2014
DOI: 10.1007/s11204-014-9276-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Uplift Resistance of Buried Pipelines Enhanced by Geogrid

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is believed to be caused by the sliding of the pipe connector. Faizi et al (2014) stated that the maximum uplift resistance of an embedded pipe is affected by the embedded depth [34]. However, in this study, it was found that the depth of embedding and the rafter spacing had no effect on the uplift resistance due to the sliding of the pipe connector.…”
Section: Results Of Field Test Of Uplift Resistance On Site a Site B ...mentioning
confidence: 60%
“…This is believed to be caused by the sliding of the pipe connector. Faizi et al (2014) stated that the maximum uplift resistance of an embedded pipe is affected by the embedded depth [34]. However, in this study, it was found that the depth of embedding and the rafter spacing had no effect on the uplift resistance due to the sliding of the pipe connector.…”
Section: Results Of Field Test Of Uplift Resistance On Site a Site B ...mentioning
confidence: 60%
“…The purpose of numerical modelling work was to validate the experimental results and evaluated and compared with the theoretical data obtained from Abaqus 6.14 [6], [7], [19], [22], [25]. For this reason, a test (Direct tension, Brazilian splitting, and Flexural and Uniaxial compression) model similar to laboratory test in the diameter and thickness was made in Abaqus, as shown in the figure 7, using the compression test data and the elastic and plastic coefficients, to predict the tensile behavior of the materials.…”
Section: Numerical Work Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pullout system comprised a rectangular test chamber, and a pulling arm system joined to an AC motor, which applied an uplift force to the buried pipes. More details regarding the testing methodology can be found in Faizi et al [8] and Armaghani et al [9] The small-scale tests investigated the effect of varying the pipe diameter, pipe burial depth, and geogrid geometry on the uplift resistance of buried pipes, so as to identify the most suitable input parameters affecting the peak uplift resistance of pipes. Table 2 lists the range parameter values investigated in the 44 small-scale uplift resistance tests performed in this research.…”
Section: Laboratory Test Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under unfavorable loading combinations, the pipe's uplift resistance may be exceeded and may lead to excessive deformations [1][2][3][4][5] and significant disruptions. The peak uplift resistance of buried pipes is typically determined using a combination of laboratory, field tests and numerical modelling [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. It has been shown that the peak uplift resistance of buried pipes depends on the density of the surrounding soil, although the relative pipe-to-soil movement required to mobilize the peak uplift resistance is not significantly affected by soil density [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%