EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 618 (2025) E3S Web Conf., 618 (2025) 02014 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 618, 2025
6th International Symposium on Architecture Research Frontiers and Ecological Environment (ARFEE 2024)
Article Number 02014
Number of page(s) 6
Section Analysis of Construction Engineering and Material Characteristics
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202561802014
Published online 27 February 2025
  1. WL.Gao.Dynamic response of buried oil pipelines to blasting vibration[J]. Blasting Equipment,2021,50(1): 53-58 [Google Scholar]
  2. DW. Zhong. Experimental study on the dynamic response of buried PE pipeline under blasting load[J]. Blasting,2018,35(4): 1-5, 89 [Google Scholar]
  3. L. Zhao.Research on finite element modeling method for buried pipelines[J].Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2001(2): 53.57. [Google Scholar]
  4. HL.Cheng.Numerical analysis of stress waves in metallic pipelines under contact explosion loading [J].Engineering Blasting, 2010, 16(4): 26.29 [Google Scholar]
  5. RT.Run.Practical Discussion on Vibration Reduction Methods for Pile Blasting Construction of Bridges Adjacent to Buried Natural Gas Pipelines [J].Fujian Construction Technology, 2011, (1): 38.40 [Google Scholar]
  6. Provatidis, et al. Venetsanos, Demetrios T..Strength analysis of buried curved pipes due to blast explosions[J].Structures and Materials,2000,Vol.8: 3-12 [Google Scholar]
  7. Francini, et al. Blasting and construction vibrations near existing pipelines: what are the appropriate levels?[J].Journal of Pipeline Engineering,2009,Vol.8(4): 253-262 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hung, CF, et al. Dynamic response of cylindrical shell structures subjected to underwater explosion[J].Ocean Engineering,2009,Vol.36(8): 564-577 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. FF.Dong. Research on dynamic response of buried long-distance pipelines under impact load [J]. Petroleum Machinery, 2020, 48(1): 132-141 [Google Scholar]
  10. C.Su. Analysis of dynamic response of gas pipeline under excavation load impacts [J]. Industrial safety and environmental protection,2021,47(01):9-12+32. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brookerdc.Numerical modelling of pipeline puncture under excavator loading Part I Development and validation of a fi nite element material failure model for puncture simulation［J］. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  12. AL.Yao. Determination of Dynamic Loads on Buried Gas Pipelines under Excavation Tools Based on Tests and Numerical Simulations［J］. Vibration and Shock, 2014, 33 (17) : 39-46. [Google Scholar]
  13. TL.Xu. Experimental study and simulation analysis of dynamic excavation response of buried steel gas pipeline [J]. Vibration and Shock,2017,36(01):230-239.DOI:10.13465/j.cnki.jvs.2017.01.034. [Google Scholar]
  14. Domínguez C, et al. Strain hardening test on the limits of slow crack growthevaluation in high resistance polyethylene resins: Effect of comonomer type[J]. Polymer Testing, 2020, 81: 106155. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shishesaz M, et al. Applicability of medium density polyethylene gas pipes in hot climate areas of southwest iran[J]. Iranian Polymer Journal, 2008, 17(7): 503-517. [Google Scholar]
  16. ZZ. Gao et al. Creep life assessment craze damage evolution of polyethylene methacrylate[J]. Advances in Polymer Technology, 2018, 37(8): 3619-3628. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. HJ. Li. Study of crack extension behavior and life prediction of PE100 pipe [D].TianJing: Hebei University of Technology, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  18. YD.Qu. Dynamic Response Analysis of Buried Polyethylene Pipe under Explosive Loading [J]. Science, Technology and Engineering,2022,22(17):6812-6817 [Google Scholar]
  19. SX. Cha. Mechanical Characteristics and Damage Study of Buried Polyethylene Pipelines under Ground Settlement Effects [D]. SiChuan: Southwest Petroleum University,2019. [Google Scholar]
  20. S.N. Moghaddas Tafreshi, et al. Laboratory tests of small-diameter HDPE pipes buried in reinforced sand under repeated-load[J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2008, 26(2): 145-163. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. WX.Wang. Virtual Simulation Technology and Dynamic Response Analysis of PE Gas Pipelines under Vehicle Loads [J]. engineering mechanics,2020,37: 333-339 [Google Scholar]
  22. Won J H, et al. Blast-induced dynamic response on the interface of a multilayered pipeline[J]. structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2014, 10(1): 80-92. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Takada S, et al.Shell-model Response of Buried Pipelines to Large Fault Movements[J].Joural of Structural Engineering JSCE,1988,44(3):1637-1646. [Google Scholar]
  24. Esparza E D.Pipeline Response to Blasting in Rock[R].Pipeline Research Council International Catalog No. L51661e. September 1991. [Google Scholar]
  25. Newmark N M. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments[J]. Geotechnique, 1965, 15(2): 139-160. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Newmark N M, et al. Pipeline design to resist large fault displacement[C]//Proceedings of US national conference on earthquake engineering. 1975, 1975: 416-425. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.