Dynamic Response and Parameter Analysis of Buried Pipeline Induced by Blasting Seismic Wave

Wang Haitao School of Civil and Safety Engineering, Dalian Jiaotong University Dalian Liaoning 116028, China e-mail：[email protected]

Jin Hui

School of Civil and Safety Engineering, Dalian Jiaotong University Dalian Liaoning 116028, China

Wu Yuedong

School of Civil and Safety Engineering, Dalian Jiaotong University Dalian Liaoning 116028, China

Wang Kai

State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian Liaoning 116024，China)

ABSTRACT

In order to study the adverse effect of the drilling and blasting excavation of subway tunnel on the adjacent buried pipeline, the field blasting vibration test and numerical simulation was carried out based on the drilling and blasting construction of Dalian metro tunnel, and the attenuation law of blasting seismic wave and the blasting vibration response of buried pipeline was studied. A Sa Rodolfo J Ki prediction formula of particles vibration velocity to reflect the propagation characteristics of the blasting seismic wave caused by drilling and blasting excavation was established by using regression analysis method. The maximum explosive charge control equation was established based on the vibration velocity attenuation formula. By considering the influence factors of pipeline buried depth, pipeline corrosion degree and tunnel excavation method, the blasting vibration effect of buried pipeline caused by drilling and blasting excavation was revealed using numerical simulation method. The results show that the blasting response of deep buried pipeline is more intense than shallow buried pipeline; The maximum tensile strain of pipeline is increased nonlinearly due to the decrease of pipe stiffness caused by pipeline corrosion; The stress of surrounding rock caused by the full face excavation is larger than by the benching stepping method

KEYWORDS: drilling and blasting excavation; buried pipeline; field blasting test; numerical simulation;

- 10625 - Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10626

INTRODUCTION

The blasting seismic effect has been one of hot topics in the study of geotechnical field since the 1920s.The dynamic interaction between the underground structure and surrounding rock mass caused by explosive loading is the key issue in this field[1-8].At present, the main research methods are theoretical analysis, experimental research and numerical simulation. By using the principle of rock mass blasting mechanics, the theory of blasting shock wave propagation, the movement of rock mass and the deformation and failure of rock mass were systematically studied by Chen Shihai, Ozer and others[9,10];The blasting cavity-rock-underground structure dynamic interaction model was established by using LS-DYNA software based on the actual project , and then, the dynamic response of underground structure induced by blasting seismic load was analyzed by Du Yixin, Luo Kunsheng and others[11,12].Centrifugal model tests of underground structures such as pipelines, tunnels and other underground structures were carried out by Anirban and Zimmie[13]. Li youlv, Yao Anlin and others[14]using LS-DYNA software, based on a variety of working conditions of numerical simulation analysis, studied the dynamic response of buried pipeline. The relationship between the particle velocity and dynamic stress peak value, the explosive charge and the explosion center distance of the pipeline was analyzed. Liang Xiangqian and Xie Mingli[15] took the middle route of the South to North Water Diversion Project-Beijing Shijiazhuang section as an example, the propagation attenuation law of blasting seismic wave and the influence of blasting vibration on the safety of water supply pipeline was studied in combination with on-site blasting vibration test and construction monitoring. It can be seen from the above research that the research on the influence of tunnel blasting excavation on adjacent buried pipelines is still relatively few, and it is mainly aimed at field test and numerical simulation research of certain engineering conditions. The construction of tunnel between Qianshan Road Station and Songjiang Road Station in Dalian Subway Line 1 is excavated by drilling and blasting method. There are a lot of buildings and buried pipelines in this area. Therefore, in the early stage of the project construction, reasonable vibration safety control standards must be formulated, and optimized control blasting technology and effective safety monitoring methods should be adopted to ensure the smooth construction of the tunnel project and the safe operation of the pipeline around the tunnel.

DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF BURIED PIPELINES INDUCED BY BLASTING SEISMIC WAVES

The tunnel project starts at the Shandong Road and Qianshan Road interchange, along the Shandong Road, ends at Shandong Road and Songjiang road intersection. Interval mileage number is AK8+017.365 ~ AK8+902.360, 884.995 meters long[16]. The topography of the interval is moraine hills, the north and south sides are low, the middle is high, and the ground elevation is 37.70 ~ 48.65m. There are a lot of buildings and buried pipelines in this area. The buried depth of the tunnel is shallow, and the depth is about 8.0~15.0m, the seismic effect caused by blasting is easy to have adverse effect on the adjacent buried pipeline. Therefore, in order to minimize the

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10627 damage of buried pipeline induced by blasting vibration to the minimum, corresponding damping measures must be taken to strictly control the parameters of blasting seismic effect ,combined with the field blasting vibration monitoring and data analysis

Monitoring scheme of blasting vibration

The blasting monitoring mainly includes the vibration frequency, vibration velocity and duration of blasting. TC-4850 blasting vibration meter as monitoring equipment shown in Figure 1.The gas pipeline with the depth of 1.5m was selected as the monitoring pipeline, and the sensor was arranged in the surface soil (monitoring point) above the gas pipeline axis To analyze the decay law of ground vibration velocity, it is required to collect the vibration velocity of each particle in different blasting center in the same blasting. Ensure the same explosive charge and blasting methods, the blasting distance and ground vibration velocity are analyzed. Monitoring scheme shown in Figure 2.Where H is the distance from the explosion center to the ground (m), and L is the horizontal distance between the measuring point and the explosive center (m), and R is the distance from the explosion center(m).

Figure 1: TC-4850 Blasting vibration monitoring meter

Figure 2: Schematic of blasting vibration monitoring

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10628

Establishment of Numerical Analysis Model (1)Material parameters The geological data provided by the Dalian Metro Line 1and combined with relevant engineering experience, the mechanical parameters of each soil layer are determined as shown in Table 1. According to the buried time and initial mechanical parameters of the buried pipeline, the mechanical parameters of the pipeline are determined in Table 2. The model of the overlying soil and surrounding rock uses the Mohr-coulomb ideal elastic plastic model. and analysis using FLAC3D[17]. (2) Calculation model and load The length of the model is 36m in the X direction, 20m in the Y direction, 42.3m in the Z direction, The model is shown in Fig. 3.A total of 6280 hexahedral solid elements and 7392 nodes. The load produced by blasting is reduced to the form of triangular load wave. Load to peak time is 100μs, the unloading time is 600μs, and load in the form shown in Figure 4. Table1: Mechanical parameters of rock soil body

Parameter Bulk modulus Shear modulus Cohesion Internal friction angle Density（ Material (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (°) kg/m³） Overburden 1900 4 2.5 0.037 18 Surrounding rock 2200 6.5 2.7 0.08 30 Table 2: Mechanical parameters of pipelines

Parameter Bulk density Elastic modulus Tangent modulus Yield stress Poisson's ratio Material ( kN /m3) （GPa） (GPa) （MPa）

Buried steel pipe 7800 0.3 195 12.5 420

Figure 3: Excavation model of pipeline buried under 1.5m

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10629

Figure 4: Blasting load curve

(3) Selection of Dynamic Boundary Conditions and Related Parameters In FLAC3D analysis software, the free-field boundary conditions can be simulated by generating a one-dimensional and two-dimensional grid around the model. The free-field grids are coupled with the dampers to achieve the side boundaries of the main grid and the unbalanced force of the free field grid is applied to the grid boundary. The free field boundary provides the same effect as the infinite field causes the upward surface wave is not distorted in the boundary mainly. Free field boundary is used to simulate the dynamic calculation. Mechanical damping must be considered in dynamic calculation in order to simulate the damping of natural systems under dynamic loads. The damping is mainly caused by the sliding and friction of the internal contact surface of the material. Rayleigh damping method is used in this calculation. The natural frequencies of the model can be obtained by calculating the natural vibration without damping in the FLAC3D software. By comparing the different frequency values, it can be concluded that the natural frequency of the model is 6.11Hz.

Comparison and analysis of the results of field monitoring and

numerical simulation (1) Analysis of velocity of ground particle In the numerical results, it is important to study the vertical vibration velocity of the earth's surface, and the measured results are compared with the numerical simulation results. the measured results of the vertical vibration velocity of ground particles in AK8+626 section is shown in Fig. 5 , the numerical simulation results for the corresponding particle is shown in Fig. 6.

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10630

Figure 5: Measured surface particle vertical velocity

Figure 6: Vertical surface particle velocity simulation It can be seen from Fig.5 and Fig.6 that the maximum particle velocity is almost the same as the numerical simulation result, and the simulation value of vibration velocity of surface particle is larger than the measured value. The maximum particle velocity obtained from the field test is 1.84cm/s,and the maximum particle velocity obtained from numerical simulation is 2.22m/s. In addition, The attenuation of each segment in millisecond blasting can be clearly seen in the waveform of measured blasting seismic wave, while the velocity waveform of blasting seismic wave obtained by numerical simulation can only see the attenuation trend after small fluctuation of vibration velocity. The possible reason is that it is only the result of a section burst simulation in the millisecond blasting. In order to master the characteristics of blasting seismic wave during tunneling and blasting construction, the vibration velocity monitoring data of surface particle are collected and analyzed, and the mathematical expression of blasting seismic wave propagation at surface is established finally by using the regression analysis method of mathematical statistics. The vibration velocity data of 10 groups of particles collected during blasting vibration monitoring are shown in Table 3. At present, we generally use the classical empirical formula of Sa Rodolfo J Ki to study the effect of blasting vibration and the prediction of particle velocity. According to Safety regulations for blasting (GB6722-2014) [18], the particle vibration velocity can be calculated by the formula (1).

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10631

3 Q α VK= () (1) R

From formula (1): In the case of known K and α ，the main influence factor of blasting vibration velocity is the maximum explosive charge Q, and in the same geotechnical conditions, the K and α can be obtained through regression analysis of a large number of monitoring results. Therefore, the formula (1) is obtained after conversion:

3 Q lgVK= lg +α lg( ) (2) R

Table 3: Blasting vibration velocity monitoring data maximum single Horizontal Elevation Particle vibration velocity (cm/s ) Measuring point explosive charge. distance difference number along X axis along Y axis along Z axis (kg) L(m) H(m) 1 3.6 9.6 10.8 0.940 -1.062 -1.913 2 3.6 8.4 11.0 -0.445 0.647 1.954 3 3.2 9.0 11.0 0.330 0.007 1.832 4 3.2 6.6 11.7 0.742 -0.625 -2.017 5 3.0 11.0 10.0 1.107 -1.066 1.719 6 3.0 7.5 11.3 -0.603 -0.664 1.953 7 3.0 6.2 11.7 -0.563 0.010 1.758 8 2.6 7.0 11.3 -0.558 0.007 -1.895 9 2.6 5.8 11.7 0.444 0.520 -1.652 10 2.4 8.0 11.0 -0.397 0.007 -1.486

That is the form of y= ax + b , by a linear regression can be known:

n ∑(xii−− xy )( y ) i=1 lxy a = n , b= y − kx , Correlation coefficient r = ; 2 llxx yy ∑()xxi − i=1

n n n 22 22 among them, lxy=∑ x i y i − nx y , lxx=∑ x i − nx , lyy=∑ y i − ny i=1 i=1 i=1

The data in Table 2 can be solved by substituting the above equation. Regression analysis is used by MATLAB to calculate the data from table 2. The relationship between seismic wave propagation and attenuation characteristics of tunnel excavation blasting is obtained (3):

3 Q V = 47.3953( )1.4502 , r = 0.8603 (3) R

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10632

Although there is a certain randomness, it can be seen From (3) that the seismic wave generated by this interval tunnel blasting can be described with high precision by the Sa Rodolfo J Ki formula, which is more consistent with the propagation characteristics of blasting seismic waves in this area. During the construction of the tunnel in the future, the blasting scheme design can refer to the "Sa Rodolfo J Ki formula" to continuously improve and adjust the blasting parameters, in order to better guide the drilling and blasting construction (2)Analysis of attenuation law of blasting seismic wave The blasting vibration wave velocity at different locations on the surface of the blasting can be analyzed, and the propagation characteristics and attenuation rules of blasting seismic waves at the surface can be analyzed. The vibration velocity of the surface particles can be regarded as the vibration velocity of different particles in the same blasting when the maximal single dose is 3.0kg, and the attenuation law of the surface particle velocity in front of excavation face can be analyzed. The numerical simulation results show that the peak velocity of the surface particle in front of the excavation face changes with the change of the distance from the explosion center, and the comparison results between numerical simulation and field measurement are shown in Figure 7. It can be seen from Figure 7 that the numerical simulation results are close to the field test results. The vertical vibration velocity of the surface is gradually decreased with the increase of the distance from the explosion center. Near the explosion center, the surface vibration velocity attenuation is relatively fast, and with the distance from the explosion center is far away, the surface vibration velocity attenuation gradually slow. (3) Maximum explosive charge control In the millisecond blasting, the peak vibration velocity of blasting vibration is closely related to the single maximum explosive charge. In all the measures to reduce the intensity of blasting vibration, it is the most effective means to reduce the maximum single-ring explosive charge. From the formula (3) can be seen, the determination the distance from the explosion center, and the condition of the same geological condition and the rock property, the vibration velocity of blasting is mainly depends on the maximum explosive charge, which is:

[v] 3 QR= 3 ()a （4） max k

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10633

Figure 7: Vertical surface particle velocity trends with the explosive center distance

In the formula, [v] is the maximum allowable vibration velocity for the building, and unit is cm/s; other symbols with the former meaning. According to the national standard Safety regulations for blasting (GB6722-2014) [18] in all kinds of buildings and structures to allow the safety vibration velocity, according to its material and use of the underground pipeline to take 2 to 3 cm/s. Considering that the pipeline is complex and affected by the factors such as corrosion and aging, and the mechanical properties are deteriorated, so we select [v] =2.5cm/s as the control reference, The maximum safe explosive charge of the adjacent pipeline can be inferred:

[v] 332.5 QR= 3( )a = R3 ( )1.4502 =2.27× 10−33R （5） max k 47.3983

In the construction process of drilling and blasting, the maximum single explosive charge at different distances is shown in Figure 8. In the subway tunnel construction by drilling and blasting method, the will be protected pipe’s distance from the explosion center are calculated formula, the construction of the maximum single explosive charge can be obtained. So it can ensure the safety of the pipeline. (4) Analysis of the dynamic response of the pipeline The drilling and blasting excavation of AK8+626 section of subway tunnel is simulated by FLAC3D. The pipeline above the AK8 + 626 section and the AK8 + 636 section are selected for blasting vibration monitoring. The distribution of monitoring points of blasting vibration velocity in pipeline is shown in Figure 9. The peak value of vibration velocity and peak value of dynamic stress in all directions of the pipe cross-section point were recorded form eight points observed, and the peak value of peak velocity and dynamic stress were showed in table4- table7.

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10634

Figure 8: Maximum single - shot charge control curv

Figure 9: Distribution diagram of monitoring points

It can be found from table 4- table 7 that: (1)The peak velocity and peak dynamic stress of the explosion-induced side of the pipeline are generally much larger than those of the corresponding points of the back, but the difference between the peak value of the left and the right sides of the pipe is small. (2)The peak value of vibration velocity and peak dynamic stress at the top of the AK8+626 section is larger than that of the AK8+636 section, which is due to the AK8+636 section far distance from the explosion center. By the analysis of the surface attenuation law of blasting seismic wave, it can be known that the vibration velocity of the surface decreases with the increase of the distance from the explosion center, the vibration velocity of the ground surface is relatively fast near the center, the attenuation of ground vibration velocity gradually becomes slower in the distance from the explosion center.

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10635

(3)In the same cross section, X, Y direction of the peak of the vibration velocity and the dynamic stress is much smaller than the Z direction, therefore, Z direction should be used as the main criterion for judging the vibration velocity Table 4: Peak vibrating velocity of monitoring points in section AK8+626 Point number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X 0.55 0.70 0.82 1.18 1.35 1.30 1.19 0.76 Peak velocity Y 0.49 0.72 0.84 1.08 1.26 1.02 0.97 0.81 （cm/s） Z 0.98 1.23 1.6 1.98 2.25 1.90 1.3 1.13

Table 5: Peak vibrating velocity of monitoring points in section AK8+636 Point number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X 0.15 0.32 0.50 0.69 1.05 0.70 0.43 0.22 Peak velocity Y 0.09 0.29 0.53 0.78 1.06 0.73 0.47 0.19 （cm/s） Z 0.38 0.71 1.08 1.38 1.73 1.30 0.83 0.43

Table 6: Dynamic stress peak of monitoring points in section AK8+626 Point number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Peak velocity（MPa） 60.1 76.8 98.4 109.5 123.4 113.9 95.4 60.9

Table 7: Dynamic stress peak of monitoring points in section AK8+636 Point number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Peak velocity（MPa） 39.6 52.9 70.2 94.6 108.5 98.6 73.1 50.3

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF BURIED PIPELINE INDUCED BY BLASTING SEISMIC WAVE

Influence of pipeline depth

The blasting vibration monitoring point is selected on the front side of pipeline(Point 5 in Fig. 9). Time history curve of blasting vibration velocity of different pipeline buried depth in Z direction is obtained as shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. It can be seen from the blasting vibration velocity time-history curve of the pipeline shown in Fig. 10 and Fig: When the depth is 6.0m, the response amplitude and vibration velocity of the soil layer are bigger than the depth of 1.5m.Therefore, it is suggested to strengthen the monitoring of the pipeline in the near-distance tunnel blasting to prevent the pipeline from being damaged by excessive vibration. The vibration response of the pipeline did not stabilize within 0.15 seconds, This is mainly because the pipeline and the tunnel is closer ,the result of the reflection of the pipe to the detonation wave

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10636

Influence of corrosion degree

Figure 10: The curve of blasting vibration velocity with pipeline buried depth of 1.5m

Figure 11: The curve of blasting vibration velocity with pipeline buried depth of 6.0m

Considering the history, application and different wet and dry conditions of pipelines in practical construction, the vibration response of the pipelines at different corrosion conditions (10%, 20%, 30%) was simulated by setting different pipeline stiffness. The peak value of the vibration velocity of the pipeline is 2.16 cm/s、2.25 cm/s、2.27 cm/s and the peak value of the pipeline strain is 36.9µε、39.6µε、42.2µε by taking the bottom node of the pipeline as the observation point. The results show that the maximum tensile strain of the buried pipeline increases nonlinearly and the increasing rate decreases as the pipeline stiffness decreases due to pipeline corrosion; The peak velocity of the pipeline becomes larger with the increase of the corrosion degree of the pipeline. Therefore, in order to do a good job of protecting the pipeline the corrosion degree of the pipeline must be carefully investigated and analyzed during the drilling and blasting construction.

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10637

Influence of excavation conditions

The influence of blasting load on surrounding rock and pipeline is simulated by the method of full face excavation, benching stepping method and circular excavation reserved core soil. The distribution of blasting stress in the surrounding rock during the excavation of the full face excavation and the up and down steps are showed in Figure 12 and Figure 13 .

Figure 12: Maximum blasting stress of surrounding rock under full face excavation

Figure 13: Maximum blasting stress of surrounding under down step excavation From the numerical simulation results: The stress of the surrounding rock mass around the tunnel is redistributed by the blasting load, and the maximum stress of the surrounding rock is located at the blasting load. The effect of blasting load is relatively small in the distance. In the

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10638

absence of blasting load, the tunnel side wall and floor are a certain degree of tensile stress concentration; After the blasting load is applied, the tensile stress is concentrated on the blasting surface, and the blasting tensile stress and the tensile stress concentration range are obviously increased in the area; The blasting vibration response of rock and soil mass is different in different tunnel excavation method. The result shows that the magnitude of the stress response of rock and soil in full face excavation method is larger than up and down steps method, Therefore, according to the scene of the surrounding rock to select the appropriate construction excavation method in the tunnel blasting excavation.

CONCLUSION

(1)With the increase of the distance from the explosion center, the blasting seismic wave gradually decays; The blasting seismic wave decays rapidly when the explosion center distance is small, with the increase of explosion center distance, the decay rate of blasting seismic wave is slower; The maximum vibration velocity of ground particles is also exponentially decay with the increase of the distance, and the vertical vibration velocity is larger than the horizontal velocity. (2)Analysis of the dynamic response of the pipeline can be seen that the peak velocity and peak dynamic stress of the explosion-induced side of the pipeline are generally much larger than those of the corresponding points of the back, but the difference between the peak value of the left and the right sides of the pipe is small, and the peak of the vibration velocity and the dynamic stress of X direction and Y direction are much smaller than the Z direction’s. Therefore, the vibration velocity of Z direction should be used as the main criterion for judging. (3)According to the data of blasting monitoring, the Sa Rodolfo J Ki prediction formula of the vibration velocity of the particle vibration of the subway tunnel in Dalian was established by regression analysis. The blasting parameters can be improved and adjusted constantly by referring to the formula of Sa Rodolfo J Ki and field blasting monitoring data during the process of drilling and blasting to guide the subsequent construction of the subway tunnel. (4) The maximum tensile strain of the buried pipeline increases nonlinearly and the increasing rate decreases as the pipeline stiffness decreases due to pipeline corrosion. The stress response of the surrounding rock of full-face excavation is larger than of the benching stepping method. Therefore, pipeline protection measures should be well done in advance based on careful investigation and analysis of pipeline corrosion and pipeline depth, and then, according to the scene of the surrounding rock to select the appropriate construction excavation method.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (51208073),Program for Liaoning Excellent Talents in University (Grant No. LJQ2014049), Liaoning BaiQianWan Talents Program candidate selection projects funded(2014921061) and

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10639

Dalian Innovation Supporting Plan for Advanced Talents (2015R073). Their supports are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

[1] VR Feldgun，YS Karinski，DZ Yankelevsky. The effect of an explosion in a tunnel on a neighboring buried structure[J]. Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology, 2014, 44(3):42-55 [2] GR Tripathy，RR Shirke，M.D. Kudale. Safety of engineered structures against blast vibrations: A case study[J]. Journal of Rock Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering, 2016, 8(2):248-255 [3] J Lai，H Fan，J Chen，J Qiu，K Wang. Blasting vibration monitoring of undercrossing railway tunnel using wireless sensor network[J]. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2015, 2015(2):1-7 [4] Edy Tonnizam Mohamad and Seyed Vahid Alavi Nezhad Khaili Abad. Assessment on Blasting–Induced Rock Slope Instability at Johor, Malaysia[J] Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2011(16D): 357-734. [5] Z Hao，Y E-Chuan. The surrounding rock deformation and failure mechanism of wudang group schists tunnel[J]. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2015, 20(15): 6557-6576 [6] C Peng，Z Zhang，D Ji，Z Yan. Stability analysis of open-pit slope under explosive loads[J]. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2014, 19:2821-2827 [7] Z Leng，W Lu，M Chen etc. Explosion energy transmission under side initiation and its effect on rock fragmentation[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 2016, 86(2):245-254 [8] Qian Qihu, Chen Shihai. The blasting vibration effect[J]. Blasting, 2004, 21 (2): 1-5.(in Chinese) [9] Chen Shihai, Wang Mingyang, Qian Qihu. Study on distinction of blasting crack zones and time course of stress in rocks[J]. Explosive Materials, 2004, 33 (3): 33-36 (in Chinese) [10] Ozer U. Environmental impacts of ground vibration induced by blasting at different rock units on the Kadikoy-Kartal metro tunnel[J]. Engineering Geology, 2008, 100(1): 82-90. [11] Du Yixin, Liu Jingbo, Wu Jun, et al. Blast shock and vibration of underground structures with conventional weapon[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University (science and technology), 2006, 1 (6): 1-6.(in Chinese) [12] Luo Kunsheng, Wang Yong, Zhao Yuetang, et al. Numerical simulation of section subway tunnel under surface explosion[J]. Journal of PLA University of Science and Technology (natural science edition), 2007, 8 (6): 674-679. (in Chinese) [13] Anirban D, Zimmie T F. Centrifuge modeling of surface blast effects on underground structures[J]. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 2007, 30(5): 428~431.

Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 27 10640

[14] Li Youlu, Yao Anlin, Zhao Shiping, et al. Analysis on dynamic response and extreme loads of buried gas pipeline under blast loading[J]. Welded pipe and tube, 2009,32 (11): 63-68. (in Chinese) [15] Liang Xiangqian, Xie Mingli, Feng Qi, et al. safety testing and monitoring of blasting vibration on underground pipeline[J]. Engineering Blasting, 2009, 15 (4): 66-68. (in Chinese) [16] Wang Kai. Influence of Blasting Excavation on Nearby Corroded Pipeline and Risk Assessment in Coastal Areas[D]. Dalian: Dalian University of Technology, 2013. (in Chinese) [17] Liu Bo, Han Yanhui. FLAC principles, examples and Application guide [M]. Beijing: China Communication Press,2005. (in Chinese) [18] The national standard of the People's Republic of China. Safety regulations for blasting (GB6722-2014)[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China 2015

© 2016 ejge

Editor’s note. This paper may be referred to, in other articles, as: Wang Haitao, Jin Hui, Wu Yuedong, and Wang Kai: “Dynamic Response and Parameter Analysis of Buried Pipeline Induced by Blasting Seismic Wave” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016 (21.26), pp 10625-10640. Available at ejge.com.