Advertisement

Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 1081–1099 | Cite as

Laboratory evaluation of buried high-density polyethylene pipes subjected to localized ground subsidence

  • Min Zhou
  • Fei WangEmail author
  • Yan-Jun DuEmail author
  • Martin D. Liu
Research Paper

Abstract

The serviceability loss of buried high-density polyethylene (HDPE) double-wall corrugated pipes caused by localized ground subsidence has been reported all over the world. Beam-on-nonlinear spring model is widely used to analyze the structural responses of buried pipes to the localized ground subsidence underneath the pipe. However, the pipe–soil separation is not considered by the beam-on-nonlinear spring model which assumes bonded interaction between the pipe and soil. This is because the spring stiffness could not be assigned as zero. The bonded interaction between pipe and soil is not able to capture the pipe behavior and characteristics of load distribution around the pipe when pipe–soil separation occurs. This study presents a series of large-scale model tests aiming to investigate the performance of buried HDPE double-wall corrugated pipes subjected to the localized ground subsidence. Movable plates installed at the bottom of the model test box are lowered down to simulate the localized ground subsidence. Earth pressures, pipe vertical displacements, and settlements at the backfill surface are monitored. For comparison purpose, free field condition (i.e., without pipe) is also tested. The test results demonstrate that soil settlement troughs above buried pipes are shallower and wider than those at the same elevation in the free field condition. Earth pressures at the top of the pipe are found to increase due to the negative soil arching, i.e., earth pressure is greater than the overburden pressure. It is suggested that three-dimensional soil arching, i.e., soil arching effects in both the transverse and longitudinal directions of the tested pipe, should be considered in calculating the earth pressures at the pipe top. The pipe–soil separation is substantiated by the observation that earth pressure measured at the bottom of the pipe is zero. Finally, empirical equations are proposed to correlate the volume of pipe displacement profile with the volume of settlement trough at the backfill surface to facilitate evaluation of the performance of the pipes subjected to the localized land subsidence.

Keywords

HDPE pipe Large-scale physical model test Localized ground subsidence Three-dimensional soil arching 

List of symbols

A

Gross area of pipe wall per unit length of pipe (m2/m)

D

Diameter of the pipe (m)

E

Elastic modulus of pipe material (kPa)

H

Burial depth to the axis of the pipe (m)

H

Soil cover thickness (m)

i

Trough width parameter corresponding to the distance from the centerline of the subsidence trough to the point of inflection (m)

isoil

Trough width parameter of settlement profile at the free field soil (m)

ip

Trough width parameter of pipe displacement profile (m)

m

Parameter to ensure Smax remain the maximum soil settlement

Ms

Constrained soil modulus (kPa)

n

Parameter to ensure i remain the distance from the centerline of the subsidence trough to the inflection point

Nv

Dimensionless factor

P

Earth pressure at the top of the pipe (kPa)

qu

Maximum resistance force (kN/m)

R

Radius from center of pipe to centroid of pipe profile (m)

SH

Hoop stiffness factor

Smax

Maximum settlement of the free field soil (m)

Spmax

Maximum vertical displacement of the pipe (m)

VAF

Vertical arching factor

Vsoil

Volume of the free field settlement trough at the level of pipe axis (m3)

Vp

Volume of the pipe displacement profile (m3)

x

Distance to the centerline of the ground subsidence zone (m)

Z

Depth of settlement plates (m)

α

Parameter influencing the shape of the curve

γ

Unit weight of the backfill (kN/m3)

φ

Internal friction angle of the soil (°)

φ

Resistance factor for soil stiffness

Abbreviations

AASHTO

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ASCE

American Society of Civil Engineers

HDPE

High-density polyethylene

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51108078 and 41472258), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. BK20131294), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province Plans to Graduate Research and Innovation (Grant No. KYLX_0144) and the Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Southeast University (Grant No. YBJJ1632). The authors also express their gratitude to graduate students Q. You and D.D. Dong at Southeast University for their assistance in conducting the model tests.

References

  1. 1.
    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2012) AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 2nd edn. Sec. 12, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) (2005) Guidelines for the design of buried steel pipe (with addenda through February 2005). American Society of Civil Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson C, Wijewickreme D, Ventura C, Mitchell A (2005) Full-scale laboratory testing of pipe-soil interaction in branched polyethylene pipelines. Exp Tech 29(2):33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASCE (1984) Guidelines for the seismic design of oil and gas pipeline systems. Committee on gas and liquid fuel lifelines. American Society of Civil Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ASTM (2014) Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer-D854-14, annual book of ASTM Standards. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASTM (2011) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purpose-D2487-11, annual book of ASTM Standards. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM (2011) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions-D3080-11, annual book of ASTM Standards. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ASTM (2014) Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory table-D4253-14, annual book of ASTM Standards. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ASTM (2011) Standard test methods for one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils using incremental loading-D2435/D2435M-11, annual book of ASTM Standards. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Attewell PB, Farmer IW (1974) Ground deformations resulting from shield tunneling in London clay. Can Geotech J 11(3):380–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Attewell PB, Yeates J, Selby AR (1986) Soil movements induced by tunneling and their effects on pipelines and structures. Blackie and Son Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balkaya M, Moore ID, Sağlamer A (2012) Study of Nonuniform Bedding Support Because of Erosion under Cast Iron Water Distribution Pipes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(10):1247–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bransby MF, Nahas ELA, Turner E, Davies MCR (2007) The interaction of reverse faults with flexible continuous pipelines. Int J Phys Model Geotech 7(3):25–40Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Celestino TB, Gomes R, Bortolucci AA (2000) Errors in ground distortions due to settlement trough adjustment. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 15(1):97–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chan PDS, Wong RCK (2004) Performance evaluation of a buried steel pipe in a movingslope: a case study. Can Geotech J 41(5):894–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choo YW, Abdoun TH, O’Rourke MJ, Ha D (2007) Remediation for buried pipeline systems under permanent ground deformation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(12):1043–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chua KM (1986) Time-dependent interaction of soil and flexible pipe. Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University, College StationGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Daiyan N, Kenny S, Phillips R, Popescu R (2011) Investigating pipeline-soil interaction under axial-lateral relative movements in sand. Can Geotech J 48(11):1683–1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duan GJ (2002) Study on the settlement at ground surface due to tunneling and its effects on the pipeline behaviors. Ph.D. thesis, China University of Geoscience, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gantes CJ, Bouckovalas G (2013) Seismic verification of the high pressure natural gas pipeline Komotini–Alexandroupoulis–Kipi in areas of active fault crossings. Struct Eng Int 23(2):204–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Han J, Wang F, Khatri D, Parsons R, Brennan J (2015) Establishing a design procedure for buried steel-reinforced high-density polyethylene pipes: a field study. Final Report submitted to Kansas Department of Transportation, K-TRAN: KU14-4, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Han J, Acharya R, Parsons R, Khatri D (2013) Improved load distribution for load rating of low-fill box structures. Final report submitted to Kansas Department of Transportation, K-TRAN: KU12-3, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jiang M, Yin ZY (2012) Analysis of stress redistribution in soil and earth pressure on tunnel lining by discrete element method. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 32:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jiang M, Yin ZY (2014) Influence of soil conditioning on ground deformation during longitudinal tunneling. CR Mech 342(3):189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karamitros DK, Bouckovalas GD, Kouretzis GP (2007) Stress analysis of buried steel pipelines at strike-slip fault crossings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(3):200–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Karamitros DK, Bouckovalas GD, Kouretzis GP, Gkesouli V (2011) An analytical method for strength verification of buried steel pipelines at normal fault crossings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(11):1452–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kempfert HG, Göbel C, Alexiew D et al (2004) German recommendations for reinforced embankments on pile-similar elements. In: EuroGeo3-third European geosynthetics conference, geotechnical engineering with geosynthetics. Deutsche Gesell schaft fur Geotechnik, MunichGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kennedy RP, Chow A, Williamson R (1977) Fault movement effects on buried oil pipeline. J Transp Eng 103(5):617–633Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Klar A, Marshall AM, Soga K, Mair RJ (2008) Tunneling effects on jointed pipelines. Can Geotech J 45(1):131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kouretzis GP, Karamitros DK, Sloan SW (2015) Analysis of buried pipelines subjected to ground surface settlement and heave. Can Geotech J 52(8):1058–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li ZQ (2013) Study on land subsidence origin and mechanism in urban area. East China Highw 202(4):3–5Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li H, Xue N, Li X, Li Z (2012) An in situ experimental study on buried pipelines with internal pressure subject to a simulated reverse-slip fault movement. In: The 15th world conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE), BeijingGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu XJ, O’Rourke MJ (1997) Behaviour of continuous pipeline subject to transverse PGD. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(10):989–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Luo X, Lu S, Shi J, Li X, Zheng J (2015) Numerical simulation of strength failure of buried polyethylene pipe under foundation settlement. Eng Fail Anal 48:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Newmark NM, Hall WJ (1975) Pipeline design to resist large fault displacement. In: U.S. National conference on earthquake engineering, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ni P (2016) Nonlinear soil-structure interaction for buried pressure pipes under differential ground motion. Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, KinstonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’Rourke TD (2010) Geohazards and large, geographically distributed systems. Geotechnique 60(7):505–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    O’Rourke MJ (1989) Approximate analysis procedures for permanent ground deformation effects on buried pipelines. In: Proceedings of the Second U.S. Japan workshop on liquefaction, large ground deformation and their effects on lifelines, Buffalo, New York, Technical Report NCEER-89-0032. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York, pp 336–347Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    O’Rourke M, Gadicherla V, Abdoun T (2005) Centrifuge modeling of PGD response of buried pipe. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 4(1):69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Peck B (1969) Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. In: Proceedings of 7th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Mexico City, pp 225–290Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Saiyar M (2011) Behaviour of buried pipelines subject to normal faulting. Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, KingstonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Saiyar M, Ni P, Take WA, Moore ID (2016) Response of pipelines of differing flexural stiffness to normal faulting. Géotechnique 66(4):275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shen SL, Cui QL, Ho EC, Xu YS (2016) Ground response to multiple parallel microtunneling operations in cemented silty clay and sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(5):04016001(1-11)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shen SL, Wu HN, Cui YJ, Yin ZY (2014) Long-term settlement behavior of the metro tunnel in Shanghai. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 40(2014):309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shen SL, Xu YS (2011) Numerical evaluation of land subsidence induced by groundwater pumping in Shanghai. Can Geotech J 48(9):1378–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shen Y, Gao B, Yang X, Tao S (2014) Seismic damage mechanism and dynamic deformation characteristic analysis of mountain tunnel after Wenchuan earthquake. Eng Geol 180:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Trautmann CH, O’Rourke TD (1983) Behavior of pipe in dry sand under lateral and uplift loading. Geotechnical Engineering Report 83-6, Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Trifonov OV, Cherniy VP (2012) Elastoplastic stress-strain analysis of buried steel pipelines subjected to fault displacements with account for service loads. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 33(1):54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Van Eekelen SJM, Bezuijen A, Oung O (2003) Arching in piled embankments; experiments and design calculations. In: BGA international conference on foundations: innovations, observations, design and practice: proceedings of the international conference organised by British Geotechnical Association and held in Dundee, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vorster TEB (2005) The effects of tunnelling on buried pipes. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vorster TEB, Klar A, Soga K, Mair RJ (2005) Estimating the effects of tunneling on existing pipelines. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(11):1399–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wang SC (2017) Analysis and study on subsidence mechanisms of road caused by leakage of urban underground pipeline. Master thesis, Zhengzhou University, ZhengzhouGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang F, Du YJ, Yang XM (2015) Physical modeling on ground responses to tunneling in sand considering the existence of HDPE pipes. ASTM Geotech Test J 38(1):85–97Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wang LRL, Yeh YH (1985) A refined seismic analysis and design of buried pipeline for fault movement. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 13(1):75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Weerasekara L, Wijewickreme D (2008) Mobilization of soil loads on buried, polyethylene natural gas pipelines subject to relative axial displacements. Can Geotech J 45(9):1237–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    White D, Cheuk C, Bolton M (2008) The uplift resistance of pipes and plate anchors buried in sand. Géotechnique 58(10):771–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wu N (2007) Application development of HDPE double-wall corrugated pipes. Plastics 36(5):39–42Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wu YX, Shen SL, Yuan DJ (2016) Characteristics of dewatering induced drawdown curve under barrier effect of retaining wall in aquifer. J Hydrol 539(2016):554–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Xie X, Symans MD, O’Rourke MJ, Abdoun TH, O’Rourke TD, Palmer MC, Stewart HE (2013) Numerical modeling of buried HDPE pipelines subjected to normal faulting: a case study. Earthq Spectra 29(2):609–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Xu YS, Ma L, Shen SL, Sun WJ (2012) Evaluation of land subsidence by considering underground structures penetrated into aquifers in Shanghai. Hydrogeol J 20(8):1623–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Xu YS, Shen SL, Ren DJ, Wu HN (2016) Factor analysis of land subsidence in Shanghai: a view based on Strategic Environmental Assessment. Sustainability 8(6):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yang X, Han J, Pokharel SK, Manandhar C, Parsons RL, Leshchinsky D, Halahmi I (2012) Accelerated pavement testing of unpaved roads with geocell-reinforced sand bases. Geotext Geomembr 32:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yin ZY, Karstunen M, Chang CS, Koskinen M, Lojander M (2011) Modeling time-dependent behavior of soft sensitive clay. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(11):1103–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yin ZY, Chang CS (2013) Stressdilatancy behavior for sand under loading and unloading conditions. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 37(8):855–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yin ZY, Zhu QY, Zhang DM (2017) Comparison of two creep degradation modeling approaches for soft structured soils. Acta Geotech 12(6):1395–1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yoshizaki K, O’Rourke TD, Hamada M (2003) Large scale experiments of buried steel pipelines with elbows subjected to permanent ground deformation. Struct Eng Earthq Eng 20(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zhou XF (2009) Safety technology and engineering: safety effect study on foundation settlement induced by dewatering to the buried pipeline, MSC dissertation. Capital University of Economics and Business, ChinaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geotechnical EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.RTE Technologies, Inc.Overland ParkUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of Engineering and Information SciencesUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations