Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
www.isope.org
Calibration of Verley and Sotberg Soil Resistance Model for Pipelines Placed on Calcareous Soils
Bassem S. Youssef
Mark J. Cassidy
ABSTRACT
of silica sand and clay soils, respectively. The mathematical equations
of these two models are based on simple dimensional analysis. The
equations are fitted to large scale laboratory pipe mode tests. Accuracy
of the models is demonstrated by predicting the time history of
penetration and displacements as recorded during the physical testing
(Verley and Sotberg 1992 and Verley and Lund 1995).
More advanced pipe-soil interaction models based on the
sophisticated plasticity model are presented by Zhang (2001) and
introduced into a computer program by Tian and Cassidy (2008). The
centrifuge testing results presented in this paper were mainly conducted
to assess the applicability of Zhangs (2001) plasticity model in
predicting the pipe-soil interaction under complex loading scenarios
(see Youssef (2012) and Youssef et al. (2013-a) for more details).
However, the main focus of this paper is to calibrate Verley and
Sotberg (1992) silica sand soil resistance model for the case of
calcareous sand soil using the centrifuge test results of Youssef (2012).
The soil resistance model of Verley and Sotberg (1992) is briefly
discussed in this paper. Major engineering properties of calcareous soils
which differentiate them from typical silica sand are highlighted. The
centrifuge testing program of Youssef (2012) is discussed in
association with the numerical simulation program CORUS-3D. The
main procedures used in calibrating Verley and Sotbergs soil
resistance model and the retrospective simulation results are presented.
Ff
(W s FL ) * P
(2)
141
-y3
-y2
Passive resistance, Fr
Fr2
Fr3
Fr1
-y1
y1
y2
y3
Lateral displacement, y
-Fr1
-Fr3
-Fr2
Fig. 1. Diagrammatic sketch of Verley and Sotberg silica sand soil resistance model
The passive resistance force is described with regard to the pipe
horizontal displacement (y) experienced during loading as shown in
Fig. 1. The model is symmetric about the origin; i.e. the vertical
penetration and force resistance achieved from one side applies to the
other side after the displacement reverses direction. The force
displacement diagram is composed of four different regions, which are:
1) An elastic region where the pipe lateral displacement is less than
0.02 the pipe diameter (D) (yy1). In this region, no work is done
and the penetration is equal to the initial penetration.
2) A region, up to 0.5D (y1<yy2), where the pipe accumulates
vertical penetration under the lateral cyclic displacement.
3) Breakout region, from 0.5D to D (y2<yy3), where the accumulated
work is set to zero and the pipe penetration is linearly decreased to
half this value at y= y3.
4) A region where the displacement exceeds 1.0D (y>y3), pipe
penetration and passive resistance remain constant.
The peak passive resistance force, Fr 2 , is given by:
z 2 1.25
) , K s d 20
D
(3)
z 2 1.25
) , K s ! 20
D
(4)
Fr 2
Fr 2
2J S' D 2 (
z 2 zi
0.5
E
y
0.23 ' 3 K s 1
J D
0.31
(6)
where E is the work done and zi is the initial pipe penetration which is
given by:
zi
D
J ' D2
0.037 S
Ws
0.67
(7)
z 2 zi
D
max
y
D
0.5
K s 0.5
(8)
z
2
0.50,(
z2
) ! 0.1
D
(10)
142
143
irregular loads (FV and FH) and the loads in the V-H space are shown in
Fig. 8.
Actuator movement in 2 directions
Strain gauges
Loading
arm
Load cell
Soil sample
20
40
Water
80
Pipe model
RP (year)=
1
8
4
tan-1(H/V)=45o
20o
20o
-4
Considering that,
H = FH ,
V = Ws-FV and
Ws = 10.0 kN/m
120
-8
Drainage material
-12
-5
390
all dimensions are in (mm)
Fig. 3. General arrangment of centrifuge testing box.
Horizontal load, H
0.0
12
10
15
Vertical load, V (kN/m)
Loading point
, 13
3, 5, 7,..
Vertical load, V
6
10
14
Max H. Disp.
Number of load
(m)
cycles used (cycle)
3.0
13.27
2.0
13.75
5.0
16.25
2.5
14.29
2.5
29.25
3.0
46.22
3.0
31.25
Inclined 1
Inclined 2
Inclined 3
Inclined 4
Inclined 5
Regular
Irregular
Vi
(kN/m)
10.52
9.60
10.34
11.12
11.71
11.20
11.46
Test name
10
1000
100
45o
120
325
12
0.50
First cycle
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
0
b-
10
20
30
40
Time (s)
30
40
Time (s)
0.6
First cycle
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
144
a-
0.3
a-
First cycle
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
20
30
40
50
60
Time (s)
1
0
-1
First cycle
0.25
b-
10
0.30
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
10
20
30
40
50
Time (s)
40
50
Time (s)
3.0
First cycle
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (s)
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
0.00
35
10
40
45
Vertical load, V (kN/m)
35
10
40
45
30
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
ON-BOTTOM
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
0.0
d0.0
0.00
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.5
3.0
Horizontal disp., u (m)
3.0
2.5
3.5
0.02
0.02
Vertical disp., w (m)
20
4.0
c-
10
b4.0
a-
CORUS-3D,
PROGRAM
First cycle
-2
0
b-
0.04
0.06
0.065
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.070
0.08
0.075
0.080
0.10
0.085
0.090
0.12
Fig. 9. Centrifuge test results of Inclined load test number 1
STABILITY
MODELLING
145
Passive resistance, Fr
Verley and Sotberg model being provided within the DLoad subroutine.
The general computational sequence that CORUS-3D uses to
perform the pipeline on-bottom stability simulation can be summarized
as follows:
1) At the start of an analysis ABAQUS reads the job input file and the
CORUS-3D subroutines load the drag and lift time histories as well
as the flow velocity from the AGA generated data files.
2) ABAQUS initiates the model stiffness matrix.
3) At the beginning of the simulation, the hydrodynamic loads are
estimated in the DLoad subroutine for every load integration point
in each pipe element. The Loads are provided to ABAQUS to be
applied onto the pipeline elements.
4) ABAQUS attempts to solve the pipeline stiffness matrix with the
applied loads and boundary conditions. If a converged solution is
found the analysis proceeds to the next time increment, otherwise a
new iteration at a reduced time step is attempted.
5) At the start of each time increment, the pipeline displacement and
normal contact force between the pipeline element and the rigid
seabed surface from a previous increment are utilised to update the
soil passive resistance model and to estimate the hydrodynamic
correction data. The hydrodynamic loads, soil passive resistance
forces and hydrodynamic correction forces are then calculated for
every load integration point of every pipe element.
6) Steps 4 and 5 are repeated until the last increment is reached and
the analysis is completed.
CORUS-3D has been internally checked and validated by Atteris
using an extensive set of available pipeline physical modelling test
results and pipeline benchmark cases. This benchmarking exercise has
been used to demonstrate the ability of CORUS-3D to accurately
perform complex pipeline simulations. Moreover, CORUS-3D has been
successfully validated externally by DNV Australia through
comparison of the simulation results from CORUS-3D and DNVs
pipeline modelling software (PONDUS). The DNV validation program
included a test matrix of 35 cases featuring pipelines and umbilicals of
various specific gravity, outer diameter, water depth, soil Coulomb
friction and other design conditions. Reference should be made to
Youssef et al. (2013-b) and Royet et al. (2014) for more details about
the CORUS-3D internal validation and DNV validation, respectively.
Fr2
Fr3
Fr1
y1=0.01D
y2=0.25D
y3=0.75D
Lateral displacement, y
Fr 2
0.5
E
z2 zi
1 y
(13)
B 0.23 ' 3 K s
JSD
D
D
z2 zi
D max
y 0.5
0.5
B K s
D
(14)
J ' D2
zi
(15)
C 0.037 S
W
s
146
a4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-1.0
b-1.0
0.00
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
Horizontal disp., u (m)
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.06
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.08
0.10
0.12
Fig. 11. Centrifuge and numerical simulation results of Inclined test-1
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
5.0
4.0
Horizontal disp., u (m)
6.0
7.0
5.0
4.0
0.06
0.09
0.12
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.15
a4.0
Horizontal load, H (kN/m)
0.0
0.18
Fig. 13. Centrifuge and numerical simulation results of Inclined test-3
a4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.0
-1.0
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
3.5
Horizontal disp., u (m)
2.5
3.5
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-1.0
b-1.0
-0.08
0.02
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
Horizontal disp., u (m)
3.0
5.0
4.0
-0.04
Vertical disp., w (m)
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.08
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-1.0
b-1.0
0.00
0.02
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-0.5
b-0.5
0.00
3.0
2.0
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.10
0.12
Fig. 12. Centrifuge and numerical simulation results of Inclined test-2
0.00
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.04
0.08
0.12
Fig. 14. Centrifuge and numerical simulation results of Inclined test-4
147
a10.0
a8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
Centrifuge
Numerical
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-1.0
b-1.0
-0.03
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
Horizontal disp., u (m)
3.0
5.0
4.0
0.03
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
4.5
3.5
Horizontal disp., u (m)
2.5
4.5
3.5
Case name
Inclined 1
Inclined 2
Inclined 3
Inclined 4
Inclined 5
Regular
Irregular
A
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.45
0.25
0.25
0.25
Model Parameter
B
0.35
0.45
0.45
0.35
0.35
0.28
0.24
C
0.79
1.05
1.18
0.96
0.84
0.97
1.12
0.48
0.60
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.85
0.85
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.05
0.10
0.15
6.0
4.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-0.5
b-0.5
-0.03
Centrifuge
Numerical
Coulomb friction
coefficient ( P )
a8.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
0.00
Centrifuge
Numerical
-0.05
2.5
4.5
3.5
Horizontal disp., u (m)
2.5
4.5
3.5
0.00
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-0.5
b-0.5
-0.10
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
8.0
6.0
Centrifuge
Numerical
0.12
0.15
148
Scaling Parameter
B
0.35
C
0.98
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors acknowledge Assistant Prof. Yinghui Tian, Centre
for Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS) at the University of Western
Australia (UWA), for making the pipe-model centrifuge test results
presented in this paper available. The Authors would also like to
acknowledge Eng. Olivier Royet (Principal Specialist, DNV Australia)
for the useful discussion and suggestions during the preparation of the
present work.
REFERENCES
Airey, DW and Fahey, M (1991). Cyclic response of calcareous soil
from the North-West Shelf of Australia, Gotechnique, Vol 41, No 1.
Airey, DW, Randolph, MF and Hyden, AM (1988). The strength and
stiffness of two calcareous sands, Engineering for Calcareous
Sediments, Vol 1, ed. A.a Jewell, Balkema, Perth, pp 43-50.
Brennodden, H , Lieng, JT, Sotberg, T and Verley, RLP (1989). An
energy-based pipe-soil interaction model, Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas.
Brennodden, H, Sveggen, DA and Murff, JD (1986). Full-scale pipe-soil
interaction tests, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas.
Byme, BW and Houlsby, GT (1998). Model Testing of Circular Flat
Footings on Uncemented Loose Carbonate Sand: Experinzental Data,
OUEL Report No: 2192/98, Department of Engineering Science, the
University of Oxford.
Cathie, DN, Jaeck, C, Ballard, JC and Wintgens, JF (2005). Pipeline
geotechnics state-of-the art, Frontiers in offshore geotechnics:
ISFOG, In: S Gourvenec, MJ Cassidy (Eds.). London: Taylor &
Francis Group.
DNV (2010). On-Bottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines,
Recommended practice, DNV RP-F109, Det Norske Veritas.
Fahey, M. (1993). Selection of parameters for foundation design in
calcareous soil, Chapter 3: Regional Soils. Kyushu Branch, Japanese
Society for SMFE, pp 71-134.
Garnier, J, Gaudin, C, Springman, SM, Culligan, PJ, Goodings, D and
149