2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.02.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic response of buried gas pipeline under excavator loading: Experimental/numerical study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 11 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: 92%
“…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: 92%
“…An analysis of corrosion as a factor causing pipeline failure was also presented in [15,16]. The papers in [17,18] focused on gas pipeline damage due to mechanical factors. Experimental and numerical studies on the dynamic response of an underground gas pipeline under loading due to an excavator were described in [17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The papers in [17,18] focused on gas pipeline damage due to mechanical factors. Experimental and numerical studies on the dynamic response of an underground gas pipeline under loading due to an excavator were described in [17]. A stress-and-strain analysis of buried polyethylene pipelines affected by mechanical excavation was performed in [18].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%