R. L. P.

Verley
STATOIL, Postuttak, 7004 Trondheim, Norway

A Soil Resistance Model for Pipelines Placed on Sandy Soils

This paper presents a pipe-soil interaction model for sand soils capable ofpredicting the development of pipe penetration into the soil and the associated soil resistance that may be mobilized against horizontal pipe motions. The model is based on dimensional analysis and development of appropriate empirical equations which are fitted to large-scale laboratory data from several sources. The development of penetration is described by considering the work done by the pipe on the soil. For a given penetration, the force-displacement curve is described. The model has been used to predict time histories of penetration and horizontal pipe displacement from large-scale laboratory tests where pipe sections were subjected to forces representative of those from irregular waves and currents. A good reproduction of the time development of both penetration and displacement is given over the whole range of relevant hydrodynamic and soil parameters.

T. Sotberg
Sintef, Trondheim, Norway

Introduction When a pipe is placed on a sandy soil and subjected to basically oscillatory forces, for example from waves and currents, there is a complex interaction between pipe movements, penetration into the soil, and soil resistance. For small movements the pipe tends to penetrate into the soil, increasing the soil resistance, whereas for large movements the pipe will break out of the soil. Pipe movements are thus dependent on the penetration, which is itself dependent on the movements. Three major investigations have addressed the problem of pipe-soil interaction, the PIPESTAB project (Brennodden et al., 1986), the AGA project (Brennodden et al., 1989) and a project at the Danish Hydraulic Institute, DHI, (Palmer et al., 1988). The PIPESTAB and AGA investigations have produced soil resistance models (Wagner et al., 1987; and Brennodden et al., 1989, respectively). The PIPESTAB model has been found to be very conservative (Verley and Reed, 1989). The AGA model exhibits nonphysical behavior when used in certain realistic parameter ranges. Not withstanding this, Verley et al. (1990) showed that the equations for maximum "break-out" resistance for a given penetration give a good prediction of experimental results provided the relative density parameter in the equations is set to a particular fixed value independent of the actual soil relative density. The major factors governing pipe response in a realistic design situation where movements of some meters may be permitted, are the penetration and, for that penetration, the maximum ("break-out") resistance force that can be mobilized. Of lesser importance is the resistance force to further movements after break-out. Details of the shape of the forceContributed by the OMAE Division and presented at the 11th International Symposium and Exhibit on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 7-12, 1992, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF M E CHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by the OMAE Division, 1992; revised manuscript received February 4, 1994. Associate Technical Editor: D. Myrhaug.

displacement curve are of minor importance. The present model is based on primarily evaluating development of penetration, the maximum resistance force and the post-break-out resistance force through dimensional analysis and fitting of physically representative empirical equations to a large range of laboratory data from the PIPESTAB, AGA, and DHI investigations. In the following, the dimensional analysis and model fitting is described. The model has been implemented in a pipeline simulation program and results are presented from simulations of various laboratory data, including data from pipes subjected to realistic irregular wave and current forcing, in order to finetune, test, and validate the model. Dimensional Analysis The following simple variables describe the total horizontal soil resistance Fh for a unit length of pipe, of diameter D and submerged weight Ws, oscillating with relatively small, but not necessarily constant, amplitude on a sand soil, of density ps, due to fluctuating horizontal and vertical forces Fx and Ft (e.g., hydrodynamic forces): g,D,Ws,y,s,n,z (1) The pipe is subjected to n oscillations covering a total (scalar) distance s and is at a particular instant of time a distance y from some representative origin and has a penetration z into the soil. The Coulomb friction coefficient is /x, the density of water p, and the gravitational acceleration g. A large number of dimensionless parameters may be formed from (1). Analysis is simplified by considering separately the soil resistance for a given penetration and the development of that penetration. Force/Displacement for Given Penetration. Consider the situation after a number of cycles of constant amplitude a (or s/n) which have led to a penetration z. The vertical contact
AUGUST 1994, Vol. 116/145

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.27.129.246. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Copyright 1994 by ASME

force is given by (Ws - F/) = Fc. The resistance may be expected to be related to the weight of soil to be moved, i.e., ps, p,v, and g can be combined to y's. Consider the resistance Fh to be made up of a friction contribution, Fj = JXFC, and an additional resistance Fn due to the penetration. From Eq. (1), the penetration-dependent resistance may then be expressed as Fr J f\ z 1 y\ l. y'sD2' a D (2)
Fig. 1 Simplified system for soil being removed by an object

The parameter a expresses the effect of overburden, i.e., the excess soil in front of the pipe due to the cycling with amplitude a. When considering the maximum resistance force Fr2, y/D may be omitted. The effect of overburden (i.e., a) should also be of minor importance, as the maximum resistance force occurs for fairly large displacements of the pipe when the overburden is a smaller proportion of the soil involved in the interaction. The maximum resistance is thus
Frl
fi

be combined as a. Furthermore, the development of penetration from cycle to cycle (the maximum penetration, say) is of interest rather than the development of penetration within a cycle, and y/D may be omitted. Equation (4) may then be simplified to

y's^Y'D

(3)

(The subscript rl for the maximum resistance Fr2 anticipates the shape of the force displacement model, see Fig. 6.) Note that the classic passive resistance, Fr = ky'sz2, is also described by Eq. (3). The constant k is related to the ratio between shear and normal forces, Fc/Fr. Therefore, one might expect the parameter K in Eq. (3) to be of subsidiary importance compared to z/D. Penetration Development. Considering the development of penetration during the n cycles of amplitude a prior to breakout and again forming 7^ and Fc, the following relationship may be formed from Eq. (1):
7s

=/(>>) (5) D Insight into the possible form of Eq. (5) may be obtained by analyzing the simplified situation sketched in Fig. 1. This represents removal of soil by an object (pipeline) forming a depression of half-width a and side slope < / > , the soil removed forming a mound of height h and side slopes <j>. By considering the work done against friction and gravity to move the soil, it may easily be shown that the penetration is related to the work done as
D

'-k'\

za

(6a)

- =-? \
ji

za

(6b)

\D'

n,K,^,n) ' D'

(4)

Penetration into the soil is caused by pipe movements pushing soil to each side, and is related to the work done by the pipe on the soil. It is supposed that frictional forces do not move soil and Fh may be replaced by Fr and the work done is thus the integral of Fr(s)ds. Groups y'sFP'/Fh and s/D may then be combined to form = E/y^D3, where E is the work done by the horizontal force Fr on the soil. The groups s/D and n may

where k contains circular functions of <j>. Equations (6), although not directly applicable to a real situation, illustrate directly two of the three groups in Eq. (5). The third group, K, plays a role in the factor k. K is analagous to the roughness in passive earth pressure theory, which determines the angle (shape) of the failure surface in the soil and will here affect 4>, and indeed the shape of the depression formed. Laboratory work shows that depressions formed show little or no flat bottom (for sand) and a slope of varying angle (varying both

Nomenclature a Cu D G?5O Dr E Fc Ff Fh Fi F, ff 1,2,3 Fx g ks k n 5 Ws y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = amplitude of pipe displacement soil gradation no. pipe diameter median soil particle size relative density of soil work done by force Fr on soil vertical soil contact force (= Ws - F{) frictional horizontal soil resistance total horizontal soil resistance ( = Ff + Fr) lift force on pipe horizontal soil resistance due to penetration horizontal soil resistance at points 1, 2, and 3 of model (Fig. 6) external horizontal force on pipe gravitational constant soil stiffness constants defined in text no. of oscillations total distance traveled by pipe submerged weight of pipe distance of pipe from origin of model ^1,2,3 = distance from origin to points 1, 2, and 3 of model (Fig. 6) z = penetration of pipe into soil Zi = initial penetration of pipe due to weight Ws z2 = reference penetration for break-out (maximum pre-break-out penetration) z\ = maximum value of z2 found in simulation up to instant of time of interest Z2 = equivalent penetration at point 3 of the model (Fig. 6) a = a/D or y/D 7/ = submerged unit weight of soil
K = KEP/FC

Ka = y's D2/Fc#v where Fc,m is average value over cycle K; = 7.,' E^/Ftf, where Fci is value at instant of maximum horizontal soil resistance F f2 K0 = ysD2/Ws fj. = Coulomb friction coefficient ps = mass density of soil pw = mass density of water = E/y'sD1 4> - side slope of depression formed by oscillating pipe Transactions of the ASME

146/Vol. 116, AUGUST 1994

Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.27.129.246. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

(a)

\
\
I-

/ \

A
\ _ /

r- IA- A
r \y
TIME (s)

Vy

J: \
A
:

(b)

AAAAAA J
TIME (s)
^

V ;

the surface of the soil and were then subjected to various numbers (0-30) of small, constant amplitude (0.1-1.0 D), displacement oscillations. These oscillations caused the pipe section to dig into the soil. The pipe section was then pulled a large distance causing it to "break out" from its penetrated position and move into virgin soil. The initial, small amplitude cycles are used to determine the increase in penetration with work done by the pipe on the soil. The final "break-out" cycle is used to define the maximum soil resistance for a given penetration and also the shape of the force-displacement trace and the residual resistance after break-out. Tests were conducted on various sands and for various values of simulated pipeline submerged weight. The soil geotechnical parameters for the PIPESTAB and AGA tests, and also for the DHI tests, are summarized in Table 1 of Verley et al. (1989). Data from the PIPESTAB and AGA tests includes time histories of work done by the pipe against the soil as E(t)= Frds, Fr=Fh-ix.Fc, ^ = 0.6
(7)

(c)

"

(d)

y (cm)

Fig. 2 Example of data from PIPESTAB and AGA tests used to develop soil resistance model

i.e., a friction coefficient of 0.6 was used in the original raw data reduction. Figure 2 shows some data from a specimen AGA test consisting of 4 cycles of amplitude 0.5D followed by a large "breakout" oscillation. Figures 2(a) and (b) show displacement and penetration versus time. Figure 2(c) shows the hysteresis curve, Fh versus y, for the last cycle of 0.523 amplitude and the breakout cycle. Figure 2(d) shows the development of penetration versus displacement and Fig. 2(e) versus energy, the envelope of which is used to develop the penetration equations. Fc is evaluated at the time when maximum resistance occurs in the "break-out" cycle, and also as an average value during the final pre-break-out cycle. The data used to fine-tune, test and validate the model consists of penetration and displacement time histories for tests in which a pipe section was subjected to time varying horizontal and vertical forces representative of those from combined irregular waves and currents. The manner in which the test data was obtained, the tests conducted and the corrections and analysis applied are fully described by Verley and Reed (1989) and are summarized in Tables 1 to 3 therein.

DHI Data. The DHI equipment and tests have been described by Palmer et al. (1988). In the tests, a pipe section of 0.295 m diameter, placed on the surface of a soil bed or in a pre-formed depression of up to 0.5 diameter, was subjected to sinusoidal forces, nominally equal in the horizontal and vertical directions. The amplitude of the applied forces started at a low value and was increased in increments of 1-2.5 percent every 20 cycles, and continued until the pipe had moved oneData Used in Developing and Testing the Model half diameter from its initial position, typically after 500-1000 Data from three sources, PIPESTAB, AGA, and DHI, have cycles. Tests were conducted with smooth and rough pipe surbeen used, firstly to develop model equations fitting (3) and faces, for medium and coarse sand, and for various values of (5) to data from simple tests, and secondly to fine-tune, test, simulated pipeline submerged weight. In some tests, break-out and validate the model using data from tests where pipe sections had not occurred when the tests were stopped (see Verley et were subjected to realistic forcing. The data is summarized al., 1990, Table 2 and Fig. 3). The final cycle of tests in which break-out was achieved or briefly in the forthcoming and, for some of the data, in more nearly achieved has been used in the development of the breakdetail by Verley and Reed (1989) and Verley et al. (1990). out force equations (together with the PIPESTAB and AGA PIPESTAB and AGA Data. The rig used in the PIPE- data). The DHI data is also used indirectly to fine-tune the STAB and AGA tests has been described by Brennodden et equations for penetration through the comparison of simual. (1986), Wagner et al. (1987), and Brennodden et al. (1989). lation time series of penetration with those measured in the The rig applies horizontal and vertical forces or displacements tests. Table 1 summarizes the DHI tests used in the tuning/ to a pipe section of 0.5 m or 1.0 m diameter. The PIPESTAB testing of the model. data used in the analysis is taken from Wagner et al. (1987) The data utilized from a test consists of time series envelopes and the AGA data from Brennodden et al. (1988) and Lieng of the horizontal and vertical forces applied to the pipe and et al. (1988). time series of the displacement and penetration. The forces The data used in the development of the model consists of are used as input to simulations, the results of which are comdata from tests in which pipe sections were initially placed on pared with the measured displacements and penetrations. laterally and as the pipe digs down). One might therefore expect a relationship rather nearer to (6a) than (6b), i.e., a power of of about 1/3, with a dependence on K and some dependence on the amplitude of oscillations a. This information has been utilized in the development of the model equations.
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 1994, Vol. 116/147

Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.27.129.246. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 1 Summary of DHI tests used in testing and fine-tuning the model. The approximate number of cycles in the test, n, and the approximate upper limit of the horizontal and vertical forces at the end of each test, Fmax, are indicated. No Dia. (m) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 z/D z/D w. (max) (kN/m) 0.27 0.23 0.16 0.25 0.31 0.30 0.13' 0.16 0.13 0.18 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 n (approx) 760 1300 770 760 900 1000 650 680 940 650

Table 2 Summary of test data used to develop maximum break-out force equations Ho. I 0IA amp n

1
PTT~ P2.7 P2.9 P2.S A2.10 A2.12 A2.16 P2.10 P2.6 A2.13 P2.18 A2.8 P2.19 A2.1 P2.15 P2.16 A2.2 A2.17 A2.20 A2.ll P2.12 P2.13 A2.5 A2.6 P2.8 P2.ll A2.18 A2.14 A2.19 A2.7 P2.14 A2.4 | B2.1 82.4 B2.3 S2.5 PllO PL8 PL5 PU6 PL9 PD5 P08 PD4 PD7 DHI4 OHI5 OHI9 OHI10 OHI11 OHI17 DHI6 OHI14 OHI16 OHI7 OHI10 (ml 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0,50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.ocr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

Ul

(approx) F (kWrn) 0.65 0.45 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.35 0.8

01 03 04 05 Ofi 07 10 14

0.00 0.33 0.08 0.20 0.08

O.OO

i '18

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

PIPESTAB/AGA t e g t s , D-

.0

m, l o o s e sand

2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1.000 0,800 0.600 0,400 0,200 0.000 0,000

. + o

PIPESTAB/AGA t e s t s , D= .5 m, l o o s e sand PIPESTAB/AGA t e s t s , D= .0 ra, 0.5 m, loose simple break PIPESTAB/AGA t e s t s , D- .0 m, dense sand DHI t e s t s , D=0.3 ra, v . dense sand

"f;
=?

-dhi9 a s s ~ ~ia a o

"J?
+

O.b U.l 0.1 0.1 O.b 0.5 0.3 0,1 0.1 0.1 O.b O.b O.b 0.5 O.b 0,5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 b.i 0.5 6.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 O.b

10 5 4 4 10 30 10 4 4 10 4 4 4 10 4 10 10 30 10 4 4 15 4 4 4 10 10 10 10 4 4 4 30 4 30

Kappas Tc (aval (at Fhmaxi (kN/m (kM/ml 1.1S" HOTT ~T2.4 0.34 25.0 0.50 0.40 21.3 0.63 0.37 23.0 0.56 0.50 17.0 1.15 0.50 17.0 1.44 0.50 17.0 1.11 0.6T 13.1 0.90 0.62 13.7 0.72 0.52 16.3 0.73 0.90 9.4 t.ao 1.00 3.5 1.74 0.25 8.5 0.37 0.25 8.5 0.42 0.26 8.2 0.90 0.25 3.5 0.37 0.24 8.9 0.49 0.95 3.9 1.66 1.00 8.5 1.44 1.00 8.5 1.15 0.28 7.6 0.57 0.27 7.9 0.38 0.24 8.9 0.54 0.25 8.5 0.33 2.00 4.3 2.40 2.20 3.9 2.60 1.40 6.1 2.50 1.50 5.7 1.75 2.00 1.3 2.14 0.48 4.4 0.70 0.52 4,1 0.64 0.49 4.3 0.60 (aval 0.95 0.95 1.95 1.95 10.5 10.5 5.1 5.1 1.30 1.70 2.40 2.87 0.72 1.15 1.39 1.26 1.46 1.30 0.59 1.84 1.65 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.98 1.50 1.50 1.48 1.50 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 24.3 10.6 3.5 7.7 7.1 7.1 a.9 5.7 6.1 4.3 4,0 4.3 4.3 4.3 10.0 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.20 0.08 0.16 0.22 0.64 0.64 0,55 0.67

p_.

"Kappas stnaa (atlast (max! f^hmpa) eye. (ml kN/m

-ra

"T T 17.0
13.5 15.2 7.4 5.9 7.7 9.4 11.8 11.6 4.7 4.9 5.7 5.1 2.4 5.7 4.3 5.1 5.9 7,4 3.7 5.6 3.9 6.4 3.5 3.3 3.4 4.9 4.0 3.0 "" 3.3 3.5 6.5 5.0 "1.5 3.0 "11.8 7.4 ""5.1 ~~57T5.8 14.4 4.6 '5.2 9.2 8.2 7.4 3.7 9.2 4.6 3.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.1

"XoT *on 0.035 0.65

0.060 0.050 0.121 0.180 a.iii 0.O7O 0.067 0.083 0.123 0.151 0.054 0.075 0.110 0.055 0.090 0.135 0.120 0.112 0.051 0.055 0.121 0.055 0.177 0.150 0.184 0.144 0.160 0.117 0.084 0.076 0.050 0.090 0.067 0.124 0.036 1.00 0.85 3.00 5.30 3.00 1.40 1.35 1.66 3.35 4.00 6.85 0.92 2.50 0.85 1.22 4.00 4.25 3.70 0.85 0.70 2.05 0.68 5.10 4.80 6.25 4.76 5.79 2.66 1.40 1.25 1.75 3.25 2.86 6.00 6.01 1.07 1.98 2.12 2.16 1.16 1.79 1.57 1.58 6.46 6.52 0.44 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.80 0.86 0.84 1.05 6.82 0.46 1.25 1.60 1.30 1.20 1.40 1.35 2.10 1.80 3.50 3.10 3.20 2.30 0.51 0.90 1.70

'i-1 O.b
0.1

I
. 0,050

1
0,100

1
0,150

1 0,250

1 0,350

0,200

0,300

a.on 6.055
0.064 0.088 0.011 0.071 0.019 0.019 6.050 6.6?1 0.071 0.044 0.068 IS. 050" 0.094 0.038 0.053 0.094 0.053

Fig. 3 Ratio between total resistance force F,,z predicted through Eqs. (8) and that measured in the tests

l.i

Maximum Break-Out Force Data from the AGA, PIPESTAB, and DHI tests have been incorporated in a spreadsheet program and used to develop and test various empirical relationships based on Eq. (3). For z in the parameter z/D in Eq. (3), the maximum penetration in the cycle immediately prior to the break-out cycle, z2> is employed. For Fc in the parameter K, both the contact force at the instant of maximum break-out force (i.e., K,-) and the average contact force in the break-out cycle (K) have been employed; however, the first of these has been found to give the best correlation. Data utilized in developing the model covers D 0.3-1.0 m, Dr 0.05-1.0, zi/D 0.01-0.35, <c, 1-25, and a 0.1-1.0. The individual tests included in the analysis are summarized in Table 2, and the following gives a good fit to the data: c / \ '-25 K;<20 = (5.0-0.15/c ; ) (8fl) D 'sD1
T = 2.0

ysD

K;>20

(8*)

Simula tests. Ic ose PI.4 1.00 P1.5 1.00 PI.6 1.00 PI.11 1.00 P1.25 1.00 A1.3 1.00 A1.7 1.00 ALIO 1.00 Al.S 1.00 PI.12 1.00 PI.13 1.00 A1.6 1.00 A1.9 1.00 A1.2 0.50 simpta tests, densi Bl.l 1.00 S1.2 1.00

" 0
o o 0 u 0 u u o u 0

u
ti

0.3S 0.80 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.20 0.95 1.50 1.40 2.00 2.10 2.00 2.00 0.50 1708 2.00

0.3S 0.80 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.20 0.95 1.50 1.40 2.00 2.10 2.00 2.00 0.50 1.00 2.00

24.3 0.1552 10.6 0.048 3.5 0.056 7.7 0.038 7.7 - 0.034 7.1 0.044 8.9 0.044 5.7 0.064 6.1 0.054 4.3 0.102 4,0 0.082 4,3 0.090 4.3 6.055 4.3 0.023

JL,

5.0

"XT'

4.3

3.014 0.014

Figure 3 shows the ratio between the maximum total soil resistance force, Fh2 (=Fr2 + Ff) predicted through Eqs. (8) and measured in the tests. The three points marked "dhi 6 , " "dhi 7 , " and "dhi 9 " are from DHI data where full breakout was not achieved, the measured forces were lower than for full break-out, and the points on Fig. 3 artificially high. The standard deviation of the predicted to measured total resistance force (neglecting the foregoing DHI data points) is about 12 percent. No dependence on the parameter a was found. The cut-off value of K, = 20 in Eqs. (8) is rather uncertain due to the scarcity of data with such high K, values. The cut1 4 8 / V o l . 116, AUGUST 1994

off value has been set considering the results of simulations of irregular wave tests, in which 12 tests achieved values of K, > 30. Although Eqs. (8) give a good fit to the data, the sensitivity to K is not strong and other equations can be found that would fit the data equally well, e.g.
Z7 / \ '-25

Fn .JZ2\ ,rf-(4 1 lie,) l . l5 c-0 n. ysIT \D) (with some limit to ,- not investigated further).

(9)

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.27.129.246. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 3 Summary of test data used to develop penetration versus energy equations
No. D!A ;amp n Ws {nom) (kN/m) 10 4 4 10 30 10 4 4 4. 4 4 4 10 4 10 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 1,00 1,00 0,25 0,25 0.25 0,25 0,25 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,25 0,25 1,50 1,50 2,00 2.00 2.00 2,00 0,50 I 1,00 1.00 0,010 0,006 0,010 0.010 0,015 0,80 0,95 0,95 1,95 1,95 12,5 10.5 10,5 5,1 5,1 4 ' 0,015 0,008 0,015 0,030 0,040 0,020 0,015 0,015 0,035 0,050 0,030 0,040 0,050 0,016 0,040 0,030 0,030 0,045 0,020 0.040 0,080 0,040 0,060 0,020 0,060 0.050 0,080 Zi/D Fc (ave) (kN/m 0.38 0,34 0,40 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,70 0,65 0,90 1,00 0.25 0,25 0,26 0,25 0.24 0.95 1,00 1,00 0,28 0,27 1,40 1,50 2.00 2,20 1,90 2,00 0,48 22,4 25,0 21,3 17,0 17,0 17,0 12,1 13,1 9.4 8,5 8,5 8,5 8,2 8,5 8,9 8,9 8,5 8,5 7,6 7,9 6,1 5,7 4,3 3,9 4,5 4,3 4,4 Kappas (ave)

_ ^ _ S

,,0^50,.0.25,., 1.0-10/.5 0.5-10/.5

1.0-15/.5 1.Q-10/.3 1.0-5/.5 1.0-5/.5 ' -a--

1.0-15/.3 - 1.0-10/.1 1.0-5/.1 1.0-5/.1

o1.0-15/.1 o ---0.5-KV.1 0.5-5/. 1

_*__
- a
* -

* - 1.0-7/.3 * 1.0-10/.5

O - 1.0-7/.1 a 1.0-10/.1

(m) P2.3 P2.7 P2.9 A2.10 A2.12 A2.16 P2.4 P2.10 P2.18 A2.8 P2.19 A2.1 P2.15 P2.16 A2.2 A2.17 A2.20 A2.11 P2.12 P2.13 A2.18 A2.14 P2.8 P2.11 A2.1S A2.19 A2.7 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,50 0,50 0.50 0.50

I (m) 0,5 0,1 0,1 0,5 0,5 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,5 0,5 0,5 0.5 0,5 0,5

.*--

0,50 I 0,5

1,00 I 0,3 I 10 1,00 1 0,1 1,00 j 0,1 0.50 I 0,1 0,50 I 0,1 30 10 4 4

1,00 I 0 , 3 ! 10 1,00 | 0,1 ! 10 1,00! 0.5 | 4

1,00 1 0,5 1 4 1,00 1 0 , 5 ! 4

1,00 I 0,1 I 10 0,50 0,1 I 10 !

a.ooo

0.200

0.400

0,600

0.&

1.000

1.200

B2.2 B2.1 B2.4 B2.3 B2.5

j 1,00 I 0.5 i 30 ! 1,00 l 0,5 !

1,00 1 0,1 ; 30 : 1,00 1,00 i 0 , 5 ! 4 f 2,00 i

1,00 i 0,1 ! 30 I 2,00 !

Fig. 4 Development of penetration with energy for all tests indicated by diameter, K and amplitude of motions (D-n.Ja)

Penetration Development Table 3 summarizes the individual tests included in the analysis. Based on Eq. (5), the information in Eqs. (6) and through a process of trial and error and curve fitting using a spreadsheet program, the following equation has been found to describe the development of penetration:
-1 -l/2v0.31 (10) = * ( * * ,i a ) D where z, is the initial penetration when the pipe section is placed on the soil and the average contact force is used in K. A value of k = 0.28 has been found from the data. However, through simulations of tests with realistic loading, the value of k has been adjusted to k = 0.23 and the instantaneous value of K (i.e., K,) is used. Due to the difficulty in defining amplitude, a is replaced by y/D where y is the instantaneous distance of the pipe from the origin (defined in the model, see later). The sensitivity to amplitude of motion, which varied between 0.1 and 1.0 diameter, is very low and a value of a - 1 in Eq. (10), combined with a small adjustment to k, gives an equally good fit to the data. Figure 4 shows the development of penetration with energy for all tests and Fig. 5 show results for all tests with amplitude a = 0.1 and all values of K. From Fig. 5 and other similar figures, it is seen that there is, for a given amplitude of motion, { a maximum penetration that can be achieved, and that this is given approximately by

Z2-Z,

0,000

0,200

0,400

0,6

0,800

1,000

Fig. 5 Development of penetration with energy for a = 0.1 and all values of K. Tests indicated by diameter, K and amplitude of motions (D-KJ a).

how far a pipe section will move after break-out while external forces are still acting in the same direction. The post-break-out force Fr3 has been found to be related to the maximum penetration in the pre-break-out cycle (i.e., Zi/D) in a similar manner to the maximum force Fr2, though with more scatter. Although one might not expect the penetration prior to break-out to affect the resistance after a sufficiently large displacement has occurred, the laboratory tests show that even for the largest displacement (4D), the resistance force Fr3 is still governed by the pre-break-out penetration z2. Through Eq. (8), Fri may be expressed as an equivalent penetration after break-out, z3, which may be approximated by - = 0.82-3.2(V-O),
Zi
z

Zl-Z(

, k~l.2

(11)

(z2/>)<0.1 (z2/D)>0.1

(12fl)

However, through simulations, the value of k has been adjusted to 1.0 and the instantaneous value of K (i.e., K,) is used. Residual Force After Break-Out If the pipe section continues to move in the same direction after break-out, there is a residual horizontal resistance (in addition to friction) due to a mound of soil being pushed ahead of the pipe. This residual force, Fri, will have an effect on
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

l. 0.5

(12b)

Zl

The force-displacement model modifies the nominal penetration zi as the pipe moves from the position associated with zi, to that associated with z3 (see later). Therefore, zi in Eqs. (12) is in the final model replaced by Zi, the maximum penetration z2 realized in the simulation up to the instant of time considered. AUGUST 1994, Vol. 116/149

Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.27.129.246. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

8.0'

7.06.0-

H -a ^ o
(0

4.0 3.02.0.

>1

Fig. 6

Force displacement model

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 y/D-predicted 8.0

Fig. 8 PIPESTAB/AGA realistic loading testsmaximum displacement achieved, actual versus predicted
FORCE

. 1

.32 -

/ / / /

new origo
0
1

i DISPLACEMENT

.28 .24 .20

.16

Fig. 7

Force displacement model1 cycle with amplitude >y 2

.12

'./.
/

/ Force-Displacement Model / Figure 6 shows the shape chosen for the force-displacement V curve of the penetration-dependent force Fr defined through .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28 .32 the force levels Fri, Fr2, and Fri and corresponding displacez/D-predicted ments yu y2, and j ^ . Fr2 andF r3 and the equivalent penetrations Fig. 9 PIPESTAB/AGA realistic loading tests () and DHI increasing Zi and Z3 are determined as in the foregoing. The displacements amplitude tests (x)maximum penetration achieved, actual versus preyu y%> and j>3 have initial values which may all be modified by dicted pipe movements. The model is symmetric about the origin; i.e., a certain penetration and resistance force due to movement in one direction will apply, after the pipe reverses direction, Z2 in the other direction (with the obvious sign change). Note, (13a) <0.15 however, that the origin of the model, 0, may move. D D \D D~ For movements within 0 and yu the resistance is linearly elastic and no work is done. The pipe penetration does not (136) $ = ^ + 0.8, 15 change nor does the origin move. The distances is determined D D from the elastic stiffness of the soil and the force level F rl , However, through simulations, the values 0.3 and 0.8 in Eq. which is related to the force level Fr2 (see later). (13) were modified to 0.1 and 0.6, respectively. Furthermore, Between y\ and y2, the displacement corresponding to the z2 is replaced by z2. maximum resistance, the work done by displacement causes Comparison of the idealized force-displacement model with increasing penetration, given by Eqs. (10) and (11). This in- hysteresis loops from the laboratory tests indicated a value of creasing penetration causes the force level Fr2 (and therefore F between 0.2F and 0.5F . Through simulations, a value rl r2 r2 Frl and Fr3) to increase. The origin does not move. of 0.3Fr2 was chosen. For displacement y > y2, the origin is translated a distance When a pipeline is placed on a plane flat sand surface, some (y y%) and the penetration decreases until y = y3, after initial, usually small, penetration occurs. Simulations indicate, which it remains constant. as expected, that pipeline response is insensitive to this initial During simulation of a pipe section subjected to irregular penetration. However, the laboratory data is approximately wave forcing, the model may go through many force-displace- fitted by ment cycles of different amplitude. As an example, Fig. 7 indicates a cycle of amplitude greater than y2, causing both (14) ^ = 0.037* 0 - 2/3 the force level Fr2 (and therefore Fri and Fri) to decrease and the origin to move. This is equivalent to the pipe displacing about (1/22) of its The laboratory tests indicate that maximum (break-out) weight of sand. forces occur for displacements, y2, of about one-half to one diameter. Through simulations, the value of y2 has been adPipeline Response Simulations justed to 0.5 diameter. The value of j>3, i.e., where the resistance force becomes The soil-resistance model described in the preceding sections stable after break-out, was estimated from the tests and found has been implemented in a pipeline simulation program which to depend on the pre-break-out penetration and is fitted ap- was then used to predict displacement and penetration time proximately by histories from the PIPESTAB, AGA, and DHI tests. The

>o.

1 5 0 / V o l . 116, AUGUST 1994

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.27.129.246. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

ACTUAL

PREDICTED

200

500

400

SOO

EDO

700

BOO

900

1000

1 IOO

time (s) " 2"

ACTUAL

PREDICTED
Mr"

5 '
a
0 H rd H-

HifiJ rJ r f
r~H
0 '00 2DO 500 400 SOO

M,

' rf"
r

_ ' /i^

a 01 sc
si

600

700

900

tOOO

I tOO

IOO

ZOO

SOO

"00

SOO

time (s)

time

(s)

Fig. 10 Actual and predicted time series of displacement and penetration for PIPESTAB test no. 8

ACTUAL

PREDICTED

I
ID O id d

IOO

SOO

6D0

700

800

900

IO0O

I tOO

too

2O0 SOO

t i m e (s)
ACTUAL

time (s)
PREDICTED

-p id M +J 0)

0>

5O0

-IOO

SOO

600

'00

800

900

IOOO

I IOO

IOO

200

soo

*oo

eoo

600

roo

eoo

900 1000

time (s) t i m e (s) Fig. 11 Actual and predicted time series of displacement and penetration for PIPESTAB test no. 13 Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 1994, Vol. 116 / 151

Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.27.129.246. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

ACTUAL

PREDICTED

B ? "

w
-H T3

ft

^ . V

time (s)

PREDICTED

Irl iH
5f
53
|Q0

p i -

Ip'

ryT

i \
o
H

0 0B

'

O.07

200

500

400

500

GOO

700

900

IOOO

1100

100

20O

SOO

40O

50O

GOO

700

time Fig. 12

(s)

time

(s)

Actual and predicted time series of displacement and penetration for PIPESTAB test no. 19

<iU-

19 .S -

_L^
12 10-

_f2.

J~~^ 1 H 1

uu
06 04 02 00 -

200

300

400

500

600

700

No. of c y c l e s
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

No. of c y c l e s

Fig. 14 no. 08

Measured I

-) and predicted (

) penetration tor DHI test

Fig. 13 no. 04

Measured (

) and predicted (

) penetration for DHI test

laboratory tests, analysis, and simulations of the PIPESTAB and AGA tests are fully described by Verley and Reed (1989). The simulation of DHI tests was straightforward, the forces applied in the horizontal and vertical directions in the tests being obtained from the envelope curves and used directly as input to the simulation program. The large range of soil parameters covered in these tests (sand relative density 0.05 to 1.0) and the considerable differences in forcing between the PIPESTAB/AGA tests (irregular wavelike forces) and DHI tests (sinusoidal with monotonically increasing amplitude) provide an effective finetuning and validation of the model. Altogether, some 1000 simulations were conducted varying and fine-tuning the model
1 5 2 / V o l . 116, AUGUST 1994

parameters to give a best possible fit over the whole range of tests. A representative selection of results and general comments are noted in the following. The final set of parameters (i.e., Eqs. (8) and (10) to (13) with the adjustments indicated in the text) gives a good fit to all tests from all three sources. This set of parameters necessarily represents a compromise, and some tests are fitted better with other parameter values; however, these are generally close to the chosen values. Certain of the parameters can be adjusted to other values and still give as good an overall fit to the tests, e.g., the use of Eq. (9), rather than (8), to describe the breakout force. Furthermore, there is an interrelationship between parameters and the (small) adjustment of one parameter may be compensated by (small) adjustments to one or more other parameters. Thus, the final set of parameters is by no means unique, but represents a good overall fit to the data.
Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.27.129.246. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Ratios between laboratory-measured (denoted "ACTUAL") and predicted maximum horizontal displacement and maximum penetration achieved in each test are shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. Representative amplitudes of displacement due to individual (large) waves are also well predicted (not shown). Figure 10 shows the time series for displacement and penetration, both from the tests and from the simulations, for PIPESTAB test no. 8, with a relatively heavy pipe. The predicted response is very similar to that measured, whereas for the original PIPESTAB soil model, the response was greatly overpredicted (Verley and Reed, 1989, Figs. 7 and 12). Figure 11 shows measured and predicted time series for PIPESTAB test no. 13, with a relatively light pipe. The response is slightly underpredicted; however, the buildup of penetration and, in particular, the breaking down of penetration at about 550 s from the start are predicted qualitatively well. Figure 12 shows measured and predicted time series for PIPESTAB test no. 19, a case with a large current component. The response is predicted very well. Using the PIPESTAB soil model, the response was grossly overpredicted (Verley and Reed, 1989, Figs. 9 and 15). The DHI data, consisting of a very large number of cycles of monotonically increasing amplitude, is particularly useful to check the development of penetration before break-out. Figures 13 and 14 show the development of penetration with number of cycles in the tests and in the simulations for DHI test nos. 4 and 8. The penetration development in the tests occurs mainly in distinct jumps, corresponding to successive collapse of the soil, whereas in the simulations, the penetration development is smoother. Nevertheless, the prediction of the penetration development must be considered rather good.

Conclusions The soil resistance model developed is based on a large amount of data at full scale and covering sandy soils from very loose to very dense. The model has been incorporated in a pipeline dynamic simulation program and tested against laboratory data for a pipeline section subjected to realistic (irregular wave and current) loading, as well as data from pipe sections subjected to a large number of sinusoidal forces of monotonic increasing amplitude. The model has been found to give a good reproduction of the data on which it is based and also to reproduce the results from the realistic loading and sinusoidal forcing tests. References
Brennodden, H., Sveggen, O., Wagner, D. A., and Murff, J. D., 1986, "FullScale Pipe-Soil Interaction Tests," Proceedings, 18th Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 5338. Brennodden, H., 1988, "Pipe-Soil Interaction Tests on Sand and Soft Clay," SINTEF Report STF69 F887018, prepared for the American Gas Association. Brennodden, H., Lieng, J. T., Sotberg, T., and Verley, R. L. P., 1989, "An Energy Based Pipe/Soil Interaction Model," Proceedings, 21st Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 6057. Lieng, J. T., Sotberg, T., and Brennodden, H., "Energy Based Pipe Soil Interaction Models," SINTEF Report STF69 F887024 prepared for the American Gas Association. Palmer, A. C , Steenfelt, J. S., Steensen-Bach, J. O., and Jacobsen, V., Proceedings, 20th Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 5853. Verley, R. L. P., and Reed, K., 1989, "Response of Pipelines on Various Soils for Realistic Hydrodynamic Loading," Proceedings, 8th Offshore Mechanics and Polar Engineering Conference, Vol. V, pp. 149-156. Verley, R. L. P., Sotberg, T., and Brennodden, H., 1990, "Break-Out Soil Resistance for a Pipeline Partially Buried in Sand," Proceedings, 9th Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, Vol. V, pp. 121-126. Wagner, D. A., Murff, J. D., Brennodden, H., and Sveggen, O., 1987, "PipeSoil Interaction Model," Proceedings, 19th Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 5504.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

AUGUST 1994, Vol. 116/153

Downloaded 15 Jan 2013 to 223.27.129.246. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm