橡胶砂回填布置对埋地管道静动荷载响应的影响

    Effect of rubber-sand mixture backfill placement on responses of buried pipeline under static and cyclic loading

    • 摘要: 随着埋地管网的快速扩张,管道损伤事故日益常见。橡胶-砂混合料(RSM)作为一种轻质且可持续的回填材料,被认为是保护埋地管道的有效方案。然而,RSM铺设位置和荷载幅值对埋地管道沿程响应的影响尚未得到系统研究。为弥补这一不足,本文通过模型试验评估了RSM对埋地管道的防护效果,重点分析回填布置方式和荷载水平的作用。共开展了3组模型试验,加载程序采用连续加载方式,包括静载阶段ST1—ST3(60,120,180 kPa),随后在相同荷载水平下施加循环荷载阶段DT1—DT3。结果表明,管道变形(D)、循环管道变形幅值(ΔD)、土压力(P)、循环土压力幅值(ΔP)以及地表沉降(SS)均随荷载幅值增大而增大。与加载中心处的砂土回填相比,管顶铺设RSM的工况在DT1之前能够减小管道变形和地表沉降,并在所有加载阶段均产生更低的P;而RSM全包裹管道的工况(R-A)则表现出最大的响应。在砂土和RSM回填中,DP均会沿加载中心向两侧扩散,但RSM中的这种侧向重分布更为明显。对于循环响应幅值,RSM回填的ΔD和ΔP均高于砂土回填。总体而言,研究结果表明,当RSM作为管道上方的顶层回填材料时,其防护效果最佳。在典型服役荷载范围内,该布置方式支持其作为一种可持续的埋地管道防护回填材料的工程应用。

       

      Abstract: With the rapid expansion of buried pipeline networks, pipeline damage incidents have become increasingly common. Rubber-sand mixtures (RSM), as lightweight and sustainable backfill materials, have been proposed as an effective solution for pipeline protection. However, the influence of RSM placement and load amplitude on the longitudinal response of buried pipelines has not been systematically investigated. To address this gap, this study evaluates the protective effectiveness of RSM for buried pipelines, with particular focus on backfill placement and load level. Three model tests are conducted via a continuous loading scheme consisting of static stages ST1–ST3 (60, 120, and 180 kPa), followed by cyclic stages DT1–DT3 at the same load levels. The results show that pipe deformation (D), cyclic pipe deformation amplitude (ΔD), soil pressure (P), cyclic soil pressure amplitude (ΔP), and surface settlement (SS) all increase with loading amplitude. Compared with sand under loading at the pipe center, the top-layer RSM configuration reduces pipe deformation and surface settlement up to DT1, and reduces P throughout all loading stages, whereas the fully surrounding RSM configuration (R-A) shows highest response. In both sand and RSM backfills, D and P spread laterally away from the loading center, but this redistribution is more pronounced in RSM. For cyclic response amplitude, both ΔD and ΔP are higher in RSM than in sand. Overall, the findings indicate that RSM is most effective when used as a top-layer backfill above the pipeline. Within typical service loads, this layout supporting its application as a sustainable protective backfill for buried pipelines.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回