Coatings 2024, 14(12), 1474; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14121474 (registering DOI) - 21 Nov 2024
Abstract
Recent advancements in underground construction have led to the widespread utilization of pipe jacking. However, the engineering challenges posed by frozen ground in pipe jacking projects have not been extensively studied. This research aims to address the critical challenges linked to employing pipe
[...] Read more.
Recent advancements in underground construction have led to the widespread utilization of pipe jacking. However, the engineering challenges posed by frozen ground in pipe jacking projects have not been extensively studied. This research aims to address the critical challenges linked to employing pipe jacking in frozen ground for underground construction. It is widely recognized that the accurate calculation of jacking thrust and mitigation of pipe–soil interaction plays a crucial role in determining the success or failure of pipe jacking operations. To explore these issues, this study conducted numerical simulations and comparative analyses, considering various factors such as soil properties, geometric dimensions, and burial depth, to assess their influence on jacking thrust. Additionally, the study also examines the freeze–thaw effect on concrete pipes and the injected lubricant. The results indicate that the numerical model, which considers the temperature effects and static friction instead of sliding friction, provides a more reliable estimation of jacking thrust in frozen ground compared to traditional theoretical models. Furthermore, the freezing point depression method was successfully employed in the development of an anti-freezing lubricant, which can effectively reduce pipe–soil interaction even at extremely low temperatures of up to −10 °C.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Aspects in Colloid and Interface Science)
►
Show Figures
Figure 1
Figure 1
<p>Initial tangent modulus vs. temperature in logarithm [<a href="#B22-coatings-14-01474" class="html-bibr">22</a>].</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of pipe–soil interaction.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Contact between frozen soil and concrete pipe. (<b>a</b>) Full contact, (<b>b</b>) half contact and (<b>c</b>) one-third contact.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Numerical models. (<b>a</b>) Thermal model, (<b>b</b>) perspective view, (<b>c</b>) front view, and (<b>d</b>) contact interface.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Jacking force vs. distance under full-contact conditions. (<b>a</b>) Temperature, (<b>b</b>) cohesion, (<b>c</b>) friction angle, (<b>d</b>) diameter and (<b>e</b>) cover depth.</p> Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Jacking force vs. distance under full-contact conditions. (<b>a</b>) Temperature, (<b>b</b>) cohesion, (<b>c</b>) friction angle, (<b>d</b>) diameter and (<b>e</b>) cover depth.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Relationships between thrust force and influencing factors with three contact ranges. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) Temperature, (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) cohesion, (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) friction angle, (<b>j</b>–<b>l</b>) diameter, and (<b>m</b>–<b>o</b>) cover depth.</p> Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>Relationships between thrust force and influencing factors with three contact ranges. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) Temperature, (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) cohesion, (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) friction angle, (<b>j</b>–<b>l</b>) diameter, and (<b>m</b>–<b>o</b>) cover depth.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Relationships between maximum jacking length and influencing factors with three contact ranges. (<b>a</b>) Temperature, (<b>b</b>) cohesion, (<b>c</b>) friction angle, (<b>d</b>) diameter and (<b>e</b>) cover depth.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparative analysis between numerical and theoretical results. (<b>a</b>) Without and (<b>b</b>) with lubricant.</p> Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Comparative analysis between numerical and theoretical results. (<b>a</b>) Without and (<b>b</b>) with lubricant.</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Temperature distribution. (<b>a</b>) Without thawing effect, (<b>b</b>) with thawing effect.</p> Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparative analysis of jacking force and maximum jacking length with and without thawing effect. (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>) Full contact, (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>) half contact, and (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) one-third contact.</p> Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Phase diagram showing the effect of a nonvolatile solute on freezing point and boiling point [<a href="#B37-coatings-14-01474" class="html-bibr">37</a>].</p> Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Relationship between temperature and molarity of sodium chloride.</p> Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Experimental devices. (<b>a</b>) Temperature and humidity chamber and (<b>b</b>) viscometer.</p> Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Relationship between gelling time and temperature.</p> Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Viscosity of developed anti-freezing lubricant with (<b>a</b>) No NaCl, (<b>b</b>) 1.34 mol/Kg of NaCl, and (<b>c</b>) 2.69 mol/Kg of NaCl.</p> Full article ">Figure 15 Cont.
<p>Viscosity of developed anti-freezing lubricant with (<b>a</b>) No NaCl, (<b>b</b>) 1.34 mol/Kg of NaCl, and (<b>c</b>) 2.69 mol/Kg of NaCl.</p> Full article ">Figure 16
<p>The gelling states with different sodium chloride concentrations.</p> Full article ">
<p>Initial tangent modulus vs. temperature in logarithm [<a href="#B22-coatings-14-01474" class="html-bibr">22</a>].</p> Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of pipe–soil interaction.</p> Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Contact between frozen soil and concrete pipe. (<b>a</b>) Full contact, (<b>b</b>) half contact and (<b>c</b>) one-third contact.</p> Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Numerical models. (<b>a</b>) Thermal model, (<b>b</b>) perspective view, (<b>c</b>) front view, and (<b>d</b>) contact interface.</p> Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Jacking force vs. distance under full-contact conditions. (<b>a</b>) Temperature, (<b>b</b>) cohesion, (<b>c</b>) friction angle, (<b>d</b>) diameter and (<b>e</b>) cover depth.</p> Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Jacking force vs. distance under full-contact conditions. (<b>a</b>) Temperature, (<b>b</b>) cohesion, (<b>c</b>) friction angle, (<b>d</b>) diameter and (<b>e</b>) cover depth.</p> Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Relationships between thrust force and influencing factors with three contact ranges. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) Temperature, (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) cohesion, (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) friction angle, (<b>j</b>–<b>l</b>) diameter, and (<b>m</b>–<b>o</b>) cover depth.</p> Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>Relationships between thrust force and influencing factors with three contact ranges. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) Temperature, (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) cohesion, (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) friction angle, (<b>j</b>–<b>l</b>) diameter, and (<b>m</b>–<b>o</b>) cover depth.</p> Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Relationships between maximum jacking length and influencing factors with three contact ranges. (<b>a</b>) Temperature, (<b>b</b>) cohesion, (<b>c</b>) friction angle, (<b>d</b>) diameter and (<b>e</b>) cover depth.</p> Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparative analysis between numerical and theoretical results. (<b>a</b>) Without and (<b>b</b>) with lubricant.</p> Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Comparative analysis between numerical and theoretical results. (<b>a</b>) Without and (<b>b</b>) with lubricant.</p> Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Temperature distribution. (<b>a</b>) Without thawing effect, (<b>b</b>) with thawing effect.</p> Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparative analysis of jacking force and maximum jacking length with and without thawing effect. (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>) Full contact, (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>) half contact, and (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) one-third contact.</p> Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Phase diagram showing the effect of a nonvolatile solute on freezing point and boiling point [<a href="#B37-coatings-14-01474" class="html-bibr">37</a>].</p> Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Relationship between temperature and molarity of sodium chloride.</p> Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Experimental devices. (<b>a</b>) Temperature and humidity chamber and (<b>b</b>) viscometer.</p> Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Relationship between gelling time and temperature.</p> Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Viscosity of developed anti-freezing lubricant with (<b>a</b>) No NaCl, (<b>b</b>) 1.34 mol/Kg of NaCl, and (<b>c</b>) 2.69 mol/Kg of NaCl.</p> Full article ">Figure 15 Cont.
<p>Viscosity of developed anti-freezing lubricant with (<b>a</b>) No NaCl, (<b>b</b>) 1.34 mol/Kg of NaCl, and (<b>c</b>) 2.69 mol/Kg of NaCl.</p> Full article ">Figure 16
<p>The gelling states with different sodium chloride concentrations.</p> Full article ">
