17 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Umar Kida

pipe

- Clay
- physics project.docx
- br-10343b avanti rotors brochure final
- My Career Episode 2
- 06 Nuevo Método Para Obtener Un Criterio de Diseño Optimo de Precorte ... PPT ASIEX 2012
- Varia to Are Engle Za
- consolidacion
- br-10343b avanti rotors brochure final
- br-10343b avanti rotors brochure final 1
- Adobe Monografia
- Chapter 1 (Sandy Lean Clay)
- Pages From s a Prefer
- fric4
- Determination of Temperatures Field for Multi-Disc
- Chapter Four Soil
- Our Vision
- VD in Air-duct- Ground-QICC Cable
- Ground Storage Spec Rev 093011
- AUVINET Modelling of friction piles in consolidating soils.pdf
- s 4

Anda di halaman 1dari 58

PIPE-SOIL INTERACTION MODELS

FOR LATERAL BUCKLING DESIGN

PHASE IIA DATA REVIEW SANDY SOILS

By

D.J. WHITE

CONFIDENTIAL

This report is issued subject to the confidentiality and ownership clauses

of the SAFEBUCK JIP Participation Agreement

October 2010

GEO: 10520v2

SAFEBUCK JIP. Pipe-soil models for lateral buckling design. Phase IIA data review sandy soils

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

Item

Description

Client name

AtkinsBoreas

Client contact

David Bruton

AtkinsBoreas

6 Golden Square

AB10 1RD, Aberdeen

Ph: +44 (0) 1224 620202

Fax: +44 (0)1224 620457

david.bruton@atkinsglobal.com

Client reference

Purchase order

Date of issue

08/06/2010

Report title

SAFEBUCK JIP

Pipe-soil models for lateral buckling design

Phase IIA data review sandy soils

Report number

Version

GEO 10520

Date of

Prepared

Verified

Comments

issue

V0

16/04/2010

DW

V1

08/06/2010

DW

(David Bruton)

V2

30/10/2010

DW

CONFIDENTIAL

This report is issued subject to the confidentiality and ownership clauses

of the SAFEBUCK JIP Participation Agreement

The University of Western Australia

Page 2 of 43

SAFEBUCK JIP. Pipe-soil models for lateral buckling design. Phase IIA data review sandy soils

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8

1.1

Background .....................................................................................................................8

1.2

1.2.1

Background ............................................................................................................. 8

1.2.2

Embedment.............................................................................................................. 9

1.2.3

1.2.4

1.2.5

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

First sweep residual resistance comparison with Peek (2006) model ........................17

3.6

First sweep residual resistance comparison with Verley & Sotberg (1994) model ...18

3.7

Summary comments.............................................................................................................. 21

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 23

References ............................................................................................................................. 24

The University of Western Australia

Page 3 of 43

SAFEBUCK JIP. Pipe-soil models for lateral buckling design. Phase IIA data review sandy soils

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2. Summary of donated test programme ............................................................................. 13

Table 3. Summary of key results: Sample 2.................................................................................. 14

Table 4. Summary of key results: Sample 3.................................................................................. 15

The University of Western Australia

Page 4 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Summary of Peek (2006) database of residual friction factor, Hres/V ........................... 26

Figure 2. The UWA geotechnical beam centrifuge....................................................................... 27

Figure 3. View of typical test pipe arrangement at UWA............................................................. 28

Figure 4. Typical results from dynamic lay simulation and breakout (test S3-T3)

(a)

Pipe trajectory (b) Applied vertical load and measured horizontal resistance ......................29

Figure 5. Typical results from large amplitude lateral sweeping simulation (test S3-T5)

(a) Pipe trajectory (b) Applied vertical load and measured horizontal resistance (sweeps

through berms at end of test shown in magenta, initial laying and breakout shown dotted) 30

Figure 6. Comparison of as-laid embedment with current SAFEBUCK model (a) All data (b)

Range V/D2 < 2................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 7. Pipe invert trajectory during first sweep (a) Sample 2 (b) Sample 3.............................32

Figure 8. Mobilised friction factor during first sweep (a) Sample 2 (b) Sample 3 ....................... 33

Figure 9. Measured breakout friction factors and calculations using Equations 2-3 (a) Variation

with embedment (b) Comparison of measured and calculated .............................................34

Figure 10. Measured breakout friction factors and calculations using Equation 6 (a) Variation

with embedment (b) Comparison of measured and calculated ............................................. 35

Figure 11. Measured first sweep residual friction factor ..............................................................36

Figure 12. Comparison of measured residual friction factors and calculations using Equation 4 37

Figure 13. Comparison of first sweep residual resistance data : donated results and Peek (2006)

database (a) Variation with diameter (b) Variation with normalized pipe weight................ 38

Figure 14. Comparison of measured residual embedment and calculations using the Verley &

Sotberg (1994) model............................................................................................................ 39

Figure 15. Comparison of measured residual friction factors and calculations using the Verley &

Sotberg (1994) model............................................................................................................ 40

Figure 16. Accumulation of mid-sweep embedment during cyclic lateral sweeps....................... 41

Figure 15. Variation in mid-sweep and berm friction factor during cyclic lateral sweeps ........... 42

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 5 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

Notation

Quantity

Apipe

Pipe diameter

Kp

Hbrk

Hres

Hmid

Hberm

The University of Western Australia

Page 6 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

SAFEBUCK JIP

PIPE-SOIL MODELS FOR LATERAL BUCKLING DESIGN

PHASE IIA DATA REVIEW SANDY SOILS

D.J. White

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, University of Western Australia

Summary

This report describes a review of model test data of large-amplitude lateral pipe-soil interaction

on sandy soils, in relation to the design of on-bottom pipelines for lateral buckling. This review

was conducted as an addendum to Phase II of the SAFEBUCK JIP. A database comprising of 15

high quality model test results for sandy calcareous soils was donated to the JIP. These results

have been compared with the existing calculation methods within the SAFEBUCK guideline,

and the previous model test data from siliceous sands that was used to derive these methods.

The resulting database of measurements reveal aspects of pipe-soil behaviour on sandy soils that

had not previously been quantified. The results also show that the current SAFEBUCK

recommendations which were not developed for calcareous soils provide poor predictions of

the response. This is not unexpected since the recommended calculations have no soil properties

as input parameters (apart from soil weight). The discrepancies between the results and the

calculations are not simply a consistent over- or under-prediction of the pipe-soil resistance. The

results also show that certain trends encapsulated within the guidance are not evident in the

parametric model test studies. This suggests that improved recommendations for both siliceous

and calcareous sands should be based on a re-evaluation of the controlling mechanisms rather

than simply a recalibration of the empirical parameters in the current guidance.

The report also highlights future aspects of research that will serve to reduce the uncertainty

associated with pipe-soil interaction forces on sandy soils. The presented results also highlight

the form of site-specific information about pipe-soil interaction that can be derived from

centrifuge model testing.

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 7 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

SAFEBUCK JIP

PIPE-SOIL MODELS FOR LATERAL BUCKLING DESIGN

PHASE IIA DATA REVIEW SANDY SOILS

Report to AtkinsBoreas and the SAFEBUCK JIP

D.J. White

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, University of Western Australia

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

This report describes a review of centrifuge model test data related to lateral pipe-soil interaction

on sandy soils. This review was undertaken as an addendum to Phase II of the SAFEBUCK Joint

Industry Project, and uses data that was donated to the JIP by a Participant.

The SAFEBUCK JIP is concerned with the development of techniques and guidelines for the

design of seabed pipelines under thermal and pressure-induced loading, which can lead to

buckling and walking. The SAFEBUCK guideline (AtkinsBoreas 2008) is widely used by

industry.

The pipe-soil force-displacement response is the largest uncertainty in the design of such systems

(Bruton et al. 2007). To accurately assess the pipe-soil resistance forces during the in-service life

of a pipeline that is designed with controlled lateral buckling, it is necessary to understand the

pipe-soil behaviour during laying, and then during large lateral movements over many cycles of

startup and shutdown. The lateral resistance on the pipe during cycles of large-amplitude motion

must be assessed.

1.2

1.2.1

Background

The guidance for pipe-soil behaviour on sandy soils provided in the SAFEBUCK guideline has

been drawn from previous studies focussed on on-bottom stability. In the guideline, the term

non-cohesive is used to differentiate guidance for sandy soils from guidance related to clayey

soils, which are referred to as cohesive. A more desirable taxonomy that would be preferred by

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 8 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

plastic soils. The distinction is made principally to differentiate between calculation methods

that are based on undrained and drained analyses. A more correct approach (which would be

consistent with modern foundation design codes) would be to present the calculation methods as

drained and undrained and leave the designer to elect which approach was relevant for the soil

type and loading condition under consideration. However, such an approach would make the

SAFEBUCK guidance more difficult to apply for non geotechnical engineers.

1.2.2

Embedment

The current SAFEBUCK guideline (AtkinsBoreas 2008) includes the following expression for

the embedment of a pipeline into sandy soil, which is from the model proposed by Verley and

Sotberg (1994):

V

w

= 0.037

2

D

'D

2/3

[1]

where w is the pipe invert embedment below the original soil surface, D is the pipe diameter, V

is the vertical pipe-soil contact force (per unit length) and is the soil submerged weight. This

calculation does not account for dynamic lay effects, which are to be considered separately.

1.2.3

The current SAFEBUCK guideline also uses correlations derived by Verley and Sotberg (1994)

as the basis for assessments of breakout resistance. The Verley & Sotberg model was developed

from full scale model tests performed using siliceous sand, and is suggested within the DNV

F109 (2007) code as the basis for assessing pipeline on-bottom stability on siliceous sandy soils.

The Verley & Sotberg (1994) model is believed to have been used in the FE studies that form the

database underlying the generalised method of on-bottom stability design within DNV F109.

In the Verley & Sotberg model, the breakout resistance (per unit length), Hbrk, is divided into

frictional and passive components, although the passive component varies with the pipe weight

for higher values of V/D2:

H brk = V + Fpassive

[2]

The University of Western Australia

Page 9 of 43

GEO 10520v2

V

If

0.05

' D2

V

< 0.05

If

' D2

Fpassive

0.15 w

= 'D 5

V / ' D2 D

Fpassive

w

= 2 ' D

D

DJW

October 2010

1.25

[3]

1.25

A value of 0.6 is adopted by Verley & Sotberg (1994) for the friction coefficient, .

1.2.4

The recommended approach in the SAFEBUCK guideline for assessing the large amplitude

lateral resistance is based on a report donated to the SAFEBUCK JIP by Peek (2006), which

collated and interpreted data from model tests and field tests. This report is provided in

Appendix A, with some test identifiers removed to suit data confidentiality requirements.

The median (50%) value of residual lateral friction factor, Hres/V, is calculated as:

V

H res

0.71

=

V 50%

' A pipe

0.12

D ref

0.18

[4]

where Apipe is the cross-sectional area of the pipe (D2/4), Dref is a reference diameter, taken as

508 mm (20 inches). The two bracketed terms have only a small effect. The first term raises

Hres/V by less than 10% as the pipeline specific gravity (SG) increases from 1 to 2. The latter

term has a slightly greater influence, raising Hres/V by 22% over the diameter range 750 250

mm; the smaller the pipe, the greater the residual friction factor.

Peek (2006) also provides upper and lower bound values of Hres/V, based on 2.3% and 97.7%

percentiles (i.e. 2 standard deviations from the mean) of the distribution of Hres/V, which are:

H res

V

H res

V

H

= 0.05 + 0.70 res

2.3%

V 50%

H

= 0.18 + 1.15 res

97.7%

V 50%

[5]

This recommendation assumes that the residual value is independent of the initial embedment,

which is in contrast to the guidance in Verley and Sotberg (1994). They provide a method

calculating Hres/V based on the embedment prior to large movements. The latter approach is

consistent with the concept of a berm of soil being pushed ahead of the pipe, and the area of that

berm being controlled by the depth from which the pipe broke out. The Verley & Sotberg

method assumes that the residual embedment is half of the breakout value (or a slightly modified

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 10 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

proportion for w/D < 0.2 at breakout). This residual embedment is then used in Equations 2 3

to assess the residual lateral resistance. Due to their differing assumptions, the Peek (2006) and

Verley & Sotberg (1994) calculation methods for residual lateral friction factor give differing

results and exhibit different trends.

1.2.5

There are obvious limitations associated with the existing guidance, and contradictions between

the adopted Peek (2006) method for residual lateral friction factor and the Verley & Sotberg

(1994) method (which is favoured by the DNV F109 (2007) on-bottom stability code). There are

no characteristics of the soil represented in Equations 1 5 except for the unit weight. The

friction angle, relative density, and other mechanical properties are not included, nor is the

roughness of the pipe-soil interface. The Verley and Sotberg (1994) study did include results

from tests on sands at multiple relative densities, and the fitted parameters were optimised across

this range (see also Verley & Reed 1990).

There are no calculation methods provided within the current SAFEBUCK guideline that tackle

cyclic lateral pipe-soil interaction on sandy soils. The recommendations in Equations 4 and 5 are

only provided in the SAFEBUCK guideline to cover monotonic lateral movements. Large

amplitude cyclic movements of the pipe result in the growth of berms at the extremities of the

movement which provide greater lateral resistance.

2

2.1

Original SAFEBUCK database Peek (2006)

SAFEBUCK JIP by Peek (2006). A total of 26 values of Hres/V were assembled from

experimental studies performed over the period 1973 2002. These values are reproduced in

Figure 1. The legend is based on the Peek (2006) notation, and shows the data from each study

within the database. The trends with normalised pipe weight (V/Apipe) and diameter (D) that are

captured by the bracketed terms in Equation 4 are evident. These trends are not found within any

individual set of data, only in the combined database.

2.2

Data was donated to Phase II of the SAFEBUCK JIP by a Participant, from studies undertaken

for Project D. This data comprised of centrifuge model tests undertaken at the University of

Western Australia using two sandy carbonate soils. These are referred to as Samples 2 and 3

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 11 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

(Sample 1 was a fine-grained soil, which was included in a separate review, White & Cheuk

2010). The characteristics of this test programme are summarised in Table 2. The key results are

provided in Table 3 and Table 4.

It is important to note that the donated tests used carbonate soils (carbonate content >85%),

which have significantly different characteristics than the siliceous soils that are generally found

in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, and on which the Verley & Sotberg (1994) and Peek

(2006) recommendations were based. Overviews of the engineering response of calcareous

sediments are presented by Coop (1990) and by Jewell & Khorshid (1988).

The sediments in Australias oil and gas producing regions are composed almost entirely of

calcareous sediments and these soils are also commonly encountered in oil-producing regions of

the Middle East and off the coast of Brazil in the Campos Basin. These soils are principally

composed of decomposed marine fauna. In contrast, the terrigenous sandy sediments which are

found in North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, are principally composed of siliceous material that

has been eroded and transported from land.

The grains of a calcareous soil are shelly fragments, which can vary from gravel to clay-sized

particles, and which are highly angular with intra-particle voids and rough surfaces. When laid

down as sediment they form a highly open structure, with a larger voids ratio than is found for

siliceous soils. This structure and the shape and crushability of the grains results in a highly

compressible, but also highly frictional response, with internal friction angles that generally

exceed siliceous sand, but which also vary significantly with stress level. When loaded

cyclically, the structure tends to collapse, and the response is generally less dilatant than

siliceous soils. Cementation can often be present, although not in the samples tested here.

Two centrifuge samples were prepared; one of each soil type. For each soil type, all of the pipe

tests were performed in the same sample. Both samples were characterised by miniature cone

penetrometer tests prior to the pipe-soil tests being executed. The general procedure of each

pipe-soil test involved the following stages:

1. Embedment of the pipe (either by monotonic vertical displacement, or by some form of

dynamic motion aimed at representing the lay process)

2. Simulation of hydrotesting (through a temporary increase in the pipe weight)

3. Lateral breakout of the pipeline under a constant simulated pipe weight (allowing the

pipeline to rise or fall whilst moving laterally)

4. Cycles of large-amplitude lateral motion (only in certain tests)

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 12 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

The UWA centrifuge is shown in Figure 2 and the general arrangement of these tests is shown in

Figure 3. The soil samples were prepared in a centrifuge strongbox, 650 390 mm in plan, and

had a depth of up to 150 mm. The model pipes were 10 32 mm in diameter, at model scale, and

had a lightly sand-blasted finish. These model pipes were fixed to a two-directional actuator that

imposes specified loads or displacements. The control system can impose a predetermined

sequence of movements or loads, which may be regular cycles or a random series. This feature

allows oscillations that represent the dynamic pipe movement during the lay process to be

simulated. The UWA beam centrifuge can operate continuously without being manned, and

some of the longer cyclic sweeping tests ran overnight.

A pore pressure transducer was located at the invert of the 20 mm diameter pipe. The measured

excess pore pressure was generally negligible, and always less than 2 kPa throughout all tests,

suggesting that fully drained conditions can be assumed.

Table 2. Summary of donated test programme

Sample 2

Sample 3

Carbonate SAND

D10 (m)

20

100

D50 (m)

210

300

(using 10 mm model CPT) (kPa/m)

1350

3100

33

33

(4)

(3)

Soil type

Particle sizes

(prototype/model scale) (mm)

3

3.1

Typical test results

The results from a typical test are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The programme of tests

included various forms of dynamic lay effect, aimed at simulating the pipe motion through the

touchdown zone. In general, the vertical load was controlled in a stepwise manner, reaching a

peak then decaying, whilst continuous cycles of horizontal motion were imposed. The amplitude

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 13 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

of the horizontal cycles was programmed to decay as the embedment increased, reflecting the

constraint imposed by the seabed. Various ranges of lateral movement and numbers of

oscillations were adopted, to reflect the anticipated lay rate and conditions.

In the tests that included large amplitude lateral sweeping, a total of 50 cycles were performed,

with the pipe moving between displacement limits outside any zone affected by dynamic laying.

After these cycles, the pipe was pushed through the berms that had grown at the limits of the

cyclic movement, whilst the simulated pipe weight was maintained.

Table 3. Summary of key results: Sample 2

Test

0.66

0.66

0.33

0.33

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.66

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

4.88

41.8

1.29

58.3

3.06

3.06

2.31

3.06

0.41

0.091

0.32

0.37

0.26

0.22

0.032

0.21

Hydrotest V (kN/m)

4.82

1.43

3.79

3.79

3.79

0.42

0.34

0.26

0.23

0.22

3.50

3.50

1.45

1.45

2.31

2.31

2.31

2.31

Hbrk/V

1.17

0.55

1.14

0.74

2.1

1.11

0.62

1.1

Hres/V

0.61

0.56

0.63

0.48

0.62

0.50

0.58

0.57

Embedment response

3.2

50

50

50

See Figure 16

As-laid embedment

The measured values of as-laid embedment are listed in Table 3 and Table 4. These can be

grouped into two sets with and without a dynamic lay simulation. The measured values are

compared with Equation 1 in Figure 6. The embedment in the absence of lay effects is generally

The University of Western Australia

Page 14 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

over-predicted, often by a factor of 2. There is significant scatter, which suggests that alternative

normalisations may be appropriate.

With dynamic lay effects, the measured embedment is typically 5-10 times greater than predicted

by Equation 1. These observations provide an indication of the model uncertainty applicable to

for this particular soil type, and the likely influence of dynamic lay effects noting that the

particular lay effects simulated here were planned to represent the particular lay process for this

project.

Table 4. Summary of key results: Sample 3

Test

0.66

0.66

1.066

1.066

1.066

0.66

0.66

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

3.06

54.2

10.07

54.3

10.07

3.06

2.31

0.41

0.16

0.33

0.072

0.28

0.33

0.035

Hydrotest V (kN/m)

3.79

12.4

12.4

3.79

0.42

0.33

0.29

0.34

2.31

2.31

7.22

7.22

7.22

2.31

2.31

Hbrk/V

1.30

0.51

1.26

0.43

0.98

1.16

0.71

Hres/V

0.70

0.67

0.65

0.69

0.63

0.67

0.67

50

50

50

Embedment response

3.3

See Figure 16

Breakout resistance

The pipe invert trajectory and the lateral response during the first 3 diameters of lateral sweeping

in all tests are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. The measured values of breakout friction factor,

Hbrk/V, are listed in Table 3 and Table 4. These are extracted as the peak value, or if no peak

exists then the value at 1 diameter of movement. These are compared with the as-laid

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 15 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

embedment in Figure 9a, and show a general trend of increasing breakout friction with

embedment, as would be expected. Calculated values, using Equations 2-3, are also shown on

Figure 9a, and are consistently higher than the measured values. For Sample 2, the calculated

breakout resistance is on average 1.37 times higher than the measured value, whereas for Sample

3 the ratio is 1.78 (Figure 9b). The ratios of calculated/measured Hbrk/V show no skew with

respect to normalised vertical load or pipe diameter.

A more simple form of expression for breakout resistance can be created by discarding the

bracketed term in Equation 3 and removing the dependency of the passive term on the pipe

diameter:

1

H brk = V + K p ' w 2

2

[6]

where Kp is a fitting coefficient linked to the passive resistance. For this report, Equation 6 has

been calibrated based on the donated centrifuge test data, and it has been found that values of

= 0.5, Kp = 5 provides an average ratio of measured to predicted resistance of 1.0 (Figure 10).

However, other combinations of and Kp can also provide the same average accuracy.

Significant scatter remains, and a more sophisticated approach is needed to reduce this. The

frictional and passive components are not actually separate mechanisms, despite being

independent terms in Equations 2-4. Failure envelope approaches (e.g. Zhang & Erbrich (2005)

provide a more robust treatment of the combined bearing-sliding response capturing in an

integrated way the influences of load ratio, H/V and embedment, w/D.

Although Equation 6 has been used in a specific calibration for this new data set, the original

Verley and Sotberg (1994) model (Equations 2-3) could equally be recalibrated to better fit this

data. It is worth noting, however, that the parameters within either form of expression require

different values to suit the Verley and Sotberg (1994) siliceous sand database, and the carbonate

sand results shown here. Even within the carbonate sand data, there are systematic differences in

response evident between the two samples (as discussed further in Section 3.4).

From a theoretical standpoint including analogies with retaining wall behaviour or inclined

bearing capacity the breakout resistance of a shallowly-embedded pipeline depends on the

friction angle and dilatancy of the soil around the pipe, as well as its unit weight and the interface

friction between the pipe and the soil. Since these parameters are not explicitly included within

simple correlations such as Equation 2-3 and 6, significant scatter is inevitable when applying

these expressions across a database of results. A similar level of model uncertainty must be

applied when using these approaches in practice.

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 16 of 43

GEO 10520v2

3.4

DJW

October 2010

Most of the tests reached a steady residual resistance within 2 diameters of movement (Figure 8).

These steady values are listed in Table 3 and Table 4 and are compared with the as-laid

embedment in Figure 11. A consistent residual friction is observed across all tests in a given

sample, but there is a systematic difference between the two samples: in Sample 2 a range of

Hres/V = 0.56 0.1 is evident, whereas in Sample 3 the range is 0.66 0.05. There is a consistent

difference of 20% in Hres/V between the two soil types, which can be clearly identified on

account of the excellent repeatability of the measurements.

Although the residual friction is influenced by the soil type, it is not affected by the as-laid

embedment in this dataset. This observation differs from the conclusions reached by the Verley

and Sotberg (1994) study of on-bottom stability on siliceous sands. Their calculation approach

links the residual resistance to the pre-breakout embedment. This is consistent with observations

from undrained tests, in which a berm is pushed ahead of the pipe, sliding on the soil surface.

The size of this berm, and therefore the residual resistance, is controlled by the as-laid

embedment (see Dingle et al. 2008 and White & Cheuk 2010). However, the present tests

which involved drained behaviour, like the Verley and Sotberg study, but for carbonate soils

show no influence of initial embedment on residual resistance. This is a notable observation, but

should not be generalised without further data and a proper understanding of the controlling

mechanisms in drained conditions.

3.5

The Peek (2006) recommendation for Hres/V (given by Equation 4) is compared with the

measured data in Figure 12. The average ratio of measured to predicted resistance is 1.03 for

Sample 3 and 0.80 for Sample 2. The effect of pipe diameter included in Equation 4 does not

appear within the measurements: larger (1.066m) and smaller (0.33m) pipelines do not have

outlying values of measured residual friction factor.

Given that the residual resistance is influenced by sliding at the pipe-soil interface, it is likely

that the results would be different if the model pipe had a rougher or smoother surface. It is

important to ensure that the surface roughness of the pipeline is adequately captured in any

model tests.

A full picture of the data currently available to SAFEBUCK is given by Figure 13, which

combines the Peek (2006) database and the donated centrifuge data. This figure shows short

references to the sources of the data in the Peek database and the full details are given in Peek

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 17 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

(2006). The measured values of residual friction are compared with pipe diameter (Figure 13a)

(with the centrifuge data scaled to prototype values) and normalised pipe weight (Figure 13b).

The donated data span a range of diameter and pipe weight. In both cases the general trends

evident in the Peek (2006) database cannot be discerned within the new donated data. Within a

given set of new donated data there is neither an increase in resistance with reducing diameter

nor with increasing pipe weight, despite the surrounding database showing these trends. It should

be noted, however, that the trends are small. For example the weight effect is to the power 0.12

(Equation 4). A dotted blue curve following this power is shown on Figure 13b (marked A) and

has been aligned with the mean weight and friction factor of the Sample 2 data (which spans the

largest variation in weight). The dotted curve does not appear to be matched by the experimental

data, although it is conceivable but unlikely that this is due to the experimental scatter.

Peek (2006) suggests that the diameter dependency might arise from a loose layer of soil at the

surface. The ratio between the loose layer thickness and the pipe diameter would provide a

relevant dimensionless parameter.

Alternatively, it is possible that the trend with diameter is actually related to the variation in soil

friction angle with stress level. This would explain why the centrifuge data sits close to the other

data (e.g. the Lyons large scale tests) when plotted in prototype units, rather than when plotted at

model scale because the stress level in the centrifuge model is representative of the prototype

scale case. To understand which explanation is the case, a theoretical model for the behaviour is

required.

Given that the newly donated data involves sets of tests in which the soil properties and the

experimental procedures were not varied, these new results suggest that the trends identified by

Peek (2006) within the original database are not as significant as the correlations imply and it is

possible that they are artefacts of the database. Overall, in summary, the full database shows a

variation in Hres/V by a factor of around 2 for a given pipe diameter, which is best attributed to a

characteristic of each soil tested, as well as the pipe roughness.

3.6

First sweep residual resistance comparison with Verley & Sotberg (1994) model

An additional comparison has been made between the model test data and the Verley & Sotberg

(1994) recommendations for residual lateral resistance (although these are not currently within

the SAFEBUCK guideline). The key assumption within these recommendations is that the pipe

embedment at the steady residual condition is half of the breakout value (or a slightly different

proportion at very shallow residual embedment, w/D < 0.1). Figure 14 compares the calculated

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 18 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

residual embedment from this method with the observed values. It should be noted that in most

tests the embedment was still reducing slightly at the end of the lateral sweep (Figure 7) so the

measured values shown in Figure 14 are upper bounds to the final residual embedment.

The observed behaviour is for the residual embedment to be consistent between all tests in the

range 5 10% regardless of the initial embedment (noting that this range is an upper bound).

The calculated values vary significantly, mirroring the as-laid embedments.

Not surprisingly, the resulting residual friction factors (derived from the calculated residual

embedment combined with Equations 2 3) also show a significant variation which contrasts

with the model test results. On average, the measured values are over-predicted by a factor of

1.67, with the ratio of calculated/measured residual friction factor varying from 1.0 to 2.3 across

the individual tests and with the larger discrepancies occurring for more deeply embedded pipes.

On this basis the Verley & Sotberg (1994) model would not provide an improved basis for the

SAFEBUCK guidelines over the Peek (2006) advice, based on this database of carbonate sand

results.

These observations may have value beyond lateral buckling analysis. Given that these results

indicate that the Verley & Sotberg (1994) model significantly overpredicts both the residual

resistance (Figure 15) and the breakout resistance (Figure 9b) in these two carbonate sands, it

appears that this model would give an unconservative indication of pipeline on-bottom stability

on these soils.

However, it should be noted that these comments are based only on a check of the Verley &

Sotberg (1994) resistance correlations, and not the cyclic embedment correlations within that

model (which are not relevant to lateral buckling). Compensating errors within these two

elements of the model might lead to coincidental accuracy in some cases, but it is clear that the

model does not correctly capture the trends within the data presented here (e.g. the observed

residual embedment is not dependent on the initial embedment in the way that the model predicts

Figure 14 and the best form of the breakout resistance expression varies between siliceous

and carbonate sands, and between the different carbonate sands Section 3.3 and Figure 10b).

3.7

Cyclic response

During the fixed-amplitude cycles of lateral motion, the response followed the general pattern

evident in Figure 5. The pipe moved approximately horizontally during the first few sweeps,

settling slightly after each change in direction. During later cycles the pipe rose at the end of

each sweep, to almost the previous elevation, as it approached the fixed berms growing at the

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 19 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

extremities of the sweeping range. The shape of the trenches created by the shorter sweeps (3D

in length) progressively changed from U-shaped to V-shaped as the centre of the trench grew

deeper, and the edges became steeper. For the longer sweeps, the centre of the trench remained

horizontal. After 50 cycles, the trench sides typically sloped at a gradient of 1 in 5 to 1 in 4 (10

15).

The berms of soil pushed ahead of the pipe during each sweep were small, and never led to soil

flowing over the top of the pipe. Visual comparison of the berm and trench sizes suggests that

volumetric compression had occurred as the soil was disturbed, since the trenches were larger

than the berms. Also, the soil at the base of the trench appeared to have been broken into finer

particles than the material on the undisturbed soil surface.

The resistance remained approximately constant during the middle part of each sweep, rising

slightly through the sweep. This rise was concurrent with a change in the inclination of pipe

movement as the pipe descended into the evolving trench then rose upwards towards the far

berm. As the pipe reached close to berms at the extremities of the movement , a sharper rise in

resistance was observed.

The cyclic response can be summarised by three key values the mid-sweep embedment,

wmid/D, the mid-sweep resistance, Hmid/V, and the mobilised berm resistance, Hberm/V. These

values have been extracted for each cycle of the 6 tests that included large-amplitude sweeping,

and are presented in Figure 16 and Figure 17. Note that the mid-sweep resistance is not

necessarily a steady value as is clear in Figure 5b due to the bowl-shaped trench that

develops. It is therefore not directly comparable to the first sweep Hres/V values.

The mid-sweep embedment increased rapidly during the first few sweeps, and then at a reducing

rate as a bowl-shaped trench forms (Figure 16a). The rate of embedment was greater in the sand

than the silty sand (for the same pipe weight and diameter), even though the sand had a higher

cone penetration resistance.

The mid-sweep friction factor decreased with cycles (Figure 16b), and it should be noted that

this is not a steady value, but is a point on the steadily-increasing response (see Figure 5). Only

the first few cycles showed a steady residual resistance throughout the sweep. After the first few

sweeps it appears that the geometry of the trench, and any berm that evolves in front of the pipe,

led to a response characterised by initially very low resistance, with a steady increase throughout

the sweep.

A more rapid rise in resistance was encountered at the end of each sweep, as the pipe approached

the berms of soil at the edges of the trench. The mobilised berm resistance increased rapidly at

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 20 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

first, then at a reducing rate (Figure 17), mirroring the accumulation of embedment (and

therefore the growth of the berms) compare Figure 16 and Figure 17b. At the end of each test

the pipe was first pushed through one berm, then lifted back over the trench and lowered back in

the centre of the trench, before being pushed through the other berm (under the original constant

vertical load see the magenta line in Figure 5). The disturbance of the soil during the lowering

process appears to alter the response so that the resistance pushing through the second berm was

sometimes lower than the resistance mobilised against the berm in the previous cycle.

The resistance during the pushes through the berms is shown by the single points in Figure 17.

These values are only slightly higher than the resistance mobilised in the fixed-amplitude

sweeps. This contrasts with observations from undrained conditions, when a push through an

established berm generally mobilises significantly higher resistance than the repeated sweeps to

a fixed position that created the berm.

After 10 cycles the mobilised berm resistance ranged from Hberm/V = 0.8 1.5 and by the 50th

cycle the range had increased to 1.25 2.5. No calculation method has been developed during

the SAFEBUCK JIP to capture this behaviour. The range of responses observed here will be

affected by the pipe diameters, weights and interface conditions as well as the soil properties. So,

although these cyclic results provide an indication of the cyclic behaviour and the governing

mechanisms, values of pipe-soil resistance that lie outside of these ranges are likely to be

observed in other conditions.

It is important to note that the design life of most pipelines that have engineered lateral buckles

will far exceed the number of cycles undertaken within these tests possibly by an order of

magnitude. Until further studies are undertaken, it is necessary in design to extrapolate far

beyond the data presented here, and there may be a deviation from the trends shown in this data

at higher numbers of cycles.

4

SUMMARY COMMENTS

In summary, a set of centrifuge model tests of pipe embedment, breakout and large-amplitude

sweeping has been donated to the SAFEBUCK JIP. This data has been interpreted, and

compared with the current recommendations in the SAFEBUCK guideline. These current

recommendations are based on aspects of the Verley & Sotberg (1994) model for pipe-soil

interaction on siliceous sands and a study provided by Peek (2006), using collated data, also

from siliceous sands. The donated tests used a carbonate sand and a carbonate silty sand. These

sands have higher friction angles than siliceous sands, as well as a significantly different

volumetric response, so differences in behaviour are expected between the two. Based on

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 21 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

measurements of excess pore pressure at the pipe invert, drained conditions appeared to prevail

throughout the donated tests.

The following conclusions can be drawn:

Some of the donated tests simulated the dynamic laying process, which was found to lead

to significantly higher embedment that purely monotonic penetration by up to an order

of magnitude, depending on the form of lay effect.

The monotonic embedment tests showed a response that is generally stiffer than the

current SAFEBUCK recommendation.

The breakout response was poorly fitted by the current recommendations (from Verley &

Sotberg 1994), with the measured breakout friction being significantly lower (by a factor

of up to 2) than the calculated value. Across all tests the mean ratio of calculated to

measured breakout resistance was 1.54. The discrepancy varies between the two soil

types, indicating that a feature of the soil response influences the behaviour, but is not

captured within the calculation model.

A simplified expression for the breakout resistance, based on analogy with the passive

resistance on a retaining wall, was calibrated to give a better performance on average.

Significant scatter remained, which is to be expected by these simple friction + passive

models, since they decouple the continuous failure mechanism ahead of the pipe into two

independent components. Also, the results for the two soils showed systematic

differences which could not be captured by a single set of model parameters.

The measured values of residual resistance were extremely consistent between all tests in

each soil, with a standard deviation of less than 0.1. The mean values in each soil

differed, indicating the influence of the soil properties and/or the pipe-soil interface

roughness.

The residual resistance was independent of the initial embedment, which contrasts with

(i) the behaviour seen in undrained conditions and (ii) the assumptions within the Verley

& Sotberg (1994) model.

The Peek (2006) model for residual friction has a weak dependency on pipe diameter and

normalised weight but no dependency on the initial embedment. These trends were

identified from the Peek (2006) database as a whole, although they are not obvious within

any single set of data. The donated centrifuge test data spanned a range of pipe diameters

and normalised weights and no systematic variation in residual resistance was evident for

The University of Western Australia

Page 22 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

either of the soil types. However, the diameter and weight effects within the Peek (2006)

model are small, and the method provided reasonably accurate predictions across the test

database, with values of measured/predicted residual friction factor ranging from 0.6

1.1, with an average of 0.9.

The Verley & Sotberg (1994) model for residual friction has a strong dependency on the

initial embedment, which is not evident in these results. On average, this model overpredicted the measured residual friction factors by a ratio of 1.65, with a range of 1.0

2.3 across the individual tests.

The new data shows that the current calculation methods in the SAFEBUCK guideline give poor

predictions of the response observed in the carbonate sands and silty sands used in the donated

data set. The analysis in this report highlights the caution and conservatism that should be used if

these methods are applied to carbonate sands. Equally, the results are a cautionary warning that

trends encapsulated within the current SAFEBUCK recommendations may not apply in siliceous

soils beyond the original studies of Verley & Sotberg (1994) and Peek (2006).

Since systematic differences in behaviour were observed between the two sands, it is important

to note that the quantitative conclusions are not necessarily applicable across all calcareous soils,

although they do provide the most comprehensive advice currently available to the SAFEBUCK

JIP.

The systematic differences in the response of the sand and the silty sand cannot be captured even

by recalibrations of the current empirical recommendations, since these do not include soil

properties (except unit weight) as input parameters. There is a clear long term research need to

establish (i) what soil (and pipe-soil) properties control these differences and (ii) how best to

identify these properties for design, noting that undisturbed sampling of sandy soil is difficult,

and the measurement of near-surface soil characteristics is also a relatively undeveloped area of

site investigation technology.

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was commissioned by the SAFEBUCK JIP, as an addendum to Phase II. The support

of the JIP Participants is acknowledged. The centrifuge model tests were performed at the

University of Western Australia in 2007 and were donated to the JIP by a Participant.

This work forms part of the activities of the Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS), at

the University of Western Australia. COFS was established under the Australian Research

Councils Research Centres Program and now supported by the State Government of Western

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 23 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

Australia through the Centres of Excellence in Science and Innovation program. The author is

supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (grant FT0991816).

The valuable review comments provided by Ralf Peek of Shell and David Bruton of

AtkinsBoreas are acknowledged.

6

REFERENCES

AtkinsBoreas (2008). SAFEBUCK JIP: Safe design of pipelines with lateral buckling. Design

Guideline, Rev C. BR02050/SAFEBUCK/C 15 December 2008

Bruton D., Carr M. and White D.J. (2007). The influence of pipe-soil interaction on lateral

buckling and walking of pipelines: the SAFEBUCK JIP. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Offshore Site

Investigation and Geotechnics, London. 133-150.

Coop, M.R. (1990). The mechanics of uncemented carbonate sands. Gotechnique 40(4):607626

Dingle, H. R. C., White, D. J. and Gaudin, C. (2008). Mechanisms of pipe embedment and

lateral breakout on soft clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 45, 636-652.

DNV (2007). Recommended Practice DNV RP-F109, On-bottom Stability Design of Submarine

Pipelines. (with amendments, April 2009). Det Norske Veritas,

Jewell, R.J. and Khorshid, M. (1988) Proc. 1st International Conference on Engineering for

Calcareous Sediments. Perth, Balkema.

Peek, R. (2006). Pipeline on Sand Resistance to Lateral Movements. Note to SAFEBUCK JIP.

9th January 2006. 15 pp.

Verley, R.L.P. and Sotberg, T. (1994). A soil resistance model for pipelines placed on sandy

soils. J. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, 116(3):145-153.

Verley, R.L.P. and Reed, K. (1989) Response of pipelines on various soils for realistic

hydrodynamic loading. Proc., 8th Offshore Mechanics and Polar Engng. Conf., 5:149156.

White D.J. & Cheuk C.Y. (2010). SAFEBUCK JIP: Pipe-soil interaction models for lateral

buckling design: Phase IIA data review. Report to AtkinsBoreas and the SAFEBUCK JIP,

UWA report GEO 09497r2.

Zhang, J. and Erbrich, C.T. (2005). Stability design of untrenched pipelines geotechnical

aspects. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, ISFOG 2005, Perth, 623-628.

The University of Western Australia

Page 24 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

FIGURES

The University of Western Australia

Page 25 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

TRG

Ly73ss

Ly73ls

GVV

PENt

0

0

0.5

1.5

(a)

1.6

TRG

Ly73ss

Ly73ls

GVV

1.4

1.2

PENt

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

100

200

300

400

500

(b)

Figure 1. Summary of Peek (2006) database of residual friction factor, Hres/V

The University of Western Australia

Page 26 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

The University of Western Australia

Page 27 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

The University of Western Australia

Page 28 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

-0.5

0.5

1

Normalised horizontal displacement, u/D (-)

1.5

(a)

15

10

-5

-10

V

H

-15

-0.5

0.5

1

Normalised horizontal displacement, u/D (-)

1.5

(b)

Figure 4. Typical results from dynamic lay simulation and breakout (test S3-T3)

(a) Pipe trajectory (b) Applied vertical load and measured horizontal resistance

The University of Western Australia

Page 29 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-1

1

2

3

4

Normalised horizontal displacement, u/D (-)

(a)

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-1

V

H

0

1

2

3

4

Normalised horizontal displacement, u/D (-)

(b)

Figure 5. Typical results from large amplitude lateral sweeping simulation (test S3-T5)

(a) Pipe trajectory (b) Applied vertical load and measured horizontal resistance (sweeps

through berms at end of test shown in magenta, initial laying and breakout shown dotted)

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 30 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

0

20

40

60

80

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Tests with

dynamic lay

effects

0.5

Equation 1

0.6

(a)

2

0

0.5

1.5

0

0.1

10

Equation 1

Tests with

dynamic lay

effects

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

(b)

Figure 6. Comparison of as-laid embedment with current SAFEBUCK model (a) All data

(b) Range V/D2 < 2

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 31 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

S2-T1

S2-T2

S2-T3

S2-T4

S2-T5

S2-T6

S2-T7

S2-T8

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Normalised horizontal displacement, u/D (-)

(a)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

S3-T1

S3-T2

S3-T3

S3-T4

S3-T5

S3-T6

S3-T7

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Normalised horizontal displacement, u/D (-)

(b)

Figure 7. Pipe invert trajectory during first sweep (a) Sample 2 (b) Sample 3

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 32 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

2.5

S2-T1

S2-T2

S2-T3

S2-T4

S2-T5

S2-T6

S2-T7

S2-T8

1.5

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

0.5

1

1.5

2

Normalised horizontal displacement, u/D (-)

2.5

(a)

1.2

0.8

0.6

S3-T1

S3-T2

S3-T3

S3-T4

S3-T5

S3-T6

S3-T7

0.4

0.2

0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Normalised horizontal displacement, u/D (-)

2.5

(b)

Figure 8. Mobilised friction factor during first sweep (a) Sample 2 (b) Sample 3

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems

The University of Western Australia

Page 33 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

0

0.1

Sample 2

0.2

Sample 3

0.3

0.4

0.5

Open symbols - calculated from Equations 2-3

0.6

(a)

3.5

Measured =

0.5 Predicted

3

2.5

Parity

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

(b)

Figure 9. Measured breakout friction factors and calculations using Equations 2-3 (a)

Variation with embedment (b) Comparison of measured and calculated

The University of Western Australia

Page 34 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

0

0.1

Sample 2

0.2

Sample 3

0.3

0.4

0.5

Open symbols - calculated from Equation 6

0.6

(a)

3.5

3

2.5

Parity

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

(b)

Figure 10. Measured breakout friction factors and calculations using Equation 6 (a)

Variation with embedment (b) Comparison of measured and calculated

The University of Western Australia

Page 35 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

0.8

Sample 3

0.7

0.6

0.5

Sample 2

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

The University of Western Australia

Page 36 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

1

D = 0.33 m

0.9

0.8

0.7

Parity

0.6

0.5

D = 1.066 m

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Figure 12. Comparison of measured residual friction factors and calculations using

Equation 4

The University of Western Australia

Page 37 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

1.6

Lyons (1973) - small scale, 1g

1.4

Craig (2002) - 1g

Lyons (1973) - large scale, 1g

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

Sample 3 - centrifuge

Sample 2 - centrifuge

Gulhati et al. (19??) - 1g

0.2

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

(a)

1.6

Taylor et al.

(1985) - 1g

1.4

1.2

Craig (2002) - 1g

1

Sample 3 - centrifuge

0.8

0.6

0.4

Lyons (1973) - large scale, 1g

0.2

Sample 2 centrifuge

0

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

(b)

Figure 13. Comparison of first sweep residual resistance data : donated results and Peek

(2006) database (a) Variation with diameter (b) Variation with normalized pipe weight

The University of Western Australia

Page 38 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

Note that in most cases the

embedment in the model test

was still reducing at the end

of the movement (see Figure

7), so the measured values

shown are upper bounds.

0.05

0

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Figure 14. Comparison of measured residual embedment and calculations using the Verley

& Sotberg (1994) model

The University of Western Australia

Page 39 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

Parity

Measured =

0.5 Predicted

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Figure 15. Comparison of measured residual friction factors and calculations using the

Verley & Sotberg (1994) model

The University of Western Australia

Page 40 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

S2-T6

S2-T7

0.1

S2-T8

S3-T5

0.2

S3-T6

S3-T7

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

+ve and -ve sweeps

The University of Western Australia

Page 41 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

mid/V

0.8

Pairs of lines for +ve and -ve sweeps

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

S2-T7

S2-T6

S3-T6

0.1

S2-T8

S3-T5

S3-T7

0

0

10

20

30

40

Lateral sweeping cycle

50

60

(a)

3.5

S2-T6

S2-T8

S3-T6

3

2.5

S2-T7

S3-T5

S3-T7

and -ve sweeps

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0

10

20

30

40

Lateral sweeping cycle

50

60

(b)

Figure 17. Variation in mid-sweep and berm friction factor during cyclic lateral sweeps

The University of Western Australia

Page 42 of 43

GEO 10520v2

DJW

October 2010

Appendix A

Peek, R. (2006). Pipeline on Sand Resistance to Lateral Movements. Note to

SAFEBUCK JIP. 9th January 2006. 15 pp. Updated 8 June 2010 to remove

restricted information

The University of Western Australia

Page 43 of 43

Note

Pipeline on Sand Resistance to Lateral Movements

by R. Peek, SIEP EPT-PER

9th January 2006

updated 8 June 2010 (to remove restricted information)

Purpose

During lateral buckling of pipelines on a sandy soil, the resistance to lateral movements is controlled not

only by frictional effects between the pipeline coating and the sand, but also by the formation of soil berms

that are pushed along by the pipeline, as shown in Fig. 1. The purpose of this note is to estimate an

effective friction factor that includes the effect of berm formation for use in lateral buckling calculations.

This friction coefficient is defined as the ratio of the lateral force to maintain steady-state lateral movement

to the submerged weight of the pipe.

Although lateral buckling may at first occur dynamically, the buckles will subsequently grow under further

increases in temperature. It is during this subsequent, quasi-static response that the largest pipe stresses and

strains develop. It is for this part of the response that the effective friction coefficients are estimated here.

Recommendation

The median value of the friction factor may be calculated from

50% = 0.71 0.12 (Dref/D)0.18

(1)

where

= W/( D2/4)

(2)

is the normalised pipe weight, and the other the symbols used are defined in the notation section below.

Lower and upper bounds the friction factor may be calculated from

2.3% = 0.05 + 0.7 50%

(3)

(4)

These are not bounds in the strict sense of the word. The estimated probability that the actual value falls

outside the bounds is 2.3% on either side.

These results apply for typical sand deposits. Conditions that could result in exceptionally loose deposits,

such as shallow gas, or artesian water are excluded. Also excluded are any conditions that would result in a

value of 50% of less than 0.5. (For this case the upper bound could still be calculated from Eq. 4 using

50%=0.5.)

Whereas the relative density and the variation of relative density with depth seems to be important, the

effect of relative density is not well understood and the upper bound estimate has been raised slightly based

on engineering judgmenent rather than statistical theory to account for this. Additional effective lateral

friction data, coupled with careful measurements of the relative density could be used in furture to reduce

reduce the uncertainty, possibly enabling narrower bounds to be justified.

Often conditions are encountered in which a veneer of sand overlies a stiffer substrate. If the thickness of

the sand layer is less than half a pipe diameter, then some reduction in the friction coefficients may be

appropriate. In any case the upper bound may be used as a conservative value no matter how thin the sand

layer may be.

It must be emphasized that these lateral friction coefficients only account for the berms that form for

monotonic steady-state lateral movements of the pipe. Cyclic movemements of the pipe could result in

larger berms and resistances to lateral movements. For instance this could occur if several operating cycles

at a lower temperature take place, before the temperature is raised to the maximum design value.

The lateral friction factors also do not account for the initial break-out resistance due to pipe embeddment,

which could develop due to cyclic movements during laying, and/or cyclic lateral wave loading.

Notation

D

D0

np

= submerged unit weigh of the sand (or dry unit weight for dry tests)

= reference value for the unit weight of the sand, taken to be 9.5kN/m3

= ratio of horizontal force to keep the pipe moving over the seabed (at steady state) divided by the

weight of the pipe; referred to as the friction factor even though this parameter includes notonly frictional resistance between the pipe and the soil, but also the effect of berm formation.

2.3%

= 2.3 percentile value for ; the probability that the actual value is less is 2.3%; also referred to as

the lower bound value for ; the probability of a smaller value is the same as the probability

that a normally distributed random variable is smaller than its mean value less 2 standard

deviations.

50%

97.7% = 97.7 percentile value for ; the probability that the actual value is less is 97.7%; also referred to

as the upper bound value for ; the probability of exceeding this value is the same as the

probability that a normally distributed random variable exceeds the mean value plus two

standard deviations.

(.)

-1(.)

= inverse cumulative distribution function for the standard normal probability distribution

= pipe soil effective density ratio; for a subsea pipeline this is defined by the submerged weight of

the pipe divided by the submerged weight of the same volume of soil.

Example

Consider a 30-inch (765mm) diameter steel pipe coated with 3mm of ploypropylene, and 60mm of

concrete. Based on a specific gravity of 0.1 for the pipe contants, 7.85 for the steel, 0.98 for the

polypropylene, 3.04 for the concrete, and 1.025 for the seawater, and neglecting cut-backs of the coating,

and specific gravity of the pipe of 1.40, and a submerged weight of 2.31kN/m is calculated. The pipe is

laid on sand with a submerged unit weight of 9.5kN/m3.

The outer diameter including coating is given by

D = 765 + 2*(3+60) = 891mm

= W/( D2/4) = 2.31/(9.5**0.8912/4) = 0.39

From Eq. 1, the median friction factor is then

50% = 0.71 0.12 (Dref/D)0.18 = 0.71*0.390.12*(508/891)0.18 = 0.57

Finally from Eqs. 3 and 4, the lower and upper bounds are

2.3% = 0.05 + 0.7 50% = 0.84

97.7% = 0.18 + 1.15 50% = 0.45

Repeating the above calculation for various concrete coating thicknesses leads to the results shown in Fig.

9.

These recommendations are based on a combination of

effective friction coefficients estimated from the shapes of lateral buckles observed on the seabed

(by changing the friction factor used in analyses until the predicted buckle shape matches the

observed one, as best it can),

finite element simulations of the berm formation process, using the Arbritrary Lagrangian Eulerian

(ALE) formulation in the program ABAQUS Explicit.

For fully drained, steady-state conditions and sandy (i.e. cohesionless) soil, the effective lateral friction

factor can be expected to depend on the following parameters:

a)

= W/( D2/4)

also referred to as normalised pipe weight.

c)

the angularity of sand grains (e.g. as described by the friction angle at critical state shearing at

constant specific volume)

e)

f)

g) thin sand layer effects where a layer of sand overlies a different material

The available lateral friction coefficient data are plotted in Fig. 2 as a function of the normalised pipe

weight and in Fig. 3 as a function of the pipe diameter. The source of the data and comments about the

test programs are included in Tables 1 and 2.

Figs. 2 & 3 suggest that the lateral friction coefficient increases with increasing normalised pipe weight ,

and decreases with increasing diameter. To quantify this apparent trend a linear relationship on a log-scale1

plot is assumed in the form

1

A simple linear relationship was also tried, but found to give less satisfactory results in terms of the

scatter between actual and predicted friction coefficients.

(5)

where Dref is a reference diameter, taken to be 20inches (508mm), and the constants a, b, and c, are chosen

to minimise the sum of the squares of the errors in Eq. 5. (I.e. the sum of the squares of the difference

between the logarithms of the actual and predicted lateral friction coefficients is minimised.)2 This leads to

a=0.71, b=0.12, and c=-0.18, so that Eq. 5 becomes

50% = 0.71 0.12 (Dref/D)0.18

(6)

This is used as the median value3 of the friction factor. The predictions from this formula are compared

with the actual friction coefficients in Fig. 4. Therein it can be seen that the scatter in Figs. 2 and 3 has

been considerably reduced by considering the effect of the parameters and D. Indeed the logarithmic

standard deviation4 has been reduced from 0.34 to 0.15 by including the dependence on these two

parameters. If only the dependence on weight or diameter D had been included (i.e. c=0 or b=0

assumed) the logarithmic standard deviation would be 0.24 or 0.21, respectively. This is considerably

higher than 0.15, indicating that the pipe diameter, as well as the normalised pipe weight have a

significant5 effect on the lateral friction and should be included in the prediction formula, as has been done

in Eqs. 5 and 6.

The only actual friction factor that differs most from the prediction is the one from finite element analysis

[FE1]6. This seems to yield far too high a friction factor. For this reason the finite element analysis result

was excluded from the curve fitting process, and also from the calculation of the standard deviations

quoted.7

The alternative of minimising the differences between actual and predicted friction factors without

taking the logarithms was also assessed and found to give a very similar result, with

(a,b,c)=(0.705,0.114,-0.187) instead of (a,b,c)=(0.706,0.121,-0.183). The approach using logarithms

was preferred because it is consistent with a linear fit on a log-log plot. The fit then yields a geometric

average value of the data, rather than an average.

The data fitting optimisation by minimising the squares of the errors in Eq. 5 results in a geometric

average of the ratio actual/predicted friction factor of 1. Assuming a lognormal distribution for this

ratio, the geometric mean is equal to the median.

Defined as the standard deviation of the differences between the logarithms of the actual and predicted

friction factors, and calculated as ={ (differences)2/(n-np)}1/2, where n is the number of data points,

and np is the number of parameters determined from the data, e.g. np=1 when the predicted friction

coefficient is simply the geometric mean of the friction coefficients, and np=3 when the parameters a, b,

and c in Eq. 5 are determined from the data.

To assess the statistical significance one needs to know the variability of the logarithmic standard

deviations as a result of random fluctuations in the data. Based on 28 data points this is about 23% at

the 90% confidence level (i.e. 5% probability of falling outside the bound on each side). This is more

than the difference in standard deviations quoted: e.g. 0.21 is 40% greater than 0.15. Thus the

differences are statistically significant.

Taggs in square brackets refer to references in Tables 1 and 2, and are also used to tagg the results

plotted in Figs. 2-4.

Initially the FE1 result had been included in the analysis, and even then it was apparent in a plot of the

errors that this result is an outlier. Possible explanations are given in the discussion section.

A plot of the errors in Eq. 5 on normal probability paper8 is shown in Fig. 5. This is essentially a plot of the

cumulative distribution function (cdf) such that any normal distribution becomes a straight line. The fitted

normal distribution shown in Fig. 5 matches the mean and standard deviation of the data. (I.e. it is

determined by the method of moments, rather than by fitting the data as plotted in Fig. 5.) Also shown in

Fig. 5 are confidence intervals labelled 5% CI and 95% CI. Assuming the fitted distribution is the

correct one, each of the data points is expected to fall9 within these bounds. Since all the data fall within

the confidence intervals, there is no evidence to reject the assumption of a normal distribution for the errors

in Eq. 5. This assumption leads to 2.3 and 97.7 percentile values of the actual friction coefficents shown in

Fig. 4 as dashed orange lines emanating from the origin. For this assumption the variability in the actual

friction coeffcient is proportional to the predicted friction coefficient. Although there is no evidence to

reject this assumption from the statistical test preformed, this does not imply that the assumption is true.

An alternative assumption is to apply the normal distribution to the actual difference between the actual and

the predicted friction factors (i.e. without first taking logarithms). A similar statistical assessment of this

altenative assumption (using confidence intervals) leads to the conclusion that there is also no evidence to

reject it. The resulting 2.3 and 97.7 percentiles are also shown in Fig. 4 as dashed orange lines. These lines

are parallel, have a slope of 1, and do not go through the origin. For this assumption the variability in the

actual friction coefficient does not depend on the predicted value.

The 2.3 and 97.7 percentiles will also be referred to as lower and upper bounds. By examining the scatter

in the data in Fig. 4, it appears that neither of the dashed orange bounds adequately reflects the variability

as a function of the predicted friction coefficient. The variability is neither constant nor proportional to the

prediction, but rather something in between. Therefore the bounds recommended for use in design are

constructed based on engineering judgement guided by the calculated bounds from the alternative

assumptions described above. These bounds are shown in Fig. 4 as red lines labelled as 2.3%ile and

97.7%ile. These bounds are given by

2.3% = 0.05 + 0.7 50%

(7)

(8)

in which 50% is the predicted friction coeffcient from Eq. 6, which can be taken to be the median friction

coefficient. In definining these bounds not only statistical uncertainty has been considered, but also other

uncertainties regarding applicability of the test data, which are further discussed in the section that follows.

Discussion

Effect of the Pipe Diameter

For sand behaving as an ideally frictional material no scale effects are expected. Nevertheless these scale

effects are observed, with larger diameter pipes experiencing relatively lower soil resistances to lateral

movement. Possible explanations for this include the following:

To plot data x1 x2 xn on normal probability paper, the points (xi, -1((i-1/2)/n)) are ploted for

i=1,2,n. This is a essentially a plot of the estimator for the cumultive distribution function (cdf)

plotted in such a way that a normal distribution becomes a straight line. In this case the x values

represent the natural logarithm of the ratio actual/predicted lateral friction coefficient.

For any given data point there is a 5% probability that it falls outside the confidence interval on either

side. I.e. 90% probability that the data point falls within the confidence interval. These probabilities

apply assuming that the fitted distribution is the correct one, and the data are the outcomes of

probabilistically independent trials. The fact that the mean and standard deviation of the data have been

used to fit a distribution has not been considered in constructing these confidence intervals. Considering

this would tend to narrow the confidence intervals a little.

1) At a larger scale the stresses are proportionally higher. Thus deformation and crushing of the sand

grains could become significant. To account for this effect model tests are sometimes done in a

centrifuge. However here the stress levels here are generally low, even for the largest diameter pipe

considered. It seems unlikely that deformation and crushing of the sand grains would play a

significant role under these conditions.

2) There could be non-proportional frictional effects between the sand grains themselves.

3) Other scale effects, associated with non-continuum behaviour of the sand could play a role. (These

effects would not be accounted for by performing a model test in the centrifuge.)

4) Perhaps the most likely reason for the diameter effect is a change in the relative density of the soil with

depth. It is conceivable that the methods of deposition used result in a surface layer that is in a looser

state than the lower layers. The behaviour of a small diameter pipe will mostly be influenced by the

surface layer, whereas a larger diameter pipe will also be influenced by deeper layers, which typically

will be in a denser state. This suggests less berm formation for larger diameter pipes, and

consequently lower effective friction factors, as has been observed for the larger diameter test data.

To distinguish between effects 1 and 4 from the above list an additional term that is dependent on the soil

unit weight is added to the prediction equation (Eq. 5). Thus Eq. 5 becomes

ln() = ln(a) + b ln() + c ln(D/Do) + d ln( / 0 )

(9)

The effective unit weight of the soil has been added because controls the effective stress levels in the

soil for a given and D: the tests performed under dry conditions involve a higher , and therefore higher

effective stresses in the soil. Optimal fitting leads to d=0.114, and little change in the other parameters10.

Thus the lateral friction coefficient increases with increasing stress levels for a given value of and D.

(Note that for a given an increase in implies an increase in the pipe weight W.) This does not support

the first two possible explanations for the effect of the change in diameter given above.

Other scale effects (Explanation 3 above) also do not seem a likely explanation for the effect of the pipe

diameter. This leaves the variation in relative density with depth (Explanation 4) as the most likely

explanation for the diameter effect. Unfortunately of the tests reported, only those for the Penguins project

[PENt, PENt2] include information on the relative density of the soil, and none include information on the

variation of relative density with depth.

The only truly large diameter pipe result is that from the lateral buckling observations for what is referred

to here as the RG pipeline. For this, the accuracy of the lateral friction factor of 0.5 cannot be confirmed,

because only limited information was available. Also the survey accuracy (around 2m) is not sufficient to

accurately define the shape of the buckle. To check that the conclusions regarding the effect of the

diameter are not dependent on a single questionable data point, the curve fitting procedure was repeated,

excluding the [RGo] result. This did not lead to a significant change in the optimal fit parameters11. Indeed

the optimal fit for the other test data predicts a lateral friction coefficient of 0.503 for the [RGo] condition

which is very close to the observed value of 0.5. Such exceptionally close agreement is fortuitous, but it

remains that the conclusions in regard to the diameter effect do not depend on validity of the [RGo] result.

Looser soil leads to more berm formation and consequently higher lateral friction coefficients. Since under

Effect of the Pipe Diameter variations of relative density with depth have been identified as an important

parameter, it follows that the relative density itself is also important. Unfortunately little information is

available in regard to this parameter. The only test results for which relative density is reported are those

10

11

No change if the optimal values of the parameters a, b and c are rounded to the first 3 digits after the

decimal period.

for the Penguins project [PENt, PENt2]. These do suggest an increase in lateral friction coefficient for

looser sand, as expected, but this effect is masked by a generally large scatter in those test results. The

relative density has therefore not been included as a parameter in the prediction formula. As a result

variability in relative density of the soil has no doubt contributed to the scatter of the actual friction factors

about the prediction and the upper and lower bound derived from it. Thus for looser soil, the friction

factors are likely to be closer to the upper bound value than the lower bound value. By using these upper

and lower bounds in design one is essentially assuming that the relative density is unknown for the design

condition, just as it is unknown for the test data. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that the

variability in relative density for the test data is representative of the variability for the design condition.

The validity of this should be confirmed by collecting additional information on the friction coefficient

from observations of the buckled shapes of pipelines on the seabed. In lieu of such confirmation, the

separation between upper and lower bounds have been widened based on engineering judgement. Even so

the predictions should not be used for conditions that could lead to exceptionally loose deposits.

The process of berm formation and displacement involves shear deformations in the sand. Except for very

loose sands, such shear deformations require dilation of the sand. This is only possible with entrainment of

pore water12. If the permeability is reduced by the presence of fines (silt and/or clay), pore water

entrainment is inhibited, resulting in pore water suction, increased shear strength and suppression of berms.

Without berms the resistance to lateral pipe movements is reduced.

The non-dimensional parameter that controls the importance of these pore pressure effects is v/k, where v

denotes the velocity of the lateral pipe movement and k the permeability of the soil. (Although intuition

may suggest that this pore pressure effect should be diameter dependent, dimensional analysis13

demonstrates that it is not. However, for a given pipe velocity v, a larger pipe is moving at a smaller

number of pipe diameters per unit time.)

Lateral buckling typically involves a dynamic phase in which the pipeline snaps from a straight to a

laterally buckled configuration, followed by a quasi-static phase in which the amplitude of the buckle

increases slowly as the temperature continues to rise. During the dynamic phase, the velocities are large

compared to the soil permeability. Thus berm formation is suppressed during this phase. It is not the intent

here to estimate the friction coeffcient for this dynamic part of the response. The dynamic phase merely

provides an initial out-of-straightness (OOS) for the subsequent quasi-static part of the response. In most

cases initial OOS will be deliberately included in the pipeline to trigger the lateral buckles, whereby the

initial dynamic part of the response is eliminated.

Typically it takes less than 1hour for the pipe to heat up from ambient temperature to the full operating

temperature, and the total lateral displacement is typically less than 10m. Thus a typical velocity is

v=7.2m/hour (2mm/s). If this is small compared to the permeability of the soil, pore pressure effects

should be neglegible. Otherwise pore water effects could be significant, but as far is the upper bound to the

friction factor is concerened, it is conservative to neglect this.

To what extent these pore pressure effects may have affected the test results used can be investigated by

comparing the tests in air to those in water. This is done by evaluating the geometric average of the ratio of

12

Here the possibility of cavitation is not included, because this requires rather a large pore water suction,

of the order of the atmospheric pressure of 100kPa for tests performed at negligible water depth, and

even larger suction at greater water depth, e.g. 1100kPa at 100m water depth. This is of the order of 100

times more than the expected levels of pore water suction that would suppress berm formation.

13

This is based on the assumption that the sand is characterised by non-dimensional parameters only. I.e.

deformation and/or crushing of the sand grains themselves is neglected. Under such conditions the

lateral friction coefficient depends only on the non-dimensional parameters characterising the effective

stress response of the sand, and on the parameters v, k, D, , and W. By dimensional analysis the latter 5

parameters are reduced to v/k, and only.

actual/predicted lateral friction coeffcient. This is 1.03 for the dry tests, and 0.99 for the wet tests, a 4%

difference. This is not statistically convincing.14 Nevertheless pore pressure effects could well have

contributed to this difference, as could the higher effective stresses for the dry tests, as discussed above

under Effect of Pipe Diameter.

This is reflected in the angle of internal friction of the soil at critical state. This angle typically does not

vary greatly for natural deposits, and it is therefore unlikely that variations in angularity of the grains will

significantly affect the lateral friction coefficient beyond what has been accounted for in constructing the

upper and lower bounds.

This parameter was investigated in [Ly73]. For his small scale tests with a 1-inch (25.4mm) diameter pipe,

he found a 26% increase in friction coefficient when the pipe was coated with 100-grit sandpaper, when

compared to the bare pipe results. However at a larger scale (9-inch diameter) he reports no appreciable

surface roughness effect when comparing concrete-coated to bare pipe.

Examining the lateral friction coefficient data collected (excluding [FE1]) it is found that 10 of the pipes

were bare, and the other 18 were coated, either with concrete or sandpaper. Comparing the geometric

averages for the ratio of actual/predicted lateral friction coeffcients, it is found that the bare pipes have on

average a 1.1% higher friction coefficient than the coated pipes. This difference is not in the expected

direction, but it is also not statistically significant. The standard deviation of this difference is 6%. Thus

the data do not show a statistically significant influence of the coating roughness.

Both in Qatar and in the North Sea a veneer of sand often overlies a stiffer substrate. This can reasonably

be expected to reduce berm formation, and thus also reduce the lateral stiffness. However for large lateral

displacements even a thin layer can provide sufficient sand to form a berm. From the finite element

analysis [FE1], the maximum downward pipe displacement is only about 10% of the pipe diameter, and

occurs before the berm is fully formed. At steady state the pipe is roughly at the original seabed elevation,

as it must be based on conservation of the volume of sand. Similar downward displacements were obtained

in tests [PENt] for loose sand, and considerably less (by a factor of 2 or more) for dense sand. Also neither

the tests nor the FE analyses revealed any obviour deep deformation mechanisms. Although it is

conceivable that this is mere a matter of failure to oberserve such mechanisms, such mechanisms are

judged unlikely because of the increasing strength of the sand with depth due to the confinig stress from the

overburden. In view of the above, the behaviour for sand layer thickesses of half a pipe diameter or more is

expected to be independent of the actual thickness of the layer. Additional tests and/or FE analyses could

confirm this, and possibly increase the range of validity to smaller thicknesses of the sand layer.

The finite element analysis results [FE1] were calculated using ABAQUS Explicit, and an Aribtrary

Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) formulation. This means that the mesh need not deform with the soil. Instead

the soil can flow through the mesh, and the deformations of the mesh are chosen independently as a

function of changes in geometry, to maintain a good shape of the elements, and refinement of the mesh

where needed.

14

Based on only 6 dry tests and 22 wet tests, the standard deviation of the difference is 6%. I.e. the 4%

difference represents only 0.7 standard deviations, which could easily be the the result in random chance

rather than a physical underlying phenomenon.

A typical result from [FE1] is shown in Fig. 6. It shows the berm and the velocity field within the berm as

seen from an observer moving with the pipe. Even though the probem is analysed as a 2-dimensional plane

strain problem, and a simple non-dilational Drucker-Prager constitutive model is used for the soil, the

computations turned out to be particularly challenging, and it was necessary to introduce some artifical

stabilisation (in the form of viscosity, and and a kind of surface tension that is introduced when the slope of

the berm becomes too steep). In some simulations the berm would formed and would then disappear again

for some reason, possibly because of the surface tension that was introduced when the berm became too

steep. (From elementary slope stability considerations, the slope of the berm cannot exceed the angle of

internal friction of the soil.)

In addition to the difficulty of obtaining a coverged solution for a given soil consistutive model, there is the

difficulty of constructing a constitutive model that represents the true behaviour of the sand. Typical

relationships between shear strain and dilation in a drained triaxial compression test are shown in Fig. 7.

Sand tends to dialate under shear deformation. This is especially true at the low confining pressures

present where these shear deformations occur. Eventually a critical state condition is reached at which the

sand continues to deform in shear without further dilation. There is also increased resistance to shear

deformation during the dilation phase, which gives rise to a peak in the stress-strain curve for dense sand.

In the Drucker-Prage constintutive model used neither dilation, nor the peak in the stress-strain curve is

included. The parameters of the model have been chosen such that under plane strain conditions the model

is equivalent to a Mohr-Coulomb model. Plastic deformations occur as soon as the shear stresses on some

plane exceed tan() of the normal effective compressive stress, where is take to be the critical state angle

of internal friction for which =32 is used in [FE1]. The plastic deformations then occur without strain

hardening according to a non-associated flow rule with zero dilation. The only other constitutive model

parameters are those governing elastic deformations of the soil, for which E=1MPa is used for Youngs

modulus, and =0.3 for Poissons ratio.

Without dilation or a peak in the stress-strain curve the constitutive model represents loose sand. As such it

is not surprising that a considerable berm forms in the [FE1] results, leading to a high resistance to lateral

movement. What was not expected, however, is that the FE result would fall considerably outside a band

including all test resuts.

A factor that contributes to the high friction factor in [FE1] is the use of the peak lateral resistance, since a

clear steady state was never reached, as can be seen from Fig. 815. If the small plateau in the time range

from 30s to 40s in Fig. 8 where used instead of the peak, the lateral friction factor drops from 1.2 to about

1.15. This is still outside the range of the test data. For this reason it was decided not to use the finite

element predictions.

15

The pipe first diggs itself in, then rises above the original seabed level (which corresponds to zero

vertical displacement in Fig. 8). The highes lateral resistance approximately when the pipe has risen to

the original seabed level. Then for some reason the berm diminishes, possibly due to the surface tension

stabilisation applied when the slope of the berm exceeded tan( 1.05 ).

Tables

Ref.

Tag

TRG

Reference

Comments

Gan, A.B., "On Submarine

Pipeline Frictional

Characteristics in the Presence

of Buckling," 4th Int. Offshore

Mechanics and Arctic

Engineering Symposium, Vol. 1,

pp. 508-515.

Ly73

Resistance to Lateral Sliding of

Marine Pipelines," Offshore

Technology Conference,

American Inst of Mining,

Metallurgical, and Petroleum

Engineers, Inc., Paper No. OTC

1876.

GVV

G., Varadarajan, A., "Positional

Stability of Submarine

Pipelines."

Peek, R., Matheson, I., Carr, M.,

Saunders, P., and George, N.,

"Thermal Expansion by Lateral

Buckling - Structural Reliability

Analysis for the Penguins

Flowline," Proc. 23rd Int. Conf.

on Offshore Mechanics and

Arctic Engineering, June 20-25,

2004, Vancouver, Canada,

Paper No. OMAE 2004-51199.

Craig, W.H., "Model Tests for

Pipe-Soil Interactions, Penguin

Production Pipeline," Report to

KW Limited by Flowscience Ltd.,

April 2002.

evidence of drop in resistance thereafter.

* Berm "gradually growing in height. Full

mobilisation was preceeded by pipe rising over the

[Berm]"

* D50 ~ 0.25mm, range 0.1mm to 1mm (rep North

Sea), "medium to find sand"

* Dry Testing. Only grading curve provided for soil.

* Each test 4 times, average recorded.

* Assumed "overhang" is on both sides. Pipe weight

per unit length in contact with soil is taken as (1/0.7)

the pipe weight per unit length given in the paper.

* Pipes pulled at an slope of 3v:4h (break out)

* Only "ultimate" data used. Lift subtracted from

weight, but full weight may have caused

embeddment.

* Test in water.

* At "ultimate" pipe "suddenly began to slide" i.e.

peak resistance.

* Small scale tests on 1-inch diameter

pipes(Ly73ss).

* Large scale tests on 9-inch & 16-inch diameter

pipes (Ly73ls).

* Only tests in soil 1 (sand) included here.

* Tests assumed to be in water, even though this

appears not to be explicitly stated (affects nondimensional weight only).

* Based on test data logonormal distribution with

median of 0.85 and logarithmic standard deviation of

0.172 estimated.

* 3 Data points for plotting are generated from the

estimated distribution, such that

F(xi) = (i-0.5)/n

where n=number of data=3, F(x) = normsdist(

ln(x/0.85)/0.172 )

PENt

PENt2

Table 1:

* 1.768kg/m3 / 1.393kg/m3 = max/min dry density

* 4.5mm sieve to remove larger components

* 22% rel density for advancing slope, 90% "Kango"

vibrating hammer.

* Plexiglass models FBE coating on pipe.

10

Ref.

Tag

FE1

PENo

RGo

Table 2:

Reference

Comments

2D Finite Element analysis of

Lateral Movement of a Pipeline

on Non-Dilational Sand,

December 2005.

Matheson, I., Telecom regarding

on-bottom behaviour of

Penguins flowline, November

2005.

Effective Lateral Friction

Coefficients from Observed

Lateral buckling behaviour of a

subsea pipeline.

* Durcker-Prager soil model, phi=32deg, psi=0,

E=1MPa, v=0.3.

* Models loose sand under conditions of perfect

drainage.

A friction coeffcient of around 0.8 gives the best

agreement between observed and predicted lateral

buckling response.

* Friction coefficient of 0.5 to fit FE results to

observations.

* Soil though to have been silty, but this could not be

confirmed during the workshop (siltiness can

suppress berm formation).

* Few details provided at presentation. Cannot

confirm or judge accuracy of estimate.

Data sources for lateral friction coeffcients estimated by matching predicted to observed buckle

shapes, and from finite element (FE) analysis of a pipe dragged along the seafloor, as a plane

strain problem.

11

Figures

D

Imposed Lateral

Displacement, u

H

L

Fig. 1:

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

TRG

Ly73ss

Ly73ls

GVV

PENt

PENo

RGo

FE1

0.2

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fig. 2:

Lateral friction coefficients as a function of the normalised pipe weight =W/( D2/4). (See

Tables 1 & 2 for references to sources of test data.)

12

1.6

1.4

1.2

TRG

Ly73ss

Ly73ls

GVV

PENt

PENo

RGo

FE1

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Fig. 3:

1.5

TRG

Ly73ss

Ly73ls

GVV

PENt

PENo

RGo

FE1

97.7%ile

2.3%ile

1.25

0.75

0.5

0.25

0

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

Fig. 4:

13

1.25

1.5

2.5

2

1.5

Standard Normal Variable, Z

Lognormal fit

1

0.5

Data

0

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.5

5% CI

represent the expected spread for the data

assuming that the fitted distribution is the

correct distribution. I.e. data outside the

confidence interval would be evidence to

reject the fitted distribution.

-1

-1.5

95% CI

-2

-2.5

ln(Actual/Predicted) Lateral Friction Factor

Distribution of differences between actual and predicted lateral friction coefficients. These are

ploted such that the lognormal distribution is represented by a straight line.

Fig. 6:

Velocity field within the berm as seen from an observer moving with the pipe, from [FE1]

Dilation

(% change in Volume)

Fig. 5:

Dense

Medium

Dense

Shear Strain

Loose

Fig. 7:

14

Vertical Displacement, m

Fig. 8:

Additional results from [FE1]: lateral force and vertical displacement as a function of time. (The

lateral displacement of the pipe is specified at a constant velocity of 0.13m/s. The pipe weight is

638N, and the diameter 0.508m.)

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

LB Frict Coefficient

Median Frict Coeff

Upper Bound Frict Coeff

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

50

100

Fig. 9:

15

150

- ClayDiunggah olehnas
- physics project.docxDiunggah olehharshil
- br-10343b avanti rotors brochure finalDiunggah olehapi-239932254
- My Career Episode 2Diunggah olehEkundayo John
- 06 Nuevo Método Para Obtener Un Criterio de Diseño Optimo de Precorte ... PPT ASIEX 2012Diunggah olehProyectos Proyectos
- Varia to Are Engle ZaDiunggah olehBran Nicolae
- consolidacionDiunggah olehNarda Viviana Lancheros Ramirez
- br-10343b avanti rotors brochure finalDiunggah olehapi-239932254
- br-10343b avanti rotors brochure final 1Diunggah olehapi-239932254
- Adobe MonografiaDiunggah olehdanny
- Chapter 1 (Sandy Lean Clay)Diunggah olehJohn Tanuga
- Pages From s a PreferDiunggah olehaandueza_1
- fric4Diunggah olehDev Raju
- Determination of Temperatures Field for Multi-DiscDiunggah olehkazdano
- Chapter Four SoilDiunggah olehlewis
- Our VisionDiunggah olehSulman Joyia
- VD in Air-duct- Ground-QICC CableDiunggah olehEnar Pau
- Ground Storage Spec Rev 093011Diunggah olehUtari Prayetno
- AUVINET Modelling of friction piles in consolidating soils.pdfDiunggah olehera210
- s 4Diunggah olehazrinoordin
- SM PermeabilityDiunggah olehRawan Alwan Zarif
- 0310086Diunggah olehindrajit sodha
- 286-293.pdfDiunggah olehray m derania
- Mahatma Education Society ReportDiunggah olehNamrata Saxena
- casopis SnezaDiunggah olehSnežana Petrović
- Linining of ChannelDiunggah olehraghurmi
- FdDiunggah olehharshanauoc
- Section 1802 Foundation and Soils InvestigationsDiunggah olehSherwin Sr Macaraeg Sarmiento
- Soil is an ImportantDiunggah olehSumaiya Khan
- 83120-On the Dynamics of the Friction CoefficientDiunggah olehVitor Jardim

- ASME B16.34Diunggah olehThomas Martin
- StartDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- Heat Exchanger Cleaning ProceduresDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- Tug - 17mDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- Barge008DataS...Diunggah olehUmar Kida
- 1948-5948-SR-397Diunggah olehUmar Kida
- Mac Pc BasicsDiunggah olehMastan Shaik
- Chapter Two&ThreeDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- Tanker - BitumenDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- BreakDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- Furniss HausaDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- HomeDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- inst infor.txtDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- Abaqus 6.12 Install NotesDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- My Struc NoteDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- Aect360 Lecture 8Diunggah olehUmar Kida
- Blind Flange Design Calculations - By Abdel Halim GalalaDiunggah olehNirmalraj Manoharan
- AECT360Diunggah olehkrmchari
- form_csm_testing_services.pdfDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- 08 ErrataDiunggah olehBegin Bahrum Sianturi
- AHJ-CVDiunggah olehabhi1648665
- TXTR2002Diunggah olehUmar Kida
- pipebed.pdfDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- Elastic Pipe BendsDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- 7-5.pdfDiunggah olehUmar Kida
- 2009W ENGI 8673 L17 Bottom Roughness 2Diunggah olehUmar Kida
- Support CalculationDiunggah olehSanjeet Tirkey
- Engineering Drawings IntrodroductionDiunggah olehadnan
- Isope 2012 Tpc 232 Buried PipesDiunggah olehUmar Kida

- Sag Plumbing Nc II TESDADiunggah olehJek Kej
- Overtrop FBV flow dP and setting table 08.70 (1).pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous FYGLKYl7n
- accpreDiunggah olehAccpre Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
- E4Diunggah olehCarlos Algalord
- Crossing MethodsDiunggah olehpramodkv38
- Hydraulic Design Guide for Copper Pipes p2Diunggah olehSamer AL Salhi
- Catalog Dry DisconnectsDiunggah olehWolf1604
- pipe cleaning toolsDiunggah olehiqbalmb
- TECE Floor Universalpanel TI GB 2014 BrosuraDiunggah olehPodariu Cosmin
- Checklist to Complete a Design Calculation According to the Asme Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section ViiiDiunggah olehbapug98
- SGRE20100100003_77544313Diunggah olehstanhbaker
- Lecture 3b Drilling Rig Components (Illustrated Glossary)Diunggah olehali
- Simplified Hazen Williams Formula1Diunggah olehAhmed Abdel Fattah
- TGT PVCMS Q XXX PR 0012 _Dimensional Procedure B0Diunggah olehngtchung
- AXIS Trainingeurope UpdatedDiunggah olehMarian Oprea
- Sulfuric Acid SolutionsDiunggah olehichrak
- 1 - IPP - API 1104 Handout - Jun 10.pdfDiunggah olehMuhammad Yunus Nurdin
- 235-2009 Pipe Fitter Injured by High Pressure Water JetDiunggah olehEhab Saad
- Daikin J-rp Manual EnDiunggah olehmoi
- 2024 ADiunggah olehjdsa123
- PP901 Field Handbook WEB VERSION.pdfDiunggah olehJuan Manuel Ponce Vilca
- November 2014Diunggah olehOnsiteInstaller
- Jacob Piping Design_Basis Rev 1Diunggah olehprens11us
- 31.29.60.31-Special Purpose Steam TurbineDiunggah olehmansih457
- Salon Tipi 1 Faz ServisDiunggah olehaydintarak
- DB_M-flow_EN_05Diunggah olehJayesh Sangani
- 2hoffsore_Lazy Wave SCRs 4 Biggest ChallengesDiunggah olehDonVic
- Wall Thickness CalculationDiunggah olehTrần Tuấn Vũ
- Part Pb Reuirements for Boilers Fabricated by BrazingDiunggah olehArul Edwin Vijay
- PlumbingCode06_ch10Diunggah olehAdamshafi Noorbhasha