Stratum Responses and Disaster Mitigation Strategies During Pressurized Pipe Bursts: Role of Geotextile Reinforcement
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Establishment and Validation of Model
2.1. Experimental Test of Pipe Burst
2.1.1. Experimental Apparatus
2.1.2. Experimental Procedures
- (a)
- Stage I—experimental preparation. The dried sand was layered into the soil chamber and each layer was compacted prior to adding the subsequent layer (30 mm thick per layer). When the total soil layer thickness reached 250 mm, a PVC pipe was installed at the designated position. To enhance the visibility of stratum movements, four layers of red-colored sand were positioned along the inner wall of the soil chamber at vertical of 25 mm. Thereafter, the constant-head water tank was positioned at the predetermined height. Finally, the water tanks on both sides were filled and the water level was maintained at 250 mm.
- (b)
- Stage II—experimental process. The camera was turned on first. Then, the valve was opened. The ground heave and soil fluidization were recorded during the process of pipe bursts. The test was terminated when the erosion cavity remained stable for a long time or soil fluidization occurred.
- (c)
- Stage III—result analysis. Based on the recording results, qualitative analyses of the evolution process of pipe burst were carried out.
2.2. Establishment of Model
2.2.1. Model Parameters
2.2.2. Internal Water Pressure Control Method
2.2.3. Procedures of Numerical Simulation
- (a)
- Stage I—preparation of the numerical simulation. The dimension of the model as shown in Figure 4 (where is the burial depth of pipelines and D is the diameter of the initial erosion cavity, D = 1.00 m). The specific height depended on burial depth. The soil particles were initially generated within the computational domain and subsequently compacted using the Multi-layer with Undercompaction Method to achieve a target porosity of 0.30 [47]. The process continued until soil particles fully occupied the designated simulation area. As for the geotextile, the following sequence was executed when the height of the generated stratum reached the target depth of the geotextile: (1) removal of soil particles which took up the geotextile’s position; (2) generation of geotextile particles; and (3) establishment of effective contact between geotextile particles and adjacent soil particles. Sequentially, the gravitational field was applied to all particles. To record the variation in stress during the simulation, the measurement regions were defined in advance.
- (b)
- Stage II—simulation of the erosion cavity expansion phase. Soil particles occupying the position of the erosion cavity were removed and a circle of diameter D was generated by wall elements. Following the method in Section 2.2.2, the vertex velocity of wall elements was automatically adjusted to simulate internal water pressure under different working conditions. The ground heave and the expansion of the erosion cavity could be simulated.
- (c)
- Stage III—data processing. Ground heave, stratum stress, and the microscopic properties of particles across different working conditions were extracted and summarized. Through comparative analysis, the effects of internal water pressure and burial depths during the pipe burst process were identified, and geotextile performance in disaster mitigation was evaluated.
2.3. Model Validation
2.4. Numerical Cases
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Effects of Internal Water Pressures
3.1.1. Development of Stratum Movements
Growth Rate of Erosion Cavity Area (%) | Fitted Equation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
20 | 0.110 | 1.496 | 0.869 | |
40 | 0.146 | 1.416 | 0.911 | |
60 | 0.233 | 1.271 | 0.962 | |
80 | 0.294 | 1.253 | 0.959 | |
100 | 0.344 | 1.266 | 0.960 | |
120 | 0.394 | 1.309 | 0.972 | |
140 | 0.446 | 1.344 | 0.980 | |
160 | 0.488 | 1.358 | 0.983 | |
180 | 0.533 | 1.384 | 0.984 | |
200 | 0.576 | 1.403 | 0.987 |
3.1.2. Variation in Stratum Stress
3.2. Effects of Burial Depths
3.2.1. Development of Stratum Movements
3.2.2. Variation in Stratum Stress
Position of Measuring Region | Stress Direction | Internal Water Pressure, P (MPa) | Burial Depth, d/D | Normalized Peak Value | Normalized Affected Zone |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vertical central axis | Vertical | 0.10 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 |
0.15 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.8 | ||
0.20 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 1.2 | ||
0.25 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | ||
0.30 | 2.0 | 3.3 | 4.4 | ||
0.20 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 3.2 | ||
0.20 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 3.5 | ||
0.20 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 2.4 | ||
0.20 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 2.2 | ||
0.20 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 | ||
Horizontal | 0.10 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 1.0 | |
0.15 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | ||
0.20 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.4 | ||
0.25 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 1.8 | ||
0.30 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.0 | ||
0.20 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 1.4 | ||
0.20 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | ||
0.20 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 1.8 | ||
0.20 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 1.0 | ||
0.20 | 3.5 | 1.1 | 1.2 | ||
Horizontal central axis | Vertical | 0.10 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 6.0 |
0.15 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 4.6 | ||
0.20 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 4.4 | ||
0.25 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 3.6 | ||
0.30 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 3.2 | ||
0.20 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.6 | ||
0.20 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 2.3 | ||
0.20 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 5.0 | ||
0.20 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 6.5 | ||
0.20 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 8.0 | ||
Horizontal | 0.10 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.0 | |
0.15 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 4.6 | ||
0.20 | 2.0 | 5.4 | 7.4 | ||
0.25 | 2.0 | 6.2 | 10.0 | ||
0.30 | 2.0 | 6.2 | 10.0 | ||
0.20 | 1.5 | 7.6 | 10.0 | ||
0.20 | 2.0 | 6.2 | 10.0 | ||
0.20 | 2.5 | 5.4 | 10.0 | ||
0.20 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 6.0 | ||
0.20 | 3.5 | 4.3 | 4.2 |
No. | Burial Depth (d/D) | Geotextile Layout Configuration | Fitted Equation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.5 | No geotextile | 0.399 | 1.058 | 0.969 | |
2 | 2.0 | No geotextile | 0.354 | 1.298 | 0.956 | |
3 | 2.5 | No geotextile | 0.338 | 1.345 | 0.962 | |
4 | 3.0 | No geotextile | 0.322 | 1.525 | 0.960 | |
5 | 3.5 | No geotextile | 0.300 | 1.735 | 0.952 | |
6 | 2.0 | No geotextile | 0.415 | 1.127 | 0.989 | |
7 | 2.0 | HOR | 0.363 | 1.351 | 0.987 | |
8 | 2.0 | BL | 0.355 | 1.400 | 0.981 | |
9 | 2.0 | SC | 0.273 | 1.537 | 0.971 | |
10 | 2.0 | SCCF | 0.229 | 1.300 | 0.965 |
3.2.3. Critical Internal Water Pressure
3.3. Effects of Geotextile Layout Configurations
3.3.1. Development of the Stratum Movements
3.3.2. Variation in Stratum Stress
3.3.3. Variation in Critical Internal Water Pressure
3.3.4. Internal Force and Deformation of Geotextile
Geotextile Layout Configuration | Applicable Geological Conditions | Disaster Mitigation Effect | |
---|---|---|---|
Internal Water Pressure | Sensitivity to Deformation | ||
HOR | high | low | moderate |
BL | high | low | moderate |
SC | high | low | excellent |
SCCF | low | high | excellent |
4. Conclusions
- (1)
- Stratum movements were affected by internal water pressures, burial depths, and geotextile layout configurations. Higher pressure accelerated the cavity propagation rate and increased the final erosion cavity area. Increased burial depth reduced peak ground heave but expanded the heave zone range linearly with the burial depths. Geotextile layout configurations can effectively restrict erosion cavity expansion and reduce stratum displacement (the peak ground heave was reduced by at least 15%). Specifically, SCCF excelled in decelerating the disaster occurrence (i.e., 39% reduction in the peak ground heave).
- (2)
- The stratum stress distribution depended on internal water pressures, burial depths, and geotextile layout configurations. An increase in internal water pressure led to stress amplification within a 2D range around the erosion cavity, with pronounced effects on peak stress values. Larger burial depths increased the overall stress level and generated larger stress reduction zones induced by the unloading effect (i.e., when = 3.0, the range of the stress reduction zone was 8.0D). The presence of the geotextile can disperse the concentrated stress around the cavity to a larger zone.
- (3)
- Critical internal water pressure () governed the erosion cavity expansion behavior during pipe bursts. When the internal water pressure was less than , erosion cavity development finally stabilized due to the resistance of the overlying stratum. Concerning the limit equilibrium theory, this study derived a predictive equation for and validated its accuracy. Compared to the no geotextile case, SCCF can increase by 25%, thus preventing ultimate erosion cavity expansion and achieving the purpose of disaster mitigation.
- (4)
- A comparative analysis of stratum displacement contour and geotextile deformation under different working conditions revealed that SCCF and SC presented better disaster mitigation effects in controlling stratum movements. SC maintained higher internal force levels, making it suitable for pipeline sections with low stratum deformation sensitivity. For the low-pressure pipelines in deformation-sensitive stratum, SCCF proved to be an optimal choice.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviation
List of Symbols | |
Burial depth of the pipeline | |
D | Diameter of the initial erosion cavity |
Internal water pressure | |
Critical water pressure | |
HOR | The geotextile arranged in a horizontal arrangement |
BL | The geotextile arranged in a broken-line arrangement |
SC | The geotextile arranged in a semi-circular arrangement |
SCCF | The geotextile arranged in a semi-circular closely fitted arrangement |
References
- Guarino, P.M.; Santo, A.; Forte, G.; De Falco, M.; Niceforo, D.M.A. Analysis of a Database for Anthropogenic Sinkhole Triggering and Zonation in the Naples Hinterland (Southern Italy). Nat. Hazards 2018, 91, 173–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, Y.; Long, Y.-Y. Review of Cave-In Failures of Urban Roadways in China: A Database. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2021, 35, 04021080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.-W.; Xu, Y.-S. Investigation on the Phenomena and Influence Factors of Urban Ground Collapse in China. Nat. Hazards 2022, 113, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.-C.; Wang, Z.-Y.; Tan, Y.; Cao, Y.-C. Failure Evolution and Mechanism of Ground Collapse Due to Exfiltration of Shallowly Buried Water Pipeline. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2024, 162, 108390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Y. Mechanisms of Soil Erosion Due to Defective Sewer Pipes. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of People’s Republic of China. China Urban-Rural Construction Statistical Yearbook for the Year 2022. 2023. Available online: https://www.mohurd.gov.cn/gongkai/fdzdgknr/sjfb/tjxx/jstjnj/index.html (accessed on 1 March 2024).
- Zhao, R.; Li, L.; Chen, X.; Zhang, S. Mechanical Response of Pipeline Leakage to Existing Tunnel Structures: Insights from Numerical Modeling. Buildings 2025, 15, 1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Wu, W.; Wu, X.; Xu, J.; Li, J.; Qi, Q.; Sun, W. Analysis of Disturbance and Safety Risk Assessment of Shallow-Buried Pressure Pipelines Utilizing the Shield Tunneling Method. Buildings 2025, 15, 2253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zare, M.R.; Wilkinson, S.; Potangaroa, R. Earthquake Damage in Wastewater Systems and Post-Earthquake Repair Methods; Limitation and Practice. In Proceedings of the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Conference, Rowland Flat, Australia, 8–20 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Nair, G.S.; Dash, S.R.; Mondal, G. Review of Pipeline Performance during Earthquakes since 1906. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2018, 32, 04018083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, G.; Qi, J.; Jin, H. Model Test Study on Influence of Freezing and Thawing on the Crude Oil Pipeline in Cold Regions. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2010, 64, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.-M.; Zhang, X.-L.; Du, W.-W. Experimental Study on Interaction Mechanism between Pipeline Seepage Erosion and Adjacent Foundation Pile. Acta Geotech. 2024, 19, 1745–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sato, M.; Kuwano, R. Influence of Location of Subsurface Structures on Development of Underground Cavities Induced by Internal Erosion. Soils Found. 2015, 55, 829–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chao, H.; Tan, Y.; Su, Z.-K. Ground Failure and Soil Erosion Caused by Bursting of Buried Water Pipeline: Experimental and Numerical Investigations. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2025, 167, 108965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, X.; Yan, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, T.; Ji, J. Discrete Element Simulation of Ground Collapse Induced by Buried Sewage Pipeline Breakage and Soil Leakage. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2025, 167, 108910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, L.; Li, X.; Li, Z.; Liu, J.; Li, J.; Lv, X. Influence of Drainage Flow Velocity on Microscopic Cohesive Soil Erosion and Macroscopic Road Collapse Evolution: A Case Study in Beijing, China. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2024, 164, 108698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, S.; Shao, Y.; Zhang, T.; Zhu, D.Z.; Zhang, Y. Physical Modeling on Sand Erosion around Defective Sewer Pipes under the Influence of Groundwater. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2013, 139, 1247–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, Y.-Y.; Tan, Y. Soil Arching Due to Leaking of Tunnel Buried in Water-Rich Sand. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2020, 95, 103158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, W.-Z.; Tan, Y.; Cao, Y.-C. Numerical Analyses of Erosion in Sand-Gravel Mixtures Caused by Buried Defective Pipeline under Intense Rainfall. In Geo-Extreme 2021; American Society of Civil Engineers: Savannah, GA, USA, 2021; pp. 150–159. [Google Scholar]
- Mukunoki, T.; Kumano, N.; Otani, J.; Kuwano, R. Visualization of Three Dimensional Failure in Sand Due to Water Inflow and Soil Drainage from Defective Underground Pipe Using X-Ray CT. Soils Found. 2009, 49, 959–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukunoki, T.; Kumano, N.; Otani, J. Image Analysis of Soil Failure on Defective Underground Pipe Due to Cyclic Water Supply and Drainage Using X-Ray CT. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2012, 6, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karoui, T.; Jeong, S.-Y.; Jeong, Y.-H.; Kim, D.-S. Experimental Study of Ground Subsidence Mechanism Caused by Sewer Pipe Cracks. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Indiketiya, S.; Jegatheesan, P.; Rajeev, P. Evaluation of Defective Sewer Pipe–Induced Internal Erosion and Associated Ground Deformation Using Laboratory Model Test. Can. Geotech. J. 2017, 54, 1184–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, J.; Liu, Y.; Yu, P.; Zhang, Y.; Li, D. The Influence of Fines Content on Ground Collapse Due to Internal Erosion of Sand-Fines Mixtures around Defective Pipes. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2024, 165, 108810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Chen, W.; Zhao, L.; Chen, Y. Influence of Buried Pipeline Leakage on the Development of Cavities in the Subgrade. Buildings 2023, 13, 1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Zhu, D.Z.; Zhang, T.; Shao, Y.; Yu, T. Experimental Observations on the Initiation of Sand-Bed Erosion by an Upward Water Jet. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2017, 143, 06017007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsaydalani, M.O.A.; Clayton, C.R.I. Internal Fluidization in Granular Soils. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 2014, 140, 04013024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Zyl, J.E.; Alsaydalani, M.O.A.; Clayton, C.R.I.; Bird, T.; Dennis, A. Soil Fluidization Outside Leaks in Water Distribution Pipes—Preliminary Observations. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.—Water Manag. 2013, 166, 546–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mena, S.E.; Luu, L.; Cuéllar, P.; Philippe, P.; Curtis, J.S. Parameters Affecting the Localized Fluidization in a Particle Medium. Aiche J. 2017, 63, 1529–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulz, H.E.; Van Zyl, J.E.; Yu, T.; Neto, I.E.L.; Filho, F.A.S.; Correa, N.A.; Benites, I.M.; Wang, H. Hydraulics of Fluidized Cavities in Porous Matrices: Cavity Heights and Stability for Upward Water Jets. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2021, 147, 04021037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.-N.; Shen, S.-L.; Chen, R.-P.; Zhou, A. Three-Dimensional Numerical Modelling on Localized Leakage in Segmental Lining of Shield Tunnels. Comput. Geotech. 2020, 122, 103549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, C.; Zhou, Z.; Yang, W.; Lin, C.; Li, L.; Wang, J. Model Test and Numerical Simulation Research of Water Leakage in Operating Tunnels Passing through Intersecting Faults. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2019, 94, 103134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lü, X.; Zhou, Y.; Huang, M.; Zeng, S. Experimental Study of the Face Stability of Shield Tunnel in Sands under Seepage Condition. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 74, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Y.; Lu, Y. Study on Soil-Rock Slope Instability at Mesoscopic Scale Using Discrete Element Method. Comput. Geotech. 2023, 157, 105268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Tan, Y.; Li, X. Stability Analyses on Slopes of Clay-Rock Mixtures Using Discrete Element Method. Eng. Geol. 2018, 244, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, N.H.T.; Nguyen, T.T. Numerical Investigation of the Instability of Dry Granular Bed Induced by Water Leakage. Acta Geotech. 2024, 19, 3229–3239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pires, A.C.G.; Palmeira, E.M. The Influence of Geosynthetic Reinforcement on the Mechanical Behavior of Soil-Pipe Systems. Geotext. Geomembr. 2021, 49, 1117–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tupa, N.; Palmeira, E.M. Geosynthetic Reinforcement for the Reduction of the Effects of Explosions of Internally Pressurized Buried Pipes. Geotext. Geomembr. 2007, 25, 109–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.; He, C.; Lai, X.; Walton, G.; Fu, W.; Fang, Y. A DEM-Based Study of the Disturbance in Dry Sandy Ground Caused by EPB Shield Tunneling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2020, 101, 103410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, K.; Cao, J.; Wang, X.; Ning, Y. Soil Arching of Piled Embankment in Equal Settlement Pattern: A Discrete Element Analysis. Symmetry 2021, 13, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.-Y.; Liu, J.-C.; Tan, Y.; Long, Y.-Y. Experimental and Numerical Investigation on Internal Erosion Induced by Infiltration of Defective Buried Pipe. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2025, 84, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Tan, Y.; Liu, C.; Li, X. Methodology for simulation of irregularly shaped gravel grains and its application to DEM modeling. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2017, 31, 04017023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, J.; Wang, T.; Zhang, T.; Song, J.; Huang, W. DEM Analysis of Dynamic Evolutions of Lateral Soil Arching in Sandy Soil. J. Eng. Mech. 2023, 149, 04023033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.-C.; Tan, Y.; Chao, H.; Li, J.-L. Investigation on Failure of Deep Excavations in Erodible Sandy Strata Triggered by Heavy Rainfall. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2024, 164, 108733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, H.-J.; Zheng, J.-J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, R.-J.; Cui, L. DEM Analysis of “Soil”-Arching within Geogrid-Reinforced and Unreinforced Pile-Supported Embankments. Comput. Geotech. 2014, 61, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, S.-J.; Chen, J.-N.; Chen, H.-X.; Liu, X.; Zhao, T.; Zhou, A. Analysis of Sand—Woven Geotextile Interface Shear Behavior Using Discrete Element Method (DEM). Can. Geotech. J. 2020, 57, 433–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, M.J.; Konrad, J.M.; Leroueil, S. An Efficient Technique for Generating Homogeneous Specimens for DEM Studies. Comput. Geotech. 2003, 30, 579–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Q.-F.; Su, H.-J.; Fang, H.-Y.; Wang, F.; Zhu, H.-F. Dynamic simulation and mechanical analysis of large-diameter water main burst. Tongji Univ. Sci. 2023, 51, 153–160. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.-C.; Tan, Y.; Cao, Y.-C. Ground Subsidence and Stress Arching Due to Cavity Collapse from Buried Pipe Exfiltration. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2025, 43, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peck, R.B. Tunnelling in Soil. In Proceedings of the 10th ICSMFE, Stockholm, Sweden, 15–19 June 1981; pp. 607–628. [Google Scholar]
- Thusyanthan, N.I.; Mesmar, S.; Wang, J.; Haigh, S.K. Uplift Resistance of Buried Pipelines and DNV-RP-F110 Guidelines. In Proceedings of the Offshore Petroleum Technology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24–25 February 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, B.; Liu, J.; Ling, D.; Zhou, Y. Application of Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) in the Study of Uplift Mechanisms of Pipe Buried in Medium Dense Sand. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2015, 5, 599–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.-X.; Zhu, H.-H.; Zhang, W.; Li, H.-J.; Liu, W. Modeling Uplift Failure of Pipes Buried in Sand Using Material Point Method. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2022, 119, 104203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameters | ||
---|---|---|
Soil | Particle density (kg/m3) | 2600 |
Friction coefficient | 0.50 | |
Cohesion (kPa) | 0.00 | |
Particle normal stiffness (N/m) | 1.00 × 108 | |
Particle shear stiffness (N/m) | 5.00 × 107 | |
Damping | 0.70 | |
Normal critical damping ratio | 0.20 | |
Porosity of granular material | 0.30 | |
Wall normal stiffness (N/m) | 1.00 × 108 | |
Wall friction | 0.50 | |
Geotextile | Particle normal stiffness (N/m) | 1.00 × 108 |
Particle shear stiffness (N/m) | 5.00 × 107 | |
Normal critical damping ratio | 0.20 | |
Parallel bond normal stiffness (N/m) | 3.60 × 108 | |
Parallel bond shear stiffness (N/m) | 5.00 × 107 | |
Parallel bond tensile strength (N/m) | 1.00 × 106 |
Case No. | Burial Depth, d/D | Internal Water Pressure, P (MPa) | Geotextile Layout Configuration |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.5 | 0.10/0.15/0.20/0.25/0.30 | No geotextile |
2 | 2.0 | 0.10/0.15/0.20/0.25/0.30 | No geotextile |
3 | 2.5 | 0.10/0.15/0.20/0.25/0.30 | No geotextile |
4 | 3.0 | 0.10/0.15/0.20/0.25/0.30 | No geotextile |
5 | 3.5 | 0.10/0.15/0.20/0.25/0.30 | No geotextile |
6 | 2.0 | 0.20 | HOR |
7 | 2.0 | 0.20 | BL |
8 | 2.0 | 0.20 | SC |
9 | 2.0 | 0.20 | SCCF |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hao, Z.; Chao, H.; Tan, Y.; Wang, Z.; Su, Z.; Li, X. Stratum Responses and Disaster Mitigation Strategies During Pressurized Pipe Bursts: Role of Geotextile Reinforcement. Buildings 2025, 15, 2696. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15152696
Hao Z, Chao H, Tan Y, Wang Z, Su Z, Li X. Stratum Responses and Disaster Mitigation Strategies During Pressurized Pipe Bursts: Role of Geotextile Reinforcement. Buildings. 2025; 15(15):2696. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15152696
Chicago/Turabian StyleHao, Zhongjie, Hui Chao, Yong Tan, Ziye Wang, Zekun Su, and Xuecong Li. 2025. "Stratum Responses and Disaster Mitigation Strategies During Pressurized Pipe Bursts: Role of Geotextile Reinforcement" Buildings 15, no. 15: 2696. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15152696
APA StyleHao, Z., Chao, H., Tan, Y., Wang, Z., Su, Z., & Li, X. (2025). Stratum Responses and Disaster Mitigation Strategies During Pressurized Pipe Bursts: Role of Geotextile Reinforcement. Buildings, 15(15), 2696. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15152696