OTC-25117-MS

Lessons Learned - Counter-acts Used To Install Pipelines Offshore In Very

Soft Clay
Christian Olsen, and Neil Brown, Subsea 7; Anne Rosborg, and Carsten S. Sørensen, COWI

Copyright 2014, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 5– 8 May 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
As part of the Ormen Lange Northern Field Development, 36 large diameter steel cylinders were used as
counter-acts to ensure pipeline stability during pipe-lay along route curves. The Ormen Lange field is
situated 120 km off the mid-Norwegian coast of the Norwegian continental shelf at the base of the
Storegga landslide. Due to the Storegga landslide, the soil conditions vary significantly with a stratigraphy
characterized by very soft Holocene clay overlying very stiff clay till. Locally, the clay till outcrops at
seabed level. The water depth is in excess of 800 m and the seabed topography is highly irregular. This
makes the development of the Ormen Lange field very challenging. Ormen Lange came on stream in
2007, and the operator is A/S Norske Shell. Ormen Lange is the second biggest offshore gas field and the
deepest subsea production facility in Europe. The gas is exported through one of the world’s longest
pipelines, and the gas-export in peak production equivalents 20% of the UK’s gas demand.
The chaotic seabed topography and variable stratigraphy presented several unusual geotechnical design
challenges. Stability charts were constructed based on a parametric study considering slope gradient,
counter-act inclination and penetration of the skirt plate. With use of these design charts, decisions were
made offshore to relocate, install additional counter-acts or increase the pre-load the counter-acts with use
of a steel clump weight. The counter-acts were designed with an internal lifting mechanism, which
allowed for safe installation in the harsh environment. Furthermore, optimization of counter-act locations
removed the requirement for a costly subsea rock installation campaign. The methodology proved to be
robust and this paper presents lessons learned for design, installation and retrieval of counter-acts in harsh
environments on a soft seabed.
Introduction
The pipeline installation analyses performed for the Ormen Lange North project identified a requirement
for 36 large diameter steel counter-acts, see Figure 1 and Figure 4. The seabed conditions are known to
be very challenging with the stratigraphy along the pipeline alignments comprising very soft Holocene
clay overlying stiff clay till deposits, see Eklund et. al. (2007) and Eklund and Paulsen (2007).
Due to the variability in soil conditions, it was not possible to complete location specific analyses at
each counter-act location. Instead, the assessment was carried out as a parametric study in order to
examine the sensitivity of the counter-act performance for the expected soil conditions and topography.
2 OTC-25117-MS

Design charts based on a series of finite element

analyses and limit equilibrium analyses were devel-
oped to predict the lateral capacity based on varia-
tions in seabed slope and skirt penetration depth.
The parametric study included:
● variation in undrained shear strength;
● seabed slope;
● tilt of the installed counter-act;
Figure 1—Illustration of counter-acts along pipelines.
● the height at which the load would act on the
counter-act;
● skirt penetration.

Moreover, as the site conditions were validated during installation of the planned counter-acts, the
results of the parametric study allowed additional counter-acts to be included in the offshore installation
phase as needed. The required penetration depth at each location could be determined utilizing the
established design charts rather than requiring supplementary analyses.
The steel counter-acts were recovered eight months after installation. The recovery loads were recorded
for the majority of the counter-acts by monitoring crane hook-load during the recovery operation. The
recorded crane hook-load or recovery load was used to estimate the set-up in undrained shear strength.
Background
The Ormen Lange Project
Ormen Lange Northern field development is an extension of the existing Ormen Lange field develop-
ments. The Ormen Lange field is situated 120 km off the mid-Norway coastline and comprises a subsea
production system tied back to an onshore processing plant at Nyhamna, see Eklund et. al. (2007) for the
Ormen Lange project in general.
The Mid North area development concept consists of a Template structure (Template C) with an
integrated 8 slot production manifold, see Figure 2. The template and integrated manifold are connected
to two multiphase pipelines by rigid spools and Pipe Line End Manifolds (PLEMs). A MEG line and a
control umbilical were laid between Template B and Template C. The water depth at Template C location
is approximately 925 m.
This paper focuses on the counter-acts related to the installation of the 12” Production and 6” MEG
Flowlines.
Seabed Conditions
Due to the Storregga slide, the seabed topography is undulating with slopes occasionally steeper than 60
degrees. The stratigraphy along the alignment comprised of very soft to soft Holocene clay (Unit I)
overlying stiff to very stiff clay till deposits (Unit II). The depth to the layer boundary between Units I
and II was not defined at each counter-act location. However, findings from adjacent test locations
indicated that Unit I was present from seabed level with Unit II outcropping locally. The low and high
bound estimates of the undrained shear strength are provided in Table 1. Unit II was thus encountered
from seabed to greater than 6m depth along the pipeline routes. The recommended sensitivity is St ⫽ 6
for Unit I. Anisotropy ratios for Unit I and Unit II soil are given by:

Where:
⫽ undrained shear strength in compression;
⫽ undrained shear strength direct simple shear;
OTC-25117-MS 3

Figure 3—Thixotropy for Unit I.

Figure 2—Field layout.

⫽ undrained shear strength in extension;

Thixotropy is the regain of undrained shear strength over time at constant volume. Strength regain for
Unit I soil was tested after 1 day and the data point was used to fit a relationship presented in the literature
Andersen et al. 2008. The thixotropy relationship provided for the current project is presented in Figure
3.
Project Specific Counter-acts
Detailed geotechnical engineering analyses established that a 6.0 m tall steel circular counter-act with
outer diameter of 4.0 m and wall thickness of 25 mm was most appropriate for the load cases. Penetration
analysis based on self-weight indicated that a submerged weight of 13.2 Tons was suitable for more than
80% of the locations. A picture from the counter-act installation is presented in Figure 4.
The horizontal load from the pipeline on the counter-acts was predicted to vary between 10 kN and 65
kN. Due to potential pipeline free spans, the load was considered to act at an elevation between 0.2 m
and1.0 m above seabed.
Design
Due to uncertainty in soil conditions and potential tilt of the counter-act after installation, a procedure was
developed in to determine horizontal capacity for the range of expected conditions. A parametric study
was performed to produce diagrams, which outlined lateral capacity as a function of skirt penetration,
seabed slope and tilt of the counter-act post installation. The lateral capacity was determined with use of
three-dimensional finite element software.
Penetration Analysis Penetration analysis was performed in accordance with NGI (2011). The method
has proven to predict with reasonable accuracy, the self-weight penetration of suction anchors installed in
similar soil conditions (Schroeder et al. [2006]).

Where:

Table 1—Undrained shear strength in compression, suC.

Unit Depth below seabed, z(m) Lower bound Estimate (kPa) Upperbound Estimate (kPa)

I 0.0to0.2 0.0⫹10.0·z 0.0⫹30.0·z

0.2to0.6 2.0 5.6⫹1.9·z
0.6to5.0 1.0⫹1.6·z 5.6⫹1.9·z
II 0.0to6.0 10.0⫹1.7·z 200.0
4 OTC-25117-MS

Figure 4 —Counter-act installation.

⫽ skirt wall area;

⫽ sensitivity;
⫽ penetration resistance;
⫽ undrained shear strength at skirt tip;
⫽ vertical stress at skirt tip;
⫽ area of skirt tip.
A statistical approach was required to predict self-penetration depth of the counter-act. A total of 61
CPTU soundings were carried out along the pipeline alignment. These soundings were examined and
manually divided into four categories denoting:
● Unit I;
● Unit II, su up to 45 kPa;
● Unit II, su between 45kPa and 100 kPa;
● Unit II, su above 100 kPa.
The categories were analyzed statistically, yielding the accumulated probability of encountering Unit
I or Unit II soils with depth. The results were plotted in a diagram in order to assess the probability of
encountering an upper bound Unit II soil profile that may have limited self-weight penetration, see Figure
5.
OTC-25117-MS 5

The red line in Figure 5 indicates the probability

of encountering Unit II at or above a given depth.
As an example, if the counter-act was to be pene-
trated to a depth of 3.5 m, there was a 23 %
probability of encountering Unit II at or above a
depth of 3.5 m. In addition, the probability of en-
countering low, medium or high strength clay till
within Unit II is shown in green, purple and blue
dashed lines, respectively.
In the event that self-weight penetration was in-
sufficient to provide the required lateral resistance,
a clump weight and docking mechanism was de-
signed to enable the weight to be landed on the
counter-act to increase the depth of penetration. The
required weight of the clump weight was estimated
to be 54 Tons (47 Tons submerged). This size
covered the vast majority of the cases for the ex-
pected load range; however, if a combination of Figure 5—Probability diagram for encountering Unit II.
relatively high horizontal load paired with Unit II
soil at shallow depths on a steep slope of more than
10° was encountered, it may have proven impractical to use the clump weight to provide sufficient
penetration. This was acknowledged as an acceptable risk.
The penetration analysis indicated that if Unit I soil with lower bound undrained shear strength and
high sensitivity was encountered;the circular steel section would exceed the 4.5m penetration depth and
possibly be lost. In order to control the self-weight penetration, the counter-acts were fabricated with an
inner mechanism designed to limit self-weight penetration to 4.5m. The size of the inner mechanism had
to be minimized to avoid installation and recovery sea state limitations while at the same time ensure
penetration would not exceed 4.5m.
Sea state considerations Previous projects Eklund and Høgmoen, (2007) and Eklund and Paulsen
(2007) have frequently used concrete counter-acts with an internal base plate to control penetration and
in some cases, a rock berm installed adjacent to the counter-act to improve stability. The concrete
counter-acts could be deployed in sea states up to 2.0 m significant wave height (Hs) in accordance with
previous Subsea 7 experience. The primary objective for the current project was to avoid a rock
installation campaign and to be able to install counter-acts in as high sea state as possible.
The maximum operating sea state for deployment and recovery through the splash zone was analysed
in accordance with DNV-RP-H103. The optimized design of the inner mechanism had a maximum sea
state of 4.0m significant wave height for deployment and recovery through the splash zone, however, deck
handling safety considerations restricted the sea state to approximately 3.5m significant wave height.
Lateral Capacity The lateral capacity of the counter-acts was bounded as part of a parametric study that
included various combinations of seabed slope, installation inclination and depth of penetration. The study
was performed using general Finite Element (FE)analysis software and the results of the analyses were
checked against established limit equilibrium solutions e.g. Brinch Hansen (1961).
In all, the lateral capacities were typically assessed assuming the following cases:
● level seabed and plumb counter-act installation;
● penetration depth ranging from 1.5 m to 4.5 m;
● seabed sloping 10° and plumb counter-act installation;
6 OTC-25117-MS

Figure 7—Sample output of an Abaqus analysis for seabed inclined 10°

(loaded from left to right).

Figure 6 —Abaqus model.

● seabed sloping 15° and plumb counter-act

installation;
● level seabed and counter-act installed at an
inclination of 10° to vertical (FE analysis
only);
● seabed sloping 10° and counter-act installed
at an inclination of 10° to vertical (FE anal-
ysis only).
The scenarios totaled 51 runs with combinations
of the cases described above. The finite element
software package Abaqus was used for all runs, with
some runs analyzed in parallel with use of the finite
difference program, Flac as control calculations.
Both programs are advanced three dimensional con-
tinuum numerical modeling packages for geotech-
nical analysis of the interaction between soil and
structural supports. Both programs yielded similar
results; however, minor discrepancies existed due to
the modeling techniques applied in the analyses.
In order to generate a simple and effective mesh,
Figure 8 —Allowable lateral capacity.
the model was divided into several cells. As the
distances between the counter-act and the cell in-
creased, as did the coarseness of the mesh within the cell. An illustration of the model is presented in
Figure 6.
The FE calculations were performed in phases. The initial stresses were established in the first phase.
After this, gravity forces originating from the sloping seabed were applied in the second phase, before the
horizontal load was applied in the third phase. The third phase was divided into several increments in
order to assess the load vs. displacement response.
The magnitude of the load was selected so that failure of the counter-act would occur. In most cases,
a total load of 200 kN was chosen. Failure of the counter-act was defined as the point at which plastic
OTC-25117-MS 7

Table 2—Recorded operational data.

Installation Data Recovery Data

Counter-act Penetration Hs Time Lmax

[m] [m] [s] [Tons]

1 3.8 1 250 70
2 4.3 1.5 770 60
3 4.0 2.6 540 50
4 4.1 3 700 60
5 4.3 2.7 700 60
6 4.2 2.5 707 60
7 3.3 2.2 279 40
8 4.1 2 750 60
9 4.0 2 675 60
10 4.0 1.9 647 60
11 3.5 1.9 795 60
12 4.2 2.1 955 60
13 3.1 2.1 545 45
14 4.0 2.1 760 60
15 4.0 2 890 60
16 3.7 2 N/A 45
17 0.5 2.2 N/A 30
18 3.1 3.1 N/A 50
19 4.0 2.3 60 30
20 2.0 N/A 60 30
21 4.0 2.6 630 60
22 2.8 N/A 300 40
23 4.0 2.2 700 60
24 2.9 1.8 510 50

deformation occurred when considering the design undrained shear strength. The failure mode of typical
counter-act on a seabed inclined at 10° is illustrated in the figure below.
A procedure was developed in order to determine the minimum required penetration depth for the
counter-acts utilizing the results of the parameter study. The concept was that when assessing the capacity
of a counter-act during installation, the following five steps should be considered:
1. Estimate seabed slope at the individual counter-act locations;
2. Determine the minimum required penetration of the counter-act based on the anticipated load and
the seabed slope in accordance to Figure 8;
3. Assess the actual penetration depth, slope and installation inclinations based on footage of the
installation process;
4. Evaluate whether additional penetration is required, refer to Figure 8;
5. Determine the size of the clump weight to achieve sufficient penetration if Item 4 is not satisfied
or alternatively install an additional counter-act.
Offshore Experience
Recorded Data
Data were recorded during offshore operations for both the counter-act installation campaign and recovery
campaign. The recorded penetration for the installation campaign is presented in Table 2 along with the
significant wave height, total time for breakout to occur and the recovery load (Lmax) recorded during the
recovery operation.
8 OTC-25117-MS

Of the 24 recordings, 7 recordings (29 %) were of self-weight penetration less than 3.5 m, indicating
Unit II was encountered as often as predicted based on the statistical information from Figure 5.
The recovery load was applied using a crane in constant tension, with load applied in 10 Tons
increments. The measured recovery loads are therefore presented as a multiple of 10 Tons.
Counter-act Behavior during Pipeline Installation
During pipeline installation, the pipeline touchdown point was monitored with use of a remote operated
vehicle (ROV). Upon review of the touchdown point survey data and video, it was not possible to assess
the deflection of the counter-act during pipeline installation. The as laid survey consisted of both video
survey and multibeam echo-sounder survey and was reviewed at each counter-act location. It is possible
to conclude that the soil surrounding the counter-act was not subject to large deformation and so none of
the counter-acts can be considered to have failed. A shaded relief map of a counter-act and the pipeline
is given in Figure 9.
Counter-act recovery load
The undrained shear strength at each location was back calculated with use of the equation for self-weight
penetration. An expression for undrained shear strength based on the average strength for Unit I soil
presented in Table 1 is determined as a function of a single parameter, k. This was done in order to predict
the undrained shear strength at each location. The undrained shear strength is given as:

Where:
k ⫽ undrained shear strength at seabed which is fitted to the depth of penetration. If k exceeds 6 kPa,
it is evident that the skirt tip has encountered Unit II soil and the data is not used in the following;
z⫽ depth below seabed.
The k value for the undrained shear strength at each counter-act is used to estimate the recovery load.
For the counter-acts which did not encounter Unit II soil, the k value ranges between 3.3 kPa and 5.1 kPa.
Notably, this leads to counter-acts7, 11, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22 and 24 exceeding the maximum, k value of 6
kPai. e., indicating the presence of unit II soil. These data points are therefore removed for further
recovery load assessment.
Sensitivity study has been completed for sensitivity of 4. This indicates a lower prediction of undrained
shear strength. K values ranges between 1.2 kPa and 5.1 kPa.
The set-up of undrained shear strength along the skirt wall post installation originates from the effects
of thixotropy (Ct) and from pore pressure dissipation (⌬u). Calculation of undrained shear strength along
the skirts of a suction anchor is based on a low estimate of strength, the assumption that thixotropy and
pore pressure dissipation are assumed to occur independently of each other and that they are not additive
(Andersen and Jostad, 2002). For recovery load assessment;however, a high estimate is required in order
to design appropriate rigging and select a vessel with suitable crane capacity.
The recovery load, R, was assumed to be as the reverse of the penetration resistance with the effects
of set-up applied and rate effect in accordance to Lunne and Andersen (2007). The recovery load is
determined in accordance to:

Where:
␤ ⫽ Recovery factor given as ␣ · r;
␣ ⫽ soil set up factor which is a function of pore pressure dissipation and thixotropy, see for example
Andersen and Jostad (2002);
␥ ⫽ rate effect in accordance to Lunne and Andersen (2007) and for 480 seconds (average time of
breakout, see Table 2) is approximately 120% of the undrained shear strength;
OTC-25117-MS 9

Figure 9 —Shaded relief of counter-acts and pipeline.

Figure 10 —Breakout factor (-) as a function of penetration depth.

W1 ⫽ Submerged weight of the counter-act.

A breakout factor was introduced as the recovery load divided by the submerged weight of the
counter-act in line with the definition in Bouwmeester et al. (2009). The back-calculated breakout factor
is presented as a function of depth of penetration in Figure 10.
The highest breakout factor may be explained by the 10 Tons load step method applied during the
recovery campaign. It is believed that the crane load was rapidly increased from 60 Tons to 70 Tons. The
three lowest breakout factors may have been caused by other factors such as counter-act inclination or
local variability in soil conditions.
With the rate effect of 120% in accordance to Andersen (2007), the ␣ factor is estimated to range
between 0.58-0.84 with a variation in sensitivity of 4-6.

Lessons learned
Following the Ormen Lange counter-act installation and retrieval campaigns the following lessons were
learned:
● The design charts and procedure used to predict horizontal capacity for the counter-acts proved to
be a robust approach during the counter-act installation campaign;
● The counter-acts provided sufficient lateral restraint to the pipelines during pipe lay; however it is
not possible to quantify the loads applied to the counter-acts;
● The counter-act design utilizing an inner mechanism allowed for installation in harsh environment
with deck handling being the primary limitation;
● A statistical approach to counter-act penetration depth was found to be reliable. The penetration
assessment estimated 23% of the counter-acts would penetrate less than 3.5 m and the data from
offshore indicated 29 %;
● Full regain of undrained shear strength along skirt walls was not observed for the counter-acts 8
months after installation. Due to expected variation in sensitivity, rate effect, thixotropy and
consolidation is not possible to quantify the exact regain of undrained shear strength. A setup
factor between 0.58-0.84 is determined;
● Design and observations prove that a counters-act has no need for a base plate to provide lateral
resistance. An inner mechanism may be required to limit self-weight penetration.
10 OTC-25117-MS

Conclusions
A total of 36 counter-acts were installed to provide horizontal resistance to pipelines during pipe lay.
Given the relatively chaotic seabed conditions, a statistical approach was used to predict penetration
resistance of the counter-acts. The structural design and geotechnical design was optimized to maximize
operational sea state for installation and recovery of counter-acts. During offshore operations, sea state and
recovery load were recorded. Following the counter-act installation, pipe lay and recovery campaigns, it
was concluded that the methodology provides a robust approach that may be used for future projects.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge Subsea 7 and Shell for permission to publish the results presented
in the paper. The contributions from Lead Engineer Marin Suzberic and Project Manager Per Kristian
Forbord, Subsea 7 are gratefully acknowledged. The authors are grateful to Dr. Daniel Karunakaran for
his comments and review to this paper. It is emphasized that the conclusions put forth reflect the views
of the authors alone, and not necessarily those of Subsea 7.

References
Andersen K. H. & JostadH. P.2002. Shear Strength Along Outside Wall of Suction Anchors in Clay
after Installation, ISOPE.
Andersen, K.H., Lunne, T., Kvalstad, T. and Forsberg, C.F. 2008. Deep water geotechnical engineer-
ing. Proc. XXIV Nat. Conf. of the Mexican Soc. Of Soil Mechanics, Aguasclientes.
Bouwmeester D., PeuchenJ., Van der WalT., SarataB., WillemseC.A., Van BaarsS. and PeelenR..
2009. Prediction of Breakout Forces for Deepwater Seafloor Objects, OTC 19925.
Brinch Hansen J. 1961. The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transversal forces, Bulletin No.
12 Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen 1961.
Eklund T., Høgmoen, K. And PaulsenGunnar 2007. Ormen Lange Pipelines Installation and Seabed
Preparation. OTC.
Eklund T., and PaulsenG. 2007. Ormen Lange Offshore Project Subsea Development Strategy and
Execution, ISOPE.
Lunne, T. and AndersenK.H. 2007, Soft Clay Shear Strength Parameters for Deepwater Geotechnical
Design. OSIG.
NGI 2011, Ormen Lange 2010 Soil Investigation, Geotechnical Report
SchroederK. et al 2006, Predicted and Observed Installation Behavior of the Mad Dog Anchors, OTC
17950.