1995 OMAE ~ Volume V, Pipeline Technology ASME 1995 A SOIL RESISTANCE MODEL FOR PIPELINES PLACED ON CLAY SOILS Richard Verley STATOIL, Trondheim Norway Kjell M. Lund SINTEF Trondheim Norway ABSTRACT This paper describes » pipe soil interaction model applicable F, > lift force applied wo pipe for pipelines lying on, or partially buried in, clay soils and F, > remainder soil resistance due to _pesetration subjected to hydrodynamic forces from waves ancVor currents. ‘(maximum value) Data has been collected froma number of large and small scale Gs sy ADD laboratory tests and from oumerical analysis and is used «0 So: FADS develop models based op non-dimensional groups that govern the 5 + specific weight of pipe probes 5, + undrained shear strength of soil Separate models desesibe the initial penetration for a pipeline W,: submerged pipeline weisht of a certain weight placed on the ciay sil for the development + penetration of pipe iato soil of penetration into the soil when the pipeline is subjected to B = coefficient in (1) oscilatory forcing or displacements, and for the soil resistance 2 unit soil weight for a pipe with a given penetration into the soil. The data oo: Bib) collected covers a large range of parameters and the models are H+ Coulomb frietion coeffi valid at feast in the range of soil shear strength 0.8 - 70 kPa, pipe diameters of 0.1 ~ 1.0 m and specific pipe weights of 1.1 30 INTRODUCTION ‘The models have been implemented in a time-domain FE program modelling a pipeline on the seabed subjected to hydrodynamic forces from waves and currents. Predicted pipe response, in terms of penetration development and horizontal ispiacement, is compared with thet obtained in full scale laboratory tests where pipe sections were subjected to simulated aydrodynamic force from imegular waves and current. The predictions are found to be satisfactory and validate the models for ase in pipeline stability analysie. NOMENCLATURE balf exoss-section of soil displaced by pipe amplitude of displacement pipe diameter ‘work done by pipe on soil contact force (= W, - F) ficcional soil resistance Samos AP. F, + (otal horizontal soll resistance (max. value) 225 Soil resistance of a pipeline resting on, or partially buried in, a soil is of interest for the consideration of horizontal stability of a pipeline subjected to wave andor current loading (see, for example, Karal, 1985, Wolfeam eta, 1987, ‘Allen ef al., 1989, Hale ef af, 1989 and AGA/PRC, 1993). ln stability calculations it is advantageous to take account of the addtional stability gained by the pipe’s penetration into the soil, et. due to the pipe weight and/or small movements induced by the bydrodynamic loading. Thus be able to predict i) the penetration of a pipeline of a given ‘weight into the soil, ii) the inerease in penetration due te movements of the pipeline, and ii) the soil resistance for a given penetration. Far sandy soils such a model bas been veloped and verified, Verley and Sotbere (1994), For clay soils models bave been developed by the PIPESTAB project (Wagaer et al, 1987) and by the American Gas AssociationPipeline Research Committee (AGAPRC, 1992). Both these models separate the total is desireable tomaximum soil resistance for « given penetration into 2 fritional term and a remainder term due to the penetration: ‘The models differ in tbe modelling of the remainder, penetration depentient term, summarised below. PIPESTAB (SINTEF, 1986, a A is one half of the cxoss-section of soil displaced by the pipe, B= 31 for small amplitude oscillasions (a/D < 0.05) and B 6 for large amplituie oscillations. For the range 0.03 < 27D. 103 and a/D values for which tests were conducted, (1) may be very closely (better chan 19%) approximated by: @ 1.0 ble ole ole AAs will become apparent froma the reanalysis of the PIPESTAB ata to he presented Inter in this paper. tbe data does not suppe je amplitude dependence in the mod: AGAIPRC (AGA/PRC 1992) This model gives 2 soil resistance for zero penetration o above the frictional contribution, approximted by: er and (@) may be closely Fea +i 2) o Be, For s, = 1 kPa and pipe specific gravity © = 1.1, the coefficient , varies between 18 and 22, dependent on diameter. For other values of s, and 5, ty may he calculated as ken (uy! (any ys 50” vases between 0 and approximately 2.0, depesdent on 5, ‘D and s, snd can represent a significant proportion ofthe total resistance predicted by the model Unfortunately the above AGA/PRC model gives very poor prediction, in terms of soil resistance for a given pevetration, ff the fests om which it was based, at will he shown below Neod for New Model ‘Comparing (2) aod (4) itis evidea that the PIPESTAB and AGAJPRC models give very different results for soit resjsiauce for 9 given penetration. The AGAJPRC madel in particular is not supported by the data on which i i based Part of the reason for this may be the ad boc, dimensional form of (3) which does not appear to be based on a rationa) analysis of the problem. ‘The paper will give a dimensional analysis of the problem. ‘Thereafter dato collected from various experimental program is descsibed and the models are presented. Finally a verification of the models given, against realistic full seale Iahoratory tests developed based ap these data DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS ‘The dimensional analysis is very similar to that conducted for savd soils by Veriey tnd Sotberg (1994) with the additional inclusion of the soil undrained shear ster large number of simple varicbles describe the soil resistance for a pipeline placed on clay soil and subjected to forcing in the horisontal and vertical directions. The problem, may be considerably simplified by considering separately the maximum soil resistance for 2 given penetation, the development ofthat penetration and the initial pentraton due to the pipe weight Soil Resistance for given penetration Consider the maximum soil resistance after a number of cycles of constant amplitude osvllation a that have led co a penetration z. Consider the total maximum soil resisance F, { be made up of a frictional contribution F, proportional t0 the coptact force ( = pF.) and a further contribulion F, due to te penewation (ie. similar @ the above models). Non- dimensionalisiog by a representative shear force, the maximum penetration contribution may be expressed as: of, age 226eee 2 “hana 4 i- os poe + Coe i 1 Tee , Figure 2. Maximum remainder soll resistance, F, ADs.) (uncorrected) versus penetration, /D (uncorrected). TAMU data Figure3. Tnital penewation, data, 1/Dqg (uncorrected). TAMU Data trom SINTEF Figure 1. Example TAMU data: 2) Test 102; 6) Test 144; 6} ‘Test L31, Force displacement curves from experimental tests, It is evident from the above considerations that the TAMU, data is questionable even after the above corrections, however it is the only data available which covers the range of interest of soil shear strengtts ‘The soil resistance data shown in Eig. 2 covers 5, iP and 7 = 1.15 — 145 and shows considerably less, if any, dependency on these parameters than the mode! (3) supposedly based oa these data, 227 ‘SINTEF bas produced data both for the PIPESTAB project (SINTER, 1986a,b) and for AGA/PRC (SINTEF 1987), Data was checked, mainly wrt. the value of , to be associated with feuch test and some few tests (ermed “preliminary” in the original reports) were discarded. Fig 4 shows the data fiom 1 m diameter pipe from the PIPESTAR tests and it is evident that there is no distinct offect of tbe parameter (aD) despite its inclusion in the ‘model developed by the PIPESTAB project ({). The data for 1,5 m diameter pipe shows considerable seater and is ot shown here, Data from SINTEF for the AGA/PRC is alse shown on Fig, 4, shows very litle seatter and appears as ax upper Timi to the PIPESTAB data