Protecting buried pipelines using different shapes of geofoam blocks

Dyaa Hassan^1,2

¹Coventry University, Coventry, CV1 5FB, United Kingdom

²Higher Technological Institute, Cairo, C2,10^th of Ramadan City, Egypt

Min. miner. depos. 2021, 15(2):54-62

https://doi.org/10.33271/mining15.02.054

Full text (PDF)

      ABSTRACT

      Purpose. This research presents experimental modeling and numerical analysis on reducing stress and protecting buried pipelines using three arrangements techniques of expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam blocks: embankment, EPS block embracing the upper part of the pipe and EPS blocks as two posts and a beam.

      Methods. An experimental model consisted of steel tank with boundaries dimensions depending on the diameter of the pipe located at the center of it. The backfill on the pipe was made from sand and embedded EPS blocks with two techniques: EPS block embracing the upper part of the pipe and EPS blocks form two posts and a beam. Series of experiments were carried out using static loading on rigid steel plate to measure the pipe deformations and strains, as well as backfill surface displacement. The numerical analysis was used to simulate the experimental model using the finite element software program PLAXIS-3D.

      Findings. The results reveal that the most effective method which prevents stress on the buried flexible pipe was EPS post and beam system followed by EPS embracing the upper part of the pipe. The results obtained from the numerical analysis and the experiment demonstrate the same trend. The parametric study shows that EPS post and beam blocks model has higher surface displacement than embracing the upper part of the pipe model, which is more effective in case of high rigidity of the pipe.

      Originality. Reducing stress on buried pipes using different geofoam shapes to find which one is the optimum method.

      Practical implications. Two configurations of EPS geofoam blocks – EPS block embracing the upper part of the pipe and EPS blocks post and beam system - ensure successful stress reduction and protect buried pipes.

      Keywords: buried pipelines, EPS blocks, embankment, experimental setup, numerical analysis

      REFERENCES

1. Ng, P.C.F. (1994). Behaviour of buried pipelines subjected to external loading. PhD thesis. Sheffield, united Kingdom: The University of Sheffield, Faculty of Engineering, Civil and Structural Engineering.
2. Stark, T., Bartlett, S., & Arellano, D. (2012). Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam applications and technical data. The EPS Industry Alliance, (1298), 36 p.
3. Stark, T.D. (2004). Guideline and recommended standard for geofoam applications in highway embankments. Transportation Research Board.
4. Stark, T.D. (2004). Geofoam applications in the design and construction of highway embankments. https://doi.org/10.17226/21944
5. Bartlett, S.F., Lingwall, B.N., & Vaslestad, J. (2015). Methods of protecting buried pipelines and culverts in transportation infrastructure using EPS geofoam. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43(5), 450-461.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.04.019
6. Abdelrahman, G.E., & El Kamash, W.H. (2014). Behavior improvement of raft foundation on port-said soft clay utilizing geofoam. Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413401.055
7. Kim, H., Choi, B., & Kim, J. (2010). Reduction of earth pressure on buried pipes by EPS geofoam inclusions. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 33(4), 304-313.https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ102315
8. Ahmed, M.R. (2013). Laboratory measurement of the load reduction on buried structures overlain by EPS geofoam. In The 66^th Canadian Geotechnical Conference.
9. Hussein, M.G. (2015). On the numerical modeling of buried structures with compressible inclusion. Geo-Quebec, (8). Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/282070909
10. Tarek, M. (2018). Behavior and modeling of some underground utilities using geofoam technologies. Life Science Journal, 15(9).https://doi.org/10.7537/marslsj150918.06
11. Abdollahi, M., & Tafreshi, S.N.M. (2018). Experimental investigation on the efficiency of expanded polystyrene geofoam post and beam system in protecting lifelines. International Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 12(1), 12-16.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1315400
12. Bahr, M., Tarek, M.F., Hassan, A.A., & Hassan, D.M. (2019). Experimental simulation for load reduction techniques on underground utilities using geofoam. The Academic Research Community Publication, 2(4), 323-331.https://doi.org/10.21625/archive.v2i4.375
13. Meguid, M.A., & Ahmed, M.R. (2020). Earth pressure distribution on buried pipes installed with geofoam inclusion and subjected to cyclic loading. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 6(1), 1-8.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-0187-5
14. ASTM D5321/D5321M – 20. (2002). Standard test method for determining the coefficient of soil and geosynthetic or geosynthetic and geosynthetic friction by the direct shear method. West Conshohocken, United States: American Society for Testing and Materials.
15. ASTM D1621 – 04a. (2004). Standard test method for compressive properties of rigid cellular plastics. West Conshohocken, United States: American Society for Testing and Materials.
16. ASTM D1622/D1622M. (2014). Standard test method for apparent density of rigid cellular plastics. West Conshohocken, United States: American Society for Testing and Materials.
17. ASTM D6817-07. (2007). Standard specification for rigid cellular polystyrene geofoam. West Conshohocken, United States: American Society for Testing and Materials.
18. Kamel, S., & Meguid, M.A. (2013). Investigating the effects of local contact loss on the earth pressure distribution on rigid pipes. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 31(1), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-012-9580-8