During perforation in ultra-deep wells, the blast shock wave can induce dynamic responses of the perforating tubing, leading to potential downhole accidents such as vibration, deformation, and even fracture of the perforating tubing. To comprehend the dynamic response characteristics of the perforating tubing under blast impact load, we conducted a joint finite element simulation using SolidWorks, Hypermesh, and LS-DYNA. The simulation included deformation analysis, motion analysis, and strength analysis of the perforating tubing. By analyzing these factors, we obtained the change in velocity, acceleration, and equivalent stress of the perforating tubing over time under the blast load. The finite element analysis indicates the following: (a) the bottom of the perforating tubing is susceptible to significant tension compression cycle; (b) the velocity amplitude variation is smallest at the top of the perforating tubing, while the frequency and peak values of velocity changes are maximal at the bottom of the perforating tubing; and (c) the top and bottom of the tubing string are the vulnerable parts of the perforating tubing system.

The perforating–fracturing–testing combined technology has emerged as a crucial well completion technique to enhance production efficiency. However, the shock loads generated during perforation in the packed section of an oil and gas well significantly affect the stability of the perforating tubing string system, potentially leading to deformation or even fracture. During the perforating operation, a large amount of blast products is generated, and as these products escape the perforating gun and interact with the perforating fluid, the fluid pressure pulsates. These pressure fluctuations are the primary cause of the dynamic response of the perforating tubing string. The greatest threat to tubing string integrity occurs when pulsating pressure reaches its peak amplitude, potentially leading to tubing failure. To address this, this study employs underwater explosion theory to analyze the pressure variations during the generation and propagation of shock waves in perforation operations. Additionally, quantitative numerical simulation analysis reveals key relationships governing peak perforating fluid pressure: peak pressure remains remarkably stable at 370–371 MPa despite variations in perforating fluid viscosity (0–110 cP) or tubing Young’s modulus (100–260 GPa). However, it responds significantly to other parameters: fluid density (1–3 g/cm³) causes a linear increase from 335 MPa to 598 MPa; total charge mass drives a proportional rise from 162 MPa to 388 MPa; detonation interval (0–50 μs) elevates pressure from 268 MPa to 378 MPa; and formation pressure (0–100 MPa) increases it from 315 MPa to 372 MPa. Crucially, peak pressure decreases from 376 MPa to 243 MPa as the explosion space expands (0–5 m³). Furthermore, a nonlinear regression model is developed to predict peak perforating shock loads. The results indicate that residual perforation energy critically impacts tubing string safety. Validated against two field cases, the model achieves nearly 10% error compared to predictions from Pulsfrac (industry-standard perforating shock software), meeting field requirements while providing actionable insights for wellbore integrity and perforating tubing string stability.