A Numerical Investigation of Buried Steel Pipelines under Passive Near-Field Blast Loading

Abstract A coupled explosive–air–soil–pipeline model was developed in ABAQUS using the coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian approach to investigate the response of buried steel pipelines under passive near-field blast loading. The effects of pipe diameter, wall thickness, standoff distance, explosive charge, and pipeline burial depth were evaluated in terms of stress, maximum equivalent plastic strain, and displacement. Within the investigated ranges, the standoff distance and explosive charge produced pronounced response variations. Increasing the standoff distance from 0.3 to 0.9 m reduced the peak stress by approximately 74%–84%, whereas increasing the explosive charge from 0.2 to 0.8 kg increased it by approximately 35%–45%. Increasing wall thickness reduced the overall response, while the effect of pipe diameter became limited in the medium-to-large diameter range. Increasing pipeline burial depth also reduced the response, although this reflected the combined effect of increased pipeline burial depth and charge-to-pipeline distance. The results provide a reference for the blast-resistant design and risk assessment of buried steel pipelines.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Published
2026-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1061/jpsea2.pseng-2349
Primary Topic
Structural Response to Dynamic Loads
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

A Numerical Investigation of Buried Steel Pipelines under Passive Near-Field Blast Loading

Lianmin Cao, Hongtu Lu, Ying Zhen, Jianjun Yuan et al.
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Structural Response to Dynamic Loads
article

A Numerical Investigation of Buried Steel Pipelines under Passive Near-Field Blast Loading

Lianmin Cao, Hongtu Lu, Ying Zhen, Jianjun Yuan, Ruixian Zhu, Yuguang Cao
article en

Abstract

Abstract A coupled explosive–air–soil–pipeline model was developed in ABAQUS using the coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian approach to investigate the response of buried steel pipelines under passive near-field blast loading. The effects of pipe diameter, wall thickness, standoff distance, explosive charge, and pipeline burial depth were evaluated in terms of stress, maximum equivalent plastic strain, and displacement. Within the investigated ranges, the standoff distance and explosive charge produced pronounced response variations. Increasing the standoff distance from 0.3 to 0.9 m reduced the peak stress by approximately 74%–84%, whereas increasing the explosive charge from 0.2 to 0.8 kg increased it by approximately 35%–45%. Increasing wall thickness reduced the overall response, while the effect of pipe diameter became limited in the medium-to-large diameter range. Increasing pipeline burial depth also reduced the response, although this reflected the combined effect of increased pipeline burial depth and charge-to-pipeline distance. The results provide a reference for the blast-resistant design and risk assessment of buried steel pipelines.

Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and PracticeVol. 18(1)
China University of Petroleum, East China (CN), Shandong University of Science and Technology (CN)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Structural Response to Dynamic Loads
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A Numerical Investigation of Buried Steel Pipelines under Passive Near-Field Blast Loading — Lianmin Cao, Hongtu Lu, et al. · Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS