Safety assessment of concrete pipeline considering the effect of pipe diameter subjected to blasting vibration

Abstract

Urban concrete pipelines are prone to damage in blasting projects such as excavation of adjacent metro tunnels. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the safety of buried concrete pipeline subjected to blasting vibration. Based on the field blasting test of full-scale buried concrete pipeline, considering the factor of pipeline diameter, the dynamic response of concrete pipelines with different diameters was studied by using finite element software ANSYS/LS-DYNA. According to dimensional analysis, a prediction model of particle peak velocity (PPV) considering pipeline diameter was established. Combined with the tensile strength of concrete, the safety criterions of PPV for concrete pipeline with different diameters were proposed, which provided guidance for actual blasting.

Keywords

concrete pipeline blasting vibration pipe diameter dynamic response safety criterion

Introduction

With the development of urbanization in China, blasting has become an efficient construction method in urban infrastructure construction. However, the problem of underground pipeline damage caused by blasting vibration in the construction process has become increasingly prominent (Ozer, 2008). Concrete pipeline is widely used in water supply and drainage systems because of its high strength, excellent impermeability, and strong resistance to external pressure (Xia et al., 2021). Therefore, it is of great significance to guide the construction of urban infrastructure to reserach the dynamic characteristics of concrete pipeline subjected to blasting vibration, and to propose safety standards for concrete pipeline during blasting construction.

At present, for the dynamic response of pipeline subjected to blasting vibration, many scholars have conducted relevant research (Ma et al., 2019; Mohamed and Mohamed, 2013; Sohrabi and Moradi, 2017; Yuen et al., 2013). In terms of field test, Scott et al. through full-scale test to evaluate the effect of blast loading on the performance of pile and pipeline subjected to lateral expansion (Scott and Teerawut, 2002). Won et al. (2014) examined the behaviors of a multilayered pipeline affected by blasting loads. Gao et al. (2020) discussed the dynamic response characteristics of the pipeline subjected to underwater explosion through the deformation results of the cylindrical pipeline. Based on the monitoring date of the blasting excavation of the foundation pit, Jiang et al. (2020) proposed a mathematical model to describe the attenuation of the PPV of ground surface soils with respect to the depth of the foundation pit excavation. Recently, the development of computer technology makes the numerical simulation methods widely applicable in the field of blasting (Feldgun et al., 2011; Pereira and Lourenço, 2014; Parviz et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019). Giannaros et al. (2016) researched the dynamic response of glass fiber reinforced polymer pipeline under blasting by LS-DYNA and discussed the influence of explosion distance, charge on the dynamic response of the pipeline. Mokhtari and Alavi (2016) investigated the dynamic response of buried steel pipes by field experiments and determined the safe distance for blasting. Based on the results of experiment, Song et al. (2016) investigated the damage process, midpoint deflection, pressure distribution, energy changes, and the post-failure fragment velocities of pipeline subjected to blasting vibration. Moreover, to research the failure mode of the buried pipeline near blasting, Zhang et al. (2018) established the numerical calculation model of the buried pipeline in soil and rock stratum.

With the requirements for ensuring pipeline safety in the engineering site, it has become a research hotspot to research the failure criteria of adjacent pipelines in the blasting construction process (Kouretzis et al., 2007; Nourzadeh et al., 2010). Gad et al. (2005) referring to the example of pipeline deformation and failure under seismic load, proposed that the safety criterion of water conveyance pipeline under blasting vibration was 20 cm/s through field test. Francini and Baltz (2008) proposed the safety criterion of 12.5 cm/s∼25 cm/s by studying the vibration velocity response of the buried pipeline under mining blasting, and established the relationship between the charge amount, the thickness of the pipeline wall and the pipeline stress. Abedi et al. (2016) calculated the analytical solution of the dynamic response of the buried pipeline under the action of blasting by numerical analysis method, and proposed the safety criterion of the pipeline considering the interaction of pipeline and soil is 5 cm/s. In the existing research, the effect of the structure of the pipeline on the dynamic response subjected to blasting is often ignored. The concrete drainage pipelines used in urban municipal management have different sizes and specifications, therefore, it is more accurately to research the dynamic response of concrete pipeline with various sizes and propose corresponding safety criterion.

In this paper, the blasting dynamic response of full-scale concrete pipeline was tested in the field. Combining with ANSYS-LS-DYNA finite element software, numerical simulation was carried out on the concrete pipeline with different diameters subjected to blasting vibration basis on the field test. The distribution of PPV and PES of concrete pipeline with different diameters were analyzed, and the prediction model of PPV reflecting the size effect of concrete pipeline was deduced according to dimensional analysis. The safety criterions of PPV of concrete pipeline with different diameters were proposed, which provide guidance for the actual blasting construction.

Blasting field experiment of adjacent pipeline

Experiment site conditions

This experiment was based on the research background of concrete pipeline engineering of main common hubs in Wuhan city. The range of pipeline diameter was between 900 mm and 1350 mm, and the depth was about 2 m. A large number of engineering cases showed that buried pipelines were mostly placed in silty clay layer in Wuhan (Xia et al., 2021). The dynamic characteristics of blasting vibration propagation in silty clay layer are different from those in rock medium. Based on the particularity of geological conditions in Wuhan, the site of this experiment was located at the Economic and Technological Development Zone of Wuhan. The geological conditions of the blasting site are silty clay and strongly weathered quartz sandstone. The parameters of the silty clay layer in the site are similar to those of main urban area of Wuhan, and the lower rock layer is close to the excavated rock mass of the actual blasting engineering, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Experiment site parameter table.

Stratum	Natural weight-specific density ρ/kN·m³	The angle of friction φ/°	Cohesion c/kPa	Bearing pressure f_k/kPa
Reclamation soil layer	19.2	18	—	120 – 160
Silty clay layer	19.3	12	25	160 – 180
Sandstone	25.0	5.5	43	2000 – 4000

Test configuration and instrumentation

Four sections of 2.5 m concrete pipes with inner diameter of 1m and outer diameter of 1.2 m were used for the test, which met the requirements of the concrete and reinforced concrete sewer pipes (AQSIQ, 2009). To simulate the buried conditions of the urban concrete pipeline, the grooves were excavated by mechanical excavation in the field (AQSIQ, 2008). The groove depth is 3.6 m, the cushion soil height is 0.4 m, and the thickness of the overlying clay is 2 m. Limited to test conditions, only the concrete pipeline with an anhydrous state was considered. The blasthole was drilled mechanically on site, and No. 2 rock emulsion explosive was buried for blasting.

The dynamic response of buried pipelines subjected to blasting vibration is mainly reflected in the vibration velocity and stress of pipeline. In this experiment, the vibration velocity of the concrete pipeline was used as the main monitoring and research object. The blasting vibration monitor TC-4850 was used to monitor the vibration velocity of the pipeline. After the installation of the concrete pipeline in the groove, the vibration velocity sensor D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6 was arranged along the axial direction of the bottom of the concrete pipeline. The specific test settings are shown in Figure 1, and the test process is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1.

Schematic diagram of site blasting design.

Figure 2.

Field experiment implementation diagram.

Numerical modeling and reliability verification

Basic model

Foring concrete pipeline of different diameters cannot be tested on site, ANSYS/LS-DYNA finite element dynamic software was used to research the size effect of dynamic response of concrete pipeline. Based on the relevant geotechnical survey data and experiment scheme, the boundary effect is considered synthetically and the whole numerical calculation model is determined as shown in Figure 3. The overall size of the model is 21.2 m × 10 m×8 m. To ensure the accuracy and normal operation of numerical calculation, the grid size of silty clay and sandstone is controlled at 20 cm, and the mesh of the pipeline and blasthole parts is subdivided (Zhao et al., 2022), as shown in Figure 4. To simulate the actual working situation, the rubber of pipeline is modeled between the bell and the spigot, and the Surface-to-Surface Contact is adopted between the pipeline and the soil layer. The model adopts an 8-node-SOLID164 entity unit and cm-g-μs unit system (Hallquist, 2007). The top of the model is defined as free boundary, and the rest are defined as non-reflective boundary.

Figure 3.

Schematic diagram of the overall model.

Figure 4.

Meshing of the model.

Materials and parameters of the model

The materials in the model includes silty clay, sandstone, stemming, emulsion explosive, and concrete pipeline. *MAT_DRUCKER_PRAGER is used for the silty clay and stemming because of its improved Urucker–Prager yield criterion, which make the shape of the yield surface of the soil material distorted more realistically (Maleki and Bagheri, 2010). Sandstone due to its strength and yield characteristics, using *MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC servo hardening material model (Paul et al., 2010). Among many concrete dynamic models, *MAT_JOHNSON_HOLMQUIST_CONCRETE model can be utilized for concrete under large strain, high strain rate and high pressure, which is used for concrete pipeline (Xiong et al., 2012). *MAT_MOONEY-RIVLIN_RUBBE material model is used for gasketed rubber, which is nonlinear material (Manual and Volume, 2007). Numerical calculation model material parameters are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2.

Numerical simulation parameter table.

Material	Density/g·cm³	Elasticity modulus/GPa	Shear modulus/GPa	Poisson’s ration	Cohesion/MPa	Internal friction angle/°	Tensile strength/MPa
Sandstone	2.5	30	11.2	0.3	5.5	18	2.58
Silty clay	1.92	0.1	4.3	0.33	0.035	5.5	0.028
Pipeline	2.4	30	12.3	0.2	3.18	54.9	1.43
Stemming	0.85	0.18 × 10⁻³	—	0.35	—	—	—
Rubber	1.2	—	—	0.49	—	—	—

The high-energy explosive material *MAT_HIGHEXPLOSIVE _BURN with LS-DYNA software is used to simulate No.2 rock emulsion explosive. During the explosives, Jones–Wilkins–Lee (JWL) EOS equation of state (Shi, 2020) is used to describe the chemical reaction process and predict large range of pressure, which is as follows:

p = A (1 - \frac{ω}{R_{1} V}) e^{- R_{1} V} + B (1 - \frac{ω}{R {}_{2}V}) e^{- R_{2} V} + \frac{ω e}{V}

(1)

where P and V represent the relative specific volume and the pressure of the detonation products, respectively, E₀ is the internal energy per unit volume and R₁, R₂, A, B, and ω are material constants. The mechanical parameter of the explosive is shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Mechanical parameters of the explosive.

Density/g·cm⁻³	Detonation velocity/cm·μs⁻¹	A/GPa	B/GPa	R ₁	R ₂	ω	E ₀
1.09	0.36	214.4	18.2	4.2	0.9	0.15	4.192

Reliability verification of numerical simulation

To validate the rationality of the numerical model, the monitoring results of D1∼D6 in the field test are compared with the numerical results, as shown in Table 4.The Z-direction vibration velocity waveforms of the field monitoring and numerical simulation at D4 are compared, as shown in Figure 5. It can be seen from Table 4 and Figure 5 that the PPV of the Z-direction is the largest, followed by X-direction and the Y-direction. Among the six monitoring points, the PPV of D3 and D4 in the middle of the pipeline is the highest. And the vibration velocity consistently declines at both ends of the concrete pipeline. The numerical results are consistent with the field monitoring data, and the maximum error rate is 17.23%. The changes of the vibration velocity time-history curves are analogous between field and simulation. Therefore, the selection of numerical calculation model parameters is reasonable and it is feasible to study the dynamic response characteristics of concrete pipeline subjected to blasting vibration by numerical simulation.

Table 4.

Comparison of monitoring and simulation.

	PPV of Z direction/cm·s⁻¹			PPV of Y direction/cm·s⁻¹			PPV of X direction/cm·s⁻¹
Monitoring point	Field	Simulate	Error	Field	Simulate	Error	Field	Simulate	Error
D1	9.12	10.10	10.75	2.28	2.14	6.14	6.44	6.90	7.14
D2	12.56	12.90	2.71	3.64	3.25	10.71	7.95	7.02	11.7
D3	14.30	14.00	2.10	4.02	3.96	1.49	8.56	7.98	6.78
D4	14.25	14.93	4.77	3.19	2.88	9.72	7.53	7.36	2.26
D5	9.81	11.50	17.23	2.21	2.03	8.14	5.66	6.27	10.78
D6	9.02	10.07	11.64	2.16	1.86	15.28	3.12	3.22	3.21

Figure 5.

Waveform of experiment and numerical simulation.

Dynamic response of concrete pipeline with different pipe diameters

In the construction of urban concrete pipeline facilities, the size of the municipal drainage pipeline is larger in the mainline, while smaller in the branch. The dynamic response of concrete pipeline with different pipe diameters and the vibration attenuation characteristics of the ground surface can be analyzed by changing the diameter of pipe. Basic on the range of pipeline diameter in Wuhan, the numerical simulation of five different conditions is carried out (D is the inner diameter of the concrete pipeline), as shown in Table 5.

Table 5.

Working conditions of simulation.

Working condition	1	2	3	4	5
D/m	0.9	1	1.1	1.2	1.35

The characteristics of effective stress distribution

Figure 6 shows the effective stress distribution of the concrete pipeline in the model with 1 m inner diameter at different times. It can be seen that at 6800 μs, the higher effective stress first appears on the face blasting side of the central section of the pipeline. At 7200 μs, the effective stress further rises and extends from the middle of the pipeline to both ends along the axis, and the PES reaches 0.981 MPa, which appears on the right side of the central joints. With the change of time, the effective stress of the pipeline rises further and extends along the pipeline segment from the face blasting side. At 7600 μs, the PES reaches the peak, and the effective stress of the pipeline segment on the face blasting side is significantly greater than that of the pipeline joint. At 50,000 μs, the effective stress tends to be stable and evenly distributed on the pipeline.

Figure 6.

Stress distribution of concrete pipeline at different time.

The stress distribution of the concrete pipeline with other inner diameters at 7600 μs are shown in Figure 7. With the increase of pipeline diameter, the high stress area and the PES value decrease. When the inner diameter of the pipeline is 1.35 m, the PES decreases sharply to 0.223 MPa. According to Figure 6 and Figure 7, it can be seen that under the effect of blasting vibration, the high stress area of the concrete pipeline is mainly concentrated on the face blasting side.

Figure 7.

Stress distribution of the concrete pipeline with different diameters at 7600 μs.

Ulteriorly, the concrete pipeline with different inner diameters, six monitoring points on the face blasting side are selected as shown in Figure 8. The PES of each monitoring point is counted, as shown in Figure 9. Since the PES of the segment of concrete pipeline with 0.9 m inner diameter is 13.51 MPa, and the PES of the joint is 3.62 MPa, there is stress difference between the pipeline segment and the joint. However, with the increase of pipeline diameter, the difference of PES between the joint and pipeline segment declines, as like the pipeline diameter reaches 1.35 m, the PES of the pipeline segment is 0.605 MPa, and the PES of the joint is 0.466 MPa. It can been seen that the peak PES of the concrete pipeline appears at the positions of monitoring point 1 and point 3, which can be determined that the dangerous sections of the concrete pipeline under blasting vibration.

Figure 8.

Monitoring points on face blasting side of pipeline.

Figure 9.

PES of monitoring points under different inner diameters of pipeline.

The characteristics of vibration velocity distribution

To analyze the dynamic response characteristics of the dangerous section of the concrete pipe under different working conditions, the PPV on the dangerous section where point 1 and point 3 located are counted, as shown in Figure 10. The results indicate that the PPV of the particle reach the largest at the position of 270°–360° on the face blasting side of the concrete pipeline. With the increase of the distance from the explosion source, the PPV of the particle decrease. In addition, when the inner diameter of the pipeline increase, the PPV on the dangerous section declines gradually. As like the inner diameter of the pipeline increased from 0.9 m to 1.35 m at point 3, the PPV on the explosion side decreased from 22.40 cm·s^-1–6.65 cm·s^-1, which decreased by 70.3%.

Figure 10.

Distribution of PPV with different inner diameters of pipeline.

Attenuation rule of PPVs and establishment of prediction model

According to the above analysis, the size of the pipe diameter has significant influence on the dynamic response of the pipeline. Therefore, the factor of pipe diameter should be considered in the prediction of the blasting vibration of the pipeline. To further accurately describe the vibration attenuation law of buried pipelines, according to the study in reference (Jiang et al., 2018), the relationship between pipeline vibration attenuation and various factors is studied by using the dimensional method. Considering the field test conditions, Table 6 summarizes the main variables involved in the propagation and attenuation law of blasting vibration under the effect of concrete pipeline inner diameter (Fan et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2019).

Table 6.

Schematic table of vibration velocity related parameters and physical scale.

Physical parameter	Symbol	Dimension
PPV	v	LT⁻¹
Particle vibration acceleration	a	LT⁻²
Frequency	f	T⁻¹
Vibration displacement of the particle	μ	L
Mass of explosive	Q	M
Rock mass density	ρ	ML⁻³
Detonation time	t	T
Diameter of pipeline	D	L
Propagation velocity of the vibration wave	c	LT⁻¹
Distance between particle and blasting source	d	L

The following correspondence between the surface vibration velocity and the factors is assumed in equation (2)

v = φ (a, f, μ, Q, ρ, t, D, c, r)

(2)

According to dimensional homogeneity theorem (Barenblatt, 1987), Q, R, and C are the independent dimensions, and other parameters are independent dimensions. Let π as the dimensionless number as shown in equation (3)

{\begin{cases} π_{1} = \frac{v}{Q^{α} r^{β} c^{γ}}, π_{2} = \frac{a}{Q^{α} r^{β} c^{γ}}, π_{3} = \frac{f}{Q^{α} r^{β} c^{γ}} \\ π_{4} = \frac{μ}{Q^{α} r^{β} c^{γ}}, π_{5} = \frac{ρ}{Q^{α} r^{β} c^{γ}}, π_{6} = \frac{t}{Q^{α} r^{β} c^{γ}} \\ π_{7} = \frac{D}{Q^{α} r^{β} c^{γ}} \end{cases}

(3)

where α, β, and γ are undetermined coefficients. According to the dimensional homogeneous theorem, dimensionless number can be expressed as follows equation (4)

{\begin{cases} π_{1} = \frac{v}{c}, π_{2} = \frac{a}{r^{- 1} c^{- 2}}, π_{3} = \frac{f}{r^{- 1} c}, π_{4} = \frac{μ}{r} \\ π_{5} = \frac{ρ}{Q r^{- 3}}, π_{6} = \frac{t}{r c^{- 1}}, π_{7} = \frac{D}{r} \end{cases}

(4)

Substitute equation (4) into equation (2) finds

\frac{v}{c} = φ (\frac{a}{r^{- 1} c^{- 2}}, \frac{f}{r^{- 1} c}, \frac{μ}{r}, \frac{ρ}{Q r^{- 3}}, \frac{t}{r c^{- 1}}, \frac{D}{r})

(5)

Since the products and multipliers of different dimensionless numbers are still dimensionless, a new dimensionless number is constructed based on the above dimensionless number as follows equation (6):

π = {(π_{5})}^{α_{1}} {(π_{7})}^{β_{1}} = {(\frac{ρ}{Q r^{- 3}})}^{α_{1}} {(\frac{D}{r})}^{β_{1}}

(6)

where α₁ and β₁ are the exponents of π₅ and π₇. For a site, ρ and c can be approximated as constants. Due to equation (5),

v : {(\frac{1}{Q r^{- 3}})}^{α_{1}} {(\frac{D}{r})}^{β_{1}}

can be considered as a function, refer to the classical Sadovsky formula as shown in equation (7), the relationship between the above parameters is as follows equation (8)

v_{0} = k_{1} {(\frac{\sqrt[3]{Q}}{r})}^{β_{1}}

(7)

v = k {(\frac{\sqrt[3]{Q}}{r})}^{α_{1}} {(\frac{D}{r})}^{β_{1}}

(8)

where k is the site influence coefficient, α₁ is the attenuation coefficient of blasting vibration, and β₁ is the effect coefficient of the inner diameter.

In the numerical simulation of different pipeline diameters, the monitoring points H1 and H2 are selected for the surface soil directly above the dangerous section of the concrete pipeline as shown in Figure 11. As the largest value of vibration velocity, the PPV in the Z-direction of the measuring point 3 point 1 are counted, and the PPV of ground surface is shown in Table 7.

Figure 11.

Schematic diagram of monitoring points H1 and H3.

Table 7.

PPV of surface monitoring points.

Diameter/m	0.9		1		1.1		1.2		1.35
Monitoring point	H1	H2	H1	H2	H1	H2	H1	H2	H1	H2
Distance/m	12.13	12.38	12.81	12.43	12.23	12.48	12.28	12.53	12.36	12.61
PPV/cm·s⁻¹	15.30	13.90	13.70	13.10	10.50	9.39	8.36	8.55	7.88	6.75

The site parameters and influence coefficients in the above equation are fitted, and the expression of vibration velocity of pipeline and surface is obtained according to the vibration velocity relationship between pipeline and surface as follows equation (9)

v = e^{8.17} {(\frac{\sqrt[3]{Q}}{r})}^{5.86} {(\frac{D}{r})}^{- 1.79}

(9)

where v is the PPV of the soil above the pipeline and D is the inner diameter of the pipeline. It can be seen from equation (9) that the PPV of the soil above the pipeline declines with the increase of the inner diameter of the pipeline.

Safety assessment of concrete pipeline

Relationship of PPV between pipeline and surface soil

Concrete pipelines are buried underground and it is not convenient to excavate and expose the pipe for monitoring and analysis. Therefore, many scholars regard the surface vibration velocity above the pipeline as the observation value of blasting vibration (Zhu et al., 2021). In each model, the PPV in the Z direction at monitoring points H1 and H2 are selected for linear fitting, and the results are shown in Figure 12. The statistical relationship of PPV in the Z direction between the concrete pipeline and the surface soil directly expressed as follows

v_{1} = 1.85 v - 5.01

(10)

where v1 is the peak PPV of Z-direction in the dangerous section of pipeline, v is the PPV of Z-direction on the surface soil directly above the pipeline. From equation (10), it is known that the PPV on the dangerous section of the concrete pipeline is linearly related to the surface soil directly above, and increases with the increase of the PPV of the surface soil. It can be seen from Figure 12 that the PPV of the concrete pipeline is greater than that of the surface soil. The reason is that the dynamic response declines as the distance between the concrete pipeline and the blasting source increasing. Moreover, the different structures of the pipeline and soil also lead to the difference.

Figure 12.

Relationship between the pipeline and ground surface PPVs.

Safety criterion of concrete pipeline with different diameters

The compressive strength of the concrete material is greater than the tensile strength. In the blasting dynamic response, the concrete pipeline mainly produces tensile damage (Li et al., 2019). Under the action of dynamic load, when the strain rate is not considered, the ultimate dynamic tensile strength of the concrete structure is taken as 2.099 MPa (Jin et al., 2017). With reference to the correction factor 1.4 for the axial tensile strength of C35 concrete given in the design specification for concrete structures (AQSIQ, 2010), the ultimate dynamic tensile strength of the concrete pipe under normal using conditions is 1.50 MPa.

According to the related research (Ahmed and Ansell, 2012), the stress generated by vibration when wave propagates in the medium is expressed by equation (11) below

σ = ρ c v

(11)

where ρ is the medium density, c is the propagation velocity of the wave in the medium, and v is the vibration velocity of the medium particle. When the medium property is certain, the dynamic stress produced by the medium vibration is only related to the vibration velocity of the medium particle.

Under the simulation conditions of various pipeline diameters, the PES and PPV on the dangerous section of the concrete pipeline are linearly fitted, and the statistical relationships are shown in Table 8. According to the ultimate dynamic tensile strength, the safety criterion of the of the concrete pipeline with different inner diameters can be obtained. Combining with equation (10), the PPV criterion of the corresponding surface are shown in Table 9.

Table 8.

Statistical relationship between PES and PPV of concrete pipeline.

Diameter/m	Linear fitting formula	Correlation coefficient/R²
0.9	$v_{1} = 7.8 + 10.4 σ_{t}$	0.897
1	$v_{1} = 4.35 + 12.46 σ_{t}$	0.942
1.1	$v_{1} = 2.47 + 11.53 σ_{t}$	0.811
1.2	$v_{1} = 1.58 + 10.05 σ_{t}$	0.770
1.35	$v_{1} = 0.14 + 9.35 σ_{t}$	0.945

Table 9.

Safety criterion of concrete pipeline.

Diameter/m	0.9	1	1.1	1.2	1.35
PPV criterion of pipeline/cm·s⁻¹	24.13	23.91	20.57	17.36	14.82
PPV criterion of ground surface/cm·s⁻¹	15.75	15.63	13.83	12.09	10.72

The PPV criterion of ground surface in Table 9 can provide pipeline safety assessment for actual engineering. Moreover, The relationship between the mass of explosives and the blasting distance when the concrete pipeline of various diameters reach the ultimate strength subjected to blasting vibration can be obtained combining equation (9), which can provide reference for the field plan.

Conclusions

Taking buried concrete pipeline in Wuhan as the research object, the adjacent blasting test of full-scale concrete pipeline was designed and implemented. On the basis of field test, the numerical model of buried concrete pipeline considering the effect of pipe diameter subjected to blasting vibration was established, and the dynamic response characteristics of pipeline are discussed. Moreover, safety criterion of surface vibration velocity of concrete pipeline is proposed. The main conclusions of this paper are as follows.

1. Under the effect of blasting vibration, the pipeline segment and joint concrete pipeline have different dynamic responses. The PES and PPV of the pipeline segment is greater than that of the joint, and with the increase of the pipe diameter, the difference declines.

2. On the basis of the dimensional analysis, combined with the data of the numerical calculation model, the attenuation rule of PPV considering the diameter of pipeline can be expressed as

v = e^{8.17} {(\frac{\sqrt[3]{Q}}{r})}^{5.86} {(\frac{D}{r})}^{- 1.79}

The PPV of concrete pipeline consistently declines with the increase of pipeline diameter.

3. According to the ultimate strength of concrete and the dynamic response of particles between pipeline and surface, the safety criterions of surface vibration velocity of concrete pipeline with different diameters were proposed.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors acknowledge the financial support by the Hubei Key Laboratory of Blasting Engineering Foundation (Grant No.HKLBEF202001 and Grant No.HKLBEF202002), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.41972286, Grant No.42072309, and Grant No.41807265).

ORCID iDs

Nan Jiang

Yingkang Yao

References

Abedi

Hataf

Ghahramani

(2016) Analytical solution of the dynamic response of buried pipelines under blast wave. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 88: 201–306.

Ahmed

Ansell

(2012) Structural dynamic and stress wave models for the analysis of shotcrete on rock exposed to blasting. Engineering Structures 35: 11–17.

AQSIQ . (2008). GB 50268-2008 Code for construction and acceptance of water and sewerage pipeline works . (in Chinese).

AQSIQ . (2009). GB 11836-2009 Concrete and reinforced concrete sewer pipes . (in Chinese).

AQSIQ . (2010). GB50010-2010 Code for design of concrete structures . (in Chinese).

Barenblatt

G I

(1987) Dimensional Analysis. CRC Press.

Fan

Cui

Leng

, et al. (2020) Development of a Model to Predict Vibrations Induced by Blasting Excavation of Deep Rock Masses under High In Situ Stress. Shock and Vibration(16): 1–14.

Feldgun

Karinski

Yankelevsky

(2011) Blast Pressure Distribution on a Buried Obstacle in a Porous Wet Soil. International Journal of Protective Structures 2(1): 45–69.

Francini

R B

Baltz

W N

. (2008) Blasting and Construction Vibrations Near Existing Pipelines: What Are Appropriate Levels? 2008 7th International Pipeline Conference.

10.

Gad

E F

Wilson

J L

Balendra

, et al. (2005) Response of Pipelines to Blast Loading. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 7(3): 197–207.

11.

Gao

F Y

Long

, et al. (2020) Numerical investigation of the dynamic response of CWC structures subjected to underwater explosion loading. Ocean Engineering 203: 107214.

12.

Giannaros

Kotzakolios

Kostopoulos

(2016) Blast response of composite pipeline structure using finite element techniques. Journal of Composite Materials 50(25): 3459–3476.

13.

Hallquist

(2007) LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation.

14.

Jiang

Gao

Zhou

, et al. (2018) Effect of excavation blasting vibration on adjacent buried gas pipeline in a metro tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 81: 590–601.

15.

Jiang

Zhu

, et al. (2020) Safety assessment of buried pressurized gas pipelines subject to blasting vibrations induced by metro foundation pit excavation. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 102: 103448.

16.

Jin

Hou

Fan

, et al. (2017) Quasi-static and dynamic experimental studies on the tensile strength and failure pattern of concrete and mortar discs. Scientific Reports 7(1): 15305.

17.

Kouretzis

G P

Bouckovalas

G D

Gantes

(2007) Analytical calculation of blast-induced strains to buried pipelines. International Journal of Impact Engineering 34(10): 1683–1704.

18.

Fang

, et al. (2019) Numerical simulation and full-scale test on dynamic response of corroded concrete pipelines under Multi-field coupling. Construction and Building Materials 200: 368–386.

19.

Liu

Jiang

Sun

, et al. (2019) Influence of tunnel blasting construction on adjacent highway tunnel: A case study in Wuhan, China. International Journal of Protective Structures 11: 283–303.

20.

Zhong

, et al. (2019) Experimental and Numerical Simulation Study on the Shock and Vibration Effect of OD1422-X80 Mainline Natural Gas Pipeline Explosion. Shock and Vibration 2019: 1–13.

21.

Maleki

Bagheri

(2010) Pipe damper, Part I: Experimental and analytical study. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66(8–9): 1088–1095.

22.

Manual

L-D K Us

Volume

(2007) Version 971. Livermore Software Technology Corporation 7374, 354.

23.

Mohamed

A M E

Mohamed

E E A

(2013) Quarry blasts assessment and their environmental impacts on the nearby oil pipelines, southeast of Helwan City, Egypt. NRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysic 2(1): 102–115.

24.

Mokhtari

Alavi

N A

(2016) The application of CFRP to strengthen buried steel pipelines against subsurface explosion. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87: 52–62.

25.

Nourzadeh

Takada

Bargi

(2010) Response of buried pipelines to underground blast loading. Proceedings of the 5th civil engineering conference in the Asian region and Australasian structural engineering conference.

26.

Ozer

(2008) Environmental impacts of ground vibration induced by blasting at different rock units on the Kadikoy–Kartal metro tunnel. Engineering geology 100(1–2): 82–90.

27.

Parviz

Aminnejad

Fiouz

(2017) Numerical simulation of dynamic response of water in buried pipeline under explosion. Ksce Journal of Civil Engineering 21: 2798–2806.

28.

Paul

S K

Sivaprasad

Dhar

, et al. (2010) Simulation of cyclic plastic deformation response in SA333 C–Mn steel by a kinematic hardening model. Computational Materials Science 48(3): 662–671.

29.

Peng

, et al. (2019) Study on the Attenuation Characteristics of Seismic Wave Energy Induced by Underwater Drilling and Blasting. Shock and Vibration: 1–13.

30.

Pereira

J M

Lourenço

(2014) Risk Assessment Due to Terrorist Actions on Public Transportation Networks: A Case Study in Portugal. International Journal of Protective Structures 5(4): 391–415.

31.

Scott

A A

Teerawut

(2002) Response of single piles and pipelines in liquefaction-induced lateral spreads using controlled blasting. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 1(2): 181–193.

32.

Shi

(2020) Characterization with scaling techniques on response energy of a single degree of freedom system subject to blast loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering 148: 103764.

33.

Sohrabi

B A

Moradi

(2017) Consideration of gas pipeline safety against vibration of blasting; Case study: Excavation in Arak-Khorramabad freeway route. Journal of the Earth and Space Physics 43(2): 297–308.

34.

Song

Long

, et al. (2016) Experimental and numerical studies on the deformation and tearing of X70 pipelines subjected to localized blast loading. Thin-Walled Structures 107: 156–168.

35.

Won

J H

Kim

M K

Kim

, et al. (2014) Blast-induced dynamic response on the interface of a multilayered pipeline. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 10(1): 80–92.

36.

Zhang

Liu

, et al. (2019) Stress and strain analysis of buried PE pipelines subjected to mechanical excavation. Engineering Failure Analysis, 106.

37.

Xia

Jiang

Zhou

, et al. (2021a) Dynamic behaviors of buried reinforced concrete pipelines with gasketed bell-and-spigot joints subjected to tunnel blasting vibration. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 118: 104172.

38.

Xia

Jiang

Zhou

, et al. (2021b) Theoretical solution of the vibration response of the buried flexible HDPE pipe under impact load induced by rock blasting. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 146: 106743.

39.

Xiong

Chen

, et al. (2012) Study on the key parameters of the Johnson-Holmquist constitutive model for concrete. Engineering Mechanics 29(1): 121–127.

40.

Yuen

SCK

Nurick

Brinckmann

, et al. (2013) Response of Cylindrical Shells to Lateral Blast Load. International Journal of Protective Structures 4(3): 209–230.

41.

Zhang

Liang

(2018) Buckling failure of a buried pipeline subjected to ground explosions. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 114: 36–47.

42.

Zhao

Jiang

Zhou

, et al. (2022) Dynamic Behavior and Failure of Buried Gas Pipeline Considering the Pipe Connection Form Subjected to Blasting Seismic Waves. Thin-Walled Structures, p. 170.

43.

Zhu

Jiang

Zhou

, et al. (2021) Dynamic Failure Behavior of Buried Cast Iron Gas Pipeline with Local External Corrosion Subjected to Blasting Vibration. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 88: 103803.