Submitted:
08 May 2025
Posted:
09 May 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials and Slurry Preparation
2.2. Experimental Methods
2.3. Experimental Design
2.3.1. Orthogonal Experimental Design and Range Analysis
2.3.2. Comparative Experimental Design
2.4. SEM Microstructural Observation
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Analysis of Orthogonal Experimental Results
4.2. Analysis of Comparative Experimental Results
4.2.1. Effect of HEC Content on Slurry Performance
4.2.2. Effect of CMC Content on Slurry Performance
4.2.3. Comparison of the Effects of HEC and CMC on Slurry Performance
5.1. Microtructure Analysis
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
- Kaushal, V., M. Najafi, and R. Serajiantehrani. 2020. "Environmental Impacts of Conventional Open-Cut Pipeline Installation and Trenchless Technology Methods: State-of-the-Art Review." Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice 11(2). [CrossRef]
- Ma, P., et al. 2023. "Transition of the pipe jacking technology in Japan and investigation of its application status." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 139. [CrossRef]
- Dai, W., et al. 2019. "Case Study of Small Diameter and Long Distance Steel Pipe Jacking Construction Crossing River." China Water & Wastewater 35(24): 118-122.
- Chen, J., Z. Li, and P. Xu. 2013. "Design and Application of Large Diameter GRP Jacking Pipe in Long Distance Pipe Jacking Construction." China Water & Wastewater 29(18): 154-157.
- Fei, Z. 2012. "Key Technologies for Long Distance Curvilinear Pipe Jacking." China Water & Wastewater 28(18): 106-108.
- Li, C., et al. 2019. "Numerical simulation for an estimation of the jacking force of ultra-long-distance pipe jacking with frictional property testing at the rock mass-pipe interface." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 89: 205-221. [CrossRef]
- Yang, R., D. Zeng, and X. Cui. 2024. "Research on Key Techniques for Backward Construction of Large Diameter Pipe Jacking under a Lake." China Water & Wastewater 40(6): 126-131.
- Yang, X., Y. Liu, and C. Yang. 2018. "Research on the Slurry for Long-Distance Large-Diameter Pipe Jacking in Expansive Soil." Advances in Civil Engineering 2018. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D., B. Liu, and Y. Qin. 2016. "Construction of a large-section long pedestrian underpass using pipe jacking in muddy silty clay: A case study." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 60: 151-164. [CrossRef]
- Zhou, S., Y. Wang, and X. Huang. 2009. "Experimental study on the effect of injecting slurry inside a jacking pipe tunnel in silt stratum." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24(4): 466-471. [CrossRef]
- O'Dwyer, K.G., B.A. McCabe, and B.B. Sheil. 2020. "Interpretation of pipe-jacking and lubrication records for drives in silty soil." Underground Space 5(3): 199-209. [CrossRef]
- Zhong, X., Z. Zhou, and D. Li. 2011. "Key measures for large diameter steel pipe jacking engineering in Xijiang water diversion project and their practical effects." Water & Wastewater Engineering 37(2): 93-96.
- Cheng, W.-C., et al. 2019. "Lubrication performance of pipejacking in soft alluvial deposits." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 91. [CrossRef]
- Wang, L., J. He, and C. Fan. 2018. "Research and Application of Drag Reduction by Grouting the Pipe Jacking in Complex Conditions." Modern Tunnelling Technology 55(3): 200-204.
- Luo, Z., et al. 2024. "Stress and deformation response of pipe jacking in upper-soft and lower-hard strata: A case study in Changsha." Engineering Failure Analysis 166. [CrossRef]
- Pellet-Beaucour, A.L. and R. Kastner. 2002. "Experimental and analytical study of friction forces during microtunneling operations." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 17(1): 83-97. [CrossRef]
- Liu, S., et al. 2022. "Formulation optimization and performance analysis of the thixotropic slurry for large-section rectangular pipe jacking in anhydrous sand." Construction and Building Materials 357. [CrossRef]
- Namli, M. and E. Guler. 2017. "Effect of Bentonite Slurry Pressure on Interface Friction of Pipe Jacking." Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice 8(2). [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z., et al. 2024. "Experimental Investigation of the Lubricant Effect of Thixotropic Slurry on Pipe-Soil Interfacial Friction Characteristics." Buildings 14(11). [CrossRef]
- Zeng, C., et al. 2022. "Experimental Study on the Influence of Slurry Concentration and Standing Time on the Friction Characteristics of a Steel Pipe-Soil Interface." Applied Sciences-Basel 12(7). [CrossRef]
- Wen, K., et al. 2020. "Frictional analysis of pipe-slurry-soil interaction and jacking force prediction of rectangular pipe jacking." European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 24(6): 814-832. [CrossRef]
- Shou, K., J. Yen, and M. Liu. 2010. "On the frictional property of lubricants and its impact on jacking force and soil-pipe interaction of pipe-jacking." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 25(4): 469-477. [CrossRef]
- Cui, G., et al. 2024. "Experimental study on optimization of pipe jacking mud mixture ratio based on MICP technology." Scientific Reports 14(1). [CrossRef]
- Liu, J., et al. 2023. "Orthogonal Design and Microstructure Mechanism Analysis of Novel Bentonite Polymer Slurry in Pipe Jacking." Polymers 15(6). [CrossRef]
- Huang, X., et al. 2018. "Application of core-shell structural acrylic resin/nano-SiO2 composite in water based drilling fluid to plug shale pores." Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 55: 418-425. [CrossRef]
- Huang, X., et al. 2019. "Enhancement of thermal stability of drilling fluid using laponite nanoparticles under extreme temperature conditions." Materials Letters 248: 146-149. [CrossRef]
- Liu, K., et al. 2021. "Recent advances in cellulose and its derivatives for oilfield applications." Carbohydrate Polymers 259. [CrossRef]
- Brachaczek, W. and Iop. Year. "Influence of Cellulose Ethers on the Consistency, Water Retention and Adhesion of Renovating Plasters." Journal 471. [CrossRef]
- Wang, P., G. Zhao, and G. Zhang. 2017. "Mechanism on Water Retention and Thickening of Cellulose Ethers in Fresh Mortars." Journal of the Chinese Ceramic Society 45(8): 1190-1196.
- Hynninen, V., J. Patrakka, and Nonappa. 2021. "Methylcellulose-Cellulose Nanocrystal Composites for Optomechanically Tunable Hydrogels and Fibers." Materials 14(18). [CrossRef]
- Arca, H.C., et al. 2018. "Pharmaceutical Applications of Cellulose Ethers and Cellulose Ether Esters." Biomacromolecules 19(7): 2351-2376. [CrossRef]
- Li, X., et al. 2021. "Hydroxyethyl Cellulose As a Rheological Additive for Tuning the Extrusion Printability and Scaffold Properties." 3d Printing and Additive Manufacturing 8(2): 87-98. [CrossRef]
- Ouaer, H. and M. Gareche. 2019. "Hydroxyethyl cellulose as a rheology modifier for water-based drilling fluids formulated with Algerian bentonite." Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 41(3). [CrossRef]
- Feng, K., et al. 2024. "Influence of cellulose ethers on rheological properties of cementitious materials: A review." Journal of Building Engineering 95. [CrossRef]
- Kokol, V. 2022. "Influence of hydroxyethyl and carboxymethyl celluloses on the rheology, water retention and surface tension of water-suspended microfibrillated cellulose." Cellulose 29(13): 7063-7081. [CrossRef]
- Pan, Y., et al. 2023. "Research progress of hydroxyethyl cellulose materials in oil and gas drilling and production." Cellulose 30(17): 10681-10700. [CrossRef]
- Benyounes, K., et al. Year. "Rheological behavior of Hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC) Solutions." Journal 1045. [CrossRef]
- Torrijos, R., et al. 2022. "Antifungal activity of natamycin and development of an edible film based on hydroxyethylcellulose to avoid Penicillium spp. growth on low-moisture mozzarella cheese." Lwt-Food Science and Technology 154. [CrossRef]
- Gospodinova, A., et al. 2021. "Extrusion bioprinting of hydroxyethylcellulose-based bioink for cervical tumor model." Carbohydrate Polymers 260. [CrossRef]
- Turczyn, R., et al. 2000. "In situ self hardening bioactive composite for bone and dental surgery." Journal of Biomaterials Science-Polymer Edition 11(2): 217-223. [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.L., et al. 2021. "Structural Optimization of Reciprocating Seal with Magnetic Fluid Based on Orthogonal Test Design." Journal of Magnetics 26(2): 229-237. [CrossRef]
- Benchabane, A. and K. Bekkour. 2006. "Effects of anionic additives on the rheological behavior of aqueous calcium montmorillonite suspensions." Rheologica Acta 45(4): 425-434. [CrossRef]
- Li, B., Z. Shao, and B. Liao. 2010. "Viscosity and Viscoelasticity Study on Association of HEC/CMC Mixed System in Aqueous Medium." Transactions of Beijing Institute of Technology 30(2): 226-230.















| Name | Specification |
| Sodium bentonite | Montmorillonite content ≥75% |
| Gel yield (swelling capacity): 100.2 mL/15g | |
| Na2CO3 | Manufacturer: Shanghai Xilong Scientific Co., Ltd. |
| Purity ≥99.8% (chemically pure grade) | |
| HEC | Viscosity of 2% aqueous solution: 5,000–6,000 mPa·s at 20°C |
| CMC | Viscosity of 20 g/L solution: 800–1,200 mPa·s at 25°C |
| Water | Municipal tap water |
| No. | Factors | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 |
| A | Bentonite content (%) | 6.0 | 8.0 | 10.0 | 12.0 |
| B | CMC content (%) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| C | Na2CO3 content (%) | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| No. | Bentonite content (%) | HEC content (%) | CMC content (%) | Water content (%) |
| HEC-0.05 | 8 | 0.05 | - | 91.95 |
| HEC-0.10 | 8 | 0.10 | - | 91.90 |
| HEC-0.15 | 8 | 0.15 | - | 91.85 |
| HEC-0.20 | 8 | 0.20 | - | 91.80 |
| HEC-0.25 | 8 | 0.25 | - | 91.75 |
| CMC-0.05 | 8 | - | 0.05 | 91.95 |
| CMC-0.10 | 8 | - | 0.10 | 91.90 |
| CMC-0.15 | 8 | - | 0.15 | 91.85 |
| CMC-0.20 | 8 | - | 0.20 | 91.80 |
| CMC-0.25 | 8 | - | 0.25 | 91.75 |
| No. | A (%) | B (%) | C (%) | SG | pH | FV (s) | WSR (%) | FL (mL/30min) | FCT (mm) |
| 1 | 6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.020 | 10.68 | 36 | 0 | 13.7 | 0.7 |
| 2 | 6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1.023 | 10.80 | 43 | 0 | 11.0 | 0.5 |
| 3 | 6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.030 | 10.98 | 56 | 0 | 9.0 | 0.6 |
| 4 | 6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.031 | 11.11 | 72 | 0 | 8.4 | 0.8 |
| 5 | 8 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 1.038 | 10.70 | 183 | 0 | 8.0 | 1.0 |
| 6 | 8 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.040 | 10.89 | 82 | 0 | 8.9 | 1.1 |
| 7 | 8 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 1.038 | 11.02 | 49 | 0 | 8.2 | 0.7 |
| 8 | 8 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 1.037 | 11.11 | 38 | 0 | 11.4 | 0.9 |
| 9 | 10 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 1.053 | 10.57 | 154 | 0 | 8.3 | 0.9 |
| 10 | 10 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1.050 | 10.77 | 62 | 0 | 11.4 | 1.1 |
| 11 | 10 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 1.051 | 10.93 | 225 | 0 | 7.0 | 1.0 |
| 12 | 10 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1.058 | 11.09 | 119 | 0 | 7.5 | 0.9 |
| 13 | 12 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 1.068 | 10.68 | 803 | 0 | 7.6 | 1.1 |
| 14 | 12 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 1.070 | 10.80 | 601 | 0 | 6.4 | 1.5 |
| 15 | 12 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 1.069 | 10.96 | 83 | 0 | 10.4 | 1.1 |
| 16 | 12 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 1.068 | 11.11 | 95 | 0 | 8.5 | 1.1 |
| Factors | Mean FL values (K₁) across experimental levels (mL/30 min) | ||||||
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | R | Priority order | Optimal combination | |
| A | 10.525 | 9.125 | 8.550 | 8.225 | 2.300 | B-A-C | A₄B₄C₃ |
| B | 11.725 | 9.000 | 8.250 | 7.450 | 4.275 | ||
| C | 9.400 | 9.425 | 8.650 | 8.950 | 0.775 | ||
| Factors | Mean FV values (K2) across experimental levels (s) | ||||||
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | R | Priority order | Optimal combination | |
| A | 51.750 | 88.000 | 140.000 | 395.500 | 343.750 | A-B-C | A₃B₂C₃ |
| B | 54.750 | 85.250 | 265.000 | 270.250 | 215.500 | ||
| C | 294.000 | 197.000 | 103.250 | 81.000 | 213.000 | ||
| Factors | Mean FCT values (K3) across experimental levels (mm) | ||||||
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | R | Priority order | Optimal combination | |
| A | 0.650 | 0.925 | 0.975 | 1.200 | 0.550 | A-B-C | A₃B₂C₃ |
| B | 0.950 | 0.800 | 0.925 | 1.075 | 0.275 | ||
| C | 0.925 | 1.050 | 0.850 | 0.925 | 0.200 | ||
| No. | Key performance indicators of thixotropic slurry | |||||
| SG | FV (s) | WSR (%) | FCT (mm) | FL (mL/30min) | pH | |
| HEC-0.05 | 1.035 | 43 | 0 | 1.0 | 15.5 | 10.17 |
| HEC-0.10 | 1.039 | 54 | 0 | 1.0 | 12.1 | 9.98 |
| HEC-0.15 | 1.039 | 83 | 0 | 1.0 | 10.8 | 9.98 |
| HEC-0.20 | 1.040 | 90 | 0 | 0.8 | 9.8 | 10.22 |
| HEC-0.25 | 1.041 | 121 | 0 | 1.0 | 9.5 | 10.20 |
| No. | Key performance indicators of thixotropic slurry | |||||
| SG | FV (s) | WSR (%) | FCT (mm) | FL (mL/30min) | pH | |
| CMC-0.05 | 1.036 | 45 | 0 | 1.0 | 14.6 | 10.43 |
| CMC-0.10 | 1.038 | 53 | 0 | 1.0 | 12.0 | 10.37 |
| CMC-0.15 | 1.040 | 66 | 0 | 1.0 | 10.6 | 10.37 |
| CMC-0.20 | 1.041 | 91 | 0 | 1.0 | 10.0 | 10.35 |
| CMC-0.25 | 1.041 | 112 | 0 | 1.0 | 9.2 | 10.35 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).