tests have been continuously developed including test
Assessments of ship’s safety zones due to charge instrumentation, test operations, damage assessment,
depths and types are very critical factors to confirm her numerical analysis method for structure and reporting
safety in tactical operating environments. Detailed test requirements.
 I.-K. Park et al. / Measurement of naval ship responses to underwater explosion shock loadings 377

In order to adequately estimate the operational safety References

zone of MSH in the shock environment, shock response
spectra of structure and equipments are broadly ex- [1] NAVSEA, Guide for Planning and Managing Shock Trials of
Surface Ships, NAVSEA 0908-LP-000-0010, April 1989.
tracted from the acquisition data. Even though there are [2] R.J. Daniel, Mine Warfare Vessels and Systems, Int. Sympo-
still many problems which remain to be solved, the ca- sium on Mine Warfare Vessels and Systems, RINA I(1) (Jun.
pability of performing underwater shock tests for ships 1984).
was validated through the experiences of underwater [3] H. Pusey, Underwater Shock Measurement, Shock and Vibra-
tion Digest, Dec. 1989, pp. 9–11.
explosion shock tests of two ROKN ships. Besides, the [4] NAVSEA, Ship Post-Delivery Tests and Trials Guidance Man-
applications of modeling and simulation to shock test ual, NAVSEA 0900-LP-095-3010, Rev.1, Chap.13, Aug,
fields, and the developments of more advanced numer- 1989.
ical analysis techniques equivalent to the level of real [5] Y.S. Shin, Thomas L. Geers, Response of Marine Structures to
Underwater Explosion, Lecture Notes, Feb. 1993, pp. 3.24–
data should be continued through making the best use 3.25.
of these test results. [6] C.W. An et al., A Study on the Ship Structure Shock Response
Analysis (I), ADD NSDC-513-991203, Dec. 1999.
[7] MIL-S-901D, Shock Tests, High Impact Shipboard Machinery,
Equipment, and Systems, Requirement for, March 1989.
Acknowledgements [8] D.M. Russell, Error Measures for Comparing Transient Data:
Part I: Development of a Comprehensive Error Measure, Proc.
The shock tests of MSH and MHC were success- of 68th Shock & Vibration Symposium, 1997, pp. 175–184.
[9] D.M. Russell, Error Measures for Comparing Transient Data:
fully performed under the full support of ROKN and Part II: Error Measure Case Study, Proc. of 68th Shock &
Kangnam shipyard. We would like to express our many Vibration Symposium, 1997, pp. 185–198.
thanks to them. We are also grateful to ADD mem- [10] NAVSEA, Operational Characteristics of Standard US Naval
bers who participated in the shock tests for their sincere Mines, (Vol. I,II), OP2637.
[11] I.K. Park et al., Underwater Explosion Shock Test
cooperation. Report of MSH, ADD NSDC-313- 000928C (Classified), Oct.
2000.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

The Scientific
Engineering
Journal of Advances in
Journal of Mechanical
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
Distributed Advances in
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Advances in Submit your manuscripts at

OptoElectronics http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
http://www.hindawi.com

VLSI Design

Modelling &
International Journal of Simulation
International Journal of Navigation and in Engineering Advances in
Chemical Engineering Observation Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

International Journal of Journal of

Active and Passive Antennas and Electrical and Computer
Electronic Components Propagation Shock and Vibration Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

View publication stats