Proceedings of the Seventeenth

Sixteenth (2007)
(2007)
International
International
Offshore
Offshore
andand
Polar
Polar
Engineering
Engineering
Conference
Conference
Lisbon, Portugal, July 1-6, 2007
Copyright © 2007 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers(ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-68-5; ISBN 1-880653-68-0(Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

The Challenges of Pipeline Burial

Damian R Morrow and Peter D Larkin
Acergy Ltd
Aberdeen, UK

ABSTRACT A discussion of the challenges associated with pipeline burial needs to

Burial of sub sea pipelines provides a number of advantages and as part
of the installation process all or part of a sub sea pipeline system may
be buried, either with or without provision of backfill. While much of
the sub sea environment is largely flat significant local slopes of natural
or man made origin can occur in areas where pipeline burial is required,
posing a number of challenges. Having reviewed the advantages of
pipeline burial and the origin and environment of seabed slopes the
pipeline burial assets available to the sub sea installation contractor are
considered. The importance of an appropriate bathymetric survey and
the role of route optimisation is emphasised. After discussing some
consequences that can result from sloping seabeds these consequences
are elaborated on and given context by discussing examples from
pipeline burial projects.
KEY WORDS: pipeline; burial; slopes; sedimentary features;
pockmarks plough; trencher; route optimisation.
INTRODUCTION
As part of the installation process a sub-sea pipeline may be buried over
some or all of its length. Post lay burial is particularly prevalent within
the North Sea as well as in other parts of the world where it is required
to address specific pipeline design issues. When pipeline burial is
undertaken trench backfill may also undertaken providing a covering of
soil over the pipeline.
Although much of the subsea environment can be considered to be flat
or shallow gradient, there are however exceptions. When these slopes
occur they can have a significant effect on sub-sea construction
activities. This paper discusses the challenges posed to pipeline burial
in areas with sloping seabed. To give context to these discussions the
causes of seabed slopes will be presented along with the range of
pipeline burial techniques available to the sub sea installation
contractor.
ADVANTAGES OF PIPELINE BURIAL
be considered within the context of the advantages pipeline burial
provides. The principle advantages of burial to a pipeline system are:
• Protection
• Stability Under Thermal Or Pressure Driven Expansion
• Hydrodynamic Stability
• Thermal Insulation
• Freespan Mitigation
Pipeline Protection
The protection of pipelines is perhaps the most common driver for
pipeline burial. In Northern Europe intensive fishing activity and the
large amount of closely spaced infrastructure associated with mature oil
and gas developments results in the need to provide protection from
trawl gear for small diameter lines. Large diameter trunk lines are
typically considered to have sufficient mass and strength remain on the
seabed during the course of their design life. In addition to protection
from fishing activities, burial can also protect a pipeline from dropped
objects and vessel anchors. Protection can be provided by methods
other then burial, such as covering the pipeline with flexible concrete
mattressing or rock dump berms. However, generally these are only
economic solutions for short sections of pipeline.
The specification for a pipeline burial solution is typically expressed in
terms of depth of lowing (DoL) relative to mean sea bed level (MSBL),
depth of cover (DoC) of the soil backfill may also be specified. The
design of the burial specification may need to consider other drivers for
burial, or the requirement to provide sufficient download to mitigate
upheaval buckling (UHB). When considering the issue of protection
alone it is appropriate to take a risk based approach, such as that
outlined in DNV RP F107 (2002). The nature and frequency of the risk
factor is considered (e.g. fishing or dropped object), along with the
amount of protection given by the seabed soils the trench is formed in
and any trench backfill. Trench geometry can also be a factor. As an
example; 0.6 m DoL in a very soft clay seabed provides significantly
less protection then 0.6 m DoL in very dense sand. A further extreme
example would be a pipeline trenched into a rocky seabed, in this case

900
even small depth of lowering can provide a significant amount of
protection. A more detailed review of this approach to burial protection
for the specific hazard of ice scour is give by Palmer (1997). Another
example is the analogous situation of burial protection for submarine
telecommunication cables discussed in Allan & Comrie (2001).
Stability Under Thermal Or Pressure Driven Expansion
Many pipelines associated with oil and gas infrastructure are used to
transport warm fluids under pressure. This requirement on pipeline
systems should also be set against an increasing trend to high pressure
high temperature (HPHT) lines. This trend to HPHT is occurring in
association with advances in material and welding technology, making
possible development projects previously regarded as unfeasible
(Collberg and Levold 2005, Spinazze et al 2005).
Pipelines are lain on the seabed at ambient temperature. During and
following pipeline start up hot fluids travel through the bore of the
pipeline, heating the line to temperatures significantly above ambient.
This heating leads to thermal expansion of the steel materials of the
pipeline. At a small scale this expansion may appear to be insignificant,
however, in an axial direction this expansion or the forces associated
with the potential to expand are to some extent cumulative. Thermal
expansions lead to a complex process of pipe soil interaction that can
result in large forces and/or displacements within a given section of
pipeline. Axial forces and displacements are also an important
consideration for the design of inline structure or the spools that
connect pipelines to structures.
Depending on the relationship between axial and lateral pipe soil
interaction axial expansion may be restrained. This can result in the
expansion forces propagating lateral buckling of a pipeline. Buckling of
a pipeline is generally an undesirable event inducing stress in the line
and potentially plastic deformation and/or fatigue associated with a
series of buckling cycles. In extreme cases lateral buckling can over
stress a pipeline resulting in loss of integrity. In the case study
discussed by Oliveira et al (2005) a pipeline on soft clay seabed
buckled laterally 4.1m over a length of 44m resulting in loss of pipeline
integrity and a large release of oil into the environment.
It has been noted that buckling is generally undesirable. However, in
recent deepwater developments buckling has been judged to be
unavoidable. In this case buckling is propagated at specific locations
using various buckle inducement measures e.g. sleepers, buoyancy
(Bruton et al 2005).
Burial of a pipeline significantly alters the pipe soil interaction
providing stability against lateral buckling and significantly reducing
axial expansion. However, it should be noted while pipeline burial can
solve lateral stability issues there is the potential to introduction the
equally challenging issues of upheaval buckling (UHB). In UHB the
axial expansion forces over come the downloaded provided by trench
backfill resulting in upwards buckling (Schaminee et al 1990, Bolton
and Barefoot 1997). This has the potential to over stress the pipe and/or
present a section of pipeline that is susceptible to snag loading by
fishing equipment.
This discussion on pipeline expansion has been largely limited to rigid
steel pipeline and has therefore focused on thermal expansion. Broadly
analogous processes can occur with flexible pipelines. Although with
flexible lines pressure is more of an influence then temperature effects
(Kodaissi 1995). The construction techniques utilised to produce the
carcass of a flexible pipeline is also a important consideration.
901
Hydrodynamic Stability
Hydrodyamic stability is generally an issue confined to shallow water
depths, although the presence of strong currents over a range of water
depth should not be discounted without due consideration. Dependent
on the pipe soil interaction with the seabed (friction, adhesion and
passive earth pressure due to embedment) the pipeline has a certain
resistance to lateral movement. If a pipelines lateral resistance to
movement is exceeded by the hydrodynamic loading associated with a
given metocean design case e.g. a 25 or 50 year storm, the stability may
need to be increased. This could be achieved by increasing pipeline
weight either by adding concrete weight-coating or by increasing wall
thickness of the steel component of the pipeline. Rock dump berms or
concrete matressing could also be used. In place of, or in addition to
remedial measures an allowable displacement philosophy may be
adopted dependent on pipeline location, one such approach is adopted
in DNV-RP-E305 (1988). Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) or
cofferdams may also provide a method for shore approaches. However,
as with pipeline protection these methods can quickly become
uneconomic and alternatives to surface lain lines may need to be
considered for longer sections of pipeline.
Even trenching a pipeline to half a diameter or placing the pipeline in a
open trench can significantly increase its resistance to lateral
movement. Lowering a pipeline produces increased lateral resistance
either due to passive earth pressure on the embedded section or from
the slope of the trench it is placed in. In association with this effect the
hydrodynamic loading on a pipeline is also reduced as it is lowered into
the seabed. Full burial and backfill effectively removes hydrodynamic
forces from a pipeline, ensuring stability. There is however the need for
caution. When considering pipeline burial for hydrodynamic stability
the seabed by implication is an unstable and dynamic environment.
This needs to be fully accounted for in the design process including
depth of burial. For example sediment scour and deposition may need
to be considered, wave induced liquefaction may also be a factor in
pipeline stability as discussed in Sumer et al (1999) and Teh et al
(2006).
Thermal Insulation
As previously discussed many pipelines associated with the offshore oil
and gas industry have to transport fluids at high temperature. In
addition there is also the requirement to maintain the temperature of
this fluid within certain tolerances to prevent the deposition of
precipitates (e.g. wax's) within the system. To maintain temperature the
pipeline may incorporate a layer of insulation coating within their
construction. As the insulation requirements of a pipeline system
increases there is an associated increase in cost as well as potential
manufacturing and installation issues. In this scenario there can be an
advantage in utilising the insulation properties of trench backfill to
reduce the thickness of pipeline insulation coating. Finch et al (2000)
and Young et al (2001) discuss some of the issues relating to thermal
insulation and pipeline burial.
Freespan Mitigation
On a uneven seabed, the geometry of the seabed, pipe soil interaction
and the residual axial tension from the lay process can result in the
pipeline being suspended above the seabed i.e. the pipeline is in
freespan. This can be undesirable for a number of reasons; a free-
spanning pipeline is subject to increased hydrodynamic loading
potentially contributing to instability as well as inducing stress in the
line. In addition the suspended self weight of the pipeline also applies
loads on the line in the vicinity of the touch down points.
In areas where freespans are likely to occur analysis may be undertaken
to assess the allowable freespan length and assess the likelihood of this
length being exceeded for a given pipeline route. Holdon et al (2005)
describe this process for routing of the Ormen Lange Pipelines in the
challenging seabed terrain associated with the Storegga slide in the
Norwegian sector of the North Sea. In conjunction with route
optimisation, rock dumping, dredging and trenching provide methods
of mitigating freespans.
ORIGIN OF SEABED SLOPES
The sub sea environment can be classified into the following three
broad zones:
• Continental Shelf
• Continental Slope
• Deep Sea Environment
The continental shelf can be considered to be a shallow water setting
including near shore and shore approaches. However, although shallow,
continental shelves can extend hundreds of kilometres from the shore in
some areas. In addition the definition of shallow water can vary widely;
in this case it encompasses water depths of several hundred metres. On
a regional scale this zone is extremely flat with a mean slope of < 1°.
Transition to continental slope typically occurs at water depth between
130m to >350m with the variation relating to the geographical and
geological setting (Friedman et al 1992). It is this zone where most
pipeline burial is undertaken.
The continental slope represents the transition from the relatively
shallow water depths to the deep sea environment. At a regional level
continental slopes typically have a slope angle of 3° to 6°, although
there is significant variation as well as this being a zone where extreme
localised slopes are common. There is also significant variation in the
range of water depth this zone extends over (Friedman et al 1992). In
recent years sub sea infrastructure associated with the oil and gas
developments extends into or crosses this zone, although pipeline burial
in this zone is rare.
The deep sea environment encompasses a range of settings
characterised by reduction in slope angles from the continental slope
zone. Slope angles may be a few degrees for features associated with
the edge of the continental slope with a trend towards negligible slopes.
Traditionally this zone and even the continental slope were of little
interest for those considering sub sea infrastructure. However, as the
practical depth for oil and gas developments increases the trend towards
deeper water has focused attention on these areas in recent years.
It can be seen from the discussion above that with the exception of the
continental slope much of the sub sea environment tends towards being
flat when considered on a regional scale. However, at a local scale there
are significant slopes with a variety of origins. Primarily it is these
localised slopes that effect pipeline burial the most, partly due to the
steep gradients and the change from a relatively flat seabed to a slope
over a short distance.
It is convenient to discuss the development of localised seabed slopes
in terms of their origin. These in turn can be subdivided into natural
phenomena and those resulting from the human activities.
Natural Slopes
902
All localised natural slopes result from the removal or deposition of
seabed sediments by natural processes. Common causes of natural
slopes include:
• Sedimentary Features
• Ice Scour
• Pockmarks
• Slope Processes
Sedimentary Features
For the purposes of this paper sedimentary features (bedforms) are
defined as seabed features formed by the erosion and deposition of
sediment due to hydrodynamic processes. Classification of these
bedforms is conveniently approached with a hierarchical system based
on height (amplitude) and wavelength, however, there is no universally
accepted classification system or agreement on nomenclature. For the
purposes of this paper the system used by Passchier & Klienhans
(2005) will be utilised. Ripples are not discussed by Passchier &
Klienhans (2005) and are not particularly relevant to the subject of this
paper. However, for completeness ripples will be considered to have a
height of less then 0.3 m and wavelengths of less the 1 m. This
classification is summarised below in Table 1.
Name Height Wavelength
Sandwaves 1.5 m to 17 m or larger 40 m – 800 m or larger
Megaripples 0.3 m to 1.5 m 1 m to 40 m
Ripples Less them 0.3 m Less then 1 m
Table 1. Bedform Classification
A detailed discussion of bedform morphology is outside the scope of
this paper, however issues such as bedform asymmetry should be given
consideration. When hydrodynamic forces have a prevailing direction
bedforms trend towards a morphology consisting of a relatively shallow
rising slope (stoss slope) and a steeper down slope (lee slope) (Soulsy
1997). In plan the morphology of bedforms can also be relevant when
considering pipeline routing.
In addition to active features a site may also contain palimpsest features
formed under different hydrodynamic regimes. Example of these are
the gravel features found in some areas of the Southern North Sea as
discussed in Cameron et al (1992).
Ice Scour
Ice scour features form when an ice sheet or more commonly an ice
burg enters shallower water and its base or keel is grounded. When this
happens the wind, waves or currents may continue to move the ice,
which in turn scars or ploughs the seabed. This can have a dramatic
effect on seabed morphology. In addition to changes in seabed profile
the action of ice can also effect the geotechnical properties of seabed
soils, effecting soils below the base and adjacent to the walls of a scar,
further discussion is given in Palmer (1997).
The presence of ice scour is dependent on location, climate and water
depths. For example routing a pipeline into deeper water can be an
effective protection measure. However, when considering the effect of
ice scour features on pipeline burial the presence of relict features
formed under differing climatic and sea level conditions may be of
influence. An example of active and relict ice burg scour in close
association is given Lewis and Woodsworth Lynas (1990). Lewis and
Woodsworth Lynas (1990) also noted differing ice scour morphology
dependent on seabed soils. Stiffer clays exhibit deep (up to 6m) scars
with steep sides up to 60°, where as sandy soils exhibited shallower
scar (<1m) with low angle slopes of less the 6°. In the northern North
Sea relict ice scour features have also been observed, these are typically
2 m deep and 20 m across with some post formation infill with sandy
sediments (Johnson et al 1993). As with bedforms the morphology of
ice scour features in plan can be important for pipeline routing.
Although in heavily scarred areas with variation in scar orientation
routing options can be limited.
Pockmarks
Pockmarks are fluid escape structures that are particularly prominent
when gas or water escapes through soft cohesive sediments. Their
occurrence is common in soft clay sites around the world where these
sediments occur in association with thermogenic and biogenic methane.
Pockmarks can also be ground water driven, although these are thought
to be less common (Judd 2001). Typical examples of pockmarks found
in the North Sea have a diameter of 50m to 100m and are 2 - 3m deep,
although larger pockmarks up a diameter of 200m and 6m deep can
also occur. Pockmark density greater than 30 per square kilometre are
not uncommon (Long 1986). Pockmark morphology typically consists
of a steep slope adjacent to the edge which can exceed 10°. The base of
the pockmark is typically a flatter area, especially if pockmark
formation has been inhibited by firmer soils at depth. In plan,
pockmarks can exhibit an asymmetric morphology, which is common
in North Sea pockmarks (Judd 2001). In addition to their occurrence in
the North Sea, pock marks can also be found in other areas of the
world, for example; Gay et al (2006) discuss pockmarks in West Africa
and Cifi et al (2002) notes pockmark activity in the Black Sea.
Variation in geotechnical properties in association with pockmarks and
the presence of cemented material can also influence pipeline burial in
pockmarked areas. If the trend towards deeper water continues then in
addition to encountering pockmarks deep water geohazards such as
mud volcanoes may also be features to consider.
Slope Processes
Sediment transport associated with these slopes can result in features
which have a significant influence. An extreme example would be
slope failures and the resulting scaring in the failure zone and the
deposition of slide blocks in down slope areas. An example of pipeline
routing in this sort of terrain is discussed by Holden et al (2005).
Manmade Slopes
In addition to slopes resulting from natural processes pipeline burial
can also effected by slopes of manmade origin.
• Spudcan Depressions
• Anchor Scars
• Trawling Scars
Manmade debris has been excluded from this list. The issues
surrounding debris are primarily related to the nature of the debris
rather then any associated slopes.
Spudcan Depressions
Jack up rigs are typically used in water depths of less then 100 m
although some recently constructed rigs have extended this limit by a
few tens of metres. Jack ups act as mobile offshore drilling units
(MODU’s) or in a support role to other platforms e.g. flotels. Spud cans
903
form the foundation interface for the jack up legs. Dimensions and
geometry varies, however, circular spud cans with a diameter of 10m to
20m are perhaps most common. Penetration of spud cans during
preloading and operation varies with soil conditions, shallow
penetration of a few metres is typical for sandy conditions, whilst 10m
to 20m is not uncommon for soft clay conditions penetrations of up to
40m recorded in some locations (Clarom 1993). At larger penetrations
backflow of soil is likely, however there is significant disturbance of
the seabed during penetration and extraction. In areas where there has
been jack up activity spud can depressions can form steep localised
slopes, generally in groups of three in a triangular geometry.
Anchor Scars
An alternative to jack up rigs are floating mobile drilling units such as
semi-submersible rigs. In shallow water these rigs typically maintain
station using a spread of drag embedment anchors. Drag embedment
anchors are also utilised by some pipe lay vessels and in more
permanent applications for floating production units (FPU). In soft clay
conditions penetrations of 10m to 20m are not uncommon for larger
anchors loaded close to their ultimate holding capacity (API 1997,
Vyhof 2000). Drag anchor installation and recovery can result in scars
and depression that have the potential to effect pipeline burial activities.
Anchor chains and lines can also result in seabed scaring, however this
is generally not significant enough to effect pipeline burial operations.
Trawling Scars
The use of trawling equipment in an area results in scaring of the
seabed. The typical geometry of trawl scars results in their prominence
on side scan sonar records. They tend to be less prominent on
bathymetric surveys, although this is dependent on the resolution of the
survey and the processing techniques utilised. As with many of the
other man made features the geometry of trawl scars is highly
dependent on the properties of the seabed sediments. Generally
speaking trawl scar do not pose a significant hazard to pipeline
installation.
METHODS OF PIPELINE BURIAL
It is convenient to consider pipeline burial assets in two broad
categories:
• Ploughs
• Trenchers
Ploughs
Ploughs, not surprisingly, bear some similarity to agricultural
implements of the same name. A share cuts a V shaped trench with side
slopes in the region of 35°, two spoil mounds of excavated material are
deposited to the side of the trench. During the ploughing process the
pipeline is held in roller cradles within the body of the plough. This
protects the pipeline, picking it up from the seabed ahead of the
excavation and deposited it back into the trench behind the plough.
A pipeline plough is a passive tool albeit with a range of control
mechanisms and surveillance equipment. A tow wire from a plough
support vessel (PSV) provides the force required to excavate the trench
and ensure forward progress of the plough. The PSV also provides all
the equipment and personnel for launch, recovery, operation and
maintenance of the plough.

Figure 1: An animated view of the aft of a pipeline plough
A high bollard pull vessel is required as a PSV as steady tensions of
200 - 250 Te are not uncommon to ensure adequate progress in sandy
soils. Further information on performance predictions of ploughs is
provided in Finch et al 2000 and Cathie 2001.
When backfill is required over a ploughed pipeline this can be achieved
using a backfill plough. This burial asset typically rides in the ploughed
trench with skids located either side of the pipeline. Large backfill
blades extend in a V from the body of the plough, encompassing the
spoil mounds previously deposited when the trench was formed by the
pipeline plough. Backfill is swept into the trench as the backfill plough
follows the route of the pipeline. As with a pipeline plough a backfill
plough is a passive tool towed by a PSV, although the bollard pull
requirement is lower.
Figure 2: A tracked jetting trencher being launched. The inset image
shows the jetting swords for this trencher
Trenchers
904
The Trencher category describes a wide range pipeline burial
equipment. They have been separated from ploughs as they are active
assets which do not require towing by a surface vessel. Trenchers can
be sub divided into two further categories; jetting trenchers and cutting
trenchers. Trenchers operate as a remotely operated vehicle controlled
by a umbilical connected to a trenching support vessel (TSV).
Jet trenchers achieve pipeline burial by fluidising the soils around and
below the pipeline with medium pressure high volume water jets. These
water jets originate from a series of nozzles mounted in “jet swords”
which are pushed down either side of the pipe. Backfill is achieved
over the pipeline when the fluidised/suspended sediment is re-deposited
around and above the pipeline. Jet trenchers come in a range of types,
sizes and power output and can take the form of tracked trenchers, free
flying vehicles or pipe riders. Jet sleds would also loosely fall into this
category. .is significantly affected and no progress is likely in higher
shear strength soils. The second category of trenchers, cutting trenchers
are suitable for higher shear strength clays, some are also suitable for
cemented soils and rock. These trenchers mechanically cut a slot into
the seabed using a toothed chain, belt or wheel, some trenchers also use
jetting in combination to remove cutting waste and provide backfill.
ROUTE OPTIMISATION
When seabed slopes pose difficulties to pipeline burial there is often
scope to mitigate their effect by careful route planning, reducing their
influence. This usually, although not always, results in an increase in
pipeline route length. Route optimisation balances the cost of increased
length against the effect a slope has on pipeline installation and burial.
Experience indicates that moderate rerouting around individual features
results in a surprising small increase in route length, so the benefits
should always be considered.
The potential of route optimisation has increased with the advent of
advanced software generically referred to as geographical information
systems (GIS). The use of GIS in the offshore oils and gas industry has
initially been slow with limited uptake, but has gathered pace over
recent years. Simple route optimisation can be undertaken by using
software to generate themed maps. For example; slopes within a certain
range can be highlighted in prominent colours. Routes can then be
adjusted to avoid features, slope statistics and route lengths can be
produced to quickly compare route options. This approach is generally
adequate for short simple routes between two fixed points such as a
short tie back between a well and platform. As route length increases,
complicated seabed conditions are encountered and variables such as
start and end point are introduced optimisation quickly becomes
complicated and difficult to interpret by eye. In this scenario least cost
algorithms can be utilised. A cost surface is compiled for the seabed,
this surface assigns a cost to crossing a given terrain with the algorithm
considering a total route cost based on length and terrain. The cost
surface and the cost algorithm typically require some "tuning" to
account for the characteristics of the pipeline burial asset and project
priorities. It is relatively simple to incorporate other elements into this
analysis, for example geohazards.
SURVEY TECHNIQUES
Having discussed some of the causes of seabed slopes and the use of
route optimisation the importance of an accurate and appropriate
bathymetric survey should be emphasised. A survey that adequately
characterises the seabed morphology is an important aspect of pre
trenching engineering as well as being relevant to other subsea
construction activities. The absence of such a survey can result in
significant problems, typically occurring when a "off the shelf" or "one
survey fits all" approach is adopted.
Perhaps the best approach to a bathymetric survey is a phased approach
including consultation with all end users or the involvement of a
suitably experienced consultant. The initial phase could consist of a
reconnaissance survey covering a wide route corridor. A desk study
may be utilised for planning of this initial survey with the corridor
width dictated by the degree of re-routing that is expected. From this
initial survey a course route can be defined. This route then becomes
the focus for a subsequent route survey producing high resolution data.
Resolution and processing techniques should focus on the nature of the
hazards and the proposed burial tools. In some projects there may be an
argument for high resolution bathymetric surveys from a remotely
operately vehicle (ROV) or autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV).
PIPELINE BURIAL ON SLOPING SEABEDS
When pipeline burial is undertaken in areas with seabed slopes
strategies such as route optimisation may be undertaken as discussed in
the previous section. However, at some point the pipeline may need to
be buried in an area characterised by a series of localised slopes
originating from one or more of the mechanisms discussed in this
paper. All pipeline burial assets interact with the seabed to some extent.
Typically burial assets are ground bearing to some extent, even so
called free flying trencher often operate with skids or tracks and the
vehicle ballasted to have a slight negative buoyancy. Even if the a
burial asset is able to reduce its interaction with the seabed when
making forward progress (free flying) the pipeline still rests on the
seabed. The excavation tool (e.g. jet leg, plough share, chain cutter)
will, by definition, always interact with the seabed. It is therefore
reasonable to consider that all currently available burial assets are
affected by seabed slopes.
There is a relatively complex interaction between slope geometry and a
specific asset. Typical negative consequences are listed in bullet point
below.
• Out of straightness (OOS)
• Loss of DoC and/or DoL
• Slopes outside a burial assets capability
• Damage to the product and or burial asset
Out of straightness (OOS) is a pipeline design term that refers to the
profile of the pipe in the vertical plane. OOS is particularly important
when considering upheaval buckling (UHB), as OOS incident can
result in a concentration of driving forces resulting in a preferential
buckling location. An OOS incident can form due to various reasons
such as transitions in soil conditions, buried boulders, or trench wall
slumping prior to pipeline touchdown, however seabed profile is often
considered to be a common cause, especially for smaller OOS
incidents. An OOS incident can also be associated with loss of cover.
An example of a typical OOS incident would be a pipeline lain over a
mega rippled seabed. A burial asset may be able to correct this to some
extent, however pitch and roll of the asset will significantly effect this
ability. Pitch, and to a lesser extent roll, can also result in a non-optimal
orientation of the excavation tool. This is particularly the case for
jetting swords where pitch will alter nozzle depth and orientation.
Multiple passes may be required to reduce OOS, or alternatively spot
rock dumping may be required.
As with OOS loss of cover is closely associated with UHB, and as with
OOS the pitch and roll of the trenching asset can result in reduced
cover height. If a plough is used then spoil mound stability and the
905
pitch of the backfill plough can also be an issue. Of particular relevance
to areas with bed forms is the datum used to define DoL and DoC. This
is typically based on mean seabed level (MSBL), however in areas with
mega ripples it is common to define (MSBL) as the trough between
mega ripples. This makes the DoL and DoC requirement within these
areas particularly onerous.
Slopes can be outside the capability of an asset resulting in an inability
to bury a section of pipeline. An example of this would be a freespan
that is elevated over the seabed and out with the travel of a ploughs
roller box's or the ability to adjust the height of the front skids. Large
free spans can also "ground" trenchers that are operating in a ground
bearing mode as the pipeline height exceeds the clearance from the
trencher chassis. There are some links with the final point as areas that
are out with a trenchers capability may include areas where the risk of
asset or pipeline damage is considered to be high. Failure to bury a
section of line is particular serious when burial is relied upon to provide
insulation. Any remedial measures will need to provide insulation to
avoid a "cold spot". This cannot realistically be achieved by using rock
dump and a combination of sand and rock dumping may be required. In
soft clay terrains the contrast in insulation properties of soft clay and
sand may result in the need to provide significantly more DoC then was
required for the soft clay backfill. Careful planning and pre-trenching
engineering has an important role. It is clearly better to identify areas of
concern prior to a trenching campaign. Transitions from trench depth to
seabed can be pre-planned and remediation can be given due
consideration at an early stage.
It is perhaps clear why asset and/or product damage is the most serious
consequence that can result from a sloping seabed. In common with
most catastrophic or accidental occurrences it likely that other
contributing factors play a role, for example poor quality survey data or
poor route planning. Damage to a pipeline can occur if a burial asset
slides sideways down a slope apply loads to the line. Loads can also be
applied at freespans if they are out with an assets capability. Pipeline
ploughs pose greater risks of pipeline damage compared to a small
trenchers, a pipeline plough can weigh in the region of 150 Te
(submerged) and tow forces in region 200 to 250 Te are typical in
sandy soils. These large forces can create significant damage in the
event of an incident associated with steep seabed slopes. Trenchers are
lighter with a low driving force in place of high tow forces. Although
clearly trenchers with cutting tools can still pose a significant risk if the
cutting tool can contact the pipeline in a slope related incident. Damage
can comprise a wide spectrum from minor coating damage to pipeline
deformation. Any serious pipeline damage will result in large costs
involved with mobilising a repair spread. In addition to direct costs
there is also likely to be effects on the schedule of a sub sea
development resulting in further significant costs. Damage to a burial
asset is also likely to be expensive and time consuming. As with
pipeline damage schedule effects can result in significant secondary
costs, possibly for numerous other pipeline burial projects scheduled
for the same year.
EXAMPLES AND CASE STUDIES
The previous section provided an introduction to a number of the issues
and challenges surrounded pipeline burial. In order to give context and
to elaborate on some of these points this section presents examples
from pipeline burial projects.
As noted, sedimentary features are a common challenge to pipeline
burial. The authors have experienced these features on shallow water
projects in many areas of the world. Within Europe, sedimentary
features are particularly prevalent in the shallow water of the southern
North Sea both in the UK and Dutch Sector. Three project undertaken
in recent years illustrate some important aspects of pipeline burial in
this type of terrain. An additional example of a project in a pockmarked
terrain is also included.
Project A was characterised by sand waves with a wavelength of
between 100 m and 500 m and up to 8m high. Project B was
characterised by mega ripples with a wavelength of 10m - 15m and
heights up to 1m. The importance of the morphology of the seabed
rather than the absolute angle or height of features is illustrated by these
two projects. Project A with its gradual transitions between slopes was
the less challenging project, freespans were rare and the pipeline
plough used on this project was able to accommodate the gradual
changes in angle between stoss and lee slope. Project B was
considerably more challenging, free spans were present at most features
and the sharp changes of angles resulted in jet leg rotation for the
tracked trencher that undertook burial on this project. Multiple passes
were required on project B. Following these multiple passes the
required DoL and DoC were successful achieved, in addition there was
some evidence of reduction in OOS from the initial as laid profile of
the pipeline.
Projects A and B also illustrate the issue of survey data quality. On
project A the larger features where adequately characterised by a vessel
mounted multibeam echo sounder (MBE) survey. In contrast to project
B the only information was a survey which it subsequently became
clear had failed to adequately characterise the smaller bed forms
prevalent on this site, underestimating their size, frequency and the
slopes associated with them. An accurate characterisation of these mega
ripples was achieved using a narrow corridor high resolution MBE
survey undertaken by ROV. The importance of high quality survey data
was also illustrated by Site C. For Site C a survey was undertaken some
time before offshore operations as part of the project tendering process.
During offshore operations it became evident that the initial survey had
only characterised the larger feature. Issues surrounding data resolution
and data processing had resulted in a failure to characterise smaller bed
forms which where associated with the larger bed forms present at this
site.
Site D was located in a very soft clay area characterised by a
pockmarked seabed terrain. Initially a straight line route was adopted
for this project. However, the benefits of route optimisation were
quickly demonstrated, reducing the angles that the trenching asset had
to accommodate with only a moderate increase in route length. The
importance of a wide route corridor was highlighted when re-routing
went very close to the edge of the survey corridor. A pipeline plough
was used at site D to trench a pipeline which was subsequently
backfilled with a backfill plough. In addition to the re-routing some
benefits in reduced OOS were obtained by making adjustments to the
plough when traversing pockmarks. Speeds where reduced to give
plough operators time to operate the skid and roller box heights in
response to pitch and roll sensors. Skid adjustment resulted in reduced
pitch of the asset and changed the trench profile to reduce OOS in these
areas albeit with slightly reduce cover height.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has discussed the advantages pipeline burial provides and
the drivers that can lead to the decision to bury all or part of a pipeline
system. The origin of natural and man made slopes have also been
presented along with the range of pipeline burial assets that are
available to the sub sea installation contractor should burial be
undertaken.
906
If seabed slopes are encountered during a pipeline burial project the
problems that can occur range from relatively minor problems that are
simple to address with appropriate engineering to catastrophic problems
resulting in significant costs and delays. Throughout there has been an
emphasis on early front end engineering to address these challenges
before they are encountered in the field. As the raw material that feeds
into this engineering a route survey that adequately characterises the
seabed morphology is extremely important. Time and effort focussed
towards this aim is generally well spent. Perhaps the most promising
engineering solution discussed in this paper is route optimisation,
which in combination with high quality survey data and up front
engineering provides a powerful combination to meet the challenges
posed by pipeline burial on sloping seabeds.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support and encouragement
provided by Acergy during the course of writing this paper. In
particular we would like to thank the individuals involved with Acergy
library services for their assistance in obtaining some references
referred to in this paper.
REFERENCES
Allan, PG, and Comrie, RJ, (2001). “The selection of appropriate burial
tools and burial depth,” Suboptic 2001, Kyoto, Japan, May 2001.
API (2005). “API Recommended Practice 2SK – Design and Analysis
of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures,” American
Petroleum Institute.
Bolton, MD, and Barefoot, AJ, (1997). “The variation of critical
pipeline trench backfill properties” IBC Conference on Risk Based and
Limit State Design and Operation of Pipelines, Aberdeen, May 1997.
Bruton, D, Carr, M, Crawford, M, and Poiate, E, (2005). “The Safe
Design of Hot On-Bottom Pipelines with Lateral Buckling using the
Design Guideline Developed by SAFEBUCK Joint Industry Project.”
Deep Offshore Technology 2005, Vitoria, Brazil, November 2005.
Cameron, TDJ, Crosby, A, Balson, PS, Jeffery, DH, Lott, GK, Bulat, J,
and Harrison, (1992). “British Geological Survey – United Kingdom
Offshore Regional Report -The geology of the southern North Sea,”
HMSO, London.
Cifi, G, Dondurur, D and Ergun, M, (2002). “Sonar and High
Resolution Seismic Studies in the Eastern Black Sea,” Turkisk J. Earth
Sci., Vol. 11, pp. 61 -81.
Clarom (1993). “Design Guides For Offshore Structures – Stability and
operation of jackups,”. Le Tirant, P and Perol C (eds). Edtions Technip,
Paris.
Collberg, L, and Levold, E, (2005). “Structural design of HPHT
pipelines - new guideline,” Rio Pipeline Conference and Exposition
2005, Rio, 17-19 October 2005.
DNV (1988) “Onbottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines” Det
Norske Veritas.
DNV (2002). “RP-F107 Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection,” Det
Norske Veritas.
Finch, M, Fisher, R, Palmer, A, and Baumgard, A, (2000). “ An
Integrated Approach to Pipeline Burial in the 21st Century,” Deep
Offshore Technology 2000, New Orleans, Novermber 2000.
Friedman, GM, Sanders, JE, and Kopaska-Merkel, DC, (1992).
“Principles of Sedimentary Deposits – Stratigraphy and
Sedimentology,” Macmillan, New York.
Gay,A, Lopez, M, Cochonat, P, Seranne, M, Levache, D, and
Sermondadaz, G, (2006) “Isolated seafloor pockmarks linked to BSR's,
fluid chimneys, polygonal faults and stacked Oligocene - Miocene
turbiditic palaeochannels in the Lower Congo Basin,” Marine Geology,
Febuary 2006; 226 (1-2) : 25 40.
Holden, OM, Paulsen, G, Petter, B, and Marthinsen, T, (2005). “Ormen
Lange Pipelines Routing and Cost-effective Seabed Preperation,”
ISOPE 2005, Seoul, Korea, June 2005.
Judd, AG, (2001). “Pockmarks in the UK sector of the North Sea,”
Department of Trade and Industry Technical Report TR_002.
Kodaissi, E, (1995). “Upheaval Buckling Behavior of Flexible
Flowlines” ISOPE 1995, The Hague, Netherlands, June 1995.
Lewis, CFM, and Woodworth-Lynas, CMT. (1990). “Contraints to
development – Ice Scour” Geology of the Continental Margin of
Eastern Canada: Keen, M.J. (ed), Geological Survey of Canada,
Ottawa.
Long, D, (1986) “Seabed Sediments - Fladen Sheet 58°N-00° -
1:250,000 Series” British Geological Survey, Southhampton.
Oliveira, JRMS, Almeida, MSS, Almeida, MCF, Borges, RG, Amaral,
CS, and Costa, AM, (2005). “Physical and numerical modelling of
lateral buckling of a pipeline in very soft clay,” Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics: ISFOG 2005 – Gourvenec & Cassify (eds). Taylor &
Francis, London.
907
Palmer, A, (1997). “Geotechnical evidence of ice scour as a guide to
pipeline burial depth,” Can. Geotech. J. Vol 34, pp 1002 - 1003.
Passchier, S, and Kleinhans, MG, (2005). “Observations of sand waves,
megaripples, and hummocks in the Dutch coastal area and their relation
to currents and combined flow conditions,” J Geophys Res., Vol 110,
pp 1 – 15.
Schaminee, PEL, Zorn, NF, and Schotman, GJM (1990). “Soil response
for pipeline upheaval buckling analyses: full-scale laboratory tests and
modelling,” Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA, May
1990, OTC Paper No. 6486.
Soulsby, R, (1997) “Dynamics of marine sands” Thomas Telford,
London.
Spinazze, M, Torselleti, E, and Levold, E (2005). “Hotpipe JI project:
high pressure/ high temperature pipeline laid on uneven seabeds,” Proc.
24th OMAE conference, Halkidikie, Greece. 12-17 June 2005, OMAE
Paper No. 67525.
Sumer, BM, Fredsoe, J, Christensen, MT, Lind, MT, (1999). “Sinking /
floatation of pipelines and other objects in liquefied soil under waves,”
Coastal Engineering, Vol 38, pp 53 - 90.
Teh, TC, Palmer AC, Bolton, Damgaard, JS, (2006). “Stability of
Submarine Pipelines on Liquefied Seabeds,” Journal of Waterway,
Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, July/August 2006, pp.244 - 251.
Vyhof (2005). “Anchor Manual,” Vyhof Anchors B.V., Netherlands.
Young, AG, Osborne, RS, and Frazer, I, (2001) “Utilizing the thermal
properties of seabed soils as a cost effective insulation for subsea
flowlines.” Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA,
April/May 1990, OTC Paper No. 13137.