See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318639185

FEM analysis of soil-pipe interaction

Conference Paper  in  AIP Conference Proceedings · July 2017

DOI: 10.1063/1.4992710

CITATIONS READS
0 204

4 authors, including:

P. V. Burkov Vladimir Burkov

Tomsk Polytechnic University Tomsk Polytechnic University
23 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Svetlana Burkova
Tomsk Polytechnic University
24 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Calculation of stresses arising in a pipeline under buckling in soft ground View project

All content following this page was uploaded by P. V. Burkov on 21 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

FEM analysis of soil-pipe interaction
P. Burkov, Wu Chun, V. Burkov, and S. Burkova

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1863, 560027 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4992710

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4992710
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1863/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 FEM Analysis of Soil-Pipe Interaction
P Burkov1, 2, a), Wu Chun1, V Burkov1, S Burkova1
1
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, 30, Lenin Ave., 634050, Tomsk, Russia
2
Tomsk State University of Architecture and Building, 2, Solyanaya Sq., 634003, Tomsk, Russia
a)
Corresponding author: burkovpv@mail.ru

Abstract. One of the most important factors of the pipeline buckling is soil distortion. The paper presents the model of the
stress-strain state of the pipeline simulated with ANSYS software package and the finite element model of soil-pipe
interaction. The analysis of soil distortions nearby the pipeline and its passive resistance is presented herein with due regard
for the different pipe depths.

INTRODUCTION
Underwater pipeline laying is one of the most important techniques used for the development of offshore fields.
The main problem of the underwater pipeline laying is to prevent them from oil losses leading to a serious marine
pollution and economic losses [1]. Flexural strain is the most widespread damage of pipelines during their operation.
In general, the underground pipeline is subjected to vertical and horizontal loads. The local loads also should be
taken into account for their dent effects on the pipeline. The pressure from the delivered product can result in large
stresses and strains in the dented and bent areas in the pipeline.
At present, in compliance with the plowing requirements, it is recommended to bury or protect the pipelines
from accidental damages caused by anchors and fishing equipment. The estimated burial depth depends on possible
pipeline strains, depth of frost penetration, and topography of seabed and near-shore area. Depending on the map of
offshore area, physical properties of soil and its accretion and erosion, the soil–pipe interaction should be considered
in strength and bucking analyses [2].

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Let us consider the soil-pipe interaction system in arctic conditions to obtain the factors of soil strength and
stability.
To eliminate the wave and permanent flow forces affecting the shallow underwater pipelines, their concreting is
used to reduce hydrostatic pressure. The analysis of lateral loads on the shallow underwater pipelaying takes into
consideration constraints of its displacements caused by the surrounding soil and the minimum number of sliding
supports to provide reliable results of the strength analysis and saving construction costs [3-4].
The methodology suggested for the computation of soil resistance shows that horizontal buckling is 1,5-2% of
the pipe depth when horizontal loads achieve their critical level [5-6].
The pipe protective coating is made of fill material such as earth, crushed stone and concrete the compressive
strength of which is higher than the tensile. Usually, the Drucker–Prager yield criterion is used to analyze the
strength of materials [7]. In our case, this criterion is used for the finite element model (FEM) analysis of soil,
primarily, its continuity and angle of internal friction.
Physical and mechanical parameters used in the model
parameters soil pipeline
tensile yield point / (MPа) - 450
density / (kg / m3) 1,520 7,850
elastic modulus Е / Pа 0,5 106 21e10
Poisson's ratio 0,4 0,3
cohesion value С / кПа 10 -
internal friction / (°) 30 -
dilatancy / (°) 20 -
friction coefficient ν 0,4 -

International Conference of Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics (ICNAAM 2016)

AIP Conf. Proc. 1863, 560027-1–560027-4; doi: 10.1063/1.4992710
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1538-6/$30.00

560027-1
 The Drucker–Prager model of the soil-pipe interaction has two parts, i.e. the seabed and the pipe. The seabed
model has 15 m length, 15 m width, and 10 m height. The pipe diameter is 0,8 m and the wall thickness is 0,014 m.
The pipeline and the seabed is used for the study of a continuous three-dimensional geometric model, as SOLID45
has plasticity, creep, swelling, stiffness voltage, large deformation and large strain capabilities, so the soil pipe and
eight units are used to provide a three-dimensional simulation of six-party ANSYS Solid45 solid element. The lower
surface of the ground is completely limited settings, adjust the vertical profile ogranicheniy. FEM shown in Figure1.

FIGURE 1. FEM of Drucker–Prager yield soil-pipe interaction

FIGURE 2. FEM of mesh local refinement FIGURE 3.. FEM of pipeline

The contact problem is nonlinear. These analyses require large computing resources. For the efficient real
computations, the intelligent model should be created. ANSYS software provides three types of interaction, namely:
point-point, point-side, side-side. The FEM of the pipeline provides a rigid surface (TARGE170). This target surface
is associated with the contact surface (CONTA175); the algorithm of the contact surface widely used for these
computations is continual. In accordance with the tabular data, the program evaluates the contact rigidity by the
material properties in the strained area. The comparison of tabular data on several adjacent nodes (at a small
difference) shows that the contact rigidity is selected correctly. Fig. 4-5 present the results of FEM modeling.

FIGURE 4. FEM of contact surface FIGURE 5. FEM of target surface

560027-2
 To obtaain the ultimatee compressive strength of soiil, let us analyzze the horizonttal load using the
t ANSYS software
package foor trench mod deling. The moodel of the intteraction between the horizoontal pipe resiistance and soil at a
different depth can be compared with thhe theoretical calculations.
c
Compressive
p g , kN/m
strength,

FIGURE 6.
6 Dependence between
b pipe deppth and ultimate compressive FIGURE 7. deformation
d clouuds schema on the X-
strength of soil axis
Accordding to Fig. 6, the
t pipe diameeter and depth have h a consideerable effect onn the ultimate compressive
c strrength
of soil. In our case, the pipe
p depth is 0.6 m (from thee seabed to thee upper pipe seection) for the pipe diameter of 0,8
m. The pippe has a freedom m for X-axial displacement
d a shown in Figg. 7.
as
The soiil distortion an
nd the distortioon area in the direction
d of X--axis indicate that
t the pipelinne has a freedoom for
displacemeent such that thhe soil distortioon on the right is negative duee to its cohesioon, while on thee left it is posittive.

FIGURE 8. Vo
on Mises stress of
o soil FIG
GURE 9. FEM of
o soil distortion along X-axis

The eqquivalent von Mises

M o soil presenteed in Fig. 8-9, is mostly distributed on thhe both sides of the
stress of
pipeline. Soil nearby the pipeline has thhe maximum sttress up to 4.1007 kPa.

560027-3
 Compressive g , kN/m
strength,
Theoreticaal
FEM
Literature [3]

p
Displacemeent, m
FIGU
URE 10. FEM of
o pipe section sttress FIGURE 11. C
Comparison betw
ween theoretical, FEM and resultts
found inn literature
As for the stress in thhe pipe sectionn presented in Fig. 10, it is more
m complex and asymmetrrical. The maxximum
stress on thhe right is 149 MPa, while thhe maximum stress on the lefft is 224 MPa that is consideerably lower thhan the
yield stresss of steel (450 МPа).
The horizontal displacement of the pipeline ranges from 1.5 to 2% 2 of the pipe depth. As it was
w mentioned above,
a
the pipe deepth is 0.6 m (from the seabeed to the upperr pipe section) and horizontall displacementt is 0,009 ~ 0.0012 m.
According to Fig. 11, thee soil strength achieves
a its maaximum, whilee horizontal dissplacement of the pipeline is 0.008
m. Thus, thhe FEM resultss are in good aggreement with those found inn the literature..
CON
NCLUSION
N
Modeliing in ANSYS S of horizontall pipeline buckkling during itts contact withh the seabed showed
s that poossible
pipeline diisplacements were
w similar too the ideal elastoplasticity cuurve. Even in the area stronngly subjected to the
load, a twoofold safety facctor was providded. The results of FEM analyysis are close to
t theoretical.
Thus, thhe ANSYS sofftware used forr modeling the soil compressive strength, alllowed modelinng:
1. soil disstortion parameeters due to thee selection of thhe appropriate continual moddel;
2. dent eff
ffects on the strress-strain statee of the pipelinne;
3. soil-pippe interaction in
i complex arcttic conditions.
REF
FERENCES
S
1. Huang K, Wu S, Cheen L, et al. Strress analysis of o oil and gas pipeline
p paralllel laying whenn traversing tuunnels.
Journall of Chemical & Pharmaceutiical Research, 2014, 6 (6) pp 17-25
2. DNV-O OS-F101, Rules for undergrouund pipelines, 2000. (in Russsian)
3. Yavaroov A V, Kolossova G S, Kurroedov V V. Stress-strain
S sttate of buried pipelines. Connstruction of unique
u
buildinngs and structurres, 2013 (1) ppp 1-10.
4. Tanakaa T., Ariyosh M.,M Mohri Y. Displacement,
D stress and strain of flexible buried
b pipe takking into accouunt the
construuction process. Proc. Sci. Conf.C ‘Numeerical Methodds in Practicall Geoengineerring’, St-Peterrsburg,
SPSUA ACE Publ., 20112 pp 282-288. (in Russian)
5. Lyons, C.G. 1973. So t lateral slidinng of marine piipelines. Offshhore Technologgy Conference 1973,
oil resistance to
the OTC 1876: 479-4 484.
6. Kun H,, Shijuan W, Hongfang
H L, ett al. Analysis on
o stress of gaas pipeline laidd along slope. Natural
N Gas annd Oil,
2012, (4)
( pp 1-4.
7. Khasannov R R Stresss-strain state of stamp-weldded breechings. Oil and Gaas Business 20010 2. Availabble at:
http://oogbus.ru/authorrs/KhasanovR//KhasanovR_1.pdf (in Russiaan)
8. Burkovv P V, Kalmyk kova K G, Buurkova S P andd Do T T 2014 Proc. IOP Conf. C (Bristol: IOP Publishinng Ltd,
Series: Earth and Env vironmental Science vol 21) p 012039
9. Antropova N A, Kretts V G, Luk'Y Yanov V G andd Baranova AV V 2015 Reliabbility assessment of tunnelingg flow
charts Proc.
P IOP Conf. (Bristol: IOP P Publishing Lttd, Series: Eartth and Environnmental Science vol 24) p 0122019
10. Butov V G, Nikulchik kov V K, Nikuulchikov A V and a Yashchuk A A 2016 Studdy of the stresss-strain behavior and
strengthh characteristiics of sealer devices for oil-trunk pipeliines. Proc. 166th Internationnal Multidiscipplinary
Scientific GeoConferrence SGEM. (A Albena, Bulgaaria: SGEM)

560027-4
View publication stats