ISSN 1003-8035 CN 11-2852/P
  • 中国科技核心期刊
  • CSCD收录期刊
  • Caj-cd规范获奖期刊
  • Scopus 收录期刊
  • DOAJ 收录期刊
  • GeoRef收录期刊
欢迎扫码关注“i环境微平台”

滑坡作用下X80腐蚀管道的极限宽度分析

张鹏, 唐雪梅, 李虎, 刘思铭

张鹏,唐雪梅,李虎,等. 滑坡作用下X80腐蚀管道的极限宽度分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2022,33(4): 47-54. DOI: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202108020
引用本文: 张鹏,唐雪梅,李虎,等. 滑坡作用下X80腐蚀管道的极限宽度分析[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2022,33(4): 47-54. DOI: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202108020
ZHANG Peng, TANG Xuemei, LI Hu, et al. Limit width analysis of X80 corroded pipeline pass through landslide[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 2022, 33(4): 47-54. DOI: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202108020
Citation: ZHANG Peng, TANG Xuemei, LI Hu, et al. Limit width analysis of X80 corroded pipeline pass through landslide[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 2022, 33(4): 47-54. DOI: 10.16031/j.cnki.issn.1003-8035.202108020

滑坡作用下X80腐蚀管道的极限宽度分析

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金项目(50974105);中国工程院重大咨询研究项目(2011–ZD–20)
详细信息
    作者简介:

    张 鹏(1964-),男,上海人,教授,博导,博士(后),主要从事结构工作性能及力学行为、管道系统完整性等研究。E-mail:zp_awpi@sina.com

    通讯作者:

    唐雪梅(1997-),女,四川成都人,硕士,主要从事管道完整性管理研究。E-mail:1512192642@ qq. com

  • 中图分类号: P642.22

Limit width analysis of X80 corroded pipeline pass through landslide

  • 摘要: 针对X80腐蚀管道横穿滑坡时所涉及的安全预警问题,提出将极限宽度作为管道安全状态的判别因子,根据具体滑坡工况建立有限元模型,分析管道不同腐蚀尺寸和空间位置对腐蚀管道的力学行为与极限宽度的影响。结果表明:极限宽度可用于管道安全状态的评判;腐蚀的宽度和深度与管道极限宽度呈负相关,且对于腐蚀深度表现出高敏感性;内腐蚀对于管道安全状态的影响大于外腐蚀;坡度为30°的土质滑坡下,外径10.16 cm的无腐蚀X80管道的临界横穿滑坡宽度为21.2 m,含腐蚀管道横穿滑坡时的临界腐蚀深度为0.25倍的壁厚;腐蚀管道距滑坡区中部的距离大于6 m时对管道的极限宽度影响可忽略;管道应力与极限宽度呈负相关,腐蚀深度为0.2倍壁厚时管道最大应力始终在腐蚀处,其余位置的应力与无腐蚀管道一致。
    Abstract: In view of the safety early warning problems involved in X80 corroded pipeline crossing landslide, it is proposed to take the limit width as the discrimination factor of pipeline safety state, establish a finite element model according to the specific landslide conditions, to analyze the influence of different corrosion sizes and spatial positions of pipeline on the mechanical behavior and limit width of corroded pipeline. The results show that the limit width can be used to evaluate the safety state of pipeline. The width and depth of corrosion are negatively correlated with the ultimate width of pipeline, and show high sensitivity to corrosion depth; the influence of internal corrosion on pipeline safety is greater than that of external corrosion; under the soil landslide with a slope of 30°, the critical cross landslide width of the non-corrosive X80 pipeline with an outer diameter of 10.16 cm is 21.2 m, and the critical corrosion depth of the corrosive pipeline crossing the landslide is 0.25 times the wall thickness; when the distance between the corroded pipeline and the middle of the landslide area is greater than 6 m, the influence on the limit width of the pipeline can be ignored; the pipeline stress is negatively correlated with the limit width. When the corrosion depth is 0.2 times the wall thickness, the maximum stress of the pipeline is always at the corrosion position, and the stress at other positions is consistent with that of the non-corrosive pipeline.
  • 近年来,中国建设开发了数十座软岩露天煤矿,在开采过程中采场及排土场均发生过一定规模的滑坡,对于采场底帮顺倾软岩边坡与顺倾软基底内排土场边坡滑坡灾害尤为严重。滑坡灾害直接影响剥采排工程的发展,造成人员伤害和设备损毁及地貌景观破坏,严重制约着露天矿的安全高效生产[1-2],边坡稳定性治理问题已成为边坡工程领域亟待解决的难题之一。

    目前国内外学者们应用不同理论对其展开大量有意义的研究,成果丰硕。王东等[3]综合运用极限平衡法及数值模拟法,分析了不同压帮高度下边坡稳定性变化规律,提出了逆倾软岩边坡变形的治理措施;刘子春等[4]以扎尼河露天矿为背景,通过分析扩帮、内排压角等治理措施的基础上,提出了一种条带式开采技术的边坡治理方案;陈毓等[5]采用ANSYS对黑山露天矿内排土场边坡稳定性和破坏机理进行了分析,揭示了内排土场滑坡模式为“坐落滑移式”滑动,运用削坡治理技术来保证内排土场稳定性;唐文亮等[6]系统分析了露天矿内排土场滑坡影响因素,提出了预留煤柱的滑坡治理方法;李伟[7]揭示了阴湾排土场边坡变形破坏机理并结合数值模拟法和极限平衡法,分析了内排不同压脚方案下边坡稳定性,提出了阴湾排土场滑坡治理措施;王刚等[8]基于有限元数值模拟法和极限平衡法,分析了边坡破坏机理并对边坡进行了稳定性计算,提出了削坡减载的治理措施。软岩露天煤矿采场边坡稳定性治理最经济有效的方式是内排追踪压帮,内排土场稳定是前提,但现有方法均是单一针对采场或排土场边坡稳定性分析和治理,未能同时兼顾采场与内排土场边坡的稳定性,对工程实际的指导性不强。

    本文以贺斯格乌拉南露天煤矿首采区南帮为工程背景,在兼顾采场与内排土场边坡稳定性的基础上,提出了露天煤矿顺倾软岩边坡内排追踪压帮治理工程,为深入研究顺倾软岩露天煤矿边坡稳定性治理方法提供新的参考。

    贺斯格乌拉南露天煤矿设计生产能力为15 Mt/a,首采区南帮地层自上而下主要发育第四系、2煤组、2煤组与3煤组间夹石、3煤组、3煤组底板和盆地基底火山岩,含煤岩系主要以泥岩为主,全区可采的有2-1、3-1煤层,第四系以粉砂质黏土为主,局部夹黄-浅灰色细砂及含砾粗砂层,岩性较差,首采区土层赋存较薄,且其地层中多赋存软弱夹层,主要以3-1、3-4煤底板弱层主,属于典型的顺倾软岩边坡,岩土体物理力学指标如表1所示,典型工程地质剖面如图1所示。

    表  1  岩土体物理力学指标
    Table  1.  Physical and mechanical parameters of rock mass
    岩体名称内摩擦角/(°)黏聚力/kPa容重/(kN·m−3弹性模量/MPa泊松比
    砂岩26.006519.6350.42
    粉质黏土14.062219.8460.38
    29.008512.1400.35
    泥岩20.004019.4750.36
    排弃物14.492019.0600.40
    弱层6.00019.1200.42
    回填岩石20.004019.0
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格
    图  1  典型工程地质剖面图
    Figure  1.  Typical geological cross-section profile of the sliding area

    影响顺倾软岩露天煤矿采场边坡稳定性的主控因素是弱层及其暴露长度,采用追踪压帮方式治理该类边坡稳定性时,可忽略软弱夹层为底界面的切层-顺层组合滑动模式[9-10],仅考虑剪胀破坏模式。由于贺斯格乌拉南露天矿边坡体内赋存软弱夹层,主要以3-1、3-4煤底板弱层为主,顺倾角度大,岩质松软,对于此类边坡,浅部可通过平盘参数进行重新设计,深部必须利用三维效应,实现稳定性控制。可采用刚体极限平衡法中的剩余推力法对浅层边坡进行稳定性计算[11-12]。该方法的优点是可以用来计算求解给定任意边坡潜在滑面的稳定系数,并且可以考虑在复杂外力作用下的不同抗剪参数滑动岩体对边坡稳定性的影响。稳定系数求解公式为:

    $$ {P_i} = \frac{{{W_i}\sin {\alpha _i}({W_i}\sin {\alpha _i}\tan {\varphi _i}) + {C_i}{L_i}}}{{{F_{\rm{s}}}}} + {\phi _i}{p_{i - 1}} $$ (1)
    $$ {\phi _i} = \frac{{\cos ({\alpha _{i - 1}} - {\alpha _i})\tan {\varphi _i}\sin ({\alpha _{i - 1}} - {\alpha _i})}}{{{F_{\rm{s}}}}} $$ (2)

    式中:${P_i}$——第$i$条块的剩余推力/kN;

    $ {W_i} $——第$i$条块的重量/(N·m−3);

    $\alpha_i$——第$i$条块的滑面倾角/(°);

    ${\varphi _i}$——第$i$条块的推力传递系数;

    ${C_i}$——第$i$条块的滑面黏聚力/kPa;

    ${L_i}$——第$i$条块的底面长度/m;

    ${\phi _i}$——第$i$条块的滑面摩擦角/(°);

    ${F_{\rm{s}}}$——稳定性系数。

    依据《煤炭工业露天矿设计规范》(GB 50197―2015)[13]综合考虑贺斯格乌拉南露天煤矿首采区南帮边坡服务年限、地质条件与力学参数的可靠性、潜在滑坡危害程度等,确定安全储备系数为1.2。

    由于南帮压覆大量煤层,在保证安全前提下,为实现最大限度回采压覆的煤炭资源,需要对边坡形态重新设计。本文选取典型剖面为研究对象,浅层边坡形态按照40 m运输平盘、15 m保安平盘进行设计,深部利用横采内排三维支挡效应回采采场底帮深部压覆煤炭资源。通过上述情况对浅层边坡进行了分析,边坡稳定性计算结果如图2所示。

    图  2  浅层边二维坡稳定性计算结果
    Figure  2.  Calculation results of two-dimensional slope stability of the shallow side

    分析图2可知,浅部边坡形态可按照40 m运输平盘、15 m保安平盘进行设计,由于弱层上部存在煤岩支挡,边坡潜在滑坡模式为以圆弧为侧界面、3-1煤底板弱层为底界面、沿边坡坡脚处剪出,此时,浅层边坡能满足安全储备系数1.2的要求。

    基于浅层边坡二维稳定性分析结果可知,实现深部稳定性控制,必须借助横采工作帮与内排土场的双重支挡作用进行压煤回采,因此提出了利用横采内排三维支挡效应回采采场深部压覆煤炭资源[14]。本文借助FLAC3D数值模拟软件,分析不同降深角度和不同追踪距离条件下的边坡三维稳定性,以期获得最优的边坡空间形态参数。

    (1) 模型的建立

    考虑到FLAC3D建模较为复杂,采用CAD与Rhino相结合的方法,首先在CAD中对剖面进行整理,然后在Rhino软件中进行模型成体与网格划分的处理,并用Griddle将网格导出,生成精细的六面体网格模型[1517],最后导入采用于FLAC3D进行数值模拟计算。为尽可能凸显边坡稳定性的三维效应,以南帮断面形态设计边坡为数值模拟对象,共计建立15种工况模型,模型如图3,追踪距离分别为50,100,200,300,400 m。为避免边界效应,在模型的底部和两侧分别施加水平和垂直位移约束,加载方式为重力加载[18]

    图  3  三维数值模拟模型
    Figure  3.  Three-dimensional numerical simulation model

    (2) 计算结果分析

    由于计算结果过多,本文仅列举降深角度α=29°,追踪距离50,200,400 m工况下边坡位移云图(切割位置为沿模型走向中间处),如图4所示。南帮边坡三维稳定性计算结果如图5所示。

    图  4  数值模拟结果
    Figure  4.  Numerical simulation results at different tracking distance
    图  5  追踪距离与边坡稳定系数的关系曲线
    Figure  5.  Relationship curve between tracking distance and slope stability coefficient

    分析图4图5可知,追踪距离50 m时,三维支挡效应显著,边坡深部位移明显小于上部,发生以圆弧为侧界面、3-1煤底板弱层为底界面的切层-顺层-剪出滑动,稳定系数大于1.2。当追踪距离大于50 m时,通过对比分析不同深部边坡角(α)条件下的数值模拟结果可知,深部边坡角对边坡稳定性系数影响较小,随着追踪距离的增加,边坡的破坏模式过渡为以圆弧为侧界面、3-1煤底板弱层为底界面的切层-顺层滑动,并且此时边坡的稳定性不满足安全储备系数1.2要求。因此,内排土场追踪距离需控制在50 m以内,深部边坡角设计为29°。

    露天矿内排土场边坡稳定的主控因素是软弱基底,软弱基底分为自身软弱岩土层和受外界条影响转变为软弱岩土层2种类型。排土场下沉是软弱基底内排土场失稳的特征,主要现象是含有纵向强烈挤压区,基底上部岩层隆起,地面出现滑坡等[1921]。在保证采场南帮安全的前提下降深至3-1煤底板,须借助横采工作帮与内排土场的双重支挡作用,内排土场稳定是前提[22]。由于内排土场基底为3-1、3-4煤底板弱层,顺倾角度较大,按照内排土场设计参数,其稳定性无法满足安全储备系数的要求[23]。从提供基底强度角度出发,采用破坏弱层回填岩石的方式提高内排土场边坡稳定性。按照排土台阶高度24 m、平盘宽度60 m、坡面角33°对不同内排压帮标高边坡稳定性进行试算,确定内排最小压帮标高为+844水平,因此本文分析了内排基于+844水平的压帮高度下内排土场基底不同的处理方式时的边坡稳定性计算结果如图67所示,边坡稳定性与破坏弱层回填岩石范围关系曲线如图8所示。

    图  6  3-1煤层内排基底不同处理方式下边坡稳定性计算结果
    Figure  6.  Calculation results of slope stability under different treatment methods of inner row basement (3-1)

    分析图6图8可知,当内排基于+844的压帮高度,内排基底3-1底板弱层完全破坏并回填岩石,破坏3-4底板弱层并回填岩石倾向长度达60 m时,内排土场及其与采场南帮复合边坡稳定性均可满足安全系数1.2要求。边坡稳定性随破坏底板弱层回填岩石范围的增大呈正指数函数规律提高,随着回填岩石范围长度的不断增加,边坡稳定性系数不断提高。采用破坏弱层回填岩石的基底处理方法,既保证了边坡的稳定又规避了过渡处理基底的生产成本。

    图  7  3-4煤层内排基底不同处理方式下边坡稳定性计算结果
    Figure  7.  Calculation results of slope stability under different treatment methods of inner row basement (3-4)
    图  8  边坡稳定性与破坏弱层回填岩石范围关系曲线
    Figure  8.  Relationship curve between slope stability and the extent of backfill rocks in the weak layer

    (1) 弱层暴露长度是露天矿顺倾软岩边坡稳定性的主控因素,据此提出了露天矿顺倾软岩边坡内排追踪压帮治理工程,可最大限度的安全回收边坡压覆煤炭资源。

    (2) 控制采场与内排土场间的追踪距离是改善边坡稳定性的有效途径。随着追踪距离的增加,边坡破坏模式从以圆弧为侧界面、弱层为底界面的切层-顺层-剪出滑动逐渐过渡为以圆弧为侧界面、弱层为底界面的切层-顺层滑动。

    (3) 内排土场及其与采场构成的复合边坡稳定性随破坏底板弱层回填岩石范围的增大呈指数函数规律提高,随着回填岩石范围长度的不断增加,边坡稳定性系数不断提高。

    (4) 贺斯格乌拉南露天煤矿首采区南帮浅部边坡留设40 m运输平盘、15 m保安平盘,底帮深部边坡角29°,追踪距离控制在50 m之内时可满足安全要求;内排基底弱层完全破坏并回填岩石倾向长度60 m时可满足安全需求。

  • 图  1   滑坡楔形体受力分析图

    Figure  1.   Force analysis of landslide wedge

    图  2   管道极限宽度示意图

    Figure  2.   Schematic diagram of pipe limit width

    图  3   管道厚度层数应力图

    Figure  3.   Stress of pipeline thickness and layers

    图  4   管道腐蚀网格宽度应力图

    Figure  4.   Pipeline corrosion grid width stress diagram

    图  5   模型网格划分

    Figure  5.   Model meshing

    图  6   腐蚀深度0.2t时管道应力曲线

    Figure  6.   Stress curve of pipeline with 0.2t corrosion depth

    图  7   管道极限宽度变化曲线

    Figure  7.   Variation curve of pipeline limit width

    图  8   腐蚀环向位置示意图

    Figure  8.   Schematic diagram of circumferential position

    图  9   管道内外腐蚀应力对比图

    Figure  9.   Comparison of corrosion stress of internal and external pipeline

    图  10   管道环向应力路径图

    Figure  10.   Pipeline circumferential stress path diagram

    图  11   管道内外腐蚀极限宽度对比图

    Figure  11.   Comparison diagram of limit width of internal and external corrosion pipeline

    图  12   不同轴向位置腐蚀管道的最大应力和极限宽度曲线

    Figure  12.   Maximum stress and limit width curves of corroded pipes at different axial positions

    图  13   管道轴向应力路径图

    Figure  13.   Pipeline axial stress path

    表  1   土体参数

    Table  1   Soil parameters

    岩土参数E/MPa$\mu $γ/(kN·m−3φ/(°)c/kPa
    非滑坡区域32.50.35202520
    滑坡区域32.50.4201015
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2   X80管材参数

    Table  2   X80 pipe parameters

    型号外径/mm壁厚/mm密度/(kg·m−3E/GPa$\mu $$ \sigma $/MPa
    X80101617.578502070.3555
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3   管道腐蚀程度评价指标[22]

    Table  3   Evaluation index of pipeline corrosion degree

    项目严重穿孔
    腐蚀坑相对深度/%<10[10, 25)[25, 50)[50, 80)≥80
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 高鹏, 高振宇, 刘广仁. 2019年中国油气管道建设新进展[J]. 国际石油经济,2020,28(3):52 − 58. [GAO Peng, GAO Zhenyu, LIU Guangren. New progress in China's oil and gas pipeline construction in 2019[J]. International Petroleum Economics,2020,28(3):52 − 58. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-7298.2020.03.007

    GAO Peng, GAO Zhenyu, LIU Guangren. New progress in China's oil and gas pipeline construction in 2019[J]. International Petroleum Economics, 2020, 28(3): 52-58. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-7298.2020.03.007

    [2] 李阳春, 刘黔云, 李潇, 等. 基于机器学习的滑坡崩塌地质灾害气象风险预警研究[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2021,32(3):118 − 123. [LI Yangchun, LIU Qianyun, LI Xiao, et al. Exploring early warning and forecasting of meteorological risk of landslide and rockfall induced by meteorological factors by the approach of machine learning[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2021,32(3):118 − 123. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    LI Yangchun, LIU Qianyun, LI Xiao, et al. Exploring early warning and forecasting of meteorological risk of landslide and rockfall induced by meteorological factors by the approach of machine learning[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 2021, 32(3): 118-123. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [3] 王玉川, 郭其峰, 周延国. 中等倾角岩层顺向坡滑坡发育特征及形成机制分析—以拖担水库左岸坝肩滑坡为例[J]. 中国地质灾害与防治学报,2021,32(4):17 − 23. [WANG Yuchuan, GUO Qifeng, ZHOU Yanguo. Development characteristics and formation mechanism of the medium-dip bedding slopes:A case study of the landslide on the left bank of Tuodan reservoir dam[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control,2021,32(4):17 − 23. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    WANG Yuchuan, GUO Qifeng, ZHOU Yanguo. Development characteristics and formation mechanism of the medium-dip bedding slopes: a case study of the landslide on the left bank of Tuodan reservoir dam[J]. The Chinese Journal of Geological Hazard and Control, 2021, 32(4): 17-23. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [4] 邓道明, 周新海, 申玉平. 横向滑坡过程中管道的内力和变形计算[J]. 油气储运,1998,17(7):18 − 22. [DENG Daoming, ZHOU Xinhai, SHEN Yuping. Calculation of pipeline inner force and distortion during transverse landslide body[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation,1998,17(7):18 − 22. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    DENG Daoming, ZHOU Xinhai, SHEN Yuping. Calculation of pipeline inner force and distortion during transverse landslide body[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, 1998, 17(7): 18-22. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [5] 郝建斌, 刘建平, 荆宏远, 等. 横穿状态下滑坡对管道推力的计算[J]. 石油学报,2012,33(6):1093 − 1097. [HAO Jianbin, LIU Jianping, JING Hongyuan, et al. A calculation of landslide thrust force to transverse pipelines[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica,2012,33(6):1093 − 1097. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    HAO Jianbin, LIU Jianping, JING Hongyuan, et al. A calculation of landslide thrust force to transverse pipelines[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2012, 33(6): 1093-1097. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [6]

    ZAHID U, GODIO A, MAURO S. An analytical procedure for modelling pipeline-landslide interaction in gas pipelines[J]. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering,2020,81:103474. DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103474

    [7] 张铄, 吴明, 牛冉, 等. 深层圆弧形滑坡作用下长输埋地输气管道响应分析[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术,2015,11(11):29 − 34. [ZHANG Shuo, WU Ming, NIU Ran, et al. Analysis on response of long distance buried gas pipeline impacted by deep cir-cular arc landslide[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology,2015,11(11):29 − 34. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    ZHANG Shuo, WU Ming, NIU Ran, et al. Analysis on response of long distance buried gas pipeline impacted by deep cir-cular arc landslide[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2015, 11(11): 29-34. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [8]

    KUPPUSAMY C S, KARUPPANAN S, PATIL S S. Buckling strength of corroded pipelines with interacting corrosion defects:numerical analysis[J]. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics,2016,16(9):1550063. DOI: 10.1142/S0219455415500637

    [9] 徐鹏飞. 含体积型缺陷输气管道在滑坡作用下剩余强度评价技术研究[D]. 成都: 西南石油大学, 2018

    XU Pengfei. Research on residual strength evaluation technology of gas pipeline containing volume defects under landslide[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Petroleum University, 2018. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [10] 李非飞, 黄坤, 吴佳丽, 等. X80管道单腐蚀缺陷失效研究[J]. 应用力学学报,2020,37(1):330 − 337. [LI Feifei, HUANG Kun, WU Jiali, et al. Research on failure of single corrosion defect in X80 pipeline[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Mechanics,2020,37(1):330 − 337. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    LI Feifei, HUANG Kun, WU Jiali, et al. Research on failure of single corrosion defect in X80 pipeline[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Mechanics, 2020, 37(1): 330-337. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [11]

    LIU Y W, ZHANG Z W, ZHANG Y. Two-dimensional numerical analysis of differential concentration corrosion in seawater pipeline[J]. Anti-Corrosion Methods and Materials,2020,67(3):257 − 268. DOI: 10.1108/ACMM-11-2019-2211

    [12]

    LI G Z, ZHANG P, LI Z X, et al. Safety length simulation of natural gas pipeline subjected to transverse landslide[J]. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,2016,21(12):4387 − 4399.

    [13] 中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. 输气管道工程设计规范: GB 50251—2015[S]. 北京: 中国计划出版社, 2015.

    The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, PRC. Design code for gas transmission pipeline engineering: GB 50251—2015[S]. Beijing: China Planning Press, 2015. (in Chinese)

    [14] 陈利琼, 宋利强, 吴世娟, 等. 基于有限元方法的滑坡地段输气管道应力分析[J]. 天然气工业,2017,37(2):84 − 91. [CHEN Liqiong, SONG Liqiang, WU Shijuan, et al. FEM-based stress analysis of gas pipelines in landslide areas[J]. Natural Gas Industry,2017,37(2):84 − 91. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.3787/j.issn.1000-0976.2017.02.011

    CHEN Liqiong, SONG Liqiang, WU Shijuan, et al. FEM-based stress analysis of gas pipelines in landslide areas[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2017, 37(2): 84-91. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.3787/j.issn.1000-0976.2017.02.011

    [15] 张家铭, 尚玉杰, 王荣有, 等. 基于Pasternak双参数模型的滑坡段埋地管道受力分析方法[J]. 中南大学学报(自然科学版),2020,51(5):1328 − 1336. [ZHANG Jiaming, SHANG Yujie, WANG Rongyou, et al. Force analysis method of buried pipeline in landslide section based on Pasternak double-parameter model[J]. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology),2020,51(5):1328 − 1336. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7207.2020.05.017

    ZHANG Jiaming, SHANG Yujie, WANG Rongyou, et al. Force analysis method of buried pipeline in landslide section based on Pasternak double-parameter model[J]. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), 2020, 51(5): 1328-1336. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7207.2020.05.017

    [16]

    ZHANG S Z, LI S Y, CHEN S N, et al. Stress analysis on large-diameter buried gas pipelines under catastrophic landslides[J]. Petroleum Science,2017,14(3):579 − 585. DOI: 10.1007/s12182-017-0177-y

    [17] 张会远, 管巧艳, 骆晓阳, 等. 管道穿越滑坡下静力学与数值模拟对比分析[J]. 煤田地质与勘探,2017,45(1):85 − 89. [ZHANG Huiyuan, GUAN Qiaoyan, LUO Xiaoyang, et al. Comparative analysis of statics and numerical simulation of buried gas pipeline crossing landslide[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration,2017,45(1):85 − 89. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1986.2017.01.017

    ZHANG Huiyuan, GUAN Qiaoyan, LUO Xiaoyang, et al. Comparative analysis of statics and numerical simulation of buried gas pipeline crossing landslide[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration, 2017, 45(1): 85-89. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1986.2017.01.017

    [18]

    ZHANG L S, FANG ML, PANG X F, et al. Mechanical behavior of pipelines subjecting to horizontal landslides using a new finite element model with equivalent boundary springs[J]. Thin-Walled Structures,2018,124:501 − 513. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2017.12.019

    [19]

    SARVANIS G C, KARAMANOS S A, VAZOURAS P, et al. Permanent earthquake-induced actions in buried pipelines:numerical modeling and experimental verification[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,2018,47(4):966 − 987.

    [20] 国家能源局. 钢质管道管体腐蚀损伤评价方法: SY/T 6151—2009[S]. 北京: 石油工业出版社, 2010.

    The National Energy Administration. Evaluation method for corrosion damage of steel pipe body: SY/T 6151—2009[S]. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 2010. (in Chinese)

    [21] 张晓, 帅健. 基于内检测数据的管道腐蚀缺陷分布规律[J]. 油气储运,2018,37(9):980 − 985. [ZHANG Xiao, SHUAI Jian. Distribution regularities of pipeline corrosion defect based on in-line inspection data[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation,2018,37(9):980 − 985. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    ZHANG Xiao, SHUAI Jian. Distribution regularities of pipeline corrosion defect based on in-line inspection data[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, 2018, 37(9): 980-985. (in Chinese with English abstract)

    [22] 国家能源局. 钢质管道及储罐腐蚀评价标准埋地钢质管道内腐蚀直接评价: SY/T 0087.2—2012[S]. 北京: 石油工业出版社, 2012.

    National Energy Administration. Direct evaluation of internal corrosion in buried steel pipelines: SY/T 0087.2—2012[S]. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press. 2012. (in Chinese)

  • 期刊类型引用(1)

    1. 管少杰,吕进国,王康,张砚力. 露天矿下伏采空区距坡脚水平距离对边坡稳定性的影响. 工矿自动化. 2025(02): 113-120 . 百度学术

    其他类型引用(0)

图(13)  /  表(3)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  381
  • HTML全文浏览量:  263
  • PDF下载量:  542
  • 被引次数: 1
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2021-08-20
  • 修回日期:  2021-10-24
  • 录用日期:  2021-12-09
  • 网络出版日期:  2022-05-16
  • 刊出日期:  2022-08-28

目录

/

返回文章
返回