Applied Ocean Research 132 (2023) 103482

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Envelopes for the soil-resistance capacity of a shallowly embedded pipeline

in clay under three-dimensional combined loadings
Yinghui Tian a, *, Tao Zhou b, c, Mark J Cassidy a, Le Wang d
a
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
b
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems and Ocean Graduate School, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia
c
Singular Health Group, West Leederville, WA, 6007, Australia
d
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Envelopes are developed for the soil-resistance capacity of pipelines shallowly embedded in clay subjected to
Three-dimensional loading combined three-dimensional vertical (V), horizontal (H) and axial (T) loading. A three-dimensional pipe-soil
Offshore pipeline interface is developed to account for the effect of tension and separation between the pipeline and soil, which is
Capacity envelope
used in numerical finite element modelling. Each of the 1800 finite element analyses defined a unique V-H-T
Pipe-soil interface
condition causing failure of the soil around the pipe for a variety of pipe embedment. Using these results, a
closed-form mathematical expression expresses the capacity envelope of the soil resistance to the pipe under
three-dimensional V-H-T loading that is only a function of the pipeline embedment and the tension at the pipe-
soil interface. Offshore pipeline engineers can use this expression to estimate the soil resistance under combined
three-dimensional loading in their assessment of the stability and integrity of offshore pipelines.

1. Introduction expansion and contraction induced by HPHT condition changes leads to

Most offshore pipelines are laid directly on the seabed. With shallow
embedment, of often less than half the pipeline diameter, the pipeline is
exposed to environmental loading. These loads and the corresponding
soil resistances are three-dimensional in nature, as shown in Fig. 1, and
are represented by vertical (V) and horizontal (H) loads on a cross-
section of pipe and an axial (T) load along the pipe. However, a repre­
sentative two-dimensional cross-section is typically used in the current
practice to assess the on-bottom stability and integrity of the pipeline.
Studies have determined the vertical (V) and horizontal (H) pipeline
response using plasticity analysis (e.g. Cheuk et al., 2008; Randolph and
White, 2008), physical experimental testing (e.g. Zhang et al., 2002;
Hodder and Cassidy, 2010; Tian et al., 2010) and numerical finite
element analysis (e.g. Merifield et al., 2008; Chatterjee et al., 2012;
Dutta et al., 2014; Zhou et al. 2018a). Note that the axial resistance (T)
has previously either been neglected or addressed in a simplistic
uncoupled way (Hededal and Strandgaard, 2008; Tian and Cassidy,
2009).
It is especially important to account for three-dimensional loading
for the long offshore pipelines operating at high pressures and temper­
atures (HPHT) in deep water oil and gas developments. The axial
a variation in the axial soil resistance (T), as well as the coupled vertical
(V) and lateral (H) resistances. Integrity issues, such as lateral buckling
and axial walking, pose threats to the safety and serviceability of
offshore pipelines (Carr et al. 2003; White and Randolph, 2007; Cheuk
et al., 2008) and therefore demand a better understanding of the seabed
resistance in terms of the three-dimensional pipeline response and the
pipe-soil interaction mechanism within a coupled framework.
A versatile approach that can capture the three-dimensional soil
resistance is to formulate a capacity envelope in terms of the allowable
combined vertical (V), horizontal (H) and axial (T) loadings. A system­
atic finite element study was carried out in this note to determine the
envelope for the three-dimensional undrained V-H-T capacity of pipe­
lines shallowly embedded in clay seabeds. To this end, a pipe-soil
interaction model is required to account for the suction between the
pipe and the surrounding soil resulting from the generation of negative
pore pressure (Hodder and Cassidy, 2010). Such a pipe-soil interface
model was developed in this study by extending the two-dimensional
interface model of Zhou et al. (2018) to describe the degree of suction
generated between the pipe and soil. First, the theoretical solution was
validated against established numerical results. Then, envelopes for the
three-dimensional combined loading capacity were developed as a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yinghui.tian@unimelb.edu.au (Y. Tian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2023.103482
Received 3 June 2022; Received in revised form 24 November 2022; Accepted 19 January 2023
Available online 25 January 2023
0141-1187/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Tian et al.
Fig. 1. Finite element mesh and boundary conditions for the embedment w/D
= 0.3.
simple function of the pipeline embedment and the tension at the
pipe-soil interface. Offshore pipeline engineers can use these results to
evaluate the soil resistance capacity under combined loading for
assessing pipeline stability and integrity.
2. Numerical analysis approach
2.1. Finite element model
Finite element (FE) analyses were conducted based on three-
dimensional models that were implemented using a user subroutine
(UINTER) in ABAQUS (Dassault Systèmes, 2012). The pipeline was
‘wished-in-place’, where the pipe diameter is denoted as D and the
embedment is denoted as w. The embedment ratio w/D was varied from
0.1 to 0.5, which is the zone of practical interest for shallowly embedded
on-bottom pipelines.
Fig. 1 shows the constructed model for a slice of a long pipeline. To
ensure an identical response of the corresponding nodes on the front and
back planes, the MPC (multiple-point constraints) technique was used
(see Dassault Systèmes, 2012 for details). The pipe was modelled as a
rigid body because the pipe had a significantly higher stiffness than the
soil, and the loading point (i.e., reference point) of the pipe was chosen
Fig. 2. User-defined interaction model.
2
Applied Ocean Research 132 (2023) 103482
at the geometric centre. The soil domain was set as 10D × 5D × 1D,
which was proven in a preliminary mesh sensitivity study to be suffi­
ciently large to prevent boundary interference. The two lateral sides of
the soil domain were constrained to only move along the vertical di­
rection, whereas the bottom of the soil domain was fixed in all di­
rections. Fig. 1 shows the mesh of the finite element model
corresponding to w/D = 0.3, which comprises ~157,000 8-node linear
brick elements C3D8 (see Dassault Systèmes, 2012 for details). Fine
meshes with a minimum element size of ~D/200 were used around the
pipe to ensure computational accuracy. A sensitivity analysis of the
mesh density showed that a good balance between the computational
efficiency and accuracy of the results was achieved.
The soil was assumed to be a homogeneous elastic/perfectly plastic
material that satisfied the Tresca yield criterion, which is suitable for
modelling undrained soil behaviour. The undrained soil shear strength
su was taken as 10 kPa, despite the absolute value of su does not change
the conclusions reached in this study when all the results are normalised.
The elastic soil behaviour was modelled using a Poisson’s ratio of 0.49
(to simulate no volume change for the undrained condition, while
ensuring numerical stability) and a Young’s modulus E = 400su, which is
a reasonable representation of undrained clay soil (Merifield et al.,
2008, 2009, Zhou et al., 2018).
2.2. Pipe–soil interface
Zhou et al. (2018) previously developed a zero-thickness pipe-soil
interface model in two-dimensional space accounting for the effect of
tension between the pipe and soil. This interface model was updated and
extended to three dimensions in this study, where the pipe-soil inter­
action in the normal direction is as shown in Fig. 2(a). As the elements of
the pipe and soil approach each other (where a positive ε indicates
overclosure), a contact pressure σ is generated with a large stiffness Kn. A
large value of Kn, i.e., 106 kPa/m, was adopted to produce a ‘hard
contact’ to minimise contact penetration (Curnier and Alart, 1988).
When the contacting surfaces tend to separate, a predetermined tension
stress σ t is specified to simulate suction. By adjusting σt, the pipe uplift
resistance Vt can be set to a portion η of the maximum compression
capacity Vmax (i.e., η = Vt/Vmax).
Fig. 2(b) shows the mechanical response of the soil between the
contact surfaces in the two tangential directions based on a Coulomb
friction model using the penalty algorithm (Ju and Taylor, 1988). When
the relative sliding γi is less than a tolerance γcrit (taken as 0.005 times
Y. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 132 (2023) 103482

Table 1
Analysis cases.
Analysis Analysis V-H-T Embedment Tension Number
batch case ratio w/D coefficient of Cases
η
1 1-30 Pure V 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0, 0.2, 0.4, 5×
0.4, 0.5 0.6, 0.8, 1 6=30
31-60 Pure H 5×
6=30
61-90 Pure T 5×
6=30
91-360 Varying V-H 9×5×
6=270
361-600 Varying V-T 8×5×
6=240
601-810 Varying H-T 7×5×
6=210
2 811- V= 3 × 11 ×
1800 0.25Vmax, 5×
0.50Vmax 6=990
and
Fig. 3. Example of results obtained from a probe test.
0.75Vmax
Varying H-T

Table 2
the element length in this study), i.e., |γi| ≤ γcrit, the sliding shear stress Validation of capacity factors in the axial, vertical compression and horizontal
corresponds to stiff elastic behaviour, where the stiffness is denoted as bearing directions.
Kt. When the sliding |γ i| > γcrit, the maximum frictional shear stress τcrit Embedment This study Randolph Merifield ‘Skin
= µσ is reached, where σ is the normal pressure and µ is the friction ratio and White et al. (2008) friction’
factor. The subscript i = 1, 2 denotes the two tangential directions. The (2008) model
Ncv Nch Nct Ncv Ncv Nch Nct
constitutive relationship of the three-dimensional interface model is
defined in terms of the consistent stiffness matrix presented below (Ang, 0.1 3.11 0.50 0.64 3.37 3.06 0.49 0.64
1993, 1994): 0.2 4.18 0.90 0.93 4.21 4.13 0.87 0.93
0.3 4.76 1.26 1.16 4.81 4.71 1.21 1.16
⎡ Kn 0 0 ⎤ 0.4 5.23 1.58 1.37 5.33 5.18 1.54 1.37
{ } ⎢ ( ) ⎥{ } 0.5 5.48 1.87 1.57 5.64 5.43 1.85 1.57
Δσ ⎢ ε γ1 (γ1 )2 γ1 γ2 ⎥ Δε
⎢ μK n 1− Kt − Kt ⎥
⎢ 2 2 ⎥ Δγ
Δτ1 = ⎢ |ε| γ crit (γcrit ) (γ crit ) ⎥ 1 (|γi |
⎢ ( ) ⎥
Δτ2 ⎢ ⎥ Δγ
⎣ ε γ2 γ1 γ2 (γ 2 )2 ⎦ 2 and H-T loading spaces and a zero load in the third dimension. Three
μK n − Kt 1− Kt
|ε| γ crit (γcrit )2 (γ crit )2 special cases of uniaxial loading were considered, and the three uniaxial
≤ γ crit ) capacities Vmax, Hmax, and Tmax were calculated. The second batch was
conducted using a general three-dimensional V-H-T loading, where a
(1a)
vertical load V was first applied to a proportion of the ultimate uniaxial
⎡ Kn 0 0 ⎤ vertical capacity Vmax (i.e., 0.25Vmax, 0.50Vmax and 0.75Vmax) and then
{ } ⎢ ( ) ⎥{ } maintained constant while the pipe was displaced laterally and axially
Δσ ⎢ ε γ1 (γ )2 γ γ ⎥ Δε with a specified displacement ratio. A total of 60 probe tests were con­
⎢ μ Kn 1 − 1 2 Kt − 1 22 Kt ⎥
Δτ1 ⎢
= ⎢ |ε| |γ| |γ| |γ| ⎥ Δγ
⎥ 1 (|γi |>γcrit ) ducted for each of five pipe embedment ratios w/D = [0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4,
⎢ ) ⎥
Δτ2 ⎢ (
2 ⎥ Δγ 0.5]. For each probe test, six scenarios were considered with values of
⎣ ε γ2 γ γ (γ ) ⎦
the tension coefficient η of [0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0]. Thus, a total of 5 ×
2
μKn − 1 22 Kt 1 − 2 2 Kt
|ε| |γ| |γ| |γ| 60 × 6 = 1800 analysis cases were conducted and are listed in Table 1.
(1b) The results of the probe test for the case of w/D = 0.4 and η = 0.8 are
selected to show in Fig. 3, where the pipe was displacement 1.4D
where Kn and Kt are the normal and tangential stiffnesses, respectively; vertically and 1.4D horizontally. The stabilised soil resistance values (i.
Δε and Δγi are the increments in the normal and tangential displace­ e. the plateau in the resistance-displacement plots) determined from one
ments, respectively; and Δσ and Δτi are the increments in the normal probe test was considered as the pipe capacity for that test and a point on
and tangential stresses, respectively. the failure envelope. The whole failure envelope was then fitted from the
The maximum allowable shear stress at the interface, τmax, was set to pipe capacity of all the probe tests.
αsu, where α denotes the interface roughness. A fully rough contact (α =
1) was used in all the analyses performed in this study. 3. Results of the finite element analysis

3.1. Validation and uniaxial capacity factor

2.3. Probe test
Table 2 shows the calculated normalised uniaxial capacity factor, i.
To obtain the envelope for the three-dimensional V-H-T capacity, the
e., the vertical Ncv = Vmax/DLsu, lateral Nch = Hmax/DLsu, and axial Nct =
‘probe test’ approach (see Bransby and Randolph, 1998; Gourvenec and
Tmax/DLsu, for various embedments in the absence of tension, i.e., η = 0.
Randolph, 2003; Supacharawote et al., 2005) was employed, where the
L denotes the contact length in the axial direction. Note that DL corre­
pipe was displaced using displacement control until soil resistance
sponds to a nominal area and not the real contact area in order to
reaching stable values. Two batches of probe tests were conducted in
simplify interpretation of the results. Comparing the calculated vertical
this study. The first batch was conducted in two-dimensional V-H, V-T

3
Y. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 132 (2023) 103482

Fig. 6. Normalised capacity envelopes for the pipeline under combined V-

Fig. 4. Normalised bearing capacity against embedment. T loading.

Ncv = 7.40(w/D)0.4 (2a)

( )
Nch = 3.26(w/D)0.82 + 5.54η − 5.02η2 (w/D)0.57 (2b)

The axial capacity can be calculated using a so-called ‘skin friction’

model, where the axial capacity is the product of the pipe-soil contact
area and soil shear strength su. As shown in the inset of Fig. 4, the contact
length of the pipe to the soil at an embedment of w is Dcos− 1(1-2 w/D)
and thus the axial bearing capacity factor Nct can be calculated as:
( )
2w
Nct = cos− 1 1 − (2c)
D
Fig. 4 shows that the uniaxial bearing capacity factor predicted by
Eq. (2) is in perfect agreement with the numerical result obtained in this
study.

3.2. Capacity envelope in the V-H loading space (T = 0)

Fig. 5. Normalised capacity envelopes for the pipeline under combined V-
H loading. Fig. 5 shows the envelopes for the normalised V-H capacity obtained
by the FE analysis for the embedment w/D = 0.3. The vertical and
horizontal loads are normalised by the corresponding uniaxial bearing
capacity as V/Vmax and H/Hmax. The horizontal and vertical uplift ca­
capacity factor Ncv against the corresponding values obtained using a
pacities increase with the tension coefficient η, and hence, the shape of
plasticity limit analysis (Randolph and White 2008), finite element
the dimensionless capacity envelopes shifts with η. Zhou et al. (2018)
analysis (Merifield et al., 2008) and limit analysis (Martin and White
proposed the following equation to describe the envelope for the V-H
2012) resulted in differences within 2% for each embedment. The lateral
capacity:
capacity factor Nch was found to be in close agreement with that
( )β1 ( )β2
calculated by Merifield et al. (2008). The theoretical axial capacity (the H V V
− β0 +η 1− =0 (3)
calculated product of the real pipe-soil contact area and soil shear Hmax Vmax Vmax
strength su) determined by Merifield et al. (2008) was also in good
agreement with the corresponding value calculated in this study. where β0 = β (β1 +β2 )β1 +β2
and the parameters β1 = 0.63 and β2 = 0.75.
Fig. 4 shows the normalised capacity factors Ncv, Nch and Nct versus β2 β2 (1+η)β1 +β2
β1
1

the embedment ratio w/D for η = 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0. Ncv, Nch and
Nct are strongly correlated with the embedment ratio w/D. Under ver­
tical compression or axial loading, the pipe does not separate from the
soil; thus, no tension is generated between the pipe and soil. When the
pipeline is subjected to horizontal loading, tension is generated behind
the pipe to prevent horizontal movement. Thus, the tension coefficient η
does not appear to influence the vertical and axial capacity factors (Nct
and Ncv, respectively) but significantly affects the horizontal capacity
factor Nch. The vertical and horizontal capacity factors (Ncv and Nch,
respectively) for different embedments considering the effect of tension
are expressed below.
Fig. 5 shows that the envelopes for the normalised V-H capacity obtained
by FE analysis is in good agreement with the fitting curve given by Eq.
(3) for all embedments.
3.3. Capacity envelope in the V-T loading space (H = 0)
Fig. 6 shows the envelopes for the normalised V-T capacity obtained
by FE analysis for the embedment w/D = 0.3. The axial and vertical
loads are normalised by the corresponding bearing capacities as T/Tmax
and V/Vmax. For the range of -0.8 < V/Vmax < 0.8, there is almost no
observable coupling between the axial and vertical capacities. Thus,
pure sliding is observed in this regime. The axial and vertical capacities

4
Y. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 132 (2023) 103482

Fig. 7. Dimensionless and normalised capacity envelopes for the pipeline under
combined H-T loading.

are only coupled over a relatively small range, i.e., V/Vmax > 0.8 and V/
Vmax < -0.8.
The V-T capacity can be fit as given below.
[ ( )2 ]0.5 /
T V/Vmax − 0.8
= 1− forV Vmax > 0.8 (4a)
Tmax 0.2

/
T
= 1for − 0.8 < V Vmax < 0.8 (4b)
Tmax
[ ( )2 ]0.5 /
T V/Vmax + 0.8η
= 1− forV Vmax < − 0.8 (4c)
Tmax 0.2η

The goodness-of-fit for the curve is shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 8. Normalised capacity envelopes for the pipeline under T-V-H loading.

3.4. Capacity envelope in the H-T loading space (V = 0) The following equation can be used to fit the coupled axial and
horizontal capacities.
Fig. 7(a) and (b) show the dimensionless and normalised capacities [ ( )2 ]0.3 /
obtained by FE analysis for the embedment w/D = 0.3. There is almost T
= 1−
H/Hmax − 0.4
forH Hmax > 0.4 (5a)
no observable coupling between the axial and horizontal capacities over Tmax 0.6
the range of H/Hmax < 0.4. Thus, pure sliding is also observed in this
regime.

5
Y. Tian et al. Applied Ocean Research 132 (2023) 103482

Fig. 9. Envelope for the three-dimensional capacity for η = 0.6.

/
T
= 1forH Hmax < 0.4 (5b)
Tmax
Fig. 7(b) shows there is less than a 5% difference between the FE
results for the embedment w/D = 0.3 and the prediction of Eq. (5).

3.5. Capacity envelope in the V-H-T loading space

Fig. 8 shows the capacity in the normalised H-T loading space for
vertical loads of V = 0.25Vmax, 0.5Vmax and 0.75Vmax for the embedment
w/D = 0.3. The horizontal and axial capacities are influenced by the
magnitude of the vertical load. As the vertical load increases, the axial
and horizontal capacities decrease, while the capacity envelope con­
tracts towards the origin (H = 0, T = 0). The tension has an increasingly
significant influence on the capacity envelope as the vertical load
increases.
Figs. 5–8 can be regarded as a two-dimensional slice of the three-
dimensional capacity envelope. The following mathematical expres­
sion is proposed for the envelope of the three-dimensional V-H-T ca­
pacity of a pipeline:
[( )α1 ( )α3 ]1/α1 ( )β 1 ( )β 2
H T V V
+ α2 − β0 +η 1− =0 (6)
Hmax Tmax Vmax Vmax

(β1 +β2 )β1 +β2

where β0 = β1 β1 β2 β2 (1+η)β1 +β2
, and the parameters β1 = 0.634 and β2 =
0.749 are suggested from Eq. (3) (Zhou et al. 2018). The best fit to the
results of the finite element analysis is obtained for α1 = 1.42, α2 = 0.49
and α3 = 4.29.
Fig. 9 shows the envelope for the three-dimensional capacity pre­
dicted by Eq. (6) for the case of η = 0.6. Fig. 10 is a projection on the
three planes of the capacity envelopes shown in Fig. 8 determined using
the finite element analysis against the prediction of Eq. (6) for the
embedment w/D = 0.3 and the tension coefficients η = 0.2, 0.6 and 1.0.
Note that the capacity envelope represents the best fit of all 1800 cases,
Fig. 10. Comparison of the results obtained by the finite element analysis and
and slight differences between this envelope and that for individual the prediction of Eq. (6).
cases are practically inevitable. The comparison shows that Eq. (6)
captures the evolution of the capacity envelopes considering the effect of
tension.
4. Failure mechanisms

To illustrate the failure mechanism, Fig. 11 shows the soil displace­

ment vector in the view of V-H plane by taking the example of w/D =

6
Y. Tian et al.
Fig. 11. Failure mechanisms for pipe with w/D = 0.3.
0.3. The three rows correspond to η = 0.2, 0.6 and 1.0 while the four
columns show the soil displacement plot for pure vertical uplifting,
vertical uplifting with axial load T=0.9Tmax, pure horizontal pushing
and horizontal pushing with T=0.9Tmax.
For the pure vertical uplifitng as shown in the first column, the effect
of the tension on uplift resistance is obvious. With the increase of η (from
0.2 to 1.0), the mobilised soil area increases significantly. With the axial
load of T =0.9Tmax, as shown in the second column, the corresponding
mobilised area decrease and this explains the couple effect in Fig. 6.
For pure horizontal pushing, as shown in the third column, the
activated area of soil increases with η which explains the reason for the
increase of Nch shown in Fig. 4. With tension considered, the soil behind
the pipe tends to be mobilised and a ‘two-side’ failure mechanism can be
seen when η = 1.0 (cross-referring Dingle et al. 2008 and Zhou et al.
2018 for details). With the existence of T =0.9Tmax, as shown in the
fourth column, the mobilised area decreases, which explains the coupled
resistance as shown in Fig. 7.
5. Conclusion
Three dimensional finite element modelling of a pipe shallowly
embedded in clay soil was carried out where 1800 analysis cases were
conducted to explore the soil resistance capacity. The envelope for the
three-dimensional soil resistance capacity was obtained by fitting all the
finite element results. The envelope is a function of the pipe embedment
ratio w/D and tension coefficient η. This expression could be used to
assess the three-dimensional capacity of offshore pipelines in pipeline
stability and integrity analysis.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yinghui Tian: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original
draft, Validation, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Funding
acquisition. Tao Zhou: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Valida­
tion, Formal analysis, Data curation. Mark J Cassidy: Conceptualiza­
tion, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Le Wang:
Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Validation, Formal analysis,
Data curation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
7
Applied Ocean Research 132 (2023) 103482
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
Part of this research work (developing 3D interface model) was un­
dertaken with support from the Australian Research Council Discovery
Project (DP190103315). The corresponding author appreciate the ARC
Future Fellowship (FT200100457) to allow concentrating on offshore
geotechnics research.
References
Ang, G., 1993. Implementation of Coulomb Friction in User Subroutine FRIC using the
Penalty Method. HKS Technical Note.
Ang, G., 1994. Lagrange Implementation of Coulomb Friction Using User Subroutine
Fric. HKS Technical Note.
Bransby, M.F., Randolph, M.F., 1998. Combined loading of skirted foundations.
Geotechnique 48 (5), 637–655.
Carr, M., Bruton, D., Leslie, D., 2003. Lateral buckling and pipeline walking, a challenge
for hot pipelines. In: Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, pp. 1–36.
Chatterjee, S., White, D.J., Randolph, M.F., 2012. Numerical simulations of pipe-soil
interaction during large lateral movements on clay. Geotechnique 62 (8), 693–705.
Cheuk, C.Y., White, D.J., Bolton, M.D., 2008. Uplift mechanisms of pipes buried in sand.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (2), 154–163.
Cheuk, C.Y., White, D.J., Dingle, H.R.C., 2008. Upper bound plasticity analysis of a
partially-embedded pipe under combined vertical and horizontal loading. Soils and
Foundations 48 (1), 133–140.
Curnier, A., Alart, P., 1988. A generalized newton method for contact problems with
friction. J. Mec. Theor. Appl. 7, 67–82.
Dassault, Systèmes, 2012. Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual. SIMULIA, Providence, RI.
Dingle, H.R.C., White, D.J., Gaudin, C., 2008. Mechanisms of pipe embedment and
lateral breakout on soft clay. Can. Geotech. J. 45 (5), 636–652.
Dutta, S., Hawlader, B., Phillips, R., 2014. Finite element modeling of partially embedded
pipelines in clay seabed using Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian method. Can. Geotech.
J. 52 (1), 58–72.
Gourvenec, S., Randolph, M.F., 2003. Effect of strength non-homogeneity on the shape of
capacity envelopes for combined loading of strip and circular foundations on clay.
Geotechnique 53 (6), 575–586.
Hededal, O., Strandgaard, T., 2008. 3D Elasto-plastic spring element for pipe-soil
interaction. Scand. Oil - Gas Mag. 36 (7/8), 110–113.
Hodder, M.S., Cassidy, M.J., 2010. A plasticity model for predicting the vertical and
lateral behaviour of pipelines in clay soils. Geotechnique 60 (4), 247–263.
Ju, J.W., Taylor, R.L., 1988. A perturbed Lagrangian formulation for the finite-element
solution of nonlinear frictional contact problems. J. Mec. Theor. Appl. 7, 1–14.
Martin, C.M., White, D.J., 2012. Limit analysis of the undrained bearing capacity of
offshore pipelines. Geotechnique 62 (9), 847.
Merifield, R.S., White, D.J., Randolph, M.F., 2008. The ultimate undrained resistance of
partially embedded pipelines. Geotechnique 58 (6), 461–470.
Y. Tian et al.
Merifield, R.S., White, D.J., Randolph, M.F., 2009. Effect of surface heave on response of
partially embedded pipelines on clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (6),
819–829.
Randolph, M.F., White, D.J., 2008. Upper-bound yield envelopes for pipelines at shallow
embedment in clay. Geotechnique 58 (4), 297–301.
Supacharawote, C., Randolph, M.F., Gourvenec, S., 2005. The effect of crack formation
on the inclined pullout capacity of suction caissons. In: Proc. 11th Int. Conf.
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. Turin, Italy, 2, pp. 577–584.
Tian, Y., Cassidy, M.J., Gaudin, C., 2010. Advancing pipe-soil interaction models through
geotechnical centrifuge testing in calcareous sand. Appl. Ocean Res. 32, 294–297.
Applied Ocean Research 132 (2023) 103482
Tian, Y., Cassidy, M.J., 2009. Pipe-soil interaction analysis with a three-dimensional
macroelement model. In: 19th International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference. Osaka, Japan, pp. 21–26.
White, D.J., Randolph, M.F., 2007. Seabed characterisation and models for pipeline-soil
interaction. In: 17th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.
Lisbon, Portugal, 17, pp. 193–204.
Zhang, J., Stewart, D.P., Randolph, M.F., 2002. Modelling of shallowly embedded
offshore pipelines in calcareous sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 128,
363–371.
Zhou, T., Tian, Y., Cassidy, M.J., 2018. Effect of tension on the combined loading
capacity envelope of a pipeline on soft clay seabed. Int. J. Geomech. 18 (10),
04018131.