1

FREE SPANNING PIPELINES

By
Yong Bai
OPR Inc
April 17, 2007
www.opr-inc.com
OPR Rep. Qualification, Experience & Expertise
Name: Yong Bai
Qualifications: Ph.D. in Offshore Engineering, Professional Engineer USA
Experience: President & Principal Consultant of OPR Sdn. Bhd. (06-)
Principal Consultant, Offshore Pipelines & Risers Inc. (05-)
Vice President of Engineering, MCS Inc. (2003-2005)
Staff Civil Engineer, Shell Int. E&P Inc. (2001-2003)
Manager of Offshore Technology, ABS, (1999-2001)
Manager of Pipeline Engineering, JP Kenny, Norway (96-99)
JIP Project Manager, DNV (1992-1996)
Expertise: Engineering & Project Management of Subsea Pipelines & Risers
Consultancy on Design & Installation of Subsea Pipelines & Risers
Performing TPCP Assessment and Providing Training in PCSB
Member of API 17P Committee on Subsea Manifolds and Jumpers
Member of API 2RD Committee on Risers
2
FREE SPANNING PIPELINES
This paper is divided into seven parts:
z 1 General
z 2 Design Criteria
z 3 Environmental Conditions
z 4 Response Models
z 5 Force Model
z 6 Structural Analysis
z 7 Pipe-soil interaction
1.1 The objective of this document is to provide rational
design criteria and guidance for assessment of pipeline
free spans subjected to combined wave and current
loading.
1.2 Detailed design criteria are specified for Ultimate
Limit State (ULS) and Fatigue Limit State (FLS) due to
inline and cross-flow Vortex Induced Vibrations (VIV) and
direct wave loading.
1.3 The safety philosophy adopted herein complies with
section 2 in DNV-OS-F101.
The reliability of the pipeline against fatigue failure
is ensured by use of a safety factor format (also known
as a Load and Resistance Factors Design Format (LRFD)).
1.4 An overview of typical free span characteristics is
given in the table below
General
3
General
Response dominated by cable behaviour L/D>200
Response dominated by combined beam
and cable behaviour
100<L/D<200
Response dominated by beam behaviour 30<L/D<100
Very little dynamic amplification. L/D<30
Response description L/D
General
1.5 Flow regimes
4
2.1 General
2.2 Temporal classification
2.3 Screening Fatigue Criteria
The in-line natural frequency f0,in must fulfill:
The cross-flow natural frequency f0,cr must fulfil:
Design Criteria
,100 0,
,
/
1-
250
c year in
in
in
f R onset
U f
L D
V D


| |
>
|

\ .
,100 ,1 0,
,
c year w year cr
cr
cr
f R onset
U U f
V D

+
>

Fatigue analysis due to direct wave action is not required

provided:
2.4 Fatigue Criterion
Design Criteria
,100
,1 ,100
2
3
c year
w year c year
U
U U
>
+
exp life osure
i
fat
i
T T
n
D
N

{
1
1 sw
2
2 sw
S>S
S S
m
m
a S
a S
N

=
5
Design Criteria
2.5 ULS Criterion
For extreme conditions which can be assumed to cause large
deformations on the shoulders detailed analyses of the soil
stiffness at the shoulders may be required.
Design Criteria
The maximum dynamic bending moment due to VIV and/or
direct wave action may be found from the dynamic stresses:
E dyn
s
dyn
S
2I
M =
D -t
Dynamic stress
I Moment of inertia
D Outer diameter of steel pipe
t Wall thickness
6
Design Criteria
2.6 Safety Factors
The safety factors to be used with the screening criteria
are listed below.
cf 1.3 cf 1.3
in 1.15 in 1.15
Table 2-1 Safety factors for screening criteria
The following safety factor format is used:
Design Criteria
( ) ( )
( )
exp
f on k s
, ,
, , and denote partial safety factors for
the natural frequency, onset of VIV,stability para-
meter and stress range respectively
m
osure
fat v s f k on
T
D f S P
C
=

7
3.1 The objective of the present section is to provide
guidance on:
the long term current velocity distribution and
short-term and long-term description of wave induced
flow velocity amplitude and period of oscillating flow
at the pipe level.
3.2 Current conditions
3.2.1The steady current flow at the free span level may be a
compound of:
tidal current;
wind induced current;
storm surge induced current, and
density driven current.
Environmental Conditions
3.2.2The flow can be divided into two zones: the Outer Zone
and the Inner Zone
In the inner zone the current velocity profile is
approximately logarithmic in areas where flow separation
does not occur:
Environmental Conditions
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
0
0
r
o
ln ln
ln ln
:
elevation above the seabed
z reference measurement height(in the outer zone)
z bottom roughness parameter to be taken from Table3-1
r
r
z z
U z U z
z z
Where
z

8
Environmental Conditions
Boulder 4 10-2 Boulder 4 10-2
Cobble 1 10-2 Cobble 1 10-2
Pebble 2 10-3 Pebble 2 10-3
Gravel 3 10-4 Gravel 3 10-4
coarse sand 1 10-4 coarse sand 1 10-4
Medium sand 4 10-5 Medium sand 4 10-5
fine sand 1 10-5 fine sand 1 10-5
Silt 5 10-6 Silt 5 10-6
Seabed roughness z0
(m)
Seabed roughness z0
(m)
Table 3-1 Seabed roughness
It is assumed that the current velocity U0(zr) in the outer
zone is known, see Figure 3-1. The velocity profile U(z*) at a
location near the measuring point (with zr*>zr) may be
approximated by:
For ULS, 1 min average values should be applied.
The 1 minute average values may be established from 10
or 30 min average values as follows:
Environmental Conditions
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
ln ln
ln ln
m
r
r m
z z
U z U z
z z

( )
( )
{
10 min
30 min
1 1.9
1min
1 2.3
c
c
I U
I U
U
+
+
=
9
Environmental Conditions
3.3 Short-term wave conditions
3.3.1The wave induced oscillatory flow condition at the free span
level may be calculated using numerical or analytical wave
theories.
3.3.2The JONSWAP or the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum is often
appropriate. The spectral density function is:
Environmental Conditions
( )
2
4
exp 0.5
2 5
5
exp
4
p
p
p
p
S w g w

| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
\ .

\ .
| |
| |
|
=
|
|
|
\ .
\ .
10
3.3.3The wave induced velocity spectrum at the pipe level Suu(w)
may be obtained through a spectral transformation of
the waves at sea level using a first order wave theory:
3.3.4The spectral moments of order n is defined as:
Environmental Conditions
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
2
cosh
sinh
UU
S G S
k D e
G
k h

=
+
=

( )
0
n
n UU
M S dw

Environmental Conditions
3.3.5The following spectrally derived parameters appear:
Significant flow velocity amplitude at pipe level:
Mean zero up-crossing period of oscillating flow at pipe level:
The bandwidth parameter :
0
2
S
U M =
0
2
2
u
M
T
M
=
2
2
0 4
1
M
M M
=

11
Environmental Conditions
may be taken from Figure 3-2 to Figure 3-4
assuming linear wave theory.
,
S u
U T and
Environmental Conditions
12
Environmental Conditions
Environmental Conditions
3.4 Reduction functions
3.4.1The mean current velocity over a pipe diameter is
applied by use of a reduction function Rc.
3.4.2The effect of wave directionality and wave spreading is
introduced in the form of a reduction factor on the significant
flow velocity:
( ) ( )
c r
U z R U z =
W S D
U U R =
13
Environmental Conditions
3.5 Long-term environmental modelling
3.5.1A 3-parameter Weibull distribution is often appropriate
for modelling of the long-term statistics for the current
velocity Uc or significant wave height, Hs. The Weibull
distribution is given by:
3.5.2The Weibull distribution parameters are linked to the
statistical moments (m: mean value; s: standard deviation; d:
skewness) as follows:
( ) 1 exp
X
x
F x

| |

| |
=
|
|
|
\ .
\ .
Environmental Conditions
2
3
3
1
1
2 1
1 1
3 1 2 1
1 3 1 1 2 1

| |
= + +
|
\ .
| | | |
= + +
| |
\ . \ .
| |
| | | | | | | |
| |
= + + + + + |
| | | | |
|
\ .
\ . \ . \ . \ .
\ .
z 3.6 Return Period Values
3.6.1Return period values are to be used for ULS
conditions.A Return Period Value (RPV) Xc is defined as:
14
Environmental Conditions
3.6.2For a Weibull distributed variable the return period value
is given by:
( )
1
1
c
F x
N
=
( ) ( )
1/
ln
c
x N

= +
Response Models
4 Response Models
z 4.1.1 The response models provided herein have been derived
based on available experimental laboratory test data and a
limited amount of full-scale tests for the following flow
conditions:
In-line VIV in steady current and current dominated
conditions;
Cross-flow VIV induced in-line motion;
Cross-flow VIV in steady current and combined wave and
current conditions
The response models are in agreement with the generally
accepted concept of VIV.
15
Response Models
4.1.2The amplitude response depends on a set of
hydrodynamic parameters constituting the link between the
environmental data and the Response Models:
Reduced velocity, Vr;
Keulegan-Carpenter number, Kc;
Current flow velocity ratio, ;
Turbulence intensity, Ic; see 3.2.11.
Flow angle, relative to the pipe, ;
Stability parameter, Ks;
Note that the Reynolds number, Re, is not explicit in the
evaluation of response amplitudes.

Response Models
4.2 Marginal Fatigue Life Capacity
For cross-flow VIV, the marginal fatigue capacity against VIV
in a single sea-state characterised by (Hs,Tp, ) is defined by:
For the in-line direction:
( )
,
, ,
0
RM crflow
Hs Tp
m
v cr Uc
a
T
f S dF

,
, ,
0
max ;
2
RM inline
Hs Tp m
cr in
v in Uc
cr
a
T
S A
f S dF
A

=
| |

|
\ .

16
Response Models
4.3 In-line Response Model
4.3.1The in-line VIV induced stress range Sin is calculated by
the Response Model:
4.3.2(Ay/D) is defined as the maximum in-line VIV response
amplitude (normalised with D) as a function of VR and KS, see
Figure 4-1 for illustration.
( )
,
2 /
in in Y in s
S A A D

=
Response Models
17
Response Models
4.3.3In the evaluation of (AY/D) the design values for the
reduced velocity and stability parameter shall be applied:
4.3.4The Response Model can be constructed from the co-
ordinates in Figure 4-2:
Rd R f
s
sd
k
V V
K
K

=
=
Response Models
18
Response Models
4.3.5The reductions accounts
for the effect of the turbulence intensity and angle of attack
(in radians) for the flow, see Figure 4-3.
( )
( )
2
,1
,2
1 2 0.03
2
0.03
1
0.17
I c
c
I
R I
I
R

| |
=
|
\ .

=
( ) | | ( ) | |
,1 ,2
, 0;1 0;1
I c I c
R I and R I


Response Models
19
Response Models
4.4 Cross-flow Response Model
4.4.1The cross-flow VIV induced stress range S due to a
combined current and wave flow is assessed using the
following Response Model:
The cross-flow VIV amplitude (AZ/D) in combined current and
wave flow conditions may be taken from Figure 4-4. The
figure provides characteristic maximum values. The
corresponding standard deviation may be obtained as
(AZ/D)/2.
( )
2 /
cr cr Z K S
S A A D R =
Response Models
20
Response Models
The amplitude response (AZ/D) as a function of a and KC can
be constructed from:
, , , ,
,
,1
,1
,2 ,
,
,1
3
5
9
1.3
16
1.3 >2/3 all KC
0.7
proxi onset mass onset onset trench onset cr
R onset
on
cr
R
cr cr Z
R R end
cr
R end
Y
V
V
A
V V
D
V
A
D

=
=
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .
=
| |
=
|
\ .
( )
KC<10
0.7 0.01 10 2/ 3,10 30
0.9 KC>30
KC KC

Response Models
21
Response Models
Where:
,
s
,
,
e
3 1.25 / 4 for 0.8
D
1 else
1/ 2 / 3 for / 1.5
1 else
1 / 2 for <0.5
1.25
proxi onset
s
mass onset
onset
e
D

| |
+ <

|
=
\ .

+ <

+
=
,
else
1 0.5 /
trench onset
D

= +
Force Model
5 Force Model
z 5.1 General
5.1.1 In principle, force models may be used for both vortex
induced and direct wave and current dominated loads if
appropriate formulations of force models exist and reliable
and consistent data are available for calibration.
5.1.2 A force model based on the well-known Morisons
equation for direct in-line loading is considered herein.
5.1.3 In this document, a complete FD approach for short-
term fatigue analyses is presented.
22
Force Model
5.2 FD solution for In-line direction
5.2.1 The recommended FD solution for the short
term fatigue damage due to combined current and
direct wave actions in a single sea-state is based
on:
Palmgren-Miner approach using SN-curves;
linearisation scheme for drag term in the Morison
equation based conservation of damage;
effect of co-linear mean current included in linearis
ation term;
narrow banded fatigue damage with semi-empirical
correction to account for wide-band characteristic.
Force Model
5.2.2The short term fatigue capacity against directwave
actions in a single sea-state characterised by (Hs, Tp, ) is
given in the following form:
( )
1
,
1
,
1
1
2 2
1 2
1 2
G 1 ; G 1 ;
2 2
S P
m
FM
H T
v RFC
sw sw
a S
T
f k m
S S m m
S S

(
| | | | | | | |
+ + + (
` `
| | | |
\ . \ . \ . \ .
(
) )

23
Force Model
5.3 Simplified Fatigue Assessment
In situations where quasi-static stress response can be
assumed, a simplified fatigue assessment may be tractable
rather than a complete TD or FD approach. In such cases, the
short term fatigue capacity against direct wave actions in a
single sea-state characterised by (Hs, Tp, ) may be
estimated as follows:
,
,
S P
FM m
H T u
T a S T

Force Model
5.4 Force Coefficients
5.4.1 The force P(x,t) per unit length of a pipe free span is
represented by the Morisons equation. Assuming that the
velocity of the structure is not negligible compared with the
water particle velocity Morisons equation reads:
( ) ( )
2
D I a
D D
2
I M

P x,t =g U-z U-z +g U-C D z

4
where, U Instantaneous flow velocity
z Pipe in-line displacement
g =0.5DC is the drag force term
g =D C /4 is the inertia fo
&
& & &&
rce term
24
Force Model
5.4.2The drag coefficient CD is to be taken as:
D ,0 , , , ,
C
D k CD proxi CD trenchCD ACD
C =
Structural Analysis
6 Structural Analysis
z 6.1 General
The following tasks are normally required for assessment of
free spans:
structural modelling
load modelling
a static analysis to obtain the static configuration of the
pipeline
an eigenvalue analysis which provides natural frequencies
and corresponding modal shapes for the inline and cross-
flowvibrations of the free spans
a response analysis using a response model or a force
model in order to obtain the stress ranges from environmental
actions.
25
Structural Analysis
6.2 Morphological classification
The objective of the morphological classification is
to define whether the free span is isolated or
interacting.
The morphological classification should in general
be determined based on detailed static and
dynamic analyses.
If detailed information is not available Figure 6-1
may be used to classify the spans into isolated or
interacting dependent on the soil types and span
and support lengths.
Structural Analysis
26
Structural Analysis
6.3 Structural modelling
The structural behaviour of the pipeline shall be evaluated by
modelling the pipeline, seabed and relevant artificial supports
and performing static and dynamic analyses. This section
presents requirements for the structural modelling.
A realistic characterisation of the cross-sectional behaviour of
a pipeline can be based on some assumptions.
The effect of coating is generally limited to increasing
submerged weight, drag forces, added mass and buoyancy.
Non-homogeneity of the bending stiffness along
the pipe, due to discontinuities of the coating across field
joints or other effects, may imply strain concentrations that
shall be taken into account.
Structural Analysis
The stiffening effect of concrete coating may be accounted for
by:
The cross-sectional bending stiffness of the concrete coating,
EIconc, is the initial, uncracked stiffness. Youngs modulus for
concrete may be taken as:
0.75
conc
c
steel
EI
CSF k
EI
| |
=
|
\ .
0.3
10000
conc cn
E f =
27
Structural Analysis
6.4 Functional Loads
6.4.1 The functional loads which shall be considered
are:
weight of the pipe and internal fluid;
external and internal fluid pressure;
thermal expansion and contraction, and
residual installation forces.
6.4.2 Response calculations must account for the
relevant sequence of load application, if important.
Structural Analysis
z 6.5 Static analysis
6.5.1 The static configuration is to be determined for the
following conditions if relevant:
as-laid condition;
flooded condition;
pressure test condition, and
operating condition.
6.5.2 The static analysis should normally account for non-
linear effects such as:
large displacements (geometric non-linearity);
soil non-linear response, and
loading sequence.
28
Structural Analysis
6.5.3 The stiffness of the pipeline consists of material stiffness
and geometrical stiffness. The geometrical stiffness is
governed by the effective axial force, Seff
For a completely unrestrained (axially) pipe the effective axial
force becomes:
For a totally restrained pipe the following effective axial force
apply:
eff tr i i e e
S N p A p A = +
0
eff
S =
( )
1 2
eff eff i i s e
S H p A v A E T =
Structural Analysis
z 6.6 Eigen-value analyses
6.6.1 The aim of eigen-value analyses is to calculate the
natural frequencies and corresponding stress due to
associated mode shapes. The analysis is normally complex
and depends on:
the temporal classification (scour or uneveness induced
free span);
the morphological classification (single or multispan);
the pipeline condition (i.e. as-laid, water-filled, pressure
test and operation);
the pipe and soil properties;
the effective axial force and the initial deflected shape
after laying;
the loading history and axial displacement (feed-in)
of the pipe.
29
Structural Analysis
6.6.2 Using an FE-approach, the following comments
apply:
the eigenvalue analysis shall account for the static
equilibrium configuration;
in the eigenvalue analysis, a consistent linearisation of
the problem must be made;
the pipe-soil linearisation should be validated;
the effect of geometric non-linearity on the dynamic
response should be assessed;
the span support may be assumed invariant during
Vortex-Induced Vibrations (VIV) and
ULS conditions may require a more refined modelling
due to sliding at the span supports.
Structural Analysis
6.7 Added Mass
6.7.1 The added mass may be considered as:
z 6.8 Approximate response quantities
The approximate response quantities specified in this section
may be applied for free span assessment
6.8.2 The fundamental natural frequency may be
approximated by, see Bruschi & Vitali:
( ) ( )
/ 0; 0; / 1
a M
C e D C KC e D = =
2
0 1 2 3 4
1 1
eff
e E
S
EI
f C CSF C C
m L P D

| |
| |
+ + +
|
|
|
\ .
\ .
30
Structural Analysis
6.8.3 The effective mass, me, is defined by:
6.8.4 The unit diameter stress amplitude (stress due to unit
outer diameter mode shape deflection) may be calculated by:
( ) ( )
( )
2
2
L
e
L
m s s ds
m
s ds

(
(
=
(
(

/
1
2 2
S
in cr S
D KEI
A D DED K
I
= =
Structural Analysis
6.8.5 If detailed information is not available, the (unit
diameter) stress amplitude Ain/cr may be estimated by:
6.8.6 The static bending moment may be estimated by:
( )
( )
( )
( )
2
/ 2
max
4 2
1
2
=C 1
S
in cr
S
D D t E
A CSF
x
D D t E
CSF
L

= +

+
2
5
2
1
static
eff
E
q L
M C
S
C
P

=
| |
+
|
\ .
31
Structural Analysis
6.8.7 In case the static deflection is not given by direct
measurement (survey) or estimated by accurate analytical
tools, it may be estimated by:
6.8.8The coefficients C1 to C6 are given in the table below for
different boundar conditions. For multispanning scenarios the
choice of coefficient should be supported by dedicated FE-
analyses.
( )
4
6
2
1
1
1
eff
E
q L
C
S EI CSF
C
P

=
+ | |
+
|
\ .
Structural Analysis
32
Structural Analysis
Structural Analysis
6.8.9 The Leff/L term in the C1 coefficient accounts for the
effective span length in order to consider the span as fully
fixed. This ratio decreases as the L/Ds ratio and soil stiffness
increase. The Leff/L term is given by:
where K is the relevant soil stiffness (vertical or horizontal,
static or dynamic).
( )
1.1
4
4
4.03
1
1.08
1
eff
L
L
KL
CSF EI
= +
| |
+ |
|
+
\ .
33
Pipe-soil interaction
z 7 Pipe-soil interaction
7.1 General
7.1.1 The soil is to be classified as cohesive (clays) or
cohesionless (sands). As basis for the evaluations of the
pipe-soil interaction the following basic soil parameters
are relevant:
type of soil;
in-situ stress conditions;
shear strength parameters for drained or undrained
condition including remoulded shear strength for
clays;
soil moduli and damping coefficients as function of
cyclic shear strain;
soil settlement parameters;
general soil data as submerged unit weight, void ratio,
water content and plasticity limits.
Pipe-soil interaction
7.1.2 If the approximate soil stiffness expressions
in 7.3 are to be used, then the following specific
parameters are relevant:
submerged unit weight of soil, wsoil
Poissons ratio,
void ratio, es
angle of friction, cohesionless soils,
undrained shear strength, cohesive soils, su
over-consolidation ratio, OCR
plasticity index, cohesive soils, ip
s

34
Pipe-soil interaction
Pipe-soil interaction
35
7.2 Modelling of pipe-soil interaction
7.2.1 The pipe-soil interaction is important in the evaluation of
the static equilibrium configuration and the dynamic response
of a free spanning pipeline.
7.2.2 The seabed topography may be defined by a vertical
profile along the pipeline route.
7.2.3 The axial and lateral frictional coefficients between the
pipe and the seabed shall reflect the actual seabed condition,
the roughness, the pipe, and the passive soil resistance.
7.2.4 The axial and lateral resistance is not always of a pure
frictional type.
7.2.5 The modal soil damping ratio, , due to the soil-pipe
interaction may be determined by:
soil

Pipe-soil interaction
Alternatively, the modal soil damping ratio, , may be taken
from Table 7-3 or Table 7-4
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
2
2
0
1
4
L
soil
L
c s s ds
f
m s s ds

| |
|
=
|
|
\ .

soil

36
Pipe-soil interaction
Pipe-soil interaction
z 7.3 Approximate Soil Stiffness
7.3.1 The following expressions may be used for the static
vertical soil reaction per unit length as a function of the
penetration, v:
7.3.2 The bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and Ng versus the
internal friction angle js may be calculated from the following
formulas:
( )
( )
0.5 sand soils
clayey soils
v soil q
v soil q c u
R w b N v N b
R b w N v N s

= +
= +
37
( )
( )
( )
2
exp tan tan 45 ,
2
1 cot
1.5 1 tan
s
q s
c q s
q s
N
N N
N N

| |
= +
|
\ .
=
=
38
Pipe-soil interaction
7.3.3 The maximum static, axial soil reaction per unit length
may be taken as:
7.3.4 The static vertical stiffness is a secant stiffness
representative for penetration conditions such as during
installation and erosion and during development of free
spans.The static vertical stiffness KV,S is defined as KV,S=RV/v;
The vertical dynamic stiffness KV is defined as
{ }
max
sand soils
min , clayey soils
a v a
a v a
R R
R R b

=
=
/
V V V
K F =
Pipe-soil interaction
7.3.5 For a detailed determination of KV, the following
expression may be applied:
7.3.6 For a detailed determination of KL, the following
expression may be applied:
0.88
1
v
G
K

( )
0.76 1
v
K G = +
39
Pipe-soil interaction
7.3.7 For conditions with small-amplitude deformations, the
shear modulus for the soil can be taken as:
( )
( )
( )
2
2
s
s
s
2000 3
for sand
1
2000 3
for clay
1
,
Effective mean stress,see o
OCR Over consolidation ratio
e Void ratio
K Coefficient,taken
S
s
s
s
K
s
s
s
e
e
G
e
OCR
e
where

from Figure 7-2

Pipe-soil interaction
40
Pipe-soil interaction
7.3.8 The effective mean stress, , in the soil at the span
supports may be calculated from the stress conditions at a
representative depth below the pipe.
7.3.9 Note that for pipes on clay, the clay will not be
consolidated for the weight of the pipe in the temporary phase
immediately after pipelay. For calculations for a pipe on clay
in this phase, the formula for reduces to
( )
0
1 / 2
1 1
2 3
s soil
sh
q L
K bw
b L

| |
= + + +
|
\ .
( )
0
1
1
2
s soil
K bw = +
S

Pipe-soil interaction
When detailed information does not exist and the
topographical conditions are no complex, the support length
ratio may be taken according to Table 7-5 for sand
and according to Table 7-6 for clay.
/ L L
41
Pipe-soil interaction
7.3.10For free spans in sand, the lateral dynamic stiffness KL
should be calculated for an assumption of loose sand owing to
effects of erosion.
7.3.11 When normal conditions prevail and when no detailed
analysis is carried out for determination of KV and KL for small-
strain conditions, the values of these stiffnesses in units of
kN/m/m may be calculated in simplified manner as (D is in
units of metre):
2 1
3 3
2 1
3 3
S
V V
S
L L
K C D
K C D

| |
= +
|
\ .
| |
= +
|
\ .
Pipe-soil interaction
in which the coefficients CV and CL are taken according to
Table 7-7 and Table 7-8.
42
Pipe-soil interaction
Pipe-soil interaction
7.4 Artificial supports
7.4.1 Gravel sleepers can be modelled by modifying the
seabed profile, considering the rock dump support
shape and applying appropriate stiffness and damping
characteristics.
7.4.2 The purpose of mechanical supports is generally
to impose locally a pipeline configuration in the vertical
and/or transverse directions. Such supports can be mo delled
by concentrated springs having a defined stiffness,
taking into account the soil deformation beneath the support
and disregarding the damping effect.