Experimental and analytical investigation on friction resistance force between buried coated pressurized steel pipes and soil

被引:0
作者
Alam, Shaurav [1 ]
Manzur, Tanvir [2 ]
Matthews, John [1 ]
Bartlett, Chris [3 ]
Allouche, Erez [4 ]
Keil, Brent [5 ]
Kraft, John [1 ]
机构
[1] Louisiana Tech Univ, Dept Civil Engn & Construct Engn Technol, Ruston, LA 71270 USA
[2] Bangladesh Univ Engn & Technol, Dept Civil Engn, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
[3] Georgia Tech Res Inst, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA
[4] Stantec Inc, Edmonton, AB T5J 0K4, Canada
[5] Northwest Pipe Co, Vancouver, WA 98684 USA
关键词
friction resistance force; thrust force; coated pressurized steel pipe; soil type; overburden depth; ANCHOR PLATES; BEHAVIOR;
D O I
10.1007/s11709-024-1017-y
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
This paper presents an analytical approach for estimating frictional resistance to pipe movement at soil and external pipe surface of buried coated pressurized steel pipes relative to the internal thrust force. The proposed analytical method was developed based on 36 experiments, which involved three coating types (cement mortar (CM), polyurethane type-I (PT-I), prefabricated plastic tape (PPT)) on pipes' surfaces, three different soils (pea-gravel (PG), sand (S), silty-clay (SC)), and four simulated over burden depths above the pipe's crown. Investigation showed frictional resistance decreased with increasing over burden depth above the pipe's crown. The degree of frictional resistance at the pipe-soil interface was found to be in the order of PG > SC > S for all coating variations and overburden depths. CM coated pipe buried in all three types of soil produced significantly higher frictional resistance as compared to other coating types. Based on experimental data, the developed analytical introduced a dimensionless factor "Z", which included effects of types of coatings, soil, and overburden depths for simplified rapid calculation. Analysis showed that the method provided a better prediction of frictional resistance forces, in comparison to previous analytical methods, which were barely close in predicting friction resistance for different coating variations, soil types, and overburden depths. Friction resistance force values reported herein could be considered conservative.
引用
收藏
页码:615 / 629
页数:15
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]  
Alam S., 2010, P PIP 2010 CLIMB NEW
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2012, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard f fort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3))
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2007, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate, DOI 10.1520/C0127-07
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2006, Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2006, ASTM Standard C136
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2007, SAFETY PRECAUTIONS M, P1, DOI 10.1520/D0422-63R07E02
[7]  
ASCE, 2010, P PIP 2010 CLIMB NEW
[8]  
ASCE Task Committee on Thrust Restraint Design of Buried Pipelines, 2009, P PIP 2009 INFR HIDD
[9]  
ASTM C128-07a, 2007, STANDARD TEST METHOD
[10]  
ASTM D3080/D3080M-11, 2011, Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained 592 conditions