Numerical Analysis of Frost Heave and Thaw Settlement for Pipeline Buried in Frost-Susceptible Soil via Thermosiphons

Seasonal frost or permafrost soils may encounter frost heave or thaw settlement resulting from atmospheric temperature changes and/or heat emanating from the resource-carrying pipeline. Notably, these soil movements can damage the pipeline. Thus, various ground stabilization methods have been develo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied Sciences
Main Authors: Dong-Su Park, Mun-Beom Shin, Woo-Jin Park, Young-Kyo Seo
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2023
Subjects:
T
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031948
https://doaj.org/article/110a093f6c494e619fcafee83ba0e849
Description
Summary:Seasonal frost or permafrost soils may encounter frost heave or thaw settlement resulting from atmospheric temperature changes and/or heat emanating from the resource-carrying pipeline. Notably, these soil movements can damage the pipeline. Thus, various ground stabilization methods have been developed to prevent the onset of these phenomena in frost-susceptible soils, and the application of thermosiphons is a representative method. Recently, a numerical analysis method called the thermosiphon model for a pipeline and thermosiphons in frost-susceptible soil has been developed; however, the study only focused on the ability to reduce frost heave of the soil using the thermosiphon. Therefore, here, numerical analysis was conducted to determine the performance of a buried pipeline according to frost heave and thaw settlement by applying the thermosiphon model via ABAQUS. For the novel numerical analysis, two scenarios are established: frost heave and thaw settlement. For each scenario, the behaviors of the frost-susceptible soil and pipeline are compared in four cases, distinguished by the arrangement of thermosiphons applied. The results indicate that according to the arrangement of the thermosiphons, the frost-heave and thaw-settlement behaviors are verifiably reduced by up to 62% and 82%, respectively, compared to when no thermosiphons are applied.