PIPE SOIL INTERACTION ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTION LINE (MAIN SECTION) ON VERY SOFT CLAY SOIL BASED ON DNVGL-RP-114

Pipe Data:

Outside Diameter (Including Coating) Do  0.5231m

Steel Diameter Ds  0.3239m

2
Bending Stiffness EI  66616.3kN m

Submerged Weights

N
Submerged Weight of Pipe (Empty) Wemp  2004.5
m

N
Submerged Weight of Pipe (Hydrotest) Whyd  2635.2
m

N
Submerged Weight of Pipe (Max Operation) Wop  2613.7
m
Soil Data
kN
Submerged weight of soil γ  8.96
3
m

Residual Friction Angle ϕres_le  20 ϕres_be  24 ϕres_he  28

Undrained Shear Strength (Intact)

 0 23 23 23 
Suprofile   1 29 29 29  From Survey Report
 
 3 32 32 32 

0 1 z
Low Estimate Sule( z)  linterp Suprofile Suprofile    kPa
 m

0 2 z
Best Estimate Sube( z)  linterp Suprofile Suprofile    kPa
 m

0 3 z
High Estimate Suhe( z)  linterp Suprofile Suprofile    kPa
 m
 Soil Sensitivity

0 8 8 8
Sensitivityprofile   1 3 3 3  From Survey Report
 
3 3 3 3

0 1 z
Low Estimate Sle( z)  linterp Sensitivityprofile Sensitivityprofile  
 
m

0 2 z
Best Estimate Sbe( z)  linterp Sensitivityprofile Sensitivityprofile  
 m

0 3 z
High Estimate She( z)  linterp Sensitivityprofile Sensitivityprofile  
 m

Undrained Shear Strength (Remoulded)

Sule( z) Sube( z) Suhe( z)

Suremle( z)  Surembe( z)  Suremhe( z) 
Sle( z) Sbe( z) She( z)
Pipe-Soil Contact Width

B( z) 
2   D  z  z2 if z  Do
  o  2
Do Equation 4.3 DNVGL-RP-114
Do if z 
2

Penetrated Cross Sectional Area

  Do    B( z)  
2
  B( z)  Do Do
Abm( z)  asin    B ( z)     cos asin   if z 
  4    Do  
  Do  4 2
Equation 4.7 DNVGL-RP-114
 D 2 Do 
o  Do
 8
π   D o   z   if z 
  2  2

2 z 
θ( z)  acos 1  if z  1.0Do
Do 
 
π otherwise
Effect of Laying (Installation) on Embedment

Horizontal Component of Effective lay Tension at TDP Tlay  539kN Obtained from Preliminary Installation Analysis

2
2
3
 3  EI0.5 W   134.054  kN 3
Tlay   3  EI  Wemp
0.5
 emp Confirm applicability of equation 4.14 of DNVGL-RP-114
  1

Klay Factor

In the equation below K.lay.1 has been replaced with Qv/Wi as stated in equation 4.13 of DNVGL-RP-114

0.25
Klay2( Q z)  0.6  0.4  
EI Q
2
 z Tlay  [Equation 4.14, DNVGL-RP-114]
 

Embedment Assessment (Model 2)

  z  0.25 0.5
  1.5 γ Abm( z)  D  su
Qv2( su z)  min 6   3.4 
10z 
  Do    Equation 4.8 from DNVGL-RP-114
Do  su  o
     Do   
Low Estimate Embedment

Given z  0.1m


Qv2 Suremhe( z) z  = Wemp [Equation 4.13, DNVGL-RP-114]
 
Klay2 Qv2 Suremhe( z) z z  
Zle2  Find( z) Zle2  0.019 m
Zle2
 3.687  % Klayle2 
  
Qv2 Suremhe Zle2 Zle2   1.593
Do Wemp

Best Estimate Embedment

Given z  0.3m


Qv2 Surembe( z) z  = Wemp [Equation 4.13, DNVGL-RP-114]
 
Klay2 Qv2 Surembe( z) z z  

Zbe2  Find( z) Zbe2  0.019 m

Zbe2
 3.687  % Klaybe2 
  
Qv2 Surembe Zbe2 Zbe2   1.593
Do Wemp

Best Estimate Embedment

Given z  0.3m


Qv2 Suremle( z) z  = Wemp [Equation 4.13, DNVGL-RP-114]
 
Klay2 Qv2 Suremle( z) z z  
Zhe2  Find( z) Zhe2  0.019 m
Zhe2
 3.687  % Klayhe2 
  
Qv2 Suremle Zhe2 Zhe2   1.593
Do Wemp

Assessment of Dynamically Induced Penetration

3
Density of Seawater ρw  1025kg m

1
Velocity Vcur  0.78m s Using the 1year current value at 20m water depth from the metocean data

Lift Coefficient Clift  1.4

2 kg
Lift Force Flift  Clift 0.5 ρw Do Vcur  228.347
2
s

Contact Force Fc( W)  W  Flift

2
γ Do
κ( W) 
Fc( W)

Amplitude of Horizontal Displacement

ale  0.01Do abe  0.05Do ahe  0.1Do From FEED Report

Additional Penetration due to Cyclic horizontal motion

0.5
 0.5 ale 

Δzmaxle  1.0 κ Wemp     Do  0.045 m
 Do 
0.5
 0.5  abe 

Δzmaxbe  1.0 κ Wemp     Do  0.1 m
 Do  [Equation 8, GS-EP-GEO-701]

0.5
 0.5  ahe 

Δzmaxhe  1.0 κ Wemp     Do  0.141 m
 Do 

Total Embedment

Zle
Zle  Δzmaxle  Zle2  0.064 m Embedpercentle   12.198 %
Do

Zbe  Δzmaxbe  Zbe2  0.119 m Zbe

Embedpercentbe   22.719 %
Do

Zhe
Zhe  Δzmaxhe  Zhe2  0.16 m Embedpercenthe   30.603 %
Do
Axial Resistance Calculation

Adhesion Factor [Selected as 1 for 'Rough' Coating (Concrete) Based on Section 5.2.2 of GS EP GEO 701]

Low estimate, αle  1.0 Best estimate, αbe  1.0 High estimate, αhe  1.0

Ratio of Normally consolidated Shear Resistance vs Consolidation Vertical Stress Suσv.NC  0.3 Section 4.3.3.1 of DNVGL-RP-114

Preloading Factor mpre  0.7

Wemp Wemp Whyd

Consolidation Preloading Effect γpre_emp  1 γpre_hydro   0.761 γpre_op   1.008
Wemp Whyd Wop

Speed of loading to undrained failure γrate  1

Wedging Factor

For Low Esimate ζle  1.0 [Section 5.2.1 of GS EP GEO 701]

2  sin( θ( z) ) Do
ζ( z)  if z  [From DNVGL-RP-114 and Equation 11 GS EP GEO 701]
θ( z)  sin( θ( z) )  cos( θ( z) ) 2
1.27 otherwise
Peak (Breakout) Undrained Axial Resistance, Faxial

mpre
Low Estimate  
FA.brk.u.le V γpre  V αle Suσv.NC γpre  ζle γrate

mpre
Best Estimate  
FA.brk.u.be V γpre  V αbe Suσv.NC γpre  
 ζ Zbe  γrate
Equation 4.15 from DNVGL-RP-114

mpre
High Estimate  
FA.brk.u.he V γpre  V αhe Suσv.NC γpre  
 ζ Zhe  γrate

Residual Undrained Axial Resistance

Residual Friction Factor ε resle  0.5 ε resbe  0.6 ε reshe  0.7

Assumed

Low Estimate   
FA.res.u.le V γpre  ε resle FA.brk.u.le V γpre 

Best Estimate   
FA.res.u.be V γpre  ε resbe FA.brk.u.be V γpre  Equation 4.17 from DNVGL-RP-114

High Estimate   
FA.res.u.he V γpre  ε reshe FA.brk.u.he V γpre 
Residual Drained Axial Resistance

 ϕres_le π 
Low Estimate μA.res.d.le  tan   ζle  0.364
 180 

 ϕres_be π 
Low Estimate μA.res.d.be  tan   ζ Zbe  0.514
 180 

 ϕres_he π 
Low Estimate μA.res.d.he  tan   ζ Zhe  0.641
 180 

Axial Resistance
Low Estimate Best Estimate High Estimate

 0   0   0 
 FA.brk.u.le  V γpre 
Fax_le V γpre     A.brk.u.be  pre 
F V γ  A.brk.u.he  pre 
F V γ
 Fax_be V γpre   Fax_he V γpre  
 A.res.u.le pre 
F V γ  
 A.res.u.be pre   A.res.u.he pre 
F V γ F V γ
 FA.res.u.le V γpre 
   FA.res.u.be V γpre   FA.res.u.he V γpre 
   
Axial Mobilization Displacement, X

 
Xbrk.le  min 1.25mm 0.0025Do  1.25 mm  
Xres.le  min 7.5mm 0.015Do  7.5 mm


Xbrk.behe  min 5mm 0.01Do  5  mm 
Xres.behe  min 30mm 0.06Do  30 mm  From DNVGL-RP-114

 
Xbrk.max  max 50mm 0.1Do  52.31  mm  
Xres.max  max 250mm 0.5Do  261.55 mm
  0   0   0
  0 
 Xbrk.le   1.25 
Xle    brk.behe   5 
X
  mm
 res.le   7.5 
X Xbehe     mm
 res.behe   30 
X
 Xres.max   261.55 
   Xres.max   261.55 
 

Axial Friction Factors

Low Estimate Best Estimate High Estimate
Empty

 0   0   0 

Fax_le Wemp γpre_emp  
0.3  
Fax_be Wemp γpre_emp  
0.347  
Fax_he Wemp γpre_emp  
0.361 
Wemp  0.15  Wemp  0.208  Wemp  0.253 
 0.15   0.208   0.253 
     
Flooded

 0   0   0 
Fax_le Whyd γpre_hydro  0.248  Fax_be Whyd γpre_hydro  0.286  Fax_he Whyd γpre_hydro  0.298 
  
Whyd  0.124  Whyd  0.172  Whyd  0.209 
 0.124   0.172   0.209 
     

Operating (Max)

 0   0   0 
Fax_le Wop γpre_op 0.302  Fax_be Wop γpre_op 0.349  Fax_he Wop γpre_op 0.364 
  
Wop  0.151  Wop  0.209  Wop  0.254 
 0.151   0.209   0.254 
     
 Axial Resistance / Displacement Curve (LE)
Axial Resistance (N/m) 800

600


F ax_le Wop γpre_op 400
200

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Xle

Displacement (m)

Axial Resistance / Displacement Curve (BE & HE)

3
1 10
Axial Resistance (N/m)

800


F ax_be Wop γpre_op  600

F ax_he Wop γpre_op

400

200

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
X behe

Displacement (m)
Lateral Resistance Calculation

Peak (Breakout) Undrained Lateral Resistance

  Z  0.61  Zbe  
0.83 2
 γ Do
FL.brk.u.be( V)  Sube Zbe  Do  1.7 
be  V 
Best Estimate   0.23   0.6  
 Do Sube Zbe  Do  Sube Zbe Do 
      

FL.brk.u.be( V)
Low Estimate FL.brk.u.le( V) 
1.5 Equation 4.22 from DNVGL-RP-114

High Estimate FL.brk.u.he( V)  1.5 FL.brk.u.be( V)

Undrained Lateral Residual Resistance

  Zbe  
0.8

Best Estimate FL.res.u.be( V)  V 0.32  0.8   

  Do  

FL.res.u.be( V)
Low Estimate FL.res.u.le( V) 
1.5 Equation 4.29 from DNVGL-RP-114

High Estimate FL.res.u.he( V)  1.5 FL.res.u.be( V)

Lateral Resistance

Low Estimate
Best Estimate High Estimate

 0   0
  0 
 L.brk.u.le 
F ( V)
Flat_le( V)    FL.brk.u.be( V)   FL.brk.u.he( V) 
 Flat_be( V)  
F ( V)  Flat_he( V)   
 L.res.u.le  F ( V) F ( V)
 L.res.u.be   L.res.u.he 
 FL.res.u.le( V) 
   FL.res.u.be( V)   FL.res.u.he( V) 
   

Lateral Mobilization Displacement, X

 Zle 
y brk.le  Do   0.004  0.02  y res.le  0.6 Do
Do
 
 Zbe 
y brk.be  Do   0.02  0.25  y res.be  1.5 Do
Do
 
 Zhe  y res.he  2.8 Do
y brk.he  Do   0.1  0.7 
Do
 

 0   0   0   0   0   0 
 y brk.le   3.369   
Yle    brk.be  
y 40.173  ybrk.he   164.367 
    784.65   mm
 mm
 res.le   313.86 
y Ybe   Yhe    3   mm
y res.be y res.he 1.465  10
     
 Do   523.1 
   3 Do   1.569  103   4 Do   2.092  103 
     
Lateral Friction Factors

Low Estimate Best Estimate High Estimate

Empty

 0   0   0 
Flat_le Wemp

3.074 

Flat_be Wemp  
4.611  
Flat_he Wemp  
6.917 
Wemp  0.376 
Wemp  0.564  Wemp  0.847 
 0.376 
   0.564   0.847 
   

Flooded

 0   0   0 
Flat_le Whyd 

2.379 

Flat_be Whyd  
3.569  
Flat_he Whyd  
5.353 
Whyd  0.376 
Whyd  0.564  Whyd  0.847 
 0.376 
   0.564   0.847 
   

Operating (Max)

 0   0   0 
Flat_le Wop 2.397  Flat_be Wop 3.596  Flat_he Wop 5.394 
  
Wop  0.376  Wop  0.564  Wop  0.847 
 0.376   0.564   0.847 
     
 Lateral Resistance / Displacement Curve (LE)
3
8 10
Lateral Resistance (N/m)

3
6 10

 
F lat_le Wop 4 10
3

3
2 10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Yle

Displacement (m)
 Lateral Resistance / Displacement Curve (BE)
4
1 10
Lateral Resistance (N/m)

3
8 10

3
6 10

F lat_be Wop  3
4 10

3
2 10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Y be

Displacement (m)
 Lateral Resistance / Displacement Curve (HE)
4
1.5 10

Lateral Resistance (N/m)

4
1 10


F lat_he Wop 
3
5 10

0
0 1 2 3
Y he

Displacement (m)

Results Summary - Embedment, Axial and Lateral Resistance Coefficients

Parameter/Case LE BE HE
Embedment, z [m] 0.064 0.119 0.16
Embedment, z/D [%OD] 12.20% 22.72% 30.60%
Load Corresponding Factor, Klay 1.593 1.593 1.593

Undrained Breakout 0.3 0.347 0.361

Axial Residual 0.15 0.208 0.253
Wempty Drained Residual 0.364 0.514 0.641
Breakout 3.074 4.611 6.917
Lateral
Residual 0.376 0.564 0.847
Hydrotest Case
Breakout 0.248 0.286 0.298
Undrained
Axial Residual 0.124 0.172 0.209
Whydrotest Drained Residual 0.364 0.514 0.641
Breakout 2.379 3.569 5.353
Lateral
Residual 0.376 0.564 0.847
Operating Case (Maximum Density)
Breakout 0.302 0.349 0.364
Undrained
Axial Residual 0.151 0.209 0.254
Woperating Drained Residual 0.364 0.514 0.641
Breakout 2.397 3.596 5.394
Lateral
Residual 0.376 0.564 0.847
Mobilization Distance [mm]
Axial Breakout 1.25 5 5
Axial Residual 7.5 30 30
Lateral Breakout 3.37 40.17 164.37
Lateral Residual 313.86 784.65 1465