gp860110 Com

GP 86-01-10 Pipeline Design for Upheaval Buckling Prevention Version 1.0.
0 March 2015
Pipeline Design for Upheaval

Buckling Prevention
GP 86-01-10
Scope
1) This Global Practice (GP) covers minimum requirements, recommendations, and considerations for
the design of onshore and offshore pipelines subject to upheaval buckling conditions.
2) This GP covers rigid pipe with external coatings, designed per the applicable standard design codes
(i.e., ASME B31.4, ASME B31.8, API RP 1111, ISO 13623, and/or DNV-OS-F101) or any other
project-specific or regional design code supplemented by project specifications approved by
Company.
3) This GP is not applicable to flexible pipes (bonded or unbonded) or umbilicals.
4) Pipeline design aspects other than upheaval buckling are addressed in GP 59-01-01 and GP 86-01-01.
Upstream © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 1 of 30
Copyright Waiver:
ExxonMobil (EM) hereby licenses the use of ExxonMobil Engineering Practices System (EMEPS) Global Practices (GPs) for use by any EM division, subsidiary, or
more-than-50% owned and in-fact operationally controlled affiliate. The GPs may be downloaded and modified as necessary for project and affiliate use. Written
permission from EM is not required. However, any modified GPs must be renumbered to a project-specific or affiliate-specific number to differentiate them from the
GPs on the EMEPS website. EM-operated Joint Ventures (JVs) may utilize the GPs to create project-specific or location-specific specifications. It is the responsibility
of each affiliate or Joint Venture to ensure that the use of GPs and their derivatives is limited to affiliate or JV-related business and not disclosed or used outside the JV
without appropriate EM management approval.
Note to Third Parties:
Copyright 2015 ExxonMobil. All rights reserved. No portion of this work may be reproduced or distributed by any means or technology or otherwise used in any
manner without the express written consent of ExxonMobil.
GP 86-01-10 Pipeline Design for Upheaval Buckling Prevention V 1.0.0 MAR 2015
Table of Contents
Table of Figures............................................................................................................. 4
Table of Equations ........................................................................................................ 5
1. Required References ............................................................................................ 6

1.1. Global Practices–ExxonMobil Engineering Practices ................................... 6
1.2. API–American Petroleum Institute................................................................ 6
1.3. ASME–American Society of Mechanical Engineers ..................................... 6
1.4. DNV–Det Norske Veritas .............................................................................. 6
1.5. ISO–International Organization for Standardization ..................................... 6
1.6. Other References ......................................................................................... 6
2. Definitions.............................................................................................................. 7
2.1. Terms ........................................................................................................... 7
2.2. Acronyms ..................................................................................................... 7
3. General ................................................................................................................... 8
3.1. Design Units ................................................................................................. 9
4. Design Approach .................................................................................................. 9
4.1. Applicable Phases ........................................................................................ 9
4.2. Pre-Construction UHB Design ...................................................................... 9
4.3. Post-Construction UHB Design .................................................................. 10
4.4. Analyses ..................................................................................................... 10
5. Design Data ......................................................................................................... 10
5.1. Pipeline Data .............................................................................................. 11
5.2. Soil Information .......................................................................................... 11
5.3. Pipeline Construction Method..................................................................... 12
5.4. Imperfection Height .................................................................................... 12
6. Pipeline Response Analysis ............................................................................... 13
6.1. Pipeline Expansion Force ........................................................................... 13
6.2. Simplified Analytical Model ......................................................................... 14
6.3. FEA Modeling ............................................................................................. 16
7. Design Criteria ..................................................................................................... 18
8. Pipe-Soil Interaction............................................................................................ 19
UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 2 of 30

Appendix A: Soil Spring Definition for Analysis of Pipe-Soil Interaction ............. 22

A–1. Unidirectional Soil Spring Equations ............................................................ 22
A–1.1. Axial Soil Springs ...................................................................................... 22
A–1.2. Horizontal Soil Springs.............................................................................. 24
A–1.3. Vertical (Downward) Bearing Soil Springs ................................................ 25
Record of Change ....................................................................................................... 29
Attachment: Purpose Code Definitions.................................................................... 30

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Upheaval Buckling Failure .......................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Imperfection Height and Pipe Span .......................................................... 13
Figure 3: Soil Upward Restraint ................................................................................ 21
Figure A–1: Recommended Bounds for Adhesion Factor ...................................... 26
Figure A–2: Horizontal Bearing Capacity Factors for Sand ................................... 27
Figure A–3: Vertical Downward Bearing Capacity Factors .................................... 28

Table of Equations
Equation 1: Pipeline Expansion Force ..................................................................... 13
Equation 2: Imperfection Length Parameter ............................................................ 14
Equation 3: Length Spanning the Imperfection ....................................................... 14
Equation 4: Downward Resistance Force ................................................................ 15
Equation 5: Soil Restraint Force ............................................................................... 15
Equation 6: Backfill Height Calculation.................................................................... 16
Equation 7: Safety Factor .......................................................................................... 19
Equation 8: Uplift Resistance for Extremely Soft Clay Seabeds ............................ 20
Equation 9: Uplift Resistance for Cohesionless Soils ............................................ 20
Equation 10: Uplift Resistance for Cohesive Soils (Other Than Soft Clay) ........... 21
Equation A–1: Axial Soil Restraint............................................................................ 23
Equation A–2: Lateral Soil Restraint ........................................................................ 24
Equation A–3: Vertical (Downward) Bearing Capacity............................................ 25

1. Required References
This Section lists the Practices, codes, standards, specifications, and publications that shall be used with
this document. Unless otherwise specified herein, use the latest edition.
1.1. Global Practices–ExxonMobil Engineering Practices

GP 59-01-01 Onshore Pipeline Design
GP 86-01-01 Offshore Pipeline Design
1.2. API–American Petroleum Institute

API RP 1111 Recommended Practice for Design, Construction, Operation, and
Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design)
1.3. ASME–American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASME B31.4 Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries
ASME B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems
1.4. DNV–Det Norske Veritas

DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems
DNV-RP-F110 Global Buckling of Submarine Pipelines - Structural Design Due to
High Temperature/High Pressure
1.5. ISO–International Organization for Standardization

ISO 13623 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries - Pipeline Transportation Systems
1.6. Other References

These references are provided for additional information on topics included in this GP. If there is any
inconsistency between these references and the GP, the contents of this GP shall govern.
C-CORE, 2003, "Extended Model for Pipe-Soil Interaction, Final Report for Pipeline Research
Council International," C-CORE Report R-02-044-113, August 2003
Kulhawy, F. H., "Uplift Behavior of Shallow Soil Anchors – An Overview," Uplift Behavior of
Anchor Foundations in Soil, Samuel P. Clemence (ed.) ASCE, 1985
Mousselli, A. H., "Pipe Stresses at the Seabed During Installation and Trenching Operations," OTC
2965, 1977

O'Rourke, T. D., Jezerski, J. M., Olson, N. A., Bonneau, A. L, Palmer, M. C., Stewart, H. E.,
O'Rourke, M. J., and Abdoun, T., "Geotechnics of Pipeline System Response to Earthquakes,"
Proceedings Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, May 2008
Palmer, A. C., et al., "Design of Submarine Pipelines Against Upheaval Buckling," OTC-6335,
1990
PRCI, "Guidelines for Constructing Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines in Areas
Subject to Landslide and Subsidence Hazards," report by D. G. Honegger, C-CORE, and SSD;
Catalog No. L52292, 2009
Wijewickreme, D, Kanimian, H., Honegger, D., "Response of Buried Steel Pipelines Subject to
Relative Axial Loading", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2008
Yimsiri, S. K., Soga, K., Yoshizaki, Dasari, G. R., and O'Rourke, T. D., "Lateral and Upward Soil-
Pipeline Interactions in Sand for Deep Embedment Conditions," American Society of Civil
Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 2004
2. Definitions
2.1. Terms
Term Description
Company ExxonMobil or any of its affiliates.
Contractor For the purposes of this GP, typically Engineering Design Contractor.
Pipeline Design Code The designated pipeline code or standard selected as the basis for the
pipeline design in this GP.
Sleeper Typically static concrete or steel structure used as pipeline support in
crossing application (e.g., pipeline crossing).
2.2. Acronyms
Term Description
2-D Two-Dimensional
3-D Three-Dimensional
CRA Corrosion-Resistant Alloy
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FEED Front-End Engineering and Design
LB Lower Bound
MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
OD Outside Diameter

Term Description
PIP Pipe-in-Pipe
SI International System of Units
SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength
TOP Top of Pipeline
UB Upper Bound
UHB Upheaval Buckling
3. General
1) The requirements specified in this GP are applicable to single rigid pipelines that are trenched and
backfilled, either onshore or offshore. They are also applicable to any pipeline in an open trench
(without backfill) deep enough to prevent lateral buckling of the pipe outside the trench walls. In
addition, the Upheaval Buckling (UHB) risk shall be checked at locations where the pipeline
elevation will transition from one burial depth to another along the route, including pipeline crossing
locations.
2) All onshore and offshore pipelines/flowlines that will operate under temperature and pressure above
the ambient condition, and that are installed either below the grade or below the seabed, shall be
designed to prevent UHB of the line during the hydrotest and the operation of the line over the life of
the facility per the requirements of this GP.
3) High internal pressure and temperature in the pipeline during operation will result in axial expansion
forces in the pipeline, which are resisted by soil friction acting on the pipe, resulting in a net axial
compressive force in the pipe. Any geometrical irregularity in the pipeline vertical profile is referred
to as "imperfection" and can cause the pipeline to deform locally across the imperfection in the
vertical plane. The soil restraint and the gravity load acting on the pipeline in the vertical direction
will resist this deformation. At the critical value of the pipeline temperature and pressure, the
compressive force in the pipe exceeds the effects of the vertical restraint on the pipeline, and the
pipeline will buckle similar to classical Euler column, start to deform upwards through the soil cover,
and break out of the soil cover. This is referred to as the UHB failure of the pipeline or global
buckling in the vertical plane (see Figure 1).
4) Pipeline Designer shall implement measures to mitigate the risk of such UHB. Such measures
generally include selecting proper depth of burial in native soil or sometimes using engineered
backfill with higher density and shear strength.
5) The difference between onshore and offshore pipeline UHB analysis is attributable to how some key
parameters, such as pipe weight, soil over burden, strength of the backfill, etc., are assessed and used
in the analysis. Otherwise, the mechanics of the UHB phenomenon is the same in both cases.
6) For a rigid Pipe-in-Pipe (PIP) buried below the grade, the challenge is to calculate the net axial force
and the equivalent bending stiffness of the combined pipe, which will be influenced by the specific
design details of the PIP system. In such cases, even if the general guidelines specified here can be
used, the project is advised to consult ExxonMobil Development Company (EMDC) pipeline
engineering function for such special applications.

7) This GP is also applicable to Corrosion-Resistant Alloy (CRA) lined pipelines. For CRA-lined pipe,
the liner thickness should be considered when calculating thermal and pressure load on the line but
excluded when calculating stiffness of the pipe.
8) For all other pipeline design aspects, refer to GP 59-01-01 and GP 86-01-01.
Figure 1: Upheaval Buckling Failure
3.1. Design Units

All design calculations shall be based on the use of consistent units. Use of International System of Units
(SI) may be preferred or mandatory in some geographical locations. For projects located in the United
States, the use of Customary Units is preferred.
4. Design Approach
4.1. Applicable Phases
1) The pipeline UHB design verification shall be performed during the following two phases:
a) Pre-Construction Phase
b) Post-Construction Phase
2) The pre-construction phase includes concept selection, definition, and execution (detail engineering).
The post-construction phase includes evaluation of the pipeline based on as-built data at the end of
execution but before the pipeline start-up.
4.2. Pre-Construction UHB Design

1) During the pre-construction phase, the UHB design shall be as follows:
a) Simplified Analysis. At the concept selection stage or the pre-FEED stage, a simplified analytical
method may be adequate to establish if there is a risk of UHB and address the likely method of
mitigating this risk.
b) Simplified 2-D Finite Element Analysis (FEA) based on known or expected data. During Front-
End Engineering and Design (FEED), using the expected pipe material properties, selected pipe
wall and coating thickness values, and approximate soil properties below the pipe and of the
backfill material, a 2-D FEA analysis can be performed to check if the pipe will buckle in the
vertical direction for the pre-selected maximum height of the imperfection due to pipe trench
bottom or seabed unevenness.

c) Detailed 2-D or 3-D FEA based on known or expected data. At the detail engineering stage, the
pipe properties, coating thickness, pipe operating temperature and pressure, soil properties,
trenching and backfilling method, etc., are known. Assuming the maximum allowable height of
imperfection, 2-D or 3-D FEA can be performed to calculate the critical temperature/pressure at
which the pipe will buckle.
2) The above discussion in Item (1) assumes that the pipeline profile is relatively flat except at the local
imperfection. In several instances, the ground profile may be quite irregular resulting in several slope
changes with overbends and sagbends in the pipeline profile. Such cases will require developing a
detailed FEA model of the potential or actual pipeline profile, including details of the local curvature
of the trench bottom at the overbend location.
4.3. Post-Construction UHB Design

1) Post-construction phase UHB design shall be based on detailed FEA of the pipeline per the as-built
survey data, as follows:
a) Generally, for the case of a relatively flat ground profile, a review of the as-built survey data can
be sufficient to confirm that the trench bottom imperfection height of the as-installed
configuration is less than the assumed value used during the detail engineering stage. If the
minimum thickness of the soil cover over the pipeline is less than the thickness computed as
necessary to avoid UHB, then a detailed FEA based on the actual profile of the pipeline shall be
performed and, if needed, the appropriate mitigation measures shall be implemented to eliminate
the risk of UHB during pipeline operation.
b) When the ground profile is significantly irregular, the as-built profile shall be compared with the
pipeline profile assumed during pre-construction relative to the magnitude of slope changes or
rise in pipeline elevation over a given length to determine if further detailed FEA is needed.
2) For as-built survey of offshore lines, using tools such as Pipe Tracker is recommended, as it measures
both the depth of cover and the pipeline profile accurately. When selecting other survey methods, the
accuracy of the selected method shall be considered.
4.4. Analyses
1) Typically, the pipeline UHB design shall be checked for the following:
a) Hydrostatic pressure test case
b) Maximum design temperature and pressure for the pipeline during operation
2) These analyses shall be based on nominal pipe wall thickness without consideration of corrosion
allowance.
5. Design Data
Depending on the project phase or stage, the data outlined in the following subsections shall be obtained
either in the preliminary or final form.

5.1. Pipeline Data

1) The following is a typical list of the pipeline design parameters needed as input to the UHB analysis
using simplified analysis or one of the FEA models:
a) Pipeline Outside Diameter (OD), nominal wall thickness, material grade, etc., specified in the line
pipe procurement specification
b) Corrosion allowance
c) Pipeline design temperature and design pressure (i.e., Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
[MAOP])
d) Operating pressure and temperature range (minimum, normal, and maximum)
e) Pipeline hydrotest pressure and temperature
f) Construction tie-in temperature range (minimum to maximum)
g) External coating thickness and density
h) Pipe material Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS)
i) Bathymetry along the offshore pipeline route
j) Ground topography along the onshore pipeline route
k) Pipeline alignment and profile
2) Per ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8, unless the pipeline design temperature is above 121.1 °C (250 °F),
the effect of operating temperature on the coefficient of thermal expansion, modulus of elasticity, and/or
SMYS shall be ignored. For projects where DNV-OS-F101 is a mandatory requirement, the relevant
DNV documents shall be used for determining the effects of pipeline design temperature on pipe
material properties.
3) For projects where applicable design code requirements are not clear, EMDC pipeline engineering
function shall be consulted for guidance on determining the effects of pipeline design temperature on
pipe material properties that should be considered in UHB analyses.
5.2. Soil Information

1) The following data are needed for the evaluation of soil properties at appropriate locations along the
pipeline route:
a) Pipeline burial depth (minimum required cover)
b) General characterization of the seabed, such as presence of cobblestones and boulders, degree of
unevenness, etc.
c) Short-term and long-term trench backfill soil material properties
d) The following soil properties down to at least 2 m (6.56 ft) below the expected maximum trench
depth:
i) Relative density
ii) Dry or submerged unit weight
iii) Internal friction angle
iv) Cohesion or undrained shear strength
2) The interval at which the geotechnical data is collected will depend on the length of the pipeline route
and the variability of soil type along the route. The project should consult EMDC pipeline

engineering (or geotechnical) function to select the interval for collecting geotechnical data along the
pipeline route.
5.3. Pipeline Construction Method

1) The following information is needed if the pipeline installation plans have been finalized. However,
at the concept selection or definition stage, most of the items listed below may not be known and in
that case reasonable assumptions should be made.
a) Minimum pipeline residual tension on seabed after installation (for offshore pipelines)
b) Timing of the trenching operation for offshore pipelines (pre-lay or post-lay trenching)
c) Pipeline trenching method (for offshore pipelines):
i) Dredging
ii) Plough
iii) Jetting
iv) Mechanical cutter
d) Trench backfilling method:
i) Natural backfill (for offshore pipelines)
ii) Backfill using native soil removed from the trench
iii) Backfill using gravel or other engineered backfill soil material
2) The above factors, particularly the trench backfilling method, shall be considered when evaluating the
soil properties or soil restraints that will be acting on the pipeline in the trench soon after Start-Up. For
example, if a trench in soft clay soil is backfilled with the jetting method, then the backfill material
over the pipe will be fluidized clay, which will have a very low shear strength and effective density.
5.4. Imperfection Height

1) The term "imperfection height" is used to describe the local unevenness in the trench bottom profile.
This could be due to a lump of soil falling back in the trench or a stone left in the trench bottom (see
Figure 2). When a pipeline is installed over an irregularity, it creates a local sagbend and an overbend
in the pipeline profile. The span length and the profile of the pipeline across the imperfection depend
on the weight and bending stiffness of the pipeline. When the trench is backfilled, the gap under the
pipe span will be filled by soil, resulting in a continuously supported foundation under the pipeline.
Generally the imperfection height parameter is dependent on local soil properties and the trenching
method used.
2) [A] The typical Upper Bound (UB) value of imperfection height expected for offshore and onshore
pipelines is in the range of 0.3 m (12 in.) to 0.5 m (20 in.). This range shall be used for UHB design
check before construction. Use of an imperfection height outside this range during the pre-
construction phase to validate the pipeline design shall be justified by Contractor and submitted to
Company for approval.

Figure 2: Imperfection Height and Pipe Span

Undisturbed
Ground Surface
Burial Depth (TOP)

or Depth of Cover, H
Prop Height, δ
Pipeline
6. Pipeline Response Analysis

6.1. Pipeline Expansion Force
1) For a pipeline that is fully restrained, the expansion force (S) in the pipeline is compressive and
depends on internal pressure and temperature as stated in Equation 1.
Equation 1: Pipeline Expansion Force

S  H  Pi A i  Pe Ae  v( Pi  Pe )(r / t ) As  ETAs
Where:
S = Pipeline Expansion Force.
H = Residual tension (Lower Bound [LB]) in the pipeline after laying.
Pi = Difference between the pipeline internal pressure during operation and the
pipeline internal pressure during installation. Generally the internal pressure
during installation is zero (i.e., the pipe is installed in empty condition).
Ai = Area of the internal cross-section of the pipe.
Pe = External hydrostatic pressure (applicable only for offshore pipelines).
Ae = Area of the external cross-section of the pipe.
ν = Poisson Ratio for pipe material (generally = 0.3 for carbon steel).
r = Pipe outside radius.
t = Pipe nominal wall thickness.
As = Steel cross-section area of pipe (Ae − Ai).
E = Modulus of elasticity.
 = Coefficient of thermal expansion.
ΔT = Difference between the pipeline internal temperature and the ambient
temperature during installation. The pipeline installation temperature is
generally taken as the ambient temperature when the trench is backfilled and
the pipeline segments are tied in.

2) Among the Equation 1 parameters, residual tension in the offshore pipeline has the most uncertainty.
The residual tension depends on pipeline lay-barge tension, axial soil friction acting on the pipeline
on seabed, lift-off of the line during trenching, etc. Consequently, as a conservative approach, if the
project does not have a confirmed basis for estimating minimum residual tension in the pipeline after
trenching, then Contractor shall use a value of zero for residual tension in the calculations for UHB.
3) Similarly, when using simplified analysis or the FEA methods, as a conservative approach,
Contractor shall use the design maximum temperature and pressure to calculate the local maximum
expansion force.
4) For a pipeline under steady state flow conditions, the temperature and pressure may drop from inlet
towards outlet. In that case, the expansion force will be continuously decreasing from inlet to outlet.
Depending on the total length of the line and the temperature and pressure drop, the pipeline can be
divided into several segments of appropriate length and the highest temperature for each segment can
be used to check UHB risk using the simplified analysis method (or to check the safety factor, as
defined in Section 7). Such an approach will result in different burial depths for each segment along
the route. The project shall decide if such segmentation of the pipeline route is appropriate.
6.2. Simplified Analytical Model

1) As stated in Section 4.2, if UHB is a potential problem for the pipeline, then a simplified analysis can
be performed to obtain a quick estimate of the pipeline burial depth needed. The recommended
approach is based on a series of papers published by Andrew Palmer, et al. (1990). The basis for this
approach is to determine the downward resistance force needed to prevent uplift of the pipe over the
hump or the imperfection on the trench bottom. This downward resistance force is provided by the
gravity load acting downwards per the pipe's submerged weight and from the resistance to pipe
upward movement offered by the soil cover. The downward resistance force (q), as calculated from
Equation 4 and Equation 5, is based on the value of a dimensionless imperfection length parameter
(ϕL), as calculated from Equation 2 and Equation 3.
Equation 2: Imperfection Length Parameter

 L  L(S / EI) 0.5
Where:
ɸL = Imperfection length parameter
L = Length of the pipeline spanning across the imperfection hump.
S = Expansion force in the pipeline due to internal pressure and
temperature (see Equation 1).
EI = Flexural rigidity of the steel pipe without coating.
Equation 3: Length Spanning the Imperfection

L  (72    EI / Wsi ) 0.25
Where:
δ = Imperfection height on the trench bottom.
Wsi = Submerged weight of pipe plus external coatings at installation.
Note: For other variable definitions, see Equation 2.

2) Equation 4 defines the downward force needed to prevent onset of UHB.
Equation 4: Downward Resistance Force

q = [1.131 − 4.764(EIWsi)0.5 / S] · S(δWsi / EI)0.5 for ϕL > 8.06
0.5 0.5
= [0.669 − 1.227(EIWsi / δ) / S] · S(δWsi /EI) for 4.49 ≤ ϕL ≤ 8.06
= 0.0646 (δ S2 / EI) for ϕL < 4.49
Where:
q = Required downward resistance force per unit length on the pipeline
to prevent UHB.
Note: For other variable definitions, see Equation 2 and Equation 3.
3) The downward force (q) is an implicit measure of the pipeline depth of burial needed to prevent UHB
and is used to calculate the required soil restraint force as given by Equation 5.
Equation 5: Soil Restraint Force

R = q − Wso
Where:
R = Soil restraint acting on the pipeline, which includes weight of the
soil cover on the Top of Pipe (TOP) and the soil resistance to
upward pipe movement.
q = Required downward resistance force per unit length on the pipeline
to prevent UHB.
Wso = Submerged weight of pipeline per unit length, including its contents,
during operation.
4) The required minimum height of soil cover "H" to prevent onset of UHB is determined from
calculated value of "R" as per Equation 6. The target design value of depth of cover can be found by
determining the depth of cover needed to prevent UHB for an expansion force value of "1.5 S". This
will provide a safety factor of 1.5, as explained in Section 7.

Equation 6: Backfill Height Calculation

R   HD (1  f u  H / D)
Where:
R = Soil restraint acting on the pipeline, which includes weight of the soil
cover on the TOP and the soil resistance to upward pipe movement.
 = Effective unit weight of backfill soil (dry or submerged).
H = Minimum height of soil backfill column above the TOP.
D = Effective OD of pipe (i.e., pipe OD + coatings).
fu = Uplift resistance factor, which may be selected empirically from a
range of data from model tests performed for the same soil and
similar embedment ratio (H/D). For a simplified approach, use a
value of 0.1 for loose material and 0.5 for dense material.
6.3. FEA Modeling

6.3.1. General
1) As stated in Section 4.2, the simplified analytical approach is only an approximation. It is good for
preliminary or initial assessment of UHB potential, but depending on the results of that analytical
approach, the assessment may have to be confirmed by subsequent simplified or detailed FEA of the
pipeline operating under design pressure and temperature. The FEA model requires implementing the
typical procedures followed in the industry for solving a variety of problems involving the pipe-soil
interaction (PRCI, 2009). The pipeline is discretized using a series of pipe elements of appropriate
length, supported by nonlinear soil springs at each node in the three principal axes to represent the
soil restraint acting on the pipeline. Depending on the nature of analysis (simplified or detailed FEA),
the pipe can be represented by an elastic beam element or pipe element with specified internal
pressure and temperature. The methods to characterize the nonlinear soil springs are described in
Section 6.3.2 and Appendix A. The pipeline geometry before Start-Up should replicate the expected
profile of the pipeline after trenching and backfilling. This will involve simulating the pipeline
installed over an imperfection in the trench bottom profile, as described in Section 5.4.
2) [A] The FEA software selected shall be capable of performing large deflection/buckling analysis.
Company has approved use of ABAQUS and ANSYS FEA programs for this application. Use of any
other equivalent program will be allowed subject to prior approval by Company. Generally, post-
buckling response of the pipeline is not needed, since the design objective will be to avoid UHB. If a
special situation requires such an analysis, it is recommended that Project Teams obtain a proposal in
advance for review and approval for a post-buckling analysis, if a special situation requires one to be
performed.
3) The FEA model and the simplified analytical model described in Section 6.2 shall use the maximum
design temperature and internal pressure over the life of the pipeline. In order to capture the pipeline
response after Start-Up, UHB analysis shall not include pipeline corrosion allowance. Nominal pipe
wall thickness shall be used.
6.3.2. Simplified 2-D FEA Analysis

1) The simplified 2-D FEA analysis model assumes the pipeline segment being analyzed is installed
along a straight line on the seabed or the ground with an isolated local imperfection in the vertical

plane to represent the irregularity in the trench bottom profile. This model is used in the pre-
construction phase to estimate the minimum burial depth needed for the pipeline to prevent UHB
based on the expected height of the imperfection during construction and the properties of the backfill
soil material.
2) Initial modeling is as follows:
a) The pipeline shall be initially modeled as installed in a perfect straight line on the seabed.
b) The seabed will be lowered in the next step to simulate trench depth assuming a local
imperfection on the bottom of the trench. This provides a pipeline profile following the trench
bottom except for the span across the imperfection.
c) [A] If the analysis assumes zero residual tension, then the pipe span length across the
imperfection is given by Equation 2. If the effect of residual tension is to be considered, then the
initial span can be obtained accurately by using the FEA program to simulate the pipe lowering
over the imperfection. Alternatively, the approximate span length and initial pipeline profile can
be obtained from the pipeline installation program OFFPIPE or using the method described by
Mousselli (1977). This profile will be locked in after the trench backfilling operation. Contractor
can select the simulation method to be used with the selected FEA program to generate the initial
pipeline profile over the imperfection and shall submit to Company for approval.
d) Soil springs to represent pipe soil interaction in the axial, vertical downward, and vertical upward
direction are applied. The downward stiffness of soil is generally assumed to be much higher
than the stiffness in the upward direction. The onset of buckling during pipeline operation
depends on the magnitude of the downward resistance force due to soil restraint acting on the
pipe span across the imperfection.
e) For a selected depth of soil cover, the analysis is required to provide the critical buckling load as
described below.
3) The following two types of FEA models can be considered for the analysis:
a) In the first case, the pipeline can be modeled with adequate length (typically 250 m [820 ft]) on
both sides of the span across the imperfection. This type of model is well-suited for analysis
during preliminary engineering when effects of several different parameters are to be investigated
and the required pipe burial depth is not known in advance. Modeling is as follows:
i) The pipeline in-service weight and the vertical soil restraint acting on the pipeline are
modeled as nonlinear soil springs.
ii) One end of the pipeline will be held fixed and the other end is assumed to be sliding axially.
iii) Soil friction acting on the pipeline is excluded from consideration.
iv) Axial displacement is applied incrementally at the sliding end and pipeline.
v) At each step, the vertical deflection at the crown of the elevated span and the axial force in
the pipeline are calculated by the FEA program. At the critical load, the pipe vertical
displacement will suddenly jump and the axial load in the pipe will start to decrease,
establishing the onset of UHB.
vi) The corresponding axial force in the pipeline is used to define the safety factor against UHB
for the specified depth of cover. (Refer to Section 7 for an explanation of the safety factor
concept.)
vii) The depth of cover can be increased incrementally until the desired safety factor is achieved.
If no buckling takes place after the pipe axial force is increased by a factor of 1.5 to 2 times
the axial force corresponding to a fully restrained pipe under design temperature and pressure

condition, then it can be concluded that the pipeline is not susceptible to UHB and the
selected depth of cover is adequate.
b) An alternative method of modeling the pipeline is to include pipeline lengths equal to the virtual
anchor length of the pipeline, which depends on the pipeline operating pressure, temperature, and
axial soil friction. If the project is following DNV-RP-F110, then this method allows for
checking compliance with the recommended safety factors. This type of model is also suitable
for checking the as-built pipeline configuration for safety against UHB. Modeling is as follows:
i) The pipeline installed with initial profile is subjected to gravity and the maximum internal
pressure loadings.
ii) Then the pipeline temperature is increased in steps above the maximum operating
temperature until the pipeline buckles in the vertical plane.
4) For preliminary design, the critical buckling loads shall be determined for at least three different
trench depths and two or three imperfection heights. The associated safety factors for each case shall
be calculated. The design depth of cover shall be determined by interpolation between these data
points on the depth of cover vs safety factor curve to provide the target safety factor.
6.3.3. Detailed 2-D or 3-D FEA Analysis

1) Detailed 2-D or 3-D FEA analysis modeling, including analysis of lengths of the pipeline greater than
the virtual anchor lengths on either side of the imperfection height, shall be performed if any one of
the following factors is applicable. 3-D model shall be used for cases (a) and (g).
a) The pipeline route deviates from a straight line, with inclusion of curves along the way.
b) The as-built configuration or pre-installation configuration is required to capture effects of
topographical variation or undulations along the route.
c) There is a rise in pipeline elevation over a certain length and the effects of ground slope changes
need to be captured.
d) There are transitions in pipe elevation due to changes in depth of cover.
e) There are transitions from pipeline on seabed to top of sleepers at the pipeline crossings.
f) The effects of the number of cyclic starts and stops must be analyzed.
g) There is a need to model any other 3-D geometry effects.
2) The detailed FEA analysis method is similar to the simplified modeling option described in Section
6.3.2 except more detailed relevant data is included in the detailed FEA model.
7. Design Criteria
The design for mitigating risk of UHB shall be per the following criteria:
1) The minimum depth of soil cover over the TOP shall be based on the LB soil restraint acting on the
pipe in the upwards direction and the axial direction.
2) The safety factor (SF) shall be defined in terms of the ratio of the critical axial force (F) corresponding
to the onset of UHB to the expansion force in the pipe at MAOP and design temperature (S). The SF
shall be ≥ 1.5, as shown in Equation 7.

Equation 7: Safety Factor

SF = F / S  1.5
Where:
SF = Safety factor.
F = Axial force.
S = Expansion Force (calculated in Equation 1).
3) If the project is required to follow the DNV code/guideline, then a value of 1.3 for the load effect
factor (γUF) (DNV-RP-F110, Equation 28) corresponding to "high safety class" shall be used in
conjunction with the safety factors related to the vertical upward soil resistance factor. The selected
depth of cover shall not be less than the value calculated by Equation 7. As an alternative, project can
initially calculate the minimum depth of cover needed based on the procedure described in this GP
and then check whether this value satisfies the DNV code requirement.
4) The depth of cover over the pipeline recommended for construction shall include an allowance for the
variability in the soil cover achievable during construction and the accuracy of the survey
measurement method. Such an allowance shall be added to the calculated minimum required depth of
cover. The nominal depth of cover to be specified in construction drawings shall be equal to the
calculated minimum depth of cover plus 10% or 10 cm (4 in.), whichever is greater.
Note: In some previous Company projects, the SF was defined in terms a multiplier factor (from 1.1
to 1.2) on the minimum depth of cover needed to prevent onset of buckling. That approach is now
superseded by the method specified here.
8. Pipe-Soil Interaction
1) The FEA model needs soil springs to characterize soil restraint acting on the pipeline along the axial,
lateral, vertical downward, and vertical upward directions. These restraints are represented with
bilinear springs. For the 2-D models, the lateral spring stiffness values are not needed. Except for the
vertical upward spring, springs in the other directions shall be selected based on guidance provided in
PRCI (2009). For convenience, these relations have been included in Appendix A.
2) For UHB analysis, the most critical soil restraint is in the vertical upwards direction. This property
will depend on the nature of the native soil, the trenching method, and the backfilling material and
method used.
3) Also important is the expected time gap between construction and commissioning of the pipeline.
This can provide a basis for deciding if consolidation effects need to be included in the estimation of
soil shear strength.
4) Three options for evaluating soil upward resistance, dependent on the factors described in Items (1)–
(3) above, are shown in Figure 3 and described below (Kulhawy, 1985). The selection of the specific
option depends on the degree of consolidation (for clay) or densification (for sand). When uncertain,
always select LB soil strength. For the equations below, the soil parameters ϕ and Su should be
selected as the average values between TOP and the top of soil cover.
a) For extremely soft clay seabeds (Su < 5 kPa [100 psf]), the soil shear strength shall be neglected
and the restraint or uplift resistance (R) shall be taken as shown in Equation 8 (see Figure 3,
Option 1).

Equation 8: Uplift Resistance for Extremely Soft Clay Seabeds

R   CD
Where:
R = Uplift resistance.
 = Effective density of backfill soil.
C = Depth of soil cover over the top of pipe.
D = Effective pipe OD including coatings.
b) [A] For cohesionless soils, uplift resistance (R) for Options 2 and 3 from Figure 3 is calculated
per Equation 9 based on the type of backfill. Option 2 will be the most likely choice for defining
the soil restraint. For a conservative approach, Contractor shall use Equation 9a. Otherwise,
justification for using higher soil restraint shall be submitted for pre-approval by Company. On
rare occasions, the use of dense backfill sand can be justified if special measures are implemented
during onshore construction. For offshore pipelines, such justification can be considered if the
seabed is likely to be subjected to significant downward load due to ice loading or storm wave
loading before pipeline Start-Up. Use of the dense backfill equation (Equation 9c, for Option 3 in
Figure 3) shall be allowed only with prior approval from Company.
Equation 9: Uplift Resistance for Cohesionless Soils

(9a) For Loose Backfill
1 
R   CD    C 2  tan 2 (45  )  tan()
2 2
(9b) For Moderately Dense Backfill

1
R  CD    C 2  [1 - sin()]  tan()
2
(9c) For Dense Backfill

1 
R   C D    C 2  tan( )
2 2
Where:
ϕ = Internal friction angle for cohesionless soil.
c) For cohesive soil, other than soft clay, uplift resistance is calculated per Equation 10.

Equation 10: Uplift Resistance for Cohesive Soils (Other Than Soft Clay)
R    C  D  2  C  Su
Where:
Su = Undrained shear strength of cohesive soil.
Figure 3: Soil Upward Restraint

Appendix A: Soil Spring Definition for Analysis of Pipe-Soil

Interaction
1) Acknowledgement: The material presented here is included only for the sake of convenience. This
Appendix is based on the 2009 PRCI report "Guidelines for Constructing Natural Gas and Liquid
Hydrocarbon Pipelines in Areas Subjected to Landslide and Subsidence Hazards" by D. G. Honegger,
C-CORE, and SSD.
2) This Appendix presents equations that can be used to define nonlinear springs that represent soil
loading and restraint conditions on pipelines exposed to large ground displacements. Although the
equations presented below reflect findings from current research into pipeline-soil interaction, the
general form of the equations, and in some cases the actual values, have generally not varied
significantly over the past 20 years.
3) When applying the following equations, care must be taken to apply the corresponding soil properties
in the vertically down, axial, or lateral direction. Depending on the type of backfill soil selected, soil
parameters can be different for vertically up and down directions.
A–1. Unidirectional Soil Spring Equations

A–1.1. Axial Soil Springs
1) Equation A–1 provides the calculation for axial soil restraint per unit length (Tu) acting on the
pipeline.

Equation A–1: Axial Soil Restraint

1  K 
Tu  Dc  DH    tan()
 2 
Where:
D = Pipe outside diameter.
c = Soil cohesion representative of the soil backfill.
H = Depth to pipe centerline.
 = Effective unit weight of soil around the pipe.
K = Effective coefficient of horizontal earth pressure, which may vary from
the value for at rest conditions for loose soil to values as high as 2 for
dense dilative soils (Wijewickreme, et al., 2008).
αd = Adhesion factor (see Figure A–1) that is defined by a lower and upper
bound:
lower bound:  0.12 o 
0.8
 d  0 .7   1
 c 
upper bound:  0.55 o 
0.8
 d  0.5  1
 c 
σo = Atmospheric pressure (101 kPa [14.6 psi]).
δ = Interface angle of friction for pipe and soil = fϕm.
ϕm = Maximum internal friction angle of the soil.
f = Coating-dependent factor relating the internal friction angle of the soil to
the friction angle at the pipe-soil interface. Representative values of f for
various types of external pipe coatings are provided below.
Pipe Coating f Value
Concrete 1.0
Coal Tar 0.9
Rough Steel 0.8
Smooth Steel 0.7
Fusion Bonded Epoxy 0.6
Polyethylene 0.6
Δt = Displacement at Tu:
= 3 mm (0.118 in.) for dense sand
= 5 mm (0.197 in.) for loose sand
= 8 mm (0.315 in.) for stiff clay
= 10 mm (0.394 in.) for soft clay
ka = Axial soil spring stiffness ka is defined by the following:
= Tu / Δt for pipe axial displacement < Δt
= Tu for pipe axial displacement ≥ Δt

2) A significant change in the definition of axial soil springs is the definition of UB and LB estimates for
the adhesion factor α. In most cases, assuming a UB on the axial soil spring force will tend to lead to
higher levels of computed pipe strain. For this reason, prior recommendations have been largely
based upon using a UB value of the maximum adhesion factor observed from full-scale tests.
However, it is possible for a pipeline configuration to experience higher strains with a lower value of
α. This is most often the case when a low axial soil spring value results in high pipeline tension being
transferred to a more vulnerable location (e.g., a valve station or a sharp bend) instead of to the soil.
A–1.2. Horizontal Soil Springs

Recent tests (O'Rourke, et al., 2008) indicate that the horizontal soil spring relationships for dry sand are
applicable to moist sand. Therefore, the relationships in Equation A–2 adopt an approximation to the
recommendations in findings from Yimsiri, et al. (2004), and these are plotted in Figure A–1. The
corresponding relationships for clay are based upon recommendations by C-CORE (2003). The lateral
soil restraint force acting per unit length of pipe (Pu) is given by Equation A–2.
Equation A–2: Lateral Soil Restraint

Pu  N ch cD  N qh  HD  Qd
Where:
Qd = As calculated from Equation A–3.
Nch = Horizontal bearing capacity factor (0 for c = 0).
= H
N * ch  0.85  12
c
H
N * ch  2.15  1.72  7.25
D
Nqh = Horizontal bearing capacity factors for sand. Nqh shall be taken as 0
for ϕ = 0 degrees. Nqh can be interpolated for intermediate values of
ϕ between 35 and 45 degrees and should not be taken less than 35
degrees even if soil tests indicate lower ϕ values.
= H
ab
D
ϕ H/D Range a b Maximum Nqh
35º 0.5 to 12 4 0.92 15
40º 0.5 to 6 5 1.43 23
6 to 15 8 1.00
45º 0.5 to 7 5 2.17 30
7 to 15 10 1.33
Δp = Displacement at the limiting value of soil restraint Pu before yielding
=  D
0.04 H    0.10D to 0.15D
 2
kh = Horizontal soil spring stiffness kh is given by Pu / Δp.

A–1.3. Vertical (Downward) Bearing Soil Springs

Vertical bearing soil springs are defined based upon the assumption that the pipeline behaves as a
continuous strip footing. The vertical (downward) bearing capacity Qd for the pipeline is per Equation A–3.
Equation A–3: Vertical (Downward) Bearing Capacity

1
Q d  N c cD  N q HD  N  D 2
2
Where:
N c , N q, N γ = Bearing capacity factors (see Figure A–3) as defined below:
Nc =     0.001  
cot(  0.001) e  tan(  0.001) tan 2  45    1
  2  
Nq =  
e  tan( ) tan 2  45  
 2
Nγ = e (0.18 2.5) (this is a curve fit to plotted values of Nγ)
 = Effective unit weight of soil.

Δqd = Displacement at limiting value of Qd:
= 0.1D for granular soils
= 0.2D for cohesive soils
kd = Vertical downward soil spring stiffness kd is defined by
Qd / Δqd.

Figure A–1: Recommended Bounds for Adhesion Factor

Figure A–2: Horizontal Bearing Capacity Factors for Sand

Nqh, Nch

Figure A–3: Vertical Downward Bearing Capacity Factors

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Nc
Nq
10
Ny
5.14
1.00
0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Record of Change
Version 1.0.0 Date: 03/15
Location Action Description
Initial Publish.

Attachment: Purpose Code Definitions

Code Description
* Assigned to paragraphs that require the Owner's Engineer to provide additional information or
make a decision.
A Assigned to paragraphs that require approval from the Owner's Engineer before the work may
proceed or the design is finalized.
C Assigned to paragraphs whose primary purpose is reduced costs. Reduced cost in this context
refers to initial investment cost and does not include life cycle cost considerations. Life cycle
cost considerations are captured under reliability, maintainability, or operability purpose
codes.
E Assigned to paragraphs whose primary purpose is driven by environmental considerations.
Environmental considerations typically include specifications intended to protect against
emissions/leakage to the air, water, and/or soil. Deviations from the specifications contained
in such paragraphs require formal review and approval according to local environmental
policy.
I Assigned to paragraphs that provide only clarifying information, such as Scope statements,
definitions of terms, etc.
M Assigned to paragraphs whose primary purpose is to provide for maintainability of equipment
or systems. Maintainability provisions are those that facilitate the performance of
maintenance on equipment/systems either during downtimes or during onstream operations.
O Assigned to paragraphs whose primary purpose is to assure operability of equipment or
systems. Operability is the ability of the equipment/system to perform satisfactorily even
though conditions are off-design, such as during start-ups, process swings, subcomponent
malfunction, etc.
R Assigned to paragraphs whose primary purpose is to improve or assure the reliability of
equipment or systems. Reliability is a measure of the ability of equipment/systems to operate
without malfunction or failure between planned maintenance interventions.
S Assigned to paragraphs containing specifications/guidance where the primary purpose is the
avoidance of incidents impacting personnel safety, process safety, and the public in general
and/or involving responses to emergency situations. Any deviation from the specifications
contained in such designated paragraphs requires formal review and approval according to
local safety policy.
Personnel Safety: Refers to the prevention of incident-related personnel injuries or illness,
e.g., burns, cuts, abrasions, inhalation of or exposure to dangerous
substances, etc., that could result in medical treatment, restricted work,
lost-time incidents, or fatalities.
Process Safety: Refers to the prevention and control of process releases, fires, and/or
explosions that could result in damage to equipment, process disruption,
or personnel injury or illness.

gp860110 Com

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

gp860110 Com

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GP 86-01-10 Pipeline Design for Upheaval Buckling Prevention Version 1.0.

Pipeline Design for Upheaval

Upstream © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 1 of 30

Table of Equations ........................................................................................................ 5

1. Required References ............................................................................................ 6

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 2 of 30

Appendix A: Soil Spring Definition for Analysis of Pipe-Soil Interaction ............. 22

Attachment: Purpose Code Definitions.................................................................... 30

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 3 of 30

Figure 2: Imperfection Height and Pipe Span .......................................................... 13

Figure 3: Soil Upward Restraint ................................................................................ 21

Figure A–1: Recommended Bounds for Adhesion Factor ...................................... 26

Figure A–2: Horizontal Bearing Capacity Factors for Sand ................................... 27

Figure A–3: Vertical Downward Bearing Capacity Factors .................................... 28

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 4 of 30

Equation 2: Imperfection Length Parameter ............................................................ 14

Equation 3: Length Spanning the Imperfection ....................................................... 14

Equation 4: Downward Resistance Force ................................................................ 15

Equation 5: Soil Restraint Force ............................................................................... 15

Equation 6: Backfill Height Calculation.................................................................... 16

Equation 7: Safety Factor .......................................................................................... 19

Equation 8: Uplift Resistance for Extremely Soft Clay Seabeds ............................ 20

Equation 9: Uplift Resistance for Cohesionless Soils ............................................ 20

Equation A–1: Axial Soil Restraint............................................................................ 23

Equation A–2: Lateral Soil Restraint ........................................................................ 24

Equation A–3: Vertical (Downward) Bearing Capacity............................................ 25

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 5 of 30

1.1. Global Practices–ExxonMobil Engineering Practices

1.2. API–American Petroleum Institute

1.3. ASME–American Society of Mechanical Engineers

1.4. DNV–Det Norske Veritas

1.5. ISO–International Organization for Standardization

1.6. Other References

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 6 of 30

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 7 of 30

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 8 of 30

Figure 1: Upheaval Buckling Failure

3.1. Design Units

4.2. Pre-Construction UHB Design

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 9 of 30

4.3. Post-Construction UHB Design

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 10 of 30

5.1. Pipeline Data

5.2. Soil Information

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 11 of 30

5.3. Pipeline Construction Method

5.4. Imperfection Height

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 12 of 30

Figure 2: Imperfection Height and Pipe Span

Burial Depth (TOP)

6. Pipeline Response Analysis

Equation 1: Pipeline Expansion Force

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 13 of 30

6.2. Simplified Analytical Model

Equation 2: Imperfection Length Parameter

Equation 3: Length Spanning the Imperfection

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 14 of 30

2) Equation 4 defines the downward force needed to prevent onset of UHB.

Equation 4: Downward Resistance Force

Equation 5: Soil Restraint Force

UPST © ExxonMobil 2015 TEC5000 Page 15 of 30

Equation 6: Backfill Height Calculation

6.3. FEA Modeling