FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING:

ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?

David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts - Cathie Associates, Belgium.

1 Abstract

Force-resultant plasticity models are gaining momentum in the industry through industry-sponsored
research such as SAFEBUCK and SAFEBUCK GEO. They promise to provide the capability of modelling
general pipe-soil interaction problems in a rigorous manner, matching laboratory and field data as well
as having a solid foundation in mechanics. They are destined to become the norm in the future,
particularly for lateral buckling analysis. But are they needed? Why should the simpler and more well-
tried empirical force-displacement models be replaced by models that require special code, more
parameters to define the constitutive relations, and by definition more geotechnical data? This paper
provides a short review of force-displacement and the new force-resultant plasticity models already
available and evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches.

2 Introduction

Einstein is reputed to have said “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler”. This sounds
good advice to engineers: use the simplest possible models for design and verification, but no simpler.
So why are more sophisticated models for lateral pipe-soil interaction (PSI) being developed in a Joint
Industry Project such as SAFEBUCK GEO? Is it not going against the as simple as possible, but no simpler
adage? The purpose of this paper is to examine the pros and cons of the new force-resultant plasticity
models as they compare to the more well-known force displacement models.

Increasing numbers of subsea pipelines are being designed to operate at higher temperatures and
pressures. As noted by Bruton et al (2006), these higher operating conditions subject the pipeline to
higher axial forces increasing the tendency of the pipeline to release these by buckling. Uncontrolled
large lateral displacements could seriously harm the integrity of the pipeline. Conventional design would
therefore try to restrain the pipeline by trenching, burying or relieving the pressure using in-line
expansion spools.As the requirements for buckle mitigation measures increase, the pipeline industry
has become interested in design alternatives which include working with the propensity to buckle
rather than working against it. This approach requires a far better understanding of the pipe-soil
interaction phenomena to ensure a safe, cost-effective lateralbuckling design. Improved PSI models are
also required for on-bottom stability assessment (burial vs. surface lay) for the very long high CAPEX
export pipelines.

Coulomb friction (friction factor) approaches to PSI (typically elastic-perfectly plastic) may be used
successfully for conceptual studies of lateral buckling design if the parameters are selected with care
(Bruton et al, 2006). However, they are insufficient for more detailed design analyses - there are too
many important factors that cannot be included properly in friction factor models. Lateral buckling is
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 2

very sensitive to local soil resistance. This depends on soil properties (including remoulded shear
strength), pipe penetration (initial and changes to penetration during lateral movement), and the
development of soil berms, to name a few.

In engineering, simple numerical models have many advantages:

 Parameters are kept to a minimum;

 Engineering thought and judgement must be used to develop the model;
 Control and understanding of the problem is maintained;
 Analyses are easy to perform and suitable for parametric studies to test
sensitivity of results to the model parameters.

A model is too simple if it does not capture the mechanics of the problem to such an extent that the
results are misleading. This can be the case for PSI problems as discussed below.

In this paper, a very brief overview of force-displacement (FD) and force-resultant plasticity models (PL)
is presented to provide background for comparing the two broad classes of PSI model.

3 Pipeline behaviour and pipeline-soil interaction modelling

Pipe-soil interaction models attempt to describe the effect of pipeline actions on the soil in terms of
pipeline displacements that result. For the purpose of PSI models, the pipeline behaviour during pipelay
(initial penetration), and during operation (lateral sweeping during start-up and shut-down) are the
modelling challenge. Details of pipeline behaviour during the various stages can be found in Randolph
and White (2008), and Bruton et al (2006) for example.

Lateral buckling modelling generally considers an already-laid pipeline. It is convenient for most lateral
buckling analyses to start from a penetrated state which may have been derived from a pipe-lay
simulation, or may be based on pipe weight Figure 1 – Pipeline embedment showing berms and
and other factors that contribute to pipe remoulded soil
embedment (White et al, 2007; Randolph
and White, 2008). Since pipelay in soft soil
can result in penetration and soil berms as
shown in Figure 1, it is clear that lateral
behaviour will be strongly affected by the
initial penetration assumptions. Lateral
resistance models need to consider, in some
way, the presence of the soil berms, the soil
properties of the soil surrounding the pipe, Ref: Randolph and White (2008)
and break-away behaviour from the downstream berm as lateral movement initiates.

The behaviour of a pipe during a lateral sweep is highly dependent on the over penetration ratio
(Bruton et al. 2006). Over penetrated pipelines (where the soil below the pipeline has experienced a
load in the past that is greater than the current load, due to pipelay effects for example), generally
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 3

indicate a “brittle” lateral response as shown in Figure 2 (blue line) and may reduce penetration during
the lateral movement. Normally penetrated pipedo not reveal a high peak (except some effect of
suction release during breakout may occur) but are more “strain hardening” in their response due to
increased penetration (known as elevation correction).

Figure 2 – Monotonic lateral response

Ref: Bruton et al (2006)

As outlined by Bruton et al. 2006, the following phenomena were observed during a lateral sweep in 1g
experiments in the laboratory (SAFEBUCK Phase I - Figure 2):

 Break out: where the pipeline breaks out of it initial embedment. The break
out load is governed by the initial embedment (1)
 Suction release phase and elevation correction (1 to2)
 Steady accretion phase as the pipe sweeps for the first time (2 to 3)

Assuming the overpenetration of the pipe is known, the force-displacement response for a single lateral
sweep can be defined by a small number of points.

Cyclic response is more complex as shown schematically on Figure 3 and requires many more points to
define piece-wise linear force-displacement response.
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 4

Figure 3 – Cyclic lateral response

Ref: Bruton et al (2006)

Bruton et al (2009) distinguish between ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ pipes by the ratio of the pipeline weight (V)
to the seabed strength, su i.e. (V/su.D). In simple terms, values of V/suD< 1.5 give a ‘light-pipe’ response,
characterised by the pipe rising during the initial lateral breakout, while values of greater than ∼2.5 give
a ‘heavy-pipe’ response, characterised by the pipe diving with displacement. The contrasting form of the
lateral load-displacement response for these two cases is illustrated in Figure 4, in terms of the
equivalent friction, H/V.

Figure 4– Details of cyclic lateral response for “light” and “heavy” pipes

Ref: Bruton et al (2009)

FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 5

The increasing complexity of the behaviour between Figure 2 and Figure 5 is impressive and reveals the
challenge of modelling of lateral behaviour and capturing the required response in any particular model.

4 Force-displacement (FD) models

Force-displacement models replace the complex pipe-soil interaction behavior by non-linear springs,
rather like P-Y or T-Z curves are used to model pile-soil behavior. Generally, the models will consider
three independent directions (vertical, horizontal and axial) and that the response is uncoupled.
Coupling between vertical load and axial response is sometimes included. In commercial finite element
packages, these FD models are widely available and have been implemented in the form of contact
formulations, connector elements or complete user defined routines.

Vertical force-displacement models are generally implemented as a piece-wise linear approximations of

the calculated vertical bearing capacity, observed penetration in the laboratory, or using methods such
as described by Randolph and White (2008) or Bruton et al (2006).

Axial models are dealt with in a similar way (see for example Dendani and Jaeck, 2007) but an initial
embedment must be considered if undrained behaviour is to be assumed. Bruton et al (2009) suggest
aneffective stress approach (equivalent friction factor) in which the axial resistance is dependent on the
vertical effective stress.

Lateral resistance FD models have received the most attention for lateral buckling studies. Major 1g and
centrifuge test programmes have been undertaken on a project specific basis to determine lateral force
displacement relationships. Some of this data has now been donated to the SAFEBUCK JIP and forms the
basis for the latest phase of the project (SAFEBUCK GEO).

Examples of how these data can be used

Figure 5 – Lateral force – displacement relationship for
are given in Dendani and Jaeck (2007). For West African deepwater soft clay
practical design studies in deepwater soils
offshore West Africa, generic FD curves of
the type shown in Figure 5 were used.
Peak resistances at A, B and C are selected
based on the pipe weight and embedment
analysis (point A), and empirical
relationships for points B and C are based
on the laboratory data. Corrections are
also made if modelling subsequent cycles
of load, or if lateral sweeps may take the Ref: Dendani and Jaeck (2007)
pipe into the berm.
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 6

5 Force-resultant plasticity (PL) models

5.1 PL pipe-soil interaction models

Force-resultant models have their roots in classical plasticity theory and constitutive modelling in stress
space. Nova and Montrasio (1991) proposed a full theory of a rigid plastic macroelement for the
evaluation of settlements and rotations of foundations on sand. Butterfield and Gottardi (1994) further
developed the concept of load interaction. Schotman and Stork (1987) described the first pipe-soil
interaction model based on a hardening plasticity model. Zhang et al (2002a, 2002b) showed how the
concept of the interaction diagram and classical plasticity theory could be combined to provide the basis
of a pipe-soil interaction model for granular material. Zhang and Erbrich (2005) showed how the
concept could also be applied to undrained failure conditions. For a full explanation of the force-
resultant plasticity (PL) model for pipelines the reader is referred to the above mentioned references.PL
models are thus quite different to independent springs attached to the pipe. The PL model represents
the way the foundation responds to loads applied by the pipe and since it is formulated in terms of
loads and displacements (rather than stresses and strains), the term force-resultant is used.
Numerically, when implemented in a finite element code, the PL model is a macro-element.

The basic elements of a PL model are:

 Hardening rule – the way in which the embedment of the pipeline or the maximum
vertical load that the pipeline experienced in the past (Vmax) affects the breakout
resistance, or more strictly, the size of the yield surface;
 Yield surface – the definition of combinations of horizontal (H) and vertical (V) loads
that result in the onset of plasticity;
 Flow rule - how the incremental direction of plastic deformation is defined for load
combinations which lie on the yield surface;
 Elastic region – in the simplest plasticity models the material is assumed to be
elastic within the yield surface.

More sophisticated models introduce features that provide a better match with actual pipe-soil
behaviour. For example, non-linear behaviour inside the yield surface (e.g. bounding surface models –
Zhang et al 2002a, or the kinematic surface model – Zhang et al 2002b) which allow a transition from
elastic to plastic states.

To illustrate how the PL models combine so much information about pipe-soil interaction into a
straightforward framework with relatively few parameters, the yield surface and flow rule of Zhang et al
(2002a) has been plotted in Figure 6.
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 7

Figure 6 – Yield surface and plastic potential for Zhang et al (2002a) PL model

a) Yield surface b) Flow rule

-0.2 -0.2
Passive resistance
 

0 0

0.2 0.2

V/Vmax
V/Vmax

Friction
0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6
Incremental
ß=0 movement
0.8 m=0.1
0.8 m=0.2
ß=0.1
m=0.3
ß=0.2 m=0.4
1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
H/Vmax H/Vmax

5.2 PL pipe-soil interaction models developed as part of SAFEBUCK Phase II

As part of SAFEBUCK Phase II, an PL model for large displacements and a single cycle of load (first sweep
followed by reverse loading) was developed and encoded as an Abaqus user element (Martin, 2007;
Cathie Associates, 2007). The model was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of handling large
deformations, the effect of berm accumulation, suction breakaway, and reverse loading.

Figure 7 – Development of yield envelopes for SAFEBUCK II

Ref: Cathie (2007)

A series of small-strain analyses (probe tests) were performed by Cathie Associates using FLAC2D to
determine the shape of the failure envelopes for a wide range of geometric situations. Parametric runs
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 8

included variations of initial penetration, berm size, and suction breakout rules. A typical case is shown
in Figure 7 for a range of ploughing depths.

Rules for dealing with the sudden change to the yield function when breakaway occurs, and for
developing berms (see Figure 8) were established. Then the yield surfaces and flow rules from the small-
strain probe tests were translated to parametric form for implementation into the user element
(Martin, 2007).

Figure 8 – Initial breakout and reverse sweeping (Martin, 2007)

a) Initial breakout b) Reverse sweeping

Figure 9 – Behaviour of the SAFEBUCK II PL model

The behavior of the SAFEBUCK II model
is shown on Figure 9 for an initial
penetration of 0.25D and an
overpenetration ratio of 3.6. The model
captures the peak suction breakout
from the initial state and on the reverse
sweep. On first sweep, the pipe rises as
it sweeps and tracks back with
additional penetration on the reverse
sweep. Necessary improvements to the
model for the next phase of SAFEBUCK
(GEO) include a softening of the suction
breakout response, improved modeling
of the response inside the yield surface,
and a berm softening mechanism.

5.3 SAFEBUCK GEO

SAFEBUCK GEO is a Joint Industry
Project led by Atkins Boreas and
currently in progress to deliver a
complete and robust PL model for Ref: Martin (2007)
cyclic modelling of pipe-soil interaction in soft clay. The part of the project addressing lateral pipe
response is being performed through the collaboration of University of Western Australia, Cathie
Associates, Oxford University and Atkins Boreas. Rules for accumulating berm material, berm softening
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 9

and deposition of berms will be developed following the experimental observations along the lines
outlined by White and Cheuk(2008) – see Figure 10.

Figure 10 – Active and dormant berm model

Ref: White and Cheuk(2008)

6 Comparison of FD and PL models

6.1 General
In this section, a comparison of FD and PL models against the key elements of the more complex model
(PL) is made. From a practical point of view, the importance of this comparison is in the effect or impact
that the features have on the lateral buckling analysis. In addition, two further criteria are used for
comparison: computational implementation and input parameters. The criteria used for the comparison
are:

 Hardening model: implementation of the effect of embedment on non-linear

behaviour;
 Elastic region
 Yield criteria: definition of load combinations that result in the onset of
plasticity;
 Flow rule: how the incremental direction of plastic deformation is defined;
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 10

 Reverse loading: definition of return to elastic behaviour and further non-

linear behaviour in reverse loading direction;
 Hypothesis testing: investigation of specific design scenarios – e.g. what if
temperature exceeds normal operating range and pipe sweeps against pre-
existing berm, what if we place sleepers to control lateral buckle etc;
 Computational implementation: stability and speed of execution;
 Input parameters: number of parameters required and methods for
collecting them.
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts
6.2 Comparison of features
FEATURE Force – displacement (FD)
No explicit hardening model
Hardening model
Embedment predefined
Elastic or non-linear elastic
behaviour occurs when lateral load,
Elastic region
H, less than yield load (peak or
residual)
Peak resistance defined using
Yield criteria average expected initial embedment
pre-selected
Residual resistance defined using
average expected initial embedment
pre-selected
11
Force-resultant plasticity (PL)
Hardening model defined by current
embedment, and can include effect of
berms (SAFEBUCK GEO)
Elastic behaviour when load inside the
yield envelope (combination of V and
H). Several models exist with various
sizes of yield surface (point, bubble,
bounding surface) to allow to fine
tune the transition from elastic to
plastic behaviour
Onset of yield defined by size of yield
envelope which is dependent on
current penetration
Behaviour defined through hardening
rule and previous loading history
(including berms and softening –
SAFEBUCK GEO)
Impact on lateral buckling analysis
Lack of hardening model in FD means that
effect of embedment must be included as part
of the FD curve definition. Movement leading to
pipe rising out or penetrating are not linked to
decreased or increased lateral resistance
(except as allowed for in the initial FD curves).
FD elastic behaviour is independent of vertical
load (V) except as included in FD curve
construction. When V varies continuously (e.g.
in rough terrain) it will be impossible to capture
the local effects of variations in V.
Limited difference between methods for initial
movement. When V varies continuously (e.g. in
rough terrain) it will be impossible to capture
the local effects of variations in V on yield
criteria.
FD residual resistance is not updated according
to penetration so whether the pipe rides out or
embeds the results are unchanged.
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts
FEATURE Force – displacement (FD)
Normally penetrated or
overpenetrated pipe must be
assumed
No flow rule defined. Incremental
displacement related to current
Flow rule
vertical and horizontal spring
stiffness.
Behaviour under reverse loading
must be pre-defined. Large numbers
Reverse and cyclic
of variables are needed to define
loading
curves even for a single cycle of
loading.
Specific FD models will be required
Hypothesis testing
for each hypothesis to be tested
Computational
Low computational effort
efficiency
12
Force-resultant plasticity (PL)
Normal or overpenetration is handled
automatically by the (hardening)
model
Flow rule generally independent of
yield criteria (non-associated) and
defined from model tests or numerical
analysis.
Flow rule can be updated based on
embedment, geometry (berms),
suction release (SAFEBUCK GEO)
Behaviour under reverse loading is
implicit in model. Rules to modify yield
criteria, flow rule for berm growth,
remoulding are possible (SAFEBUCK
GEO)
Models able to handle automatically
most normal scenarios (e.g. high temp
cycle, sleepers) providing berm build
up model incorporated (SAFEBUCK
GEO)
High computational effort. More
parameter tracking needed.
Impact on lateral buckling analysis
FD relationships must account for
overpenetration ratio at input stage. This is
particularly a problem for irregular seabeds
where there are many variations in
overpenetration ratio following laydown which
may affect lateral buckling response.
No major impact for clays (associated plastic
deformation). For sand (non-associated)
direction of movement in FD model would be
incorrect.
FD constrains direction of movement and does
not allow special rules to be developed.
FD models cannot be used generally for
multiple cycles of load unless berm growth is
included. Berm accumulation, breakout from
existing berm or ploughing into a berm is
difficult to generalize practically.
Comparison of FD results for different scenarios
may be difficult if different sets of FD
relationships must be generated for each
scenario.
FD models can be used more easily for
parametric studies.
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts
FEATURE Force – displacement (FD)
Number of parameters
Single sweep: 4-5 x 2
Input parameters Single fullcycle 12x 2 (see Fig 3)
Number of parameters increases
very rapidly for multiple sweeps
Can be derived from specific 1g or
centrifuge tests on in situ soil.
Can be derived from guidelines
(Dendani and Jaeck, 2007) and
standard soil tests
13
Force-resultant plasticity (PL) Impact on lateral buckling analysis
Single sweep: 11 (Zhang et al, 2002b) FD models parameters low for simple single
Multiple sweeps: 8-13 (Martin, 2007; sweep models but impractical for multiple
Zhang et al, 2002b) sweep or unloading/reloading analysis
Can be derived from specific 1g or
centrifuge tests on in situ soil.
Can be derived from guidelines None
(SAFEBUCK GEO) and standard soil
tests
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 14

7 Conclusions

From this review and comparison of the similarities and differences between FD and PL models we
return to the original question: are plasticity models (PL) really necessary? Are they unnecessarily
complex? Do they obey the Einstein rule: as simple as possible but not simpler?

At conceptual/front end phases of pipeline design when very little or no information is available, it is
certainly true that the sophistication of a PL model is unwarranted and FD models would be
appropriate.

If the aim is to simulate a simple problem with a single sweep (no load reversal), FD models can be used
and should be adequate if the curves have been selected appropriately to the pipe weight and initial
embedment.

As soon as there is a requirement to investigate reverse loading, or to see whether the pipe embeds or
rides out during a sweep, or to investigate the response when a larger temperature cycle occurs, i.e. any
type of analysis that is just a little more complex than the basic, an FD model really cannot do the
business and a PL model is required.

We suggest the following criteria for selecting the appropriate model. Are you at an early stage of
design with little data? Then use a force-displacement (FD) model. Are you further advanced in the
design? Give careful consideration to the advantages of a plasticity model (PL) to model the
complexities of your problem. Oversimplifications using FD models may lead to erroneous conclusions
or less than optimum designs.

8 References

Bruton D., White D., Cheuk C., Bolton M., Carr M.(2006), Pipe soil interaction behaviour during lateral
buckling, including large amplitude cyclic displacement tests by Safebuck JIP, Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, OTC 17944;

Bruton D., White D, Langford T. Hill A.J. (2009), Techniques for the assessment of pipe-soil interaction
forces for future deepwater developments, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 20096;

Butterfield R., Gottardi G. (1994), A complete three-dimensional failure envelope for shallow footings
on sand, Géotechnique 44, No 1, 181-184;

Cathie Associates (2007) SAFEBUCK II – Soil-Pipe Interaction during Large Lateral Movements, Force-
Resultant Plasticity Model, Report C073R01-02.

Dendani H., Jaeck C. (2007), Pipe soil interaction in highly plastic clays, Proceedings of the 6th
International Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Conference, London, 115 – 124;

Martin (2007) SAFEBUCK JIP Phase II, Soil-pipe interaction during large lateral movements: development
of a force-resultant plasticity model, University of Oxford
FORCE-RESULTANT PLASTICITY MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING: ARE THEY REALLY NEEDED?
David Cathie, Hendrik Falepin and Bruno Stuyts 15

Nova, R. & Montrasio, L. (1991) Settlements of shallow foundations on sand, Géotechnique 41,2:243-
256.

Randolph M.F. & White D.J. (2008), Pipeline embedment in deep water - processes and quantitative
assessment, 2008, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 19128;

Schotman, G.J.M and Stork, F.G.(1987) Pipe-soil interaction: a model for laterally loaded pipelines in
clay, OTC 5588, Proceedings of the 19th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston.

White D.J., Randolph M.F. (2007), Seabed Characterisation and Models for Pipeline-Soil Interaction,
Proceedings of the seventeenth International Offshore Polar Engineering Conference, Lisbon, 758 – 769;

White D.J. &Cheuk C.Y. 2008. Modelling the soil resistance on seabed pipelines during large cycles of
lateral movement.Marine Structures 21(1):59-79

Zhang J., Stewart D.P., Randolph M.F.(2002a), Modeling of Shallowly Embedded Offshore Pipelines in
Calcareous Sand, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, May 2002, 363-371

Zhang J., Stewart D.P., Randolph M.F.(2002b), Kinematic Hardening Model for Pipeline-Soil Interaction
under Various Loading Conditions, The International Journal of Geomechanics, Volume2, number 4, 419-
446 (2002);

Zhang J., Erbrich C.T. (2005), Stability design of untrenched pipelines – geotechnical aspects, Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics, ISFOG 2005, 623-628