Byrne, B. W. et al. (2013). Géotechnique 63, No. 5, 382–390 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.

016A]

Uplift of shallowly buried pipe sections in saturated very loose sand

B. W. B Y R N E  , J. S C H U P P † , C . M . M A RT I N  , A . M AC O N O C H I E ‡ , J. O L I P H A N T ‡ a n d D. C AT H I E §

Offshore pipelines are often buried to protect them from damage, and to provide additional thermal
insulation. In sandy soils the pipes are trenched using jet-trenching or ploughing. In both cases the
nature of the trenching operation means that the backfill material can be placed over the pipe in an
extremely loose state. If the pipe then undergoes a small displacement or vibration, liquefaction of the
backfill material may occur, and the resistance to upward movement of the pipe can be reduced. To
explore this experimentally, an instrumented model pipe section was pulled vertically upwards at
different rates in very loose, saturated, fine, uniform sand (representative of a North Sea sand). The
instrumentation allowed for the measurement of the force on the pipe section as well as the excess
pore water pressure regime around the pipe. The results show that, for sand at a relative density of
zero, there is a reduction of capacity at the faster uplift rates. A simple analytical model, using the
vertical slip model (for uplift resistance) modified to account for the development and dissipation of
excess pore water pressures around the pipe, is used to predict the results from the experiments.
Implications for the design of buried offshore pipelines in sand are discussed.

KEYWORDS: liquefaction; model tests; offshore engineering; pipelines; sands; soil/structure interaction

INTRODUCTION analytical model that is used to predict the results success-

This paper considers the problem of a short section of pipe
that moves upwards in saturated loose fine sand. This
problem is very important for understanding the likely per-
formance of offshore pipelines buried in sandy or silty
seabed soils. The pipe must be buried to a sufficient depth
that any upward forces are resisted by the reaction of the
soil, but not so deeply that the trenching operation becomes
uneconomic. The pipe may experience a net upward force
due to a very low combined pipe/fluid weight, the develop-
ment of excess water pressures around the pipe, or a
phenomenon known as upheaval buckling. Although it is
recognised that buckling or flotation of an offshore pipeline
is a three-dimensional problem, the present sudy is confined,
as in many other studies, to the plane-strain problem of a
short pipe section moving upwards through the soil. This
allows the soil resistance to be measured accurately in
laboratory tests, normalised against relevant parameters and
used in pipeline design. The experiments reported here have
been carried out in saturated, very loose fine sand, with a
particular focus on the effect of uplift rate on soil resistance.
A number of studies of pipes moving through dry (and
hence fully drained) sand have been published, but little
information is available in the public domain relating to
pipes moving through saturated sand at different rates. The
recent work by Bransby & Ireland (2009) highlighted that
pipes in loose to medium dense saturated sand under faster
rate loading experienced increased capacities, most likely
due to a dilative sand response. The work presented below
focuses on very loose sand, and shows substantial reductions
in capacities for faster rate loading. As well as presenting
novel experimental results, this paper also proposes a simple
fully. Schupp (2009) contains a detailed review of the
literature in this area.
Before considering the problem in detail, it is first neces-
sary to assess the two installation processes commonly used
for offshore pipelines buried in sand, so that the nature of
the backfill material can be understood. The first is jet-
trenching, where the soil is fluidised by jetting so that the
pipe can sink through the highly fluidised soil to the target
embedment depth. The fluidised sand settles over the pipe,
providing resistance to any upward movement of the pipe
during operation. In this case the backfill soil is likely to be
very loose initially, probably at the minimum possible den-
sity (i.e. at a void ratio of emax ). The second main pipe
installation method is ploughing, where a V-shaped trench is
created using a plough. The pipe is placed into the trench
and the spoil is moved back into the trench, such that the
sediment settles onto the pipe through water. With this
installation approach the soil may still have a low relative
density. In both cases a small perturbation of the pipe may
cause liquefaction of the surrounding sand, and thus a loss
of pipe uplift resistance. If there is sufficient upward force
acting on the pipe it may unbury itself. Over time there is
likely to be ‘shakedown’ of the soil skeleton around the
pipe, due either to pipe vibrations or to ocean wave effects,
such that the relative density gradually increases and lique-
faction becomes less likely. The timescale over which this
occurs is not well understood, and there are no publicly
available studies reporting the state of the backfill material
either immediately after pipe installation, or at regular inter-
vals after pipe installation, to enable this timescale to be
assessed.

Manuscript received 5 February 2011; revised manuscript accepted 11
July 2012. Published online ahead of print 22 November 2012.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 September 2013, for further
details see p. ii.
 Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, UK.
† Cathie Associates, Hamburg, Germany; formerly University of
Oxford.
‡ Technip UK Ltd, Aberdeen, UK.
§ Cathie Associates, Brussels, Belgium.
SIMPLE MODEL FOR PIPE UPLIFT RESISTANCE
A simple limit equilibrium model for predicting the
resistance to uplift of a shallowly buried pipe is known as
the vertical slip model (after Schaminee et al., 1990). This
model assumes that the weight of the soil above the pipe is
added to the friction that develops along vertical slip planes,
as shown in Fig. 1, which also defines the geometry of the
problem. Note that here the embedment depth, H, is taken to

382

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE] on [21/03/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 UPLIFT OF SHALLOWLY BURIED PIPE SECTIONS IN SATURATED VERY LOOSE SAND 383
Weight of soil very likely that excess pore water pressures (for example ue
above pipe
Friction on
at a depth of H) will be developed, and these can be
vertical slip accounted for approximately in equations (1) and (2) by
Embedment planes replacing ª9 with ª9  (ue /H). This simplistically assumes
depth, z
that the excess pore pressure, at any given time, is linearly
distributed from a maximum at the pipe centre to zero at the
soil surface. A more sophisticated calculation would inte-
Pipe grate the friction mobilised down the vertical slip planes by
unit weight, γp
using a more realistic variation of excess pore water pressure
Initial Soil friction
angle, φ
with depth.
embedment, H
Direction of pipe Unit weight, γ Of course, any excess pore water pressures that are devel-
movement oped will dissipate over time, and this must also be
accounted for. The variation of the excess pore water
pressure, ue , at a given pipe embedment depth, H, with time,
Diameter, D
can be conveniently assessed using Terzaghi’s one-dimen-
sional consolidation equation, given by
Fig. 1. Typical vertical slip model and definitions of parameters
@U @2U
¼ (3)
@T v @Z 2
the centre of the pipe, and this contrasts with the original
definition of H as the cover depth to the crown of the pipe. The following standard substitutions have been made:
More complex versions vary the angle for the slip planes z ue cv t
(e.g. White et al., 2001; Bonjean et al., 2008); however, for Z¼ ,U¼ , Tv ¼ 2
H uei H
loose sands, where the angle of dilation is close to zero, the
vertical slip plane assumption is adequate. Note that in this
paper both the slip plane segments and the weight of the soil where z is the depth below the seabed surface, t is the time
between the centre of the pipe and the crown of the pipe are after the excess pressure has developed, and cv is the coeffi-
taken into account; otherwise there will be no capacity for cient of vertical consolidation for the soil. For the pipe in
H/D less than 0.5. loose sand it is assumed that the initial excess pore pressure
profile, following some perturbation of the pipe, will be
For H/D . 0.5
triangular: zero at the seabed, uei at the pipe centre (at a
D2 depth of H) and zero at a depth of 2H below the seabed.
F ult ¼ ª9HDL  ª9 L þ ª9H 2 LK tan 9 (1) This initial distribution of excess pore water pressure is
8
shown on the left-hand side of Fig. 2. The boundary condi-
where D is the diameter of the pipe, L is the segmental tions for the solution of equation (3) are
length, ª9 is the effective unit weight of the soil, H is the 
Z 0,Z,1
embedment depth to the centre of the pipe, 9 is the effec- U¼ for and T v ¼ 0
tive friction angle and K is the lateral earth pressure coeffi- 2Z 1,Z,2
cient; the at-rest value is used, given by K ¼ 1  sin 9
(Jaky, 1948). This can be, and usually is, simplified to a U ¼ 0 for T v . 0 and Z ¼ 0, 2
dimensionless expression of the form
F ult D H
Np ¼ ¼1 þ K tan 9 (1b) so that the solution for the variation of excess pore pressure
ª9HDL 8H D with depth and time is
For H/D , 0.5 X1  
2
F ult U¼ 2
ð1Þm sin ðMZ Þ exp M 2 T v (4)
Np ¼ m¼0 M
ª9HDL
  sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2ffi where
1 D 1 H 1 H H 
¼1 sin 2   þ K tan 9 M¼ ð2m þ 1Þ
4H D 4 D D 2
(2)
In practice, offshore pipes are usually buried at depths Figure 2 shows qualitatively the relationship between this
between two and four diameters, and sometimes deeper, so equation and the movement of the pipe. In calculating the
equation (2) is not often applicable. At greater depths, where reduced soil resistance under a particular uplift velocity it is
the confining stresses are higher, there will be a transition to necessary to make an assumption about the initial excess
a flow-around mechanism (Schupp et al., 2006; Byrne et al., pore pressure. As the sand is very loose, it is assumed here
2008; Cheuk et al., 2008). The depth of transition depends that the initial excess pore pressure is sufficient to cause
on the density of the sand and the peak friction angle. This liquefaction – that is, uei ¼ ª9H – and this decays according
paper is concerned only with shallowly embedded pipes, so to equation (4). For most uplift rates the excess pore
that the vertical slip model captures the appropriate failure pressure will remain close to this value, but for very slow
mechanism. rates dissipation will occur before there is any noticeable
movement of the pipe, such that the drained resistance will
be relevant. It is also assumed that the initial step change in
EXCESS PORE WATER PRESSURES excess pore water pressure is generated only by the initial
The above expressions account for the hydrostatic water movement of the pipe, and that the subsequent upward
pressure by using the effective unit weight of the soil. If the movement does not cause any additional excess water pres-
pipe rises or is pulled up sufficiently fast in loose sand, it is sure to be developed.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE] on [21/03/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 384 BYRNE, SCHUPP, MARTIN, MACONOCHIE, OLIPHANT AND CATHIE

Seabed ue ⫽ 0 ue ⫽ 0 ue ⫽ 0

z
ue ⫽ f(t, z, cv)
H

D uei ⫽ γ⬘H

Excess pore New distribution

water pressure of excess pore
ue ⫽ 0 with depth ue ⫽ 0 water pressure ue ⫽ 0

Time t ⫽ 0 Time t ⫽ t1 Time t ⫽ t2

Fig. 2. Assumed distribution of excess pore water pressure with depth and time

EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT
The experiments were carried out at Oxford University
using the equipment shown in Fig. 3. This testing rig allows
a section of pipe to be pulled from the prepared soil bed at
different rates. The pipe, shown in Fig. 4, is made from
anodised aluminium alloy, and is instrumented with pore
water pressure sensors around the perimeter. It also has an
internal load cell to measure the uplift force on the middle
section of the pipe, so as to mitigate the effect of friction at
the pipe ends. The pipe diameter is 100 mm, the overall
length is 300 mm, and the active segmental length of the
pipe is 200 mm. The pipe is driven upwards or downwards
using a stepper-motor-controlled actuator. The stepper motor
controller is connected to a computer via an RS232 commu-
nications link, which enables controlled load or displacement
histories to be applied to the pipe. A long-stroke displace-
ment sensor measures the travel of the pipe over the full
range of the actuator. A smaller, high-resolution displace-
ment sensor (2 ìm) with a stroke of 1.25 mm is used for
measuring the initial pipeline displacement response. This
sensor can be engaged and disengaged at the appropriate
time during the pipe’s upward movement by the use of
magnets.
Another feature of the apparatus in Fig. 3 is that the soil
in the tank can be fluidised by using upward hydraulic
gradients. A pumping system circulates water taken from the
top of the tank back into the base below the soil sample. A
coarse filter layer system ensures an even pressure distribu-
tion across the base of the sample, thereby allowing uniform
fluidisation of the sample. This process matches closely the
jet-trenching installation method used in the field, although
the gradient in the tank is vertical, whereas in the field the
jetting is omnidirectional and highly turbulent. The soil
dispersion created in the field also has a higher porosity in
the fluidised state than is the case in the testing rig. Once
the soil has reached a sufficiently fluidised state, the pipe is
lowered to the target embedment depth and the soil is
allowed to settle over the pipe. A load control routine is
used during this phase to mimic the self-weight of the pipe,
to match closely the field situation. In all the experiments
described the soil settled over the pipe at its minimum
density (i.e. a relative density of zero), corresponding to an
effective unit weight of approximately 7.84 kN/m3 : The soil
used in these experiments was Redhill 110, which is a
uniformly graded silica sand with the grading curve shown
in Fig. 5. This soil was chosen because the grading curve
conformed to a typical North Sea sandbed. Various relevant
soil parameters are given in Table 1. Once the experiment Fig. 3. Pipeline uplift testing apparatus (from Byrne et al. (2008);
was set up, the pipe was pulled from the soil at a constant courtesy of OTC)

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE] on [21/03/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 UPLIFT OF SHALLOWLY BURIED PIPE SECTIONS IN SATURATED VERY LOOSE SAND 385

Dummy
behaviour was effectively drained. The speed of uplift in the
Adapter
saturated tests for drained loading was 0.002 mm/s. The
results confirm that the vertical slip expression in equation
(1) works well for loose sand, as discussed by a number of
other researchers. The critical-state friction angle is taken to
be 368, although it should be pointed out that this particular
limit equilibrium model is relatively insensitive to the cho-
sen value of the friction angle. The unit weight of the soil is
taken as 7.84 kN/m3 : Fig. 6 shows the peak values taken
Weighing cell
from a number of drained tests, made dimensionless by
5 ⫻ PPT (moment compensated) plotting N p ¼ F peak =ª9HDL against H/D, compared with the
prediction from the vertical slip model. The agreement is
(a)
good, and the predicted curve provides a lower bound to the
data shown. The data points also include a range of pipeline
Silicone diameters from 50 mm to 220 mm, as reported in Schupp et
al. (2006), giving confidence in extrapolating the laboratory
results to field scale.
A typical drained pullout test on the 100 mm diameter
model pipe starting from an embedment ratio (H/D) of 2.5
is shown in Fig. 7. This shows that the peak resistance is
mobilised very quickly, and as the test proceeds the resis-
tance reduces as the height of soil above the pipe reduces.
For the very loose sand the vertical slip model closely
matches the resistance mobilised with depth over the full
Isolated pipe
3·0
50 mm – dry
100 mm – dry
(b) 100 mm – saturated
2·5 220 mm – dry
Normalised uplift force, Np

Fig. 4. Instrumented model pipeline (from Byrne et al. (2008); Vertical slip model
courtesy of OTC) 2·0

100 1·5
90
80 1·0
Percentage passing: %

70
0·5
60
50
0
40 0 1 2 3 4 5
30 Embedment ratio, H/D

20 Fig. 6. Comparison of vertical slip model with drained test results

10 from loose sand
0
0 0·01 0·1 1 70
Particle diameter: mm Experimental data
60 Vertical slip model
Fig. 5. Grading curve for Redhill 110 sand
50
Uplift force, F: N

speed and readings from the various instruments were re- 40

corded. The logging rate was adjusted according to the type
of test being carried out and the detail required from the 30
test. For very slow pullout rates data were logged at 1 Hz, 20
but for fast pullout rates the logging frequency could be
increased up to 100 Hz. 10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH ⫺10 Embedment depth, z: mm
THEORY
The first set of experiments involved tests carried out in Fig. 7. Comparison of vertical slip model prediction with drained
dry sand and very slow tests in saturated sand, so that the pipe pullout result

Table 1. Properties of Redhill 110 sand (from Schupp, 2009)

d10 : ìm d50 : ìm emax ªmin : kN/m3 ªminsat : kN/m3 ª9minsat : kN/m3 Gs 9cs : degrees

75 120 1.04 12.65 17.65 7.84 2.63 36

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE] on [21/03/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 386 BYRNE, SCHUPP, MARTIN, MACONOCHIE, OLIPHANT AND CATHIE
pullout test, slightly underpredicting as the pipe approaches
the surface. For tests in saturated loose sand at higher uplift
rates the behaviour is different, owing to the effect of the
excess water pressures in the soil. For example, Fig. 8 shows
a pullout test from the same initial embedment depth as in
Fig. 7, but where the pipe has been pulled upwards at
1 mm/s, a rate at which a partially drained response is
induced. The excess pore water pressure developed at the
surface of the pipe, at the depth of the pipe centre, is also
plotted, showing a peak followed by a gradual decay as the
pipe is pulled from the soil. The decay is due to the
reduction in excess pore pressure from spatial and temporal
variations, as indicated in Fig. 2. Also plotted on the graph
in Fig. 8 is the result from the vertical slip expression for a
fully drained test. In the early stages of the test, when the
excess water pressures are high, the uplift resistance mobi-
lised by the pipe is much reduced compared with the
drained vertical slip model. As the excess pore water
pressures dissipate, the resistance approaches the drained
behaviour that is well predicted by the vertical slip model.
Figure 9 shows the experimental data recorded for the first
1.2 mm of movement of the test shown in Fig. 8. In this part
of the test the small-stroke displacement transducer was used
to obtain a high resolution of measurement of the initial
movement of the pipe. As the pipe is pulled, an initial
upward resistance is recorded on the pipe segment, but this
drops off to zero very quickly as positive excess pore water
pressures develop. The likely reason for the development of
the positive excess water pressures is the fast upward com-
pression and shearing of the very loose soil above the pipe
(e.g. see results from Byrne et al., 2008). Owing to the high
uplift rate, the excess pore water pressures are unable to
dissipate fully, resulting in a loss of effective stress and
60
Uplift force
Vertical slip model
50
Excess water pressure
40
Uplift force, F: N
30
20
10
0 0
0 50 100 150 200
⫺10 Embedment depth, z: mm
Fig. 8. Pullout test at 1 mm/s showing reduced peak capacity
1·6
1·4
1·2
Normalised uplift force, Np
1·0
0·8
0·6
0·4
0·2
0 0
2·496
⫺0·2
⫺0·4
Fig. 9. Pipe response at small displacements
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE] on [21/03/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
therefore uplift resistance. The excess pore water pressures
shown in Fig. 9 are normalised by the initial vertical effec-
tive stress at the current location of the pressure sensors.
These measurements indicate that the soil has liquefied at
the mid-point of the pipe as a result of the initial upward
movement of the pipe (shown by uei =ª9H  1). In absolute
terms, the excess pore water pressures measured at the top
and bottom of the pipe are very similar. This gives some
support, although only on a local basis, to the previously
stated assumption that the initial distribution of excess pore
water pressure is triangular. Further work is required to
assess this, and is likely to require placing pore pressure
sensors within the soil both above and below the pipe. As
the water pressures begin to dissipate, the force measured on
the pipe begins to increase. Note that, at the beginning of
the uplift test, suction is developed for a very short period
beneath the pipe, but this is overwhelmed by the positive
pressures developed elsewhere around the pipe.
Figure 10(a) shows the evolution over time of excess pore
water pressures at the top of the pipe for tests carried out at
different uplift rates from an initial embedment ratio of 2.5.
Fig. 10(b) shows the same measurements plotted against
displacement of the pipe rather than time. The uplift rate
varies from 0.1 mm/s to 5 mm/s, and the dissipation of
pressure with time is very similar for all tests. In all cases
the excess pressures are almost fully dissipated after about
40 s. This corresponds to a vertical upward displacement of
4 mm for the slowest test and 200 mm for the fastest test.
Of course, in the latter case the excess pressures are zero
after 40 s, because the top of the pipe is exposed at the soil
surface. Shown on the two graphs are predictions of the
excess pore water pressures using equation (4), a coefficient
of vertical consolidation for the soil of 0.0011 m2 /s and an
effective unit weight of 7.84 kN/m3 : This shows a good
3·0 match to all of the data. The hypothesis is that, after the
initial development of excess pore water pressure when the
Excess pore pressure, ue: kPa
2·5
pipe is set into motion, the movement of the pipe does not
2·0 cause any additional dilation or compression (i.e. the soil
being sheared is at critical state) and therefore no additional
1·5 pore pressure is generated. The initial excess pressure
1·0
depends on the initial velocity and embedment depth,
although for the three tests shown the same excess pressure
0·5 is developed. Note that the prediction above applies a one-
dimensional model to a two-dimensional problem; further
work is needed to assess whether this simplification requires
250 300
additional soil parameters to be introduced.
⫺0·5
This model for the development and dissipation of excess
pore water pressure can be used to adapt the vertical slip
1·6
Measured force
1·4
Vertical slip model
Normalised excess pore pressure, ue /γ⬘z
Excess pore pressure 1·2
Middle 1·0
Top
0·8
Bottom 0·6
0·4
0·2
2·498 2·500 2·502 2·504 2·506 2·508 2·510 2·512
⫺0·2
Normalised embedment depth, z/D
⫺0·4
 UPLIFT OF SHALLOWLY BURIED PIPE SECTIONS IN SATURATED VERY LOOSE SAND 387
1·75
0·1 mm/s simple model. Note that for slow rates there is more time for
1 mm/s the excess pore pressure to dissipate during the test, so the
1·50
5 mm/s
Excess pore pressure, ue: kPa

Predictions
result follows the drained vertical slip model for more of the
1·25 pullout. For the faster test there is insufficient time for the
1·00 water pressures to dissipate, so a much lower resistance is
established. In all instances the simple model matches the data
0·75 closely. Fig. 13 shows results for three tests, all at a rate of
0·1 mm/s
0·50
1 mm/s but starting from different embedment depths. The
model predicts reasonably well the response of the pipe, but
0·25 for the deepest initial embedment (H/D ¼ 3.5) the model
5 mm/s underpredicts the resistance, possibly owing to underpredict-
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
ing the rate of excess water pressure dissipation.
⫺0·25 Time: s
(a)
1·75 EFFECT OF DENSIFICATION
Experiment
1·50
To explore the effects of localised soil densification on the
Prediction
Excess pore pressure, ue: kPa

uplift resistance, a number of tests were carried out where

1·25 small-amplitude vibrations were applied to the pipe. Fig. 14
1·00
shows the effect of small perturbations on the pipe resistance.
One of the lines in the plot is the drained resistance of the
0·75 pipe, and a second is the resistance at a fast rate (8 mm/s)
5 mm/s
showing virtually zero pullout resistance. The remaining lines
0·50
in the figure are the results of fast tests (uplift at 8 mm/s)
0·25 1 mm/s 0·1 after a small perturbation has been applied to the pipe and
mm/s the resulting excess pressures have been allowed to dissipate
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
while the pipe has been held in position in the liquefied soil.
⫺0·25 Embedment depth, z: mm
This is equivalent to allowing the soil to consolidate around
(b) the pipe. The excitation applied was a rapid vertical move-
ment of 2 mm (0.02D) at a rate of 8 mm/s. After one
Fig. 10. Excess water pressures measured at top of pipe for a excursion the resistance under fast upward movement is
variety of pullout rates plotted against: (a) time; (b) displacement almost the same as the drained resistance, and after 10
excitations the resistance is four times higher. This is due to
model, as described previously, and is compared with the data densification of the soil around the pipe, which leads, on
from Fig. 8 in Fig. 11. A very favourable correlation is shown
with the measured data. Fig. 12 shows data for three experi-
80
ments at different rates compared with predictions from the Experiments
70
Predictions H/D ⫽ 3·5
60
60 Uplift force 3·0
50
Uplift force, F: N

Uplift force – predicted

Excess pore pressure, ue: kPa

50 Excess pore pressure 2·5 40 H/D ⫽ 2·5

Excess pore pressure – predicted
40 2·0 30
Uplift force, F: N

20 H/D ⫽ 1·5
30 1·5
10
20 1·0
0
10 0·5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
⫺10
Embedment depth, z: mm
0 0 ⫺20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
⫺10 Embedment depth, z: mm ⫺0·5 Fig. 13. Comparison of model for tests at the same rate but
different depths
Fig. 11. Comparison of prediction from model with experimental
test result 225 10 cycles

60
Experiments 0·1 mm/s
175
50 Predictions
1 mm/s
Uplift force, F: N

40
125 3 cycles
Uplift force, F: N

30
5 mm/s
20 75
Drained
10
1 cycle
0 25
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 No cycles
⫺10 Embedment depth, z: mm 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
⫺25
⫺20 Embedment depth, z: mm

Fig. 12. Comparison of model with test results at different rates Fig. 14. Effect of densification cycles on pipe response with an
from the same embedment depth upward velocity of 8 mm/s and compared with drained response

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE] on [21/03/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 388 BYRNE, SCHUPP, MARTIN, MACONOCHIE, OLIPHANT AND CATHIE
shearing, to the development of negative excess water pres- pressures developed around the pipe (see also Bonjean et al.
sures and therefore a higher operating effective stress around (2008) for a detailed analysis). Assuming that the excess
the pipe. The excess pore water pressure distribution is likely pore pressure varies linearly with depth from the seabed
to be much more complex than for the simple liquefaction surface, then a simple approximation would give a net force
case, so the above simple model will not be useful. (downward positive) on the pipe of
Figure 15 shows more detail for a test at 0.2 mm/s after  
four densification cycles. Also plotted on the graph is the D2 ue
F pipe,down ¼ ªp  ªw  (5)
result from the drained vertical slip model. Immediately on 4 H
uplift the resistance has increased, and this is associated with
a peak negative value for the excess pore water pressure This force must be countered by the reaction from the soil
measured at the mid-point of the pipe. On further movement skeleton. Equation (5) implies that for the pipe buried in the
the uplift resistance drops off, and is well predicted by the soil, and if there are no excess pore water pressures, the
vertical slip model. The excess pore water pressure ap- pipe unit weight must be greater than the unit weight of
proaches zero as the pipe is pulled further upwards. The water for the net force to be downward. If excess pore water
initial distribution of negative excess pore water pressure pressures are developed, then in order for the net force on
around the pipe indicates dilation of the sand (and therefore the pipe to remain downward the pipe unit weight must be
a more densely packed soil); however, it is not clear how far increased so that
from the pipe this zone of densified soil extends. Fig. 16
ue
provides summary data for the peak resistance for several ªp . ªw þ (6)
uplift tests after a small number of densification cycles, H
compared with the drained resistance. The peak value is If it is assumed that the soil has just liquefied, then the excess
significantly increased for all tests, even after one cycle of pore water pressure at the pipe centreline will be equal to
densification. The results also indicate that the peak uplift ª9H, and so for the net force on the pipe to be downward then
force is directly related to the rate of uplift.
ªp . ªw þ ª9 or ªp . ª (7)

IMPLICATIONS FOR BURIED PIPELINE DESIGN
Flotation
The results of the experiments provide a number of issues
for consideration in buried pipeline design. Consider the
potential for flotation of a buried offshore pipeline in sand.
The net force acting on the pipe will depend on the overall
density of the pipeline and the effect of any excess pore
100
Measured uplift force
Vertical slip model
It is sometimes the case that offshore pipelines are de-
signed with an overall density that is lower than the total unit
weight of the soil. It is also the case that this density can
vary as different fluids are pumped through the pipe, or if
the fluids are heated up. In these instances, and if the soil
liquefies, there will be a net upward force on the pipe, and
upward movement is possible, particularly as the uplift
resistance is reduced owing to the excess pore water pres-
1·5
sures. The experiments presented in this paper indicate that
it might be possible for the pipe to move upwards before any
uplift resistance is regained as the excess pore water pres-
Excess pore pressure, ue: kPa

80 Average measured excess 1·2

pore pressure
sures dissipate. If the pipe moves upwards sufficiently
quickly, compared with the drainage times, the pipe might
Uplift force, F: N

60 0·9
resurface before the soil regains its strength. If drainage
40 0·6 times are quick compared with the pipe movement, it is
possible that the pipe might be stopped before it reaches the
20 0·3 surface; however, the uplift resistance of the pipe at its new
lower embedment depth will be severely reduced (owing to
0 0 the lower depth of cover). This might have implications for
200 210 220 230 240 250 260 the design of the pipeline against upheaval buckling. The
⫺20 Embedment depth, z: mm ⫺0·3 issues raised above are particularly relevant for a pipe just
Fig. 15. Response of a pipe to an upward velocity of 0.2 mm/s
installed into the seabed (i.e. just after trenching) before
after four densification cycles there has been any chance for shakedown of the soil
skeleton. Bonjean et al. (2008) consider the slightly more
complex case of pipeline flotation before the soil has fully
100 0·002 mm/s liquefied owing to the increases in the pore pressure regime,
0·02 mm/s which will reduce the soil resistance (through modified equa-
90 0·2 mm/s
Drained resistance tion (1)) and increase the pipe buoyancy (through equation
Peak uplift force, Fult: N

80 (5)). Their concern is the flotation of pipes during a storm

event, which causes a build-up of excess pore pressure but is
70 not sufficient to cause full liquefaction of the soil.

60
Liquefaction events
50
A number of events might cause the soil backfill to
liquefy and therefore cause flotation. There are two main
40
possibilities.
30 (a) The first is that the pipe experiences vibrations, possibly
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of densification cycles
due to different-density fluids being pumped through the
pipe, to the use of cleaning tools that are pushed through
Fig. 16. Variation of peak measured force with uplift rate and the pipe, or to excess pore water pressures caused by
cycle number surface water waves (e.g. as described by Sumer et al.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE] on [21/03/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 UPLIFT OF SHALLOWLY BURIED PIPE SECTIONS IN SATURATED VERY LOOSE SAND
(2006) or Bonjean et al. (2008)) or seismic events. In
these cases, if the excess pore water pressures are not
sufficient to liquefy the soil completely, then there is the
possibility that consolidation around the pipe will occur,
and the soil density will increase (such as indicated in
Fig. 14). This suggests that in the short term liquefaction
is a possibility, but in the long term it is much less likely.
Of course, as described above (and by Bonjean et al.,
2008), this is provided the enhanced pore pressures are
not sufficient to cause the pipe to float upwards through
the soil owing to enhanced pipe buoyancy overcoming the
reduced soil resistance.
(b) The second possibility is that the pipe experiences a
buckling event, known as upheaval buckling, which
causes the soil to liquefy. Upheaval buckling can occur
when there is an increase of pipe fluid temperature. If the
pipe is sufficiently restrained at two points, then the
compressive axial load in the section of the pipe between
the two fixed points will increase, possibly to the level at
which the pipe may buckle if the resistance to buckling
from the surrounding soil is insufficient. If buckling
occurs, this might be sufficient to cause the soil to
liquefy, even at locations distant from the buckling event,
and for the pipe subsequently to unbury itself if its
density is sufficiently low.
Density and rate effects
The results in Figs 14 and 16 suggest that repeated
vibration of the pipe (leading to ‘shakedown’) should lead to
increased uplift resistances. Even in soil that is not at the
loosest density it is possible for positive excess pore pres-
sures to occur around the pipe, owing to compression of the
soil above the pipe. This leads to a reduction of the effective
stresses above and around the pipe, so that the pipe might
begin to unbury. However, as the pipe begins to move
upwards it is likely that negative excess pore pressures will
develop within the soil mass, in shear zones away from the
pipe, in order to suppress the dilation required for the denser
soil to shear. The overall excess pore water pressure regime
will therefore be a combination of that due to compression
directly above the pipe and that due to dilation in the
shearing zones further away from the pipe. It is likely that,
even for sands only just more densely packed than loose, the
net excess pore water pressures will be negative, so that the
overall operating effective stress on the pipe will be in-
creased and the uplift resistance will increase above the
drained resistance (the effect of this is shown in Fig. 13, for
example). Bransby & Ireland (2009) provide experimental
data from centrifuge tests that appear to illustrate this,
although they do not present any pore pressure measure-
ments. White et al. (2001) estimate that the transition from
contracting to dilating soil might be at a relative density of
approximately 10%, but more work is required to assess this
properly in the context of the pipeline problem.
The increase in uplift resistance with rate for denser soils
is likely to suppress any flotation problems, but a question
arises as to whether it is useful for the upheaval buckling
problem. The main issue is the understanding of the time-
dependent response of the buckling buried pipe. A perfect
Euler strut does not move sideways until the buckling load
is reached, at which stage a bifurcation exists between the
strut remaining straight and the strut buckling. The transi-
tion is highly dynamic, involving fast rates. In this ideal-
ised case no rate-dependent response from the soil would
be mobilised until buckling actually occurred. Of course, a
buried pipe is not a perfect strut, and so a significant
amount of upward movement might be expected, depending
on how significant the imperfection is, prior to the actual
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE] on [21/03/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
389
buckling load being reached. This movement might mobi-
lise a rate-dependent soil response; however, this would
depend on the soil drainage characteristics by comparison
with the pipeline speed. If the soil uplift resistance reduces
with an increase in rate, as shown for very loose soil in
this paper, then an increase in upward movement could be
expected and a more rapid progression towards a buckling
failure. It would therefore be prudent to avoid this behav-
iour by ensuring that soil backfill is sufficiently densified
after placement, or sufficiently free draining, that loss of
strength does not occur.
If, on the other hand, the soil resistance increases above
the drained resistance as the pipe moves, then it can be
expected that when the pipe stops moving, or begins to
slow down, the rate-dependent response will revert (ulti-
mately) to the drained resistance, as the excess pore water
pressures dissipate. During the pipeline buckling event the
axial load in the pipe is unlikely to reduce, and so, as the
downward soil resistance reduces, the pipe will again
begin to move upwards. There will therefore be a complex
interaction between the movement of the buckling pipe
and the soil resistance.
In addition, the three-dimensional nature of the pipe must
be accounted for, where different parts of the pipe along the
length of the buckling section of pipe will be moving at
different upward rates. The section of pipe in the middle of
the buckle will be moving fastest, while sections at either
end will be mobilising only the drained resistance. It is felt
that, in this design scenario, the drained soil resistance will
be the limiting resistance to use in the calculations, and it
would not be prudent to rely on enhanced capacities due to
a rate-dependent response. Further work is required to verify
these broad conclusions. The issue of initial stiffness is a
different matter, and is not covered here.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
This paper has presented experimental data showing the
behaviour of shallowly buried pipe sections pulled upwards
in very loose, saturated sand under conditions of plane
strain. The data indicate that the initial uplift resistance
reduces with the rate of uplift, owing to positive excess pore
pressures developed around the pipe. The magnitude of these
pressures was, for the experiments presented, sufficient to
cause initial liquefaction of the soil backfill. The pore
pressure dissipation was modelled according to Terzaghi’s
consolidation theory. A simple mechanical model that takes
the drained resistance for a pipe moving upwards through
the soil and accounts for the development and dissipation of
excess pore water pressure was able to predict the experi-
ments presented. The experimental work provides a possible
mechanical basis and calculation approach for predicting
flotation of pipelines embedded in very loose sand. It should
be noted that the work presented here relates to a shallowly
buried pipe (i.e. H/D up to about 5), for which the vertical
slip model represents an appropriate failure mechanism.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the generous funding of the
research from the EPSRC (Grant GR/S8693801 and a
CASE for New Academics award) and from Technip UK
Ltd. Ned Gould helped with some of the experimental work
described here as part of his fourth-year project. The views
expressed in this paper represent the views of the authors
alone, and not necessarily of their companies. Fig. 3 and
Fig. 4(b) are reproduced with the permission of the copy-
right owner, OTC, and further reproduction is prohibited
without permission.
 390 BYRNE, SCHUPP, MARTIN, MACONOCHIE, OLIPHANT AND CATHIE
NOTATION liquefiable soil. Proc. Offshore Technol. Conf., Houston, TX,
cv coefficient of vertical consolidation paper OTC 19668.
D diameter of pipe Bransby, M. F. & Ireland, J. (2009). Rate effects during pipeline
d10 particle size descriptor upheaval buckling in sand. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Geotech.
d50 particle size descriptor Engng 162, No. 5, 247–256.
emax maximum void ratio Byrne, B. W., Schupp, J., Martin, C. M., Oliphant, J., Maconochie,
F uplift force A. & Cathie, D. N. (2008). Experimental modelling of the
Fult peak uplift force unburial behaviour of pipelines. Proc. Offshore Technol. Conf.,
Gs specific gravity Houston, TX, paper OTC 19573.
H embedment depth after installation Cheuk, C. Y., White, D. J. & Bolton, M. D. (2008). Uplift
K lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest mechanisms of pipes buried in sand. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoen-
L segmental length viron. Engng 134, No. 2, 154–163.
Np normalised uplift force Jaky, J. (1948). Pressure in soils. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
t time Found. Engng, Rotterdam 1, 103–107.
ue excess pore water pressure Schaminee, P. E. L., Zorn, N. F. & Schotman, G. J. M. (1990).
uei initial excess pore water pressure Soil response for pipeline upheaval buckling analyses:
z embedment depth full scale laboratory tests and modelling. Proc. Offshore
ª unit weight of soil Technol. Conf., Houston, TX, paper OTC 6486, 563–572.
ª9 effective unit weight of soil Schupp, J. (2009). Upheaval buckling and flotation of buried off-
ªmin minimum weight of soil shore pipelines. DPhil thesis, Department of Engineering
ªminsat minimum weight of saturated soil Science, University of Oxford, UK.
ªp unit weight of pipe Schupp, J., Byrne, B. W., Martin, C. M., Oliphant, J., Maconochie,
ªw unit weight of water A. & Cathie, D. (2006). Pipeline unburial behaviour in loose
 friction angle sand. Proc. 25th Int. Conf. Offshore Mech. Arctic Engng, Ham-
9 effective friction angle burg, paper OMAE2006-92542.
9cs effective critical state friction angle Sumer, B. M., Truelson, C. & Fredsoe, J. (2006). Liquefaction
around pipelines under waves. ASCE J. Waterway, Port, Coastal
Ocean Engng 132, No. 4, 266–275.
White, D. J., Barefoot, A. J. & Bolton, M. D. (2001). Centrifuge
REFERENCES modelling of upheaval buckling in sand. Int. J. Phys. Modelling
Bonjean, D., Erbrich, C. T. & Zhang, J. (2008). Pipeline flotation in Geotech. 2, No. 1, 19–28.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE] on [21/03/23]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.