Upward Pipe–Soil Interaction for Shallowly Buried

Pipelines in Dense Sand

Kshama Roy 1; Bipul Hawlader 2; Shawn Kenny 3; and Ian Moore, M.ASCE 4

Abstract: Uplift resistance is a key parameter against upheaval buckling in the design of a buried pipeline. The mobilization of uplift
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

resistance in dense sand is investigated in the present study based on finite-element (FE) analysis. The prepeak hardening, postpeak softening,
density-dependent, and confining pressure–dependent soil behavior are implemented in FE analysis. The uplift resistance mobilizes with
progressive formation of shear bands. The vertical inclination of the shear band is approximately equal to the maximum dilation angle at the
peak and then decreases with upward displacement. The force–displacement curves can be divided into three segments: prepeak, quick
postpeak softening, and gradual reduction of resistance at large displacements. Simplified equations are proposed for mobilization of uplift
resistance. The results of FE analysis, simplified equations, and model tests are compared. The importance of postpeak degradation of uplift
resistance to upheaval buckling is discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001957. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Pipeline; Mohr-Coulomb model; Finite-element analyses; Dense sand; Upward movement.

Introduction
Buried pipelines used for transporting oil usually operate at
high temperature and pressure. Temperature-induced expansion,
together with vertical out-of-straightness, might cause global up-
heaval buckling (UHB). Field evidence suggests that significantly
large vertical upward displacement could occur in the buckled sec-
tion and, in the worst cases, it might protrude above the ground sur-
face (Palmer et al. 2003). For example, Aynbinder and Kamershtein
(1982) showed that an approximately 70-m section of a buried
pipeline displaced vertically up to a maximum distance of around
4.2 m above the ground surface. Sufficient restraint from the soil
above the pipeline could prevent excessive displacement and up-
heaval buckling. Because burial is one of the main sources of
pipeline installation cost, proper estimation of soil resistance is nec-
essary to select the burial depth—typically expressed as the embed-
ment ratio (H ~ ¼ H=D), where D is the diameter and H is the depth
of the center of the pipe. Pipelines embedded at 1 ≤ H ~ ≤ 4 in dense
sand are the focus of the present study, although it is understood
that in some special scenarios H ~ could be outside this range,
for example, for surface-laid offshore pipelines in deep water
1
Pipeline Stress Specialist, Northern Crescent, Inc., 816 7 Ave. SW,
Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 1A1; formerly, Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of
Engineering and Applied Science, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Memorial
Univ. of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada A1B 3X5.
2
Professor and Research Chair in Seafloor Mechanics, Faculty of
Engineering and Applied Science, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Memorial
Univ. of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada A1B 3X5 (corresponding
author). Email: bipul@mun.ca
3
Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering and Design, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton Univ., 1125 Colonel By
Dr., Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5B6.
4
Professor and Canada Research Chair in Infrastructure Engineering,
GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s—Royal Military College, Queen’s
Univ., Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 4V1.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 17, 2017; approved on
April 26, 2018; published online on August 23, 2018. Discussion period
open until January 23, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
(Dutta et al. 2015) or pipelines in ice gouging areas (Pike and
Kenny 2016).
During installation of offshore pipelines in sand, ploughs de-
posit backfill soil in a loose to medium dense state (Cathie et al.
2005); however, it could be subsequently densified due to environ-
mental loading. For example, Clukey et al. (1989) showed that the
sandy backfill of a test pipe section densified from relative density
(Dr ) less than around 57% to around 85–90% in 5 months, which
has been attributed to wave action at the test site in the Gulf of
Mexico. The uplift resistance offered by soil (Fv ) depends on up-
ward displacement (v) and generally consists of three components:
(1) submerged weight of soil being lifted (W s ); (2) vertical com-
ponent of shearing resistance offered by the soil (Sv ); and (3) suc-
tion under the pipe (Fsuc ). The component Fsuc could be neglected
for a drained loading condition at low uplift velocities (Bransby and
Ireland 2009; Wang et al. 2010).
The force–displacement behavior is generally expressed in
normalized form using N v ¼ Fv =γHD and v~ ¼ v=D, where γ is
the effective unit weight of soil, which is the dry unit weight in
physical model tests and finite-element (FE) modeling of uplift
behavior presented in this study. Physical experiments showed that
N v increases with H~ and Dr (Trautmann 1983; Bransby et al. 2002;
Chin et al. 2006; Cheuk et al. 2008). A close examination of physi-
~ ≤ 4 shows that N v increases
cal model test results in dense sand at H
quickly with v~ and reaches the peak (N vp ) at v~ of around
0.01–0.05. A quick reduction of N v occurs after the peak, followed
~ The american lifelines alliance
by gradual reduction of N v at large v.
(ALA) guideline for design (ALA 2005) does not explicitly consider
the postpeak reduction of N v , and the maximum N v ¼ ϕ 0 H=44 ~ is
0
recommended, where ϕ is a representative angle of internal friction
(in degrees). However, det norske veritas (DNV 2007) recognized
the postpeak reduction of N v and recommended a N v –v~ relation us-
ing four linear line segments in which N v reduces linearly from the
peak to a residual value with v~ and then remains constant.
The force–displacement curves obtained from model tests
evolve from complex deformation mechanisms and the stress–
strain behavior of soil above the pipe. To understand these mech-
anisms, the particle image velocimetry (PIV) technique (White
et al. 2003) has been used in recent model tests (Cheuk et al. 2008;
White et al. 2008; Thusyanthan et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2010).

© ASCE 04018078-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078

 When the peak uplift resistance mobilizes in medium to dense sand, Table 1. Equations for modified Mohr-Coulomb model
two inclined symmetric slip planes form in the backfill soil starting Description Constitutive equation
from the springline of the pipe (White et al. 2008). Although the
Relative density index I R ¼ I D ðQ − ln p 0 Þ − R
slip planes slightly curve outward, their inclination to the vertical
(θ) is approximately equal to the peak dilation angle (ψp ). The ver- where I D ¼ Dr ð%Þ=100 and 0 ≤ I R ≤ 4
tical inclination of slip planes decrease with v, ~ and they become Peak friction angle ϕp0 − ϕc0 ¼ Aψ I R
~ A model test conducted by Huang et al.
almost vertical at large v. ϕp0 − ϕc0
(2015) showed that θ gradually increases in the prepeak, reaches Peak dilation angle ψp ¼
kψ
around ψp at the peak N v , and then decreases in the postpeak zone. Strain-softening parameter γ pc ¼ C1 − C2 I D
PIV data provide very useful information on soil deformation
0 m
p
patterns; however, the progressive formation of shear bands in Plastic shear γ pp ¼ γ pc
strain at ϕp0 and ψp pa0
dense sand due to strain softening can be better explained by using " pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! #
2 γ p γ pp
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

numerical modeling techniques. More specifically, the postpeak re- 0 0 −1 0 0

Mobilized friction ϕ ¼ ϕin þ sin sinðϕp − ϕin Þ
duction of N v , as recommended by DNV (2007), could be
angle in Zone 2 γ p þ γ pp
examined/revised, implementing an appropriate soil constitutive " pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! #
model that can simulate the strain-softening behavior of dense sand −1 2 γ p γ pp
Mobilized dilation ψ ¼ sin sinðψp Þ
and change in θ and cover depth with v. ~ The prepeak hardening, angle in Zone 2 γ p þ γ pp
postpeak softening, and relative-density and confining pressure de- 
p  
pendent ϕ 0 and ψ are the common features of the stress–strain γ − γ pp 2
Mobilized friction ϕ 0 ¼ ϕc0 þ ðϕp0 − ϕc0 Þ exp −
behavior of dense sand. In addition, the mode of shearing [triaxial angle in Zone 3 γ pc

p  
(TX) or plane strain (PS)] significantly influences ϕ 0 and ψ. All of γ − γ pp 2
these features of the stress–strain behavior of dense sand have not Mobilized dilation ψ ¼ ψp exp −
angle in Zone 3 γ pc
been considered in the available guidelines or FE analyses. A large
0 n
p
number of FE analyses has been conducted using the Mohr- Young’s modulus E ¼ Kpa0
pa0
Coulomb (MC) model with constant ϕ 0 and ψ and therefore cannot
model the postpeak reduction of N v , except for the reduction due to Source: Data from Roy et al. (2016).
changes in cover depth (Yimsiri et al. 2004; Farhadi and Wong Note: Zones 1, 2, and 3 represent the elastic, prepeak hardening, and
2014). Yimsiri et al. (2004) also used an advanced soil model postpeak softening of the stress–strain curve, respectively [Fig. 1(b)].
(Nor-Sand); however, they could not simulate the significant reduc-
tion of N v as observed in model tests. Chakraborty and Kumar The novel aspects of the MMC model compared with models of
(2014) used the MC model for the lower-bound FE limit analysis. similar type used in pipe–soil interaction analysis (e.g., Jung et al.
Jung et al. (2013) incorporated linear reduction of ϕ 0 and ψ after the 2013; Pike 2016) is that the nonlinear variation of prepeak and
peak with plastic shear strain; however, they did not consider pre- postpeak ϕ 0 and ψ with γ p are defined with smooth transitions
peak hardening. Jung et al. (2013) also showed the importance of at the peak and critical state. This has a considerable influence
using PS strength parameters for pipe–soil interaction. on the uplift force–displacement response of a buried pipeline be-
In addition to physical and numerical modeling, limit equilib- cause the size of the failure wedge and soil resistance to upward
rium and plasticity solutions have also been proposed to calculate movement of the pipe depend on ϕ 0 and ψ.
the normalized peak uplift resistance, N vp (Merifield et al. 2001;
White et al. 2008). Because soil in these solutions is constrained to
satisfy normality (i.e., θ ¼ ψ ¼ ϕ 0 ), the plasticity solutions give a Finite-Element Modeling
more nonconservative uplift resistance than the limit equilibrium Two-dimensional FE analyses in plane strain condition are per-
solutions with θ ¼ ψp (<ϕ 0 ) (White et al. 2008). formed using Abaqus/Explicit FE software. Fig. 1 shows the typical
The objective of the present study is to conduct FE analysis to FE mesh at the start of uplifting. Taking advantage of symmetry,
examine uplift behavior of shallow buried pipelines in dense sand only half of the domain is modeled. A dense mesh is used near the
(H~ ≤ 4). An advanced soil constitutive model is adopted in FE
pipe (Zone A), where considerable soil deformation is expected. To
analysis to simulate not only the peak but also the postpeak uplift avoid mesh distortion issues at large displacements, an adaptive
resistance. The FE model is validated against a physical model test remeshing option in Abaqus is adopted in Zone A, which creates
and numerical results. A set of empirical equations is proposed to a new smooth mesh at a regular interval to maintain a good aspect
develop the uplift resistance versus displacement curve, including ratio of the elements. In Abaqus/Explicit, the adaptive meshing is
the postpeak degradation at large displacements. Finally, by con- performed using the arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian method without
ducting FE analysis for structural response, the importance of changing the number of elements, nodes, and connectivities. The
postpeak uplift resistance on upheaval buckling is shown. bottom of the FE domain is restrained from horizontal and vertical
movement, and all the vertical faces are restrained from any lateral
movement. Mesh sensitivity analyses are performed to select an
Modeling of Soil optimal mesh (Roy 2017).
Four-node bilinear plane strain quadrilateral elements (CPE4R
MC and modified Mohr-Coulomb (MMC) models are used in this in Abaqus) are used for modeling the soil. The pipe is modeled as
study. In the MMC model, ϕ 0 and ψ vary with relative density (Dr ), a rigid body. The bottom and left boundaries are placed at a suffi-
mean effective stress (p 0 ), and accumulated plastic shear strain ciently large distance from the pipe to avoid boundary effects on
(γ p ). The details of the MMC model, including the required param- uplift behavior.
eters and calibration against laboratory test data, have been given The pipe–soil interface is modeled by defining the interface fric-
by Roy et al. (2016). The mathematical equations are listed in tion coefficient (μ) as μ ¼ tanðϕμ Þ, where ϕμ is the pipe–soil inter-
Table 1. face friction angle; ϕμ depends on pipe surface roughness and ϕ 0 of

© ASCE 04018078-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078

 Zone-A
(Dense mesh) Depends on
0.5D
0.5D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.8D
≈ 2.2D
≈
4.2D 2.8D D
(a)
Fig. 1. Finite-element modeling: (a) finite-element mesh; and (b) mobilized friction and dilation angles.
the soil around the pipe. With loading, the soil elements around the
pipe experience high shear strains that cause a reduction of ϕ 0 .
Therefore, assuming a looser soil condition, μ ¼ 0.32 is used.
Furthermore, μ has a little influence on the uplift resistance and
μ ¼ 0.2–0.6 gives less than 2% variation in the peak resistance.
The numerical analysis is conducted in two steps. In the first step,
geostatic stress is applied under K 0 ¼ 0.5, where K 0 is the at-rest
earth pressure coefficient. The value of K 0 does not significantly
affect the uplift resistance in FE analysis (Jung et al. 2013).
In the second step, the pipe is displaced up by specifying a displace-
ment boundary condition at the reference point (center of the pipe).
The MMC model is implemented in Abaqus by developing a
user subroutine VUSDFLD written in FORTRAN. The stress and
strain components are called in the subroutine in each time incre-
ment. The mean effective stress (p 0 ) is calculated from the three
principal stresses. The strain components are transferred to the prin-
cipal strain components and stored as state variables. The plastic
strain increment (Δγ p ) in each time increment is calculated as
Δγ p ¼ ðΔεp1 − Δεp3 Þ, where Δεp1 and Δεp3 are the major and minor
principal plastic strain components, respectively. The value of γ p
is calculated as the sum of Δγ p over the period of analysis. In
the subroutine, γ p and p 0 are defined as two field variables. The
mobilized ϕ 0 and ψ are defined in the input file as a function of
γ p and p 0 in tabular form, using the equations in Table 1. During
the analysis, the program accesses the subroutine and updates the
values of ϕ 0 and ψ with field variables. Although I D is not updated
in each time increment, the volumetric change in soil elements
due to shearing and its effects on ϕ 0 and ψ are captured in the
MMC model.
Model Verification
A FE simulation is first performed for a physical model test con-
ducted by Cheuk et al. (2005, 2008) at the University of Cambridge
and is called the CD (coarse dense sand) test. A 100-mm-diameter
model pipe section embedded at H ~ ¼ 3 in dry Leighton Buzzard
© ASCE 04018078-3
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078
(b)
silica sand was pulled up slowly at 10 mm=h to capture soil de-
formation using two digital cameras. However, in FE modeling,
the pipe is pulled at approximately 10 mm=s by maintaining
quasi-static simulation conditions.
Direct shear tests show that Leighton Buzzard (LB) silica sands
has ϕc0 of 32° (Cheuk et al. 2008). Because ϕc0 in PS condition could
be around 2°–4° higher than in direct shear conditions (Lings and
Dietz 2004), ϕc0 ¼ 35° is used, which is around 3° higher than DS
tests results reported by Cheuk et al. (2008). For quartz and sili-
ceous sands, Q is around 10  1 (Bolton 1986; Randolph et al.
2004). Although the values are within this range, Chakraborty
and Salgado (2010) showed a trend of increasing Q with initial
confining pressure (<196 kPa). In this study, Q ¼ 10 and R ¼ 1 are
used. Bolton (1986) suggested Aψ ¼ 5 and kψ ¼ 0.8 for PS con-
ditions based on analysis of a large number of laboratory tests
results on different sands. Roy et al. (2016) calibrated the present
MMC model against laboratory test results on Cornell filter (CF)
sand and obtained the values of C1 , C2 , and m to model the varia-
tion of ϕ 0 and ψ with γ p , and then conducted a FE simulation of the
physical model tests of Trautmann (1983). Cheuk et al. (2008) did
not provide any stress–strain curve of LB sand used in the physical
modeling. Both of these physical model test programs used
uniform/poorly graded sand, although the mean particle size (D50 )
of the coarse fraction of LB sand is larger (D50 of around 2.24 mm)
in Cheuk et al. (2008) than that of CF sand (D50 of around 0.5 mm)
in Trautmann (1983). However, based on laboratory test results,
Cheuk et al. (2008) recognized a minimal influence of particle size
on frictional characteristics of LB sands—the peak and critical state
friction angles are 52° and 32°, respectively, for a coarse and a
fine fraction of LB sand. Furthermore, in Cheuk et al. (2008),
the force–displacement curves for the coarse and fine fractions
of LB sands were similar, including the peak and postpeak degra-
dation. Therefore, in the present study, the values of C1 , C2 , and m
of LB sand are assumed to be the same as CF sand. Table 2 provides
the geotechnical parameters used in FE analyses. Fig. 1(b) shows
the typical variation of ϕ 0 and ψ with plastic shear strain.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 2. Geometry and soil parameters used in the FE analyses after softening uplift resistances, respectively. The dimensionless
Parameter Model test (parametric study) uplift displacement, v, ~ required to mobilize N vp and N vs , are de-
fined as v~ p and v~ s , respectively.
External diameter of pipe, D (mm) 100 (300, 500)
The mobilization of N v shown in Fig. 2 could be explained from
K 150
n 0.5
progressive development of q shear bands, the zones of localized
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 p p
ν soil 0.2 plastic shear strain, γ p ¼ ∫ t0 2 ðϵ̇ij ϵ̇ij dtÞ, where ϵ̇pij is the plastic
Aψ 5
kψ 0.8
deviatoric strain rate tensor [Figs. 3(a–e)]. At N vp , plastic shear
ϕin0 (degrees) 29 strain mainly develops locally in an inclined shear band originating
C1 0.22 from the springline of the pipe; however, the shear band does not
C2 0.11 reach the ground surface for formation of a complete slip mecha-
m 0.25 nism [Fig. 3(a)]. The inclination of the shear band to the vertical (θ)
Critical state friction angle, ϕc0 (degrees) 35 is obtained by drawing a line from the pipe surface through the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Relative density, Dr (%) 92 highly concentrated γ p zone. White et al. (2008) suggested that
Unit weight, γ (kN=m3 ) 16.87 θ ∼ ψp when the peak resistance is mobilized. Because ψp varies
Interface friction coefficient, μ 0.32
~ with p 0 (Table 1), they calculated a single representative value of
Depth of pipe, H 3 (1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.5, 4.0)
the peak dilation angle (ψRp ) using the in situ p 0 at the springline of
Note: Numbers in parenthesis in right column show the values used for the pipe [ð1 þ 2K 0 ÞγH=3]. For the geotechnical parameters listed
parametric study.
in Table 2, ψRp ¼ 25°, which is approximately the same as θ ob-
tained from the present FE analysis [Fig. 3(a)]. The complete slip
mechanism develops at v~ > v~ p when a considerable postpeak deg-
4 radation of N v occurs [Fig. 3(b)]. Similar types of curved failure
A' planes shown in Figs. 3(b–e) were also observed in model tests
B' (Stone and Newson 2006; Cheuk et al. 2008; Huang et al. 2015).
3.5 The formation of complete slip planes after v~ p can be attributed
ALA 2005 to noticeable vertical displacement of the ground surface after
A C'
3 =45 N vp in model tests (Dickin 1994; Bransby et al. 2002; Huang
B D' =40 et al. 2015).
Normalized force, Nv

2.5 DNV 2007 E'
C D
2 E
1.5
1 the peak load irrespective of burial depth; for example, White et al.
Cheuk et al. 2008
0.5 Present FE analysis (MMC)
Present FE analysis (MC)
0 the inclined shear band that was formed during initial upward dis-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Normalized displacement,
Fig. 2. Comparison between FE simulation and model test results.
Force–Displacement Behavior
Fig. 2 shows the FE simulated force–displacement curves for
H~ ¼ 3, on which the points of interest for further explanation are
labeled A–E for the MMC and A 0 –E 0 for the MC model. Adaptive
meshing could not maintain a high-quality mesh at a very large pipe
displacement. Therefore, the force–displacement curves only up
to v~ ¼ 1.0 are presented in this study. For MMC, N v increases
quickly and reaches the peak at v~ of around 0.03 and then quickly
decreases to Point C, primarily due to the strain-softening behavior
of soil. After a slight increase between Points C and D, N v de-
creases again at a slower rate than in Segment AC. In the present
study, Segment AC of the N v –v~ curve is termed the softening
segment, and the segment after Point C is called the large defor-
mation segment. The values of N v at the peak and after softening
(i.e., Points A and C) are defined as N vp (¼ Fvp =γHD) and N vs
(¼ Fvs =γHD), respectively, where Fvp and Fvs are the peak and
Although it is a different type of loading, because of progressive
development of shear bands, the attainment of peak load before the
formation of a complete failure mechanism was also found in
model tests and numerical modeling for footing in dense sand
(Tatsuoka et al. 1991; Aiban and Znidarčić 1995; Loukidis and
Salgado 2011). However, in the simplified limit equilibrium
method (LEM), a complete slip mechanism is assumed to calculate
(2008) used the LEM to fit test data for H ~ < 8.0.
The slight increases in N v in Segment CD in Fig. 2 can be ex-
plained using γ p plots in Figs. 3(a–d). In Segment ABC of the
N v –v~ curve, the shear resistance (τ f ) gradually reduces along
1
placement [e.g., Figs. 3(a–c)]. However, the location of the shear
band shifts considerably to the right at v~ of around 0.18–0.4. Be-
cause the new shear bands form through the soil where τ f has not
been reduced by softening, N v increases slightly in Segment CD.
After Point D, the location of the shear band does not change sig-
nificantly with v~ (θ remains at around 8°). Therefore, the gradual
decreases of N v with v~ after Point D is due to strain softening in the
shear band and the reduction of soil cover depth.
Fig. 2 also shows that an FE simulated N v –v~ curve with the
MMC model compares well with the model test results of Cheuk
et al. (2008). A slight increase in N v after a quick postpeak reduc-
tion is also observed in model tests at intermediate depth of embed-
ment, as in the one shown in Fig. 2 and also in other studies
(Bransby et al. 2002; Stone and Newson 2006; Chin et al. 2006;
Cheuk et al. 2008; Saboya et al. 2012; Eiksund et al. 2013; Huang
et al. 2015). However, it does not happen at shallow burial depths.
A similar trend is also observed in model tests for the bearing
capacity of footing in sand, which has been attributed to
progressive formation of slip planes (Aiban and Znidarčić 1995).
The vertical inclination of the shear band gradually reduces with
~ and at v~ ¼ 0.32, θ is around 8° [Fig. 3(c)]. However, θ does
v,
not reduce further at v~ > 0.32 [Figs. 3(c–e)]. As discussed sub-
sequently, in the limit analysis θ ¼ 0 is assumed at large v; ~

© ASCE 04018078-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Shear band formation: (a–e) modified Mohr-Coulomb model corresponding to the points A–E marked at Fig. 2; and (f–j) Mohr-Coulomb
model corresponding to the points A'–E' marked at Fig. 2.
however, the present FE analysis shows that the shear band does not
become completely vertical even at large v~ (e.g., v~ ¼ 0.5). Because
of change in mobilized ϕ 0 and ψ with loading, the failure mecha-
nism changes from an inclined slip plane [Fig. 3(b)] to a flow
around mechanism [Fig. 3(e)], which is also indicated by the veloc-
ity vectors in the inset of Fig. 2. Based on PIV results, similar fail-
ure mechanisms have been reported from physical experiments
(Bransby et al. 2002; Cheuk et al. 2008).
Limitations of Mohr-Coulomb Model
To show the advantages of the MMC model, FE simulation is also
performed with the MC model. Based on Cheuk et al. (2005, 2008)
laboratory test results ϕ 0 ¼ 52° and ψ ¼ 25° are used for the MC
model. Although not explicitly mentioned in the design guidelines,
equivalent values for these two parameters should be carefully se-
lected because they vary with γ p . In general, the equivalent values
of ϕ 0 and ψ should be smaller than the peak and higher than the
critical state values. A number of previous studies simulated pipe–
soil interaction using constant equivalent values of ϕ 0 and ψ for the
MC model (e.g., Yimsiri et al. 2004). An equivalent ϕ 0 has also
been recommended for other geotechnical problems in dense sand,
for example, the bearing capacity of shallow foundations (Loukidis
and Salgado 2011) and the lateral capacity of pile foundations
(API 1987).
Fig. 2 shows that the MC model calculates slightly higher N vp
than the MMC model. This difference will be reduced if lower
equivalent values of ϕ 0 and ψ are considered. However, the
key observation is that N v decreases almost linearly with v~ after
the peak for the MC model, which is very different from the
© ASCE 04018078-5
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078
simulation with the MMC model and physical model test results.
In order to explain this force–displacement behavior, γ p at five v~
is plotted in Figs. 3(f–j). The inclination of the shear band (θ)
remains almost constant (around 25°) during the whole process
of upward displacement of the pipe. The linear postpeak reduction
of N v with the MC model is due to the reduction of cover depth
with v. ~
In summary, the postpeak reduction of N v with the MMC model
for this burial depth occurs due to the combined effects of three
factors: (1) decreases in size of the failure wedge, (2) reduction
of shear resistance with γ p , and (3) reduction of cover depth.
The MC model cannot capture the effects of the former two. How-
ever, the proposed MMC model can simulate the effects of all three
factors. Moreover, the simulations with the MMC model are similar
to physical model test results.
DNV (2007) suggested the following equations to develop the
force–displacement curve for dense sand for 2.5 ≤ H ~ ≤ 8.5 where
N vp ¼ 1 þ fH; ~ N vs ¼ 1 þ αf fH; ~ v~ p ¼ ð0.5%–0.8%ÞH; ~ and
v~ s ¼ 3v~ p . The prepeak behavior is defined by a bilinear relation,
where the slope changes at ðβ v~ p ; αN vp Þ. Based on the DNV (2007)
recommendations for dense sand, f ¼ 0.6, αf ¼ 0.75, v~ p ¼
0.008H, ~ α ¼ 0.75, and β ¼ 0.2; the force–displacement curve is
plotted in Fig. 2. Although only one test is simulated, DNV
(2007) gave considerably lower N vp, higher N vs, and lower v~ s than
the physical model test and present FE results with the MMC
model.
The maximum N v based on ALA (2005) (¼ ϕ 0 H=44) ~ is shown
by two horizontal arrows on the right vertical axis for two ϕ 0 . ALA
(2005) requires a constant equivalent ϕ 0 and does not consider any
postpeak reduction of resistance.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 4.5
A number of studies and design guidelines discussed v~ p and
FE analysis (MMC)
4 N vp , and therefore, a very brief discussion of these two values
Proposed equation
is provided. In general, v~ p decreases with the increase of Dr and
3.5 increases with H ~ (Trautmann 1983; Dickin 1994; ALA 2005;
DNV 2007). Cheuk et al. (2008) found v~ p is around 0.03H or
Normalized force, Nv

3
0.01H from model tests on dense sands. For the range of soil prop-
2.5 erties and burial depths considered in the present FE analysis, v~ p
does not vary significantly with H ~ between 1 and 4. However, FE
2 simulations show a significant increase in v~ p with H ~ for deep burial
conditions (Roy et al. 2018). Fig. 5 shows that N vp for the MMC
1.5
model increases almost linearly with H. ~ Moreover, N vp obtained
1 from the present FE analysis is comparable with available physical
model tests and FE results.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5 s~0.14–0.24 The mobilized N v after a quick postpeak reduction (i.e., N vs ),

shown by the squares in Fig. 4, increases with H. ~ However, unlike
0 ~
0
p~0.03
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 ~vp , the displacement at N vs (i.e., v~ s ) increases with H.
Normalized displacement,

Fig. 4. Comparison between simplified equations and FE results for Proposed Simplified Equations for Uplift
~
different H. Force–Displacement Curve

The solid lines in Fig. 4 show the proposed N v –v~ relation for sim-
plified analysis, which consists of a bilinear curve up to N vs fol-
lowed by a slightly nonlinear curve at large displacements. DNV
9 (2007) recommended that N v remains constant after N vs (Fig. 2).
Present FE analysis (MMC, D=100mm) [90%] The parameters required to define the proposed N v –v~ relation are
Wang et al., 2010 (Centrifuge, D=258mm) [Saturated, 85%]
Trautmann, 1983 (Laboratory test, D=102mm)[80%] Fvp , vp , Fvs , and vs .
8
Bransby et al.,2002 (Laboratory test, D=48mm)
Dickin, 1994 (Centrifuge, D=1000mm) [77%]
Chin et al., 2006 (Centrifuge, D=190mm) [85%] Peak Resistance
7 Cheuk et al., 2008 (Centrifuge, D=100mm) [92%]
Saboya et al., 2012 (Centrifuge, D=500 mm) [70%] Depending on slip plane formation, inclined and vertical slip
Yimsiri et al., 2004 (FE, MC, D=102mm)[80%]
plane models are commonly used to calculate uplift resistance
Peak dimensionless force, Nvp

6 Yimsiri et al., 2004 (FE, NorSand, D=102mm)[80%]

Jung et al., 2013 (FE, MC, D=102mm) [80%] (Schaminee et al. 1990; White et al. 2008). In the latter one, the
ALA (2005) [φ'=45°, 40°] slip plane forms at an angle θ to the vertical, whereas θ ¼ 0 in
5 the former one. Experimental studies show that the vertical slip
plane model is primarily applicable to loose sand at medium H ~
4 (White et al. 2001; Wang et al. 2010). For dense sand, two sym-
metrical inclined slip planes form from the springline of the pipe at
θ ∼ ψRp (White et al. 2008; Huang et al. 2015).
3
Based on LEM, the peak uplift resistance (Fvp ) can be calcu-
lated from an inclined slip plane model as the sum of the weight of
2 the lifted soil wedge (W s ) and the vertical component of shearing
resistance along the two inclined planes (Sv )
DNV (2007) [f=0.5, 0.6]

  
1
Fvp ¼ γD2 H ~ − π þH ~ 2 tan θ þ FA H~2 ð1Þ
8
0
where
0 1 2 3 4 5  
1 þ K 0 ð1 − K 0 Þ cos 2θ
FA ¼ ðtan ϕp0 − tan θÞ − ð2Þ
2 2
Fig. 5. Comparison of peak uplift force from numerical analysis and
physical model tests. Eqs. (1) and (2) are derived assuming that the inclined slip sur-
faces reach the ground surface when Fvp mobilizes, causing global
failure of the soil block. The first part of the right-hand side of
Eq. (1) represents the contribution of W s and the second part is
Effect of Burial Depth for Sv.
The lifting of the pipe reduces the cover depth and inclined
Fig. 4 shows the force–displacement curves for H ~ ¼ 1–4. FE mod- length of slip planes, although it does not have significant effects
eling for H ~ > 4 has been given by Roy et al. (2018). Although the on Fvp because v~ p is very small. However, lifting has a significant
simulation is performed for every H ~ ¼ 0.5 interval, only four effect on Fvs , as discussed in the subsequent sections. In order to be
curves are shown in Fig. 4 for clarity. Three key features of the consistent in the proposed equations for the peak and postpeak
N v –v~ curves are (1) although N vp (open circles) increases with resistances [Eqs. (3) and (4)], the lifting effect is also incorporated
~ v~ p is around 0.03 for the cases analyzed; (2) v~ s increases with
H, in the following revised equation for the peak resistance. In other
~
H; and (3) the slope of the curve at large deformation (i.e., after words, the uplift resistance is calculated based on the current
squares) decreases with H. ~ position of the pipe (H ~ − v~ p )

© ASCE 04018078-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078

  
~ − v~ p Þ − π ~ − v~ p Þ2 tan θ effect, FE simulations are performed for a varying embedment ratio
Fvp ¼ RγD2 ðH þ ðH ~ ¼ 1–4), diameter (D ¼ 100–500 mm), and relative density of
8 (H
 dense sand (Dr ¼ 80–90%). It is found that a change in Dr in this
~ − v~ p Þ2
þ F A ðH ð3Þ range has minimal influence on pipeline response because ϕp0 and
ψp remain the same, with I R ¼ 4.0 at a low mean stress and high
relative density (Bolton 1986), although γ pp slightly decreases with
The reduction factor R is discussed in the following sections. an increase in Dr (first four equations in Table 1). The proposed
MMC model should not be applicable to loose to medium dense
sands because it cannot capture the volumetric compression due
Effects of Shear Band Formation on Peak Resistance to shear.
Fig. 6(a) shows the mobilized ϕ 0 and formation of slip planes for Fig. 6(b) shows that the reduction factor R (¼ Fvp FE =Fvp LEM )
four embedment ratios. Here, θ ∼ ψRp ¼ 25° is used to define the decreases with an increase in embedment ratio, which is because of
soil wedge in the LEM. The slip planes in FE simulations are lo- overestimation of W s and ϕ 0 in the LEM as discussed previously.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cated on the right side of this line and curve outward near the
ground surface. Therefore, the weight of the lifted soil wedge is
less in FE simulations than the LEM, especially for a large H ~ ment ratios—for example, the LEM calculates an approximately
(e.g., H~ ¼ 4). Moreover, although ϕ 0 ¼ ϕp0 is used in the LEM,
this is valid only for a small segment of the slip plane [e.g., near
Point A in Fig. 6(a) for H ~ ¼ 3]. Below this point, ϕ 0 < ϕp0 because
the large plastic shear strain (γ p ) causes strain softening. Above this
point, γ p is not sufficiently large (i.e., γ p < γ pp ) to mobilize ϕp0 ;
therefore ϕ 0 is less than ϕp0 also in this segment of the slip plane.
The ratio between the prepeak and postpeak segments of the slip
plane increases with embedment ratio.
Overestimation of W s and ϕ 0 gives a higher Fvp in the LEM
(Fvp LEM ) than FE simulation (Fvp FE ). In order to investigate this
Moreover, R is almost independent of pipe diameter. The overesti-
mation of uplift resistance in LEM is significant at large embed-
22% higher peak resistance than FE calculated value for H ~ ¼ 4.
Uplift Resistance after Initial Softening
Similar to Eq. (3), a simplified equation is proposed for the uplift
force after initial softening, Fvs [Eq. (4)]. At a large displacement,
the failure planes reach the ground surface [Fig. 3(c)] and therefore
R ¼ 1 is used. Because significant strain softening occurs, ϕ 0 along
the slip planes reduces almost to ϕc0 . Considerable ground surface
heave occurs at this stage [Fig. 3(c)], which increases with pipe

(a)

1
Reduction factor for peak resistance, R

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7
D=100 mm
0.65 D=300 mm
D=500 mm
0.6
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
(b)

Fig. 6. Effect of burial depth on peak resistance: (a) soil failure; and (b) reduction factor R.

© ASCE 04018078-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078

 displacement, and its maximum height above the pipe is smaller
than v. At a large v, surface heave occurs over a wider zone than
the width of the soil wedge at the ground surface defined by θ
(< ψRp ) in the LEM. Based on this observation, the additional weight
due to surface heave is calculated assuming a trapezoidal soil
wedge having slope angle α (≤ϕc0 ) and height 0.9v, as shown in
Fig. 8(b), for a simplified equation [Eq. (4)]. The base width of
the trapezoid is obtained by drawing two slip planes at θ ¼ ψRp .
Trapezoidal heave was also observed in physical experiments
(Schupp et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2012). The following equation
is proposed for Fvs :
  adopted, as in Fig. 6(b), the calculated peak resistance using
π
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Comparison between Simplified Equations
and FE Results
Fig. 4 shows that the proposed equations can model the force–
displacement behavior obtained from FE simulations. In this figure,
the solid lines are drawn by calculating Fvp and Fvs using Eqs. (3)
and (4), respectively, and then dividing the values by γHD. The
value of R in Eq. (3) is obtained from Fig. 6(b).
Fig. 7(a) shows that Eq. (3) without the reduction factor
(i.e., R ¼ 1) calculates higher peak resistance than FE result,
and the difference increases with H ~ because of overestimation
of W s and mobilized friction angle. When R (¼ 0.8–0.95) is

Fvs ¼ γD2 þ ðH ~ − v~ s Þ2 tan θ

~ − v~ s Þ −
ðH Eq. (3) compares well with FE results, which is also comparable
8 with ALA (2005) but higher than DNV (2007) (Fig. 5). When the


effects of surface heave are considered, the calculated resistance
~ − v~ s Þ2 g þ 0.9v~ s 1 þ ðH
þ fFA ðH ~ − v~ s Þtan ψRp ð4Þ after initial softening using Eq. (4) (i.e., squares in Fig. 4) also
agrees well with FE results (Fig. 7(a)).
The contributions of W s and Sv on N vp and N vs are evaluated
Because the slip plane does not become completely vertical using Eqs. (3) and (4) and are shown in Fig. 7(b). The sum of the
[Figs. 3(c–e)], θ ¼ 8° is used to calculate Fvs using Eq. (4). Finally, first and third part in Eq. (4) is considered as W s . The vertical re-
replacing v~ s by v~ in Eq. (4), the uplift resistance at large displace- sistance offered by W s is higher than that of Sv . Comparing the
ments (v~ > v~ s ) can be calculated. contribution of W s on N vp (where θ is around ψRp ¼ 25°) and
on N vs (where θ is around 8°), it can be concluded that θ has a
significant effect on uplift resistance. Similarly, the contribution
Displacement at Peak Resistance and Initial Softening of Sv on N v increases significantly with θ, which depends on soil
Although not noticeable in Fig. 4, a very small increase in v~ p with property and more specifically on dilation angle. Therefore, an ap-
H~ is found, which can be approximately represented as v~ p ¼ propriate soil constitutive model, like the one used in the present
0.002H ~ þ 0.025. However, a considerable increase in v~ s with H ~ study, is required for modeling uplift resistance.
is found, which can be expressed as v~ s ¼ 0.0035H ~ þ 0.1. How- The performance of the proposed simplified equations is
ever, one should not extrapolate these empirical equations outside explained further by plotting Fv against (v~ − H) ~ as in Fig. 8(a).
this range of H ~ (= 1–4) simulated in this study because the failure The calculated N vs using Eq. (4) without surface heave is around
mechanisms could be very different. For example, the pipeline will 10% smaller than N vs obtained from FE analysis. The contribution
be partially embedded if H ~ < 0.5. On the other hand, flow around of heave to N vs increases with pipe displacement for the range of v~
mechanisms govern the response for large H. ~ simulated in this study. However, downward movement of sand
FE results show that the ratio v~ s =v~ p is greater than 3, as recom- particles and infilling the cavity below the pipe could slow down
mended by DNV (2007), especially for a large H. ~ One potential the formation of heave and even reduce previously formed heave
~ the formation of the inclined shear band
reason is that, at a large H, together with change in shape (trapezoid to triangular), especially
continues even after the peak until it reaches the ground surface, when the pipe moves closer to the ground surface, as observed
which requires some additional upward displacement of the pipe in physical experiments (Schupp et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2012).
[Figs. 3(a and b)]. In other words, the contribution of heave decreases at large

6 6
MMC result (N
(Nvp) Nvp
Nvp (R=1)
vp)
Nvpp
Nvs
MMC result (N
(Nvpp)
vs) DNV (2007) [f=0.6, 0.45] Weight
W component of Nvpp
s of Nvs
5 5
Shear
Sv of Ncomponent
vs of Nvpp
Eq. (3) R=1.0 Weight
W component of Nvp
s of Nvp
Shear
Sv of Ncomponent
vp of Nvp
Normalized force, Nv

4 4
Normalized force, Nv

Eq. (3)

3 3

2 2

Eq. (4)
1 1

Eq. (4) without weight from the surface heave

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Performance of simplified equations: (a) comparison with FE analysis; and (b) contribution of weight and shear components.

© ASCE 04018078-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078

 3.5

3 Eq. (3) (R=1.0)

2.5
Uplift force, Fv

Eq. (4) without weight

2 from the surface heave

1.5

1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5

0
-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5
(a) (b)

Fv A

B′

C
O vp vs ~H v
(c)

~ plots; (b) idealized heave;

Fig. 8. Comparison between force–displacement curves from FE analyses and simplified equations: (a) Fv versus v~ − H
and (c) idealized Fv − v curve.

displacements, which is shown schematically by the dashed line
(BC) in Fig. 8(c). These processes could not be simulated using
the present numerical technique. Therefore, for structural response
of the pipeline presented in the following sections, the post-
peak segment of the force–displacement curve is defined by AB 0 C
[Fig. 8(c)], where Fv at B 0 is calculated using Eq. (4) without heave
and it mobilizes at v ¼ vs .
Wang et al. (2012) showed that the postpeak segments of the
uplift curves for loose sand for varying burial depths tend to follow
a backbone curve similar to Eq. (4). There is only one postpeak
segment in loose sand. However, an Fv –v~ curve for dense sand
has two postpeak segments—a quick reduction of Fv just after
the peak, followed by the gradual reduction after v~ s. Fig. 8(a) shows
that, for dense sand, the postpeak segments even after Fvs do not lie
on a unique line.
Effect of Postpeak Degradation of Uplift Resistance
on Upheaval Buckling
Finite-element analysis is performed to investigate the structural
response of a steel pipeline having the following properties: outside
diameter (D) of 298.5 mm, wall thickness (t) of 12.7 mm, concrete
coating thickness (tc ) of 50 mm, steel yield strength (σy ) of
448 MPa, and steel thermal expansion coefficient (α) of 11 ×
10−6 °C−1 . The pipe is buried in dense sand (Dr ¼ 90% and
γ 0 ¼ 10 kN=m3 ) at an embedment ratio (H) ~ of 3. The density
of steel, concrete, seawater, and oil in the pipe are 7,850, 2,800,
1,025, and 800 kg=m3 , respectively, which gives submerged pipe
weight (oil-filled) of 1.6 kN=m.
To initiate upheaval buckling response associated with increas-
ing oil temperature (T), two initial imperfection ratios (v0 =L0 ) of
0.005 (v0 ¼ 0.16 m and L0 ¼ 31.56 m) and 0.011 (v0 ¼ 0.45 m
and L0 ¼ 41.05 m) are considered, where v0 is the maximum ini-
tial vertical imperfection and L0 is the initial imperfection length.
The initial shape of the pipe is defined using Taylor and Tran
(1996)’s empathetic model. A 3,500-m-long pipe is simulated to
avoid boundary effects in the buckled section. The modified Riks
method is used to capture any snap-through buckling response that
may occur (Abaqus; Liu et al. 2014).
The force–displacement behavior of soil is defined using three
sets of nonlinear independent spring formulations that do not con-
sider load coupling or interaction (e.g., Kenny and Jukes 2015). For
the modeling of upward resistance, two types of force–displacement
relations are used. In Model 1, the Fv –v relation is defined as

© ASCE 04018078-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078

 150
loading. Simplified equations were proposed to establish the force–
displacement curves for practical application. The following con-
clusions can be drawn from this study:
120
• Slip planes do not reach the ground surface when the peak
Temperature difference, T (°C)

resistance is mobilized for higher burial depths.

• The proposed MMC model can simulate the rapid reduction
90
of resistance after the peak, followed by gradual reduction at
large displacement, as observed in model tests. However, the
Mohr-Coulomb model showed a linear reduction of resistance
60 due to change in cover depth.
Tc • For an embedment ratio of 3–4, soil failure initiates with slip
v0/L0 ~0.005 plane mechanisms and then the flow around mechanisms are
Ts
30 observed at large displacement.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ty v0/L0 ~0.011
• The angle of inclination of the slip planes to the vertical (θ) is
approximately equal to the peak dilation angle when the peak
0 resistance mobilizes. However, it decreases with upward displa-
0 1 2 3 4
cement due to decreases in the dilation angle. The angle θ
Buckle amplitude, vm (m)
significantly influences the weight of the soil wedge and thereby
Fig. 9. Effect of postpeak reduction of uplift resistance on permissible uplift resistance.
temperatures (solid lines for Model 1 and dashed lines for Model 2). • Uplift resistance at large displacement does not remain constant
but decreases with upward displacement.
• Unlike peak displacement, displacement required to complete
initial softening increases significantly with the H=D ratio.
• Postpeak reduction of uplift resistance could significantly
OAB 0 C, as shown in Fig. 8(c). Using Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively, reduce the permissible temperature during operation.
the uplift resistances at Points A (9.14 kN=m) and B 0 (5.16 kN=m)
are calculated with vp ¼ 9.3 × mm and vs ¼ 61.5 mm, as dis-
cussed previously. The Model 2 is same as the Model 1 but Acknowledgments
without postpeak degradation where Fv remains constant after
Point A (i.e., elastic and perfectly plastic behavior). Based on ALA The works presented in this paper have been supported by the
(2005), the axial and vertical downward soil resistances of 4.62 Research and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and
and 607.5 kN=m, respectively, are calculated, which mobilize at Labrador, Chevron Canada Limited, and the Natural Sciences
3 and 30 mm displacements, respectively. and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
Fig. 9 shows the variation of temperature increase with the
maximum buckle amplitude (vm ). For both v0 =L0 ratios, the T–vm
curve with postpeak reduction is below that without any reduction. Notation
Previous studies suggested a number of permissible temperature
The following symbols are used in this paper:
increase criteria including (1) the critical (T c ) and safe (T s ) temper-
ature for snap-through buckling response (represented by the circle Aψ = slope of (ϕp0 − ϕc0 ) versus I R curve;
and square symbols in Fig. 9); and (2) temperature required for the C1 , C2 = material constants;
onset of first yield (T y ) for stable buckling (i.e., maximum D = pipe diameter;
stress ¼ σy ) (Hobbs 1984; Taylor and Gan 1986). In this study, Dr = relative density;
the maximum stress is calculated from axial stress and bending E = Young’s modulus;
moment obtained from the numerical simulations. For the snap- Fsuc = suction force under the pipe;
through buckling response case (v0 =L0 ¼ 0.005), Fig. 9 shows Fv = uplift force;
the reduction of T c and T s of 10°C and 23°C, respectively, when Fvp = peak uplift force;
the postpeak reduction in uplift resistance is considered. For the Fvp FE = Fvp calculated by FE;
stable buckling case (v0 =L0 ¼ 0.011), the postpeak reduction
Fvp LEM = Fvp calculated by LEM;
could decrease T y by 17°C. Previous studies also recognized the
Fvs = after softening uplift force;
importance of postpeak reduction of uplift resistance and suggested
using full force–displacement curve considering large vertical H = distance from ground surface to the center of pipe;
H~ = embedment ratio (¼ H=D);
displacements (Klever et al. 1990; Goplen et al. 2005; Wang
et al. 2009). I D = relative density/100;
I R = relative density index;
K = material constant;
Conclusions K 0 = at-rest earth pressure coefficient;
kψ = slope of (ϕp0 − ϕc0 ) versus ψp curve;
The uplift behavior of buried pipelines in dense sand have been
L0 = initial imperfection length;
investigated using finite-element modeling. The stress–strain
m = material constant;
behavior of soil was modeled using a MMC model that considers
the variation of angles of internal friction (ϕ 0 ) and dilation (ψ) with N v = normalized uplift force;
plastic shear strain, density, and confining pressure as observed in N vp = normalized peak uplift force;
laboratory tests on dense sand. Comparison with a model test result N vs = value of N v after softening;
showed that force–displacement, soil deformation, and failure n = exponent;
mechanisms can be explained from the variation of ϕ 0 and ψ with p 0 = mean effective stress;

© ASCE 04018078-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078

 pa0 = atmospheric pressure (= 100 kPa);
Q, R = material constants (Bolton 1986);
Sv = vertical component of shear resistance;
T c = critical temperature;
T s = safe temperature;
T y = temperature required for onset of first yield;
tc = concrete coating thickness;
v = vertical displacement of pipe;
vm = maximum buckle amplitude;
v0 = maximum initial vertical imperfection;
W s = submerged weight of lifted soil wedge;
γ = unit weight of soil;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
γ p = engineering plastic shear strain;
γ pc = strain-softening parameter;
γ pp = γ p required to mobilize ϕp0 ;
Δγ p = plastic strain increment;
Δεp1 = major principal plastic strain increment;
Δεp3 = minor principal plastic strain increment;
ϵ̇pij = plastic deviatoric strain rate;
μ = friction coefficient between pipe and soil;
τ f = shear resistance along the shear band;
v~ = normalized upward displacement of pipe (¼ v=D);
v~ p = v~ required to mobilize N vp ;
v~ s = v~ required to mobilize N vs ;
θ = inclination of slip plane to the vertical;
ϕ 0 = mobilized angle of internal friction;
ϕc0 = critical state friction angle;
ϕin0 = ϕ 0 at the start of plastic deformation;
ϕp0 = peak friction angle;
ϕμ = pipe–soil interface friction angle;
ψ = mobilized dilation angle;
ψp = peak dilation angle; and
ψRp = representative value of the maximum dilation angle.
References
Aiban, S. A., and D. Znidarčić. 1995. “Centrifuge modeling of bear-
ing capacity of shallow foundations on sands.” J. Geotech. Eng.
121 (10): 704–712. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)
121:10(704).
ALA (American Lifelines Alliance). 2005. “Guidelines for the design of
buried steel pipe.” Accessed March 13, 2017. https://www.american
lifelinesalliance.com/pdf/Update061305.pdf.
API (American Petroleum Institute). 1987. Recommended practice for
planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms: API
Recommended practice, 2A (RP 2A). 17th ed. Washington, DC: API.
Aynbinder, A. B., and A. G. Kamershtein. 1982. Raschet magistral’nykh
truboprovodov na prochnost’ i ustoichivost’ [Calculation of trunk pipe
for strength and stability]. [In Russian.] Moscow, Russia: Nedra
Publishers.
Bolton, M. D. 1986. “The strength and dilatancy of sands.” Géotechnique
36 (1): 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.1.65.
Bransby, M. F., and J. Ireland. 2009. “Rate effects during pipeline upheaval
buckling in sand.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 162 (5):
247–256. https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.2009.162.5.247.
Bransby, M. F., T. A. Newson, and M. C. R. Davies. 2002. “Physical mod-
elling of the upheaval resistance of buried offshore pipelines.” In Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC press, Taylor & Francis group.
Cathie, D. N., C. Jaeck, J.-C. Ballard, and J.-F. Wintgens. 2005. “Pipeline
geotechnics: State-of-the-art.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics, 95–114. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
© ASCE 04018078-11
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078
Chakraborty, D., and J. Kumar. 2014. “Vertical uplift resistance of pipes
buried in sand.” J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 5 (1): 04013009. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000149.
Chakraborty, T., and R. Salgado. 2010. “Dilatancy and shear strength
of sand at low confining pressures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 136 (3): 527–532. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
-5606.0000237.
Cheuk, C. Y., D. J. White, and M. D. Bolton. 2005. “Deformation mech-
anisms during the uplift of buried pipelines in sand.” In Proc., 16th Int.
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 1685–1688.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Cheuk, C. Y., D. J. White, and M. D. Bolton. 2008. “Uplift mechanisms of
pipes buried in sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (2): 154–163.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:2(154).
Chin, E. L., W. H. Craig, and M. Cruickshank. 2006. “Uplift resistance of
pipelines buried in cohesionless soil.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 6th Int. Conf.
on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, edited by C. W. W. Ng, L. M.
Zhang, and Y. H. Wang, 723–728. London: Taylor & Francis.
Clukey, E. C., C. R. Jackson, J. A. Vermersch, S. P. Koch, and W. C. Lamb.
1989. “Natural densification by wave action of sand surrounding a
buried offshore pipeline.” In Proc., Offshore Technology Conf.
Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Dickin, E. A. 1994. “Uplift resistance of buried pipelines in sand.” Soils
Found. 34 (2): 41–48. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.34.2_41.
DNV (Det Norske Veritas). 2007. Global buckling of submarine
pipelines—Structural design due to high temperature/high pressure.
DNV-RP-F110. Baerum, Norway: Det Norske Veritas.
Dutta, S., B. Hawlader, and R. Phillips. 2015. “Finite element modeling of
partially embedded pipelines in clay seabed using Coupled Eulerian-
Lagrangian method.” Can. Geotech. J. 52 (1): 58–72. https://doi.org/10
.1139/cgj-2014-0045.
Eiksund, G., H. Langø, and E. Øiseth. 2013. “Full-scale test of uplift re-
sistance of trenched pipes.” Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 23 (4): 298–306.
Farhadi, B., and R. C. K. Wong. 2014. “Numerical modeling of pipe-soil
interaction under transverse direction.” In Proc., Int. Pipeline. Conf.,
2014–33364. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Goplen, S., P Strom, E. Levold, and J. Mork. 2005. “Hotpipe jip: HP/HT
buried pipelines.” In Proc., 24th Int. Conf. on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering. New York: American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
Hobbs, R. E. 1984. “In-service buckling of heated pipelines.” J. Transp.
Eng. 110 (2): 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X
(1984)110:2(175).
Huang, B., J. Liu, D. Ling, and Y. Zhou. 2015. “Application of particle
image velocimetry (PIV) in the study of uplift mechanisms of pipe
buried in medium dense sand.” J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 5 (5):
599–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-015-0130-y.
Jung, J. K., T. D. O’Rourke, and N. A. Olson. 2013. “Uplift soil-pipe in-
teraction in granular soil.” Can. Geotech. J. 50 (7): 744–753. https://doi
.org/10.1139/cgj-2012-0357.
Kenny, S., and P. Jukes. 2015. “Pipeline/soil interaction modelling in
support of pipeline engineering design and integrity.” In Oil and gas
pipelines: Integrity and safety handbook, edited by R. W. Revie, 93.
New York: Wiley.
Klever, F. J., L. C. Van Helvoirt, and A. C. Sluyterman. 1990. “A dedicated
finite-element model for analyzing upheaval bucking response of sub-
marine pipelines.” In Proc., 22nd Annual Offshore Technology Conf.,
529–538. Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Lings, M. L., and M. S. Dietz. 2004. “An improved direct shear apparatus
for sand.” Géotechnique 54 (4): 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot
.2004.54.4.245.
Liu, R., H. Xiong, X. L. Wu, and S. W. Yan. 2014. “Numerical studies on
global buckling of subsea pipelines.” Ocean Eng. 78: 62–72. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.12.018.
Loukidis, D., and R. Salgado. 2011. “Effect of relative density and stress
level on the bearing capacity of footings on sand.” Géotechnique 61 (2):
107–119. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.8.P.150.3771.
Merifield, R. S., S. W. Sloan, A. J. Abbo, and H. S. Yu. 2001. “The ultimate
pullout capacity of anchors in frictional soils.” In Proc., 10th Int. Conf.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, 1187–1192.
Florida: CRC press, Taylor and Francis group.
Palmer, A. C., D. J. White, A. J. Baumgard, M. D. Bolton, A. J. Barefoot,
M. Finch, T. Powell, A. S. Faranski, and J. A. S. Baldry. 2003. “Uplift
resistance of buried submarine pipelines: Comparison between centri-
fuge modelling and full-scale tests.” Géotechnique 53 (10): 877–883.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.10.877.
Pike, K. 2016. “Physical and numerical modelling of pipe/soil interaction
events for large deformation geohazards.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Memorial
Univ. of Newfoundland.
Pike, K., and S. Kenny. 2016. “Offshore pipelines and ice gouge geoha-
zards: Comparative performance assessment of decoupled structural
and coupled continuum models.” Can. Geotech. J. 53 (11): 1866–1881.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0090.
Randolph, M. F., M. B. Jamiolkowski, and L. Zdravkovic. 2004. “Load
carrying capacity of foundations.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Skempton
Memorial Conf., 207–240. Westminster, London: ICE publishers,
Institution of Civil Engineers.
Roy, K. 2017. “Numerical modeling of pipe–soil and anchor–soil interac-
tions in dense sand.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland.
Roy, K., B. C. Hawlader, S. Kenny, and I. Moore. 2016. “Finite element
modeling of lateral pipeline-soil interactions in dense sand.” Can.
Geotech. J. 53 (3): 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0171.
Roy, K., B. C. Hawlader, S. Kenny, and I. Moore. 2018. “Uplift failure
mechanisms of pipes buried in dense sand.” Int. J. Geomech. 18 (8):
04018087.
Saboya, F. A., Jr., P. A.C. Santiago, R. R. Martins, S. Tibana, R. S. Ramires,
and J. T. Araruna Jr. 2012. “Centrifuge test to evaluate the geotechnical
performance of anchored buried pipelines in sand.” J. Pipeline Syst.
Eng. Pract. 3 (3): 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204
.0000105.
Schaminée, P., N. Zorn, and G. Schotman. 1990. “Soil response for pipeline
upheaval buckling analyses: Full-scale laboratory tests and modelling.”
In Proc., Offshore Technology Conf., 563–572. Houston.
Schupp, J., B. W. Byrne, N. Eacott, C. M. Martin, J. Oliphant,
A. Maconochie, and D. Cathie. 2006. “Pipeline unburial behaviour
in loose sand.” In Proc., 25th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering. New York: American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
Stone, K. J. L., and T. A. Newson. 2006. “Uplift resistance of buried pipe-
lines: An investigation of scale effects in model tests.” In Vol. 1
of Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics,
© ASCE 04018078-12
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(11): 04018078
edited by C. W. W. Ng, L. M. Zhang, and Y. H. Wang, 741–746.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Tatsuoka, F., M. Okahara, T. Tanaka, K. Tani, T. Morimoto, and
M. S. A. Siddiquee. 1991. “Progressive failure and particle size effect
in bearing capacity of a footing on sand.” Geotech. Spec. Publ. 27 (2):
788–802.
Taylor, N., and A. B. Gan. 1986. “Submarine pipeline buckling-
imperfection studies.” Thin Walled Struct. 4 (4): 295–323. https://doi
.org/10.1016/0263-8231(86)90035-2.
Taylor, N., and V. Tran. 1996. “Experimental and theoretical studies in sub-
sea pipeline buckling.” Mar. Struct. 9 (2): 211–257. https://doi.org/10
.1016/0951-8339(94)00021-J.
Thusyanthan, N. I., S. Mesmar, J. Wang, and S. K. Haigh. 2010. “Uplift
resistance of buried pipelines and DNV-RP-F110.” In Proc., Offshore
Pipeline Technology Conf., 24–25. Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Trautmann, C. 1983. “Behavior of pipe in dry sand under lateral and uplift
loading.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Cornell Univ.
Wang, J., R. Ahmed, S. K. Haigh, N. I. Thusyanthan, and S. Mesmar. 2010.
“Uplift resistance of buried pipelines at low cover–diameter ratios.”
In Proc., Offshore Technology. Conf. Texas: Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson.
Wang, J., A. Eltaher, P. Jukes, J. Sun, and F. S. Wang. 2009. “Latest devel-
opments in upheaval buckling analysis for buried pipelines.” In Proc.,
Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf., 594–602. Cupertino, CA:
International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
Wang, J., S. K. Haigh, G. Forrest, and N. I. Thusyanthan. 2012. “Mobi-
lization distance for upheaval buckling of shallowly buried pipelines.”
J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 3 (4): 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000099.
White, D. J., A. J. Barefoot, and M. D. Bolton. 2001. “Centrifuge model-
ling of upheaval buckling in sand.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech. 1 (2):
19–28. https://doi.org/10.1680/ijpmg.2001.010202.
White, D. J., C. Y. Cheuk, and M. D. Bolton. 2008. “The uplift resistance
of pipes and plate anchors buried in sand.” Géotechnique 58 (10):
771–779. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2008.3692.
White, D. J., W. A. Take, and M. D. Bolton. 2003. “Soil deformation
measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photogram-
metry.” Géotechnique 53 (7): 619–631. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot
.2003.53.7.619.
Yimsiri, S., K. Soga, K. Yoshizaki, G. Dasari, and T. O’Rourke. 2004.
“Lateral and upward soil-pipeline interactions in sand for deep embed-
ment conditions.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (8): 830–842.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:8(830).
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.