Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Geosynthetic Protection for Buried Pipes Subjected to Surface Surcharge Loads

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Geosynthetics have been extensively used as reinforcement in several geotechnical engineering applications. Regarding pressurised buried pipes, geosynthetics can protect the pipe against mechanical damages and reduce the consequences of explosions and leakages. This paper presents and discusses the use of geosynthetic reinforcement for the protection of buried pipes against the influence of localized surcharges on the ground surface. Model tests were carried out under plane-strain conditions where increasing surcharge pressures were applied on the surface of a dense sand layer containing a buried pipe. Three polymeric geogrids were used as reinforcements. Reinforcement arrangements consisting of a geogrid horizontal layer, an inverted U arrangement and an arrangement where the geogrid completely enveloped the pipe were tested. The results obtained showed that the presence of the reinforcement was effective in reducing the vertical stresses transferred to the pipe as well as in reducing pipe strains. The arrangement with the geogrid enveloping the pipe was the most efficient and the geogrid that combined satisfactory tensile stiffness and aperture to soil particle diameter ratio was the one which performed best. The testing programme showed the potentials for the use of geosynthetic reinforcement in reducing the effects of surface surcharges on buried pipes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

D n :

Particle diameter for which n % in mass of the remaining particles are smaller than that diameter (mm)

ε :

Strain in the pipe (µm/m)

ρ r :

Loading plate settlement in a reinforced test (mm)

ρ unr :

Loading plate settlement in an unreinforced test (mm)

σ r :

Vertical or horizontal stress in a reinforced test (kPa)

σ unr :

Vertical or horizontal stress in an unreinforced test (kPa)

σ v :

Vertical stress (kPa)

σ h :

Horizontal stress (kPa)

References

  1. Hall J (2000) Discussions on excavation damage prevention. NTSB Damage Prevention Convention, Boston, National Transportation Safety Board. http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/former/hall/jhc001130.htm

  2. Hec D (2008) European pipe line safety regulations and standards. Technical Association of the European Gas Industry-Marcogaz. http://www.unece.org/energy/se/pp/wpgas/18wpg_0108/int_org /HEC.pdf

  3. Bosanquet K (2008) Analysis of 2008 infringement data. LinewatchInfringement Database, Linewatch. http://www.linewatch.co.uk/pdf/2008-InfringementDatabase.pdf

  4. NTSB (1998) Accident brief: release of hazardous liquid near gramercy, Louisiana. NTSB/PAB-98, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, p 4

  5. NTSB (2007) Accident brief: hazardous liquid leakage near Kingman, Kansas, NTSB/PAB-07/02, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, p 15

  6. Papadakis GA (2000) Assessment of requirements on safety management systems in EU regulations for the control of major hazard pipelines. J Hazard Mat 78(13):63–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Souza Junior AB, La Rovere EL, Schaffel SB, Mariano JB (2002) Contingency planning for oil spill accidents in Brazil. In: Fresh Water Spills Symposium 2002. EPA, Cleveland OH, p 5

    Google Scholar 

  8. Papadakis GA (2005). Overview of pipelines in Europe: advantages and disadvantages. UN/ECE workshop on the prevention of water pollution due to pipeline accidents, Berlin, pp 8–9

  9. NTSB (2014) Rupture of hazardous liquid pipeline with release and ignition of propane—Manhattan, New York City, Pipeline accident brief NTSB/PAG-09/01, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, p 66

  10. NTSB (2000) Natural gas pipeline rupture and subsequent explosion in St Cloud, Minnesota, December 11, 1998. Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-00/01, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC

  11. Irish Examiner (2004). Belgium gas pipe explosion kills 15. Irish Examiner, 31 July 2004. http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/07/31/story387476022.asp

  12. Rossiqnel P (2004). Pipeline explosion in Belgium. Reuters News Agency—Folha de Sao Paulo on line of 30 July 2004 (in Portuguese)

  13. Bjerketvedt D, Bakke JR, Wingerden K (1997) Gas explosion handbook, vol 52. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 150

    Google Scholar 

  14. NTSB (1997) San Juan gas company inc/Enron corp. propane gas explosion in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on November 21, 1996. Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-97/01, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, p 93

  15. NTSB (2001) Natural gas explosion and fire in South Riding, Virginia July 7, 1998. Pipeline Accident Report PB2001-916501, NTSB/PAR- 01/01, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, USA

  16. NTSB (2003) Natural gas pipeline rupture and fire near Carlsbad, New Mexico August 19th 2000. Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-03/01, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  17. NTSB (2008) Accident brief: natural gas leakage, explosion and fire in Plum Borough, Pennsylvania. NTSB/PAB-08/01, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, p 6

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kinsman P, Lewis J (2000) Report on a study of international pipeline accidents. Contract Research Report 294/2000, Mechphyic Scientific Consultants, Chester, for the Health and Safety Executive. HMSO, Norwich, p 128

    Google Scholar 

  19. Manfredi C, Otegui JL (2002) Failures by SCC in buried pipelines. Eng Fail Anal 9(5):495–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tupa N, Palmeira EM (2007) Geosynthetic reinforcement for the reduction of the effects of explosions of internally pressurised pipes. Geotext Geomembr 25(2):109–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. TSB (2016) Statistical summary—pipeline occurrences 2015. Transportation Safety Board of Canada. http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/pipeline/2015/ssep-sspo-2015.asp. Accessed 26 Sept 2016

  22. Trautmann CH, O’Rourfce TD, Kulhawy FH (1985) Uplift force displacement response of buried pipe. ASCE J Geotech Eng 111(9):1061–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhou Z, Murray DW (1993) Numerical structural analysis of buried pipelines. Structural Engineering Report 181, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton

  24. Costa YDJC (2005) Physical modelling of buried pipes subjected to loss of support or localized uplift. PhD Thesis, São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo, p 320 (in Portuguese)

  25. Silva ML (2015) Analysis of metallic pipes with corrosion deffects. PhD Thesis, Análise de dutos metálicos com defeitos de corrosão. Tese de Doutorado. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, p 202 (in Portuguese)

  26. Mohri Y, Kawabata T, Ling HI (2003) Geosynthetic reinforcement in the mitigation of pipeline flotation. Reinforced Soil Engineering. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, pp 243–258

    Google Scholar 

  27. Plácido RR (2006) The use of a geocomposite for the reduction of stresses on buried structures. MSc Dissertation, São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo, São Carlos, Brazil, p 116 (in Portuguese)

  28. Palmeira EM, Andrade HKPA (2010) Protection of buried pipes against accidental damage using geosynthetics. Geosynth Int 17:228–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Khatri DK, Han J, Corey R, Parsons RL (2014) Geogrid protection of a steel reinforced high density polyethylene pipe subjected to a penetration load. 10th international conference on geosynthetics, Berlin, p 7

  30. Hegde AM, Sitharant G (2014) Experimental and numerical studies on protection of buried pipelines and underground utilities using geocells. Geotext Geomembr 43:372–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Palmeira EM, Bernal DF (2015) Uplift resistance of buried pipes anchored with geosynthetics. Geosynth Int 22:149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ahmed MR, Tran V D H, Meguid MA (2015) On the role of geogrid reinforcement in reducing earth pressure on buried pipes: experimental and numerical investigations. Soils Found 55:588–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kim H, Choi B, Kim J (2010) Reduction of earth pressure on buried pipes by EPS geofoam inclusions. Geotech Test J 33(4):304–313

    Google Scholar 

  34. Witthoeft AF, Kim H (2016) Numerical investigation of earth pressure reduction on buried pipes using EPS geofoam compressible inclusions. Geosynth Int 23(4):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gumbel JE, O’Reilly MP, Lake LM, Carder DR (1982) The development of a new design method for buried flexible pipes. Proc Europipe 82(1):87–98

    Google Scholar 

  36. Brown SF, Kwan J, Thom NH (2007) Identifying the key parameters that influence geogrid reinforcement of railway ballast. Geotext Geomembr 25(6):326–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McDowell GR, Harireche O, Konietzky H, Brown SF, Thom NH (2006) Discrete element modelling of geogrid-reinforced aggregates. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng 159(GEI):35–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Palmeira EM, Góngora IAG (2015) Assessing the influence of soil-reinforcement interaction parameters on the performance of a low fill on compressible subgrade—part I: fill performance and relevance of interaction parameters. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pinto MIM, Cousens TW (1999) Modelling a geotextile-reinforced, brick-faced soil retaining wall. Geosynth Int 6(5):417–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hoëg K (1968) Stresses against underground structural cylinders. ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div 94(SM4):833–858

    Google Scholar 

  41. Marston A (1930) The theory of external loads on closed conduits in the light of the latest experiments. Bulletin vol 96, Iowa Engineering Experiment Station, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  42. Spangler MG (1948) Underground conduits—an appraisal of modern research. Trans Am Soc Civil Eng 113(1):316–345

    Google Scholar 

  43. Góngora IAMG, Palmeira EM (2016) Assessing the influence of soil-reinforcement interaction parameters on the performance of a low fill on compressible subgrade—part II: influence of surface maintenance. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(2):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fernandes G, Palmeira EM, Gomes RC (2008) Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced alternative sub-ballast material in a railway track. Geosynth Int 15(5):311–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. ASTM D6637 Standard test method for determining tensile properties of geogrids by the single or multi-rib tensile method. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West Conshohocken

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, 70910-900, Brazil

    Ana Carolina Gonzaga Pires & Ennio Marques Palmeira

Authors
  1. Ana Carolina Gonzaga Pires
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ennio Marques Palmeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ennio Marques Palmeira.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pires, A.C.G., Palmeira, E.M. Geosynthetic Protection for Buried Pipes Subjected to Surface Surcharge Loads. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 3, 30 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-017-0109-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-017-0109-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation