###### Abstract  
The safety assessment and control of large-diameter pipelines under tunnel blasting at ultrasmall clear distances is a significant problem faced in construction. However, there has been no reference case for the quantitative comparison of the disturbance degree of surrounding rock by using two blasting schemes of non-electric detonator design and electronic detonator design under a similar total blasting charge consumption. In this study, the blasting test was carried out based on the engineering background of drilling and blasting methods to excavate the tunnel under the water pipeline at a close distance. The peak particle velocity (PPV), stress, and deformation responses of the pipeline under the two construction methods of non-electric and electronic detonators were comparatively analyzed. The PPV can be remarkably reduced by 64.2% using the hole-by-hole initiation of the electronic detonators. For the large-diameter pipeline, the PPV on the blasting side was much larger than that on the opposite side because the blasting seismic wave propagated a longer distance and attenuated more rapidly, owing to its greater cavity vibration reduction effect. The PPV of the electronic detonators decayed more slowly than that of the non-electric detonators. The cumulative damage caused by consecutive hole-by-hole blasting using electronic detonators was less than that caused by simultaneous multi-hole initiation using non-electric detonators, with a reduction of about 50.5%. When the nearest peripheral holes away from the pipeline are detonated, the cumulative damage variable \(D\) and damage range increase rapidly. The PPV, dynamic tensile strength, and cumulative damage variables were used to evaluate the safety of the pipelines. t 2024  
calculation process is complicated and inconvenient for engineering applications, and the influence of many factors cannot be sufficiently considered. Numerical simulations have been widely used in engineering blasting because of their high efficiency and low cost. [PERSON] et al. [4] and [PERSON] et al. [5] concluded that the displacement and vibration velocity of the pipeline explosion side are larger than those of its opposite side and determined that the part of the pipeline with an incident angle of 0-45\({}^{\circ}\) is a vulnerable area. [PERSON] et al. [6; 7; 8; 9; 10] studied the vibration and stress responses of cast iron, high-density polyethylene, reinforced concrete, and steel pipes, and the different interface types of pipelines under blasting using a numerical simulation method. A dynamic failure mechanism of a pipeline, owing to blasting under different conditions, was put forward. [PERSON] et al. [11] studied the vibration response characteristics of circular, horseshoe, and rectangular pipelines and concluded that the parts of pipelines vulnerable to damage were significantly different for different shapes of pipelines. [PERSON] et al. [12] observed that the maximum values of stress and vibration velocity were not located at the same position. In addition, the experimental method mainly used a dynamic strain and blasting vibration velocity test system to test parameters such as the axial and circumferential strain, pressure, and vibration velocity; however, this test is more suitable for shallow-buried pipelines. [PERSON] et al. [13] obtained the relationship between the allowable stress of the pipeline, explosive charge, and wall thickness of the pipeline by monitoring the blasting operation. [PERSON] [14] and [PERSON] [15] conducted a dynamic response test of pipelines under surface explosions and found that a protective device made of polyurethane material or the addition of geotechnical foam around the pipeline can effectively reduce explosion damage and deformation. Based on an open-pit deep-hole blasting test. [PERSON] et al. [16] conducted an analysis of the vibration characteristics caused by blasting on pipelines at various burial depths and proposed safety control standards for pipeline vibration velocity.