Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Combined Use of Jute Geotextile-EPS Geofoam to Protect Flexible Buried Pipes: Experimental and Numerical Studies

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

Abstract

This paper addresses the results of the experimental and numerical studies conducted on 4.2 mm thickness and 110 mm diameter high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes buried in fly ash material overlying stone dust beds. The model tests were performed using single and double layers of expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam as compressible inclusions. In addition to that, jute geotextile was used as a reinforcement for the infill fly ash along with EPS geofoam inclusion to obtain induced trench condition. The test beds were subjected to loading on the fly ash surface with the help of a rigid steel plate to simulate as a strip footing in different embedment depths of the pipe (1–3 times pipe diameter). The test results revealed that the pressure and strain values in the pipe reduced significantly in the presence of EPS geofoam and jute geotextile related to the location of the pipe. In the case of double layers of EPS geofoam could induce reduction of the pressure up to 87.2% and strain about 63.5% respectively depending on the density and width of EPS geofoam. Whereas, at the same burial depth, in the presence of jute geotextile together with EPS geofoam can be reduced up to 93.8 and 73.4% for pressure and strain respectively depending on EPS geofoam density and number of reinforcement. Moreover, the jute geotextile-EPS geofoam combination of model test results were validated with finite element program. A good agreement was observed on pressure-settlement response and pipe strain between experimental and numerical investigations. The numerical studies show that the jute geotextile distributes stresses in the lateral direction and then the stresses on the pipe significantly reduced.

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
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mir Mohammad Hosseini SM, Moghaddas Tafreshi SN (2002) Soil structure intraction of embedded pipes under cyclic loading conditions. Int J Eng 15(2):117–124

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arockiasamy M, Chaallal O, Limpeteeprakam T (2006) Full-scale field tests on rlexiable pipes under live load application. J Perform Constr Fac ASCE 20(1):21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McAffee RP, Valsangkar AJ (2004) Geotechnical properties of compressible materials used for induced trench construction. J Test Eval ASTM 32(2):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  4. Yoon YW, Cheon SH, Kang DS (2004) Bearing capacity and settlement of tire-reinforced sands. Geotext Geomembr 22(5):439–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Krushelnitzky RP, Brachman RWI (2009) Measured deformations and calculated stresses of high-density polyethylene pipes under very deep burial. Can Geotech J 46(6):650–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tanchaisawat T, Bergado DT, Voottipruex P, Shehzad K (2010) Interaction between geogrid reinforcement and tire chip-sand lightweight backfill. Geotext Geomembr 28(1):119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tavakoli Mehrjardi G, Moghaddas Tafreshi SN, Dawson AR (2012) Combined use of geocell reinforcement and rubber-soil mixtures to improve performance of buried pipes. Geotext Geomembr 34:116–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moghaddas Tafreshi SN, Mehrjardi GT, Dawson AR (2012) Buried pipes in rubber-soil backfilled trenches under cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 138(11):1346–1356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Janardhanam R, Burns F, Peindl RD (1992) Mix design for flowable fly-ash backfill material. J Mater Civi Eng ASCE 4(3):252–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghataora GS, Alobaidi IM, Billam J (2000) Use of pulverized puel ash in trench backfill. J Mater Civi Eng ASCE 12(3):228–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaniraj SR, Havanagi VG (2001) Correlation analysis of laboratory compaction of fly ashes. J Practice Periodical Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manage ASCE 5(1):25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Porbaha A, Pradhan TBS, Yamane N (2000) Time effect on shear strength and permeability on fly ash. J Energy Eng ASCE 126(1):15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Das SK, Yudhbir (2005) Geotechnical characterization of some indian fly ashes. J Mater Civi Eng ASCE 17(5):544–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Santos F, Li L, Li Y, Amini F (2011) Geotechnical properties of fly ash and soil mixtures for use in highway embankments. In: Proceedings of World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference, 9–12 May 2011, Denver, CO, USA, 1–11

  15. Ghosh A, Bera AK (2005) Bearing capacity of square footing on pond ash reinforced with jute-geotextile. Geotext Geomembr 23(2):144–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ram Rathan Lal B, Mandal JN (2014) Model tests on geocell walls under strip loading. Geotech Test J ASTM 37(3):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dutta S, Mandal JN (2015) Model studies on geocell reinforced fly ash bed overlying soft clay. J Mater Civi Eng ASCE 28(2):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  18. Padade AH, Mandal JN (2016) Expanded polystyrene geofoam based cellular reinforcement. J Test Eval ASTM 44(4):1568–1579

    Google Scholar 

  19. Horvath JS (1994) Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam: an introduction to material behavior. Geotext Geomembr 13(4):263–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ikizler SB, Aytekin M, Nas E (2008) Laboratory study of expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam used with expansive soils. Geotext Geomembr 26(2):189–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Thompsett DJ, Walker A, Radley RJ, Grieveson BM (1995) Design and construction of expanded polystyrene embankments; practical design methods as used in the United Kingdom. Constr Build Mater 9(6):403–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dugkov M (1997) Measurements on a flexible pavement structure with an EPS geofoam sub-base. Geotext Geomembr 15(1–3):5–27

    Google Scholar 

  23. Beinbrech G, Hillmann R (1997) EPS in road construction current situation in Germany. Geotext Geomembr 15(1–3):39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Duskov M, Scarpas A (1997) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of flexible pavements with an (open joint in the) EPS sub-base. Geotext Geomembr 15(1–3):29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zou Y, Small JC, Leo CJ (2000) Behavior of EPS geofoam as flexible pavement subgrade material in model tests. Geosynth Int 7(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Farnsworth CB, Bartlett SF, Negussey D, Stuedlein AW (2008) Rapid construction and settlement behavior of embankment systems on soft foundation soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 134(3):289–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Horvath JS (1997) The compressible inclusion function of EPS geofoam. Geotext Geomembr 15(1–3):77–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yoshizaki K, Sakanoue T (2003) Experimental study on soil-pipeline interaction using EPS backfill. In: Proceedings of Pipeline Engineering and Construction International Conference, 13–16 July 2003, ASCE, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 1126–1134

  29. Sun L, Hopkins TC, Beckham T (2005) Stress reduction by ultra-lightweight geofoam for high fill culvert: numerical analysis. In: Proceeding of the Annual 13th Great Lakes Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Conference (GLGGC), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, 146–154

  30. Trandafir AC, Moyles JF, Erickson BA (2010) Finite element analysis of lateral pressures on non-yielding retaining wall with EPS geofoam inclusion. In: Proceeding of Earth Retention Conference, 1–4 August 2010, ASCE, Bellevue, Washington, USA, 756–763

  31. Ram Rathan Lal B, Padade AH, Mandal JN (2014) Numerical simulation of EPS geofoam as compressible inclusions in fly ash backfill retaining walls. In: Proceedings of Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics Conference, 26–28 May 2014, ASCE, Shanghai, China, 526–535

  32. Vaslestad J, Johansen TH, Holm W (1993) Load reduction on rigid culverts beneath high fills: long term behaviour. Transportation Research Record 1415, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

  33. 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):1043–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim H, Choi B, Kim J (2010) Reduction of earth pressure on buried pipes by EPS geofoam inclusions. Geotech Test J ASTM 33(4):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ahmed MR, Meguid M (2013) Laboratory measurement of the load reduction on buried structures overlain by EPS geofoam. In: Proceeding of Canadian Geotechnical Conference, GeoMontreal 2013, At Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1–8

  36. Bartlett SF, Lingwall BN (2014) Protection of pipelines and buried structures using EPS geofoam. In: Proceedings of Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics, ASCE, Shanghai, China, 547–556

  37. Bartlett SF, Lingwall BN, Vaslestad J (2015) Methods of protecting buried pipelines and culverts in transportation infrastructure using EPS geofoam. Geotext Geomembr 43(5):450–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Meguid MA, Hussein MG (2017) A Numerical procedure for the assessment of contact pressures on buried structures overlain by EPS geofoam inclusion. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 3(2):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Witthoeft AF, Kim H (2016) Numerical investigation of earth pressure reduction on buried pipes using EPS geofoam compressible inclusions. Geosynth Int 23(4):287–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Meguid MA, Ahmed MR, Hussein MG, Omeman Z (2017) Earth pressure distribution on a rigid box covered with u-shaped geofoam wrap. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 3(11):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zhou M, Du YJ, Wang F, Liu MD (2017) Performance of buried HDPE pipes—Part I: peaking deflection during initial backfilling process. Geosynth Int 24(4):383–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Meguid MA, Hussein MG, Ahmed MR, Omeman Z, Whalen J (2017) Investigation of soil-geosynthetic-structure interaction associated with induced trench installation. Geotext Geomembr 45:320–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. De A, Morgante AN, Zimmie TF (2016) Numerical and physical modeling of geofoam barriers as protection against effects of surface blast on underground tunnels. Geotext Geomembr 44(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. ASTM Standard D854-14 (2014) Standard test method for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  45. ASTM Standard D698-12 (2012) Standard test method for laboratory compaction characterstics of soil using standard effert. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  46. ASTM Standard D2487-11 (2011) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  47. ASTM Standard D7181-11 (2011) Standard test method for consolidated drained triaxial compression test for soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  48. ASTM Standard C618-12 (2012) Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  49. ASTM Standard D5199-12 (2012) Standard test method for measuring nominal thickness of geosynthetics. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  50. ASTM Standard D5261-10 (2010) Standard test method for measuring mass per unit area of geotextiles. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  51. ASTM Standard D4595-11 (2011) Standard test method for tensile properties of geotextiles by the wide-width strip method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  52. ASTM Standard D4751-12 (2012) Standard test method for determining apparent opening size of a geotextile. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  53. ASTM Standard D1621-10 (2010) Standard test method for compressive properties of rigid cellular plastics. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  54. Beju YZ, Mandal JN (2016) Compression creep test on expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam. Int J Geotech Eng 10(4):401–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. ASTM Standard D2412-11 (2011) Standard test method for determination of external loading characteristics of plastic pipe by parallel-plate loading. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mandal JN, Sah HS (1992) Bearing capacity tests on geogrid-reinforced clay. Techn Note Geotext Geomembr 11:327–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. ASTM Standard D2321-14 (2014) Standard practice for underground installation of thermoplastic pipe for sewers and other gravity flow applications. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  58. De Beer EE (1970) Experimental determination of the shape factors and the bearing capacity factors of sand. Geotechnique 20(4):387–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Horvath JS (1991) Using geosynthetics to reduce earth loads on rigid retaining structures. In: Proceedings of Geosynthetics Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 409–423

  60. Aytekin M (1997) Numerical modeling of EPS geofoam used with swelling soil. Geotext Geomembr 15(1–3):133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ying-an K, Xian-fang L, Jia-cai T (2008) Uniaxial tension and tensile creep behaviors of EPS. J Cent South Univ Technol 15(S1):202–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Abdelrahman GE, Elragi AF (2006) Behavior improvement of footings on soft clay utilizing geofoam. The 10th Arab Structural Engineering Conference, 13–15 Nov, Kuwait, pp 333–338

  63. Padade AH, Mandal JN (2012) Behavior of expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam under triaxial loading conditions. EJGE 17:2543–2553

    Google Scholar 

  64. EDO (1992). Expanded polystyrene construction method. Riko Tosho Publishers, Tokyo (In Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Moghaddas Tafreshi SN, Gh Tavakoli Mehrjardi, Moghaddas Tafreshi SM (2007) Analysis of buried plastic pipes in reinforced sand under repeated-load using neural network and regression model. Int J Civi Eng 5(2):118–133

    Google Scholar 

  66. Dutta S, Mandal JN (2016) Numerical analyses on cellular mattress–reinforced fly ash beds overlying soft clay. Int J Geomech 17(4):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  67. Nadaf MB, Verma AK, Dutta S, Beju YZ, Mandal JN (2016) Numerical analysis on behavior of buried pipelines with EPS geofoam inclusion over pipe in stone dust fill. In: Proceeding on 3rd Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics 10–13 Apr 2016, Miami Beach, USA, 926–937

  68. Waterman D (2006) Structural elements in PLAXIS. PLAXIS finite element code for soil and rock analyses. Plaxis bv, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  69. ASTM Standard F714-13 (2013) Standard specification for polyethylene (PE) plastic pipe (DR-PR) based on outside diameter. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, 400 076, India

    Y. Z. Beju & J. N. Mandal

Authors
  1. Y. Z. Beju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. N. Mandal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. Z. Beju.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beju, Y.Z., Mandal, J.N. Combined Use of Jute Geotextile-EPS Geofoam to Protect Flexible Buried Pipes: Experimental and Numerical Studies. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 3, 32 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-017-0107-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-017-0107-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation