Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

The application of CFRP to strengthen buried steel pipelines against

subsurface explosion
M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia n
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Multiple explosions in the route of oil and gas transmission pipelines during recent years demonstrate
Received 14 September 2015 that terrorist attacks and sabotages have unfortunately increased. The present investigation is carried out
Received in revised form numerically in order to minimize the amount of damages imposed on steel pipelines under close-in
22 March 2016
explosions. This research presents a novel concept, using CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer) to
Accepted 17 April 2016
Available online 7 May 2016
strengthen the wall of steel pipelines against these incidents. For this purpose, a full coupled 3D finite
element model developed using a combined Eulerian-Lagrangian method. The simplified Johnson-Cook
Keywords: material model, the JWL equation of state, and the ideal gas equation of state were employed for
CFRP-strengthened pipeline modeling the pipe material behavior, charge detonation, and air, respectively. Mechanical behavior of the
Detonation
composite wrap was simulated using an anisotropic material model and the damage initiation criteria
Operating pressure
were based on Hashin's theory. In addition, soil mass behavior was modeled applying a Drucker-Prager
Diameter-to-thickness ratio
CEL method strength criterion with piecewise hardening and hydro tensile limit accompanied by Mie-Grüneisen
equation of state. Several comparisons carried out between the results from present investigation and
those from field and empirical studies and good agreements were observed. The results show that using
a proper thickness of CFRP wrap for every particular circumstance can significantly improve the per-
formance of steel pipelines under blast loads. For instance, in the current example, maximum equivalent
strains developed in the most of the studied pipelines decreased by over 30% (up to 64%) with the
application of 4-mm-thickness CFRP wrap. The present study contributes to protective design of steel
pipelines.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Buried pipelines are among the most important elements of
lifelines used for distribution of water, gas, oil, etc. Buried pres-
surized gas pipelines are likely to be endangered by accidental
explosions in process industries, explosives factories, open pit
mines, quarries, public works or even intentional explosions near a
pipeline (sabotage or terrorist attack) [1]. Multiple explosions,
during recent years, in the route of oil and gas transmission pi-
pelines demonstrate that terrorist attacks have unfortunately in-
creased. These events have caused the blast loads and the design
and analysis of buried structures under destructive dynamic loads
to be particularly attended in recent years. Given that many phe-
nomena such as explosion, energy transfer to the soil and air, soil
pipeline interaction and response of the pipeline participate in the
final output, risk estimation is very complicated [1]. Numerical
methods should be generally applied to solve such a complex
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alavi495@basu.ac.ir (A. Alavi Nia).
problem. The most frequently applied methods are the finite ele-
ment method (FEM), the finite-difference method (FDM) or their
combination [2–4]. Coupled and uncoupled methods [5] have re-
cently been used in numerical studies [3,6–13] to investigate the
response of buried structures to blast loads.
Using experiences of past pipeline damage types induced by
explosion and performing related studies, the structural response
of buried pipelines to explosive loading can be identified. After
that, a better understanding of pipeline behavior under explosive
loading helps to investigate effective parameters in securing pi-
pelines against possible hazards and introduce safeguarding
methods. One of the specific measures of reducing pipeline sus-
ceptibility against explosions is wall reinforcement. For this pur-
pose, using FRP wraps can be a competent method for buried steel
pipeline strengthening. Advantages of this type of strengthening
include high strength to weight ratio, easy application, and cor-
rosion resistance. One of the notable advantages of this method is
the feasibility of reinforcing operating pipelines under the risk of
terrorist attacks or industrial explosions, without taking it out of
service or pipeline replacement. This strengthening technique is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.04.009
0267-7261/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62 53

quick and generally less costly than other options [14–17]. Table 1
The more recent application of FRP layers is the combination of Material constants of the simplified
Johnson-Cook model for X65 steel
fiber reinforced composite and metal plate to resist impulsive
[25].
loads [18–20]. Bambach et al. [20], employed static and impulsive
experiments on CFRP-strengthened aluminum beams to demon- Material properties API X65 steel
strate that significant strengthening potential is achievable by
bonding of carbon fibers to plastically deforming metal structures. E (GPa) 210
A (MPa) 500
In addition, they represented that this method of strengthening B (MPa) 857
can increase the energy absorption capability of metal structures. n 0.34257
In addition, Malachowski et al. [21], studied blast wave effects on C 0.032604
structural elements and concluded that the application of struc- ε̇0(s−1) 1
tural protective layers made of elastomeric and composite mate-
rials significantly reduces the blast wave.
In a most recent investigation [22], the present authors have n
σy = (A + Bε¯ P )(1 + C ln ε*̇ ) (1)
studied the concept of using CFRP wraps to strengthen buried steel
pipelines under permanent ground deformations. The research where A, B, C, and n are material constants; ε̄ P is the equivalent
demonstrated that applying CFRP wraps on the steel pipelines plastic strain; ε*̇ = ε¯ Ṗ /ε0̇ is the dimensionless plastic strain rate;
could significantly protect them against quasi-static complex and ε̇0 is the reference strain rate. Material constants of the sim-
combined loadings induced by permanent ground deformations. plified Johnson-Cook material model for X65 steel are given in
Current research is unprecedentedly carried out to examine the Table 1.
feasibility of extending this strengthening method to protect
buried pipelines against impact loadings, in particular close-in 2.1.2. Mechanical behavior modeling of composite wrap
high-rate explosive loading. In this way, CFRP wraps are applied on Composite wraps are assumed to be carbon/epoxy (AS4/3501–
API 5L grade X65 steel pipes, extensively used in buried oil and gas 6). The most important point which should be considered in the
steel pipelines. Then, their structural performances are compared selection of composite wrap for strengthening of steel pipelines
with non-wrapped pipes. Furthermore, the effect of composite under such explosive loadings is the ratio of absorbed energy to
wrap thickness on the mechanical behavior of buried steel pipe- deformation of the composite wrap not just its ability in energy
lines with various diameter-to-thickness ratios both with and
absorption. Although other composite wraps with higher failure
without internal pressure is studied. On the other hand, literature
strain and lower elastic modulus (like GFRP wraps) can absorb
on the response of buried pipelines to close-in blast loads are
more energy before their failure point than CFRP wraps, they
scarce. Hence, the effects of operating pressure and diameter-to-
undergo a notable deformation compared to CFRP wraps. This
thickness ratio on the response of buried X65 steel pipeline to
higher deformation in GFRP wraps causes to almost the same high
close-in explosive loading were studied by the present authors
deformations and consequently high plastic strains in pipelines
[23]. The current model is an extension of the one presented in
strengthened with GFRP wraps, not desirable. Based on the fore-
[23].
going argument and the results of Bambach et al. [20], applying
CFRP wrap in the current study has been premeditated not ran-
2. Numerical modeling dom in order to protect steel pipelines with the least deformation
after high-rate close-in explosions.
In this research, the effect of using FRP wraps on the perfor- An anisotropic material model was used for simulating me-
mance of buried steel pipeline subjected to explosive loading is chanical behavior of the composite wrap. The damage initiation
studied numerically using nonlinear finite element code ABAQUS. criteria employed for fiber- reinforced composites are based on
A full coupled method is employed to solve the problem in the Hashin's theory [29,30]. These criteria consider four different da-
present study. A combined Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL) method [24] mage initiation mechanisms: fiber tension, fiber compression,
is adopted to develop a 3D finite element model. Therefore, the matrix tension, and matrix compression. The initiation criteria for
current model allows for the incorporation of the essential pro-
t
fiber tension ( F tf ), fiber compression ( F cf ), matrix tension ( Fm ) and
c
cesses, namely the explosion, shock wave propagation, shock matrix compression ( Fm ) have the following general forms [31]:
wave-structure interaction, and structural response in the same
model. ⎛ σ^ ⎞2 ⎛ τ^ ⎞2
F tf = ⎜ 11 ⎟ + α⎜ 12L ⎟ , σ^11 ≥ 0
A summary description of developing the current finite ele- ⎝ X ⎠
T
⎝ S ⎠ (2)
ment model is presented in this section.

2.1. Material models ⎛ σ^ ⎞2

F cf = ⎜ 11 ⎟ , σ^11 < 0
Several nonlinear material models and equations of state are ⎝ XC ⎠ (3)
applied for modeling the behavior of materials involved in the
problem, namely the API X65 steel, CFRP wrap, soil mass, the ex-
plosive charge and the air. t
⎛ σ^ ⎞2 ⎛ τ^ ⎞2
Fm = ⎜ 22 ⎟ + ⎜ 12L ⎟ , σ^22 ≥ 0
⎝ YT ⎠ ⎝ S ⎠ (4)
2.1.1. Material model for X65 steel
Since explosive loading induces a high strain rate in the pipe's
wall, using a material model considering strain rate is required. For
⎛ σ^ ⎞2 ⎡ ⎛ Y C ⎞ ⎤^
2
σ ⎛ τ^ ⎞2
this purpose, the simplified Johnson-Cook material model was Fmc = ⎜ 22T ⎟ + ⎢ ⎜ T ⎟ − 1⎥ 22 + ⎜ 12L ⎟ , σ^22 < 0
used to define the behavior of the pipeline material. The model ⎝ 2S ⎠ ⎢ ⎝ 2S ⎠ ⎥YC ⎝ S ⎠
⎣ ⎦ (5)
considers the effect of strain hardening and strain rate on the flow
T C T C L T
stress (sy) of the material as follows [25–28]: where X , X , Y , Y , S , and S are longitudinal tensile strength,
54 M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62

longitudinal compressive strength, transverse tensile strength, Table 2

transverse compressive strength, longitudinal shear strength, and Material properties of AS4/3501-6 [32].

transverse shear strength, respectively. In addition, α is a coeffi- Material properties Value

cient that determines the contribution of the shear stress to the
fiber tensile initiation criterion; and σ^11, σ^22, and τ^12 are compo- Longitudinal modulus, E11 (GPa) 138
Transverse modulus, E22 ¼E33 (GPa) 9
nents of the effective stress tensor, σ^ , used to evaluate the initia-
Shear modulus, E12 ¼ E13 (GPa) 5.7
tion criteria. It is computed as follows [31]: Shear modulus, E23 3
Poisson's ratio, ν12 ¼ν 13 0.3
σ^ = Mσ (6) Poisson's ratio, ν23 0.42
Longitudinal tensile strength, XT (MPa) 2004
where s is the true stress and M is the damage operator: Longitudinal compression strength, XC (MPa) 1197
Transverse tensile strength, YT ¼ ZT (MPa) 53
⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢ 0 0 ⎥ Transverse compression strength, YC ¼ZC (MPa) 204
⎢ (1 − df ) ⎥ Longitudinal shear strength, SL (MPa) 137
⎢ ⎥ Transverse shear strength, ST (MPa) 42
1
M=⎢ 0 0 ⎥ Fiber volume 62%
⎢ (1 − dm) ⎥
⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥ ⎛ Γ η⎞
⎣ (1 − ds ) ⎦ (7) p = Γρ(Em − EH ) + pH = pH ⎜ 1 − 0 ⎟ + Γ0ρ0 Em
⎝ 2 ⎠ (11)
where df, dm, and ds are internal (damage) variables that char-
where Γ = Γ0ρ0 /ρ is the Grüneisen ratio; ρ is the current density;
acterize fiber, matrix, and shear damage, which are derived from
c Em is internal energy per unit mass; pH and EH = pH η/2ρ0 are the
damage variables dtf , dcf , dm
t
, and dm corresponding to the four
Hugoniot pressure and specific energy, respectively; Γ0 is a ma-
modes previously discussed, as follows:
terial constant and ρ0 is the reference density; η = 1 − ρ0 /ρ is the
⎧ t
⎪ d f if σ^11 ≥ 0 nominal volumetric compressive strain. Following is a common fit
df =⎨ c to the Hugoniot data:
⎪
⎩ d f if σ^11 < 0 (8)
ρ0 c02η
pH =
⎧
⎪d
t ^ (1 − sη)2 (12)
m if σ22 ≥ 0
dm =⎨
⎪ c
⎩ dm if σ^22 < 0 (9) where c0 is the initial sound speed and s is the coefficients of the
slope of the us-up curve. The relationship between shock wave
ds = 1 − (1 − dtf )(1 − d cf )(1 − dm
t
)(1 − dmc) velocity (us) and particle velocity (up) is defined as:
(10)
us = c0 + sup (13)
Prior to any damage initiation and evolution the damage op-
erator, M, is equal to the identity matrix, so σ^ = σ . Once damage With the above assumptions, the linear us-up Hugoniot form is
initiation and evolution has occurred for at least one mode, the written as:
damage operator becomes significant in the criteria for damage
ρ0 c02η ⎛ Γ η⎞
initiation of other modes. The effective stress, σ^ , is intended to p= ⎜1 − 0 ⎟ + Γ ρ E
(1 − sη)2 ⎝ 2 ⎠
0 0 m
represent the stress acting over the damaged area that effectively (14)
resists the internal forces. The initiation criteria presented above where ρ0 c02 equals the elastic bulk modulus at small nominal
can be specialized to obtain the model proposed in Hashin and strains [31]. A summary of properties for the brown clayey soil is
Rotem [29] by setting α ¼0 and ST = YT /2 or the model proposed in given in Table 3 acquired from triaxial tests by Ambrosini et al.
Hashin [30] by setting α ¼ 1. An output variable is associated with [35] and used for modeling the behavior of the same type of soil by
each initiation criterion (fiber tension, fiber compression, matrix Luccioni et al. [36].
tension and matrix compression) to indicate whether the criterion
has been met. A value of 1.0 or higher indicates that the initiation 2.1.4. Modeling of charge detonation and air
criterion has been met [31]. The Jones-Wilkens-Lee (JWL) equation of state [37], was used
A short parametric study in the current research demonstrates
that the best direction for fibers is along the circumferential di- Table 3
rection of the pipe (transverse direction of the pipeline). Hence, Properties for the soil model [35,36].

the direction of fiber is so in all simulations. Mechanical properties Mie-Grüneisen equation of state
of composite wraps used in the current study are listed in Table 2.
Grüneisen Gamma, Γ ¼ 0.11
2.1.3. Mechanical behavior modeling of soil mass co ¼ 1614 m/s
s ¼1.5
The soil type used in the simulation is clayey soil and a
Drucker-Prager strength criterion [33] with piecewise hardening
Material properties
and hydro tensile limit, equal to 100 kPa, is used for simulating the
Shear modulus, G ¼ 240 MPa
behavior of soil in this research. Due to the volume change of soil Density, ρ ¼2200 Kg/m3
induced by shock waves, an equation of state defining the re- Friction angle, β ¼24°
lationship between pressure and volume is required. Mie-Grü- Hydro tensile limit, pmin ¼  100 KPa

neisen equation of state [34] which is based on a cubic shock ve-

locity versus particle velocity is employed. It defines the re- Pressure 1 ¼  1.149  103 KPa Yield stress 1¼ 0 KPa
Pressure 2 ¼6.88  103 KPa Yield stress 2¼ 6.2  103 KPa
lationship between pressure and volume of the compressed ma-
Pressure 3 ¼1.0  1010 KPa Yield stress 3¼ 6.2  103 KPa
terial as below [31]:
 M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62 55

Table 4
JWL parameters for TNT charge [38].

Parameter Value

Detonation wave speed, Cd (m/s) 6930 Air

C1 (GPa) 373.8
C2 (GPa) 3.747
R1 4.15
R2 0.9
ω 0.35
Initial density, ρ0 (Kg/m3) 1630
Initial energy per unit volume, e0 (KJ/m3) 6.0e6

for modeling explosive charge, describes the pressure generated

by the expansion of the detonation products of the chemical ex-

14 m
plosive. It is written as [38]:
⎛ ω ⎞ ⎛ ω ⎞ ω
P = C1⎜ 1 − ⎟exp(−R1v) + C2⎜ 1 − ⎟exp(−R2v) + e
⎝ R1v ⎠ ⎝ R2v ⎠ v (15)

where ν and e are the specific volume and the specific energy,

98 cm
respectively. The values of constants C1, C2, R1, R2, and ω for many
common explosives have been determined from dynamic experi-
ments [38]. The values of JWL equation of state parameters for the

2.5 m
TNT charge are listed in Table 4.
One of the simplest forms of equation of state for gases, the TNT
Soil
ideal gas equation of state, was used for simulating the air. If initial
conditions for a gas is uniform, the equation of state can be written
as follows [11,36]:
ph = (γ − 1)ρe (16)
6m

where ph is the hydrostatic pressure; ρ is the density; e is the

specific internal energy and γ is the adiabatic exponent. The values
of the constants used to simulate the air are given in Table 5. Y
X
Z
2.2. Dimensions, meshing and general settings

The pipeline has an outer diameter (D) of 914.4 mm (36 in.), a 6m

typical size for oil and gas transmission pipelines. Four different
values of 6.35 mm ((1/4) in), 9.53 mm ((3/8) in), 12.7 mm ((1/2)
in), and 15.88 mm ((5/8) in) are considered for the pipe's wall
thickness (tp), corresponding to diameter-to-thickness ratios (D/tp)
of 144, 96, 72, and 57.6, respectively. Thicknesses in the range of 1–
10 mm are taken into account for composite wraps. It is clear that
applying thick CFRP wraps are most likely to be very expensive;
however, these thick composite wraps are considered in the cur-
rent study in order to acquire an extended view about the effect of
composite wrap thickness on the response of buried steel pipe-
lines to close-in explosive loadings. The results obtained from
thinner and more economical thicknesses of CFRP wraps examined
in the present research can be used for practical approaches by the
industry.
The finite element model, dimensions, and meshing are shown
in Fig. 1. These dimensions are developed based on a parametric
analysis so that larger dimensions do not influence the results. Due
to the symmetry of geometry and loading, only a quarter of the
field is modeled considering the symmetry about the x ¼0 and
Table 5
Air properties [36].
Parameter Value
Adiabatic exponent, γ 1.4
Reference density, ρ0 (Kg/m3) 1.225
Reference temperature, T0 (°K) 288.2
Specific heat at constant volume, cv (J/Kg°K) 717.3
6m
Fig. 1. The CEL full coupled model and meshing.
y¼0 planes. The transmission boundary conditions [31] are ap-
plied to all the artificial boundaries to allow for free passage of
stress waves and minimize their reflection at these computational
boundaries. Air evacuation in the model is prevented by foregoing
boundary condition which simultaneously simulates an un-
bounded domain through introducing additional normal and shear
tractions at the truncated artificial boundaries as well as pre-
scribing a pressure field at the boundaries [31].
Pipelines and CFRP wraps are modeled with Lagrangian mesh,
whereas the explosive charge, the air and the soil are modeled
with Eulerian mesh. Due to the fact that detonation causes the soil
to be ejected away, simulation of the crater formation would be
very troublesome if the continuous Lagrangian FEM mesh was
used for modeling the soil. Large deformations in the soil lead
Lagrangian mesh to be tangled and the results to be deviated.
However, using CEL method in the present numerical model has
contributed this trouble to be solved (Fig. 2). In addition, con-
sidering the air in the model causes detonation products to be
formed correctly as seen in Fig. 2. Consequently, good validations
with recent field and empirical studies are achieved as discussed
in the next section.
The Eulerian mesh is formed from 82,944 eight-node linear
Eulerian brick, reduced-integration (EC3D8R) so that larger ele-
ments are used for the regions far from explosive charge, and
smaller elements for regions adjacent to explosive charge. This
56 M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62

Soil Detonation products Number of Eulerian elements

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000

Pipe's maximum equivalent strain

0.14 p= 0 , D/tp= 72, tc=0
t= 20 ms 0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
Pipe’s maximum equivalent strainvs
0.04
number of Lagrangian elements
0.02 Pipe’s maximum equivalent strain vs
number of Eulerian elements
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Number of Lagrangian (pipe) elements
Fig. 3. Maximum equivalent strain induced by explosion along a non-pressurized
pipeline for various numbers of elements.
t= 49 ms
number of elements resulted from a mesh sensitivity analysis
shown in Fig. 3. Burial depth of the explosive charge with the mass
of 10 Kg is considered to be 98 cm according to the field tests of
Ambrosini et al. [35].
Four-node reduced-integration shell elements (S4R) are used in
order to model pipelines and CFRP wraps. A sensitivity analysis of
elements number led to consideration of 28 and 68 elements in
circumference and length of the pipelines, respectively. The same
number of elements are used in circumference and length of the
CFRP wraps. According to Fig. 1, meshing of the pipeline and CFRP
wrap is done so that there are smaller elements in critical regions
(i.e. beneath the explosive charge) and larger elements in regions
far from the explosive charge. Burial depth of the pipe is two times
as much as the diameter of the pipe, according to the engineering
guideline [39].
Simulation was performed in two steps. In the first step, the
gravity force and operating pressure of pipeline were assigned to
the model and in the second step, explosion took place. Due to
extreme deformations of the soil and the pipelines in the contact
area, the type of contact algorithm is highly important and influ-
ential in the results. The interface between the surrounding soil
and the outer surface of the wrapped pipe is simulated with the
General Contact algorithm. General Contact in Abaqus 6.10 can
recognize four different surfaces including element-based de-
formable and rigid surfaces, node-based deformable and rigid
surfaces, analytical rigid surfaces, and Eulerian material surfaces
for Abaqus/Explicit. Therefore, it can provide the opportunity of
developing contact interactions between a Lagrangian surface and
an Eulerian surface. There are several contact properties which can
t= 54 ms be modified in a General Contact such as contact damping.
Moreover, in this contact algorithm, any arbitrary motion of the
surfaces such as separation of the pipe and the surrounding soil,
recontacting, sliding with friction, and relative rotation of the
surfaces in the contact area is possible. More information about
this contact algorithm can be found in [31,40]. Since the force
required for separation of pipe and composite wrap is very high,
the bond between pipe and composite wrap is considered as an
ideal and perfect adhesion [22]. Due to high speed sliding of the
soil on the pipe, coefficient of friction between them is considered
to be 0.1. However, a range of coefficient of friction from zero to
0.2 was evaluated to investigate its effect on the results and no
Fig. 2. Evolution of crater in the soil mass and detonation products cloud a) nu-
merical simulation at t ¼20 ms; b) a general comparison between numerical si- meaningful difference was observed.
mulation at t ¼48 ms and the field test [35]; c) numerical simulation at t ¼ 54 ms. Considering design factor of 0.72 for class 1 locations, the
maximum operating pressure (MOP) is defined in the following
form [41,42]:
 M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62
Ground surface
TNT
Group C target points
Group A target points
Group B target points
Arrangement of fieldtarget points
Fig. 4. Target points arrangement in the free field model and respective peak pressures in the soil versus scaled distance.
⎛ 2t p ⎞
pmax = 0.72 × ⎜ σy ⎟
⎝ D ⎠
where sy is the yield stress of the pipe material, tp is the pipe
thickness and D is the outer diameter of the pipe. Based on Eq.
(17), maximum operating pressures pmax of pipelines with thick-
nesses of 6.35, 9.53, 12.7 and 15.88 mm for class 1 locations are 4.5,
6.75, 9, and 11.25 MPa, respectively. The design factor for class
4 locations is equal to 0.4 [41,42] resulting in a maximum allow-
able operating pressure (MAOP) equal to 56% of maximum oper-
ating pressure, calculated using Eq. (17). However, these pipelines
can resist far more internal pressures after being reinforced with
CFRP wraps. In addition, all the pipelines' operating pressures
mentioned in the present study are relative to atmospheric pres-
sure (1 bar).
As observed in the next section, intense explosive detonation
near buried pipelines may result in a high deformation in the pipe
cross-section which can reduce the rate of content flow. The
quantity of deformation in the cross-section can be determined
through a so-called dimensionless “flattening parameter” , f, de-
fined according to the equation below [43]:
ΔD
f=
D (18)
where D is the outer diameter of the pipe and ΔD is the change in
outer diameter. Cross-sectional flattening limit state happens
when parameter f exceeds the value of 0.15 [43,44]. This limit state
is defined for seismic design of steel pipelines in particular for
those subject to large permanent ground deformations. However,
since large cross-sectional deformations of the pipes was observed
as a major result of close-in explosions during the current study,
this limit state is considered as a criterion to evaluate the effect of
the presented strengthening method on the pipes cross-sectional
deformation. In the present study, the amount of change in dis-
tance between the crown and invert of the pipelines after explo-
sion is considered as ΔD.
To summarize indicating each pipeline, a unique coding is used.
For example, “PL96–56%” denotes a pipeline with D/tp ¼96 and an
internal pressure equal to 56% of the maximum operating pressure
of the pipe (p ¼0.56 pmax).
57
10000
Function 1
Function 2
Peak pressure, (MPa)
Group A targets
1000
Group B targets
Group C targets
100
10
1
0.15 1.5
1/3
Scaled distance, R/W (m/Kg1/3)
Attenuation ofpeak pressure
3. Model evaluation and validation
(17)
In this section, the size of crater, the propagation of blast wave
in soil, and maximum strains developed in the pipe's wall are
compared with those from previous field tests and empirical
equations in order to validate the finite element model. The results
of some of the references used for validation are obtained from
tests carried out under free field circumstances. Therefore, In order
to have good agreements with these studies, a numerical model
which meets the circumstances of “free field” wave propagation is
required to be developed. For this purpose, just the buried pipeline
and the void in Eulerinan mesh were eliminated from the model in
Fig. 1 without any other changes. The size of crater, and the pro-
pagation of blast wave in the current research are verified using
the model with free field circumstances.
A detonation on the ground surface or underground creates
surface waves and body waves. It results in two different compo-
nents of stress pulse, namely isotropic component and deviatory
component. Compression and dilation of soil/rock as results of
transient stress pulse are accompanied by particle motion, known
as compressional (P) waves. Shear (S) waves which are caused by
deviatory component of the stress pulse leads to shear stress in
soil/rock. Rayleigh (R) waves which are surface waves propagate
circularly on the ground surface. Another kind of surface wave,
known as Love wave, moves the ground from side to side. Body
waves (P-waves and S-waves) dominate for underground explo-
sions. Body waves peak stress attenuate faster than surface waves
peak stress due to geometric effects and energy dissipation as a
result of work done on soil plastic deformation. There is a re-
commended equation by TM-5 [45] to calculate the peak pressure
caused by an under-ground explosion in different spots of the soil
as explained in the following paragraph.
As shown in Fig. 4, three different rows of target points are
arranged to monitor the attenuations of the peak pressure in the
soil. Group-A targets are situated normal to the ground level,
Group-B ones are arranged along a 45° clockwise-rotated line with
respect to the ground level and Group-C targets are located par-
allel to the ground level.
Two functions are denoted as Function 1 and Function 2 cor-
responding to the TM-5 [45] empirical equations of free field
pressure. These two functions which can be taken into account as
the upper and lower boundaries for peak pressure of every target
58 M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62
point in the clayey soil of the current study are defined as follows:
−1.5
⎛ R ⎞
Function 1: pp = 41.4 fc ⎜ 1/3 ⎟
⎝W ⎠
⎛ R ⎞−2.5
Function 2: pp = 5.26 fc ⎜ 1/3 ⎟
⎝W ⎠
where pp is the peak pressure in MPa; fc is the coupling factor; R is
the distance from the charge center; W is the charge mass. Cou-
pling factor is the degree of energy transferred into the medium
and is equal to 0.95 for the current example [45,46]. According to
Fig. 4(b), the attenuations of the peak pressure obtained from the
present model lie in the expected range. However, Fig. 4(b) shows
that the numerical results are inclined to the upper boundary,
related to saturated clay. It is reasonable because the density of
2200 kg/m3 and the sound speed of 1614 m/s, presented in Table 3,
are the material properties seen in saturated clays.
Following equation, proposed by Esparza et al. [47], relates the
maximum longitudinal strain developed in the wall of steel pipes
due to detonation to the radial ground displacement:
⎛ ⎞0.735
⎜ NW ⎟
εlong = 1.98⎜ 2.5 ⎟
⎝ Etp r ⎠
where εlong, N, W, E, tp, and r are the maximum longitudinal strain,
equivalent energy release (0.98 for TNT), charge mass, modulus of
elasticity, wall thickness of pipe, and distance from charge center
to pipe center, respectively. This equation was derived from field
tests where pipes with internal pressure underwent elastic de-
formations. Therefore, this equation cannot be used for estimation
D/t p=144, p=0.56pmax
D/t p=144, p=pmax
Fig. 5. Longitudinal strain distribution along the pipelines with different diameter-to-thickness ratios and operating pressures.
of longitudinal strains in steel pipes undergoing intense plastic
deformations like those have taken place in the thinner pipes of
the present investigation (Fig. 5). As observed in Fig. 5, only the
(19) longitudinal strain in the pipe with the thickness of 15.875 mm is
eligible to be compared with the outcome from Eq. (21) because
only this pipe is in the elastic state with strains below the yield
strain of X65 steel, 0.002.
Kouretzis et al. [48], demonstrated that the empirical equations
(20)
proposed by Esparza et al. [47] estimate detonation-induced strains
in pipelines to some extent less than those developed in real con-
ditions. The magnitudes of maximum longitudinal strain developed
in the pressurized pipeline with the thickness of 15.87 mm
achieved from the present numerical simulation and Eq. (21) are
0.0018 and 0.0016, respectively. These two are compatible with
each other and the one extracted from Eq. (21) is somewhat smaller
than the other one attained from current example as expected.
Last, Ambrosini et al. [35], reported that the mean diameter of
crater produced by the explosion of 80 Kg of Gelamon 80, equal to
10 Kg of TNT, buried in the depth of 98 cm below the ground level had
been 3.93 m. The mean diameter of crater in the present study was
equal to about 4 m, consistent with the report of Ambrosini et al. [35].
4. Results and discussion
(21) In this section, first, the influence of fibers direction on the
value of maximum equivalent strain developed in a pipeline's wall
due to the explosion is examined. Then, the direction of fibers
leading to less strain in pipelines' wall is chosen for reinforcing
pipelines in all simulations. Afterwards, the effects of applying
CFRP wraps to the pipelines on their equivalent strain and de-
formation are scrutinized. Eventually, the percentages of decrease
in maximum equivalent strain of the pipelines compared to non-
D/t p=96, p=0.56pmax D/t p=72, p=0.56pmax D/t p=57.6, p=0.56pmax
D/t p=96, p=pmax D/t p=72, p=pmax D/t p=57.6, p=pmax
 M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62
0.14 Transverse direction, t c=1 mm
Longitudinal direction, t c=1 mm
Maximum equivalent strain
0.12 Transverse direction, t c=10 mm
Longitudinal direction, t c=10 mm
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 wrap.
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Time,t (s)
Fig. 6. Variation of maximum equivalent strain developed in the wall of a wrapped
pipeline over time during explosion process for two different values of CFRP wrap
thickness and two different directions of fibers (D/tp ¼ 72, p¼ 0).
wrapped conditions are calculated. Also, pressurized pipelines are
assumed to be located in class 1 and 4 locations where pipelines
have internal pressures equal to 100% and 56% of maximum op-
erating pressure (calculated by Eq. (17)), respectively.
4.1. The effect of carbon fibers direction on the performance of
pipeline
The variation curvatures of maximum equivalent strain devel-
oped in the wall of PL72–0% pipeline strengthened with 1-mm-thick
and 10-mm-thick CFRP wraps versus time are shown in Fig. 6 for
two different directions of fibers. It is obvious that laying fibers in
transverse direction of the pipeline (hoop direction) results in a
better performance against explosion so that the pipeline
strengthened by 1-mm-thick composite wrap with fibers in the
transverse direction undergoes less equivalent strain by 9% in
comparison to the longitudinal direction condition. This value of
difference between two different conditions of fibers direction
increases with growth in composite wrap thickness. For instance,
the foregoing value of 9% reduction in the pipe equivalent strain
increases to 65% if the thickness of composite wrap rises by 9 mm,
from 1 mm to 10 mm (Fig. 6).
Nowadays, the composite repair systems with unidirectional
fibers wrapped in the hoop direction are implemented to
strengthen existing corroded pipelines to resist internal pressures
[17,49]. Clearly, the studied pipelines can drastically resist higher
operating pressures after being strengthened with CFRP wraps if
there is no non-wrapped section. Higher operating pressures re-
sult in lower close-in explosion-induced equivalent strains in steel
pipelines [23]. Consequently, laying fibers in the hoop direction
not only leads directly to a better performance of steel pipelines
but also improves their performance indirectly with increasing the
threshold of maximum operating pressure in pipelines.
As reported in a recent study [22], application of CFRP wraps in
transverse direction is not significantly influential on the struc-
tural performance of pipelines subject to hazards which mainly
impose longitudinal deformation on pipelines such as PGD.
However, laying fibers along longitudinal direction of pipelines
can drastically improve their structural performance under the
foregoing hazards [22]. Therefore, for a pipeline under both
longitudinal large deformation and transverse impact loading, it is
most likely a good idea to use CFRP bi-directional wraps to
59
strengthen them against both large longitudinal and transverse
deformations. It could be studied in future for pipelines which are
under this kind of combined loading.
4.2. The effect of using CFRP wrap on maximum equivalent strain
and deformation of pipeline
Fig. 7 shows that the amount of non-pressurized pipelines
deformation decreases intensely with increase in the thickness of
composite wrap. consequently, the growth of CFRP wraps thick-
nesses contributes the length of deformation area and cross-sec-
tional deformation to diminish significantly. As a result, the value
of flattening parameter is less than the critical value of 0.15 for all
the studied pipelines strengthened with 10-mm-thick composite
0.05 Table 6 shows percentages of decrease in maximum equivalent
strain of the wrapped pipelines compared to the non-wrapped pi-
pelines for various composite wrap thicknesses (calculated by
ε¯max without CFRP − ε¯max with CFRP
ε¯max without CFRP
× 100). In this table, it can be observed
that the application of 1-mm-thick CFRP wrap to the wall of PL144–0%
pipeline causes its maximum equivalent strain induced by explo-
sion to go up by 9%. This increase in maximum equivalent strain is
related to the rupture of the thin composite wrap used on a thin
non-pressurized pipeline which undergoes a large deformation.
This high strain on the wrapped pipe's wall occurs because of de-
formation concentration in ruptured region of composite wrap on
the pipe wall. After composite wrap is ruptured in the region with
the highest equivalent strain, the rest of deformations of the pipe
are focused in this region during explosion process because this
region is weaker than the other regions supported by composite
wrap. However, the studied pipelines are considered to be under
one of the worst circumstances. Therefore, using 1-mm-thick CFRP
wrap on the wall of PL144–0% pipeline subjected to surface explosion
or any weaker explosion compared to current example may im-
prove its performance. Composite wraps, hence, can improve the
performance of steel pipelines under close-in explosions if the
proper thicknesses are selected with the consideration of circum-
stances. For instance, using CFRP wrap with the thickness of 4 mm
on PL72–56% pipeline's wall results in 64% reduction in maximum
equivalent strain. In addition, maximum equivalent strains devel-
oped in the majority of studied pipelines can be reduced by over
30% with the application of 4-mm-thickness CFRP wraps. Further-
more, applying 10-mm-thickness CFRP wraps on the wall of all the
studied pipelines led maximum equivalent strains to decrease by
over 40% (up to 78%). Consequently, strengthening steel pipelines
using CFRP wraps can drastically improve their performance against
close-in high-rate explosions as long as the wrap is not ruptured
during explosion procedure.
5. Conclusions
In the present research, the concept of using FRP wraps to
strengthen buried steel pipelines against blast loads was in-
vestigated using nonlinear finite element code ABAQUS. API 5L
grade X65 steel pipeline was considered as an example. The ex-
plosion was considered to take place nearby the pipeline so that it
could damage the pipeline. A full coupled 3D finite element model
was developed using CEL method. Outer diameter of the pipeline
was 914.4 mm (36 in.) and four different diameter-to-thickness
ratios of 144, 96, 72, and 57.6 were considered. Furthermore, the
effect of composite wrap thickness on mechanical behavior of the
pipeline was analyzed. The pipelines were assumed to operate
under three different values of internal pressure: zero, 56% and
60 M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62

D/t p=144,t c=0 D/t p=144,t c=1 mm D/t p=144,t c=10 mm

D/t p=96,t c=0 D/t p=96,t c=1 mm D/t p=96,t c=10 mm

D/t p=72,t c=0 D/t p=72,t c=1 mm D/t p=72,t c=10 mm

D/t p=57.6,t c=0 D/t p=57.6,t c=1 mm D/t p=57.6,t c=10 mm

Fig. 7. Deformed shape and distribution of equivalent strain for wrapped pipelines with various values of diameter-to-thickness ratio and CFRP wrap thickness after
explosion (p ¼0).

100% of maximum operating pressure. The explosive charge with a  The performance of wrapped pipelines with fibers along the
mass of 10 Kg was considered to be buried at a depth of about 1 m. hoop direction was significantly better than those with fibers
The burial depth of the pipelines was 2.5 m. The main conclusions along the longitudinal direction of the pipelines. In addition,
obtained from the present study can be summarized as follows: laying fibers along the hoop direction has an indirect effect on
 M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62 61

Table 6  The extent and intensity of the wrapped pipelines deformations

Percentages of reduction in maximum equivalent strain developed in the wall of induced by a close-in explosion diminished significantly with
wrapped pipelines due to subsurface explosion for various thicknesses of compo-
increase in thicknesses of the CFRP wraps.
site wrap.
 Maximum equivalent strains developed in the majority of stu-
D/tp p/pmax tc (mm) tc/tp Maximum equiva- Reduction in maximum died pipelines due to a close-in explosion dropped by over 30%
lent strain equivalent strain (%) (up to 64%) with the use of 4-mm-thickness CFRP wraps.
 The improvement in the performance of the pipelines was ob-
144 0 0 0 0.1868 0
144 0 1 0.157 0.2027 9
served as long as there was no rupture in the CFRP wrap. If the
144 0 2 0.315 0.1711 8 CFRP wrap is ruptured during explosion procedure, deformation
144 0 4 0.630 0.1649 12 and strain concentrate in the ruptured area of composite wrap
144 0 7 1.102 0.1234 34 deteriorating the mechanical performance of the pipelines.
144 0 10 1.575 0.1030 45
144 0.56 0 0 0.0917 0
144 0.56 1 0.157 0.0873 5 Eventually, it can be concluded that using proper thicknesses of
144 0.56 4 0.630 0.0842 8 CFRP wraps to strengthen steel pipelines against blast loads with
144 0.56 7 1.102 0.0812 12 the consideration of circumstances can significantly reduce the
144 0.56 10 1.575 0.0458 50
amount of damages imposed on steel pipelines. Explosion-induced
144 1 0 0 0.0826 0
144 1 1 0.157 0.0590 29
damages to steel pipelines in terrorist attacks or where an ex-
144 1 4 0.630 0.0489 41 plosion is required to take place near a steel pipeline for industrial
144 1 7 1.102 0.0378 54 purposes can significantly decrease using the results obtained
144 1 10 1.575 0.0260 69 from the present study.
96 0 0 0 0.1632 0
96 0 1 0.105 0.1142 30
96 0 2 0.211 0.1122 31
96 0 4 0.421 0.1120 31 References
96 0 7 0.737 0.1036 37
96 0 10 1.053 0.0554 66
96 0.56 0 0 0.0711 0 [1] Rigas F. Safety of buried pressurized gas pipelines near explosion sources. In:
Proceedings of 1st annual gas processing symposium, Elservier; 2009, p. 307–
96 0.56 1 0.105 0.0566 20
6.
96 0.56 4 0.421 0.0486 32
[2] Karinski YS, Feldgun VR, Yankelevsky DZ. Shock waves interaction with a
96 0.56 7 0.737 0.0292 59
single inclusion buried in soil. Int J Impact Eng 2012;45:60–73.
96 0.56 10 1.053 0.0210 70 [3] Stevens DJ, Krauthammer T. Analysis of blast-loaded, buried RC arch response.
96 1 0 0 0.0430 0 Part I: Numerical approach. J Struct Eng ASCE 1991;117(1):197–212.
96 1 1 0.105 0.0372 14 [4] Stevens DJ, Krauthammer T, Chandra D. Analysis of blast-loaded, buried arch
96 1 4 0.421 0.0223 48 response. Part II: Application. J Struct Eng ASCE 1991;117(1):213–34.
96 1 7 0.737 0.0188 56 [5] Nagy N, Mohmed M, Boot JC. Nonlinear numerical modelling for the effects of
96 1 10 1.053 0.0171 60 surface explosions on buried reinforced concrete structures. Geomech Eng
72 0 0 0 0.1015 0 2010;2:1–18.
72 0 1 0.079 0.0764 25 [6] Hinman EE. Effect of deformation on the shock response of buried structures
72 0 2 0.157 0.0777 23 subject to explosions. In: Structures under shock and impact, New York City.
72 0 4 0.315 0.0762 25 New York, USA: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company; 1989. p. 455–66.
72 0 7 0.551 0.0451 56 [7] Zhang YD, Fang Q, Liu JC. Experimental and numerical investigations into re-
72 0 10 0.787 0.0237 77 sponses of buried RC frames subjected to impulsive loading. In: Jones N,
Brebbia CA, Rajendran AM, editors. Structures under Shock and Impact VII. UK:
72 0.56 0 0 0.0586 0
WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton; 2002. p. 69–78.
72 0.56 1 0.079 0.0380 35
[8] O’Daniel JL, Krauthammer T. Assessment of numerical simulation capabilities
72 0.56 4 0.315 0.0211 64
for medium–structure interaction systems under explosive loads. Compos
72 0.56 7 0.551 0.0169 71 Struct 1997;63(5):875–87.
72 0.56 10 0.787 0.0153 74 [9] Weidlinger P, Hinman E. Analysis of underground protective structures. J
72 1 0 0 0.0256 0 Struct Eng ASCE 1987;114(7):1658–73.
72 1 1 0.079 0.0220 14 [10] Yang Z. Finite element simulation of response of buried shelters to blast
72 1 4 0.315 0.0167 35 loadings. Finite Elem Anal Des 1997;24:113–32.
72 1 7 0.551 0.0149 42 [11] Lu Y, Wang Z. Characterization of structural effects from above-ground ex-
72 1 10 0.787 0.0137 47 plosion using coupled numerical simulation. Compos Struct 2006;84:1729–42.
57.6 0 0 0 0.0743 0 [12] Iluk A. Method of evaluating the stiffness of a vehicle with respect to the risk
57.6 0 1 0.063 0.0712 4 of explosion. Eksploat i Niezawodn – Maint Reliab 2014;16(2):224–8.
57.6 0 2 0.126 0.0626 16 [13] Chung Kim Yuen S, Langdon GS, Nurick GN, Pickering EG, Balden VH. Response
57.6 0 4 0.252 0.0360 52 of V-shape plates to localised blast load: experiments and numerical simula-
57.6 0 7 0.441 0.0207 72 tion. Int J Impact Eng 2012;46:97–109.
[14] Fortner B. Main line mending. Civ Eng 1999;69(7):42–5.
57.6 0 10 0.630 0.0165 78
[15] Toutanji H, Dempsey S. Stress modeling of pipelines strengthened with ad-
57.6 0.56 0 0 0.0255 0
vanced composites materials. Thin Wall Struct 2001;39:153–65.
57.6 0.56 1 0.063 0.0211 17
[16] Goertzen WK, Kessler MR. Dynamic mechanical analysis of carbon/epoxy
57.6 0.56 4 0.252 0.0152 40 composites for structural pipeline repair. Compos: Part B 2007;38:1–9.
57.6 0.56 7 0.441 0.0132 48 [17] Alexander C, Ochoa O. Extending onshore pipeline repair to offshore steel ri-
57.6 0.56 10 0.630 0.0121 52 sers with carbon–fiber reinforced composites. J Compos Struct 2010;92:499–
57.6 1 0 0 0.0189 0 507.
57.6 1 1 0.063 0.0175 7 [18] Langdon GS, Lemansk SL, Nurick GN, Simmons MC, Cantwell WJ, Schleyer GK.
57.6 1 4 0.252 0.0145 23 Behaviour of fibre-metal laminates subjected to localised blast loading: part I –
57.6 1 7 0.441 0.0124 34 experimental observations. Int J Impact Eng 2007;34(7):1202–22.
57.6 1 10 0.630 0.0111 41 [19] Lemansk SL, Nurick GN, Langdon GS, Simmons MC, Cantwell WJ, Schleyer GK.
Behaviour of fibre-metal laminates subjected to localised blast loading: part II
– quantitative analysis. Int J Impact Eng 2007;34(7):1223–45.
[20] Bambach MR, Zhao XL, Jama H. Energy absorbing characteristics of aluminium
beams strengthened with CFRP subjected to transverse blast load. Int J Impact
the performance of the pipelines so that it provides the op- Eng 2010;37(1):37–49.
portunity to increase the threshold of maximum operating [21] Malachowski J, Mazurkiewicz L, Gieleta R. Analysis of structural element with
and without protective cover under impulse load. In: Proceeding of 12th pan-
pressure in pipelines. As a result, pipelines with higher internal american congress of applied mechanics, Port of Spain, Trinidad; 2012.
pressures can resist close-in high-rate detonations far better. [22] Mokhtari M, Alavi Nia A. The influence of using CFRP wraps on performance of
62 M. Mokhtari, A. Alavi Nia / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 87 (2016) 52–62

buried steel pipelines under permanent ground deformations. Soil Dyn Earthq 2002;12:69–78.
Eng 2015;73:29–41. [36] Luccioni B, Ambrosini D, Nurick G, Snyman I. Craters produced by under-
[23] Mokhtari M, Alavi Nia A. A parametric study on the mechanical performance ground explosions. Compos Struct 2009;87:1366–73.
of buried X65 steel pipelines under subsurface detonation. Arch Civ Mech Eng [37] Lee EL, Hornig HC, Kury JW. Adiabatic expansion of high explosive detonation
2015;15(3):668–79. products. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California,; 1968 UCRL-
[24] Benson DJ. Computational methods in Lagrangian and Eulerian hydrocodes. 50422.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1992;99:235–394. [38] Wang Z, Lu Y, Hao H, Chong K. A full coupled numerical analysis approach for
[25] El-Danaf E, Baig M, Almajid A, Alshalfan W, Al-Mojil M, Al-Shahrani S. Me- buried structures subjected to subsurface blast. Compos Struct 2005;83:339–
chanical microstructure and texture characterization of API X65 Steel. Mater 56.
Des 2013;47:529–38. [39] Mohitpour M, Golshan H, Murray A. Pipeline design and construction: a
[26] William K, Johns SE. A revised form for the Johnson-Cook strength model. Int J practical approach. third ed.. New York: ASME Press,; 2007.
Impact Eng 1998;21(8):609–24. [40] Benson DJ, Okazawa S. Contact in a multi-material Eulerian finite element
[27] Johnson GR, Cook WH. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to formulation. Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 2004;193:4277–98.
large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the [41] Shashi Menon E. Gas pipeline hydraulics. Florida, USA: CRC Press, Taylor &
seventh international symposium on ballistics. The Hague, The Netherlands; Francis Group,; 2005.
1983. p. 541–547. [42] American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Gas transmission and distribution
[28] Johnson GR, Cook WH. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to piping systems, ANSI/ASME B31.8; 2007.
various strains, strain rates, temperatures, and pressures. Int J Eng Fract Mech [43] Gresnigt AM. Plastic design of buried steel pipes in settlement areas. HERON
1985;21:31–48. 1986;31(4):1–113.
[29] Hashin Z, Rotem A. A fatigue criterion for fiber-reinforced materials. J Compos [44] Nederlands Normalisatie-Instituut. Requirements for pipeline systems, NEN
Struct 1973;7:448–64. 3650, part-1: general, and part-2: steel pipelines; 2006.
[30] Hashin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. J Appl Mech [45] TM-5–855–1. Fundamentals of Protective Design for Conventional Weapons,
1980;47:329–34. Department of the Army; 1986.
[31] ABAQUS/CAE User's Manual, Simulia, Providence, RI, USA; 2010. [46] Krauthammer T. Modern protective structures. Florida, USA: CRC Press, Taylor
[32] Naderi M, Maligno AR. Fatigue life prediction of carbon/epoxy laminates by & Francis Group; 2008.
stochastic numerical simulation. J Compos Struct 2012;94:1052–9. [47] Esparza ED, Westine PS, Wenzel AB. Pipeline response to buried explosive
[33] Drucker DC, Prager W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Q detonations. Southwest Research Institute Report to the American Gas Asso-
Appl Math 1952;10:157–65. ciation, AGA Project, PR-15–109; 1981.
[34] Grüneisen E. Theorie des festen zustandes einatomiger elemente. Ann Phys [48] Kouretzis GP, Bouckovalas GD, Gantes CJ. Analytical calculation of blast-in-
1912;39:257–306. duced strains to buried pipelines. Int J Impact Eng 2007;34(10):1683–704.
[35] Ambrosini RD, Luccioni BM, Danesi RF, Riera JD, Rocha MM. Size of craters [49] Shouman A, Taheri F. Compressive strain limits of composite repaired pipe-
produced by explosive charges on or above the ground surface. Shock Waves lines under combined loading states. J Compos Struct 2011;93:1538–48.