Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 318, 2021
Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering – Iraq (ICGE 2021)
Article Number 01011
Number of page(s) 10
Section Developments in Geotechnical Engineering
Published online 08 November 2021
  1. Moser, A.P. and Folkman, S., 2008. Buried pipe design. McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ling, H.I., Mohri, Y., Kawabata, T., Liu, H., Burke, C. and Sun, L., 2003. Centrifugal modeling of seismic behavior of large-diameter pipe in liquefiable soil. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 129(12), pp.1092–1101. [Google Scholar]
  3. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, 2003. Rupture in South-central Alaska: The Denali Fault Earthquake of 2002. [Google Scholar]
  4. Huang, B., Liu, J., Ling, D. and Zhou, Y., 2015. Application of particle image velocimetry (PIV) in the study of uplift mechanisms of pipe buried in medium dense sand. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 5(5), pp.599–614. [Google Scholar]
  5. Tafreshi, S.M. and Khalaj, O., 2008. Laboratory tests of small-diameter HDPE pipes buried in reinforced sand under repeated-load. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 26(2), pp.145–163. [Google Scholar]
  6. Magda, W., 1997. Wave-induced uplift force on a submarine pipeline buried in a compressible seabed. Ocean Engineering, 24(6), pp.551–576. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ling, H.I., Sun, L., Liu, H., Mohri, Y. and Kawabata, T., 2008. Finite element analysis of pipe buried in saturated soil deposit subject to earthquake loading. Journal of earthquake and Tsunami, 2(01), pp.1–17. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bao, X., Jin, Z., Cui, H., Chen, X. and Xie, X., 2019. Soil liquefaction mitigation in geotechnical engineering: An overview of recently developed methods. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 120,pp.273–291. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhang, Z.M., Xin, G.F., Wu, Q.Y., Wang, N.X. and Zeng, Y.J., 2006. Centrifuge model tests on super-long piles with large diameters considering mudcake effect [J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 12. [Google Scholar]
  10. O’Rourke, T.D., Jung, J.K. and Argyrou, C., 2016. Underground pipeline response to earthquake-induced ground deformation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 91,pp.272–283. [Google Scholar]
  11. O'Rourke, M.J. and Liu, X., 1999. Response of buried pipelines subject to earthquake effects (p. 260). New York: Mceer. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chian, S.C., Tokimatsu, K. and Madabhushi, S.P.G., 2014. Soil liquefaction-induced uplift of underground structures: Physical and numerical modeling. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140(10), p.04014057. [Google Scholar]
  13. He, J., Chu, J. and Ivanov, V., 2014. Mitigation of liquefaction of saturated sand using biogas. In Bio-and Chemo-Mechanical Processes in Geotechnical Engineering: Géotechnique Symposium in Print 2013 (pp. 116–124). ICE Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zou, D., Kong, X. and Xu, B., 2007. Numerical Simulation of Seimic Behavior of Pipeline in Liquefiable Soil. In Soil Stress-Strain Behavior: Measurement, Modeling and Analysis (pp. 673–682). Springer, Dordrecht [Google Scholar]
  15. Zienkiewicz, O.C., 1982. Basic formulation of static and dynamic behaviour of soil and other porous media. In Numerical methods in geomechanics (pp. 39–55). Springer, Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]
  16. Seed, H.B., Martin, P.P. and Lysmer, J., 1976. Pore-water pressure changes during soil liquefaction. Journal of the geotechnical engineering division, 102(4), pp.323–346. [Google Scholar]
  17. Teja, A.S., 2018, February. Field investigation on structural performance of the buried UPVC pipes with and without geogrid reinforcement. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1930, No. 1, p. 020035). AIP Publishing LLC. [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, W., Song, Z. and Wang, Y., 2020. Seismic Analysis of the Connections of Buried Segmented Pipes. Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 123(1), pp.257–282. [Google Scholar]
  19. Castiglia, M., Fierro, T. and Santucci de Magistris, F., 2020. Pipeline performances under earthquake-induced soil liquefaction: state of the art on real observations, model tests, and numerical simulations. Shock and Vibration, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  20. Alzabeebee, S., 2019. Response of buried uPVC pipes subjected to earthquake shake. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 4(1), pp.1–14. [Google Scholar]
  21. Manshoori, M.R., 2011. Evaluation of seismic vulnerability and failure modes for pipelines. Procedia Engineering, 14,pp.3042–3049. [Google Scholar]
  22. Karamanos, S.A., Keil, B. and Card, R.J., 2014. Seismic design of buried steel water pipelines. In Pipelines 2014: From Underground to the Forefront of Innovation and Sustainability (pp. 1005–1019). [Google Scholar]
  23. Nair, G.S., Dash, S.R. and Mondal, G., 2018. Review of pipeline performance during earthquakes since 1906. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 32(6), p.04018083. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nishio, N., Tsukamoto, K. and Hamura, A., 1987. Model experiment on the strain in buried pipeline associated with soil liquefaction (pp. 141–157). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  25. Doyleand, J. M. and Fang, S. J., 1999. Underground Pipe. Structural Engineering Handbook Ed. Chen Wai-Fah Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC. [Google Scholar]
  26. American Water Works Association, 1989. Steel Pipe-A Guide for Design and Installation: M11 [Google Scholar]
  27. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. 1992, 15th ed. [Google Scholar]
  28. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), A796, 1994. Standard practice for structural design of corrugated steel pipe, pipe-arches and arches for storm and sanitary sewers and other buried applications. [Google Scholar]
  29. American Water Works Association, 1995. Concrete Pressure Pipe: M9 (Vol. 9). [Google Scholar]
  30. Committee on Seismic Analysis of the ASCE Structural Division Committee on Nuclear Structures and Materials, 1983. Seismic Response of Buried Pipes and Structural Components. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.