Offshore Geomechanics CIVL 5504

Pipelines

Note change in cover slide

only from version on video

Prof Fraser Bransby

e-mail: fraser.bransby@uwa.edu.au
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems
University of Western Australia
Learning outcomes

By the end of this topic you will be able to:

1. Describe the pipeline design issues with geotechnical interfaces

2. Explain how soil properties influence pipeline behaviour

3. Estimate, for drained and undrained conditions:

– Embedment of a pipeline laid on the seabed

– Axial and lateral resistance of a seabed pipeline

– Uplift resistance of a seabed pipeline

4. Quantify the influence of geotechnical properties (soil strength,

self-weight etc.) on pipeline embedment, end expansions, lateral
buckling and upheaval buckling.
Pipelines contents

• Pipeline systems and terminology

• Routing and hazard avoidance

• Pipeline installation

• Pipeline design issues with geotechnical interfaces:

– Hydrodynamic stability

– Thermal expansion management

• On-bottom pipelines: pipe-soil interaction forces:

– Embedment

– Axial resistance

– Lateral resistance

• Buried pipelines:
– Uplift resistance
Pipelines contents

• Pipeline systems and terminology

• Routing and hazard avoidance

• Pipeline installation

• Pipeline design issues with geotechnical interfaces:

– Hydrodynamic stability

– Thermal expansion management

• On-bottom pipelines: pipe-soil interaction forces:

– Embedment

– Axial resistance

– Lateral resistance

• Buried pipelines:
– Uplift resistance
Pipeline systems
Pipeline terminology

• Pipelines
– General term for all pipes used to transport hydrocarbons

• Rigid pipelines
– Steel pipeline manufactured in straight welded ~12 m sections –
cheap to manufacture but expensive to lay

• Flexible pipelines
– Spiral wrapped steel core encased in plastic – expensive to
manufacture but cheap to lay

• Flowlines
– Pipelines that interconnect between well-heads and pipeline end
terminations
Pipeline terminology

• Trunklines
– Term for pipelines that tieback satellite fields to infield processing
facility

• Export pipeline
– Term for pipelines that transport part-processed hydrocarbons to
onshore processing facility

• Umbilical
– Small diameter pipes and cables for power and auxiliary fluid
distribution (e.g. Mono-Ethylene-Glycol or MEG)

• Spool
– Short fixed pipeline interconnect (e.g. between well head and
subsea tree)
Pipelines contents

• Pipeline systems and terminology

• Routing and hazard avoidance

• Pipeline installation

• Pipeline design issues with geotechnical interfaces:

– Hydrodynamic stability

– Thermal expansion management

• On-bottom pipelines: pipe-soil interaction forces:

– Embedment

– Axial resistance

– Lateral resistance

• Buried pipelines:
– Uplift resistance
Pipelines offshore Australia

Sunrise / Troubadour

Bayu Undan

Prelude-Crux
Blacktip
Icthys

Browse?

Pluto
Jansz / Io
Scarborough
NWS Joint Venture
Griffin Gorgon
Lots of subsea architecture…

• Julimar

• Icthys

• Prelude
Lots of hazards…

Image courtesy of Fugro

…seabed instabilities

Pockmarks in soft clay

Sand waves
10 m deep
10 m high, 200 m wavelength
Tjelta et al. (2007)
…iceberg scour
…scarp crossings
Pipeline routing: Greater Gorgon

• Longer pipeline routes than necessary sometimes considered

Pipelines contents

• Pipeline systems and terminology

• Routing and hazard avoidance

• Pipeline installation

• Pipeline design issues with geotechnical interfaces:

– Hydrodynamic stability

– Thermal expansion management

• On-bottom pipelines: pipe-soil interaction forces:

– Embedment

– Axial resistance

– Lateral resistance

• Buried pipelines:
– Uplift resistance
Pipeline installation: methods

• On-bottom
– Pipeline laid off a pipeline installation vessel at surface
• J-lay, S-lay or reeling methodologies
– Pipeline “placed” on seabed
– As-laid embedment prediction important for stability
calculations

• Buried
– Pipeline buried during installation
• Ploughing or trenching methodologies
– Burial provides axial, lateral and upheaval restraint
– Engineering properties of backfill important for stability
calculations
On-bottom pipelines: S-lay

Allseas Audacia
 On-bottom pipelines: J-lay

Acergy Polaris
 On-bottom pipelines: reeling

Technip Deep Blue

Buried pipelines: ploughing
Buried pipelines: mechanical trenching
Buried pipelines: jet trenching
 Burial: additional protection

• Natural or mechanically-placed
– Sediment transport?
• Mechanical backfills:
– Local spoil
– Engineered soil Backfill plough

Cost – Rockdump
Performance

• Or natural back-filling?
After 1 year: After 5 years:
Pipeline installation: summary

• On-bottom pipelines: ‘S-lay’, ‘J-lay’, reeling

– Different rates of laying, and catenary shapes
– Influence on embedment
• Pipe is not placed gently onto undisturbed seabed

• Buried pipelines
– Trench – ploughed, or mechanically cut
• Achievable depth? Rate? Cost? Risk?
– Backfill – natural or engineered
Pipelines contents

• Pipeline systems and terminology

• Routing and hazard avoidance

• Pipeline installation

• Pipeline design issues with geotechnical interfaces:

– Hydrodynamic stability

– Thermal expansion management

• On-bottom pipelines: pipe-soil interaction forces:

– Embedment

– Axial resistance

– Lateral resistance

• Buried pipelines:
– Uplift resistance
Hydrodynamic (on-bottom) stability

• Hydrodynamic loads on pipelines arise from

– Waves and currents, which are created by
– Wind, swell, tides, solitons (internal waves)

• These forces vary along the pipeline length at any time.

• The pipeline may be designed to be stable, or to undergo

tolerable (lateral) movement during the design storm.

• Geotechnical questions/interfaces:
– How much soil resistance will support the pipeline?
– Is the seabed stable or mobile? Will it erode/deposit?
– If required – can the seabed be trenched/ploughed?
 On-bottom stability: technical definition

Lift force FL

Drag and Inertia force

FD+FI
Submerged weight Ws = W - Fb

Horizontal Resistance Ff

Vertical Resistance Fn

Buoyancy force Fb
 On bottom stability: extreme weather

Hurricane Ivan 2004

Pipeline damage in GoM

Title

• Text to go here….
0.2 m/s2
Thermal expansion management
1 m/s after 5 s.

• Text to go here….
0.0002 m/s2
Title
1 m/s after 5000 s.

• Text to go here….
Stabilisation methods

• Primary stabilisation (best):

• Pre-coated pipe, typically 50-120 mm concrete

• Thickness varies along pipeline route

• High density concrete

Stabilisation
• Secondary stabilisation: 30%

• Expensive!!! Management
&
Installation Engineering
(excluding stabilisation) 10%
30%
Materials
&
Fabrication
30%
Pipeline stabilisation options
Pipeline stabilisation options
Pipeline stabilisation: rock dumping

Side dump

Fall pipe

Split hopper
Pipeline stabilisation: flexible mattresses
Pipeline stabilisation: gravity anchors
Case study: export pipelines on NWS
Case study: 1st export pipeline (1982)

• Outside diameter,
D = 1.016 m (40)
• 134 km long
• Concrete coated
• Spec. gravity (SG)
in operation: 1.2
• Installed in May-
Oct 1982 at 0.915
km/day (average)
• Ploughed in Nov-
Dec 1982 at 4
km/day (average)
Case study: hydrodynamic conditions

Seymour et al. (1984)

Case study: hydrodynamic stability

• Hydrodynamic loading:
– Seabed velocity  4 m/s (considering steady flow)
– Assumed drag coefficient, CD  1
– Assumed lift coefficient, CL  0.9
• Equilibrium of pipe (resting on seabed):
– Drag force, FD = 0.5D CD wv2 = 8 kN/m
– Lift force, FL = 0.5D CL wv2 = 7.2 kN/m
– Pipe sub. weight, W = (SG-1) w(D2/4) = 1.6 kN/m
• Clear requirement for protection:
– Shielding from flow – trench (or full burial)
– Additional support from soil – partial (or full) burial
– Further support – e.g. weight coating or anchors
Case study: hydrodynamic stability

Drag force, H = Fd (kN/m)

-2
0 5 10 15 20
0
Pipe-seabed contact force, W'-FL (kN/m)

10

12

14

16
Case study: after cyclonic activity

Jas et al. (2013) J. Pipeline systems engineering

Case study: 2nd export pipeline (2003)

• Text to go here….
Title

• Text to go here….
Case study: second export pipeline (2003)

• Text to go here….
Case study: stabilisation methods
Hydrodynamic stability: summary

• Hydrodynamic loads on pipelines arise from:

– Waves and currents, which are created by
– Wind, swell, tides, solitons (internal waves)
• These forces vary along the pipeline length at any
moment in time.
• The pipeline may be designed to be stable, or to
undergo tolerable (lateral) movement during the design
storm.
• Geotechnical questions/interfaces:
– How much soil resistance will support the pipeline?
– Is the seabed stable or mobile? Will it erode/deposit?
– If required – can the seabed be trenched/ploughed?
Time for a break?

Text to go here…
 Thermal expansion management

• Seawater is pretty cold (~5-20°C)

• Hydrocarbon products in pipelines are relatively hot (>>20°C)

• Pipelines laid “cold” and “heat-up” in operation causing the

pipeline length to increase:
Expansion S  0.5TL Pipeline length

Coefficient of thermal expansion Change in temperature

• The force required to prevent end expansion is:

Force to resist expansion P  AET
Pipeline cross-sectional area Young’s modulus
Case study: BP Greater Plutonio
BP GP: Pipeline layout
BP GP: Operating conditions
 BP GP: Thermal transients

Jayson et al. (2008) Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference, Amsterdam

BP GP: Thermal expansion

• Pipe properties:
– Area  Dt =   323.9 mm  20 mm  20,000 mm2
– Length  20 km
– Young’s Modulus, E = 220 GPa
– Thermal expansion (linear),   12  10-6 /C
• Change in temperature:
– T  55C
• Free end expansion, frictionless pipe:
– S = ( T L)/2 = 6.6 m
• Force required to prevent end expansion:
– P = A E  T = 2.9 MN (290 tonnes)
BP GP: Thermal expansion
NRA GP
t (mm) 23.8 20
14 D (mm) 1016 323.9
40
A (mm2) 74186.7 19094.6

Fully constrained force (MN, x100 t)

12 dT (deg) 40 100 35
Free expansion at each end (m)

alpha 1.2E-05 1.2E-05

E (N/m2) 2.2E+11 2.2E+11 30
10
25
8
20
6
15
4 10

2 5

0 0
0 10 20 0 100 200
Pipeline length (km) Operating temp. range (deg.)
Thermal expansion: buckling
Thermal expansion: lateral buckling

• On-bottom pipelines tend to buckle laterally due to thermal

expansion

Jayson et al. (2008) Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference, Amsterdam

Thermal expansion: upheaval buckling

• Buried pipelines can suffer from upheaval buckling due to

thermal expansion

• Resistance of fill insufficient to restrain the pipeline

• Buckle initiated at weak-point

Thermal expansion: buckling check

• Axial force to cause buckle, Pbuckle, can be “estimated”

• A buckle requires higher force to initiate if:

– The pipe is stiffer in bending (higher EI)
• Note: I=(/64)(Do4-Di4), E = 220 GPa (typically, for steel)
– The soil resistance is greater (Hbrk higher)

• The buckling force varies with the mode of the buckle

– Design screening assumes the infinite mode

• Hobbs infinite mode:

EI H brk
Pbuckle  3.86
D
Thermal expansion: buckling check

10 10
Hobbs infinite mode buckling force (MN)

9 9

Fully constrained force (MN, x100 t)

W
8 8
7 7
6 6
S = ( T L –
NRA GP
5 5 t (mm) 23.8 20
D (mm) 1016 323.9
4 4 A (mm2) 74186.7 19095
dT (deg) 40 100
3 3 alpha 1.2E-05 1.2E-05
E (N/m2) 2.2E+11 2.2E+11
2 W 2 I (m4) 0.0091345 0.0002214
EI (MNm2) 2010 49
SG 1.2 1.687
1 1 W' (kN/m) 1.662 0.58

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 100 200
Lateral soil resistance, H (kN/m) Operating temp. range (deg.)
Thermal expansion: summary

• Temperature (and pressure) create loads in pipelines

• A pipeline typically sees 100-2000 cycles of T & P.

• The pipeline may be designed to be stable (buried), or to

undergo tolerable lateral movements.

• Geotechnical questions/interfaces
– How much axial force will build up in the pipeline?
– How much lateral soil resistance will the pipeline feel?
• …during initial ‘breakout’ from as-laid position…
• …and during cyclic motions through life of pipeline.
Pipelines contents

• Pipeline systems and terminology

• Routing and hazard avoidance

• Pipeline installation

• Pipeline design issues with geotechnical interfaces:

– Hydrodynamic stability

– Thermal expansion management

• On-bottom pipelines: pipe-soil interaction forces:

– Embedment

– Axial resistance

– Lateral resistance

• Buried pipelines:
– Uplift resistance
Embedment: undrained soil

• Bearing capacity mechanism is like a shallow foundation.

• Need to consider submerged area of pipe.

• Soil buoyancy is enhanced by heave ( > Archimedes).

• Vertical pipe-soil load is enhanced by catenary effect (klay).

• Dynamics in touchdown zone reduce soil strength.

Bearing capacity mechanism

• Similar to a shallow foundation

• Bearing factor, Nc 5 on contact width, D

A FE analysis An experiment
Embedment: soil buoyancy

• Simply Archimedes principle

• Neutral embedment of pipe ‘floating’ in heavy liquid

Pipeline specific gravity, SG = 1+W'/Agw (relative to seawater)
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
0
0.3
0.1
Pipe buoyant embedment, w/D

0.4
0.2 Soil effective unit 0.5
0.3 weight relative to 0.6
0.4 seawater (g'/gw) 0.7
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.6
1
0.7 1.1
0.8
0.9
1
Title

• Text to go here….
Catenary effect at touchdown

• Curvature of pipe in TDZ creates additional vertical force

Title

• Text to go here….
 Embedment on sand

• Penetration resistance of sand is high relative to pipe weight

• On sand, pipes usually only embed by a few percent of the diameter

• In practice, additional embedment is often generated by sediment

transport processes…

After 1 year: After 5 years:

Simon Leckie – UWA PhD, 2016

Axial resistance

• Drained resistance
• Controlled by μ (≈ tan ) Either drainage conditions may
be relevant on clay or silt
• Undrained resistance
Usually only drained is
• Controlled by the undrained
applicable on sand
strength of the interface, su-int

• Wedging effect
• Curved pipe surface Contact
force, N > W  N =  W
where  = 1-1.27

• Average normal stress, n:

• n = W/Dθ = N/Dθ
Axial resistance: BP GP example

• Pipe properties:
– Area  Dt =   323.9 mm  20 mm  20,000 mm2
– Length = 3 km
– Young’s Modulus, E = 220 GPa
– Thermal expansion (linear),   12  10-6 /K
– Submerged unit weight (in operation), W = 1.17 kN/m
– Change in temperature, T  55K

• Mid-line axial force:

– Pmid = axWL/2
– Assume drained: ax =  tan , say w/D = 0.3   = 1.2

• End expansion:
– S = ( T L – PavL/EA)/2
– where Pav = Pmid/2
Axial resistance due to expansion

• Temperature and pressure cause pipeline expansion

• ‘Free’ ends extend; axial friction opposes motion

Distance along pipeline (km)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0

ax
Effective Axial Force (MN)

-0.5
Compressive

-1.0
ax
-1.5

-2.0
Fully Constrained Force
Axial Force (μa = 0.10)
-2.5 Axial Force (μa = 0.58)
Effect of end expansions

• Low axial friction: high end expansions

• Feed-in towards buckles: lower end expansions

3 Straight, μa=0.1
Towards KP10

Straight, μa=0.58
2
Buckled, μa=0.58
1
Expansion (m)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Towards KP0

-1 Distance (km)

-2

-3
Buckle #1 Buckle #2 Buckle #3
Buckles: effect of lateral resistance

• Axial force cannot exceed buckling force

• Pipe feeds in to buckles; axial friction opposes feed-in

Distance along pipeline (km)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0
Effective Axial Force (MN)

-0.5

-1.0 Mean Critical

Buckling Force
lat
-1.5 Lateral Buckle Virtual Anchors

-2.0
Axial Force (μa = 0.58)
Axial Force (μa = 0.10)
-2.5 Post Buckling Force (μa = 0.58)
Fully Constrained Force
Buckle initiators

• Planned buckles aim for lower buckling force (predictable firing),

predictable low feed-in, tolerable strains (low μL)

• Rogue buckles may mean excessive feed-in and intolerable strains

 Pipeline breakout mechanisms

• Mechanisms from plasticity upper bound limit analysis

H/suD
0 1 2 3 4
0

4
V/suD

9
Randolph & White (2008)
 Pipeline breakout mechanisms

• Simple breakout mechanism

H/suD
0 1 2 3 4
0
-0.6
1
-0.4
2

3 -0.2

4 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
V/suD

0
5
0.2
6

7 0.4

8
0.6

9
 Buckling check

• Avoid unacceptable end expansion and buckle mitigation?

2 2

1.8 1.8

Buckle initiation force, Pbuckle (MN)

1.6 1.6
Mid-lime axial force, Pmid (MN)

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
10 20 30 40 50 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Pipe-soil interface friction angle,  (degrees) Pipe embedment, w/D
Pipelines contents

• Pipeline systems and terminology

• Routing and hazard avoidance

• Pipeline installation

• Pipeline design issues with geotechnical interfaces:

– Hydrodynamic stability

– Thermal expansion management

• On-bottom pipelines: pipe-soil interaction forces:

– Embedment

– Axial resistance

– Lateral resistance

• Buried pipelines:
– Uplift resistance
Uplift resistance and upheaval buckling

• Pipeline burial may be required for:

• Thermal insulation

• Hydrodynamic stability

• Protection from over-trawling and anchor dragging

• Upheaval buckling must be prevented (or be tolerable – very unlikely)

• Axial driving force arises from temperature and pressure

• Cover requires adequate uplift resistance (short and long term)

Uplift mechanisms

Undrained conditions Drained conditions

Wsoil = gAs Wsoil = gAs

C su C
y

Fup Fup

D D
Upheaval buckling assessment

• Theoretical solution: based on assumed VOOS, (, L0)

• Is download sufficient to stabilise over-bend?

0.1

Dimensionless download, w
• Dimensionless length:
0.08
L P No UHB
L  0 0.06
2 EI
0.04
• Dimensionless download:
0.02 UHB
(Fup  W ' )EI
w  0
 P2 0 10 20 30
Dimensionless length, L
Fup+W

P P

Thusyanthan et al. (2011)

Uplift resistance summary

• Uplift resistance, Fup, is important in assessments of

• Flotation

• Upheaval buckling

• Both drained and undrained conditions are relevant

• Simple analytical solutions are available for Fup

• These can be used to assess flotation directly

• Upheaval buckling can be assessed (at concept level) by a

simple analytical method
 Contrast: foundation vs. pipeline
D
D
Foundation u
On-bottom pipeline
u

Uncertain. Embedment affected by lay

Problem geometry Known, controlled. process. Subsequent pipeline movements
disturb seabed topography.

May be required to displace significantly, u >>

Design criteria for To remain fixed, movement small
D, through hundreds of cycles of operation or
in-service behaviour fraction of size, u << D.
hydrodynamic loading.

Soft soil is significantly affected by installation.

Surrounding soil Similar to in situ state. Relatively
Remoulding, heave and reconsolidation affect
conditions unaffected by installation.
the local strength.

Usually minimal. Imposed loads Often significant. Local pipe-soil load-

Soil-structure
not strongly affected by displacement relationship affects overall
interaction
foundation displacements. pipeline response.

Soil-ocean Scour / wave-induced lique- Scour and wave-induced liquefaction can

interaction faction may need mitigation dominate behaviour
Usually available. Can assume Often unavailable. Both upper and lower
Single conservative
lowest credible geotechnical bound geotechnical capacity may adversely
design approach
capacity effect structural response
Pipeline geotechnics summary

You should now be able to:

• Describe the pipeline design issues that have geotechnical interfaces, and
explain how the soil properties have an influence on the pipeline behaviour.

During the face-to-face session, you will learn how to estimate, for
drained and undrained conditions, the:
• Embedment of a pipeline laid on the seabed;

• Axial and lateral resistance on a seabed pipeline;

• Uplift resistance on a buried pipeline; and

• The influence of geotechnical properties (soil strength, self-weight etc) on

pipeline embedment, end expansions, lateral buckling and upheaval buckling.
Offshore Geomechanics CIVL 5504

Pipelines

Prof Fraser Bransby

e-mail: fraser.bransby@uwa.edu.au
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems
University of Western Australia