OTC 6055

Submarine Pipeline On-Bottom Stability: Recent AGA Research

by D.W. Allen, Shell Development Co.; W.F. Lammert and J.R. Hale, Brown &Root U.S.A. Inc.;
and V. Jacobsen, Danish Hydraulic Inst.
Copyright 1989, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was presented at the 21st Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 1-4, 1989.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information. contained in an abstract s U b ~ i t t e d by the author(s). Contents of t ~ e paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The matenal, as presented.. does not necessanl.y reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustratIons may not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.
In addition to the hydrodynamic force program,
model tests on pipe/soil interaction forces have
been conducted on loose sands, dense sands, and
soft clays. The effect of pipeline oscillation on
these interaction forces was also analyzed to
prepare empirical formulations of the lateral soil
resistance developed by oscillatory pipe movements.
BACKGROUND
On-bottom stability design of submarine
pipelines has traditionally been based on the
static balance between applied hydrodynamic forces
b. to develop analysis tools capable of
predicting the governing forces and
determining their effect on pipeline
stability, and
c. to produce practical calculation
procedures.
The major portion of the research has focused
upon hydrodynamic forces. Large scale model tests
on stationary submarine pipelines exposed to
currents, waves and combined waves and currents
have been conducted for pipelines resting on a
seabed, partially buried pipelines, and pipelines
resting in shallow trenches. Similar tests have
also been conducted to determine the reduction of
hydrodynamic force which is realized if the pipe
moves under the influence of the wave or wave and
current loadings. The subsequent analyses of the
measured forces have resulted in force coefficients
applicable in common industry formulas and in force
coefficients for use in more refined and accurate
force calculation procedures.
This research effort was planned, coordinated
and monitored by an ad-hoc committee composed of
representatives from A.G.A. member companies with
assistance from the consultants used to perform the
various research projects.
121
Recently, the Pipeline Research Committee of
the American Gas Association (A.G.A.) has sponsored
several research projects in the area of submarine
pipeline on-bottom stability. This coordinated
research effort has focused on, and resulted in,
development of simulation software for design, and
the preparation of design guidelines.
Analytical models for both the hydrodynamic
and pipe/soil interaction forces have been
developed and implemented into the pipe dynamic
analysis software. This software is designed to
predict the motions of a pipeline exposed to
current and an irregular sea-state. Based upon
results of the model tests and computer
simulations, pipeline on-bottom stability design
calculation procedures have been prepared in a
design handbook.
----- -
------ --- - -- -- - -- ----
References and figures at end of paper
INTRODUCTION
a. to obtain an accurate assessment and
verification of the forces which govern
pipeline stability,
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a research program in
pipeline on-bottom stability, sponsored by the
A.G.A., which has been underway since 1983. The
research program has been conducted as a series of
separate projects coordinated in "building block"
fashion. Although the target product was defined
in general terms, the full extent of the work was
not initially conceived as one large, single
project. Instead, the research was executed as a
series of tasks involving numerous organizations
and researchers. Throughout the work, results of
earlier tasks were used to define new tasks
. required to reach the desired objectives. These
objectives were:
2 SUBMARINE PIPELINE ON-BOTTOM STABILITY: RECENT AGA RESEARCH OTC 6055
New Force Model (1986)
-----
--
---
------
Analysis of the measured results from the 1985
tests was performed using least squares fit,
Fourier decomposition, and maximum force data
reduction methods. Based on these results, an
analytical model, capable of accurately predicting
both the magnitude and temporal variation of drag
and lift forces on a stationary pipe, on
the seabed, was developed (Jacobsen et al.
Stationary Pipe Tests (1985-1986)
The large scale model tests conducted in 1985
included some 4000 odd tests. As reported by
Bryndum et al. , these tests included test
conditions of current only, regular or irregular
waves only, and current combined with either
regular or irregular waves. The test program was
designed to cover a wide range of the significant
non-dimensional parameters, including
Keulegan-Carpenter number, current to wave ratio,
Reynolds number, pipe roughness, and seabed
roughness. Secondary effects of seabed roughness,
irregularity, and scaling effects were also.
investigated. Ranges for the basic test parameters
are given in Table 2.
Additional tests on partially buried pipelines
were performed in the current flume during 1986 as
an extension of the 1985 test program. Results of
these tests indicated that both in-line and lift
forces are reduced due to the less exposed pipe.
It has also been concluded from these tests that
the effect of partial burial can be considered by
using a reduction factor depending only on the
degree of burial.
To describe hydrodynamic force variations over
a wave cycle, a Fourier series representation of
the drag and lift forces was adopted during this
hydrodynamic forces. The identification of the
governing non-dimensionalized parameters and wave
planning of the initial test program were conducted
during 1983-84. Model tests on stationary pipes
laying on the seabed were conducted in 1985. In
1986, a new wave force model was developed and
additional model tests were performed on partially
buried pipelines. All of the above work on
hydrodynamic forces has b
r3
n previously reportra in
detail by Jacobsen et al. and Bryndum et al.
Following the initial test program in 1985-86, a
second test program was defined for 1987 with the
purpose of determining the reduced hydrodynamic
loadings on pipelines in shallow trenches. During
1986-1987, use of the analytic wave force model
developed from the 1985. test program established
that pipe movement during a wave cycle could
produce significant reductions in hydrodynamic
loads. To quantify this reduction in loadings, a
test program for moving pipelines was defined and a
third set of wave and cYsrent tests were cgducted
in 1988 (Bryndum et al. , Jacobsen et al. ). In
these tests, oscillatory flow conditions were
developed around the pipe by moving the model pipe
and seabed rather than by causing the body of test
water to oscillate. The tests and the analytic
model developed from these tests are briefly
described below.
The research that has been performed by the A.G.A.
in each of the above work areas is further
described below (also, see Table 1).
The research in the area of hydrodynamic
forces has included large scale model tests and the
development of an analytic approach, capable of
accurately predicting the temporal variation of
HYDRODYNAMIC FORCES
122
This basic design dilemma (underestimated
hydrodynamic forces but seemingly conservative
results) provided the basis for several A.G.A.
research projects. In 1987, results from a three
year long effort on the tfPESTAB project were
reported (Wolfram et al. ), and a similar joint
indyztry study has been reported by Palmer et
al Concurrently, the A.G.A.'s research was
developing, and it is this work which is briefly
presented in this paper.
Each of the individual projects is associated
with one of the four following work areas:
-
-- - ----- ---
a. Hydrodynamic Forces
b. Pipe/Soil Interaction Forces
c. Computer Software Development
d. Development of Design Guidelines
Beginning in late 19
5
0's, the work of
Grace Bnd Nicinski , S,rpkaya , Sarpkaya and
Rajabi , Grace and Zee and others indicated that
hydrodynamic coefficients in oscillatory flow could
be substantially larger than those for steady flow
Furthermere, the work et
al. , Jacobsen et al. , Verley et al. , and others
has clearly demonstrated that the time variation of
hydrodynamic lift forces is substantially different
from that predicted by the Morison type equation.
However, the higher hydrodynamic force coefficients
did not initially gain widespread acceptance
because the industry has recognized that their use
with the traditional design methodology would lead
to unrealistic weight coating requirements for
submarine pipelines.
and resisting soil forces as depicted in Figure 1.
Typically, applied hydrodynamic forces from both
and current action were computed using the
familiar Morison equation with drag and lift force
coefficients based on Todel tests conducted in
steady flow conditions. The resisting soil force
was typically characterized as a frictional force,
with friction coefficients based on sliding pipe
tests or on simple foundation design theory.
In the traditional design approach, design
sea-state conditions are typically represented by a
single regular wave height and period. This type
of design practi2e is similar to that described in
DnV's 1976 Rules. For oscillatory flow
conditions, the traditional design approach has
been shown to be inaccurate due to its simplistic
models for hydrodynamic and pipe/soil interaction
forces. The method has, however, been successfully
used in many parts of the world for many years, and
it is generally felt that the method yields
conservative results. Note that rec
3
ntly, DnV has
published a new recommended practice , the accuracy
of which is yet to be determined.

OTC 6055 ALLEN, LAMMERT, HALE AND JACOBSEN 3
---------
-- --
-----
COMPUTER SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
The apparent stability obtained from traditional
pipeline design indicated that the soil resistance
forces could be larger than assumed. Recent
research in pipe/soil interacti?n includes that
18
described by gennodden et al. et al. ,
Morris et al. and Palmer et al. . The work
completed during the A.G.A.'s research includes
large scale model tests, and the development of a
model to predict pipe/soil interaction.
The pipe/soil interaction tests performed during
this research (see table 5) were performed using
the same test flume, carriage
17
ystem, etc. as that
reported by Brennodden et al. on the PIPESTAB
project. Testing procedures, instrumentation, etc.
were also similar, with the exception that the
tests were conducted in only the displacement
controlled fashion, and lift forces were not
applied to the pipe test section. Details of the
test procedures, data reduction methods, test
20
results been reported by Brz2nodden ,
Lieng et al. ,and Brennodden et al.
Computer software development was coordinated
to stay abreast of the findings from the model test
programs. In 1984, development of dynamic
stability analysis software was initiated, and
included irregular sea simulation and a three
dimensional finite element program model the
pipe dynamics (Borgman and Hudspeth ). A simple
two dimensional finite model was next
developed (Michalopoulos ) in order to improve the
computational efficiency for use on microcomputers.
The microcomputer based dynamic analysis program
was the basis for the software developments of this
research.
The work of the researchers listed above as well as
that of the A.G.A. has shown that when a pipe is
oscillated in either a force or displacement
controlled manner, the pipe will tend to dig into
the soil, and the ability of the soil to resist
lateral loads will increase. In soils which are
typical of soft marine sediments, the tendency of
the pipe to embed itself into the seabed can be
pronounced (as illustrated on Figure 5), and the
increase in lateral soil resistance significant.
This type of increase in soil resistance is not
considered in the traditional static stability
design method, since the implication of this method
is that the pipe does not move under wave and
current loadings . Recent research has focused on
measuring the development of lateral resistance
which can be attributed to oscillatory pipe
movement, and it has been shown that even small
pipe oscillations (say 5% of the pipe diameter) can
produce a significant increase in soil resistance
due to the pipe penetration into the seabed.
The data measured during the tests was reduced to a
form consistent with that required to provide
information for development of an energy based
pipe/soil interaction model which was envisaged at
the outset of the test program. Based on the
reduced data, an empirical model of the pipe/soil
interaction was developed and has been implemented
into the pipe dynamics software package.
123
----- -
---- --- - -- -- - -- ----
Moving Pipe Tests (1988)
The promising results of the partially buried pipe
tests led to a second model test program conducted
during 1987. These tests were designed to study
the reduction in hydrodynamic forces experienced by
pipes sitting in narrow bottom, shallow trenches.
Trench configurations tested during the program are
shown in Figure 4. Measured data from the tests
were reduced in a fashion similar to that for the
prior test programs. Similar to the partially
buried pipe tests, it was also concluded that the
sheltering effect of the trenches could be well
represented by applying a reduction factor to the
time histories generated for a completely exposed
pipe. The ranges of relevant parameters included
in the tests are given in Table 3.
Stationary Pipe Tests in Shallow Trenches (1987)
research. Inertial forces are computed in the same
fashion as with the Morison type equation. An
extensive data base, established from the Fourier
decomposition of the regular wave forces, forms the
basis for the method, which also includes the
important wake effect (i.e the the wake
created in the previous half wave cycle has on the
forces experienced by the pipe in the present half
wave cycle). Table look up and interpolation of
the Fourier coefficients and phase relationships
from this data base are performed based on
Keulegan-Carpenter number, current to wave ratio,
pipe roughness and seabed roughness. For regular
wave and current conditions, the interpolated
coefficients and phase relationships are used to
directly compute the variation of forces. The
effectiveness of the new force model in comparison
to the traditional Morison type equation is
demonstrated in Figure 2.
Similar to the hydrodynamic aspects of on-bottom
stability, there has been a large volume of
research into the interaction between the pipe and
the seabed. Interest in this aspect of the problem
was spurred by the experimental verification that
actual hydrodynamic forces are larger than those
associated with the traditional design methodology.
PIPE/SOIL INTERACTION FORCES
During 1986 and 1987, dynamic simulations of
pipelines were conducted using the A.G.A.'s pipe
dynamics software and the new hydrodynamic force
formulations. These simulations included
comparison of different methods to consider the
effect of pipe movement on hydrodynamic drag and
lift forces. In order to select the most
appropriate force reduction method, a series of
model tests were planned (see table 4). In these
tests, the pipe would be allowed to move.
of these tests are lEPorted by Bryndum et al. ,
and Jacobsen et al.
The method has also been adapted for irregular wave
force computations. The is described in
detail by Jacobsen et al. ,and it has shown
excellent capability of reproducing irregular wave
force time series recorded during the model tests
(based on input of the free stream velocity time
series) as is shown in Figure 3.
4 SUBMARINE PIPELINE ON-BOTTOM STABILITY: RECENT AGA RESEARCH OTC 6055
Enhancements and modifications to the dynamic small movements (less than 0.5 pipe
analysis software during this research program diameters).
include: b. In sands with relative density less
a. incorporation of the new model for than about 50 percent (in the top soil
hydrodynamic forces on stationary pipes, layer), the programs predict that a
b. modification of the program to include pipe designed to be stable with the
the effect of pipe embedment and shallow traditional method will be stable and
trenches on hydrodynamic forces, will undergo only small movements
c. inclusion of a method to reduce the c. In softer clay and looser sand than
hydrodynamic forces for moving pipes, and indicated in a) and b) above, it
d. incorporation of the pipe/soil appears that the traditional design
interaction model. method yields conservative results and
there may be the opportunity to reduce
The arrangement ofthe dynamic ana$~sis weight coating designs.
software is discussed by Lammert et al. . d. In harder clay and denser sand than
Although the software is relatively easy to use, indicated in a) and b) above, dynamic
the nature of dynamic analysis does not lend itself simulations indicate that the tradi-
well to the stability design process. In order to tional design method yields a pipe
make the results of the hydrodynamic forces and design that will undergo net movements
pipe/soil interaction tests available to the design (several pipe diameters and larger).
engineer in a practical form, a simplified analysis e. The new hydrodynamic force formulation
procedure has also been developed and computerized. strongly influences the degree of net
The simplified analysis is based on a quasi-static pipe movement predicted during a
simulation of the pipe during an assumed, short dynamic simulation. Dynamic analyses
storm build-up period just prior to the design based on use of free stream velocity
sea-state. Based on this simulation, an embedment in the Morison type equation introduce
of the pipe is predicted. Stability of the pipe is a large bias in the applied forces
then checked for the significant and maximum bottom when currents are included in the
velocities which are expected during the design analysis. With the new force formu-
sea-state. This check is based on a static balance lation, the applied forces are not
of forces as in the traditional design method, but nearly as strongly biased and much
the hydrodynamic forces applied to the pipe are smaller net movement of pipe is
realistic and the available soil resistance force predicted.
is based on the prior loading history of the pipe.
The2grocedure is described in detail by Hale et In the above comparisons, traditional design
al. and illustrated in Figure 6. is characterized as follows:
The simplified design calculation has been a. Design wave: Significant wave height,
verified using the more sophisticated dynamic Zero crossing period, Long
analysis software. This verification has been crested wave theory
performed by simulating the build-up sea-state b. Hydrodynamic coefficients:
period with the dynamic analysis software. The Drag (Cd) = 0.7
results show that the simplified analysis Lift (Cl) = 0.9
conservatively estimates pipe embedments predicted Inertia (Cm) = 3.29
by the more detailed dynamic analysis. c. Soil friction: Sand = 0.7
Clay= 0.4
DESIGN CATTUATION RESULTS
Results from analyses using the simplified DESIGN GUIDELINES
design procedure indicate that in most cases
traditionally designed pipes are more than To collect and summarize the important
adequately weighted to resist pipe movement. Only findings relating to on-bottom pipeline stability
in very hard soils (where the pipe cannot from the body of research performed by the A.G;A.,
penetrate) does the new design procedure indicate a set of design guidelines were developed. The
that traditionally designed pipes may move. Figure guidelines are written as a reference tool to be
7 illustrates the trend of results from the used by the design engineer when performing weight
simplified analysis when compared to the coating design. They supplement the analysis tools
traditional design procedure. and research reports with discussions and
flowcharts of the total design process, and show
At this time, there has not been sufficient how stability design fits into that process.
experience with the completed software to develop a Details of the stability design process and
wide range of general conclusions regarding the philosophy are discussed as well as explanations of
results to be expected. However, several general the physical phenomena modeled. Details of data
conclusions are as follows: collection techniques and route and soil surveys
are also presented. Finally, general discussions
a. In clays which have undrained shear about related items which may need to be considered
strengths less than about 80 psf, the simultaneously are also provided (e.g.
programs predict that a pipe designed to installation, shore approach, pipeline crossings,
be stable with the traditional method soil erosion and scour).
will be stable and will undergo only
124

.
.. ~~_ .-_... . . _., . ., , __ ~ ..____._._.
- . = c _ ~
.
OTC 6055 ALLEN, LAMMRRT, HALE AND JACOBSEN 5
SUMMARY
Conference, Paper No. OTC 2898,
Houston, 1977.
The results of the work reported here provide
the basis for a more rigorous approach to on-bottom 6. Sarpkaya, T. and Rajabi, F., Hydrodynamic
stability design of submarine pipelines. With the Drag on Bottom-Mounted Smooth and Rough
more rigorous approach, realistic hydrodynamic Cylinders in Periodic Flow, Proc. of
forces are used, and these forces are larger than Eleventh Offshore Technology Conference,
the forces used in the traditional on-bottom Paper No. OTC 3761, Houston, 1979.
stability design method. Due to the larger applied
hydrodynamic forces, the results of the work 7. Grace, R.A. and Zee, G.T.Y., Wave Forces
indicate that some movement of the pipe can be on Rigid Pipes Using Ocean Test Data,
expected in typical marine sediments. However, Journal of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and
there is also indication that small movements of Ocean Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. WW2,
the pipe will cause the pipe to embed if the bottom pp. 71-92, 1981.
sediments are not too dense (non-cohesive soils) or
too stiff (cohesive soils). Associated with this 8. Bryndum, M.B., Jacobsen, V., and Brand,
embedment is substantial increase in soil L.P., Hydrodynamic Forces From Wave and
resistance forces, which in turn may limit the Current Loads on Marine Pipelines, Proc.
pipeline movements. of Fifteenth Offshore Conference, Paper No.
OTC 4454, Houston, 1983.
The experimental research and computer
programs developed during this project have been 9. Jacobsen, V., Bryndum, M.B., and Fredsoe,
incorporated into a design guideline thereby J., Determination of Flow Kinematics Close
facilitating more accurate and reliable stability to Marine Pipelines and Their Use in
design. Stability Calculations, Proc. of
Sixteenth Offshore Technology Conference,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Paper No. OTC 4833, Houston, 1984.
The authors wish to thank the Pipeline 10. Verley, R.L.P., Lambrakos, K.F., and Reed,
Research Committee of the American Gas Association K Prediction of Hydrodynamic Forces on
for permission to publish this paper. The authors S~~ Bed Pipelines, Proc. of Nineteenth
also wish to thank present and past members of the Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No.
ad hoc committee which has overseen the development
OTC 5503, Houston, 1987.
of the research described above; and in particular
R. W. Patterson, and D. T. Tsahalis, two recent ad 11. Wolfram, W.R. Jr., Getz, J.R., and Verley,
hoc committee chairmen. Their contribution to the R.L.P., PIPESTAB Project: Improved Design
work has been invaluable. In addition to the Basis for Submarine Pipeline Stability,vt
authors respective companies, there are other Proc. of Nineteenth Of:fshoreConference,
organizations whose work has advanced the project Paper No. OTC 5501, Houston, 1987.
to its completion and the authors wish to recognize
their contribution. These include, L.E. Bergman, 12. Palmer, A.c., Steenfelt, J.S.,
Inc.; Southwest Applied Mechanics, Inc.; McClelland Steensen-Bach, J.O., and Jacobsen, V.,
Engineers, Inc.; and, SINTEF. Lateral Resistance of Marine Pipelines on
Sand, Proc. of Twentieth Offshore
REFERENCES Technology Conference, Paper No. OTC 5853,
Houston, 1988.
1. Jones, W.T., On-Bottom Pipeline Stability
in Steady Water Currents, Proc. of Eight 13. Jacobsen, V., Bryndum, M.B., and Tsahalis,
Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. D.T. , Prediction of Irregular Wave Forces
OTC 2598, Houston, 1976. on Submarine Pipelines, Seventh Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
2. Det norske Veritas, Rules for the Design,
Construction and Inspection of Submarine
conferences PP. 23-329 Houston* Feb. 1988.
Pipelines and Pipeline Risers, DnV, Oslo, 14. Bryndum, M.B., Jacobsen, V., and Tsahalis,
1976. D.T., Hydrodynamic Forces on Pipelines:
Model Tests, Seventh Offshore Mechanics
3. Det norske Veritas, On-Bottom Stability and Arctic Engineering Conference, pp.
Design of Submarine Pipelines,
9-21, Houston, Feb. 1988.
Recommended Practice E305, October 1988.
15. Jacobsen, V., Bryndum, M.B., and Bonde,
4. Grace, R.A. and Nicinski, S.A., Wave Force C.L., Fluid Loads on Pipelines - Sheltered
Coefficients from Pipeline Research in the or Sliding, Proc. of the 21st Offshore
Ocean, Proc. of Eighth Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. OTC 6056,
Technology Conference, Paper No. OTC 2676, Houston, 1989.
Houston, 1976.
16. Bryndum, M.B., Jacobsen, V., and Bonde,
5. Sarpkaya, T., In-line and Transverse C.L., Hydrodynamic Forces on a Sliding
Forces on Cylinders Near a Wall in Pipeline - Model Tests, Report by Danish
Oscillatory Flow at High Reynolds Numbers,
Hydraulic Institute to the American Gas
Proc. of Ninth Offshore Technology
Association, Horsholm, Denmark, 1988.
..-
125
6 SUBMARINE PIPELINE ON-BOTTOM STABILITY: RECENT AGA RESEARCH OTC 6055
17. Brennodden, H., Sueggen, D., Wagner, D.A.,
and Murff, J.D., Full-Scale Pipe-Soil
Interaction Tests, Proc. of Eighteenth
Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No.
5338, Houston, 1986.
18. Wagner, D.A., Murff, J.D., Brennodden, H.,
and Sueggen, O., Pipe-Soil Interaction
Model, Proc. of Nineteenth Offshore
Technology Conference, Paper No. OTC 5504,
Houston, 1987.
19. Morris, D.V., Webb, R.E., and Dunlap, W.A.,
Self-Burial of Laterally Loaded Offshore
Pipelines in Weak Sediments, Proc. of
Twentieth Offshore Technology Conference,
Paper No. OTC 5855, Houston, 1988.
20. Brennodden, H., Pipe-Soil Interaction
Tests in Sand and Soft Clay, Report No.
STF69 F87018, a SINTEF report to the
American Gas Association, Trondheim,
Norway, 1988.
21. Lieng, J.T., Sotberg, T., and Brennodden,
H Energy Based Pipe-Soil Interaction
M~~els, Report No. STF69 F87024, a SINTEF
report to the American Gas Association,
Trondheim, Norway, 1988.
22. Brennodden, H., Sotberg, T., Leing,
J Verley, R., An Energy Based
P~~e-Soil Interaction Model, Proc. of
the 21st Offshore Technology
Conference, Paper No. 6057, Houston,
1989.
23. Bergman, L.E. and Hudspeth, R., The Effect
of Random Seas on Pipeline Stability -
Volumes I & II, a Pipeline Research
Publication of the American Gas
Association, Arlington, VA, 1984.
24. Michalopoulos, C.D., Effect of Random Seas
on Pipeline Stability - Phase 11, a
Southwest Applied Mechanics, Inc. report to
the American Gas Association, Houston,
1986.
25. Lammert, W.F., Hale, J.R., and Jacobsen,
v Dynamic Response of Submarine
P~~elines Exposed to Combined Wave and
Current Action, Proc. of the 21st
Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No.
6058, 1989.
26. Hale, J.R., Lammert, W.F., and Jacobsen,
v Improved Basis for Static Stability
A~~lysis and Design of Marine Pipelines,
Proc. of the 21st Offshore Technology
Conference, Paper No. 6059, Houston, 1989.
Table 1 Scope of Coordinated Research Effort
Work Area 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
hydrodynamic Desk study, Model tests Model tests Model tests Model tests on
?orces program on stationary on stationary, on stationary moving pipe.
planning. pipe. partially pipe in shallow
buried pipe. trenches.
Improved
hydrodynamic
force
formulation
(Fourier
series).
?ipe/Soil Model tests Pipe/soil interaction
[interaction with forced force.
?orces oscillations
in sandsand
clay.
:omputer Irregular Irregular wave Fourier series qPipe/soil interaction
;oftware wave simulation force force model implemented.
development simulation. and pipeline formulation Results of moving pipe tests
dynamics implemented. implemented.
Simplified quasi-static
method developed.
Design Geotechnical Hydrographic/ Version 1.0 of guidelines
Guidelines aspects of hydrodynamic completed.
guidelines aspects Seminar presented.
prepared. prepared.
-.

.
.. I=~_ .-_ . .. . . _., . ., , __ ~ . .____._._.
- . = c _ ~
.
Table 2 Test Parameter Range for 1985 Hydrodynamic Force Tests
.
Test pipe diameter - 200 mm and 400 mm
Pipe hydraulic roughness range - fine, medium, rough (10-5
to 5X10-2)
Seabed hydraulic roughness range - fine, medium, rough (10
-3
to 5X10-2)
Maximum average current in flume - 0,69 m/see
Steady Regular Irregular
Current Waves Waves
Reynolds number (x 105) 0.3 - 2.4 0.5 - 3.6 0.7 - 2,5
Keulegan-Carpenter number - 3 - 160 10 - 70
Current to Wave ratio O - 1.6 0 - 1.2
Note: Keulegan-Carpenter number and current-to-wave ratio
for irregular waves based on significant velocity and
peak period of bottom velocity spectrum.
Table 3 Test Parameter Range for 1987 Hydrodynamic Force Tests
for Pipe in Narrow, Shallow Trenches
.
Test pipe diameter - 200 mm
Width of trench bottom - 1 pipe diameter
Trench depth to pipe
diameter ratio - 0.5 to 1.0
Slope of trench sides - 11 to 18
Direction of flow - Perpendicular to pipe
Pipe hydraulic roughness range - 10-3
Seabed hydraulic roughness range - 10
-3
Maximum average current in flume - 0.69 m/see
Steady Regular Irregular
Current Waves Waves
Reynolds number (x 105) 0.3 - 1.2 0.5 - 3.6 -
Keulegan-Carpenter number -
Current
Note:
to Wave ratio
Keulegan-Carpenter number
for irregular waves based
5 - 100 -
0.0 - 1.4 -
and current-to-wave ratio
on significant velocity and
peak period of bottom velocity spectrum.
127
Table 4 Test Parameter Range for 1988 Hydrodynamic Force Tests
for Moving Pipe
Test pipe diameter - 200mm
Pipe hydraulic roughness range - 10-3
Seabed hydraulic roughness range - 10
-3
Maximum average current in flume - 0.69 mlsec
Steady Regular Irregular
Current Waves waves

Reynolds number (x 105) 0.3 - 1.2 0.5 - 3.6 -

Keulegan-Carpenter number - 10 - 60 10 - 30
Current to Wave Ratio 0.0 - 0.8 0.0 - 0.5
Note: Keulegan-Carpenter number and current-to-wave ratio
for irregular waves based on significant velocity and
peak period of bottom velocity spectrum.
Table 5 Test Parameter Range for 1987 Pipe/Soil
Interaction Tests
Type of Test
Test Pipe Diameter -
Submerged Weight
of pipe
Amplitude of Pipe
Oscillations
Soil Types

Simple breakout (no pipe oscillations),

Regular oscillatory (displacement
controlled),
Random force tests
0.5m and l.Om
0.25kN/m to 2.0 kN/m
O.lm to 0.5m
Loose sand (relative density = 0.05)
Dense sand (relative density = 0.46)
Soft clay (undrained shear strength
= 1.4 kPa)
_

~
.
. ~----

.. ~~_ .-_... . . _.,

. _ ., , __ ~ .____._.
.
- . = c _ ~

__- _ m. .- 7..-: __ .._
. . - ~.


.

..
.= ___

. _ .-. . _. .

-= __. _. .=._ _ _.

I !
3W04 3N11-NI
129
A_
.
.. ~~_ .-_ . .. . . _.,

. _ ., , __ ~ .____._.
.- . = c-_ ~
.
__- _ m. .- 7..-: __ .._
. . - ~.


.

. .
.= ___

. _ .-. . _. .

-= __. _. .=._ _ _.

. -

.. . __= _.. _

.. + ._ _:

. _ _ -.-
a.~ ___

.:>= .. -

=._ __ .- -_ -.s ..== . ..

. -= .=- =. _ .
.
. =. = -= . ._ _ _. -_ ___ _ _ a- .

-. -.
MEA FY, iJFf FORCE N/M
------ EST FY. LIFTFORCE N/M (FOURIER k4flHoo)
400
300
200
100
0
Rg. 3-Measured and predicted lift force using Fourier
method test 863 (KC=30, a= Uc /Uw =0.48)
u-.
.2 +/0= 0,5;0=3
-T
IH
. /D= !.O; a=5
A H/D= ]. Cl; a=3
Fig. 4Trench configuration for hydrodynamic force
model test on pipes in shallow trenches
n
----------
,., ..
~,,
,,,
[+;
,;
q
o
(CONTINUED PIPE OSCILLATION)
q
q
-----i---vE E
~,
Fig. 5Embedment of pipe in soft sediments
RANDOM WAVE
SIMULATION PROGRAM
WSIMQ
(!+, TP, etc. ) ,
~
(ON BOITOM)
I
L& Ul,lo, U,,l OO,
*
Tz
A.G.A.
FORCE
MODULE
!
HYDRODY
FORCES
dAMIC
I
u
MAX 1
HISTORY DEPENDENT
SOIL MODEL
II
HISTORY DEPENDENT
SOIL RESISTANCE &
EMBEDMENT Pl?EDICTICh!
1
STATIC STABILITY CHECK
(Ucj) u,/,(y ? 1/,IXI $ MAX)
I
Fig. 6Simplified qasistatic stability analysis program
131
A_
.. ~~_ .-_ . .. . . _., . _ ., , __ ~ .____._.

.- . = c-_ ~
.
I
1-
1~
CONSERVATIVE
x
. .. .. .
c)
_7RAoTlToTlAL.mE?51GN
a
3
w
Q_
n
0 .
UNCONSERVATIVE
. .
7WOTTiOmLmE31GN
!
E
g
SIMPUFIED
ANALYSIS
INCREASING SOIL SIRENGTH
-
Fig. 7Comparison of stability requirements
132
A_
.
.. ~~_ .-_ . .. . . _., . _ ., , __ ~ .____._.

.
.- . = c-_ ~