See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254519671

Pipe-Soil Interaction With Flowlines During Lateral Buckling and Pipeline

Walking - The SAFEBUCK JIP

Article · May 2008

DOI: 10.4043/19589-MS

CITATIONS READS
88 4,571

4 authors:

David Bruton Malcolm D. Bolton

Crondall Energy University of Cambridge
34 PUBLICATIONS 621 CITATIONS 244 PUBLICATIONS 14,154 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Malcolm Carr David J White

Newcastle University University of Southampton
28 PUBLICATIONS 589 CITATIONS 297 PUBLICATIONS 9,531 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David J White on 16 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

OTC 19589

Pipe-Soil Interaction During Lateral Buckling and Pipeline Walking — The

SAFEBUCK JIP
David A.S. Bruton, AtkinsBoreas; David J. White, University of Western Australia; Malcolm Carr, AtkinsBoreas;
Johnny C.Y. Cheuk, University of Hong Kong

Copyright 2008, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 5–8 May 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
This paper addresses the influence of pipe-soil interaction on the design of pipelines susceptible to lateral buckling and
pipeline-walking. The pipe-soil response is the largest uncertainty in the design of such systems, and has a significant
influence on the structural limit states. Generic guidance has been developed to guide the design process, but project-specific
physical model testing is often necessary, and new advancements in the understanding of pipe-soil interaction are rapidly
being made.
Force-displacement response models were developed during Phase I of the Safebuck joint-industry project (JIP) based on
large- and small-scale tests carried out by the Safebuck JIP and project-specific test data donated by JIP participants. These
models are currently being applied by JIP participants on a number of projects, to quantify the susceptibility to lateral
buckling and pipeline walking, and design safe and effective means to control these phenomena. However, of all the design
parameters, the soil response causes the greatest uncertainty in design because of the extreme sensitivity of design solutions
to the axial and lateral resistance imposed by the soil. Improving the understanding of pipe-soil response provides the
greatest scope for refining the design of such systems.
The purpose of this paper is to outline the significant influence that pipe-soil interaction has on the pipeline design
process and highlight the ways in which the uncertainty in pipe-soil resistance severely complicates pipeline design. The
paper then reviews and updates previous force-displacement-response models (published at OTC 2006) incorporating more
recent experience from large and small-scale tests. Significant new data is included to illustrate the behaviour of ‘heavy’
pipes, which display a lateral response that differs significantly from most previously-published data, mostly related to ‘light’
pipes. The response of soil berms during cyclic lateral loading is also highlighted, demonstrating the cumulative rise in lateral
pipe restraint.

1 Introduction
Subsea pipelines are increasingly being required to operate at higher temperatures and pressures. The natural tendency of a
hot pipeline is to relieve the resulting high axial stress in the pipe wall by buckling. Such uncontrolled buckling can have
serious consequences for the integrity of a pipeline. The need to control lateral-buckling has led to a radical advance in
pipeline engineering with a greater need for robust lateral-buckling design solutions. The Safebuck JIP was initiated to
address this challenge and aims to raise confidence in the lateral-buckling-design approach and to improve understanding of
the related phenomenon of pipeline walking.
The pipe-soil force-displacement response is the largest uncertainty in the design of such systems. With lateral buckling
it is necessary to understand the soil behaviour at large displacements, and through many cycles of loading, well beyond the
point of failure. Such behaviour is outside the bounds of conventional geotechnics or extensive earlier research on pipeline
stability. Most previous research into pipe-soil interaction has been related to stability under hydrodynamic loading, with the
aim being to ensure the pipe remains in place. A lateral buckling design requires the pipe to break out from the as-laid
position and move across the seabed, typically by several diameters.
The purpose of this paper is to outline the significant influence that pipe-soil interaction has on the pipeline design
process and highlight the way in which the inherent uncertainty in pipe-soil resistance severely complicates pipeline design.
The paper then reviews and updates previous force-displacement-response models (published at OTC 2006) to incorporate
2 OTC 19589

more recent large and small-scale tests. Significant new data is included, to illustrate the response of ‘heavy’ pipes and the
soil berms created by cyclic lateral loading.

2 Background to Pipeline Structural Response

2.1 Pipeline Installation

Pipe-soil interaction influences the behaviour of the pipe from the moment installation commences. The interaction between
the pipeline touch-down loads, combined with the dynamics of the pipe catenary, and the seabed surface soil defines the
initial pipeline embedment. The remoulding of the soil that occurs during installation then influences the axial resistance,
affecting the conditions at which the pipe becomes constrained[1]. Meanwhile, the lateral resistance affects the tightness of
route curves that the installation contractor can achieve.
Furthermore, the time that passes between installation and operation modifies the pipe-soil response as the soil is
consolidated under the weight of the pipe. This consolidation leads to a small increase in pipe embedment, and changes the
axial response associated with pipeline start-up. This is particularly relevant for soft clays, where consolidation effects can
significantly increase (a) the effective stress between the pipe and the soil, and (b) the soil strength close to the pipe. These
processes both increase the resistance to first movement.

2.2 First Load: General Pipeline Expansion Behaviour

After installation, some residual effective lay tension remains in a pipeline. This force is usually small in comparison with
the forces that develop in operation, and is not considered further here. When the internal pressure and temperature increase
to operating conditions, the pipeline tends to expand but this expansion is resisted by the axial resistance between the pipe
and the seabed. This restraint causes an axial compressive force to develop in the pipeline.
The ends of a pipeline are usually free to expand, so the force at the ends is zero. However, as the cumulative axial
resistance increases with distance from the pipe ends, the force can increase to a condition of ‘full-constraint’, as illustrated in
Figure 1 (for μa=0.58 shown in green).
The fully-constrained effective force presented in Figure 1 is the maximum effective axial force that can occur in a
pipeline. This fully-constrained force drives the axial expansion and structural response. The effective force is made up of
the (true) force in the pipe wall and the pressure induced axial force. Since pressure and temperature vary along the pipeline
length, the fully constrained force also varies along the length as the pipeline cools (with heat loss to the environment). This
is shown in Figure 1 by the slight fall in the fully restrained force along the pipeline.
The gradual increase in effective axial force, from zero at the free ends to full-constraint, is due entirely to the cumulative
axial restraint provided by the seabed. The slope of this line is equal to the axial resistance (force) per unit length, which is
typically modelled as being ‘frictional’ – so is linked to the (submerged) pipeline weight per unit length, W′, by a friction
coefficient, μa. This force profile is fundamental to the pipeline response.
The important influence of a reduced level (or lower bound estimate) of axial friction on the effective force profile is
illustrated in Figure 1 (for μa=0.10 shown in blue).

Distance along pipeline (km)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0
Effective Axial Force (MN)

-0.5
Compressive

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0
Fully Constrained Force
Axial Force (μa = 0.10)
-2.5 Axial Force (μa = 0.58)

Figure 1 Effective axial force for a range of friction in a straight pipeline

OTC 19589 3

In Figure 1 the maximum effective force, in the lower bound axial friction case (μa = 0.10), is reduced by a factor of about
four and the pipeline does not reach the fully constrained condition. This illustrates a real design case with upper and lower
bound frictions based on upper and lower bound soil responses that correspond to drained and undrained axial movement,
respectively.
The compressive effective axial force in a pipeline therefore depends on the operating condition of the pipeline and the
axial friction. If the compressive force is large enough, then the pipeline may be susceptible to lateral buckling.
Susceptibility to lateral buckling occurs when the compressive force exceeds the ‘critical buckling force’ above which the
pipeline becomes unstable laterally. This lateral instability is critically dependant upon the lateral soil resistance (specifically
the ‘lateral breakout resistance’ which is discussed later). Once lateral buckles have formed the axial force drops
significantly as pipe feeds axially into the buckle, as shown in Figure 2.

Distance along pipeline (km)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0
Effective Axial Force (MN)

-0.5

-1.0 Mean Critical

Buckling Force
-1.5 Virtual Anchors
Lateral Buckle
-2.0
Axial Force (μa = 0.58)
Axial Force (μa = 0.10)
-2.5 Post Buckling Force (μa = 0.58)
Fully Constrained Force

Figure 2 Effective axial force in a short pipeline with lateral buckles

In the example shown the behaviour is entirely different depending on whether the lower or upper bound limiting axial
friction is considered:
• The lower bound friction (μa = 0.10) means that the pipeline will experience significantly greater end expansion and will
be susceptible to pipe-walking.
• The upper bound friction (μa = 0.58) means that the pipeline will become fully-constrained over some of its length so that
this section will not move axially, thus preventing walking. However, the maximum effective force in the pipeline
increases significantly, making it much more susceptible to lateral buckling.
Low axial friction will increase the end expansion and axial feed-in to lateral buckles, while high levels of axial friction
will tend to reduce end expansion and feed-in, as illustrated in Figure 3. For a low limiting axial friction, the resistance is
fully mobilised along the entire pipeline length and expansion occurs from the mid-point of the line, reaching a maximum
displacement in excess of 2.5 m. For a high limiting axial friction, in the absence of buckling, there is no displacement over
the central section (the pipe is fully constrained) and the pipe expands only at the ends to reach a maximum displacement of
about 1 m. With lateral buckling the expansion occurs over the whole length, but the direction changes as feed-in occurs
towards the buckles as well as towards the ends of the pipe, reducing the end expansion to about 0.7m.
For the low axial friction condition, the pipe is not susceptible to buckling. The design challenge is then controlling the
extreme end expansion and its susceptibility to pipeline walking. For the high axial friction condition, the pipe is susceptible
to buckling over most of its length, and the design challenge is controlling the severity of the buckles and pipeline walking.
Somewhere between these two extremes, a pipeline design solution must be found.
4 OTC 19589

Towards KP10
Straight, μa=0.1
2 Straight, μa=0.58
Buckled, μa=0.58
Expansion (m)
1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Towards KP0

-1 Distance (km)

-2

-3
Buckle #1 Buckle #2 Buckle #3

Figure 3 Displacement along a short pipeline with lateral buckles

2.3 Response in a Buckle: First Load

The attraction of the lateral buckling design solution is in the reduction in compressive axial force that occurs in the pipeline.
However, the buckling displacement results in significant bending moment at the crown of the buckle. This moment can be
very high and stresses in excess of yield are normal (although these are relatively limited in axial extent). Thus, under the
lateral buckling philosophy, although the axial force is reduced, the bending stresses are significantly increased. This can
ultimately lead to a local buckling failure with associated deformation of the pipe cross-section.
At start up, the soil ahead of the buckle crown is heavily remoulded as a berm of soil builds up in front of the laterally
sweeping pipe, (Figure 4). The lateral displacements involved are very significant; displacements of 10 or 20 diameters are
typical (in absolute terms displacement in the range 2 m to 10 m has been observed in operating pipelines). The length of
pipe over which the lateral displacement occurs is typically between 100 m and 300 m (the lateral scale is exaggerated in
Figure 4).

Figure 4 Side-scan sonar image of a lateral buckle

The lateral resistance during pipe movement governs the level of curvature and bending stress in the pipe. Lateral soil
resistance is usually the largest uncertainty in designing for lateral buckling and unfortunately has an extremely significant
influence on the design limit states as illustrated in Figure 5. This figure shows the effect of the lateral resistance, expressed
as a friction coefficient1 , on the limit state utilisation within the crown of the buckle.

1
The lateral response of a pipe resting on clay soil is not truly ‘frictional’, as discussed later in Section 4. The response
shown in this figure is based on analytical models developed for conceptual design by the SAFEBUCK JIP. Although these
models use a simple friction coefficient they are invaluable for limit-state assessments.
OTC 19589 5

Figure 5 shows that low lateral resistance is extremely desirable since it produces a much lower bending severity in the
crown of the buckle. It is also beneficial from a buckle formation point of view (as discussed later). However, a quite small
increase in lateral resistance can significantly increase the design-limit usage factor, so that uncertainty in lateral resistance is
likely to compromise the design (and must not be underestimated).
If the loads within the buckle are too high then the design must seek to reduce these. The severity of the buckling
problem is driven by how much pipe feed-in must be absorbed by the buckle. Decreasing the distance between buckles
reduces the feed-in and hence controls the severity. The lateral-buckling design solution relies on the regular formation of
lateral buckles so that the load in each does not exceed design limits (local buckling, strain capacity or fatigue). This
approach defines the maximum allowable buckle spacing (or VAS2), which is typically thousands of meters.

1.20
Design limit
1.00

0.80 2.5km VAS

Usage Factor

2.0km VAS
0.60

0.40
Girth Weld Fatigue Limit
0.20
Local buckling Limit
Strain Capacity Limit
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Lateral Friction Coefficient

Figure 5 Typical variations of limit state usage factor with lateral resistance

In Figure 5, it is shown that reducing the distance between buckles (equivalent to a reduction in the VAS from 2.5 km to
2.0 km) reduces the loading. A greater reduction in VAS will reduce the loading further, but this can make it difficult to
ensure that the buckles form reliably (as discussed below). If the spacing cannot be reduced further, then the only other
approach is to reduce the lateral resistance. In Figure 5 this would be required if the lateral resistance is expected to be much
higher than an equivalent friction coefficient of 1.0.
Consequently, the pipeline designer has two ways of controlling the design problem within a buckle:-
• Decrease the distance between buckles;
• Decrease the lateral resistance, by mechanical means such as the use of buckle initiators.

2.4 Buckle Initiation

For a given thermal loading, buckle initiation is governed by three parameters; (i) the effective compressive force in the
pipeline (which is a function of the axial resistance), (ii) the out-of-straightness (OOS) features and (iii) the lateral breakout
resistance. Although only three parameters are involved, a number of factors feed into each parameter and there is significant
uncertainty over the true magnitude of each. Lateral breakout resistance is generally the largest uncertainty.
If lateral buckles are initiated at regular intervals along the pipeline, this has the effect of sharing the load between buckle
sites. However, as the spacing between buckle initiators is reduced, there is an increased probability of buckles not forming
at each site as desired. Therefore, the selection of a suitable spacing is often a difficult design compromise between these
competing requirements.
If there is no strategy to form buckles at regular intervals along a pipeline, they will form randomly and (generally) less
frequently than if an initiation strategy is employed. This random formation may produce an acceptable design. However,
the large uncertainty in pipe-soil resistance means that the pattern of formation is extremely challenging to predict. In all but
the most benign cases, it is impossible to demonstrate that inherent buckling will occur to an acceptable level of reliability.
In these cases, an engineered buckle initiation technique must be adopted to initiate buckling at a controlled spacing, such as

2
VAS (virtual anchor spacing) is the distance between virtual anchors – or stationary points on the pipeline – that form to
each side of the buckle (See Figure 2), usually equivalent to the spacing between lateral buckles.
6 OTC 19589

snake-lay, vertical upsets or localised weight reduction[28,2]. Such techniques have the advantage of introducing an OOS to
encourage buckling and, with the exception of snake-lay, also reducing the lateral resistance.

2.5 Response in a Buckle: Cyclic Behaviour - Influence of Berms

In operation, as the pipeline experiences fluctuations in pressure and temperature, the pipe cycles back and forth across the
same patch of seabed. Surface soil, swept ahead of the pipe on each cycle, then builds-up into berms at the extremes of the
pipe displacement range. Subsequent consolidation increases the strength of the soil berms after disturbance. Pipe feeds
axially into and out of the buckle with each cycle. On unloading, the pipeline attempts to return to the as-laid position but is
prevented from doing so by both the reversed axial resistance and the reversed lateral pipe-soil resistance from the berm
created ahead of the returning pipe.
If soil berms are ignored, the lateral resistance can be assumed to remain constant with continuing lateral displacement.
Numerical modelling based on this lateral response shows that buckles will grow in amplitude with each cycle. In reality,
soil berms restrict the growth of the buckle so that cyclic displacements remain almost constant over a number of cycles.
This effect is illustrated by the example in Figure 6. The berms lock in the stress range at a level close to the first cycle
value; in contrast neglecting the influence of berms allows the stress range to reduce as a result of growth in the buckle
wavelength. A design calculation which neglects berms would then underestimate the fatigue damage induced in the pipeline.

-3
Distance along pipeline (m)
-1400 450 500 550 600
Buckle amplitude (m)

3 1st Heat-up
2nd Heat-up
3rd Heat-up
5 4th Heat-up
5th Heat-up
6th Heat-up
7 1st Cool-down
2nd Cool-down
(a) 3rd Cool-down
4th Cool-down
9
5th Cool-down
6th Cool-down

-3
Distance along pipeline (m)
-1400 450 500 550 600
Buckle amplitude (m)

1 1st Heat-up
2nd Heat-up
3rd Heat-up
3 4th Heat-up
5th Heat-up
5 6th Heat-up
1st Cool-down
2nd Cool-down
7 3rd Cool-down
(b) 4th Cool-down
5th Cool-down
9 6th Cool-down

Figure 6 Displaced shape at a buckle (a) without soil berms and (b) with soil berms

2.6 Pipeline Walking

When a pipeline is heated, it will expand but this expansion is opposed by axial resistance. When the pipeline is cooled, it
contracts but the axial resistance prevents the pipeline contracting to its original position. Subsequent shutdown and restart
cycles are normally accompanied by steady-state expansion and contraction between established pipe-end positions.
However, in some cases this cycling can be accompanied by global axial movement of the pipeline, which is termed pipeline-
OTC 19589 7

walking. Over a number of thermal cycles, walking can lead to significant global displacement of the pipeline. Walking is
not a limit state for the pipeline itself, but without careful consideration can lead to failure at the mid-line or end connections.
The SAFEBUCK JIP investigated the pipeline-walking phenomenon, which has occurred in a number of pipelines and
led to at least one failure. A study [4] carried out by the JIP defined the key factors that influence pipeline walking and
provided guidance and analytical expressions for assessing the severity of pipe walking.
The main causes of pipeline walking are:
• Tension at the end of the pipeline, associated with an SCR;
• A global seabed slope along the pipeline length;
• Thermal gradients along the pipeline during changes in operating conditions.
The key parameters that influence pipeline-walking are (i) the axial resistance response and (ii) the pipeline length over
which walking occurs. Pipeline walking is traditionally associated with pipelines that are short enough not to reach a
condition of full-constraint (see Figure 1Error! Reference source not found.). Such pipelines are typically less than 5km in
length. With the current increase in pipeline operating temperatures, ‘short’ pipelines can be many kilometres in length. The
phenomenon can also occur in longer lines where lateral buckling has occurred, as the lateral buckles effectively divide the
long pipeline into a series of shorter lines.
The presence of lateral buckles dramatically changes the walking response of a pipeline and the presence of high thermal
transients can lead to buckle growth over a number of load cycles. Lateral buckles are a significant influence on the walking
response, which highlights the need to understand this interaction. Currently the interaction between walking and buckling is
assessed on a case-by-case basis by FEA in detailed design.
Pipeline length (or section length) is a significant parameter in the assessment of pipeline walking but axial resistance has
a greater influence. If the pipe weight and axial friction are sufficiently high, or the fully-constrained force sufficiently low,
walking can stop altogether.

3 Key Influences of Pipe-Soil Resistance

The preceding examples demonstrate the significant influence that pipe-soil interaction has on pipeline design.
The axial pipe-soil resistance affects:-
• The maximum axial effective force in the pipeline;
• The effective force available for reliable buckle initiation;
• Pipe-end expansion and feed-in to lateral buckles;
• Pipeline walking, including the rate of walking and the propensity to walk.
Similarly, lateral pipe-soil resistance affects:-
• The lateral instability which is required for buckle initiation;
• Route-curve stability under axial tension;
• The lateral buckle bending load at large displacements;
• The cyclic lateral buckle loading due to soil berms.
The influence of pipe-soil resistance on these various issues is often conflicting. For example, high lateral resistance is
beneficial for curve stability but detrimental to the bending loads developed in a buckle; high axial resistance is beneficial for
controlling feed-in to a buckle, but increases the susceptibility to buckling in the first place. Consequently, it is not possible
to define a safe resistance. Instead, it is necessary to bound the pipe-soil resistance and ensure that the design is acceptable
throughout the potential design envelope.

4 Current approach to Modelling Pipe-soil Interaction

The interaction between the pipe and the seabed is incorporated into the structural analysis of a pipeline – which is usually
finite element-based – by attaching pipe-soil elements at intervals along the pipe, to represent the axial and lateral forces
applied by the soil to the pipe. This approach is analogous the ‘t-z’ and ‘p-y’ load transfer methods of analysing pile
response. The most basic pipe-soil elements are spring-sliders which provide a bi-linear elastic - perfectly plastic response in
the axial and lateral directions. However, in order to capture the more advanced effects of interaction – particularly the large
displacement lateral behaviour – it is necessary to introduce subroutines in which the element response is modified to account
for (a) brittle breakout behaviour, (b) suction release, (c) residual resistance at large displacements and (d) cyclic berm
growth. This non-linear force-displacement response is normally specified in a piece-wise linear fashion, with an appropriate
procedure adopted to handle cyclic behaviour.
The most simple bilinear models involve a limiting value of axial or lateral pipe-soil resistance which is calculated using a
simple friction law (Coulomb friction) linking the effective pipe weight to the maximum available resistance. A suitable
axial and lateral friction coefficient can be used successfully for some flowline design functions (e.g. simple stability
calculations or end-expansion) and can be employed in conceptual evaluation of lateral buckling, if treated with care.
However, a single friction coefficient is not appropriate in detailed numerical modelling design for lateral buckling,
8 OTC 19589

particularly for large-amplitude lateral movement, where a frictional model represents an over-simplification of the
behaviour.
Nevertheless, it is common to model many tens of kilometres of pipeline within a single FE analysis. It is therefore
necessary to keep the pipe-soil interaction models relatively simple. It is not feasible to model the soil domain around the
pipe along the entire pipeline length, and so it remains necessary to encapsulate the pipe-soil behaviour into the response of a
single node. Non-linear force-displacement responses are therefore used to represent pipe-soil behaviour. These responses
are usually presented as an ‘equivalent friction coefficient’ – that is the maximum resistance divided by the submerged
weight of the pipe – and this coefficient is then updated automatically throughout the analysis to simulate the underlying
behaviour.
A friction coefficient is an unusual concept to apply to the limiting resistance of a clay – which is usually characterised by
an undrained strength. However, this is a convenient way of presenting the data for input into design using analytical or finite
element based models, and remains comparable with approaches used previously for pipe-soil interaction. However, this
terminology should not be taken to indicate that lateral pipe behaviour is purely frictional; the limiting lateral and axial
resistance is not solely dependent on the pipe weight, but is significantly influenced by the embedment, the soil conditions,
and the previous history of pipe movement.

5 Pipeline Embedment.

5.1 Definition of Embedment: ‘Local’ and ‘Nominal’

Pipe embedment is defined as the depth of penetration of the invert (bottom of pipe) relative to the undisturbed seabed.
Pipeline embedment influences the pipe-soil contact area, which affects the axial resistance – and the passive soil resistance
against the pipe, which affects the lateral break-out force. Heave of soil during penetration increases the ‘local’ embedment
of the pipe, by raising the soil surface against the shoulders of the pipe. The nominal embedment is the conventional
definition, but when considering the thermal insulation and axial sliding resistance of the pipe, the pipe-soil contact arc length
is the relevant parameter, which is related to the local embedment [18]. The typical geometry of heave created during
monotonic vertical embedment of a pipe is such that the ‘local’ embedment is typically ∼50% greater than the nominal
embedment relative to the original soil surface [19, 20].

Figure 7 Initial embedment of a pipeline

5.2 Assessment of pipeline embedment under static vertical load

Methods for assessing the initial embedment of a pipeline, z/D, under a given static vertical load per unit length, V, consist of
theoretical solutions (based on plasticity limit analysis) and empirical methods (calibrated from model tests). The soil
strength is characterised by the undrained strength, su, and the unit weight, γ′, is also considered. Upper and lower bound
plasticity solutions linking V/suD to z/D were presented by Murff et al. [10]. However, an empirical method published later,
and calibrated to early pipe-soil model test studies, has remained in more common use [21]. This empirical method was
recalibrated during Phase I of the SAFEBUCK JIP [3] based on recent model test data. However, it was acknowledged that the
reclibrated model predicted significantly greater embedment that the plasticity theory (despite being based on the same input
parameter, su).
The discrepancy between the experimental data and the theoretical plasticity solutions can be attributed to: (i) unreliable
assessment of su and (ii) additional effects relevant in the experimental data, such as consolidation and dynamic motion
during laying of the pipe. Early pipe-soil interaction experiments often involved poor control of the applied vertical load and
a variety of techniques were used to infer the soil undrained strength. Since Phase I of SAFEBUCK was completed, new
high quality experimental data of static penetration resistance has been generated within the SAFEBUCK JIP and in
associated project studies and research activity. These more recent experiments have been undertaken using facilities which
allow careful control of the pipe loading, and accurate quantification of the soil undrained strength, using miniature T-bar
penetrometers [8, 15, 19]. The resulting load-penetration response generally lies close to the theoretical solutions [19, 22, 23].
It is therefore more appropriate to base pipe embedment calculations on the theoretical solutions (as opposed to previous
OTC 19589 9

empirical solutions [3, 21]), but it must be recognised that other effects can contribute significantly to the as-laid embedment
found in the field. Further details of the theoretical solutions for monotonic vertical pipe penetration are given in another
paper at this conference [18], and in associated publications [24, 25]. As-laid pipeline embedment usually exceeds predictions
based on the static weight alone, using the theoretical solutions. This is due to two effects that arise during the laying process:
the stress concentration at the touchdown point (arising from the catenary shape), and the dynamic movement as the pipe
touches down.

5.3 Enhancement of pipeline embedment by lay effects

The increased touchdown reaction during pipelay can be calculated from standard catenary solutions, with some allowance
for the vertical reaction provided by the soil, which is conventionally modelled as elastic. Palmer[34], and others (e.g. Lenci &
Callegari [26]) have derived an analytical solutions which can be used to predict the additional load that occurs in the touch
down zone based on the pipeline configuration and lay tension.
However, pipeline embedment remains notoriously difficult to predict. The value of as-laid embedment predicted using
static loads, even accounting for the catenary touch-down effect, is generally found to be substantially exceeded in practice.
This discrepancy is because the touchdown load is actually cyclic in nature, due to dynamic effects including vessel heave
and hydrodynamic loading of the pipe catenary. This increase in embedment is captured in design by multiplying the
embedment found from a static embedment calculation by a dynamic embedment factor, which is a function of the lay vessel
dynamics, lay rate, lay tension, pipeline configuration and environmental loading during installation. However, these
secondary variables are not known prior to installation. The potential for increased embedment, due to the laying process, is
a key source of uncertainty in the prediction of breakout resistance.
The dynamic embedment factor carries significant uncertainty. Comparison between field experience for soft clay
seabeds with shear strengths of 2 kPa to 4 kPa and predictions from static analysis give a typical dynamic embedment factor
in the order of 1 to 3. On stiff clay seabeds with shear strength exceeding 100kPa, the factor can be in the order of 5 to 8 [7].
Research is ongoing in this area but evaluation is hampered by the limited availability of suitable data from installed
pipelines. Simulation of the lay process is possible in model scale testing[23], allowing the dynamic component of embedment
to be assessed directly, based on an idealised simulation of the lay process. However, the input parameters related to the
motion of the vessel and hydrodynamic loading of the lay catenary are difficult to assess. The dynamic behaviour within the
TDZ during pipe-lay has rarely been observed during laying and is extremely difficult to quantify. Dynamic lay effects are
discussed further by Cheuk & White [23] and Randolph & White [25].
A further complication related to pipe embedment is the definition of the soil surface, which forms the datum for
observed levels of embedment on installed pipelines. In-situ test data of shear strength often does not register an increase in
resistance at the observed soil surface level, even when using a sensitive T-bar penetrometer. This can occur if the T-bar has
already penetrated the surface during placement of the seabed frame, leading to some depth offset between the visual
observations and the in situ test data. Alternatively, the visible surface layer may be so weak that it has no influence on the
pipe-soil resistance, but creates an apparent increase in embedment. In deep water, a very weak layer of soil, with the
consistency of soup, about 100 to 200mm thick is commonly found at the surface[32]. This layer is often ignored in
calculations of pipe-soil resistance. However, any visual assessment of pipeline embedment from post-installation surveys
will include this weak layer, and may also be influenced by the local heave around the pipe shoulders, which hampers
assessment of the embedment relative to the original soil surface.

6 Axial Pipe-soil Interaction

6.1 General form of axial response

Axial pipe-soil resistance is often modelled using a simple friction coefficient, linking the pipe weight to the available
resistance to axial movement. However, the response may not be truly frictional, in that changes in pipe weight may not give
corresponding changes in axial resistance – as discussed later in this paper. A finite axial displacement must occur to reach
full axial resistance, so that small axial movements can occur at quite low loads. This behaviour influences the initiation of
buckling and the pipe-walking response by allowing small displacements at quite small loads.
The form of the axial response is usually defined by the ‘breakout’ and ‘residual’ axial friction, as illustrated by the
‘brittle’ response in Figure 8. These forms of response have been developed based on laboratory testing of the interface
friction between pipe material and soil, and experiments in which a section of pipe has been dragged axially over a model
seabed.
10 OTC 19589

Mobilisation displacement
0.6

Axial Resistance
Breakout

Residual
0.35

0.1 Axial Displacement

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-0.15

Ductile Breakout
Brittle Breakout
-0.4
Drained Breakout

-0.65

Figure 8 Axial friction resistance schematic with mobilisation displacement and breakout
Two stages of axial pipe-soil interaction are typically modelled:-
Breakout axial resistance – describes the mobilisation of maximum friction at quite small displacements. The displacement at
which the breakout resistance is reached is defined as the ‘mobilisation displacement’. A significant peak – leading to a
brittle breakout response – can occur when the pipe moves axially for the first time, or after some time at rest, at a rate which
is fast enough to generate excess pore pressure. This brittle response appears to be more influenced by excess pore pressure
generation at the pipe-soil interface, rather than changes in mobilised friction angle. This peak is most likely to occur at
hydrotest, first start-up and shutdown after the pipe has spent some time at rest under steady-state conditions. During
subsequent loading with limited set-up time, a peak is not observed, leading to a ductile breakout response.
Residual axial resistance – once the pipe has started to move, the friction falls away to a ‘residual’ friction value at larger
displacements. The residual axial friction dominates the pipe-end expansion/contraction response and axial feed-in/feed-out
to each lateral buckle. The term ‘residual’ is used by analogy with the residual friction angle that is mobilised within fine-
grained soils after continued shearing along a single plane.
The friction coefficient used to model the axial response should therefore not be assumed to relate directly to the friction
angle of the pipe-soil interface. For example, model tests of axial pipe movement conducted within the same soil sample have
shown friction coefficients in the range 0.15 – 1.5. This range appears wider than can be attributed to changes in friction
angle (or undrained strength). Instead, this indicates the generation of positive and negative excess pore pressures at different
speeds and after varying rest periods.
If pipe displacement occurs very slowly, such that no excess pore pressure is generated, the response is quite different,
with a gradual increase to a significantly higher level of residual friction, illustrated in Figure 8 by the green force-
displacement curve, denoted the ‘drained’ response.
The axial response is therefore strongly influenced by the generation and dissipation of excess pore pressure, leading
towards either drained or undrained soil behaviour, with the effective stress at the pipe-soil interface being enhanced or
reduced by negative or positive excess pore pressures, respectively. In typical field conditions, the response is likely to lie
between the fully drained and fully undrained conditions.
The rate of dissipation of lay-induced excess pore pressures, and the resulting axial resistance during first movement and
subsequent cycles, are the subject of much research for current projects and the SAFEBUCK JIP.

6.2 The ‘alpha’ approach for axial resistance

Traditional axial resistance models for ‘cohesive’ soils define the axial resistance as the product of the shear strength, su, the
contact area between pipe and soil (which is itself governed by the pipe embedment) and an ‘adhesion factor’ multiplier, α.
As the pipe is displaced during breakout, it is commonly assumed that the shear strength reduces to the remoulded shear
strength of the soil, defined by the soil sensitivity, giving peak and residual values of resistance (Figure 8).
However, the assessment of su, and the pipe-soil contact area is very difficult. The contact area between the pipe and the
soil depends on the pipe embedment and is enhanced by heave around the pipe shoulders [30, 20]. Experimental observations
and numerical analysis shows that surface soil is dragged down with the pipe [19, 20]. Due to this down-drag, the strength of the
soil in contact with the pipe is not the strength at that elevation within the in situ strength profile. Instead, the pipe will
initially be in contact with soil from the surface, implying that the relevant value of su (whether adjusted for remoulding or
OTC 19589 11

not) is the mudline strength. Also, this soil will then consolidate under the weight of the pipe, becoming stronger by an
amount related to the contact stress imposed by the pipe.

6.3 The ‘beta’ approach for axial resistance

Alternatively, axial friction can be defined using a frictional model – analogous to the ‘beta’ effective stress approach for
axial pile shaft capacity. In contrast to pile design, the contact stresses between a pipe and the seabed are known, being due
to the pipe weight, with a small increase due to the ‘wedging’ effect, which provides a horizontal component of contact force
between the pipe and the soil, raising the total normal force between the pipe and the soil to exceed the weight alone. This
wedging term increases with increasing pipe embedment. The wedging effect can be included by multiplying the submerged
pipe weight, W′, by a wedging factor[14] given by the following equation:
2 sin θ where θ = cos −1 (1 − 2 ⋅ z / D) .... 6.1
ζ=
θ + sin θ ⋅ cos θ

The axial resistance equals this effective contact force, ζW′, multiplied by the axial friction coefficient (μa):-
FA = W ' ζμ a .... 6.2

where:
W' is the submerged weight of the pipe
ζ is the wedging factor, by which the total normal pipe-soil force exceeds the pipe submerged weight
μa is the axial friction coefficient
In drained conditions μa = tan δ, where δ is the pipe-soil interface angle of friction. In undrained or partially-drained
conditions different values of μa are measured, reflecting the generation of excess pore pressure. A brittle response with a
reduction in strength after breakout is also found. It is common to define a ‘coating efficiency factor’, fc, to identify the
difference between pipe-soil interface strength and soil-soil shear strength. Within a beta approach, fc = μa(interface)/μa(soil).
For a fully rough pipeline coating, the interface is often assumed to be as strong as the soil. In drained conditions this implies
that δ = φ (the soil friction angle).
The β-approach for axial resistance is theoretically preferable to the α-approach. The input parameter W′ is known with
certainty, and if the axial movement is drained then the strength input parameters μa can be measured. In undrained
conditions, however, both the α and β-approaches rely on adjustments to account for the generated excess pore pressures,
which remain difficult to predict without recourse to model testing.
However, pitfalls exist even in the assessment of φ and δ. These friction angles are significantly influenced by the level of
effective stress. For an on-bottom pipeline, the contact stress with the seabed is below that considered in conventional
geotechnics. At the effective stress levels of 2 to 10 kPa generated by typical pipeline weights, the drained friction angle of
soft clays significantly exceeds that measured by traditional testing apparatus operating at usual effective stress levels. The
difference can be critical to pipeline design, as demonstrated by the preceding examples. Drained friction coefficients as high
as 0.75 (corresponding to a friction angles of 37°) have been measured for soft deep-water clays at low stress levels[14, 27, 32].
The use of an interface friction angle measured at a more usual geotechnical stress level would significantly underpredict the
axial resistance.
Since undrained (fast) and drained (slow) responses generally provide very different values of axial resistance it is
important to consider the interaction between the available resistance and the resulting pipe velocity. A structural analysis
based on drained parameters that yields high pipe velocities is meaningless, and vice versa.
This important transition from undrained to drained conditions is not well understood. While dissipation of the excess
pore pressure from laying is expected to occur relatively quickly, that does not prevent undrained conditions being re-
established under conditions of rapid or large pipe displacements. However, re-consolidation after axial movement is likely
to be quicker than after embedment, since only a small region of soil at the pipe surface is sheared during axial motion.

6.4 Axial mobilisation displacement

The displacement required to mobilise the full axial resistance measured in model tests in which a pipe is pulled axially
varies considerably but is typically over 10 mm and can reach 100 mm or more, depending on the test method, soil conditions
and pipe geometry. However, such values must be treated with extreme caution in design when using finite element analysis,
since the mobilisation displacement is often treated as elastic (often called elastic-slip). This means that if a section of pipe is
moved to its mobilisation displacement and the load is then removed, it will bounce back to its starting position. In model
tests, a small part of the initial mobilisation displacement is elastically recovered when the pipe is unloaded, but the majority
is not. So, if the FE analysis treats mobilisation displacement as elastically recoverable, the value should be kept small. A
mobilisation displacement less than 5mm or 0.01D for initial loading conditions and about 0.0025 D for unload-reload
conditions has been adopted in recent projects, and is comparable with recommendations used for the analogous case of axial
12 OTC 19589

pile shaft resistance[33]. An unrealistically large mobilisation displacement should not be used in FEA for pipe-walking
predictions, as this would be non-conservative. It can be shown that the rate of pipe walking (or walk per cycle) will reduce
in proportion to an increase in elastic slip distance[4].

7 Lateral Pipe-Soil Interaction

7.1 Prediction of breakout resistance

Lateral breakout loads have been the subject of much research and published papers. As horizontal load is applied to a
pipeline partially embedded in clay, it may fail with a one-sided or two-sided mechanism, depending on whether tension can
be sustained at the rear face, or whether a crack opens. A simple empirical model for breakout resistance was derived during
SAFEBUCK Phase I [3]. Since then, theoretical solutions based on plasticity theory have been developed [30, 29, 25, 24].
However, these solutions require an assumption of full bonding (unlimited tension) or zero tension between the pipe and the
soil. Experimental data – which was used to calibrate the empirical SAFEBUCK breakout solution – shows that the response
typically lies between theoretical predictions based on full bonding or zero tension.
Centrifuge model tests in which the soil deformation mechanisms during lateral breakout were quantified using image
analysis have been conducted within the SAFEBUCK JIP. By analysing images captured during this test programme using
Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) [16], the soil deformation mechanisms during lateral sweeping could be identified. In these
tests, it was found that the peak resistance during breakout coincided with tensile failure at the rear of the pipe. Figure 9
shows the instantaneous soil velocity fields at peak breakout resistance and immediately afterwards. At breakout there is
evidence that a two-sided mechanism is forming, but no fully-mobilised slip plane is evident behind the pipe. After breakout,
there is a distinct slip plane in front of the pipe. These observations indicate that the breakout resistance is limited by tensile
failure at the rear of the pipe, rather than the shear strength within the soil – which confirms why empirical methods for
predicting breakout resistance generally fall between theoretical solutions for the two extreme cases of tensile bonding.
For very slow loading, the beakout load will tend towards the zero tension case. However, the initial breakout of the
pipeline is usually a fast event, and some level of tension is sustained at the rear of the pipe, leading to a two-way failure
mechanism involving soil ahead of and behind the pipe.

(a) At peak breakout resistance (b) Immediately post-peak

Figure 9 Soil deformation mechanisms observed in a centrifuge model test using PIV image analysis [19]

7.2 Typical forms of large-amplitude lateral response: ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ pipes
There has been little previous study of pipe-soil lateral resistance during the large cyclic displacements of typically 10 or 20
diameters experienced in lateral buckling except for work undertaken within the SAFEBUCK JIP and recent projects. This
response is influenced by the development of soil berms ahead of the laterally sweeping pipe.
After breakout, two characteristic types of large-amplitude lateral response are found, depending on the ratio of the
flowline weight to the seabed strength, V/suD, as shown schematically in Figure 10. For values of V/suD below ∼1.5 (‘light’
pipes), it is generally found that the pipeline rises to the seabed surface after breaking out during the first lateral sweep
(Figure 10a), as is predicted from theoretical analysis of breakout mechanisms [24, 25]. As the pipe rises (and contact is lost
with soil behind the pipe, eliminating tensile restraint), the lateral resistance reduces from the break-out value to a steady
residual resistance. The flowline sweeps horizontally, mobilising an approximately constant (or slightly rising) horizontal
resistance, with a berm of soil being pushed ahead of the pipe. This berm-sliding mechanism governs the residual resistance,
Hresidual [19]. The residual resistance during the first loading cycle controls the lateral displacement at which the first buckle
stabilises, defining the initial shape of the lateral buckle and the peak bending stress in the pipe.
During the first shutdown cycle, the flowline reverses direction but does not return to the initial position due to the
reversal of the axial resistance along the feed-in section (and the reversal of lateral resistance due to the passive soil berm).
OTC 19589 13

Surface soil, swept ahead of the pipe on each cycle, builds up into berms at the extremes of the pipe displacement. These
berms offer significant resistance to pipe movement and define the shape of the buckle in operation. Subsequent cycles of
lateral movement lead to a steady increase in the restraint provided by the soil berms (Figure 10a).
For values of V/suD greater than ∼2.5 (‘heavy’ pipes), the pipeline generally moves downwards after the initial break-out
resistance is mobilised. This downward movement, coupled with the growth of a soil berm ahead of the pipe, leads to a
steady increase in the lateral resistance (Figure 10b). This hardening form of response (rising residual friction) can be more
challenging with regard to buckle growth and first load response. On one hand, the high level of residual friction increases
the load in the buckle (see Figure 5) meaning that system integrity is more difficult to achieve. On the other hand, the
increase in resistance with displacement could inhibit growth of the central lobe of the buckle and encourages the outer lobes
of the buckle to grow (since the lateral resistance is lower there), thus sharing the load across a longer buckle with more
lateral displacement at the outer lobes. The actual response is case specific and much work is ongoing to assess the response
of heavy pipelines.

Figure 10 Typical forms of lateral pipe-soil response

7.3 Prediction of ‘light pipe’ residual behaviour

Many of the tests carried out to date have evaluated the lateral resistance of quite ‘light’ pipes. On soft normally-consolidated
clay, wet-insulated or gas pipelines are usually ‘light’. Appropriate calculation methods for predicting the lateral response of
‘light’ pipes have already been published by the SAFEBUCK JIP[3]. Collation of all available data shows that the original
SAFEBUCK model for residual resistance (shown in Figure 11) captures well the behaviour over a range of soil conditions,
including recent model test measurements which lie outside the range of the original database (BP’s Greater Plutonio data,
marked BP-GP in Figure 11). Uncertainty remains over the cyclic response of heavier pipelines such as water-filled lines or
pipe-in-pipe systems, as illustrated by the same tests[7], which demonstrates that heavy pipes exhibit a much increased rising
residual resistance (Figure 11). Other recent data illustrating heavy pipe behaviour is shown in Section 7.5.
14 OTC 19589

2.5
CARISIMA
Project A
2 Troll
SAFEBUCK prediction
BP GP light pipe 1st sweep
Lateral Friction

1.5 BP GP light pipe cyclic residual

BP GP heavy pipe 1st sweep

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Non-dimensional soil-pipe characterisation

Figure 11 Lateral residual resistance data compared with SAFEBUCK prediction[7]

7.4 Prediction of ‘light’ pipe cyclic berm behaviour

The key to successful modelling of the cyclic behaviour of ‘light’ pipes is to capture the reaction force from the static berms.
Once the static berms are formed on the first cycle, they quickly become established and provide significant resistance to
increasing cyclic amplitude of the pipe. Numerical modelling shows that the pipe is likely to encroach into the berm slightly
during the first few cycles, until the berm gains sufficient strength.
This behaviour is confirmed by the soil berms established on operating pipelines where lateral buckles have occurred.
Figure 12a shows a typical cross profile at the crown of a lateral buckle, where the as-installed and maximum excursion
positions are inferred from survey data. For comparison, Figure 12b shows the pair of soil berms established by a laterally-
sweeping pipe section during a centrifuge model test. This test was part of a programme of lateral pipe-soil interaction tests
conducted at the University of Western Australia as part of SAFEBUCK Phase II[9]. Figure 13a shows the displacement field
as a pipe travels horizontally on soft clay. The growing berm ahead of the pipe primarily deforms by shear along the base,
with some soil being pushed into the berm close to the pipe invert.

Displacement range under

start-up/ shutdown cycle

Maximum Position on As-laid

Excursion Shutdown Position

(a) Side scan at buckle crown of an operated pipeline (b) centrifuge modelling of cyclic pipe movement[9]
Figure 12 Typical cross-sectional profiles created by large-amplitude cyclic pipe movement
OTC 19589 15

(a) (b)
Figure 13 Berm growth; (a) velocity field during centrifuge test and (b) modelling idealisation
To illustrate the significance of the berms, the berm resistance recorded during these tests after 50 cycles of fixed
amplitude was typically 5 times higher than the residual lateral resistance during the first cycle. Large-scale model tests
conducted for project-specific design studies have shown similar behaviour – as illustrated by testing conducted at NGI for
BP’s Greater Plutonio project[7] (Figure 14). These tests highlight the increased rate of berm growth for heavier pipes, and
consequent rise in berm resistance.

4.5
Final push
through berm
4
Base of tank
3.5 reached
mid-sweep
3
Berm Resistance

Heavier
pipe
2.5

1.5
Light
1
pipe
0.5

0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
Sweep number

Figure 14 Lateral resistance provided by soil berms – Greater Plutonio Tests[7]

7.5 Comparison of ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ pipe response

The contrasting lateral response of ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ pipes is illustrated schematically in Figure 10 and by experimental
results shown in Figure 15. These tests were conducted at UWA as part of a collaboration with Hong Kong University. The
model simulated a pipe with a diameter of 0.8 m and the soil was soft lightly-overconsolidated clay with an undrained
strength profile increasing with depth. In each test the pipe was lowered onto the soil surface until the specified vertical load,
V, was reached, then cycled laterally between fixed displacement limits. During the lateral cycling phase the actuator control
system maintained a constant vertical load on the pipe, allowing the pipe to rise and fall as guided by the soil resistance. The
values of V/suD (based on su at a depth of one diameter) were 0.75 and 2.8 for the ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ pipes respectively.
The ‘light’ pipe (Figure 15a,b) showed a lateral response which matches closely the schematic shown in Figure 10a. The
residual friction factor remained approximately constant (∼0.3) throughout each lateral sweep until the static berms were
16 OTC 19589

reached. The embedment of the pipe progressively increased with cycles, reaching approximately 0.5D after 8 cycles. The
trajectory within each sweep was approximately horizontal (noting that the spatial axes of Figure 15a are distorted), although
the pipe rose slightly as the static berms were approached. The static berms grew as more soil was added by being pushed
ahead of the pipe. The pipe therefore reached the berms earlier in each sweep, and a gradual rise in the mobilised berm
resistance was recorded, reaching a maximum of ∼1.5 at the end of the test, after 21 cycles.

Figure 15. Comparison of ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ pipe cyclic lateral responses
The ‘heavy’ pipe (Figure 15c,d) showed a contrasting lateral response, which is comparable to Figure 10b. For
comparison, the first sweep from the ‘heavy’ pipe test is shown superimposed on the ‘light’ pipe data (Figure 15b,c). During
the first lateral sweep of only 2D amplitude the pipe embedded deeper than 1D. The increasing pipe depth caused a sharp
increase in the passive resistance and no steady residual value was reached. During the return sweep the same behaviour was
observed and video footage showed that pipe was buried beneath remoulded soil which passed over the pipe crown during
each sweep. Within 6 cycles of only 2D amplitude the pipe had reached an embedment of 3D, mobilising a friction factor of
almost 5.
The purpose of this comparison is to highlight that existing models of ‘light’ pipe behaviour are not applicable for ‘heavy’
pipes. The existing SAFEBUCK Phase I models, which capture well the response of ‘light’ pipes, should not therefore be
applied in conditions where ‘heavy’ pipe behaviour might be expected. This has come to light in recent projects, where it has
been necessary to conduct model tests to explore the behaviour of water injection lines and pipe-in-pipe systems on soft
normally-consolidated clay, where the SAFEBUCK Phase I models were not considered appropriate. Current research is
addressing the behaviour of ‘heavy’ pipes.
The tests described in this paper involve horizontal movement between fixed displacement limits, while the vertical load
is held constant (representing the appropriate pipe weight). In a pipeline buckle the lateral driving force in the buckle is
limited and reduces with lateral displacement, so that lateral growth will be arrested when the lateral load exerted by the pipe
OTC 19589 17

equals the resistance offered by the soil. Due to this soil-structure interaction, it is difficult to directly simulate the field
behaviour in experiments. Instead, it is necessary to develop a model which can capture general cyclic behaviour under
constant vertical load (with fixed or varying displacement amplitude). This type of model can be calibrated against
experimental data of simple sequences of cyclic movement, which can then be used in the FE analysis of the pipeline, where
more variable patterns of cyclic movement arise from the global behaviour.

8 Soil data and model testing

8.1 Geotechnical field and laboratory testing

The pipe-soil force-displacement responses used in the design of a flowline should be based on the full range of anticipated
soil parameters at the site, since it is necessary to bound the anticipated embedment and the lateral and axial resistance. The
geotechnical investigation should include in situ measurements of soil strength and ex situ measurements of pipe-soil
interface resistance – using an appropriate low-stress shear device. Specialist equipment for this purpose includes the tilt
table device at the University of Texas at Austin [11] and the Cam shear device used at the University of Cambridge. Further
discussion of soil characterisation techniques for pipeline design is presented by Randolph & White (2008) [18].

8.2 Model testing of pipe-soil interaction

Lateral buckling and pipeline walking behaviour is extremely sensitive to pipe-soil interaction and there is much uncertainty
associated with models for pipe-soil interaction in soft clay. In addition, the basic phenomena involved are not fully
understood, and detailed numerical modelling is not yet capable of fully representing the response. This has led to the need
to supplement the conventional geotechnical site investigation with project-specific model test programmes in which pipe-
soil interaction is simulated.
The scope for specialist laboratory and in-situ pipe-soil testing is rapidly evolving on a project-by-project basis. A
specialist pipe-soil testing rig, mounted on a seabed frame, to measure axial and lateral pipe-soil resistance in situ, is being
developed by Fugro (the “SMARTPIPE”) [31,32]. This programme is ongoing and the first test data from shallow water trials
is published at this conference[32]. A large-scale pipe-soil test facility at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute is described by
Langford et al. [8]. Small scale modelling can be conducted in a geotechnical centrifuge [5, 23, 19].
Large-scale model tests typically use 3 – 5m3 of soil collected from the field and re-consolidated in a large tank. The
model pipe is placed into the soil bed and swept axially and laterally under appropriate force or displacement control. A
number of such project-specific tests have been carried out at Cambridge University (UK) and NGI (Norway)[8] over recent
years. The practical limitations of such tests include the time taken to reconsolidate the soil in the tank and the maximum
pipe diameter of typically 300 mm. Nevertheless, such tests provide detailed measurements of pipe-soil interaction in near
full-scale conditions.
Large-scale lateral tests have been supplemented by small-scale centrifuge tests which were initiated by the SAFEBUCK
JIP at Cambridge University[5] and have since been carried out at other international geotechnical centrifuge facilities. A
suite of centrifuge tests for the SAFEBUCK JIP was recently completed at the University of Western Australia (UWA),
including a set of tests that used image analysis[15, 19, 23] to better understand the failure mechanisms. The advantage of
conducting lateral pipe-soil model testing in a centrifuge, and the reason that this type of testing was initiated by the JIP, is
that only a small quantity of soil is required and the testing programme is much shorter. Centrifuge model tests, using a
suitably advanced actuation system, can also replicate the necessary sequences of pipe laying and lateral motion [23].
The most advanced large-scle or centrifuge model testing facilities can replicate the complete load and displacement
patterns imposed in real conditions, including a simulation of lay effects, changes in pipe weight due to hydrotesting and
operating cycles, and any pre-determined sequence of lateral motion (or loading). In the centrifuge, the accelerated rates of
consolidation allow long periods of pipeline operation to be simulated within a single continuous centrifuge flight. In-flight
T-bar testing allows the model seabed to be characterised in the same way as the field case. Figure 16 shows the UWA
geotechnical beam centrifuge, and a model pipeline used in tests of lateral pipe-soil interaction.
18 OTC 19589

Figure 16 Pipe-soil model testing in the UWA geotechnical beam centrifuge

9 Conclusions
This paper has demonstrated the significant influence that axial and lateral pipe-soil resistance has on several aspects of the
design of pipelines laid on the seabed. The areas of influence include the effective force in the pipeline, lateral buckle
initiation, lateral buckle loading, end expansion, pipeline walking and route-curve stability.
The influence of pipe-soil resistance on these various issues is often conflicting. For example, high lateral resistance is
beneficial for curve stability but detrimental to the bending loads developed in a buckle; high axial resistance is beneficial for
controlling feed-in to a buckle, but increases the susceptibility to buckling in the first place. Consequently, it is not possible
adopt a ‘conservative’ pipe-soil resistance parameter based on the extreme anticipated value. Instead, it is necessary to bound
the pipe-soil resistance and ensure that the design is acceptable throughout the potential envelope of resistance.
Since the pipe-soil response is the largest uncertainty faced in design there is a need for better analysis models supported
by experimental data and underlain by a theoretical basis. Significant work has already been performed by the SAFEBUCK
JIP and by forward thinking projects, which has lead to a significant improvement in the understanding of pipe-soil
interaction. This paper presents some highlights of this work, including new observations of the failure mechanisms during
lateral pipe movement, the increase in pipe restraint caused by the growth of soil berms during lateral cycles, and the
important contrast between the lateral resistance on ‘light’ pipes (which rise on breakout) and ‘heavy’ pipes (which dive
deeper, and become heavily constrained).
These observations highlight the complexity of pipe-soil interaction. Compared to conventional geotechnical problems,
lateral buckling and walking require soil failure in order for the design to be successful. Also, the operating behaviour
involves large amplitude pipe movements leading to repeated remoulding and consolidation of the seabed and gross changes
in geometry due to the formation of trenches and berms. All of this activity occurs at effective stress levels that lie around
one order of magnitude lower than are conventionally considered in geotechnical engineering. This complexity presents a
significant challenge in design, but significant project cost savings can result if an acceptable solution can be reached.
Model testing plays an important role in the assessment of pipe-soil interaction. Compared to other geotechnical
structures, pipelines are sufficiently small to be tested at full-scale in the laboratory, or at the seabed using specially-
developed tools. Project-specific model tests at full-scale and in the centrifuge are commonly undertaken. Full-scale tests,
though expensive and time-consuming, allows models for pipe-soil interaction to be calibrated. Centrifuge modelling, using
sophisticated actuation and control, can also be used for this purpose, and is a powerful tool for parametric studies that will
contribute towards the development of a generic understanding of pipe-soil interaction.
Continuing research aimed at improving the assessment of pipe-soil interaction include (i) improved penetration testing
techniques for assessing near-surface soil strength, (ii) new laboratory testing techniques for assessing pipe-soil resistance at
low stress levels, (iii) improved effective stress-type (‘beta’) methods for assessing axial pipe-soil resistance and (iv)
improved models for assessing lateral resistance, incorporating berm effects and addressing the contrasting behaviour of light
and heavy pipes. SAFEBUCK Phase II has focussed on the latter three aspects, as shown in this paper. Research into the first
aspect is described elsewhere [12,14].
These developments are providing an improved understanding of the key parameters and mechanisms involved in pipe-
soil interaction, which is being rapidly adopted by industry to assess lateral buckling and pipeline walking in design.
OTC 19589 19

Abbreviations
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
FEA Finite Element Analysis
JIP Joint Industry Project
KP Kilometre point (distance along a pipeline)
OOS Out of Straightness
PIV Particle Image Velocimetry
SCR Steel Catenary Riser
TDP Touch down point
UWA University of Western Australia
VAS Virtual Anchor Spacing

Nomenclature
D = diameter of pipe
FA = axial reistance
H = horizontal resistance, kN/m
Hresidual = horizontal residual resistance, kN/m
su = soil undrained shear strength, kPa
V = vertical-unit pipe load, kN/m
W′ = submerged pipe weight, kN/m
z = embedment depth, m
ζ = is the wedging factor or embedment force enhancement factor,
τ = axial shear stress
δ = pipe-soil interface friction angle
φ = soil friction angle
α = total stress axial resistance coefficient, α = τ/su
μa = axial friction coefficient, (FA/V)

Acknowledgements
The JIP has been very well supported by the offshore industry. BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Petrobras, and Shell, as
well as the U.S. Government through the MMS (Minerals Management Service), participated in Phase I, with installation
contractors and suppliers represented by Allseas, JFE-Metal One, Technip, and Tenaris. Additional participants including
Acergy, Chevron, Statoil, Saipem, and Woodside have joined Phase II, which will complete in 2008.

Many engineers and specialists in the pipeline and geotechnical community have contributed to the understanding and testing
of pipe-soil interaction response outlined in this paper, often through involvement in the SAFEBUCK JIP. In particular,
Professor Malcolm Bolton has led the SAFEBUCK pipe-soil interaction work conducted at Cambridge University.

The centrifuge modelling activity shown in this paper forms part of the activities of the Centre for Offshore Foundation
Systems at UWA, which was established under the Australian Research Council’s Special Research Centre scheme and is
now supported by the State Government of Western Australia through the Centres of Excellence in Science and Innovation
program. For the modelling shown in Figure 16, financial support from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region, China [Project No. HKU1115/06E] is acknowledged.

References

1. Anderson, A., Carr, M., Bruton, D. “The influence of Pipeline Insulation on Installation Temperature, Effective Force and Pipeline
Buckling.” OMAE2007-29317. Proceedings of 26th Int.Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (2007).
2. Bruton, D., Carr, M., Crawford, M., Poiate, E. “The Safe Design of Hot On-Bottom Pipelines with Lateral Buckling using the Design
Guideline Developed by the SAFEBUCK Joint Industry Project”. Deep Offshore Technology Conference, Vitoria, Brazil. (2005).
3. Bruton, D., White, D., Cheuk, C., Bolton, M., Carr, M. “Pipe/Soil Interaction Behaviour During Lateral Buckling”. SPE Journal of
Projects, Facilities and Construction. 1(3):1-9 (2006).
4. Carr, M., Sinclair, F., Bruton, D. “Pipeline Walking – Understanding the Field Layout Challenges, and Analytical Solutions
developed for the SAFEBUCK JIP.” Paper OTC-17945 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston (2006).
5. Cheuk C.Y., Bolton M.D. “A technique for modelling the lateral stability of on-bottom pipelines in a small drum centrifuge.” Proc.
International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Hong Kong (2006).
6. Harrison, G.E., Brunner, M.S. & Bruton, D.A.S. “King flowlines – thermal expansion design and implementation.” Paper OTC-
15310. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, (2003).
 20 OTC 19589

7. Jayson, D., Delaporte, P., Albert, J-P., Prevost, M.E., Bruton, D and Sinclair, F. “Greater Plutonio Project – Subsea Flowline Design
and Performance.” Offshore Pipeline Technolgy Conference, Amsterdam (2008).
8. Langford, T.E., Dyvik, R. & Cleave, R., “Offshore pipeline and riser geotechnical model testing: practice and interpretation.”
OMAE2007-29458. Proc. of the Conference on Offshore, Marine and Arctic Engineering (2007)
9. Lund, K.M.. “Effect of Increase in Pipeline Penetration from Installation.” Proc. of the Conference on Offshore, Marine and Arctic
Engineering. New Orleans, USA, (February 2000)
10. Murff, J.D., Wagner, D.A., & Randolph, M.F. “Pipe penetration in cohesive soil”. Géotechnique, (1989) 39(2):213-229.
11. Najjar, S.N., Gilbert, R.B., Liedtke, E.A., McCarron, W. “Tilt Table Test for Interface Shear Resistance Between Flowlines and
Soils.” Proc. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (2003).
12. Randolph, M.F. “Characterisation of soft sediments for offshore applications.” Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Site Characterisation, Porto,
(2004) 1, 209-231.
13. White D.J. & Cheuk C.Y. “Modelling the soil resistance on seabed pipelines during large cycles of lateral movement.” Marine
Structures, (2007) 21(1):59-79
14. White D.J. & Randolph M.F. “Seabed characterisation and models for pipeline-soil interaction.” Proc. 17th Int. Offshore & Polar
Engng. Conference, Lisbon, Portugal (2007). [Note: a typographic correction to the published equation was agreed with the authors]
15. White D.J., Dingle H.R.C. & Gaudin C.. SAFEBUCK JIP Phase II: “Centrifuge modelling of pipe-soil interaction”: Factual Report
for Boreas Consultants (SAFEBUCK JIP), ref. UWA report GEO 07396. 57pp. (2007) (confidential)
16. White D.J., Take W.A. & Bolton M.D. “Soil deformation measurement using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and
photogrammetry.” Géotechnique 53 7:619-63 (2003).
17. Zhang, J., Stewart, D.P., Randolph, M.F. “Modeling of shallowly embedded offshore pipelines in calcareous sand.” Proc. Journal of
Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. (2002) 128(5):363-371
18. Randolph M.F. & White D.J. “Pipeline embedment in deep water: processes and quantitative assessment.” Paper OTC-19128 Proc.
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA. (2008).
19. Dingle, H.R.C., White, D.J. and Gaudin, C. “Mechanisms of pipe embedment and lateral breakout on soft clay.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal (accepted for publication 2007).
20. Zhou H., White D.J. & Randolph M.F. “Physical and numerical simulation of shallow penetration of a cylindrical object into soft
clay.” Proc. ASCE GeoCongress, New Orleans (2008).
21. Verley, R.L.P. and Lund, K.M. “A soil resistance model for pipelines placed on clay soils.” Proc. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering Conf, Copenhagen (1995), V, 225-232.
22. Aubeny, C.P., Gaudin, C. and Randolph M.F. “Cyclic tests of model pipe in kaolin.” OTC-19494 Proc. Offshore Technology Conf.,
Houston (2008).
23. Cheuk, C.Y. and White, D.J. “Centrifuge modeling of pipe penetration due to dynamic lay effects.” Paper OMAE2008-57302 Proc.
Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Estoril, Lisbon (2008)
24. Merifield R.S., White D.J. and Randolph M.F. “Analysis of the undrained breakout resistance of partially embedded pipelines.”
Géotechnique (in press 2008).
25. Randolph M.F. & White D.J.. “Upper bound yield envelopes for pipelines at shallow embedment in clay.” Géotechnique, (in press
2008).
26. Lenci, S. and Callegari., M.: “Simple analytical models for the J-lay problem”. Acta Mechanica, (2005) 178, 23-39.
27. Pedersen, R.C., Olson R.E. & Rauch, A.F. “Shear and interface strength of clay at very low effective stress.” ASTM Geotechnical
Testing Journal. (2003) 26(1):71-78
28. Perinet D. & Frazer I. “Mitigation methods for deepwater pipeline instability induced by temperature and pressure.” Proc. Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, (2006) OTC 17815.
29. Cheuk, C.Y., White, D.J. & Dingle, H.R.C. “Upper bound plasticity analysis of a partially-embedded pipe under combined vertical
and horizontal loading.” Soils and Foundations (In press 2008).
30. Merifield R.S, White D.J. & Randolph M.F. “The effect of pipe-soil interface conditions on undrained breakout resistance of
partially-embedded pipelines.” Int. Conf. on Advances in Computer Meth. & Analysis in Geomechanics, Goa, India. (2008).
31. Looijens, P. and Jacob, H.: “Development of a Deepwater Tool for In-Situ Pipe-Soil Interaction Measurement and its Benefits in
Pipeline Analysis”. Proc. 31st Offshore Pipeline Technology Conf., Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2008).
32. Hill, A.J. and Jacob, H “In-Situ Measurement of Pipe-Soil Interaction in Deep Water” Proc. Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, USA. Paper OTC 19528 (2008).
33. American Petroeleaum Institute (API). “Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms
– Working Stress Design”. API RP2A. 21st Edition, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. 2000.
34. Palmer, A. C., “Touchdown indentation of the seabed.” Applied Oceans Research (Submitted for publication 2008).

View publication stats