Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OMAE2004-51425
M. Hesar
KBR
Hill Park Court, Springfield Drive,
Leatherhead, Surrey, KT22 7NL, UK
Email: majid.hesar@halliburton.com
A geotechnical SI programme executed along the route These low values of Rigidity Index for soft clay are
corridor consisting of vibro-core sampling and CPT probing, considered appropriate, following the recommendations of
showed that soil conditions along the route of the pipelines are various references reported e.g. [18]. Poisson’s ratio was taken
predominantly soft clay overlying either sand or stiff clay. At as: ν=0.49. In order to account for the possible soil disturbance
some locations along the route sand layers of significant caused at the touch down point by installation vessel
thickness are exposed at the seabed. movements, the insitu soil shear strength was reduced by a
The site investigation report divides the route into a nominal amount. From experience of similar pipeline
number of “Geotechnical” sections based on the near seabed installations this disturbance was not anticipated to be
soil conditions. The strength profiles show that the undrained significant.
shear strength of clay varies with depth below mudline. Within The pipeline was initially located 2m away from the left
some of these sections the pipeline characteristics such as edge of the model in order to eliminate boundary effects, see
submerged weight and outer diameter also change. For the Fig. 4. Initially an Implicit FE model in ABAQUS/Standard
purpose of present FE analyses further subdivisions were was used with the geometric nonlinearity effects switched on.
included in those sections to accommodate these specific However, the large amounts of settlement that resulted,
characteristics. Due to the variability of soil conditions at particularly in the weakest clays, caused very large mesh
different sections the FE model was run with the actual soil distortions. Subsequently, in order to eliminate numerical errors
strength profile reported for that section. Other relevant data due to mesh distortion effects Adaptive Meshing had to be
such as the submerged unit weight under hydro-test and used. At present Adaptive Meshing capability is not available
operating conditions were changed to reflect the actual in ABAQUS/Standard, and hence ABAQUS/Explicit had to be
conditions for each individual section. adopted. ABAQUS/Explicit uses an ALE (Arbitrary
Lagrangian-Eulerian) adaptive meshing algorithm. The domain
THE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL being adaptively meshed follows the material originally inside
In this project both hand calculation methods published in the mesh. No material actually enters or leaves the mesh
the literature and finite element techniques using boundaries and the mesh is moved and reformed at each time
ABAQUS/Explicit were utilised to obtain embedment of the increment, using the original topology. The algorithm
pipelines and lateral resistance-displacement relationships. Two accurately remaps the solution variables onto the new mesh,
plane strain models were developed, a coarse model for bulk of keeping track of the stress fields within the solution domain
the runs and a finer mesh model used to calibrate the coarse accurately. It should be noted that this technique is different
mesh and hence account for mesh sensitivity effects. from “adaptive mesh refinement” often used in small strain
The coarse FE mesh is shown in Fig. 4. The plane strain implicit FE analyses, which would not be appropriate for
mesh extends to a depth of 2.5m, and 12m laterally. For advanced simulations in the present work. The analyses were
computational economy the soil was modeled in two layers, an conducted in the following steps:
upper layer with an optimal mesh size relative to pipeline
radius and a lower layer defined with a coarser mesh. The 1. Establish the correct initial stress conditions in the soil.
purpose of this lower layer was to include sufficient volume of 2. Apply the pipeline self-weight corresponding to the hydro-
seabed so that settlements due to elastic deformation of the test conditions
seabed would be included in the predictions. The two surfaces 3. Unload the pipeline to operating submerged weight
along the interface plane were bonded together. The pipeline conditions
was modeled as a rigid circular surface with its outer diameter 4. Push the pipeline laterally in a displacement-control mode
equal to the finished concrete coating. The interface frictional whilst still under the operating weight.
stress between the concrete coating and clay contacting
surfaces was limited to the remoulded undrained shear strength The settlement obtained in Step 3 was used for the purpose
of clay at mudline. Self-contact was defined for elements of calculating the axial friction. The ultimate axial friction force
forming the seabed to account for the case when a hump of clay was obtained as the product of pipeline/soil contact area and
folds back and touches the seabed itself. The finer mesh model clay strength at mudline. This is regarded as conservative, since
had the same overall dimensions and characteristics, except due to the cyclic action of waves and currents during the period
with a mesh density of five times higher. prior to the design event the pipeline is expected to settle a
In the absence of good quality soil laboratory test data further small amount into the soil. This further settlement will
appropriate for FE work, a linear elastic perfectly plastic increase the frictional soil response both axially and laterally.
response was assigned for the constitutive behaviour of clay. Vertical elastic rebound of the pipeline when unloaded from the
All analyses were performed with the clay modelled as an hydro-test conditions in Step 3 was found to be small, as
undrained single-phase material obeying the von-Mises yield expected, since nearly all the settlement is due to plastic
criterion; no coupled stress-pore pressure (consolidation) deformation of the clay, see Fig. 7.
effects were considered. Actual depth-dependent undrained
[18] Brand, E.W, and Brenner, R.P. (Ed.) 1981, Soft clay
Engineering, Elsevier, ISBN 0-444-41784-2.
4
Fv/(2roSu)
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
Lateral displacement (m)
Figure 10 Lateral load-displacement using coarse
and fine meshes.
Figure 7 Pipeline vertical displacement v. time, showing
small elastic re-bound (Wo=operating weight).
3.00 2.0
2.50
1.5
2.00
1.50
1.0
1.00
0.50 0.5
0.00
0.0
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Lateral Pipeline Displacement (m)
Horizontal pipeline displacement (m)
3.00
2.50 1.2
Lateral Soil Resistance (kN)
1.50
0.8
1.00
Fric Coef=1.3
0.6
0.50 Frci Coef=0.3
0.00 0.4
0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5
Lateral Pipeline Displacement (m)
0.2