2015
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)ps.1949-1204.0000137
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical Analyses of the Stress and Limiting Load for Buried Gas Pipelines under Excavation Machine Impact

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The peak strains of the pipeline at mid-span derived from the FEA were compared with the measured results from the test and theoretical computation, as summarized in Table 6, where the theoretical results were theoretically derived calculated based on the mathematical Equation (21), and the peak strain (ε max, EXP ) in the test was calculated based on the peak longitudinal and transverse strains (ε L and ε T ). It can be found from Table 6 that the standard deviations among ε max,EXP and ε max,THE , and ε max,EXP and ε max,FEA were 6.85% and 5.12%, respectively, according to the calculation of the relative deviation between theory and FEA; compared with some references [49,50], the standard deviation of theory and FEA was more accurate. The results show that the peak strain from the FEA results basically matched with the experimental and theoretical results, which verifies the rationality of the mathematical formula and the feasibility of the FEA model.…”
Section: The Peak Strainmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The peak strains of the pipeline at mid-span derived from the FEA were compared with the measured results from the test and theoretical computation, as summarized in Table 6, where the theoretical results were theoretically derived calculated based on the mathematical Equation (21), and the peak strain (ε max, EXP ) in the test was calculated based on the peak longitudinal and transverse strains (ε L and ε T ). It can be found from Table 6 that the standard deviations among ε max,EXP and ε max,THE , and ε max,EXP and ε max,FEA were 6.85% and 5.12%, respectively, according to the calculation of the relative deviation between theory and FEA; compared with some references [49,50], the standard deviation of theory and FEA was more accurate. The results show that the peak strain from the FEA results basically matched with the experimental and theoretical results, which verifies the rationality of the mathematical formula and the feasibility of the FEA model.…”
Section: The Peak Strainmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…In recent years, emphasis has been placed on the study of responses of existing properties to deep excavations. Several commonly used techniques to investigate deformation behaviors and the corresponding environmental effects of braced excavations are FEM analyses based on numerical tools [11][12][13][14][15][16], empirical/semiempirical methods based on field measurements [17][18][19][20][21][22]; or a published database [23][24][25][26], analytical solutions [27][28][29][30][31][32], and model tests [33,34]. In addition, machine learning (ML), artificial intelligence (AI), and artificial neural network (ANN) algorithms are becoming increasingly accurate and reliable in predicting elastic fields of soil around retaining walls under various scenarios of wall movements [35][36][37][38][39][40][41].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This nonlinear 3D finite element model was also developed to predict the ductile fracture of the pipe wall triggered by a hypothetical welding defect subjected to combined internal pressure and inelastic bending . By using finite element method, the dynamic response of a buried gas pipeline with a semi‐elliptical crack under transverse impact loads and excavation machine impact was investigated. Experimental work was also performed to predict the crack propagation around the pipelines.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%