Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth (2014) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference

Busan, Korea, June 15-20, 2014

Copyright 2014 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1 880653 91-3 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

www.isope.org

Calibration of Verley and Sotberg Soil Resistance Model for Pipelines Placed on Calcareous Soils
Bassem S. Youssef

Mark J. Cassidy

Atteris Pty Ltd

Perth, WA, Australia

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems,

The University of Western Australia
Perth, WA, Australia

ABSTRACT
of silica sand and clay soils, respectively. The mathematical equations
of these two models are based on simple dimensional analysis. The
equations are fitted to large scale laboratory pipe mode tests. Accuracy
of the models is demonstrated by predicting the time history of
penetration and displacements as recorded during the physical testing
(Verley and Sotberg 1992 and Verley and Lund 1995).
More advanced pipe-soil interaction models based on the
sophisticated plasticity model are presented by Zhang (2001) and
introduced into a computer program by Tian and Cassidy (2008). The
centrifuge testing results presented in this paper were mainly conducted
to assess the applicability of Zhangs (2001) plasticity model in
predicting the pipe-soil interaction under complex loading scenarios
(see Youssef (2012) and Youssef et al. (2013-a) for more details).
However, the main focus of this paper is to calibrate Verley and
Sotberg (1992) silica sand soil resistance model for the case of
calcareous sand soil using the centrifuge test results of Youssef (2012).
The soil resistance model of Verley and Sotberg (1992) is briefly
discussed in this paper. Major engineering properties of calcareous soils
which differentiate them from typical silica sand are highlighted. The
centrifuge testing program of Youssef (2012) is discussed in
association with the numerical simulation program CORUS-3D. The
main procedures used in calibrating Verley and Sotbergs soil
resistance model and the retrospective simulation results are presented.

On-bottom stability of subsea pipelines has been the focus of

substantial research in recent years with particular emphasis on the
topic of pipe-soil interaction. Numerous models have been developed to
predict the pipe-soil interaction behavior under combined vertical and
horizontal loading scenarios. The Verley and Sotberg energy based soil
resistance model for silica sand is among these models. The model is
recommended by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and widely accepted and
used by subsea pipeline design industry to model the pipe-soil
interaction on silica sand soils. Calcareous sand soils are found in many
of the worlds offshore hydrocarbon development regions including
offshore of Western Australia. The engineering characteristics of the
calcareous sand are different from those of the typical silica sand soils.
As such, Verley and Sotberg parameters for silica sand soils are not
suitable for calcareous sand soils. This paper presents a calibration of
the Verley and Sotberg silica sand soil resistance model for calcareous
sand soil conditions using the results of a set of centrifuge tests of a
pipe model on calcareous sand soil.

KEY WORDS: On-bottom stability; pipe-soil interaction; calcareous

sand soils; centrifuge tests.
INTRODUCTION
Offshore pipelines are employed to transport hydrocarbons to
onshore processing units or to connect the well heads with the FPSO or
tanker facilities. For accurate and reliable pipeline on-bottom stability
design, the complex hydrodynamic-pipe-soil interaction should be
accounted for within the analysis. Soil formation in many places around
the globe, for example offshore of Western Australia, Africa, Brazil
and the Middle East, is composed from calcareous sand soils. The
characteristic features of the calcareous sand soils, as will be discussed
later in the paper, distinguish them from typical silica sand soils with a
similar particle size distribution. Therefore, for the case of calcareous
sand soils, direct implementation of a silica sand pipe-soil interaction
models will not necessarily predict the behavior of the calcareous sand
soil. The complex pipe-soil interaction for the case of calcareous soil
remains the most challenging aspect of the pipeline on-bottom stability
analysis.
Several pipe-soil interaction models are based on the approximation
that the soil resistance has two terms: Coulomb friction and passive
resistance. Among these models are Verley and Sotberg (1992) and
Verley and Lund (1995) pipe-soil interaction models which are widely
used by pipeline design industry and recommended by DNV-RPF109 (DNV 2010) for simulating the pipe-soil interaction for the case

SOIL RESISTANCE MODEL OF VERLEY AND SOTBERG

Verley and Sotberg (1992) has used three sources of pipe testing
data, PIPESTAB (Brennodden et al. 1986), AGA (Brennodden et al.
1989) and DHI (Palmer et al. 1988), to develop and validate their pipesoil resistance model. The models main governing equations and
assumptions will be summarized in this section. However, for full
details about the model reference should be made to Verley and
Sotberg (1992).
The soil horizontal resistance force ( Fh ) is assumed to have two
components: Coulomb friction and passive resistance:
Fh F f  Fr
(1)
where F f is Coulomb friction force which can be estimated as:

Ff

(W s  FL ) * P

(2)

where W s is pipe self-weight, FL is hydrodynamic lift load, P is

Coulomb friction coefficient and Fr is passive resistance force.

141

-y3

-y2

Passive resistance, Fr

Passive resistance (right) due to

the build up of the soil penetration

Fr2
Fr3
Fr1

-y1
y1

y2

y3
Lateral displacement, y

Passive resistance (left) due to the

build up of the soil penetration

-Fr1
-Fr3
-Fr2

Fig. 1. Diagrammatic sketch of Verley and Sotberg silica sand soil resistance model
The passive resistance force is described with regard to the pipe
horizontal displacement (y) experienced during loading as shown in
Fig. 1. The model is symmetric about the origin; i.e. the vertical
penetration and force resistance achieved from one side applies to the
other side after the displacement reverses direction. The force
displacement diagram is composed of four different regions, which are:
1) An elastic region where the pipe lateral displacement is less than
0.02 the pipe diameter (D) (yy1). In this region, no work is done
and the penetration is equal to the initial penetration.
2) A region, up to 0.5D (y1<yy2), where the pipe accumulates
vertical penetration under the lateral cyclic displacement.
3) Breakout region, from 0.5D to D (y2<yy3), where the accumulated
work is set to zero and the pipe penetration is linearly decreased to
half this value at y= y3.
4) A region where the displacement exceeds 1.0D (y>y3), pipe
penetration and passive resistance remain constant.
The peak passive resistance force, Fr 2 , is given by:

z 2 1.25
) ,  K s d 20
D

(3)

z 2 1.25
) ,  K s ! 20
D

(4)

Fr 2

J S' D 2 (5.0  0.15K s )(

Fr 2

2J S' D 2 (

z 2  zi

0.5
E
 y

0.23 ' 3 K s  1
J D

0.31

(6)

where E is the work done and zi is the initial pipe penetration which is
given by:
zi

D

J ' D2
0.037 S
Ws

0.67

(7)

Maximum penetration, z 2 max, that can be achieved from the

cyclic movement is estimated from:

z 2  zi
D

max

y

D

0.5

K s 0.5

(8)

The residual pipe penetration, z3 , can be calculated from the

following equation:
z3
z
z
0.82  3.2( 2 ),( 2 ) d 0.1
(9)
z
D
D
2
z3

z
2

where J S' is soil saturated unit weigh, z 2 is pipe penetration at pipe

0.50,(

z2
) ! 0.1
D

(10)

CALCAREOUS SAND SOIL PROPERTIES

displacement equal to y2 and K s is the soil stiffness parameter given

by:
J S' D 2
Ks
(5)
W s FL

Calcareous sand soils are primarily composed of calcite and

aragonite derived from the skeletal remains of marine organisms. Due
to carbonate precipitation and crystal growth between the particles,
calcareous soils undergo cementation; this cementation develops
irregularly throughout the soil structure and shows significant vertical
variation (Airey and Fahey 1991). Thus, the engineering properties of
calcareous soils differ from non-calcareous soils that have the same
particle size distribution.
Carbonate minerals are weaker and softer than quartz, and have
very high void ratios and high compressibility, Murff (1986) reported
void ratios between 0.8 and 1.4 for calcareous sand soils, whereas
Airey et al. (1988) obtained maximum and minimum void ratios of 1.48
and 1.12, respectively.

The residual passive resistance force, Fr 3 , can be estimated from

Eqs. 3 and 4 by replacing z 2 with z3 (pipe penetration at pipe
displacement equal to y3). The peak elastic passive resistance force,
Fr1 , assumed to equal 0.3 Fr 2 .
Pipe penetration at breakout, z 2 , which corresponds to a pipe
lateral displacement equal to y2 is calculated from the following
equation based on the work done by the pipe on the soil through pipe
lateral displacement:

142

Calcareous sand soil, unlike silica sand soil, has a crushability

coefficient, which is defined as the ratio between the percentages finer
than D10 prior to and after compression. D10 represents the particle
diameter corresponding to 10% cumulative (from 0 to 100%) undersize
particle size distribution. The mean value of the crushability coefficient
for calcareous sand was found to range from 1.21 to 2.34 under
pressures between 800 and 6400 kPa in an oedometer (Hudson et al.
1988). An extremely high crushability coefficient, 24, was reported
under a maximum stress of 55 MPa for a sample initially containing a
small fraction of fine particles (Joer et al. 1997). Furthermore, Nauroy
and Le-Tirant (1983) have shown that calcareous sand can be up to 100
times more compressible than silica sand at the same effective stress.
The main reasons behind this high compressibility are the high initial
void ratio and high crushability.
Fahey (1993) summarized experimental data of the stiffness
values during virgin compression and swelling. The study concluded
that the ratios of virgin calcareous sand to unloading-reloading
compressibility are between 30 and 45. This ratio difference is mainly
due to the high compressibility of the calcareous soil under virgin
loading. Byrne and Houlsby (1998) observed the response of 1-g tests
on circular flat footings on un-cemented loose carbonate sand recovered
from the Goodwyn site 23 km to the west of North Rankin-A gas
production platform off the North West Shelf of Australia. A footing of
150 mm diameter penetrated into the dry sand by up to 60 mm when
loaded to 1600 N, suggesting a bearing modulus of approximately 160
and a gradient (q/z) of approximately 1500 kPa/m for the dry sand, with
a mean unit weight of 9.3 kN/m3.
Based on the above discussion, a pipe-soil interaction model
calibrated for silica sand soil would not be able to capture the behaviour
of calcareous soil. Calibrating the energy based pipe-soil interaction
model is an essential step to accurately and correctly model the pipeline
behaviour on calcareous soil. In the present paper, calibration of the
Verley and Sotberg energy based pipe-soil interaction model for
calcareous soil is performed using retrospective simulation of
centrifuge physical tests of pipe model on calcareous sand soil sample.
As a consequence the important soil properties such as; compressibility
and soil stiffness degradation are accounted for and captured.

tests were conducted at a centrifuge acceleration of 50-g. Scaling laws

relevant to these tests are provided by Schofield (1980), Taylor (1995),
Muir Wood (2004) and Garnier et al. (2007) and will not be discussed
here.

Fig. 2. Beam centrifuge at UWA

The tests were conducted on a calcareous sand sample collected
from offshore of the North West Shelf of Australia. Youssef (2012)
studied the generic inclined loading angle of four wave return periods
of 1, 10, 100 and 1000 years using typical properties of significant
wave height and peak wave period for the North West Shelf of
Australia. The hydrodynamic loads were calculated using the
hydrodynamic wave simulation program UWAHYDRO, see Youssef
(2012) for more details, which follows the Fourier model of
Sorenson et al. (1986). The study revealed that majority of the peak
loading points is accommodated within inclined lines of approximately
20o and 45o with the V axis as shown in Fig. 4. These angles are
consistent with the realistic offshore hydrodynamic loading pattern
discussed by Jones (1978) and Gao et al. (2011).
The centrifuge testing program of Youssef (2012) consisted of
seven pipe model tests in total which considered three forms of loading.
Five tests were conducted under inclined loading (Inclined tests 1 to 5)
while the other two tests are a test under regular wave plus current
loading (Regular test) and a test under irregular wave plus current
loading (Irregular test). In all tests, the pipe was first penetrated under
the effect of a defined initial vertical load Vpeak (1o2 in Fig. 5), before
the vertical load was reduced to a lower value Vi (2o3 in Fig. 5). The
initial higher vertical load value (Vpeak) was employed to simulate the
load concentration at the touchdown zone during the pipe-laying
process. Cathie et al. (2005) suggested that the value of load
concentration at the touchdown zone varies between 2.0 and 4.2 times
the pipe self-weight. Following point 3 in Fig. 5, either the generated
inclined load, regular or irregular load were applied on the pipeline.
In the Inclined Load tests, a cyclically increasing inclined load
was applied from point 3 until the end of the test (3o4, 4o5 etc.) as
diagrammatically illustrated in Fig. 5. The horizontal load was chosen
to increase at a rate of 0.25 kN/m per cycle, while the vertical load was
calculated from the inclined load angle. The loading time of each cycle
was 40 s. Details of the first cycle of the inclined loads (FV and FH) and
the loads in the V-H space are shown in Fig. 6 for the tests at an
inclined angle of 30o (Inclined load tests 1, 2 and 3).
In the case of a regular load time history, the first regular cyclic
load was designed as a group of 6 sub-cycles of the same loading value.
Each cycle had a loading time of 60 s, and the following regular cyclic
loads were in increments of 100% of the first cyclic load values. Details
of the first cycle of the regular cyclic loads (FV and FH) and the loads in
the V-H space are shown in Fig. 7.
The irregular load time series was designed as a group of
increasing cycles of irregular load time series. The loading values of
each cycle increased by 10% of the first cyclic load values, and the
loading time of each cycle was 50 s. Details of the first cycle of the

CENTRIFUGE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

The initial purposes of this testing program were to investigate
the pipe-soil interaction behaviour of a pipe on calcareous soil under
complex loading and to assess Zhangs (2001) plasticity pipe-soil
interaction model for calcareous sand soils (see Zhang (2001) and Tian
and Cassidy (2008) for more details about the plasticity model and see
Youssef et al. (2013-a) for the model assessment). However, the
centrifuge testing program results are used in this paper to calibrate the
Verley and Sotberg (1992) energy-based pipe-soil interaction model for
calcareous sand soil conditions.
The tests were conducted in the beam centrifuge at the University
of Western Australia (UWA). The centrifuge is an Acutronic
Model 661 geotechnical centrifuge that has a swinging platform radius
of 1.8 m and is rated at 40 g-tonnes (Randolph et al. 1991). The
platform supports standard rectangular strongboxes, which have plan
dimensions of 650 390 mm and are 325 mm deep. Fig. 2 shows the
beam centrifuge testing facility at UWA.
The model pipe measured 20 mm in diameter and 120 mm in
length and was fabricated from aluminium. At a scale of 1:50, this
represents a prototype pipe segment of 1.0 m diameter and 6.0 m
length. The length-to-diameter ratio was considered sufficient to
represent plane strain conditions, where the end effects are minimal.
The pipe was rigidly connected to an S-shaped axial load cell and a
loading arm, which was used to measure the vertical load and interpret
the horizontal load acting on the pipeline, respectively. Fig. 3 shows a
diagrammatic vertical cross section in the centrifuge testing box. The

143

Horizontal load, H (kN/m)

irregular loads (FV and FH) and the loads in the V-H space are shown in
Fig. 8.
Actuator movement in 2 directions
Strain gauges
Loading
arm
Load cell

Soil sample

20

40

Water

80

Pipe model

RP (year)=
1

8
4
tan-1(H/V)=45o
20o

20o

-4
Considering that,
H = FH ,
V = Ws-FV and
Ws = 10.0 kN/m

120

-8

Drainage material

-12
-5

390
all dimensions are in (mm)
Fig. 3. General arrangment of centrifuge testing box.

Horizontal load, H
0.0

12

10
15
Vertical load, V (kN/m)

Loading point

, 13
3, 5, 7,..

Vertical load, V

6
10
14

Max H. Disp.
Number of load
(m)
cycles used (cycle)
3.0
13.27
2.0
13.75
5.0
16.25
2.5
14.29
2.5
29.25
3.0
46.22
3.0
31.25

Fig. 5. Loading steps schematic of the Inclined loading tests

aHorizontal load, FH (kN/m)

Inclined 1
Inclined 2
Inclined 3
Inclined 4
Inclined 5
Regular
Irregular

Vi
(kN/m)
10.52
9.60
10.34
11.12
11.71
11.20
11.46

Table 1. Centrifuge test details

Vpeak
(kN/m)
42.98
23.30
27.11
33.92
35.43
35.05
34.57

Fig. 4. Hydrodynamic loads of different return periods in the V-H space

Due to testing space limitations, the pipes maximum horizontal

displacement was limited. Table 1 shows the loading details and the
number of cyclic loads used in each test until the maximum horizontal
displacement was reached. The proportion in the number of cycles
represents the distance into a cycle before the maximum horizontal
displacement was reached and the test concluded.

Test name

10
1000

100

45o

120

325

12

The test results of Inclined test number 1 is shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9a verifies that the load control scheme was correctly implemented
as the loads are increasing at an angle of 30q. Fig. 9c and Fig. 9d
present the accumulation of vertical penetration under small cyclic
load. Moreover as shown in Fig. 9d, for each section of the loading
cycle with a change in direction of the horizontal load, the pipe was
observed to penetrate into the soil. These results agree with the finding
of Verley and Sotberg (1992) and Zhang (2001) as the pipe penetrated
vertically under the effect of cyclic loads. As the cyclic load increased,
the horizontal displacement increased and the pipe started to experience
vertical upward movement. It is believed that during this stage while
the horizontal displacement was less than 0.25 m, the soil in front of the
pipe was swept with the pipe movement and a side berm formed. After
the horizontal displacement exceeded the formed berm, the horizontal
soil resistance was reduced significantly. This is clear from Fig. 9a and
Fig. 9b where during the last few cycles before the test termination, the
soil could not support the target horizontal load in the load controlled
loop. For instance, the pipe displaced horizontally from approximately
0.4 m to 3.0 m in the last cycle. The same general observations were
found for all tests. Full details of the experimental results are available
in Youssef (2012) and Youssef et al. (2013-a).

0.50
First cycle
0.25
0.00

-0.25
-0.50
0

Vertical load, FV (kN/m)

b-

10

20

30

40
Time (s)

30

40
Time (s)

0.6
First cycle
0.4

0.2

0.0
0

10

20

Fig. 6. Details of the inclined loads at 30o used in tests 1, 2 and 3

144

a-

0.3

Horizontal load, FH (kN/m)

Horizontal load, FH (kN/m)

a-

First cycle

0.2
0.1
0.0

-0.1

-0.2
20

30

40

50
60
Time (s)

1
0
-1

First cycle

0.25

b-

Vertical load, FV (kN/m)

Vertical load, FV (kN/m)

10

0.30

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05

10

20

30

40

50
Time (s)

40

50
Time (s)

3.0
First cycle

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

0.00
0

10

20

30

40

50
60
Time (s)

Fig. 7. Details of the cyclic Regular loads

Horizontal load, H (kN/m)

Horizontal load, H (kN/m)

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0

0.00

35
10
40
45
Vertical load, V (kN/m)
35
10
40
45

30

Vertical disp., w (m)

0.03
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12

ON-BOTTOM

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
0.0
d0.0
0.00

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5
3.5
3.0
Horizontal disp., u (m)
3.0
2.5
3.5

0.02

0.02
Vertical disp., w (m)

20

Fig. 8. Details of the cyclic Irregular loads

4.0

c-

10

b4.0

a-

CORUS-3D,
PROGRAM

First cycle

-2
0

b-

0.04
0.06

0.065

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.070

0.08

0.075
0.080

0.10

0.085
0.090

0.12
Fig. 9. Centrifuge test results of Inclined load test number 1

STABILITY

CORUS-3D uses the American Gas Association/Pipeline

Research Council International (AGA/PRCI) Level 3 software
(PRCI 2008) to calculate the hydrodynamic loads on the submarine
pipeline. These loads are applied as a time history to the pipeline within
the DLoad subroutine. Additionally, the hydrodynamic loads are
corrected based on pipe velocity and pipe penetration as defined in
DNV-RP-F109 (DNV 2010). Finally the pipe-soil interaction is
modelled using the built-in ABAQUS Coulomb friction contact
algorithm, with an adjustment for the passive soil resistance of the

MODELLING

CORUS-3D is a software package developed and owned by

Atteris Pty Ltd for analysing the on-bottom stability of submarine
pipelines and umbilicals. CORUS-3D is based on the Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) program ABAQUS which allows the use of
subroutines to extend functionality. The ABAQUS DLoad subroutine
allows complex loading to be applied to the model during the analysis.

145

Passive resistance, Fr

Verley and Sotberg model being provided within the DLoad subroutine.
The general computational sequence that CORUS-3D uses to
perform the pipeline on-bottom stability simulation can be summarized
as follows:
1) At the start of an analysis ABAQUS reads the job input file and the
CORUS-3D subroutines load the drag and lift time histories as well
as the flow velocity from the AGA generated data files.
2) ABAQUS initiates the model stiffness matrix.
3) At the beginning of the simulation, the hydrodynamic loads are
estimated in the DLoad subroutine for every load integration point
in each pipe element. The Loads are provided to ABAQUS to be
applied onto the pipeline elements.
4) ABAQUS attempts to solve the pipeline stiffness matrix with the
applied loads and boundary conditions. If a converged solution is
found the analysis proceeds to the next time increment, otherwise a
new iteration at a reduced time step is attempted.
5) At the start of each time increment, the pipeline displacement and
normal contact force between the pipeline element and the rigid
seabed surface from a previous increment are utilised to update the
soil passive resistance model and to estimate the hydrodynamic
correction data. The hydrodynamic loads, soil passive resistance
forces and hydrodynamic correction forces are then calculated for
every load integration point of every pipe element.
6) Steps 4 and 5 are repeated until the last increment is reached and
the analysis is completed.
CORUS-3D has been internally checked and validated by Atteris
using an extensive set of available pipeline physical modelling test
results and pipeline benchmark cases. This benchmarking exercise has
been used to demonstrate the ability of CORUS-3D to accurately
perform complex pipeline simulations. Moreover, CORUS-3D has been
successfully validated externally by DNV Australia through
comparison of the simulation results from CORUS-3D and DNVs
pipeline modelling software (PONDUS). The DNV validation program
included a test matrix of 35 cases featuring pipelines and umbilicals of
various specific gravity, outer diameter, water depth, soil Coulomb
friction and other design conditions. Reference should be made to
Youssef et al. (2013-b) and Royet et al. (2014) for more details about
the CORUS-3D internal validation and DNV validation, respectively.

Fr2
Fr3
Fr1

y1=0.01D

y2=0.25D

y3=0.75D
Lateral displacement, y

Fig. 10. Force-displacement diagram of the calibrated model

evaluate the contribution of changing each force and displacement
parameter on the calcareous sand soil resistance model behaviour. The
pilot study investigated the effect of changing the following parameters
( Fr1, Fr 2 , Fr 3 and z1, z2 , z3 , zi and, z2 max ) on the overall pipe-soil
interaction behaviour. Coulomb friction coefficient is assumed to have
an upper and lower bound of 1.2 and 0.4, respectively. Different
Coulomb friction coefficient values have been investigated in the
retrospective simulations. The study concluded that three parameters
are required to be introduced to the force and displacement equations of
Verley and Sotbergs (1992) silica sand model. These scaling
parameters are designated as A, B and C.
Parameter A is introduced to the Fr 2 force equations (Eqs. 3 and
4) to estimate the peak passive resistance force.
z

Fr 2 A J S' D 2 (5.0  0.15K s )( 2 )1.25 ,  K s d 20

(11)
D

Fr 2

A 2J S' D 2 ( 2 )1.25 ,  K s ! 20

(12)
D

While the residual passive resistance forces, Fr 3 , can be

estimated from Eqs. 11 and 12 by replacing z 2 with z3 (pipe

penetration at pipe displacement equal to y3). The peak elastic passive
resistance force Fr1 is assumed to equal 0.3 Fr 2 .
Parameter B is introduced to Eqs. 6 and 8 to control the plastic
penetration and the maximum value that can be achieved from the
cyclic displacement:
0.31

 0.5
E

z2  zi
1 y
(13)

B 0.23 ' 3 K s 
JSD

D
D

VERLEY AND SOTBERG SILICA SAND MODEL

CALIBRATION FOR CALCAREOUS SAND SOILS
Based on the findings of Youssef (2012) centrifuge test results of
the pipe model on calcareous sand soil, it is concluded that the pipe-soil
interaction behaviour on calcareous sand soil soils is similar to the
pipe-soil interaction behaviour of the silica sand model of Verley and
Sotberg (1992). From Fig. 9 it can be seen that the calcareous sand
force-displacement diagram has an elastic region after which the pipe
accumulates vertical penetration under small cyclic movement.
Moreover, under larger cyclic movements, the pipe swept outside the
initial penetration zone before the pipe reaches a constant soil
resistance and penetration state. Therefore, Verley and Sotberg silica
sand force-displacement diagram has been assumed to be valid for the
case of calcareous soil with the following changes:
1) The elastic region is defined to a pipe displacement of y=0.01D.
2) Region 2, where the pipe accumulate vertical penetration is limited
to y=0.25D.
3) Breakout region, where the pipe reduce penetration and resistance
is defined at y=0.75D.
Fig. 10 shows the force-displacement diagram of the calibrated
model. The mathematical formulations and equations of the Verley and
Sotberg (1992) silica soil resistance model are assumed to be valid and
applicable for the case of calcareous sand soil model. However, a pilot
study is conducted using CORUS-3D to perform retrospective
simulations of the centrifuge tests undertaken by Youssef (2012) to

z2  zi

D max

y 0.5

 0.5
B K s 
D

(14)

Residual pipe penetration, z3 , is calculated from Eq. 9 or Eq. 10.

Parameter C is introduced to Eq. 7 and modifies the pipe initial
penetration depth:
0.67

J ' D2
zi

(15)
C 0.037 S

W
s

An extensive parametric study is conducted to estimate the new

scaling parameter values and the Coulomb friction coefficient that will
achieve the best reproduction of the pipe model centrifuge test results.
Retrospective simulation of Inclined test-1 is shown in Fig. 11.
Initial penetration, maximum penetration and maximum horizontal
displacement behaviour are well reproduced and compared with the
centrifuge test results. Final horizontal displacement in the numerical

146

simulation is 3.70 m while the final horizontal displacement in the

centrifuge test is 3.0 m. Parameters A, B and C are given by 0.25, 0.35
and 0.79, respectively. While the Coulomb friction coefficient value
used in the simulation is 0.48. From Fig. 12 to Fig. 15 it can be seen
that the initial penetration, maximum penetration and maximum
horizontal displacement behavior compare well with the centrifuge test
results. Values for the parameters A, B and C and the Coulomb friction
coefficient of all the retrospective numerical simulations are presented
in Table 2.

Retrospective simulation results of the Regular load test and the

Irregular load test are compared with the centrifuge test results in
Fig. 16 and Fig. 17, respectively. Values for the A, B and C parameters
and the Coulomb friction coefficient used in the Regular and Irregular
simulations are shown in Table 2. It should be noted that the values
presented in Table 2 for each simulation case are the best combined
parameters values that can reproduce the centrifuge test results. These
values are selected based on the outcome of a large parametric analysis
for each test scenario.
a4.0

Horizontal load, H (kN/m)

Horizontal load, H (kN/m)

a4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0

-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-1.0
b-1.0
0.00

Centrifuge
Numerical

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.0
3.0
Horizontal disp., u (m)
2.0
3.0
4.0

Vertical disp., w (m)

Vertical disp., w (m)

0.06
Centrifuge
Numerical

0.08
0.10

0.12
Fig. 11. Centrifuge and numerical simulation results of Inclined test-1

1.0

2.0

3.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

6.0
7.0
5.0
4.0
Horizontal disp., u (m)
6.0
7.0
5.0
4.0

0.06
0.09
0.12
Centrifuge
Numerical

0.15

a4.0
Horizontal load, H (kN/m)

Horizontal load, H (kN/m)

0.0

0.18
Fig. 13. Centrifuge and numerical simulation results of Inclined test-3

a4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Centrifuge
Numerical

0.0
-1.0

0.5

1.5

0.5

1.5

3.0
2.0
1.0

2.5
3.5
Horizontal disp., u (m)
2.5
3.5

Centrifuge
Numerical

0.0
-1.0

-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-1.0
b-1.0
-0.08

0.02

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.0
5.0
3.0
Horizontal disp., u (m)
3.0
5.0
4.0

-0.04
Vertical disp., w (m)

Vertical disp., w (m)

Centrifuge
Numerical

0.03

0.04

0.04
0.06
0.08

1.0
0.0
-1.0

-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-1.0
b-1.0
0.00

0.02

-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-0.5
b-0.5
0.00

3.0
2.0

Centrifuge
Numerical

0.10

0.12
Fig. 12. Centrifuge and numerical simulation results of Inclined test-2

0.00

Centrifuge
Numerical

0.04
0.08

0.12
Fig. 14. Centrifuge and numerical simulation results of Inclined test-4

147

a10.0

Horizontal load, H (kN/m)

Horizontal load, H (kN/m)

a8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0

Centrifuge
Numerical

-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-1.0
b-1.0
-0.03

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.0
5.0
3.0
Horizontal disp., u (m)
3.0
5.0
4.0

Vertical disp., w (m)

Vertical disp., w (m)

0.03
Centrifuge
Numerical

0.06
0.09
0.12

0.5

1.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

4.5
3.5
Horizontal disp., u (m)
2.5
4.5
3.5

Case name
Inclined 1
Inclined 2
Inclined 3
Inclined 4
Inclined 5
Regular
Irregular

A
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.45
0.25
0.25
0.25

Model Parameter
B
0.35
0.45
0.45
0.35
0.35
0.28
0.24

C
0.79
1.05
1.18
0.96
0.84
0.97
1.12

0.48
0.60
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.85
0.85

Centrifuge
Numerical

0.5

1.5

0.5

1.5

0.05
0.10
0.15

Three model scaling parameters A, B and C have been introduced

to the original Verley and Sotberg model governing equations. Table 2
summarised the selected parameter values used in each retrospective
simulation. This section presents a selection and a justification for the
scaling parameter values.
Parameter A is responsible for calculating the passive soil
resistance force value. It is clear from the literature that calcareous sand
soil is much weaker and softer than silica sand soil with similar particle
size distribution. Table 2 shows an average value of 0.28 for parameter
A, however, a conservative value of 0.25 is suggested for parameter A.
Parameter B is responsible for estimating the pipelines vertical
penetration and maximum vertical penetration values during the
pipeline horizontal cyclic movement. Table 2 shows an upper and
lower value of 0.45 and 0.24 for parameter B with an average value of
0.35. It is suggested to use the average value (0.35) to represent
parameter B.
Parameter C has been introduced to the pipeline initial
perpetration equation. The parameter value was back calculated for
each test case to best reproduce the initial penetration value observed
during the centrifuge test. Table 2 shows an upper value of 1.18 and
lower value of 0.79 for parameter C with an average value of 0.98. The
average value is close to one which confirms that the initial penetration
of a pipeline on virgin calcareous sand is almost equal to the initial
penetration of a pipeline on silica sand soils. However, due to the high
crushability of the calcareous sand soils, the calcareous sand soil
behaviour under cyclic loading will be different to the silica sand soil
behaviour. A conservative value of 0.98 is suggested for parameter C.
The coulomb friction values used in the simulation have an upper
value of 0.85 and lower value of 0.48 with an average value of about
0.7. This difference in the coulomb friction value could be due to the
soil sample normal variation within the centrifuge test box. However
for any pipeline on-bottom stability designs, it is recommended to
utilize the coulomb friction coefficient values indicated within the
projects geotechnical report.
Table 3 summarises the selected values of the calibrated model
scaling parameters.

6.0
4.0

-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-0.5
b-0.5
-0.03

Centrifuge
Numerical

CALIBRATED MODEL SCALING PARAMETER VALUES

Coulomb friction
coefficient ( P )

a8.0

2.0
0.0
-2.0

0.00

Fig. 17. Centrifuge test results of IUUHJXOar test

Table 2. Calibrated parameter values used in the simulations

Horizontal load, H (kN/m)

Centrifuge
Numerical

-0.05

Fig. 15. Centrifuge test results of Inclined WHVW

2.5

4.5
3.5
Horizontal disp., u (m)
2.5
4.5
3.5

0.00

Vertical disp., w (m)

4.0
2.0
0.0

-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-0.5
b-0.5
-0.10

0.00

0.03
0.06
0.09

8.0
6.0

Centrifuge
Numerical

0.12
0.15

Fig. 16. Centrifuge test results of 5HJXODUWHVW

148

Table 3. Calibrated model scaling parameter values

A
0.25

Scaling Parameter
B
0.35

Konig, D, (2007). Catalogue of scaling laws and similitude questions

in centrifuge modelling, International Journal of Physical Modelling
in Geotechnics, Vol 7(3), pp 124.
Gao, FP, Yan, SM, Zhang, EY, Wu, YX and Jia, X (2011). Lateral soil
resistance to an untrenched pipeline under the action of ocean
currents, Frontiers in offshore geotechnics II, In: S Gourvenec, D
White (Eds.). London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Hudson, MJ, Mostyn, G, Wiltsie, EA and Hyden, AM (1988). Properties
of near surface Bass Strait soils, International Conference on
Calcareous Sediments, ed. J.a. Andrews, Balkema, Perth.
Joer, HA, Ismail, M and Randolph, MF (1997). Compressibility and
crushability of calcareous soils, Australasian Conference on the
Mechanics of Structures and Materials, Melbourne, VIC.
Jones, WT (1978). On-bottom pipeline stability in steady water
currents, Petroleum Technology, Vol 30, pp 475484.
Muir Wood, D (2004). Geotechnical modelling, Spon Press, London.
Murff, JD (1986). Pile capacity in calcareous sands, Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol 113, No. 5, pp 490-507.
Nauroy, JF and Le Tirant, P (1983). Model tests of piles in calcareous
sands, Special Conference on Geotechnical Practice in Offshore
Engineering, Austin, Texas.
Palmer, AC, Steenfelt, JS, Steensen-Bach, JO and Jacobsen, V (1988).
Lateral resistance of marine pipelines on sand, Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas.
PRCI (2008). Submarine Pipeline On-bottom Stability Analysis:
Volume 1 Analysis and Design Guidelines, Volume 2 Software and
Manuals, Version 2, Pipeline Research Council International,
American Gas Association.
Randolph, MF, Jewell, RJ, Stone, KJL and Brown, TA (1991).
Establishing a new centrifuge facility, International Conference on
Centrifuge Modelling, Boulder, Colorado.
Royet, O, Rambech, EL, Aamlid, O and Chadwick, S (2014). CORUS3D Validation of software for pipeline on-bottom stability, DNV
Australia, Report No: PP079683_TPPAU993, Rev 1.
Schofield, AN (1980). Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations,
Gotechnique, Vol 30, No 3, pp 227-68.
Sorenson, T, Bryndum, M and Jacobsen, V (1986). Hydrodynamic
forces on pipelines-model tests, Danish hydraulic Institute (DHI),
Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI), Report No PR-170185.
Taylor, RN (1995). Geotechnical centrifuge technology, Blackie
Academic Press.
Tian, Y and Cassidy, MJ (2008). Modelling of pipe-soil interaction and
its application in numerical simulation, International Journal of
Geomechanics, Vol 8, No 4, pp 213-29.
Verley, R and Lund, KM (1995). A soil resistance model for pipelines
placed on clay soils, Proceedings of the international conference on
offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, Copenhagen, Vol 5.
Verley, RLP and Sotberg, T (1992). A Soil Resistance Model for
Pipelines Placed on Sandy Soils, Pipeline Technology, Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Alberta, Canada.
Youssef, BS (2012). The integrated stability analysis of offshore
pipelines, Ph.D thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA.
Youssef, BS, Tian, Y and Cassidy, MJ (2013-a). Centrifuge modelling
of an on-bottom pipeline under equivalent wave and current loading,
Applied Ocean Research Journal, Vol 40, pp 1425
Youssef, BS, McMaster, SY and Campbell, DR (2013-b). Atteris onbottom stability modelling program, CORUS-3D verification, Atteris
Pty Ltd Australia, Report No 10-021-023-TN, Rev A.
Zhang, J (2001). Geotechnical stability of offshore pipelines in
calcareous sand, Ph.D thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth,
WA

C
0.98

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Accurate pipe-soil interaction modelling is essential to achieve
correct and reliable on-bottom stability analysis. The Verley and
Sotberg (1992) soil resistance model is among the most widely used
pipe-soil resistance models for the case of silica sand soils. The model
is recommended by DNV-RP-F109 (DNV 2010) to model the passive
soil resistance forces for silica sand soil conditions.
This paper presents a calibration of the Verley and Sotberg
(1992) silica sand resistance model for calcareous sand soil
conditions tested during geotechnical centrifuge experiments of a pipe
subjected to cyclic wave loading conditions (Youssef 2012). The
calibrated model has introduced three scaling parameters to the original
Verley and Sotberg model governing equations. Values of the new
three parameters are determined through an extensive parametric
numerical simulation and through investigating a combination of a
wide range of the possible parameter values.
Retrospective numerical simulations of the centrifuge test cases
verified the accuracy of the calibrated soil resistance model parameter
values. The findings of this paper extends the applicability Verley and
Sotberg soil resistance model and provides the pipeline design
engineers with accurate and representative Verley and Sotberg soil
resistance model parameters for the calcareous soils calibrated in the
geotechnical centrifuge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors acknowledge Assistant Prof. Yinghui Tian, Centre
for Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS) at the University of Western
Australia (UWA), for making the pipe-model centrifuge test results
presented in this paper available. The Authors would also like to
acknowledge Eng. Olivier Royet (Principal Specialist, DNV Australia)
for the useful discussion and suggestions during the preparation of the
present work.

REFERENCES
Airey, DW and Fahey, M (1991). Cyclic response of calcareous soil
from the North-West Shelf of Australia, Gotechnique, Vol 41, No 1.
Airey, DW, Randolph, MF and Hyden, AM (1988). The strength and
stiffness of two calcareous sands, Engineering for Calcareous
Sediments, Vol 1, ed. A.a Jewell, Balkema, Perth, pp 43-50.
Brennodden, H , Lieng, JT, Sotberg, T and Verley, RLP (1989). An
energy-based pipe-soil interaction model, Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas.
Brennodden, H, Sveggen, DA and Murff, JD (1986). Full-scale pipe-soil
interaction tests, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas.
Byme, BW and Houlsby, GT (1998). Model Testing of Circular Flat
Footings on Uncemented Loose Carbonate Sand: Experinzental Data,
OUEL Report No: 2192/98, Department of Engineering Science, the
University of Oxford.
Cathie, DN, Jaeck, C, Ballard, JC and Wintgens, JF (2005). Pipeline
geotechnics state-of-the art, Frontiers in offshore geotechnics:
ISFOG, In: S Gourvenec, MJ Cassidy (Eds.). London: Taylor &
Francis Group.
DNV (2010). On-Bottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines,
Recommended practice, DNV RP-F109, Det Norske Veritas.
Fahey, M. (1993). Selection of parameters for foundation design in
calcareous soil, Chapter 3: Regional Soils. Kyushu Branch, Japanese
Society for SMFE, pp 71-134.
Garnier, J, Gaudin, C, Springman, SM, Culligan, PJ, Goodings, D and

149