See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262726677

Numerical Simulations of Dynamic Embedment

During Pipe Laying on Soft Clay

Conference Paper June 2009

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2009-79199

CITATIONS READS

4 142

3 authors:

Dong Wang David J White

Ocean University of China University of Western Australia
67 PUBLICATIONS 589 CITATIONS 229 PUBLICATIONS 3,206 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mark Randolph
University of Western Australia
328 PUBLICATIONS 6,909 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Instrumented Free Fall Sphere View project

Effects of consolidation under a penetrating footing in carbonate silty clay View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dong Wang on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2009 28th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2009
May 31 - June 5, 2009, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

OMAE2009-79199

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF DYNAMIC EMBEDMENT

DURING PIPE LAYING ON SOFT CLAY

D. Wang D.J. White

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems
University of Western Australia University of Western Australia
Perth, Western Australia Perth, Western Australia

M.F. Randolph
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems
University of Western Australia
Perth, Western Australia

ABSTRACT embedment combines static estimates based on the pipe

Prediction of the as-laid embedment of a pipeline, which
affects many aspects of pipeline design, is complicated by the
dynamic motions that occur during the lay process. These
motions cause pipelines to embed deeper than predicted based
on static penetration models, as the seabed soils are both
softened and physically displaced by the pipeline motion. This
paper describes the results of 2D numerical analyses using a
large displacement finite element approach aimed at
quantifying pipeline embedment due to cyclic lateral motion at
various fixed vertical load levels. The validity of the
numerical results is first assessed by comparison with
published data from centrifuge model tests in two different
types of clay. A parametric study varying the normalized
vertical load is then presented, which suggests a simple
approach for estimating an upper limit to the dynamic
embedment.
INTRODUCTION
Dynamic pipe embedment: background
The embedment of a subsea pipeline affects the on-
bottom stability of the pipeline during environmental loading,
and also the lateral buckling and axial walking behavior
during thermal cycles (Bruton et al. 2007). The as-laid
embedment depends on a number of factors including the
near-mudline shear strength profile, the submerged pipe
weight, the pipe-lay configuration and the wave-induced
motion of the lay vessel and the resulting pipeline movements
at the seabed. The general approach for predicting pipeline
weight and local stress concentration factor in the touch down
zone, with a multiplicative dynamic embedment factor to
account for the effects of cyclic pipeline motion during laying
(Bruton et al. 2006). Back-analysis of the observed
embedment of pipelines indicates a wide scatter in the
apparent dynamic embedment factor (Lund 2000, Bruton et al.
2007). Some of this scatter is inevitable, due to the variability
associated with the dynamics of the lay process. However,
other causes of this scatter can potentially be tackled by
improved calculation methods for pipeline embedment
perhaps bypassing the concept of a multiplicative dynamic
embedment factor and better techniques for assessing soil
conditions close to the mudline.
Model tests, either on the laboratory floor or in a
geotechnical centrifuge, provide a means of assessing dynamic
pipeline embedment under well controlled conditions, but it is
not generally practical to cover all of the relevant range of
pipe weights and patterns of cyclic motion that may occur
during the laying process. Numerical analysis has the potential
to augment such studies, although it is essential to first
validate, and calibrate, the numerical approach.
The aim of the present paper is to present a numerical
approach, based on large deformation finite element analysis,
to evaluate the static and dynamic embedment of pipelines.
The approach allows modeling of both softening of the soil as
it is remolded and also the physical scraping of the soil aside
by the lateral pipeline motion. Results from the numerical
approach are compared with data from centrifuge model tests

1 Copyright 2009 by ASME

in two different soil types. The approach is then used in a
parametric study to bracket the dynamic embedment
anticipated for a range of normalized pipe weights and a
particular soil strength profile. The resulting embedments are
quantified through a simple relationship to the static
embedment, but based on the remolded soil strength profile
rather than the intact strength profile.
Objectives and scope of this study
Dynamic pipeline embedment is typically a large
deformation process which features a combination of cyclic
horizontal and vertical loading. The purpose of this paper is to
simulate, in an idealized manner, the response of an element of
pipeline during undrained dynamic laying using a two-
dimensional large deformation finite element (LDFE) method,
termed remeshing and interpolation technique with small
strain (RITSS, Hu & Randolph 1998). The parameters that
affect the embedment behavior are assessed, including the
pipe weight relative to the soil strength, the number of
horizontal cycles of movement and softening of the soil
around the pipe.
The dynamic embedment of a pipeline is a three-
dimensional soil-structure interaction process, which is driven
by the prevailing metocean conditions, the geometry of the
pipeline catenary, the characteristics of the lay vessel, and the
response of the seabed. This study focuses on the geotechnical
aspect of this behavior the interaction between the pipeline
and the seabed. This interaction has been idealized as
monotonic vertical load applied on the pipe and subsequent
cyclic horizontal motion whilst the vertical load is held
constant. This approach is an idealization of the load
conditions applied as a section of pipe moves through the
touchdown zone when laid on the seabed. This process is
described in more detail by Randolph & White (2008a).
NUMERICAL TECHNIQUES
Large deformation finite element analysis
The RITSS method is composed of Lagrangian steps
incorporating convection of field variables between meshes.
The method divides the initial vertical penetration and
subsequent horizontal oscillations into a series of incremental
steps. The pipe displacement in each step has to be small
enough to avoid element distortion in the vicinity of the pipe.
The small strain calculation then can be performed reasonably,
followed by mesh regeneration according to the deformed
geometry. The field variables including the stresses, strains
and material properties are mapped from the old mesh to the
new mesh. The mapping is similar to the flow of solid in an
Eulerian mesh, so the RITSS method can be viewed as a
special Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian method. The advantage
of the RITSS approach is that it can be coupled with any
standard finite element package. In this paper, ABAQUS has
been selected to conduct the small strain calculation and the
mesh generation process, with the soil being composed of
quadratic triangular elements.
The accuracy of LDFE analyses depends largely on the
strategy used to map field variables. The mapping consists of
extrapolation of field variables from the old Gauss points to
the old element nodes and then interpolation from the old
nodes to the new Gauss points. For the extrapolation, a
technique termed Superconvergent Patch Recovery (SPR,
Zienkiewicz & Zhu 1993) is employed, the robustness of
which has been verified in our previous LDFE studies
(Randolph et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2008c). After the stresses
and strains at the old element nodes are recovered, the old
deformed element that contained the coordinates of each new
Gauss point is identified and the corresponding variable S at
new Gauss points is then interpolated as
S = NS* (1)
where N is the shape function and S* represents the recovered
variables at nodes of the old element. Application of the SPR
technique requires optimal sampling points which own at least
one-order higher convergence than other positions. The
existence of optimal sampling points in quadratic triangular
elements has not been proved in theory, however, the Gauss
points were found as optimal sampling points empirically
(Zienkiewicz & Zhu 1993).
To mimic pipe-soil interaction during the dynamic lay
process, the sequence of small strain increment, mesh
regeneration and mapping is repeated until the predefined
displacement has been reached. The overall scheme of the
LDFE analysis is controlled by a master program written in
Fortran. The mapping of field variables is carried out
externally by subroutines in Fortran. ABAQUS is called by
the master program to build the small strain finite element
model, which is automatically implemented by a Python file
prepared beforehand. Python is the built-in script language of
ABAQUS (HKS 2004). Another Python file is coded to
extract the necessary data from the ABAQUS result files.
More detailed procedures for the RITSS method coupled with
ABAQUS can be found in our previous papers (Wang et al.
2006; 2008a; 2008b).
Strain-softening and rate-dependent soil model
The profile of intact undrained strength, su0, for most
seabed clays can be described as a linear function:
s u0 = s um + kz (2)
where sum is the shear strength at the mudline, k is the strength
gradient and z is the soil depth. The soil strength reduces
during episodes of remolding. This strength reduction can be
estimated by means of cyclic penetrometer tests and is
quantified by a cyclic sensitivity factor, ST-bar, which is defined
as the ratio of the initial downward penetration resistance to
the steady value of penetration resistance reached after many
cycles of movement. Numerical studies (Zhou & Randolph
2009) and field data (Yafrate et al. 2009) have shown that ST-
2 Copyright 2009 by ASME
bar is typically 20 to 40 % lower than the true sensitivity of the
soil, due to partial softening during the initial penetration. A
ratio of remolded to intact strength in the range 0.2 0.5 is
typical (i.e. a true sensitivity, St, of 2 5). An empirical
expression that is widely used to model this progressive loss
of strength during remolding is (Zhou & Randolph 2007;
Wang et al. 2008c)
s u = rem + (1 rem ) e-3 95 s u0 (3) smooth interface that cannot sustain shear stress.
where rem = 1/St; denotes the accumulated absolute plastic
shear strain and 95 represents the value of at which the soil
has undergone 95% of the reduction in strength due to
remolding. Typical values of 95 are in the range of 10 30
(Zhou & Randolph 2007).
The shear strength at the mudline is a key parameter for
assessing the behaviour of on-bottom pipelines. However, the
strength of the surficial soil is not easily measured in many
actual applications, and the exact strength profile in the depth
range relevant for pipelines is often difficult to determine.
In the following LDFE studies, the soil is regarded as an
elastic-perfectly plastic material obeying the Tresca yield
criterion. The Youngs modulus of the two clays is taken as
E = 500su, and the Poissons ratio is taken as 0.499 to
approximate constant volume undrained conditions. The
submerged unit weight of the soils is taken as ' = 6 kN/m3.
MONOTONIC PIPELINE EMBEDMENT
Pipelines laid untrenched on the seabed embed more
deeply than can be calculated from the self-weight alone. This
is due to two factors. Firstly, the contact stress between the
pipe and the soil is enhanced through the touchdown zone due
to the catenary shape. Secondly, dynamic movement of the
pipe during the lay process leads to disturbance of the seabed.
This motion remolds the seabed soil, causing a reduction in
the strength. Also, if the horizontal movement is of sufficient
amplitude, the soil is pushed aside and a trench forms around
the pipe.
The additional penetration from remolding and trenching
is principally attributed to the horizontal oscillations and also
depends strongly on the pipe weight (Lund 2000; Cheuk &
White 2008). Therefore, accurate assessment of the
relationship between the monotonic embedment and the pipe
weight forms the initial basis for any simulation of the
dynamic laying response and the overall dynamic embedment
process. Limit plasticity analyses have been proposed by
Murff et al. (1989) and Randolph & White (2008b) to predict
the embedment induced by monotonic vertical load (i.e. pipe
weight). In their studies the laying process is neglected and the
pipe is assumed to be wished-in-place, and the soil is modeled
as a rigid plastic solid. The full penetration process and the
resulting soil heave and remolding are neglected in this type
of analysis. By contrast with limit plasticity analyses, the
LDFE method can not only track the deformed seabed surface,
created by heave, but can also incorporate a strain softening
model for the soil strength.
The pipe-soil interface interaction is simulated by setting
the pipe and soil surfaces as a master-slave pair. The length of
contact around the pipe perimeter is permitted to vary as the
pipe moves. The maximum shear stress on the pipe-soil
interface is defined as max = sum, where denotes the
roughness factor. A value of = 0 corresponds to a fully
In order to confirm the effectiveness of the RITSS
implementation, the monotonic penetration of a pipeline i.e.
a rigid cylinder with a horizontal axis is first simulated
under various different conditions. An intact soil strength
profile of su0 = (0.75 + 1.6z) kPa (where z is in meters) and a
pipe diameter of 0.8 m have been adopted, to match the
centrifuge model tests back-analyzed later in this paper. This
diameter is relatively large compared to field conditions, but
the resulting normalized loads and embedments are typical.
Strain softening of the soil is not considered in this benchmark
problem. The numerical responses during monotonic
penetration are compared with the upper bound solution
(Randolph & White 2008b) in Fig. 1, where w represents the
embedment of the pipe invert and the value of su0 at the level
of the pipe invert has been used for normalization. In
weightless soil (' = 0), the soil heaves that forms over the
shoulders of the pipe does not produce a surcharge load, thus
the normalized load-displacement curve from the LDFE
method is very close to the theoretical solution by Randolph &
White (2008b).
V/s u0D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.1
LDFE
0.2
=0.2, 'D/s um=6.4
w/D
0.3 smooth, 'D/s um=6.4
smooth, w eightless
0.4
smooth, w eightless
0.5
(Randolph & White)
Figure 1. Monotonic penetration resistance
(non-softening soil strength)
However, when the soil self-weight is included, the
penetration resistance is significantly increased (Fig. 1). For
the adopted value of submerged unit weight ('D/sum = 6.4),
the monotonic penetration resistance of the smooth pipe is
enhanced by 49% in the LDFE results compared to weightless
soil at w/D = 0.5. This contrast shows that the penetration
resistance may be underestimated if the surcharge loading
3 Copyright 2009 by ASME
created from the self-weight of the soil heave is neglected,
especially in softer soils for which the non-dimensional
parameter 'D/sum is higher. In contrast, the penetration
resistance increases by less than 6% when the roughness
factor is adjusted from = 0 to 0.2 (Fig. 1).
SIMULATION OF DYNAMIC LAYING
Benchmark results: centrifuge model tests
The following large deformation simulations of the
dynamic lay process will focus on reproducing the phenomena
observed in four centrifuge model tests reported by Cheuk &
White (2008). The pipe diameter was D = 0.8 m at prototype
scale. Two tests were carried out in Kaolin Clay (denoted KC)
and the other two in a natural high plasticity clay (denoted
HP). The linear strength profiles derived from 70 deep T-bar
tests conducted in these samples are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Soil strength profiles in centrifuge model tests
Soil sample Mudline Strength Cyclic T-bar
strength, gradient sensitivity,
sum ST-bar
Kaolin Clay (KC) 0.75 kPa 1.6 kPa/m 2.3
High plasticity clay (HP) 0.4 kPa 2.5 kPa/m 1.9
In the centrifuge, the pipe was rigidly attached to the
actuator by means of a vertical load cell and a loading arm that
was instrumented to measure the horizontal load applied to the
pipe. The pipe was firstly penetrated into the soil under a
monotonic vertical load, V, which represents a steady vertical
pipe-soil contact pressure. This value was maintained constant
during the sequence of horizontal displacement cycles which
simulated the dynamic embedment process. The values of V
and the corresponding monotonic embedment obtained for the
four tests are listed in Table 2. In all tests the pipe was
subjected to 40 horizontal displacement cycles of 0.05D.
This lateral amplitude was chosen to represent typical pipeline
movements during laying in a modest seastate. In practice, this
amplitude depends on the lay conditions and will reduce
through the touchdown zone until the point at which the
pipeline is at rest on the seabed.
Table 2. Simulated pipe weight and monotonic embedment
Test identifier KC04 KC05 HP06 HP07
Pipe weight, V/sumD 1.93 3.68 4.53 8.16
Monotonic embedment, 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.22
w/D
To illustrate the typical observed behavior, the lateral
resistance measured during test KC05 is compared with the
accumulating pipe embedment in Fig. 2. The monotonic
embedment under the imposed vertical load was only 0.12
diameters, but the pipe embedment increased rapidly during
the first few cycles of horizontal motion (whilst the vertical
load was held constant). The rate of embedment reduced with
continued cycling, and the horizontal resistance approached a
stable value of H/su0D 0.9, where su0 refers to the value of
the intact strength profile at the current embedment of the pipe
invert. This steady value indicates that the theoretical increase
in normalized lateral resistance created by the increased
embedment is countered by progressive remolding of the soil.
0
0.1
0.2
w/D
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
H/su0D
Figure 2. Measured lateral resistance (test KC05)
Numerical modeling: analysis parameters
During horizontal oscillations, the soil may be bonded to
the rear face of the pipeline due to the tensile resistance
sustained through negative excess pore pressure. Alternatively,
immediate breakaway may occur on the pipe-soil interface
when net tension is created. The bonded contact leads to a
double-sided failure mechanism. In a similar centrifuge test
that simulated large-amplitude lateral displacement of a
pipeline, Dingle et al. (2008) used particle image velocimetry
and close range photogrammetry techniques (White et al.
2003) to capture the instantaneous velocity fields in the soil.
They observed that the double-sided mechanism remained
until the pipe lateral displacement exceeded 0.06D. The
oscillation amplitude in this study is only 0.05D so it is
reasonable to assume that there was no separation between the
soil and the rear face of the pipe. This assumption appears to
be confirmed by the monotonically increasing lateral
resistance mobilized during each cycle, with no indication of
the brittleness that would accompany breakaway at the rear of
the pipe (Cheuk & White 2008).
The loading mode adopted during the monotonic
penetration stage was displacement-rate controlled, rather than
load-controlled, so the maximum vertical load was not exactly
equal to the vertical load given in Table 2, which was
sustained during the cyclic phase, but the difference was less
than 3.5%.
The strain softening of the soil strength, as described by
Equation 3, has been incorporated into the large deformation
simulations to capture the role of remolding in the laying
behavior. The brittleness parameter, 95 is taken as 10. Four
simulations of test KC05 have been conducted, adopting four
4 Copyright 2009 by ASME
values of the soil sensitivity, St. For test KC05 with St =1 and
2.3, the relationship between the horizontal resistance and the 0
pipe embedment are shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b), respectively. 0.1
(a) St=1

The normalized maximum horizontal resistance, Hmax/su0D

0.2
reaches 2.73 and 1.55 in these two cases. These values

w/D
significantly exceed the experimental result Hmax/su0D = 0.9 0.3

(Fig. 2, and Cheuk & White 2008). This over prediction can 0.4
be attributed to the T-bar test sensitivity of St = 2.3 being an 0.5
underestimate of the softening of the surficial soil. This
underestimation may be for two reasons: (i) under-estimation 0.6
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
of the true soil sensitivity due to partial remolding during the H/s u0D

initial penetration phase (Zhou & Randolph 2009, Yafrate et (a) St = 1

al. 2009), or (ii) additional loss of soil strength due to water 0
entrainment into the near-surface soil. (b) St=2.3
When cyclic T-bar tests are used to determine the 0.1

sensitivity factor, the T-bar is usually cycled up and down at 0.2

depth within the soil since the T-bar capacity factor is based

w/D
0.3
on the fully local failure mechanism. This local mechanism
0.4
cannot be mobilized if the T-bar is close to the soil surface.
Although the soil at depth is fully remolded by cyclic 0.5

movement of the T-bar, the event takes place in undrained 0.6

conditions. Different from T-bar tests, on-bottom pipelines lay -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
H/s u0D
on the soil surface, where the soil has access to the free water
which can be mixed with the soil during horizontal (b) St = 2.3
oscillations of the pipe. The surficial soil can be weakened by 0
the increasing water content, leading to a higher apparent 0.1
(c) St=4

sensitivity than at depth.

Two further analyses are shown in Fig. 3(c) and 3(d), with 0.2

higher values of soil sensitivity: St = 4 and 5. In Fig. 3(a) to

w/D

0.3

3(d), all of the final values of pipe embedment after 40 cycles 0.4
are close to the experimental result of w/D = 0.52, but the
0.5
maximum horizontal resistance decreases with increasing
sensitivity factor. In order to replicate the observed horizontal 0.6

resistance accurately, the sensitivity factor found by means of -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0

H/s u0D
0.5 1 1.5 2

a deep T-bar test needs to be modified to consider the effect of

water entrainment. There is currently no established routine (c) St = 4
for capturing the changing strength of clay through this type 0

of remolding, with a change in water content in addition to the 0.1

(d) St=5

accumulation of shear strain.

0.2
In Fig. 3(c) and 3(d) the lay response is broadly consistent
w/D

with the centrifuge test results (Fig. 2), but the maximum 0.3

horizontal resistance Hmax/su0D = 1.22, remains approximately 0.4

35% higher than the experimental value. This discrepancy
0.5
may partly be attributed to the uncertainty surrounding the
sensitivity factor but it should also be noted that the 0.6

interpretation of the near-surface strength profile (within the -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0

H/s u0D
0.5 1 1.5 2

upper 10 mm of the sample) is also subject to uncertainty in

the centrifuge test. The final embedment for the case of St = 4 (d) St = 5
is 0.49D, which is very slightly shallower than the value of Figure 3. Numerical simulations of test KC-05, using
0.5D found for St = 2.3. The reason for greater embedment different values of soil sensitivity
being recorded for the less sensitive soil is that the actual
value of monotonic vertical load achieved numerically in the
former case is 4% higher. As will be discussed later, the
dynamic lay embedment is sensitive to monotonic vertical
load.

5 Copyright 2009 by ASME

 SOFTENING
SOFTENING
0.95
0.95 0.90
0.90
0.86 0.84
0.81 0.79
1 0.77 1 0.73
0.72 0.68
0.68 0.63
0.63 0.57
0.59 0.52
0.54 0.47
0 0.50 0.41
z/D

0.45 0 0.36

z/D
0.30
0.25

-1
-1

-2
-2 -1 0 1 2
x/D -2
-2 -1 0 1 2
Prior to horizontal cycles x/D
th
SOFTENING At 30 cycle
0.95
0.90 SOFTENING
0.84 0.95
0.79 0.90
1 0.73 0.84
0.68 0.79
0.63 1 0.73
0.57 0.68
0.52 0.63
0.47 0.57
0.41 0.52
0 0.36
z/D

0.47
0.30 0.41
0.25 0

z/D
0.36
0.30
0.25

-1

-1

-2
-2 -1 0 1 2
x/D -2
th -2 -1 0 1 2
At 5 cycle x/D
SOFTENING th
0.95 At 40 cycle
0.90
0.84
0.79
Figure 4. Distribution of remolding during lay
1 0.73
0.68
process (KC05)
0.63
0.57
0.52
0.47
0.41
0
The distribution of the soil strength relative to the intact
z/D

0.36
0.30
0.25
value is indicated in Fig. 4 for different stages in the analysis,
with St = 4. The weakening of the soil due to the horizontal
-1
oscillations of the pipe is clearly evident. The strain softening
appears around the pipe-soil interface during monotonic
-2
penetration and none of the soil is fully remolded. The
-2 -1 0
x/D
1 2
softening zone extends around the shoulders of the pipe
th
At 10 cycle during the horizontal cycles, and the soil in the heaved zones
SOFTENING
0.95
becomes heavily remolded. These zones are pushed outwards
0.90
0.84
gradually, becoming flatter.
1
0.79
0.73 The area of the softened zone remains approximately
0.68
0.63 constant after 30 cycles, which is the same stage at which the
0.57
0.52
0.47
rate of pipe embedment reduced (Fig. 3(c)). The small-
0
0.41
amplitude cycles generate a triangular pool of softened soil,
z/D

0.36
0.30
0.25 within which the soil flow mechanism becomes localized. The
maximum width and depth (below the pipe invert) of the
-1 heavily remolded zone are 1.6D and 0.2D, respectively.

-2
-2 -1 0 1 2
x/D
th
At 20 cycle

6 Copyright 2009 by ASME

 Number of cycles
for the simulated load level, which corresponds to a
0 10 20 30 40 monotonic embedment in the range of 0.03D to 0.19D. Any
0
additional cycles would not significantly deepen the pipe. The
steady embedment is an important concept for the assessment
0.1 of dynamic embedment in practice, since it narrows down the
HP06
0.2 input parameters necessary for a simplified analysis of the lay
0.3
KC04 process. It may not be necessary to specify precisely the
w/D

number of cycles that will be imposed during the lay process

0.4
KC05 if that number is sufficient for the embedment to approach the
0.5 steady value.
0.6 HP07 The final embedment from the centrifuge tests and the
numerical simulations are compared in Table 3. The
0.7
embedment depths predicted by the LDFE approach are
(a) LDFE analyses smaller than the measured values, but the average discrepancy
Number of cycles
is less than 10%. The numerical error for the HP tests is higher
0 10 20 30 40 than for the KC tests. This may be due to two reasons: (1) the
surficial strength of HP profile may not have been assessed
0
accurately, (2) an additional reduction in strength due to water
HP06
0.1 entrainment during the remolding process is not incorporated
0.2 accurately within the sensitivity factor adopted in the LDFE
0.3
analyses.
w/D

KC04
0.4 Table 3. Comparison of final embedment ratio, w/D
0.5 Test identifier KC04 KC05 HP06 HP07
KC05
0.6 Centrifuge model 0.34 0.52 0.44 0.70
HP07
0.7 LDFE analyses 0.33 0.49 0.37 0.63
(b) Centrifuge test results (Cheuk & White 2008) Difference (%) 2.9 5.8 15.9 10.0

Figure 5. Cyclic evolution of pipe embedment

Comparison with experimental data
The evolution of pipe embedment found by the LDFE
method is compared with the experimental data in Fig. 5. A
sensitivity factor of St = 4 has been adopted for both clays in
these LDFE analyses, which used values of pipe weight and
intact strength profiles that replicated all four centrifuge tests
reported by Cheuk & White (2008).
The pipes penetrate rapidly during the first 10 horizontal
cycles in the LDFE analyses. The ratios of the dynamic
embedment after 10 cycles to the final dynamic embedment
are 74% (HP06), 66% (HP07), 65% (KC04) and 77% (KC05),
respectively. In particular, the first five cycles can triple
(KC04, KC05) or double (HP06, HP07) the monotonic
embedment.
In contrast, the final 10 of the 40 cycles give rise to only a
slight increase in embedment. For example, the embedment
increment of KC05 is 0.006D, about 1.5% of the final
dynamic embedment.
Similar results are apparent from the centrifuge model
tests. Compared with the numerical results, the initial rate of
embedment is slightly less rapid, and the rate of embedment
during the final cycles is slightly higher.
For the horizontal cyclic displacement of 0.05D, all
pipes approached a steady embedment after 30 cycles, at least
Parametric study of the effect of pipe weight
A final set of analyses were conducted to explore in more
detail the effect of pipe weight on the dynamic embedment
behavior. Fig. 6 shows the accumulation of embedment with
displacement cycles of 0.05D under different monotonic
vertical loads, ranging from V/sumD = 0.98 up to
V/sumD = 3.56. The markers show the pipe embedment at the
end of each cycle. In each case, the pipe is monotonically
penetrated to the specified vertical load then is cycled with a
horizontal displacement of 0.05D on soil with the KC
strength profile (Table 1), using a sensitivity of St = 4. The
dynamic embedment is significantly affected by the
monotonic vertical load. In normalized vertical load
embedment space, the responses move downwards from the
monotonic embedment curve. The shape of these curves arises
from the changing intact soil strength with depth. The vertical
load, V, was held constant during the dynamic movement.
The embedment achieved after 40 cycles of lateral
movement exceeds the embedment under the same monotonic
vertical load by a factor of 28 for the lowest vertical load case
(V/sumD = 0.98) but by a factor of only 4 for the highest load
case (V/sumD = 3.56). This ratio between the static and
dynamic embedment is commonly termed the dynamic
embedment factor, fdyn (Bruton et al. 2006), but does not

7 Copyright 2009 by ASME

appear to give a consistent multiplicative factor to capture the
effect of the same dynamic motion on pipes of differing
weight.
A better strategy for describing the additional embedment
created by the dynamic motion is to compare the dynamic
embedment (which arises from remolding of the soil) with the
monotonic embedment that would result from the soil initially
being in the full remolded state. The monotonic penetration
resistance from an LDFE analysis based on a non-softening
soil model using the fully-remolded strength profile (i.e. the
intact strength divided by St = 4) is shown dotted in Fig. 6.
The dynamic embedment reached after the cyclic phases is
comparable to the monotonic embedment in the fully softened
soil under a vertical load which is approximately 0.5 2.0
times higher (length OA vs. OA).
V/s u0D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 From comparison of the two sets of simulations, it was
0
Monotonic embedment
0.1
0.2
0.3
w/D
0.4
A'
0.5 O attributed to this mechanism. To achieve closer agreement, the
A
0.6 Monotonic embedment
0.7 in fully-remoulded soil
Figure 6. Cyclic accumulation of embedment for
different values of pipe weight
This observation is consistent with an interpretation that
links the steady embedment during dynamic motion to the
parallel point of the corresponding theoretical failure envelope
in vertical-horizontal load space. The parallel point is the
vertical load level at which the trajectory of pipe movement at
failure under horizontal load is purely horizontal (i.e. the pipe
has no tendency to rise or fall), according to a flow rule based
on normality, combined with failure envelopes derived from
plasticity limit analysis. This approach is explored in more
detail by Cheuk & White (2009). Based on these observations,
it may be possible to improve the prediction of dynamic
pipeline embedment by adopting the remolded rather than
intact soil strength in embedment calculations, and by
assuming that the soil reaches a lateral failure condition during
laying.
CONCLUSIONS
Pipelines laid on the seabed usually embed more deeply than
indicated by static penetration calculations due to the dynamic
motion as the pipe touches down particularly horizontal
oscillations. Conventional small strain finite element methods
cannot simulate the pipe lay process since the mesh in the
vicinity of the pipe becomes grossly distorted, and the loss of
soil strength through heavy remolding cannot be captured. A
large deformation method, RITSS, based on mesh
regeneration, was developed to investigate pipe-soil
interaction under complex pipe movements. A strain softening
soil model was incorporated into RITSS to capture the soil
remolding during dynamic pipe laying. The robustness of the
large deformation method is verified by comparison with an
upper bound solution for monotonic penetration of cylindrical
objects such as pipelines.
LDFE studies of dynamic pipeline laying, were conducted
to replicate the behavior observed in centrifuge model tests of
this process. The basic form of the tests and simulations is for
the pipe to be initially embedded monotonically to a specified
vertical load (or simulated weight), before many cycles of
small amplitude lateral displacement (0.05D) are imposed, to
represent the dynamic effect.
found that the sensitivity factor of the soil may be
underestimated by cyclic T-bar tests in deep soil, since
additional water becomes entrained in the soil with
oscillations of the pipe. The soil is then softened due to both
the remolding effect of accumulated shear strain and also
increasing water content. The lower lateral resistance
encountered in the centrifuge test compared to the LDFE is
impact of the water content on the soil strength is captured in
a simple manner by increasing the sensitivity factor. It is
shown that the steady dynamic embedment is less affected by
the sensitivity factor, compared to the horizontal resistance,
which decreases as the sensitivity factor is raised. For pipes in
kaolin clay and the offshore high plasticity clay simulated
here, the numerical evolution of pipe embedment agrees well
with the test data.
When small amplitude lateral cycles are imposed on the
pipe, the embedment increases rapidly within the first 5
cycles, with the embedment exceeding the monotonic value by
a factor of 2 to 3. For a horizontal amplitude of 0.05D, an
approximately steady embedment was reached in all cases at
30 cycles. At this stage, the LDFE analyses show that a
softened zone had formed around the pipe and remained
largely unchanged with subsequent cycles. Overall, the LDFE
method has shown good potential for simulating the dynamic
embedment of seabed pipelines.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work forms part of the activities of the Centre for
Offshore Foundation System at UWA, which was established
under the Australian Research Councils Special Research
Centre scheme and is now supported by the State Government
of Western Australia through the Centre of Excellence in
Science and Innovation program. This financial support is
gratefully acknowledged.
8 Copyright 2009 by ASME
REFERENCES
Bruton, D. A. S., Carr, M. C. and White, D. J. (2007). The
influence of pipe-soil interaction on lateral buckling
and walking of pipelines: the SAFEBUCK JIP.
Proceedings of 6th International Conference on
Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics, London,
133-150.
Bruton, D. A. S., White, D. J., Cheuk, C. Y., Bolton, M. D.
and Carr, M. C. (2006). Pipe-soil interaction
behaviour during lateral buckling, including large
amplitude cyclic displacement tests by the
SAFEBUCK JIP. Proceedings of Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC17944.
Cheuk, C. Y. and White, D. J. (2008). Centrifuge modelling of
pipe penetration due to dynamic lay effects.
Proceedings of 27th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
OMAE2008-57923.
Cheuk, C. Y. and White D. J. (2009). Modelling the dynamic
embedment of seabed pipelines. Gotechnique.
submitted December 2008, in review.
Dingle, H. R. C., White, D. J. and Gaudin, C. (2008).
Mechanisms of pipe embedment and lateral breakout
on soft clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45: 636-
652.
HKS (2004). ABAQUS Users Manual, Version 6.5, Hibbit,
Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc.
Hu, Y. and Randolph, M. F. (1998). A practical numerical
approach for large deformation problem in soil.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 22(5): 327-350.
Lund, K. H. (2000). Effect of increase in pipeline soil
penetration from installation. Proceedings of
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, New Orleans, OMAE2000-
PIPE5047
Murff, J. D., Wagner, D. A and Randolph, M. F. (1989). Pipe
penetration in cohesive soil. Gotechnique, 39(2), 213-
229.
Randolph, M. F., Wang, D., Zhou, H., Hossain, M. S., and Hu,
Y. (2008). Large deformation finite element analysis
for offshore applications. Proceedings of 12th
International Conference of International Association
for Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics, 3307-3318.
Randolph M. F. and White D. J. (2008a). Pipeline embedment
in deep water: processes and quantitative assessment.
Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, USA. Paper OTC19128.
Randolph, M. F. and White, D. J. (2008b). Upper-bound yield
envelopes for pipelines at shallow embedment in clay.
Gotechnique, 58(4): 297-301.
Wang, D., Hu, Y. and Jin, X. (2006). Two-dimensional large
deformation finite element analysis for the pulling-up
View publication stats
of plate anchor. China Ocean Engineering, 20(2): 269-
279.
Wang, D., Hu, Y. and Randolph, M. F. (2008a). Three-
dimensional large deformation analyses of plate anchor
keying in clay. Proceedings of 27th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, OMAE2008-57218.
Wang, D., Hu, Y. and Randolph, M. F. (2008b). Effect of
loading rate on the uplift capacity of plate anchors.
Proceedings of the 18th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference, 2: 727-731.
Wang, D., White, D. J. and Randolph, M. F. (2008c). Large
deformation finite element analysis of pipe penetration
and large-amplitude lateral displacement. Submitted to
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, September 2008.
White, D. J., Take, W. A. and Bolton, M. D. (2003). Soil
deformation measurement using Particle Image
Velocimetry (PIV) and photogrammetry. Gotechnique,
53(7): 619-631.
Yafrate, N., DeJong, J., DeGroot, D. and Randolph, M. F.
(2009). Assessment of remolded shear strength in soft
clay with full flow penetrometers. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE (under review, revised October 2008).
Zhou, H. and Randolph, M. F. (2007) Computational
techniques and shear band development for cylindrical
and spherical penetrometers in strain-softening clay.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 7(4): 287-295.
Zhou, H. and Randolph, M. F. (2009). Numerical
investigations into cycling of full-flow penetrometers
in soft clay. Gotechnique (accepted December 2008).
Zienkiewicz, O. C. and Zhu, J. Z. (1993). The
superconvergent patch recovery and a posteriori error
estimates. Part 1: The recovery technique. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 33:
1331-1364.
9 Copyright 2009 by ASME