Uncertainty Quantification in Serviceability of Impacted Steel Pipe

  • Renata TroianEmail author
  • Didier Lemosse
  • Leila Khalij
  • Christophe Gautrelet
  • Eduardo Souza de Cursi
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 991)


The problem of the vulnerability of structures facing explosions came to the front line of the scientific scene in the last decades. Structural debris usually present dangerous potential hazard, e.g. domino accident. Deterministic models are not sufficient for reliability analysis of structures impacted by debris. Uncertainty of the environmental conditions and material properties have to be taken into account. The proposed research is devoted to the analysis of a pipeline behavior under a variable impact loading. Bernoulli beam model is used as a structural model of a pipeline for the case simplicity, while the different formulation for impact itself are studied to simulate the wide range of possible types of debris. Model sensitivity is studied first. The influence of input parameters on structural behavior, that are the impact force, duration and position, as well as beam material are considered. Uncertainty analysis of several impacts are then presented. The obtained insights can provide the guidelines for the structure optimization under the explosive loading taking into account the uncertainties.


Impact Rigid Soft Sensitivity Uncertainty 



This research is a part of a project AMED, that has been funded with the support from the European Union with the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and from the Regional Council of Normandie.


  1. 1.
    Abrate, S.: Soft impacts on aerospace structures. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 81, 1–17 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alizadeh, A.A., Mirdamadi, H.R., Pishevar, A.: Reliability analysis of pipe conveying fluid with stochastic structural and fluid parameters. Eng. Struct. 122, 24–32 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andreaus, U., Casini, P.: Dynamics of sdof oscillators with hysteretic motion-limiting stop. Nonlinear Dyn. 22(2), 145–164 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antoine, G., Batra, R.: Sensitivity analysis of low-velocity impact response of laminated plates. Int. J. Impact Eng. 78, 64–80 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fyllingen, Ø., Hopperstad, O., Langseth, M.: Stochastic simulations of square aluminium tubes subjected to axial loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 34(10), 1619–1636 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hadianfard, M.A., Malekpour, S., Momeni, M.: Reliability analysis of h-section steel columns under blast loading. Struct. Saf. 75, 45–56 (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelliher, D., Sutton-Swaby, K.: Stochastic representation of blast load damage in a reinforced concrete building. Struct. Saf. 34(1), 407–417 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, Q., Liu, Y.: Uncertain dynamic response of a deterministic elastic-plastic beam. Int. J. Impact Eng. 28(6), 643–651 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lönn, D., Fyllingen, Ø., Nilssona, L.: An approach to robust optimization of impact problems using random samples and meta-modelling. Int. J. Impact Eng. 37(6), 723–734 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J., Conover, W.J.: A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 42(1), 55–61 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perera, S., Lam, N., Pathirana, M., Zhang, L., Ruan, D., Gad, E.: Deterministic solutions for contact force generated by impact of windborne debris. Int. J. Impact Eng. 91, 126–141 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ren, Y., Qiu, X., Yu, T.: The sensitivity analysis of a geometrically unstable structure under various pulse loading. Int. J. Impact Eng. 70, 62–72 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riha, D., Thacker, B., Pleming, J., Walker, J., Mullin, S., Weiss, C., Rodriguez, E., Leslie, P.: Verification and validation for a penetration model using a deterministic and probabilistic design tool. Int. J. Impact Eng. 33(1–12), 681–690 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shinohara, Y., Madi, Y., Besson, J.: A combined phenomenological model for the representation of anisotropic hardening behavior in high strength steel line pipes. Eur. J. Mech.A Solids 29(6), 917–927 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shinohara, Y., Madi, Y., Besson, J.: Anisotropic ductile failure of a high-strength line pipe steel. Int. J. Fract. 197(2), 127–145 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sobol, I.M.: Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their monte carlo estimates. Math. Comput. Simul. 55(1), 271–280 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Timashev, S., Bushinskaya, A.: Methods of assessing integrity of pipeline systems with different types of defects. In: Diagnostics and Reliability of Pipeline Systems, pp. 9–43. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Villavicencio, R., Soares, C.G.: Numerical modelling of the boundary conditions on beams stuck transversely by a mass. Int. J. Impact Eng. 38(5), 384–396 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van der Voort, M., Weerheijm, J.: A statistical description of explosion produced debris dispersion. Int. J. Impact Eng. 59, 29–37 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wagner, H., Hühne, C., Niemann, S., Khakimova, R.: Robust design criterion for axially loaded cylindrical shells-simulation and validation. Thin-Walled Struct. 115, 154–162 (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhu, Y., Qian, X.m., Liu, Z.y., Huang, P., Yuan, M.q.: Analysis and assessment of the qingdao crude oil vapor explosion accident: lessons learnt. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 33, 289–303 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renata Troian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Didier Lemosse
    • 1
  • Leila Khalij
    • 1
  • Christophe Gautrelet
    • 1
  • Eduardo Souza de Cursi
    • 1
  1. 1.Normandie universiteRouenFrance

Personalised recommendations