OTC 21671

Overview of the SAFEBUCK JIP

D. A. S. Bruton - Atkins; M. Carr - Votadini
Copyright 2011, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 25 May 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.


Abstract
This paper summarizes key areas of research and development undertaken by the SAFEBUCK Joint Industry Project (JIP),
including the development of engineering models and the testing of pipe-soil interaction, fatigue and local buckling.

The SAFEBUCK Joint Industry Project set out to address one of the key design challenges for pipelines - buckling due to the
compressive forces created by internal pressure and temperature - by supporting and guiding a design approach that
deliberately encourages pipelines to buckle, but in a controlled way. By controlled initiation of lateral buckles at regular
intervals, the loads are shared and reduced at each buckle site. Early application of this idea was hounded by problems due to
a lack of know-how, which led to a number of failures, including three full-bore ruptures and one abandonment, mostly due to
the issue not being addressed correctly in design. A related challenge addressed by the JIP, is pipeline walking, which has
been observed on a number of pipelines, leading to one failure and a number subsea interventions to prevent future failure.

With the JIP now entering its third and final phase, the design guideline and research findings have been applied on a number
of projects. This is therefore a good opportunity to present the SAFEBUCK design methodologies and research to a wider
audience, and outline work underway now, in the final phase. A series of papers follow in the same session at OTC 2011, to
provide more detail on the SAFEBUCK Design Guidance, research findings and the practical application of this technology to
the lateral buckling and walking of pipelines.

Figure 1 Side scan sonar image of lateral buckle

Introduction
Background
Subsea pipelines are increasingly being required to operate at higher temperatures and pressures. The natural tendency of such
a pipeline is to relieve the resulting high axial stress in the pipe-wall by buckling. Uncontrolled buckling can have serious
consequences for the integrity of a pipeline. An elegant and cost-effective design solution to this problem is to work with
rather than against the pipeline by controlling the formation of lateral buckles (Figure 1) along the pipeline. Controlled lateral
2 OTC 21671
buckling is an efficient solution to the relief of axial compression. Indeed, as temperature and pressures increase further,
lateral buckling may be the only economic solution. With the increase in deepwater developments, where pipeline trenching is
uncommon, even low temperature pipelines such as water injection flowlines become susceptible to lateral buckling. This
challenge has led to a radical advance in pipeline engineering with a greater need for a robust lateral buckling design solutions.

Prior to the launch of SAFEBUCK, the industrys understanding of lateral buckling was immature; many projects had
undertaken research work and considerable engineering with the aim of developing a robust solution. However, project
timescales frequently necessitated alternative fallback solutions and this approach led to some high profile project issues, in
some cases risks were not identified early enough, leading to late design changes that incurred considerable project costs. This
immaturity in knowledge was sadly demonstrated by the occurrence of unexpected lateral buckles in a number of pipelines,
leading in some cases to pipeline failure. These failures included three catastrophic full-bore pipeline ruptures in the North
Sea, West Africa and Brazil. In the first two cases, lateral buckling was not addressed correctly in design; in the last case,
buckling was caused by the unexpected exposure and global instability of a pipeline buried in very soft clay.

A similar story emerged with the issue of pipeline walking, which can cause global axial movement of a whole pipeline.
Again, understanding in the industry was immature, although pipeline walking had been observed on a number of pipelines,
leading to subsea intervention to eliminate walking on some pipelines and at least one full-bore connection failure.

The SAFEBUCK JIP (joint industry project) was initiated in 2002, with the support of key operators in the industry to address
these uncertainties and deliver a demonstrably safe and effective lateral buckling design approach, based on targeted
experimental research and the development of Design Guidance. Groundbreaking research was carried out by a world-class
team, of leaders in their field, to contribute to the design guidance and research programs including fatigue, local buckling,
buckle initiation and pipe-soil interaction. The sharing of knowledge and data by participants within the JIP has also been
exceptional. Many novel test-methods developed for the JIP are now used routinely for oil and gas projects.

The level of understanding, research and technology, developed by the JIP over the last nine years, is well beyond what can be
achieved in any project timescale, showing how a JIP can take the long-term view to help improve the way we do projects.

JIP Scope of Work, Technology and Data Sharing
The scope of work for Phase I of the SAFEBUCK JIP is summarized in Figure 2 and discussed in this paper, which highlights
key findings, design methodologies and test results.

Figure 2 Scope of Work for the SAFEBUCK JIP

The starting point of the JIP was to assemble a knowledge base of participants and contractors experience, including test data
and lessons learned from lateral buckling design and operating experience. This process of gathering of data has continued
throughout the JIP. The JIP has therefore been incredibly successful at forming a global knowledge base, with relevant data
OTC 21671 3
donated by JIP contractors and JIP participants, on operating pipeline behavior and relevant project-specific test programs.
The spirit of sharing knowledge and data within the JIP is exceptional, with participants donating data with estimated research
costs far exceeding the total value of the JIP. This has provided a valuable, generic industry view of the data and lessons
learned - a significant improvement over short-term, operator-specific or project-specific reviews.

Design Methodology and Guidance
Design Guideline
The SAFEBUCK Design Guideline, by Carr et al
[10]
is the most important updated deliverable from the JIP, which has now
been employed on a large number of international projects. The Design Guideline outlines a clear, robust methodology, which
addresses the inherent uncertainty in the lateral buckling problem and the complexity of the analysis required. The Guideline
provides a framework that allows all stakeholders in the design process to focus on the key challenges, at all stages in the
project lifecycle. Use of the Guideline is independent of any specific design code but is intended to work alongside the
leading pipeline design codes DNV-OS-F101
[15]
and API 1111
[14]
.

While the guideline is available to participants and their immediate subcontractors, a key aim of the current Phase III of
SAFEBUCK is to formalize the Guideline into an Industry Recommended Practice. This will ensure that the work embodied
in the Guideline is ultimately available to as large a number of projects as possible, for the benefit of the whole industry. The
Guideline captures, at a high level, all the work that has been carried out to support the JIP, summarized in this paper,
including the development of design and analysis methods, supported by extensive research into some of the most challenging
uncertainties that designers face.

Design Methodology
SAFEBUCK has developed a design methodology for lateral buckling and walking of pipelines, covering single pipe and pipe-
in-pipe systems. This methodology is based on encouraging the deliberate formation of lateral buckles by pre-installing
triggers at intervals along a pipeline that is susceptible to buckling. The assessment of susceptibility to pipeline walking and
control of walking is also addressed. These methodologies are summarized in Figure 3 and the terminology is explained in the
following sections.
Is pipeline
susceptible to
buckling?
Select Initiation Method
Determine peak loads and cyclic stresses
for Characteristic VAS
Are Key
Limit States
Exceeded?
Check Buckle Formation Reliability
Check Characteristic spacing (VAS)
Modify Initiation Method
or
Select New Initiation Method
Design
Parameters
Lateral Buckling
Design Solution
No
Yes
No
Yes
Simplest first
More complex with increasing P&T
Local Buckling
Fatigue & ECA
Peak Strain Limit
Tolerable VAS > Characteristic VAS
Review
Design
Parameters
Yes
Is pipeline
susceptible to
walking?
Define rate of walking for each driving
mechanism & potential contribution of each
For multiple buckles assess localised &
global walking response & buckle stability*
Are Displacement
Limits Exceeded?
Define end and mid-line connection
displacement limits
Select Anchoring method to
control walking & define
anchor location(s)
Design
Parameters
Pipeline Walking
Design Solution
No
Yes
No
Yes
Slopes
Liquid hold up
Thermal Transients
SCR loads
Review
Design
Parameters
Yes
* May require reassessment
of lateral buckling solution


Figure 3 Design Roadmap for (a) Lateral Buckling and (b) Pipeline Walking

Virtual Anchor Spacing
A key component to the design approach is the adoption of a technique that simplifies design by analyzing an isolated lateral
buckle between virtual anchors, in what is now commonly called VAS Analysis, where VAS refers to the virtual anchor
spacing.

As the flowline is encouraged to form a number of discrete lateral buckles along its length to share the load between them, the
force in the pipe reduces at each lateral buckle. Approximately half-way between the buckles the pipe forms a virtual anchor
point, from where feed-in occurs towards each buckle. The level of feed-in (flowline axial expansion) defines the extent of
growth and load in the lateral buckles. The design methodology is then based around the Characteristic VAS (previously
defined as the Probable VAS) which defines the maximum spacing expected at any point along a pipeline, from probabilistic
analysis. This can then be compared to the Tolerable VAS which is the spacing at which one of the design limit states is
exceeded.

4 OTC 21671
b
u
c
k
l
e

n
o
.

2
b
u
c
k
l
e

n
o
.

1
b
u
c
k
l
e

n
o
.

3
b
u
c
k
l
e

n
o
.

4
VA VA VA VA VA VA VA
fully developed force profile
distance along pipeline
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

a
x
i
a
l

f
o
r
c
e
Virtual Anchors

Figure 4 Force profile along pipeline showing Virtual Anchor Spacing (VAS) and reduction in force at each lateral buckle

Effective Force and Influences
As the pressure and temperature in a pipeline increases, the pipe attempts to expand but this expansion is resisted by the axial
friction between the pipe and the seabed. The resulting build-up of axial force in the pipeline is defined by the effective
force, which drives the structural response and is made up of the (true) force in the pipe wall and the pressure induced axial
force. The natural tendency of such a pipeline is to relieve the resulting high axial stress in the pipe-wall by buckling. The
assessment of effective force is therefore fundamental to the pipeline response. While thermal loading generally dominates the
effective force in production systems, pressure dominates the effective force in low temperature water injection systems.
However the effective force in the pipeline can also be moderated by the residual tension from installation, or by deliberately
flooding the pipeline during installation, as described by Sinclair et al
[19]
. The advantages of reducing the axial force has led to
flooded installation being adopted on some recent projects. Residual tensile load can also be generated when installing an
insulated pipeline that has insufficient time to cool to ambient temperature before reaching the seabed, for which an analytical
model was developed by Anderson et al
[1]
. Any significant locked in tension will influence the buckling behavior of the
pipeline by inhibiting buckle formation and reducing pipeline expansion.

Models for the Assessment of Lateral Buckling and Pipeline Walking
To support the design methodology, analytical solutions were developed for conceptual design assessments of lateral buckling
and walking and software was created to tackle some of the more challenging detailed design requirements, such as buckle
formation and pipe-soil interaction; these are described below. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) methods were also reviewed to
provide guidance on their application.

Analytical Models
To ensure that the risk associated with lateral buckling and pipeline walking is managed within a project, the technical
challenges must be thoroughly explored at the conceptual design stage. The use of non-linear FEA (finite element analysis) at
the conceptual stage of a project is generally not realistic, nor is it a practical use of resources. SAFEBUCK therefore
developed analytical models to evaluate both lateral buckling and pipeline walking:
1. For lateral buckling assessments, analytic models were developed (for single pipe and pipe-in-pipe systems) that
incorporate first load plasticity and cyclic fatigue in operation. These models were implemented in Mathcad and
successfully validated against FE analysis. They are a significant improvement over published analytical models that are
based purely on elastic stress limits, when in reality lateral buckling is generally accompanied by moderate plastic
deformation on the first load cycle. Consequently, the existing elastic models are excessively conservative and do not
address the true design limit states.
2. Pipeline walking assessments - after evaluating and developing a sound understanding of the underlying driving
mechanisms, analytic models were developed to evaluate the rate of walking. Due to its fundamental importance to
pipeline integrity, this important work was published by Carr et al 2006
[11]
.

FEA Analysis
In the detailed design phase, analysis will be based upon FE analysis techniques. With the advent of modern FE packages,
the analysis technique has become more and more like a black box. However, FE analysis, like any other analysis tool, is
simply a mathematical model of the physical world. If the model omits important physical parameters then it is possible to
produce results that are misleading at best and catastrophic at worst. The work performed for the JIP investigated the effect of
modeling assumptions in four broad categories:
Mathematical modeling issues;
OTC 21671 5
Strain localization phenomena;
Material modeling;
Pipe-soil interaction modeling.
This investigation assessed the importance of the various physical effects, to produce guidance on the parameters that must be
incorporated within the design analysis. To ensure a robust assessment of the loads within a buckle, the JIP made a number of
recommendations for FE modeling of lateral buckling, previously summarized by Bruton et al, 2005
[3]
.

Buckle formation Reliability Assessment
Buckle formation is an imperfection sensitive process that is intimately linked to the initial condition of the pipeline the
out-of-straightness (OOS) and the breakout lateral friction, which is a function of the initial pipeline embedment and the soil
properties. The buckling response of a pipeline will always be inherently uncertain because the project specific OOS and level
of embedment along the pipeline are not known prior to pipe lay and there will be uncertainty in the soil properties along the
route. The designer must therefore understand this uncertainty and reduce it to levels whereby the project can proceed with
confidence.
Lateral buckle spacing, defined by the VAS is fundamental to this design approach; a smaller distance between intended
buckle sites implies less severe buckles, but the likelihood of buckles forming is also reduced. This means that buckling may
not occur at some of the intended sites, so that the robustness of the solution decreases. Within the SAFEBUCK design
methodology; this challenge is addressed by defining an acceptable level of reliability, which by necessity requires a
probabilistic design approach.
SAFEBUCK developed a structural reliability model of the pipeline expansion process to calculate the probability of
buckling and the likely spacing between buckles, using probabilistic methods (Figure 5). An overview of the model is given
by Cosham et al 2009
[13]
, who demonstrate a significant advance on current methods for estimating buckle formation reliability
bringing some welcome simplicity to the design process. This model has been coded into Fortran software called
BUCKFAST, which is available to participants of the JIP. The approach is ideally suited to assessing the benefits of
engineered buckle initiators.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 5 10 15 20
KP
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e

V
A
S

(
m
)
No Triggers 5 Triggers (Rogues)
5 Triggers (Planned)

Figure 5 Prediction of Characteristic VAS - Example


Engineered Buckle Initiators
Lateral buckling has steadily matured as a design solution, with a focus on reliable buckle formation reducing peak loads, and
controlling fatigue. As design conditions become more challenging, primarily due to increasing operating temperatures, more
complex buckle initiation methods are required to achieve reliable formation and satisfy design limit states.
Lateral buckles are initiated deliberately by introducing planned initiation sites (buckle triggers) along the pipeline route that
significantly reduce the buckle initiation force to increase the likelihood that buckles will form as planned. This has a
profound influence on the design methodology. The planned initiation methods, illustrated in Figure 6, are described more
fully with operational experience by Sinclair et al. 2009
[19]
. The engineered buckle initiation methods that have been used on
many deepwater projects to promote the reliable formation of lateral buckles and control the buckle spacing and operating
loads, include:
Snake-lay
Vertical Upset
Local weight reduction
Snake Lay
Snake lay relies on regular, as-laid, lateral curvature imperfections installed along the pipeline route, to trigger lateral
buckles. The reliability of buckle formation can be increased by reducing the radius or increasing the length of curvature in
6 OTC 21671
each snake. The post-buckle shape is also modified by the snake-shape, generally reducing the load in comparison with an
unplanned buckle.
Vertical Upset
Vertical upsets, the most common being a large diameter pipe section (sleeper), are preinstalled perpendicular to the pipe
route at the desired buckle spacing. The vertical out-of-straightness and reduction in lateral soil restraint, reduces the buckle
initiation force and lifts the high curvature section of the buckle off the seabed, reducing lateral restraint on the pipe, reducing
peak and cyclic loads. This technique can only be used where there is little chance of snagging due to fishing and span lengths
are acceptable.
Localized Weight Reduction
Reducing pipe weight over a short section (typically up to 100m) of the pipeline is most commonly achieved using
buoyancy at the desired buckle initiation sites. The localized light section with an increase in outside diameter creates a
vertical out-of-straightness and a reduction in lateral soil restraint that reduces the buckle initiation force. The reduced
operational submerged weight within the buoyant section also reduces the lateral frictional restraint on the pipe, reducing peak
and cyclic loads. This technique can be used with any pipeline, although fishing interaction and on-bottom stability must also
be addressed in design. A variation of this technique for concrete coated pipelines is to reduce or eliminate the weight coating
over a short section.



Figure 6 Engineered buckle initiators

Lateral Buckling - Failure Modes and Limit States
The limit states that usually dominate lateral buckle loading are local buckling or fatigue, although weld fracture and defect
tolerance must also be assessed. Local buckling failure is of most concern when a buckle is formed, and generally defines the
maximum plastic deformation on first load. Subsequent cyclic loading is generally in the elastic range and defines the
allowable fatigue life and fracture requirements. In addition to these limit states; the pipeline material specification must be
consistent with the high levels of imposed load. A limit is placed on the first load strain, to ensure that the uniform strain
capacity of the material is not approached. Sometimes, in conditions of extreme sour service, an additional strain limit is
applied to minimize or avoid plasticity in the presence of high levels of H
2
S. A limit is also placed on the maximum axial
stress range, to prevent cyclic plasticity; this limit considers the biaxial nature of the stresses and incorporates an allowance for
the Bauschinger effect.

Key limit state design checks are performed for peak loads (local buckling of the pipeline wall and fracture) and also cyclic
loads (Girth weld SN fatigue and ECA). Design criteria for local buckling and SN fatigue are given in DNV OS-F101
[15]
and
API1111
[14]
. The SAFEBUCK Design Guideline
[10]
encapsulates the above code requirements, and recommends a further
OTC 21671 7
limit state check on peak strains, such that the strain capacity of the flowline is not exceeded. However SAFEBUCK also
recommends modifications to the safety factors in these codes, based on testing specific to the lateral buckling limit state.

Local Buckling
One key limit state for designing to accommodate lateral buckling is local buckling of the pipe cross-section. Local buckling
is driven by the high imposed bending in combination with internal and external pressure. Relatively little work has addressed
the effect of these combined loads for the D/t (diameter/thickness) range of interest to submarine pipelines (between 10 and
45). Further, little attention has been paid to the importance of Lder banding. This type of behavior is normal in seamless
linepipe, which is used for most in-field flowlines, and can be extremely detrimental to the local buckling capacity of a pipe.
Carr et al 2011
[9]
addressed this issue by performing a combination of full-scale testing and numerical modeling to investigate
the local buckling behavior of seamless linepipe. The work showed that the local buckling response is fundamentally
influenced by the Lder plateau. Pipes with a low D/t ratio buckle at strains far above the Lder strain and have a high
buckling capacity. However, pipes with a high D/t ratio may buckle below the Lder strain, in which case there is essentially
no beneficial effect of strain hardening and the pipe has a very low buckling capacity. This work looked at buckling capacity
across a wide D/t range, including the D/t transition zone where the behavior changes from one response to the other. Current
design equations do not capture the influence of the Lder plateau, and the design margin implied by the equation varies
considerably over the range of parameters considered; it was concluded that more robust design equations should be
developed.

Fatigue
Another key limit state for designing to accommodate lateral buckling is low-frequency high-stress fatigue. This design limit
is driven by shutdown-restart cycles and is often the overriding design concern, particularly if the pipeline is exposed to a
corrosive or sour environment.

In pipelines designed to buckle laterally, shutdownrestart cycles result in significant axial cyclic stress ranges experienced at
the buckle crown. The fatigue performance of girth welds in this high-stress low-cycle regime is therefore often a critical
aspect of overall pipeline design. Although thermal cycling is usually intended to be entirely elastic, stress ranges may
approach or even marginally exceed the uniaxial yield stress, particularly early in life. Under these conditions, material
response may differ from that conventionally seen under low-stress high-cycle fatigue loading, such as that resulting from
wave or VIV loading. In particular, the possibility of cyclic softening needs to be considered, and specific boundaries set to
ensure such behavior is avoided.

The specific nature of the fatigue loading associated with lateral buckling, also presents a significant challenge when
considering the likely corrosion fatigue performance of girth welds exposed to either seawater or produced fluids. Corrosion
fatigue performance is known to depend on the frequency of cyclic loading, with lower frequency loading incurring greater
fatigue damage in each cycle. Unfortunately, the cyclic loading frequency associated with lateral buckling is very low (at least
several hours per cycle) and this is beyond the range of conventional laboratory testing. Special techniques and methods of
analysis are therefore needed to determine an appropriate fatigue life reduction factor for use in design.
Baxter et al 2011
[2]
describe the SAFEBUCK fatigue testing program, which evaluated cyclic softening at high stress ranges,
as well as fatigue performance under the low frequency loading associated with lateral buckles in corrosive environment. This
included a series of crack-growth and fatigue endurance tests in seawater with CP, representing conditions on the outside of
the pipe; and in sour production fluid environment, representing conditions on the inside of the pipe. This assessment and
testing of fatigue performance in a lateral buckle has highlighted a key concern because the fatigue loading frequency is
incredibly low (a few hundred cycles over a twenty-year design life). This combination of low frequency, corrosive
environment and high stress range means that fatigue lives can be reduced by a factor of ten or more.

Pipeline Walking Assessment and Control
Pipeline walking is a stepwise ratcheting mechanism that occurs during changes in operating conditions, particularly during
shutdown and restart operations. Over a number of cycles, this movement can lead to very large global axial displacements,
with associated overload of any connections. Where the predicted pipe walking displacements threaten system integrity,
walking may be controlled by the use of pipeline anchors, typically installed at the end of the pipeline from which it is
walking. However, pipeline anchors result in very high levels of tension at shutdown, which can lead to large radius route-
curves becoming unstable. This is usually overcome by increasing the route-curve radius, or removing route curves altogether
by changing the field layout. For these reasons, the pipeline buckling and walking responses are key drivers in the layout of a
field development.

A number of deepwater projects have identified pipeline-walking issues in design that required mitigation, typically by
installation of pipeline anchors, typically suction piles with a capacity of 50 to 350 tons. Several of these projects are now in
operation and feedback on the walking response is gradually emerging. This includes the observation and measurement of an
8 OTC 21671
unexpectedly rapid pipeline walking response, which led to the identification of the multiphase flow mechanism as the root
cause.

A number of contributory mechanisms, illustrated schematically in Figure 7, are now known to cause pipeline walking:
Sustained tension - applied to the end of a pipeline by a steel catenary riser (SCR);
Seabed slopes - along the pipe length, defined by route bathymetry;
Thermal transients - changes in fluid temperature and thermal loading during shutdown and restart operations;
Multiphase flow behavior - during shutdown and restart operations, driven by segregation of gas and liquids.

The first three walking mechanism are explained by Carr et al, 2006
[11]
, the last mechanism is explained by Bruton et al
2010
[6]
; in each case the authors developed analytical models verified against FEA, to quantify the rate of walking.



Figure 7 Pipeline Walking Mechanisms


Pipe-Soil Interaction
Longitudinal expansion of a pipeline is resisted by the axial resistance between the pipe and the seabed. This restraint causes
an axial compressive force to develop in the pipeline, which can lead to buckling; if such a pipeline has sufficient out of
straightness to start a buckle forming, there is only lateral soil resistance to prevent it. Once a buckle starts to form, pipe feeds
into the buckle longitudinally, resisted by axial friction along the pipe and lateral resistance at the buckle, where the level of
lateral resistance controls the shape of the buckle and the loads that the pipe will experience. Once the pipeline shuts down,
the resistance provided by the soil is reversed; the axial resistance limits contraction of the pipe and lateral resistance resists
the straightening of the buckle. It is clear that the resistance generated by the soil around the pipe is critical to establishing the
response of the system and the loads it experiences.

The pipe-soil response therefore affects the design limit states associated with lateral buckling, pipeline walking, route-curve
pullout and flowline anchoring. These behaviors are all extremely sensitive to pipe-soil interaction forces and there is
significant uncertainty associated with the characterization of these forces in design. The complexity that lies behind the
lateral and axial pipe-soil response in soft clays has led to a radical over-haul of established geotechnical practice in pipe-soil
interaction. SAFEBUCK and many recent projects have invested significant research effort to evaluate, quantify and
understand these pipe-soil interaction mechanisms. A rigorous theoretical understanding of the basic phenomena involved has
only recently emerged, principally through research activity associated with the SAFEBUCK JIP.

Lateral Response
SAFEBUCK started research into the large displacement cyclic lateral response of pipelines on very soft deep-water marine
clays at Cambridge University in 2002 (Figure 8a). This early work strongly influenced lateral buckling design in soft clays
by demonstrating the large displacement response and the important influence of soil berms on cyclic lateral response. The
data was reviewed, alongside data donated to the JIP, by Bruton et al 2006
[4]
. Further large-scale tests (Figure 8b) at the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) were reported by Jayson et al
[17]
. These targeted relatively light wet-insulated
pipelines, although a few tests with heavier pipe identified a radically different response, with higher levels of friction that
increased with displacement.

OTC 21671 9


Axial test set up
Lateral test set up
Figure 8 Large-Scale Pipe-soil Interaction Testing at (a) Cambridge University (b) Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

SAFEBUCK pioneered the idea of small-scale lateral pipe-soil tests in a centrifuge, firstly at Cambridge University in the UK
and then at the University of Western Australia (UWA). Such tests are now established as a reliable evaluation method for
new projects. The repeatability of such tests and their validation against large-scale tests has allowed more precise light pipe
models to be developed for JIP Participants.


Figure 9 Small-Scale Centrifuge Testing of Lateral Pipe-soil Interaction at (a) Cambridge Uni. (b) Uni. of Western Australia

Centrifuge tests were also ideally suited to evaluate this heavy pipe response with a series of small-scale, deep bin tests
carried out at UWA for the JIP (Bruton et al 2008
[7]
) and then for a project (Bruton et al 2009
[8]
). These tests, and the work
that followed, provided a good understanding of the complex lateral cyclic response of pipe that is heavy in relation to the soil
shear strength. Such pipes tend to dive under cyclic displacement, causing the contact pressure to reduce, as the lobes of the
buckle displace laterally and penetrate vertically; the rate of reduction in contact pressure with increasing penetration of the
buckle lobes is approximately linear with depth and is defined by the structural response of the pipe in the lateral buckle.
Clearly, this reduction in contact pressure means that the rate of penetration reduces and the lateral resistance eventually
plateaus to a steady-state cyclic resistance (Bruton et al, 2009
[8]
). The unfortunate complexity of such models is being
addressed in the next phase of the JIP.

Axial Response
For some years, interface friction tests for pipelines have been carried out at the University of Texas using a Tilt Table device
to measure the fully-drained interface friction (Najjar et al 2003
[18]
). SAFEBUCK initiated research at Cambridge University
to assess the influence of pipe roughness and pipe velocity on the interface resistance of pipelines on soft clays, using the
Camshear device; with the specific intent of evaluating partially drained interface resistance, which was expected to be less in
many cases than the drained friction response. This was a concern for lateral buckling and particularly pipeline walking, as the
lower bound friction is often the most critical in pipeline expansion and walking rate assessments.

10 OTC 21671
This work confirmed that lower bound partially-drained frictional resistance was a concern; this led to the development and
improvement of test methods, within the JIP and on current projects. A series of short and long pipe tests were proposed to
capture the excess pore-water drainage paths around the pipe circumference. These tests, summarized by White et al 2011
[22]
,
also confirmed that axial resistance is strongly link to the pipe velocity.

Meanwhile a number of projects also carried out some large-scale axial tests at NGI (Figure 8b), summarized by Jayson et al.
2008
[17]
and Bruton et al 2009
[8]
. This development and improvement to testing methods has also contributed significantly to
the development of a large-scale test rig called SMARTPIPE described by Hill & Jacob 2008
[16]
, using the lessons learned
from large-scale laboratory tests to carry out in-situ tests in deep water offshore West Africa.

Integrity Monitoring in Operation and Feedback on Performance
While integrity monitoring is vitally important to the safe long-term performance of the system, it is clear to all those involved
in the design of such systems that the feedback from good integrity monitoring of operational systems is also of vital benefit to
future projects.

To demonstrate that a system, susceptible to laterally buckling or pipeline walking, is fit for service, it is essential to obtain
flowline positional data during operation to be able to assess the true lateral buckle response, end expansions and rates of
walking. Performing detailed out-of-straightness (OOS) and visual surveys on flowlines that are susceptible to lateral buckling
or pipeline walking is essential to assess flowline integrity and to advance the understanding of this complex and uncertain
flowline system behavior. Surveys of sufficient accuracy must be performed to verify the location, buckling mode, curvature
and amplitude of the lateral buckles along the whole pipeline, to be able to assess the loads in the system and the probable load
history based on operational pressure and temperature data. This integrity monitoring approach is critical to system integrity
and the ongoing fatigue performance of any pipeline, indeed it is often a requirement of the design approach that fatigue
damage is monitored (specifically this affects the selection of an appropriate Fatigue Usage factor). Detailed pipeline surveys
conducted in the North Sea, West Africa and the Gulf of Mexico have confirmed the value of integrity monitoring to long-term
system integrity. In particular, recent surveys have identified unexpected behavior, providing important lessons for future
projects that are now being addressed early in design, and in some cases resulting in subsea mitigation works to ensure future
system integrity (Watson et al. 2011
[21]
).

It is important to remember that many historically significant pipeline design issues were first recognized from integrity
monitoring surveys, including early observations of lateral buckling and pipeline walking. Recent examples of unexpected
behavior described by Watson et al
[20]
include the link between internal flow regimes and the global pipeline response.
Surveys have also been vital in confirming expected behavior, such as the clear interaction between lateral buckling and
pipeline walking, with pipeline expansion passing-through lateral buckles and migrating to the free-end of a pipeline.

The Current Phases of SAFEBUCK
The latest phases of the JIP, SAFEBUCK III and SAFEBUCK GEO, were launched in early 2010 to continue and complete
the development of methodologies to address the significant design challenge of controlling pipeline lateral buckling and
walking, particularly for deepwater, and high-temperature, high-pressure developments.
The key areas of work to be undertaken in SAFEBUCK Phase III, are:-
Verification of the reliability of the design methodology using structural reliability analysis, with the aim of reducing
unnecessary conservatism in design;
Collection and sharing of data and lessons learned from operating pipelines on recent projects without sharing potentially
sensitive project specific data;
Formalization of the SAFEBUCK Design Guideline into an Industry Recommended Practice, described further by
Collberg et al 2011
[12]
.

The key areas of work to be undertaken in SAFEBUCK GEO (the Geotechnical scope) are:-
The development of a new force-resultant plasticity model to run inside standard software packages, which will capture
the considerable experience from modeling and testing lateral pipe-soil interaction. This approach will fundamentally
improve the way that lateral pipe-soil response is addressed in design and help resolve the design challenges described by
Bruton et al 2010
[
5
]
.
A detailed review of axial friction response, based on recent project-specific tests, supplemented by additional JIP tests, to
improve our understanding and quantify key uncertainties that influence cyclic expansion and pipe-walking, described
further by White et al 2011
[22]
.

These latest phases have advanced well in the last year. In particular, SAFEBUCK III has commenced workshops with DNV
to progress the formalisation of the SAFEBUCK Design Guidelines into an Industry Recommended Practice by merging with
OTC 21671 11
and updating DNV RP-F110. The generosity of the participants has allowed data and lessons learned from operating pipelines
and recent projects to be collated and shared, enabling our design methodologies to be calibrated and refined.

Meanwhile, SAFEBUCK GEO is conducting further research into pipe-soil interaction, with focused small-scale centrifuge
testing of lateral pipe motion at the University of Western Australia and a detailed review of axial pipe motion in preparation
for axial testing at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. This work will fundamentally improve the way that pipe-soil
response is addressed in design

One key aim in Phase III is to collate performance data from operating pipelines that were designed to buckle laterally, to
improve our understanding of how they behave and better address the design challenges encountered on recent projects. The
data being collected includes information on pipeline embedment, OOS, buckle formation reliability and mode shape,
operational loads and responses


Conclusions - Advances in Technology
The lateral buckling and walking of pipelines creates design challenges that can affect the layout and architecture of new
developments, requiring careful definition of pipeline routes, bathymetric profiles and the location of production facilities, as
well as the design of pipeline crossings and tie-ins to risers and subsea structures.

The SAFEBUCK JIP has improved confidence in the lateral buckling and walking design methods and cost has been saved in
a variety of different ways, including shorter design times, avoiding over-conservative design solutions, reduced installation
costs and mitigating against operational issues and potential failures, with the obvious impact on production losses and the
environment.

The intellectual property generated by the JIP includes the Design Guideline, the research results and design software written
for the JIP, which is licensed to each Participant for use on their own field developments. A key contributor to the increasing
design certainty is the research and development undertaken by the JIP, including the development of engineering models and
the testing of pipe-soil interaction, fatigue and local buckling. The software and the evolution of the design methodology was a
significant investment for the JIP and are fundamental to the acceleration of the project design process and schedule. The
design cycle for such developments has reduced markedly over the duration of the JIP, reducing the key aspects of the
engineering design cycle from years to months. Indeed, recent projects would not have been engineered as quickly or with as
much design certainty or future operational reliability without the SAFEBUCK design methodology.

The early adopters of the JIP technology were the companies that participated in the first phases of the JIP for their most
challenging deepwater developments. Many of these developments are now in production and the integrity of their systems is
being assessed against the same SAFEBUCK methodology.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support and contribution of the SAFEBUCK Joint Industry Projects participants,
(ABS, Acergy (now Subsea 7), BOEM/MMS, BP, Bureau Veritas, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, DNV, ExxonMobil, Fugro, JFE,
Petrobras, Saipem, Shell, Statoil, Technip, Tenaris, Total and Woodside) and the JIP Partners (found at www.safebuck.com) .


References
1. Anderson, M., Bruton, D., Carr, M. 'The Influence of Pipeline Insulation On Installation Temperature, Effective Force and
Pipeline Buckling'. 26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. OMAE-29317 Jun 2007.
2. Baxter, D., Tubby, P. SAFEBUCK JIP: Critical Aspects of the Fatigue Limit State for Pipelines Designed to Laterally Buckle.
Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 21510 May 2011.
3. Bruton, D., Carr, M. Crawford, M. Poiate, E. 'The Safe Design of Hot On-Bottom Pipelines with Lateral Buckling using the
Design Guideline Developed by the SAFEBUCK Joint Industry Project.'. Deep Offshore Technology Conference. Nov 2005.
4. Bruton, D., White, D., Bolton, M. Cheuk C., Carr, M. 'Pipe/Soil Interaction Behavior during Lateral Buckling'. SPE Projects,
Facilities & Construction. SPEPFC106847 Sep 2006.
5. Bruton, D.A.S., Sinclair, F., Carr, M. Geotechnical challenges for deepwater pipeline design - SAFEBUCK JIP. Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics II. P779 Nov 2010.
6. Bruton, D.A.S., Sinclair, F., Carr, M. Lessons Learned From Observing Walking of Pipelines with Lateral Buckles, Including
New Driving Mechanisms and Updated Analysis Models. Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 20750 May 2010.
7. Bruton, D.A.S., White, D. Carr, M. Cheuk C. 'Pipe-Soil Interaction During Lateral Buckling and Pipeline Walking - The
SAFEBUCK JIP'. Offshore Technology Conference. OTC19589 May 2008.
8. Bruton, D.A.S., White, D. Langford, T.Hill, A. J. 'Techniques for the assessment of pipe-soil interaction forces for future
deepwater developments'. Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 20096 May 2009.
12 OTC 21671
9. Carr, M. MacRae, I., Bruton, D.A.S., SAFEBUCK: Local Buckling Limit State. Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 21668
May 2011.
10. Carr, M., Bruton, D., and Cosham, A. Design Guideline. Safebuck JIP. December 2008. (Confidential to JIP Participants).
11. Carr, M., Sinclair, F. Bruton, D. 'Pipeline Walking Understanding the Field Layout Challenges, and Analytical Solutions
developed for the SAFEBUCK JIP'. Offshore Technology Conference. OTC-17945 May 2006.
12. Collberg, L., Carr, M. Bruton, D.A.S., Levold, E., Safebuck Design Guideline. Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 21575
May 2011.
13. Cosham, A., Carr, M. Bruton, D.A.S. Leslie, D. 'The reliable initiation of lateral buckles SAFEBUCK JIP'. SUT Annual
Conference. Feb 2009.
14. Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design). API Recommended
Practice 1111. Third Edition, July 1999. American Petroleum Institute
15. Det Norske Veritas, Submarine Pipeline Systems, DNV-OS-F101, October 2007.
16. Hill, A.J. and Jacob, H In-Situ Measurement of Pipe-Soil Interaction in Deep Water Proc. Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, USA. Paper OTC19528 (2008).
17. Jayson, D., Delaporte, P. Albert, JP., Provost, ME. Bruton, D., Sinclair, F. 'Greater Plutonio Project Subsea Flowline Design and
Performance'. Offshore Pipeline Technology Conference. Feb 2008.
18. Najjar, S.N., Gilbert, R.B., Liedtke, E.A., McCarron, W. Tilt Table Test for Interface Shear Resistance between Flowlines and
Soils. OMAE (2003).
19. Sinclair, F., Carr, M. Bruton, D., Farrant, T. 'Design Challenges and Experience with Controlled Lateral Buckle Initiation
Methods'. International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. OMAE-79434 Jun 2009.
20. Watson, R., Bruton, D.A.S., Sinclair, F. Influence of Multiphase Flow on Global Displacement of Deepwater Pipelines In Design
and Operation. 5th International Offshore Pipeline Forum. IOPF-6002 Oct 2010.
21. Watson, R., Sinclair, F., Bruton, D.A.S., SAFEBUCK: Operational Integrity of Deepwater Flowlines. Offshore Technology
Conference. OTC 21724 May 2011.
22. White, D. Ganesan, S.A., Bolton, M.D., Bruton, D.A.S., Ballard, J-C., Langford, T. SAFEBUCK JIP: Observations of axial pipe-
soil interaction from testing on a soft natural clays. Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 21249 May 2011.