刘鹏, 胡香凝, 李亮亮, 白路遥, 孙肇良, 李玉星. 不同沉降模式下埋地钢管力学响应对比分析[J]. 油气储运. DOI: 10.6047/j.issn.1000-8241.202504180178
引用本文: 刘鹏, 胡香凝, 李亮亮, 白路遥, 孙肇良, 李玉星. 不同沉降模式下埋地钢管力学响应对比分析[J]. 油气储运. DOI: 10.6047/j.issn.1000-8241.202504180178
LIU Peng, HU Xiangning, LI Liangliang, BAI Luyao, SUN Zhaoliang, LI Yuxing. Comparative analysis of mechanical response of buried steel pipeline under different settlement processes[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation. DOI: 10.6047/j.issn.1000-8241.202504180178
Citation: LIU Peng, HU Xiangning, LI Liangliang, BAI Luyao, SUN Zhaoliang, LI Yuxing. Comparative analysis of mechanical response of buried steel pipeline under different settlement processes[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation. DOI: 10.6047/j.issn.1000-8241.202504180178

不同沉降模式下埋地钢管力学响应对比分析

Comparative analysis of mechanical response of buried steel pipeline under different settlement processes

  • 摘要: 【目的】随着我国油气管道以及城市建设进程的加快,埋地油气管道沉降灾害在我国逐渐增多且分布广泛,地层沉降逐渐成为威胁埋地油气管道安全的重点灾害类型之一。【方法】为了研究不同沉降发展过程(沉降模式)下的埋地钢管力学响应差异,开展了不同沉降模式下的埋地钢管沉降模拟实验,定量分析了不同沉降模式下的埋地钢管力学响应差异。【结果】研究结果表明,对于相同的地层沉降结果,不同的沉降过程会造成不同的埋地钢管力学响应状态。土体整体沉降模式相对分阶段多次沉降模式下的埋地钢管力学响应更剧烈,管道更易因沉降而发生破坏。此外,尽管逆序沉降模式下的埋地管道正上方土体表面最大沉降量始终大于整体沉降模式下的管道正上方土体表面最大沉降量,但是其管道力学响应却总是小于整体沉降模式。【结论】因此,对于沉降作用下的埋地管道安全评价,地层沉降中局部的大幅度土体沉降可能对管道整体影响不大,需要统一考虑整个沉降区的土体沉降发展过程。在埋地管道沉降灾害中,应尽可能控制地层沉降区土体分区域沉降以降低埋地管道的力学响应,从而保障埋地管道安全。对于指定沉降范围和沉降量的地层沉降结果,为了使地层沉降作用下的埋地钢管力学响应最低,建议首先对沉降区中部进行一次相对大范围的地层土体沉降,然后向沉降区边界分多次进行小范围土体沉降。本文研究成果对于准确评估地层沉降下的埋地管道安全具有重要意义。(图31,表8,参20)

     

    Abstract: Objective With the acceleration of China's oil and gas pipeline and urban construction process, the settlement disasters of buried oil and gas pipelines are gradually increasing and widely distributed in China, and geological subsidence has become one of the key disaster types threatening the safety of buried oil and gas pipelines. Methods In order to study the differences in mechanical response of buried steel pipes under different settlement development processes (settlement modes), settlement simulation experiments of buried steel pipes under different settlement modes were conducted, and the differences in mechanical response of buried steel pipes under different settlement modes were quantitatively analyzed. Results The research results indicate that for the same geological settlement results, different settlement development processes will cause different mechanical response states of buried steel pipes. The mechanical response of buried steel pipes under the overall settlement mode of soil is more severe compared to the multi-stage multiple settlement mode, and the pipes are more prone to damage due to settlement. In addition, although the maximum settlement of the soil surface directly above the buried pipeline in the reverse settlement mode is always greater than the maximum settlement of the soil surface directly above the pipeline in the overall settlement mode, the mechanical response of the pipeline is always smaller than that in the overall settlement mode. 【Conclusion】 Therefore, for the safety evaluation of buried pipelines under settlement, the significant local soil settlement in geological settlement may not have a significant impact on the overall pipeline, and it is necessary to consider the development process of soil settlement in the entire settlement zone uniformly. In the disaster of buried pipeline settlement, efforts should be made to control the soil settlement in different areas of the stratum settlement zone as much as possible to reduce the mechanical response of the buried pipeline and ensure its safety. For the settlement results of the specified settlement range and amount, in order to minimize the mechanical response of buried steel pipes under the action of settlement, it is recommended to first perform a relatively large range of soil settlement in the middle of the settlement zone, and then perform multiple small-scale soil settlements towards the boundary of the settlement zone. The research results of this article are of great significance for accurately evaluating the safety of buried pipelines under geological subsidence. (Figure 31, Table 8, Reference 20)

     

/

返回文章
返回