Earth and Space 2012 © ASCE 2012 1159

Numerical Simulation of Dynamic Response of Buried Pipeline by

Ground Explosion

S. Yan1,2, Y. R. Xu3, H.Y. Chang4

1
School of Civil Engineering, Shenyang Jianzhu University, P.O. Box 110168,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shenyang, No.9, Hunnan East Road, Hunnan New District; Ph (0086-24)-24691818;

email: syan1962@163.com
2
State Key Laboratory of Explosion Science and Technology, Beijing Institute of
Technology, P.O. Box 100000, Beijing, No.5 Zhongguancun South Street, Haidian
District; Ph(0086-10) 68913957
3
School of Civil Engineering, Shenyang Jianzhu University, P.O. Box 110168,
Shenyang, No.9, Hunnan East Road, Hunnan New District; Ph (0086-24)-24691818;
email: xuyingru19870601@126.com
4
School of Civil Engineering, Shenyang Jianzhu University, P.O. Box 110168,
Shenyang, No.9, Hunnan East Road, Hunnan New District; Ph (0086-24)-24691800;
email: 381666615@qq.com

ABSTRACT

The safety of a pipeline structure, as a very important means of transport,

becomes very important under explosion load when explosion is now becoming more
common event. To evaluate the effects of a possible ground explosion on buried
pipeline, this paper attempted to analyze the dynamic responses of the pipeline in soft
soil by using a widely applied explicit dynamic nonlinear finite element software
ANSYS/LS-DYNA through selecting proper material constitutive relation and using
nonlinear dynamics theory and arbitrary Lagrangian-Eularian (ALE) algorism. The
paper also considered fluid and solid coupling such as soil and pipeline, and pipeline
and liquid in it under the explosion load. Two research paths were selected to analyze
the dynamic responses of the pipeline. The path 1 was along the transverse direction
of the pipeline, and 5 typical points were selected around the cross-section; and the
path 2 was along the longitudinal direction and the horizontal distance from the
explosion center ranged from 0 to 2 m. The numerical results indicated that using
numerical simulation method to study the explosion ground shock effect on buried
pipeline was feasible, and the upper part of the pipeline cross-section with directions
ranging from 0 to 45° and horizontal distances of 0 to 1m away from the explosive
center was the vulnerable areas.

INTRODUCTION

Now the pipeline transportation has become an important means of transportation, and

Earth and Space 2012

 Earth and Space 2012 © ASCE 2012 1160

it has the advantages of large transport capacity, low energy consumption, safety, low
cost etc. Pipeline transport also has the particularity that other modes of transportation
cannot replace, so the pipe transportation whether now or in the future will be one of
the most important tools of transportation in the world. But now the worldwide
terrorism attacks are becoming intensive and more frequent. In 2001, the world was
shocked by the terrorist attacks, blasting events also occurring in recent years such as
in Chechnya (2002) and London (2005). Terrorist attacks not only caused huge losses
of people's lives and property, but also threatened the safety of buried pipelines in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

transport. Therefore, the safety of the pipeline under explosion load as a very
important means of transport becomes very important (Ma, 2005).
Some researchers have analyzed the effect of an underground explosion on pipeline
(Li, 2006). In 2005, Du studied dynamic response of buried pipe under the
underground explosion loading. In 2009, Yao researched limit load of buried gas
pipeline under blast loading. Both their study just considered underground explosion
problem and did not consider the presence of liquid in pipeline. The numerical
simulation of dynamic response of buried pipeline by ground explosion was studied in
this paper study and the presence of liquid in pipeline was also considered by using a
widely applied explicit dynamic nonlinear finite element software ANSYS/LS-DYNA
and selecting proper material constitutive relation, and using nonlinear dynamics
theory and arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) algorism.

NUMERICAL MODEL

Finite element model. The researched pipeline has a circular cross-section, with 0.36
m in inner diameter and 0.4 m in outer diameter. For many previous studies on
pipeline loaded explosively, equivalent time-history pressures were used to simulate
the loads. Time-history pressures generated with high explosives tend to exhibit large
variations, even with identical charges. Obviously, whether the responses of the
structure can be predicted strongly depend on the ability to generate “accurate” load
functions (O’Daniel, 1997). In this study, the explosive was modeled explicitly using
ANSYS/LS-DYNA material specifically designed for simulating a high explosive
detonation. It is assumed that the explosion will take place at the most unfavorable
positions such as the interface of air and soil, above the pipeline.
For the sake of saving computation time, a 1/4 symmetrical geometrical model with a
size of 0.6 m×1.8m×2m was established (see Figure 1).
In the finite element model (see Figure 2), the eight-node element of SOLID 164 was
adopted for the 3D explicit analysis. In order to prevent the element distortion in large
deformation and nonlinear structural analyses, an arbitrary Lagrangian-Eularian (ALE)
algorism was used in this paper. The TNT charge, the air, the soil and the liquid in a
pipeline were modeled with ALE multi-material meshes, but the pipeline with
Lagrangian meshes, while the minimal time step was controlled by the smallest
element size in the explicit integral method, and the globe uniform mesh size was set
to be 5 cm.

Earth and Space 2012

 Earth and Space 2012 © ASCE 2012 1161

Figure 1. 1/4 Symmetrical geometrical Figure 2. The finite element model.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

model.

Furthermore, the transitional displacement of the nodes normal to the symmetry

planes (XY and YZ planes) was constrained. Non-reflecting boundary condition was
applied to the other two lateral surfaces and the bottom surface, and the free boundary
condition is used for the upper surface.

Material constitutive models and parameters. Five kinds of materials were

involved in this finite element model: air, TNT charge, pipeline, water and soil.
The air was commonly modeled by null material model with a linear polynomial
equation of state (EOS), which defined the pressure by the following equation:
P = C0 + C1μ + C2 μ 2 + C3 μ 3 + (C4 + C5 μ + C6 μ 2 ) E0 (1)

Where the parameter μ was defined as μ = ρ / ρ 0 − 1 , ρ was the current density,

and ρ 0 was a nominal or reference density; C0 − C6 were the equation coefficients;
and the parameter E0 was the initial internal energy of reference specific volume per
unit.
Table 1 gives the parameters used in the air model (Yao, 2009).

Table 1. Parameters of the air.

ρ (g/cm 3 ) C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 E 0 ( J/m 3） ρ 0 (g/cm 3）

1.29 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 2.5× 10 5 1.0

The TNT charge was modeled by the high explosive material model and the
Jones-Wilkins-Lee (JWL) equation of state. The JWL equation of state defined the
pressure by the following equation:
⎡ ω ⎤ − RV1 ⎡ ω ⎤ − R2V ωE
p = A ⎢1 − ⎥e + B ⎢1 − ⎥e + (2)
⎣ R1V ⎦ ⎣ R2V ⎦ V

Where A, B, R1 , R2 , ω were the equation coefficients and they all should be tested in

an accurate blast analysis; and V was the initial relative volume.

Table 2 gives the parameters used in the TNT charge model (Yao, 2009).

Earth and Space 2012

 Earth and Space 2012 © ASCE 2012 1162

Table 2. Parameters of the TNT charge.

ρ (g/cm 3 ) V D (m/s) PCJ (GPa ) A(GPa ) B (GPa )

1.63 6930 2060 374 3.75

R1 R2 ω V E0 (J/m 3 )

4.15 0.9 0.35 1 6×109

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The pipeline was modeled by the plastic kinematic model for simplicity and
applicability. The main parameters in this model included mass density ρ , Young’s
modulus E, Poisson’s ratio v , yield stress σ y , tangent modulus Etan .
σ = ES ε ε ≤ εe (3)

σ = σ y + Etan (ε − ε e ) ε > εe (4)

Table 3 gave the parameters used in the pipeline model (Yao, 2009).

Table 3. Parameters of the pipeline.

ρ (g/cm 3 ) E (GPa ) v σ y (MPa ) E tan (GPa )

0.79 210 0.3 480 13.5

The water was commonly modeled by null material model with a Gruneisen equation
of state (EOS), which defines the pressure by the following equation:
ρ 0C 2 μ (1 + (1 − γ 0 / 2) μ − aμ 2 / 2)
P= + (γ 0 + αμ ) E (5)
(1 − ( S1 − 1) μ − S 2 μ 2 /(1 + μ ) − S 3 μ 3 /(1 + μ 2 )) 2

where the parameter μ was defined as μ = ρ / ρ 0 − 1 , ρ was the current density,

and ρ 0 was a nominal or reference density; S1 , S 2 , S 3 , γ 0 , α were the equation
coefficients; and the parameter E was the initial relative volume; C was the sound
propagation velocity in water.
Table 4 gave the parameters used in the water model (Dai, 2009).

Table 4. Parameters of the water.

ρ (g/cm 3 ) C (m/s) S1 S2 S3 γ0

1.025 1480 142 0.33 0.7 0.5

The soil was modeled by a soil and foam model put forward by Krieg in 1972. It was

Earth and Space 2012

 Earth and Space 2012 © ASCE 2012 1163

a simple model and operated in some way like a fluid, and had been demonstrated to
be useful for soil modeling. The main parameters in this model include: mass
density ρ , shear modulus G , bulk modulus K at unloading path, yield function
constants a0 , a1 and a2 .
Table 5 gave the parameters used in the soil model (Yao, 2009).

Table 5. Parameters of the soil.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ρ (kg/m 3 ) G (MPa ) K (MPa ) a（ 2

0 MPa ) a（
1 MPa ) a2

1800 16 142 0.33 0.7 0.3

PROPAGATION OF THE BLAST INDUCED WAVES ON THE PIPELINE

Three cases were considered for studying the different TNT charge on pipeline effect.
Table 6 gave the different cases.

Table 6. The different cases.

Case Distances between TNT charge with pipeline The amount of TNT charges

A 1.2m 13.04kg

B 1.2m 26.00kg

C 1.2m 65.20kg

Figure 3 showed the wave propagation on the pipeline at different times in case A. It
presented the whole process of the propagation of blast induced waves on the pipeline:
expansion, migration and dissipation. The pressure waves propagated on the pipeline
along both the longitudinal and the circumferential directions. The top of the pipeline
appeared the earliest peak pressure.

0.5ms 1.5ms 2ms

Earth and Space 2012

 Earth and Space 2012 © ASCE 2012 1164

2.5ms 3ms 4ms

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3. Pressure contours on the pipeline at different times for case A.

Figure 4 showed five elements selected from the pipeline cross section in case C.
They were respectively at 00 ,22.50 ,450 ,900 ,1800 angle around the cross-section.
Figure 5 showed that the upper pipeline (elements H3351, H3354, H3360 and H3357)
was compressed but the lower pipeline (elements H3570) was tensioned under the
explosive load. The maximum of all 5 peak values occurring at element H3351 was
535.3MPa, and the rest were 488.2MPa, 239.5MPa, 52.9MPa and -393.1MPa at
element H3354, element H3357, element H3360 and element H3570, respectively.
Therefore, the top of the pipeline was the most vulnerable, and upper part of the
pipeline cross-section with directions ranging from 0 to 45° was vulnerable area. In
addition, the peak pressures generally appeared in 0.5 ms, and the values decreased
with time.

Figure 4. Five different elements on pipeline cross section.

Figure 5. The pressure time curve of five different elements.

Earth and Space 2012

 Earth and Space 2012 © ASCE 2012 1165

Figure 6 showed four elements selected from the top line of the pipeline in case C.
They respectively at 0m, 0.5m, 1m, 1.5m, 2m from the center of the TNT charge in
horizontal direction.
Figure 7 displayed that the peak pressures of the elements horizontal distance from
the explosion with 0m, 0.5m, 1m, 1.5m and 2m were 535.3MPa, 521.7MPa,
496.1MPa, -317.3MPa and -329.1Mpa. Over a distance of 1m from the explosion, the
peak pressure dropped 50%. Therefore, the area horizontal away from the explosion
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

center 1m were the vulnerable areas.

Figure 8 showed that the peak pressure of the element became lower with the TNT
charge and the peak pressure became from positive to negative with the distance from
near to far place.

Figure 6. Five different elements on upper lining of the pipeline.

Figure 7. The pressure time curve of five different elements.

Earth and Space 2012

 Earth and Space 2012 © ASCE 2012 1166
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 8. The peak pressure along longitudinal direction in three cases

CONCLUSIONS

The explicit dynamic nonlinear finite element software ANSYS/LS-DYNA was used
to analysis the dynamic response of the pipeline in this paper. The numerical results
indicated that using numerical simulation method to study the explosion ground shock
effect on buried pipeline was feasible. The upper pipeline was compressed but the
lower pipeline was tensioned under the explosive load and the upper part of the
pipeline cross-section with directions ranging from 0 to 45° and horizontal distances 0
to 1m away from the explosive center was the vulnerable area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper is supported by the Opening Project of State Key Laboratory of Explosion
Science and Technology (Beijing Institute of Technology). The opening project
number is KFJJ10-14M.

REFERENCES

Dai, H. B. (2009). “Dynamic simulation of cylinder shell underwater Explosion

Load.” J. Computer Simulation, 26(5), 10-13.
Li, Z. X. (2006). “A review of current researches on blast load effects on building
structures in China.” J. Transactions of Tianjin University, 12 (Supp.), 35-41.
Ma, Z. X. (2005). “The management of long distance oil and gas pipeline risk.” J.
Oil And Gas Storage And Transportation, 24(2), 1-7.
O’Daniel, J. L. (1997). “Assessment of numerical simulation capabilities for
medium structure interaction systems under explosive loads.” J. Computers and
Structures, 63(5), 875-887.
Yao, A. L. (2009). “Numerical simulation of dynamic response of buried pipeline
by underground explosion.” Journal of Southwest Petroleum University (Science &
Technology Edition), 31(4), 168-172.

Earth and Space 2012