wR Research Press ARTICLE Coupled consolidation analysis of pipe-soil interactions ‘Santiram Chatterjee, Davi J White, and Mark F: Randolph, Abstract: Current design practice for pipe-seabed interaction in soft soll s generally based on the assumption of undalined ‘behaviour throughout laying and subsequent operation. n reality, drainage and consolidation sroxinda partially embedded pipe ‘ean havea marke effect onthe vertial penetration and horizontal breakout resistance. In this paper, largedeformation finite clement methodology coupled with the “modified Cam clay” plasticity soil model has been developed to study the coupled ‘consolidation behaviour of soil around partially embedded seabed pipelines. Simulations of penetration show that after laying. subsequent consolidation leas to further embedment by an amount dependent on the level of drainage that occurred during, laying. Aso, ithe pipe is embedded under undrained conditions, the waiting period between laying and operation allows the soil around the pipe to consolidate under the pipe sel weight. The consolidation process results in an inerease in the strengta ‘of the soll, The lateral breakout resistance and the direction of pipe movement on breakout thus depend on the consolidated strength ofthe soi around te pip, as well as the applied loading, Tle envelopes of vertical-lateral combined loading beating ‘capacity differ markedly from those predicted assuming undrained behaviour throughout. ‘ey wos pipeline offshore engineering, clay, consolidation, penetration, finite element method, [Résumé : La pratique courante de conception de interaction tuyau-fond marin est généralement basée sur 'hypothése d'un ‘comportement non drainé durant le placement et durant Yopération subséquente. En réalité, Ye drainage et la consolidation lantour d'un tiyan pariclement enfoti peut avoir un effet marque sur la penstration vericle et la résistance horizontal 8 la ‘tparation. Dans cet article, une methodoalogie par éléments fnis grande deformation couple avec le moadele de plasticité dt sol « Cam clay modifié» a été développée pour étudier le comportement coupé en consolidation du sol autour de tuyaux ppariellement enfouis dans le fond matin, Des simulations de pénétration montrent que suite la postion, la consolidation Subséquente entraine un enfouisseiment supplémientaire dépendamment du niveau de drainage ¥étant produit durant la ‘position. De plus, ile tuyau est enfoui en conditions non drsinées, Ia période Wattente entre la déposition et Voperation ‘permet au sol autour du yas de consolider sous le poids du tuyau. Le processus de consolidation résulte en une augmentation de Ta résistance du sl. Ta résistance 3 la séparation ltérate et fa direction du mouvement du uyau Tors de la séparation dépendent ins de la éstscancea la consolidation du sol autour du tuya, de méme que sur la charge appliquée. Les enveloppes de capacité pportante en solicitations verticalestatrales combinées different de fagon marquée de celles prédites en supposant un com- ortement non drainé. [Traduit par la Réaction] ‘Mots tuyau, ingénierie en mer, agile, cousolidation, pénétration, méthode par éléments fils. Introduction ‘When offshore oil and gas reserves are exploited in deep-water, long pipelines are required within each field and are often used to transport the hydrocarbons to shore. In shallow water, where ‘hydrodynamic loading is severe, pipelines are sometimes buried ina trench or secured with alternative stabilization measures, In deeper water, the option of burying the pipe is uneconomical. Deep-water offshore pipelines are laid directly onto the seabed. High operating temperature and pressure result in high axial strains in the pipe, mobilizing axial resistance between the pipe and the sil Resulting compressive axial forces in the pipe may be relieved by lateral buckling of the pipe at designed locations, ‘where the pipe can move several times its diameter laterally (Bruton etal, 2008). “To design a reliable pipeline that includes such lateral buckling, itis necessary to predict the lateral and axial pipe-soil resistance forces, which both depend on the pipe embedment and the ‘strength of the surrounding sol. In deep water, the seabed typi cally comprises soft finegrained sediments, which can consol: ‘date and change in strength over the time periods relevant to the ‘operating life ofa pipeline, In this paper, the effects of consolida- tion on two key aspects of deep-water pipeline design are studied: firstly, the effect of consolidation on pipeline embedment; and secondly, the effect of consolidation on the lateral breakout be haviour. Undiained embedment and Jatesal breakout of pipelines have been studied theoretically (Randolph and White 2008), numerically (Aubeny et al. 2005; Merifield et al. 2008, 2009; Wang et al. 2010; Chatterjee et al. 20121, 2012) and experimentally (Cheuk et a. 2007; Dingle et al. 2008; Cardoso and Silveira 2010), Theoretical solutions ‘based on timit plasticity have been validated through experimental and numerical studies. Aspects ofthis work are now used routinely Jn design to assess the initial embedment of pipelines on clay (White aan Cheuk 2005, 2009; AtkinsBoreas 2008) This approach assumes ‘that undrained conditions apply throughout the laying process and subsequent operations, and consolidation setlements are generally neglected. Abo i is usually assumed that dhe soll strength during pipe breakout is unaffected by consolidation under the pipe weight ‘during the period between laying and breakout The effect ofthese assumptions is investigated in this study. Previous efforts in the literature to model coupled consolida- tion behaviour under partially embeded pipes have mainly been ‘caamero Dy Wate, LE Randolph. Cen or Oto Foundtion Stn MUEI The ney of Wester st 15 Sn gy Cavey, eI WH GO {Cam Geoteh, J. 50: 68-619 (0 dion 10.129}:2012.0007 “& Pubished at wun reresearchpresscomel on 6 May 20,Schematic of the problem studied, Uniform sure Permeable pipe-soil intr 10D Roller /Impermeable Hinge / Impermeable an Geoteh J Vol 50,208, face (smooth / rough) Soil impermeable Roller 16D limited to smaltstrain elastic solutions (Gourvenee and White 2010; Krost et al. 2011). The prediction of poreswater pressure For comparison, « number of analyses were run for alow sur ‘charge of 1kPa atthe top surface for the smooth pipe. For the ease ‘of kPa surcharge, the value ofc, varies considerably with depth. Hence, while calculating nondimensional velocity vDy. Was chosen at depth of 1D. Figure 7 shows the backbone curves for different embedments for 1 kPa surcharge. The ViVenarinea 8108 fare generally higher at the drained end for this ease However, for ‘embedment levels of w/D = 0.2 or more, the backbone curves are closer to each other compared (othe 200 kPa case. This indicates Uthat for 1kPa surcharge, the Vga Taio increases less as the pipe penetrates deeper. Consolidation settlement Ac different levels of vertical embedment, Le, at wD =0.1,0.2, 03, (04, and 05, the consolidation settlement behaviour was also stu ied, The excess pore water pressure generated during the undrained pipe penetration was allowed to dissipate under the fll penetration resistance load experienced atthe respective embedment level. The settlement (A) variations for different embediment levels are shown inTig. 8, asa function of nondimensiona time factor T(= JD), for initial penetrations at speeds of vDje, = 0.1 drained) and 100 (un drained), For the (nominally) drained penetration case, the pore- ‘water pressure is partially dissipated during penetration and hence the subsequent consolidation settlement should be less than for the ‘undkained case. However, this is more than compensated for by the greater resistance experienced during drained penetration, and thus higher loads applied during the consolidation phase. Ifthe same load ‘were to be applied during consolidation, the consolidation settle- ‘ment would indeed be much less following drained penetration ‘compared to the undrained ease. This phenomenon isilstrated in ig. 9 for the smooth pipe. where for the drained case the loads were reduced (following penetration, prior to consolidation) to the same as for the corresponding uncrained case Itmay be seen that the overall time-scale of consolidation is the same, regardless of the degree of consolidation during intial pen: cetration. The time-scale for consolidation settlement is essentially dictated by the far-field pore pressures, and is nearly two orders of ‘magnitude greater than for pore pressure dissipation adjacent (o the pipe (Chatterjee et al. 20129. Pore water pressure dissipation time history The axial and lateral resistance ofthe pipeline are affected signif jcantly by the degree of consolidation following installation. This _may be characterized by the average excess pore pressure around the ‘embedded pipe perimeter (Au,,), normalized by the intial average valve (AU: ie) a8 plotted for different initial embedment levels ‘Aguinst the nondimensional time Tin Fig, 10. The consolidtion r= sponse can be fitted by a simple hyperbolic equation of the form Atty Sic 1 o 1+ (IT " ‘where Ty is the nondimensional time required for 50% dissipa tion of the average excess pore pressure. The values of Ty and index “m" for different embedment levels are tabulated in Table 2. “The Tyo values from the present study are less than those pub- lished previously for elastic sol (Gourvenee and White 2010), in dicaing faster dissipation (Table 3, Lateral breakout resistance my ‘Afler the pipe is partially embedded into the seabed, it can be displaced laterally in response to internal temperature and pres: sure, ras a result of external hydrodynamic loading. The break- ‘out resistance, ie. the peak lateral resistance experienced by the pipe as it displaces laterally, depends strongly on the strength of tthe surrounding soil. The direction ofthe pipe movement at this stage also depends on the weight of the pipe relative to the strength ofthe seabed (although noting that this will not be sim- ulated well in the present study, because of the artificially high shear strength resulting from the surcharge of 200 kPa). ‘The available sofntions for breakout resistance in the literature are mainly confined to undrained breakout, with the strength of the surrounding soil being unaffected by consolidation. In realty, there is always a significant duration between pipe laying and ‘operation. During this time, consolidation ofthe sot! below and Around the pipe ean occur under the weight of the pipe and con- tents. Dissipation of postive excess pore-water pressure leads to aan increase in the shear strength of the soil near the pipe. So, before breakout oceurs, the strength distribution around the pipe is altered, and the breakout resistance is potentially raised, 1 Publsed by NRC Rewarch Pestou an Geoteh J Vol 50,208, Fig. 6. Backbone curves for different inital embedmient Feels (a) smooth interface () rough interface (@ 18 (© LDF est wiD=0.1 “+ LDFE es, wD-02, ‘XLDFE res, wD-03 LDPE res wD-04 ‘© LDFE res, wiD-05 Zia E Fis 2 ul 1 oot or 1 0 100 1000, wDiew ) $$ (© LDFE rest wD-0.1 LDPE rest, wD-02 XLDFE res, wD03 LDPE res, wD-04 i @LDFE ret, wD-0.5 3 2 5 Fig. 7. Backbone curves for different initial embedinent levels (smooth pip. 1 Lo Le lr 16 1s la ViMeoaies 13 oon on ' to 100 1000 1 Publsed by NRC Rewarch Pestcoatteree et a Fig. 8, Pipe settlements with time for different intial embedments and pipe velocities: a) smooth interface: (rough interface, @ Ted" 0.0001 aot aol 1 0 1001000 ° 005 o Cuero 8 wD=01,02.03,048 05 ous 02 yev= 0 025 s00v= 100) 03 ® T=ciD" ooo oot att 1 10 101000 0 Canoe tue wD=05,04, 03,026 04 o1 canes honk ae wD=01,03,03,048 05 2 4 oa 025 —wiev=o1 a wie = 100 035 Fig. 9. Consolidation settlements following penetration at different speeds under the same consolidation lead (smooth pipe T= cub 0.0001 ool oor 1 101000 0s ures o wb =o1 1203 048 05 as on awD mes ner ous —ywiev= 0.1 —=swiev = 100 02 028 “4 otis by NRC Research PratFig. 10, Dissipation of excess porewater pressure with nondlimenstor 12 ‘Attv/ Aint o 1.00001 0.0001 0.001, ‘Table 2. Values of Tay and constant“ of hyperbol inital embedment ratio, wiD Tym on 005 0s 02 0032 Os 0a 0052 093 oa 007s 100 os. 0.050 105 ‘Table 3. Comparison of values of Tyo from the present stu and elastic solution (Gourvence and White 2010, Te Initial embediment Present Gourvence and rato, wD study White @010) on 0s 0018 02 oom vos 03. 0052 0068 oa 0075 0096 95, 0.090 0.2 ‘The breakout resistance depends on the load path in V=H space, so the best basis fordescribingthe potential breakout resistance is to determine the yield envelope in V=H space. In this study, yield tenvelopes in V-ii load space have been evaluated by numerical analyses, for a smooth pipe-soil interface only, for two condi tions: | immediately after undrained penetration (referred to as tuncousolidated, undrained) and (i) after full consolidation following undrained penetration (referred to as consolidated, ‘undrained) In both cases, the pipeline movement during penetra tion and breakout was at rate corresponding to a normalized velocity of 10. giving nominally undrained conditions. The fail ‘ure lands in H space were obtained by displacing the pipe by 10% ofits diameter indifferent directions Unconsolidated undrained yield envelopes Firstly, the unconsolidated undrained case is considered. The iting values of vertical and horizontal resistances have been normalized by the initial undrained shear strength at that depth. ‘The resulting yield envelopes in V-Hi space for wD = 0:1, 0:2, 0.3, (04, and 0.5 are shown in Fig. IL These results exceed the equiva’ 001 an Geoteh J Vol 50,208, nal time T. oa Teed" Jent results presented by Randolph and White 2008) by typically 18% because the later analyses considered only a flat seabed (with the pipe wished into place) and ignored the selF weight ofthe soil. Buoyancy effets due to soll self weight are minimal in the present study, because ofthe high shear strength. However, the berm of soll displaced during penetration in the present study results in sgreater sol resistance. Merifield eta. (2009) reported results of FE Analyses using a Tresea model and also considered the effects of soll berms on the vertical penetration and horizontal breakout resistances. Results from that study for pure vertical and pure horizontal pipe movernents are also shown in Fig. 11 Their results are close to the present study. with a maximum error below 9% (except for wD = 0.1, The close agreement confirms the correct ‘operation ofthe MCC soil mode! for fully undrained conditions. Consolidated undrained yield envelopes Figure 12 shows the consolidated undrained yield envelopes for different initial embedment levels after fall pore pressure diss pation. To make a comparison between the unconsolidated and Consolidated cases, results for two initial embedment levels of w)D=0.1and0.3are plotted in Fig 13. The grovith in the size of the yield envelope was 66% for pure vertical movement for both ‘w)D =0.1 and 03. For pure horizontal movement, the horizontal resistance is 138% greater for the consolidated case for w)D = 0.1 ‘whereas the increase is 89% for wD = 0 Contours of the strength increase compared to the original, undrained shear strength at the embedment level of wiD = 0.5 (nD ~ 0275 following consolidation) are shown in Fig. 14. The consolidated strength reaches 2:1 times the original strength just beneath the pipe. The increase in strength is greatest beneath ‘te pipe — within the soil that controls the response to vertical Joading —and a lower increase in strength is evident to the side of the pipe — within the soil that controls the response to horizontal leading, Fitted functions for yield envelopes ‘The FE results shown in Figs. 1! and 12, which form the un drained yield envelopes, can be fitted by an equation with the form ofa distorted ellipse yt v, Davo H Vv (3) ra bat where “4 otis by NRC Research Pratcoatteree et a Fig. I, Yield envelopes for different inital embedments for unconsolidated undrained case (smooth pipe). 3 Cures in order wiD= 0.1, 0.2, 053, 0.4 and 0.5, Preset tly (© Metield t l (2009) riz est 2X Meri tl (2009) vera esitance —— Randohand Whie 2008) | WD Fig. 12, Yield envelopes fr different initial embedments for consolidated undrained case (smooth pipe) (Bx + ye BB: 4) p Here, the parameters, and fi, skew the ellipse and fis a factor determining the aspect ratio of the ellipse; Vig, is the undrained ‘Curves in order wiD= 0.1, 02,03, 0.4 and 0.5 > Conoblaed wniiined "= Unconslidted inined — Parabot fe resistance under pure vertical loading. The values of the parameters J, By and, for different intial embedment levels and unconsoli ‘dated and consolidated cases are tabulated in Table 4. The values of normalized ¥,,., versus normalized embedment for unconsolidated and consolidated cases are plotted in Fig, 15 These responses can be fitted by a simple power law equation of the form. “4 otis by NRC Research PratFig. 14. Contours of ratios of consolidated shear strength to the ‘original shear strength (smooth pipe, 200 kPa surcharge ‘Table 4. Values of and (for unconsolidated and consolidated conditions. 2D Tinconsolidated Consolidated unarained ‘undrained Initial embedment ratio, iD Som B&F By on Ol 08S 0.68 026 o7 02 015 070 065 032075 07 03 022 065 O51 039 046 052 oa 031 053058 O47 Oat O53 os. 037045059 055035053 Vina DSv0 o 12 3 4 5 67 8 o ot 02 2 tomo andes 9.3. *Cooliactunties Milt 000) []Unconstiated undies 0.4 pasochage “AConsodsedundnine, Pa suchas Coefficients “a” and “b" for unconsolidated and consolidated ‘eases are listed in Table 5. Inthe same figure (Fig, 15) results from an Geoteh J Vol 50,208, ‘Table 5. Power law ft coefficient "2" and "y" for unconsolidated and consolidated conditions Conditions @ ° consolidated wt 37 CO Consolidated undeained 9302s [Merifield et al, (2009) are also plotted for comparison with the unconsolidated undrained case and show good agreement. Results for 1 kPa surcharge are also shown for the unconsoli- dated and consolidated cases in Fig. 15, There are considerable buoyancy effects in the overall resistance for the 1 kPa surcharge ‘ase, unlike the 200 ka case. The maximum penetration resis tances forthe 1 kPa surcharge case that are plotted in Fig. 15 are the geotechnical capacity after correction for buoyancy. Concluding remarks ‘The consolidation of sol around deep water pipelines isan im- portant phenomenon to consider for correct prediction of pipe— soil interactions. A large deformation finite element (LDFE) ‘methodology combined with the modified Cam clay (MCC) plas ticity soil model was developed for this study to explore the cou pled consolidation behaviour beneath partially embedded seabed Pipelines ‘The penetration resistance during embedment of the astaid pipes depends markedly on the rate of penetration, with the r= sistance increasing with the degree of consolidation during pen tration. Results have been presented for both smooth and rough pipe-soll interfaces for normalized embedment, wD, from 0.1 9 (05. Up to 72% increase in resistance was observed from fully un rained to fully drained conditions. Backbone curves, ie, penetration resistance versus nondimen sional velocities for smooth and rough pipes, have also been pre- sented. Hrom these curves, fully drained conditions pertain for vDke, =0.1 or lower, while undrained conditions pertain for yD, = 100 oF higher. The backbone curves are presented in terms of simple hyperbolic equations fitted to the LDFE results, ‘Thestrength of the sol beneath and around the pipe, and hence the breakout resistance, depends on the extent to which consol dation occurs following penetration. The resulting changes inthe size and shape ofthe undrained yield envelopes were shown to be significant for initially normally consolidation conditions. 1 was ound that the vertical bearing eapacities were increased by 66% for embedments of w{D = 0.1 and 05, if consolidation under the {ll vertical bearing capacity was permitted following penetra tion. The resistances during pure horizontal movement were in- creased by 138% and 83% for wD = 0.1 and 035, respectively. “These effects of consolidation — which strongly influence the stability ofan on-bottom pipeline — are important to consider in design to provide realistic prediction of pipe-scil interaction forces. In this study, the consolidation analyses were performed under the full bearing capacity, although in practice the applied load may be Tess during this phase, leading to a smaller strength Jnerease. The resulting increases in V-H capacity presented here should therefore be taken as upper bounds tothe potential range of behaviour Acknowledgements ‘This work forms part ofthe activities ofthe Centte for Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS) at The University of Western Austra- lia, currently supported as a node of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engi neering, and by The Lloyd's Register Foundation. The second and thin authors acknowledge respective support through the ARC Future Fellowship and Discovery programs as well a, for the see ‘ond author, rom Shell Australia. “4 otis by NRC Research PratCoatteree et a References ‘AtkinsBoras 2008 SAPEBUICK. JP - Safe design of ppsines with tral buck: ling Design Guelineatkinsoreas. Report No. BROROSOSAPEBLCKIC ‘Aun, CP Sh and MUA, 1.2005 Calle loads for inde embed ‘ed in ene in Zee sai ner Journal of Getcha, 5a. $325 doco ve\asceisi2SoaK2m0315 420 Bruton, DAS, White, DJ, Cart Mand Cheuk, CY 2008 ipso interaction uring teal bung and pipsine walking the Sefebuck IP. Proceed. {ngs ofthe Otshore Tecknsogy Confrence. Houston. Tex, 5-8 May 2008 tithe Tecnology Conference Ridtardson, Tex OTC 18588. ‘cadoso, Co. and sera RMS. 209. Ppe-solinteracion behavior pipe nes unde Erg displacements on ay soi a model or tral esta friction actor Doesnt Osho Tetinoloy Conferen.H ton, ofc 30767, ‘ener Handolph ML, White 2018. The ets of penetration ate and strain softening on the vera penetration restance of seabed elites Geotecnlque, 6X71: 73542. cin I6sOeoLIOPO7S. ‘chatterce 5. White, Dj apd Kandolph M2012. Numeral simulations of Pipes nereton daring age tera movements olay. Geatehe a) 692703, dato aesogeo0a07 ‘Gutter 5. Yan. ¥. Randolph, MLE and Whit, DJ. 200. Eatoplastic som ‘olidstion beneath sallowy eubedded estore pipelines. Ceowehnkgue lerrers, 27279, di Tester 120003 (Ghee CX, White Dy, snd Boon MD. 207 Largesale modeling of sil ie interaction darn lane staple moverents of pail Pipelines. Canadian Geotechnical Jumma. (8977-996. Gi 119/07 Be Dass Sytémes, 201 Ataqus analysis user’ manual Simul Comp Pov ‘dence Dingle, HALC. Whit, DJ. and Gaudin, C 2008, Mechanisms of pipe ene ich andar breakodt on sot cl. Caton Geotectnl ourl, 353) bc. deta HTOSOM, Guy Sand ike ISB An abiray Lagrangian Eulerian inte element thd for lage deformation anal of elsienscoplastc solids. Com pster Methods in Api Mechanies and ngncering BAF HEMI. oi. fomsoosszazsnipulz9e. ‘Gourvene Sand Whit, DJ. 2010. Hesticsluions for consolidation around ‘seed pipelines In Procesings ofthe Otshre Technowoy Conference Houston Tex OTC 20554, Hu, and Rendoiph NE 19%, A practi! numerical approach for ree ‘aionnation probleme noi International jr or Numerical nd Ana Iya Methods In Geomechanks, 245) 327-350, dol: 11002/511096- Sesslussisiars0CO2 1a. and Randoiph NE 19985 adaptive FE analy of elatepstic nom “nomoyenecn rll with lange deformation. Comptes a Cotes, 2a Gr, do 101680 3662NI9MOONI. ‘est. Gourvenee SM, an Whit, Dj. 201. Consoliston around parily “rabedded seabed piplnes. estehigue, 61 16173. dav 01s ect Mii. R, White DJ. and Randolph, MF 2008 The ultimate undrained Tesinanee of partly mbes pipes, Ceotecknigue, S86) 461-70 Sor 6s0je61 20055840 Medfield RS. White DI ad Randolph, ME 2009 Ee of surface heave response of partly enbedded ppeines on cay. Jounal of Geotechnical ‘and Ceoenronmentl nglncarng, 19) 810-82) doLIOA0SI{ASCEIC. Randolph, MF, and White, Dj. 2008, Upper bound yield envelopes for pipelines ‘at shaliow embedment in cay Geotecnique, 584) 297-301, 4101680) seat 2008 584297 Roscoe Ki, and Burland, JR. 1968, On the generalised stresestran behaviour "of et clay In Enginetng pasty Cambridge Univeriy Pres, Soild, Aa roth, CI 1968 Cec sate Soll mechanics: McGraw New York Semikumak. M, Koda, J. and Rajey, #2001 Numwestcl modeling of ‘etl ond depacement behaviour of otfahote pipeline using coupled “alas, Pan Am OCS Geoteehnleal Conerenee, Toronto. On Stewart, Di 1992 Lateral leading of pled bridge abutments due to emanke ‘en construction. PD, teats The Universi of Western Aural, ‘Wong: D. Watt Dj. and Randolph M2010. Lrgeefermation fie ele eat anal of pipe penetration ad argeampltue teal displacement ‘Canada Geotechnical Journal 478 2-996, dL 0.15/91. ‘ite yj. and Chev CY. 20. SAF-HUCK JP Later pipes interaction: Dae Roan Comes SATERUCK] 1 SCUTO ‘nite DJ.and Cheuk. 208, SAFEBUCK I Pip soi interaction modes for (GATERUCCJI, UWA rept GEO 094s ‘roth, CP 1984. The incerpetation on stu sol tess. Gkoeehngue, 344: "#49489, dav. te0 eet 19844409, ‘ienkcwice, 1, an Zh, | 192. The sperconsergent patch recovery anda Doster ror estimats, Pare The recovery technique. Intent four ‘lof Num! Methos i Engineering, 37 13-194. do 002m seats “4 otis by NRC Research Prat