Modeling of Shallowly Embedded Offshore Pipelines

in Calcareous Sand
Jianguo Zhang1; Douglas P. Stewart2; and Mark F. Randolph3

Abstract: The results of centrifuge modeling of pipe–soil interaction for shallowly embedded offshore pipelines are presented. A
non-associated bounding surface model is constructed in vertical–horizontal (V – H) load space on the basis of test data and the theory of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

plasticity to simulate the response of a pipeline embedded in sandy soil under combined 共vertical and horizontal兲 monotonic loading,
taking into account possible pre-loading effects. The model needs nine parameters that can be back calculated from model or field tests
and in some cases estimated theoretically. It provides a suitable basis for modeling the load-displacement response of shallowly embedded
offshore pipelines. The model reproduces the key features of the load-displacement response of pipelines observed in centrifuge model
tests. In particular, the adoption of bounding surface plasticity allows a gradual transition from elastic to plastic response to be simulated
and the introduction of a non-associated flow rule allows the model to predict the strain-softening behavior of pipes under horizontal
loading. The lateral breakout resistance predicted by the model agrees very well with experimental data.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2002兲128:5共363兲
CE Database keywords: Offshore pipelines; Calcareous sand; Bounding surface; Models; Plasticity.

Introduction In an attempt to achieve good predictions of pipe–soil inter-

Increasing offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction activi-
ties have led to the construction of increasing lengths of offshore
pipelines. The cost of a pipeline represents a significant portion of
the development budget of a new hydrocarbon field, and the en-
vironmental consequences of pipeline failure are enormous.
In the early days of offshore developments, trenching of pipe-
lines below the seabed level was invariably demanded. Trenching
and the expected natural backfill by seabed sediment were meant
to be a protection against trawling gear or ships’ anchors and to
aid in stability. However, several extensive investigations indi-
cated that a properly designed concrete cover was strong enough
to protect steel pipes against such loads 共Moshagen and Kjeldsen
1980, Bergan and Mollestad 1981兲. As a result, the certifying
authorities approved deployment of pipelines directly on the sea-
bed without subsequent trenching or other means of protection
共Karal 1987兲. Untrenched pipelines are exposed directly to the
hydrodynamic environment, and it is therefore imperative to ac-
curately evaluate the geotechnical response of the pipeline on the
seabed in order to assess its stability during extreme loading from
currents.
1
Engineer, Advanced Geomechanics, 4 Leura St., Nedlands,
WA 6009, Australia. E-mail: zhang@civil.uwa.edu.au
2
Principal Engineer, Golder Associates, 182 Lord St., Perth, WA 6000,
Australia.
3
Professor, Director of the Special Centre for Offshore Foundation
Systems, Univ. of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA 6907, Australia.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2002. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on March 3, 2000; approved on August 8, 2001. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 5, May 1, 2002. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
2002/5-363–371/$8.00⫹$.50 per page.
action for unburied or shallowly embedded 共under self-weight or
hydrodynamic loads兲 pipelines, a variety of physical model tests
have been performed within three major projects: the PIPESTAB
共Wolfram et al. 1987兲, the AGA 共Allen et al. 1989兲 and the DHI
共Palmer et al. 1988兲 projects, and different predictive methods
developed 共for example, see the work of Brennodden et al. 1989兲.
However, the physics of the pipe–soil interaction process of
untrenched offshore pipelines are not well understood, and most
pipe–soil interaction models have been constructed on an entirely
empirical basis, as noted by Hale et al. 共1991兲, by Verley and
Sotberg 共1994兲, and by Zhang et al. 共1999兲. No explanation has
been given as to why a pipeline moves vertically downward in
some cases and upwards in others under the action of a horizontal
load when it bears a constant vertical load. It is also not clear as
to what will happen to the pipeline when cyclic loading induces
excess pore pressure in the soil. These models do not simulate the
whole process of pipeline movement, they only provide the final
settlement and the break-out load. Thus it is impossible to fully
simulate the pipeline response under realistic loading conditions
with these kinds of models.
Shallowly embedded pipelines may be viewed as strip footings
with a circular cross section, as proposed in the American Gas
Association 共AGA兲 pipeline design guidelines. While the vertical
bearing capacity of a pipeline may be evaluated using a conven-
tional bearing capacity factor approach, recent investigations of
the response of shallow foundations to combined vertical and
horizontal loading have focused on the construction of a load
interaction diagram 共see, for example, the work of Butterfield and
Gottardi 1994兲. Under inclined loading, this interaction diagram,
or yield envelope, can be described by a function F 关 F
⫽ f (V,H,V max)⫽0兴 in vertical and horizontal load space, with its
size defined by the maximum vertical load, V max the foundation
has experienced 共Gottardi and Butterfield 1995, Gottardi et al.
1999兲, as shown in Fig. 1. This function provides memories of the
loading history of a footing and may be viewed as a bounding
surface. For a conventional plasticity model, an elastic response is

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002 / 363

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2002, 128(5): 363-371


Fig. 1. Yield envelope and plastic potential surface in V – H space
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
assumed within the yield surface. However, in a bounding surface
model, the elastic range shrinks to a point and there is a gradual
transition from elastic to plastic states within this envelope. The
proportion of plastic strain or displacement is controlled by the
relative distance between the current load point and a reference
point, termed the ‘‘image point’’ 共Dafalias and Herrmann 1982兲,
on the bounding surface. As such, the bounding surface model
avoids an abrupt jump from elastic to plastic behavior. It allows
plastic strains to occur within the bounding surface and makes it
possible to simulate the accumulation of irreversible displace-
ments under cyclic loading when the loads do not reach the
bounding surface.
A bounding surface model for pipelines that incorporates the
above features is described in this paper. The model is developed
on the basis of experimental data that have mainly been obtained
from pipe–soil interaction tests using a pipe segment shallowly
embedded in calcareous sand. Additional published experimental
data 共Gazetas et al. 1985; Gazetas and Tassoulas 1987; Verley and
Sotberg 1994; Wallace 1995; Montrasio and Nova 1997; Gadre
and Dobry et al. 1998; Byrne and Houlsby 1999; Cassidy and
Houlsby 1999兲 are also used. The setup of the model pipeline
experiments and the formulation and performance of the theoret-
ical model are described here. A major advantage of the model is
that it has a strong theoretical basis that links displacements to the
loads applied through plasticity theory.
Experimental Observations on Model Pipelines
A series of pipe tests have been conducted on the beam centrifuge
at The University of Western Australia. The general arrangement
of the test apparatus is shown schematically in Fig. 2. The tests
Fig. 2. Arrangement of pipe tests at the prototype scale
364 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2002, 128(5): 363-371
Fig. 3. Particle size distribution
were conducted at 50 times the Earth’s gravity using a 20 mm
diam smooth model pipe, thus representing a 1 m diam prototype
pipe. A detailed description of the test apparatus and procedures
was given by Zhang et al. 共1999兲, and the centrifuge facility was
described by Randolph et al. 共1991兲. Experimental results are pre-
sented throughout this paper in terms of equivalent prototype
units or in non-dimensional form.
Tests were conducted using seabed calcareous sand from the
North West Shelf of Australia. The particle size distribution of the
material, after removing the small quantity of coarse particles
共nominally larger than 1 mm in size兲, is shown in Fig. 3. Several
types of tests were conducted in order to clarify the fundamental
features of pipe–soil interaction. These tests included vertical
loading tests, sideswipe tests 共where the pipe is penetrated to a
certain depth and then the vertical position of the pipe is held
constant while it is displaced laterally兲, and probe tests 共where the
vertical load is kept constant as the pipe is pushed laterally兲.
In order to describe the problem conveniently, the terms ‘‘nor-
mally loaded’’ and ‘‘overloaded’’ are introduced here to describe
the loading history of a pipeline. Normally loaded means the cur-
rent vertical load is the highest vertical load the foundation has so
far experienced, while overloaded means that the initial vertical
load (V 0 ) of the current loading event is less than the highest
vertical load (V max) the foundation has previously experienced.
The ratio of V max /V0 is called the overloading ratio and is ex-
pressed by R.
A typical result from a monotonic penetration test is shown in
Fig. 4. The data indicate a linear relationship between vertical
displacement and vertical load. Initially this may seem surprising,
since the area of soil contact would be expected to change as the
pipe penetrates the soil. However, the contact area increases very
Fig. 4. Vertical response of the model pipeline
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Normalized loading paths obtained from sideswipe tests
rapidly with penetration, due to heaving of the soil. The data also
show very little hysteresis and curvature in an unload–reload
cycle. Results from a group of loading–unloading tests give gra-
dients of about 350 and 7000 kPa for load and unload lines,
respectively. For the calcareous soil samples used in these tests,
the gradient of the loading line was found to be approximately
equal to the gradient of the cone penetration test 共CPT兲 tip resis-
tance with depth.
Typical sideswipe test results are shown in Fig. 5 for different
embedment depths. The data are plotted in normalized form, with
the vertical and horizontal loads divided by the maximum vertical
load prior to lateral movement. The data suggest that the bound-
ing surface of this shallowly buried pipe is approximately para-
bolic in shape. The vertical load corresponding to the peak hori-
zontal load is about 0.47V max , and the peak H/V max ratio
increases with an increase in embedment. It appears from Fig. 5
that the loading paths have a positive intersect with the horizontal
load axis, indicating some passive resistance of a partially embed-
ded pipeline.
Fig. 6 shows typical probe test results. Large displacements
were used here in order to evaluate the ultimate capacity of the
laterally loaded pipelines. For a normally loaded pipeline in this
soil, the peak horizontal load is about 0.8V 0 , which is reached
after lateral displacement of about one diameter and additional
penetration of about one diameter. The average value of the initial
displacement gradient (dz/dx) obtained from probe tests con-
ducted on normally loaded pipelines is about 0.5. When the pipe
is overloaded, the lateral stiffness increases dramatically and the
peak horizontal load is also larger due to the increase in embed-
ment. The initial displacement gradient (dz/dx) obtained from
Fig. 6. Lateral response from probe tests, V 0 ⫽4 kN/m and R
⫽V max /V0
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002 / 365
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2002, 128(5): 363-371
Fig. 7. Initial gradient of pipeline movement in probe tests
probe tests conducted on pipelines with different overloading ra-
tios is plotted in Fig. 7. The data indicate a downward movement
under lateral loading when R is less than 10 and an upward move-
ment when R is greater than 10. This suggests that the direction of
plastic displacement vectors is not normal to the bounding surface
determined from sideswipe tests, implying that a non-associated
flow rule is necessary in modeling the load-displacement re-
sponse.
The response of unburied pipelines revealed from these tests,
and also from previous full scale model tests 共Brenodden et al.
1989兲, is quite different from that reported for buried pipelines
共Audibert and Nyman 1977, Trautmann and O’Rourke 1985兲.
While post-peak strain-softening behavior was restricted to very
dense sand for buried pipelines, for shallowly buried pipelines it
is related more to the loading history of the pipe–soil system and
can occur in relatively loose compressible soil. The response ob-
served can be modeled only through a non-associated work hard-
ening model.
On the basis of the test data illustrated above, a plasticity
model for pipe–soil interaction was formulated, and is described
in detail in the following.
Formulation of Plasticity Model
It is assumed that the pipe is rigid and is placed on a flat surface
of homogeneous isotropic soil. The pipe is initially embedded
into the soil under a certain vertical load. The resultant load is
inclined toward the angle of inclination ranging from 0° 共purely
vertical loading兲 to 90° 共purely horizontal loading兲. As such, the
interaction considered here is defined purely in vertical and hori-
zontal load space 共moment loading is not considered兲.
Hardening Law
The vertical load-displacement response shown in Fig. 4 can be
modeled by means of the following simple relationship:
V max⫽ 共 k v p z⫺Vk v p /k v e 兲 / 共 1⫺k v p /k v e 兲 (1)
where V max⫽maximum vertical load 共for zero horizontal load兲
corresponding to current displacement; k v e and k v p ⫽elastic and
plastic stiffness, respectively, for vertical loading; and V and z⫽
current vertical load and penetration depth, respectively. Taking
␦z p , the plastic vertical displacement increment, as the hardening
parameter, this expression can be used to define the hardening
behavior of the pipe response, which in the context of this model
is the evolution of the bounding surface:
 k vek vp
␦V max⫽ ␦z p . (2)
k v e ⫺k v p

Bounding Surface Derived from Pipe Tests

The sideswipe test data shown in Fig. 5 suggest a parabolic
bounding surface, which can be described as follows:
F⫽H⫺␮ 共 V⫺V min兲共 1⫺V/V max兲 ⫽0, (3)
where ␮ is the gradient of H/V at small loads 共like a friction
coefficient of the footing–soil interface兲, 共V, H兲 the image point
on the bounding surface, V max the highest vertical load the pipe
has experienced, V min the negative intersect at H⫽0, and V min⫽
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

⫺␤Vmax , where ␤ is a constant.

The parabolic shaped yield or bounding surface has been pro-
posed by a number of researchers 共e.g., by Nova and Montrasio
1991兲. However, it should be noted that, for an embedded pipe,
Fig. 8. Proposed bounding surfaces
Eq. 共3兲 ensures a small horizontal load capacity when the vertical
load drops to zero. This would be expected due to the passive
resistance of soil adjacent to the pipe.
A yield surface equation was proposed for embedded footings
by Montrasio and Nova 共1997兲, with the parameter ␮ increasing tests with V 0 ⫽V max 共Fig. 5兲, since the load path indicates non-
with footing embedment, alignment of the incremental displacement vector with the normal
to the yield surface 共Zhang et al. 1999兲. The plastic potential
H⫺␮V 1⫺ 冉 V
V max 冊
⫽0, (4) function takes a similar form to the bounding surface function,
and is given below.

␮⫽␮ 0 ⫹␬
z0
B
, (5) G⫽H⫺␮ t 冉 V
⫺
V min
V max V max 冊 m
共 V max⫺V兲 ⫺C⫽0, (6)

where z 0 ⫽ footing embedment. This expression has the effect of
increasing the lateral resistance with an increase in embedment,
which models the contribution of passive soil resistance. How-
ever, the equations give a zero horizontal capacity for V⫽0 even
if the embedment is not zero. For very shallow embedment, the
error is small and can be neglected. For larger embedment, the
passive soil pressure on the side of the foundation can certainly
provide significant horizontal resistance, as reported by Gadre and
Dobry 共1998兲. This shortcoming can be overcome by introducing
a negative intersect on the vertical load axis, as defined by Eq.
共3兲.
where ␮ t shape parameter and C ⫽ constant that adjusts the po-
sition of the surface to allow it to pass through the loading point.
The exponent m has the effect of distorting the parabolic shape
such that the value of vertical load where the displacement vector
becomes perpendicular to the vertical load axis can be adjusted.
This enables the displacement behavior observed that is summa-
rized in Fig. 7 to be modeled.
The normalized bounding surface given by Eq. 共3兲 and the
normalized plastic potential surface given by Eq. 共6兲 with C⫽0
are shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively, for ␮⫽0.4– 0.6, ␤
⫽0.05– 0.1, and ␮ t ⫽0.5, ␤⫽0.05– 0.1, m⫽0.1– 0.2.

Non-Associated Flow Rule Elastic Deformation

It is commonly accepted that a non-associated flow rule is essen- For the plane strain problem described here, the elastic deforma-
tial in modeling the behavior of shallow foundations on dense tion may be expressed as
sand. However, less progress has been made on establishing the
form of the plastic potential function. Nova and Montrasio 共1991兲
proposed a plastic potential equation of similar shape to the
bounding surface, but using ␮ t ⫽2 – 4⫻␮. The model predictions
with the flow rule defined by this plastic potential function were
reasonably good. However, only normally loaded footings were
investigated in the tests performed by Nova and Montrasio 共1991兲
and by Montrasio and Nova 共1997兲. Since the overloaded condi-
tion is commonly encountered in offshore engineering through
preloading, further investigation is required. It has been shown
earlier that, for pipelines with a high overloading ratio, there was
an upward movement that led to strain-softening behavior. The
transition from downward to upward movement occurred at about
R⫽10. A similar response was reported for spudcan footings on
dense sand by Allersma et al. 共1997兲, although the transition was
at about R⫽50.
It was found necessary to adopt a non-associated flow rule in
Fig. 9. Proposed plastic potential surfaces
order to model the post-peak strain softening during sideswipe

366 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2002, 128(5): 363-371

 Table 1. Model Parameters Table 2. Key Features of Pipe–Soil Interaction under the Normally
Parameter Description Loaded Condition
Sideswipe event Probe event
kvp Plastic stiffness of vertical loading
k ve Elastic stiffness of vertical loading Ratio Expression Ratio Expression
k he Elastic stiffness of horizontal loading ␮ 1 m␮共1⫹␤兲2
Hmax Hmax
␭ ratio of k he /k v e 共1⫹␤兲2
Vmax 4 1⫺0.5共1⫹␤兲kvp /kve Vmax 共1⫹m兲共m⫺␤兲
␤ Intersect of the normalized bounding surface on the

␮
vertical load axis
Shape parameter for the bounding surface
V兩H⫽Hmax
Vmax
1⫺␤
2⫺共1⫹␤兲kvp /kve 冉 冊
dH
dx initial
␹k v p /k v e
k
1⫹␹k v p /k v e he
a

冉冊
␮t Shape parameter in the plastic potential equation
Hres 4m dz ␮ t 共 1⫹␤ 兲 m
m Exponent in the plastic potential equation
H max 共1⫹m兲2 dx 1⫹␹k v p /k v e
␬ Gradient of the parameter ␮ increase with embedment initial

␳
冉 冊 ␹
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Exponent in interpolation of the plastic modulus to dH

k a
control the decay of stiffness dx initial
1⫹␹ he
a
␹⫽␮␮ t (1⫹␤) 1⫹m k v e /k he (k v e /k v e ⫺k v p ).

再 冎
äV e
再 冎冋
äz k ve
äH ⫽ 关 D 兴 äx ⫽ 0 k hc
0
册再 冎
äz
äx (7) 再 冎 再冉
äV
äH ⫽
k ve
0
0
k he
冊
冉 冊冎再 冎
where ␦V and ␦H and ␦z and ␦x⫽increments of the vertical and
1 abk 2v e bk v e k he äz
horizontal load and increments of vertical and horizontal dis- ⫺
placements, respectively; 关 D e 兴 ⫽elastic stiffness matrix; and k v e K f g⫹abk v e ⫹k he ak v e k he k 2he äx
and k he ⫽elastic stiffness coefficients for vertical and horizontal
directions, respectively 共with no cross coupling between the two兲. (10)
In this model, the horizontal stiffness k he is related to k v e by Eq. 共10兲 is solved using an explicit method with very small
k he ⫽␭k v e , where ␭ is a constant. displacement increments, typically 0.1% of the pipe diameter, in
order to avoid any influence of the size of the loading step. All
parameters for the model are described in Table 1. Equations for
Constitutive Relationship
key performance ratios derived from the plasticity model are
Using a radial mapping rule 共Dafalias and Herrmann 1982兲, the listed in Table 2.
consistency condition on the bounding surface (␦F⫽0), the
hardening equation, non-associated flow rule, and the plastic
modulus K b at the image point can be obtained. Evaluation of the Model Parameters
k v e k v p bc The model described above contains nine independent param-
K b⫽ , (8)
k v e ⫺k v p f g eters, as shown in Table 1. These parameters can be evaluated
where f ⫽ 冑1⫹a 2 and g⫽ 冑1⫹b 2 since technically ⳵F/⳵H from back analysis of a series of loading tests at model or full
⫽⳵G/⳵H⫽1, and a⫽⳵F/⳵V, b⫽⳵G/⳵V, and c⫽⳵F/⳵V max . scale. The background as to how this may be done and how these
The plastic modulus, K, at the load point 共V, H兲 is expressed as parameters can be estimated in the absence of model or field test
follows to ensure dimensional consistency and to guarantee that K data are given below.
has an infinite value at the beginning of reloading when ␩ is zero
共and V m ⫽V 0 兲. This simulates the elastic response initially and the Vertical and Horizontal Stiffness k vp , k ve , and k he
plastic response when K⫽K b at V m ⫽V max .

冉 冏 冏冊 冉 冊
The vertical stiffness parameters may be obtained directly by
␳
k vek vp M V max⫺V m means of a vertical loading–unloading test on a pipeline as de-
K⫽K b ⫹ 1⫹ , (9)
共 k v e ⫺k v p 兲 f g ␩ V max⫺V 0 scribed in the ‘‘Constitutive Relationship’’ section, where k v p and
k v e equal gradients of the loading and unloading lines. As an
where V⫽intersect of the loading surface on the V axis;
alternative, k v p and k v e could be calculated from theory using an
V 0 ⫽initial vertical load of the current loading event;
estimate of the ultimate bearing capacity of a footing. Since k v p
(V max⫺Vm)⫽current reference distance between the loading sur-
Ⰶk v e , Eq. 共1兲 can be approximated by V max⬇kvpz. For a footing
face and the bounding surface; (V max⫺V0)⫽maximum reference
on calcareous soil, the ultimate bearing capacity is V max /B
distance between the initial loading point and the bounding sur-
⫽␥⬘Nqz 共Finnie 1993兲, where N q is a conventional bearing capac-
face; ␳⫽plastic stiffness interpolation factor; ␩⫽ratio of H/V;
ity factor. Hence k v p is equivalent to ␥ ⬘ N q . Estimated k v p
M⫽ratio of H/V at the point where horizontal load peaks; and
M ⫽0.5 ␮ 关 (1⫹␤) 2 /(1⫺␤) 兴 . The exponent ␳ is a parameter that
adjusts the rate of decay of stiffness with displacement and will
generally lie in the range 3–5. Table 3. Estimated k v p for Footings on Calcareous Sand
The incremental form of the load-displacement relationship
␾ ⬘ 共°兲 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
can be derived by adopting the same framework as that in a
␥ ⬘ 共kN/m3兲 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.5
conventional model 共Zhang et al. 1999兲, noting the difference in
k v p 共kPa兲 130 220 280 390 510 730 980
plastic modulus:

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002 / 367

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2002, 128(5): 363-371

 Table 4. Reported Ratios of Elastic to Plastic Stiffness
Reference Footing type Soil type k v e /k v p
Byrne and Houlsby 共1999兲 Flat, circular Dense 5
quartz sand
Gottardi et al. 共1999兲 Flat, circular Dense 10
quartz sand
Zhang et al. 共1999兲 Pipeline Calcareous 20
sand

(⫽␥⬘Nq) values for footings on calcareous sand are listed in

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. Some reported ratios of k v e to k v p are listed in Table 4.
The horizontal elastic stiffness, k he , could be obtained directly
from a horizontal loading test on a pipeline or footing. For the
pipeline–soil system tested here k he ⫽k v e was adopted, whereas
Cassidy and Houlsby 共1999兲 adopted k he ⫽0.87k v e for modeling
foundations for jack-up units on quartz sand. Gazetas and his
co-workers 共1985, 1987兲 investigated both vertical and horizontal
stiffness of arbitrarily shaped embedded footings in an elastic
half-space, and proposed simple expressions for the elastic stiff-
ness of surface footings. The ratios of k he to k v e calculated from
these expressions are listed in Table 5 for various values of the
Poisson ratio. These ratios compare well with those reported
above.
Parameters ␤ and ␮
Parameters ␤ and ␮ define the shape of the bounding surface, and
may be derived directly through sideswipe tests on pipelines or
footings described earlier.
From the gradient ⳵V/⳵H 兩 V/V max⫽0.47⫽0, a value for ␤ of 0.06
is achieved. Test data also suggested that the ratio of peak hori-
zontal load to maximum vertical load (H max /Vmax) increased with
pipe embedment, shown in Fig. 5. By substituting these ratios
together with ␤⫽0.06 into the bounding surface equation, values
of ␮ corresponding to different pipe embedment are obtained. The
parameter ␮ may be related to pipe embedment by
z0
␮⫽0.4⫹0.65
B
to fit test data, as shown in Fig. 10. In Eq. 共10兲, z 0 is less than 0.5
B, indicating that it is applicable for shallow embedments.
For comparison, individual values of ␮ 0 between 0.44 and
0.52 have been reported by Butterfield and Gottardi 共1994兲, by
Byrne and Houlsby 共1999兲, and by Gottardi et al. 共1999兲 from
Fig. 10. Variation of ␮ with embedment
The variation of ␮ with embedment can be examined using
conventional earth pressure theory. Adding friction on the base of
the pipe to the net soil resistance on the side of the pipe,
H⫽␮ 0 V⫹ 21 ␥ ⬘ z 20 共 K p ⫺K a 兲 (12)
where K p and K a ⫽passive and active earth pressure coefficients,
respectively. From Eq. 共3兲, H⬇␮␤k v p z 0 for V⫽0, which may be
combined with Eq. 共12兲 to give
␥ ⬘ 共 K p ⫺K a 兲
␬⫽ (13)
2␤k v p
For the pipeline experiments described here, ␥ ⬘ ⫽8 kN/m3 , ␤
⫽0.06, and k v p ⫽350 kPa. Using the Rankine earth pressure co-
efficient for simplicity 共the frictionless vertical wall兲, ␬⫽0.75 is
derived for ␾ ⬘ ⫽38° 共typical of dense sand兲. This compares very
well with the value of 0.72 suggested by Montrasio and Nova
共1997兲 for flat footings, and also with the value of 0.65 given in
Eq. 共11兲 for pipelines taking into consideration the effect of the
curved side wall in reducing passive soil resistance.
Parameters m, ␮ t , and ␳
(11) The plastic potential shape parameters m and ␮ t can be derived
from back analysis of pipeline or footing tests, although there is
no means by which to estimate them on the basis of simple con-
ventional soil mechanics theory. As described earlier, probe test
indicated that the gradient of the plastic potential function
changes sign when the overloading ratio R was about 10. This
property may be expressed mathematically as

冋 册
sideswipe tests on rough footings on the surface of dense quartz
sand. Eq. 共5兲 has been proposed by Montrasio and Nova 共1997兲 to ⳵V
⫽0. (14)
define the increase of ␮ with embedment. They used ␮ 0 ⫽0.35 ⳵H V/V max⫽0.1
and 0.48 for smooth and rough surface footings, respectively,
with ␬⫽0.72. This gives m⫽0.18 for ␤⫽0.06. For the normally loaded pipe
probe tests, an equation for the initial gradient of pipeline move-
ments is listed in Table 2; this expression gives ␮ t ⬇0.68 for ␮
⫽0.5, ␤⫽0.06, (dz/dx) initial⫽0.5, m⫽0.18, k v e ⫽20k v p , and
k he ⫽k v e .
Table 5. Ratios of k he /k v e 共Gazetas et al. 1985; Gazetas and Tassou- The plastic stiffness interpolation parameter ␳ changes the rate
las 1987兲 of decay of stiffness with a change in load. Appropriate values for
Footing type Square Circle Strip this parameter must be determined by suitable curve fitting of the
sideswipe or probe test results under overloaded conditions. It is
v ⫽0.3 0.82 0.83 1.13
found through curve fitting that a value of 5 is appropriate for
v ⫽0.4 0.74 0.75 1.03
simulating the response of the pipeline–soil system in this study.
v ⫽0.5 0.66 0.67 0.91
Lower values of ␳ lead to a softer response in sideswipe tests.

368 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2002, 128(5): 363-371

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Comparison of model prediction and test results

Model Performance Good agreement is achieved for the horizontal load-displacement

response and the values of peak soil resistance. The computed
displacement gradients are very similar, although the predicted
Ultimate Lateral Resistance
initial penetration is somewhat different from that measured. The
From the plasticity model it can be shown that, at a given depth, model predicts upwards pipe movement and strain softening for
the residual lateral resistance ratio H res /V max in a sideswipe test is overloaded pipes when the overloading ratio is larger than about
equal to the peak resistance ratio H max /Vmax in a probe test. The 10. The transition from elastic to plastic response was simulated
normalized value of this resistance is given by successfully.
H
␥ ⬘z 2⫽
共 1⫹m 兲 2 冉 冊
m␮ 共 1⫹␤ 兲 2 k v p
␥ ⬘z
(15) Comparison with the Conventional Model
where H⫽H res for sideswipe tests and H⫽H max for probe tests. A conventional plasticity model had been proposed by the authors
This expression is shown for comparison with the experimental 共Zhang et al. 1999兲, in which fully elastic response is assumed
data in Fig. 11 using m⫽0.18, ␮⫽0.4⫹0.65z 0 /B, ␤⫽0.06, k v p
⫽350 kPa, and ␥ ⬘ ⫽8 kN/m3 . The expression provides an excel-
lent fit to test data from both current and previous centrifuge
modeling conducted in calcareous sand 共Wallace 1995兲, and also
from full-scale model tests performed in silica sand 共Verley and
Sotberg 1994兲. While Wallace’s data were from sideswipe tests,
Verley and Sotberg’s data were from simple break-out tests where
the pipe was embedded in sand under self-weight followed by
lateral loading to its ultimate state.

Performance of Modeling Load-Displacement

Response
Comparisons between experimental data and model simulations
for sideswipe and probe tests are made using k v p ⫽350 kPa, k v e
⫽7,000 kPa, k he ⫽7,000 kPa, ␮⫽0.4⫹0.65z 0 , ␮ t ⫽0.6, ␤
⫽0.06, m⫽0.18, and ␳⫽5. Comparisons are shown in Figs. 12共a
and b兲, respectively, for normally loaded and overloaded pipe
sideswipe tests. Good agreement between the simulations and ex-
perimental data is achieved for normally loaded pipes. At small
embedments the agreement is very good, although the model pre-
diction is about 10% lower than the experimental data at higher
loads. For overloaded cases, the agreement between model simu-
lation and test results is reasonably good. The initial response is
well predicted although the peak horizontal resistance is progres-
Fig. 12. Comparison of model simulation 共thin lines兲 and test results
sively more underestimated as overloading ratio R increases.
共thick lines兲: 共a兲 normally loaded sideswipe events; 共b兲 overloaded
Model behavior of drained probe tests for pipelines of over-
sideswipe events
loading ratios R⫽1, 10, and 20 at V⫽4 kN/m is shown in Fig. 13.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002 / 369

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2002, 128(5): 363-371

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Comparison of model simulation 共thin lines兲 and test results
共thick lines兲 for probe events, V⫽4 kN/m: 共a兲 horizontal response;
共b兲 pipeline movement
within the yield surface. Model simulations given by the conven-
tional and bounding surface models are compared in Fig. 14 for
sideswipe and probe tests. It can be seen from this comparison
that the bounding surface model gives a more gradual transition
from elastic to plastic states, resulting in significant reductions in
maximal horizontal resistance for sideswipe tests, and a slight
reduction for probe tests on heavily overloaded pipelines. By
comparing Figs. 12共b兲 and 14共a兲, it appears that the conventional
YS model does a better job than the BS model in simulating
overloaded sideswipe tests. However, the probe event is probably
more similar to the loading situation in practice and the BS model
does a much better job than the YS model in this case. Further-
more, the bounding surface model predicted accumulated pipe
settlement for probe events that take place inside the bounding
surface, which is a significant advantage of the model for future
development in simulating pipeline response under small ampli-
tude of cyclic horizontal loading—an issue of great importance in
offshore engineering.
Conclusions
A bounding surface model was proposed for pipe–soil interaction
of offshore pipelines. The hardening behavior is related to the
plastic vertical displacement in a linear relation. The bounding
surface takes the shape of a parabola and gives an intercept on the
horizontal load axis at zero vertical load. A non-associated flow
rule was adopted through a bullet-shaped plastic potential surface.
A radial mapping rule is employed to relate the loading point
within the bounding surface and the image point on the bounding
surface, allowing the model to simulate a gradual elastic–plastic
transition for loading paths that start inside the bounding enve-
lope.
The model provides a suitable basis for modeling the load-
displacement response of unburied offshore pipelines. It repro-
370 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2002, 128(5): 363-371
Fig. 14. Comparison of model simulations: Conventional model
共thin lines兲 and bounding surface model 共thick lines兲: 共a兲 sideswipe
events; 共b兲 probe events
duces the general behavior observed in centrifuge model tests on
a pipeline segment in calcareous sands. The introduction of a
non-associated flow rule allows the model to predict the displace-
ment character for a pipe under horizontal loading. The lateral
break-out resistance predicted by the model agrees very well with
the experimental data.
At this stage, only drained behavior has been addressed in this
paper. Hence the loads used in all equations are total values. The
model is being developed further to simulate the effective load
and displacement response under partially drained conditions by
relating k v p to a normalized consolidation parameter. Although
attention was restricted mainly to pipelines, or strip foundations,
the model also has potential for application to other shapes of
foundation, at least in the V – H loading plane.
Caution should be used when using this model so that funda-
mental parameters are determined from experimental observa-
tions as they are affected by the geometry and boundary condi-
tions such as pipe diameter, pipeline embedment, roughness of
the pipe surface, and soil conditions.
Acknowledgments
This paper was prepared when the first writer was a research
student and the second writer was a lecturer at The University of
Western Australia 共UWA兲. The work described here is a part of a
continuing research program on offshore foundation systems at
UWA. Research funding from the Australian Research Council is
gratefully acknowledged. The first writer was supported by a Uni-
versity postgraduate award and an Ernest and Evelyn Havill
Shacklock Scholarship in Civil Engineering at The University of
Western Australia.
 References
Allen, D. W., Lammert, W. F., Hale, J. R., and Jacobsen, V. 共1989兲.
‘‘Submarine pipeline on-bottom stability: Recent AGA research.’’
OTC 6055, Proc., 21st OTC, 121–132.
Allersma, H. G. B., Hospers, B., and den Braber, J. G. 共1997兲. ‘‘Centri-
fuge tests on the sliding behaviour of spudcans.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 34,
658 – 663.
Audibert, J. M. E., and Nyman, K. J. 共1977兲. ‘‘Soil restraint against
horizontal motion of pipes.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 103共10兲, 1119–1142.
Bergan, P. G., and Mollestad, E. 共1981兲. ‘‘Impact response behaviour of
offshore pipelines,’’ OTC 4065, Annual OTC, Houston.
Brennodden, H., Lieng, J. T., Sotberg, T., and Verley, R. L. P. 共1989兲. ‘‘An
energy based pipe-soil interaction model.’’ OTC 6057, Proc., 21st
OTC, 147–158.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Cambridge University on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Butterfield, R., and Gottardi, G. 共1994兲. ‘‘A complete three-dimensional
failure envelope for shallow footings on sand.’’ Geotechnique, 44共1兲,
181–184.
Byrne, B. W., and Houlsby, G. T. 共1999兲. ‘‘Drained behaviour of suction
caisson foundations on very dense sand.’’ Proc., OTC 1999, OTC
10994.
Cassidy, M. J. and Houlsby, G. T. 共1999兲. ‘‘On the modelling of founda-
tions for jack-up units on sand.’’ Proc., OTC 1999, OTC 10995.
Dafalias, Y. F., and Herrmann, L. R. 共1982兲. ‘‘Bounding surface formu-
lation of soil plasticity.’’ Soil mechanics—Transient and cyclic loads,
Pande and Zienkiewicz, eds., 253–282.
Finnie, I. M. S. 共1993兲. ‘‘Performance of shallow foundations in calcar-
eous soil,’’ PhD thesis, Univ. of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA,
Australia.
Gadre, A. D., and Dobry, R. 共1998兲. ‘‘Lateral response of square embed-
ded foundation in dry sand.’’ Centrifuge’98, Kimura, Kusakabe, and
Takemura, eds., 465– 470.
Gazetas, G., and Tassoulas, J. L. 共1987兲. ‘‘Horizontal stiffness of arbi-
trarily shaped embedded foundations.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 113共5兲, 440–
457.
Gazetas, G., Dobry, R., and Tassoulas, J. L. 共1985兲. ‘‘Vertical response of
arbitrarily shaped embedded foundations.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 111共6兲,
750–771.
Gottardi, G., and Butterfield, R. 共1995兲. ‘‘The displacement of a model
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MAY 2002 / 371
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2002, 128(5): 363-371
rigid surface footing on dense sand under general planar loading.’’
Soils Found., 35共3兲, 71– 82.
Gottardi, G., Houlsby, G. T., and Butterfield, R. 共1999兲. ‘‘Plastic response
of circular footings on sand under general planar loading.’’ Geotech-
nique, 49共4兲, 453– 469.
Hale, J. R., Lammert, W. F., and Alen, D. W. 共1991兲. ‘‘Pipeline on-bottom
stability calculations: Comparison of two state-of-the-art methods and
pipe-soil model verification.’’ OTC 6761, Proc., 23rd Annual OTC,
567–582.
Karal, K. 共1987兲. ‘‘Trends in pipeline technology development.’’ Offshore
platforms and pipelines, Series on Rock and Soil Mechanics, Mazurk-
iewicz, ed., Vol. 13, Trans Tech, Amersdorf, Switzerland, 319–345.
Montrasio, L., and Nova, R. 共1997兲. ‘‘Settlements of shallow foundations
on sand: Geometrical effects.’’ Geotechnique, 47共1兲, 49– 60.
Moshagen, H., and Kjeldsen, S. P. 共1980兲. ‘‘Fishing gear loads and effects
on submarine pipelines.’’ OTC 3782, Annual OTC, Houston.
Nova, R., and Montrasio, L. 共1991兲. ‘‘Settlements of shallow foundations
on sand.’’ Geotechnique, 41共2兲, 243–256.
Palmer, A. C., Steenfelt, J. S., Steensen-Bach, J. O., and Jacobsen, V.
共1988兲. ‘‘Lateral resistance of marine pipelines on sand.’’ OTC 5853,
Proc., 20th OTC, 399– 408.
Randolph, M. F., Jewell, R. J. L., and Brown, T. A. 共1991兲. ‘‘Establishing
a new centrifuge facility.’’ Centrifuge ’91, Boulder, Colo. 2–9.
Trautmann, C. H., and O’Rourke, T. D. 共1985兲. ‘‘Lateral force-
displacement response of buried pipe.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 111共9兲,
1077–1092.
Verley, R. L. P., and Sotberg, T. 共1994兲. ‘‘A soil resistance model for
pipelines placed on sandy soils.’’ J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 116,
145–153.
Wallace, L. T. I. 共1995兲. ‘‘Pipeline performance in calcareous soil.’’ Hon-
ors thesis, Dept. of Civil and Resource Engineering, Univ. of Western
Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Wolfram, Jr., W. R., Getz, J. R., and Verley, R. L. P. 共1987兲. ‘‘PIPESTAB
project: Improved design basis for submarine pipeline stability.’’ OTC
5501, Proc., 19th OTC, 153–158.
Zhang, J., Randolph, M. F., and Stewart, D. P. 共1999兲. ‘‘An elasto-plastic
model for pipe–soil interaction of unburied offshore pipelines in cal-
careous sand.’’ ISOPE-99, Brest, Vol. 2, 185–192.