Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics III Meyer (Ed.

)
2015 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN: 978-1-138-02848-7

Pipeline embedment and consolidation beneath on-bottom

pipe model in kaolin clay
R. Carroll
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT: The consolidation of a pipeline after embedment is an important factor in assessing the buildup of pipe-soil resistance. To investigate this process further pipe model tests performed at near to full scale
may be used. The consolidation results from model tests are used in this paper assess the appropriateness of
the theoretical solutions to model this process. Kaolin clay, commonly used in model testing, is the soil type
investigated in this study. The measured pore pressure response following the penetration of a rough pipe models
with different weights are compared to available elastic and elasto-plastic solutions for consolidation beneath
an on-bottom pipe. The results show that it is difficult to find agreement between the consolidation phases for
the different pipe models using the same coefficient of consolidation (cv ). For lighter pipes higher cv values are
interpreted from back calculation of the measured consolidation process. This suggests that there is a difficulty
in applying the theoretical solutions for different pipe weights with a cv of similar magnitude at low stresses
and varying embedment. Investigation into the application of a retardant factor in the theoretical solution for
the consolidation process due to heave around the pipe is investigated. Results showed the sensitivity for this
analysis was considerably less than the effect of embedment measured in these tests. A good fit with a theoretical
solution was found at the higher stress level for the pipe model.

BACKGROUND

the model tests to assess their ability to predict the

observed consolidation response.

1.1 Introduction
Embedment of pipelines typically occurs due to selfweight and dynamic contact stress during the laying
process. As a result, it is important to estimate the
initial embedment and consolidation response of the
pipe in order to model the resistance to axial and lateral movement during the lifetime of the pipe (Burton
et al. 2006, White & Randolph, 2007, Chatterjee et al.
2012b). This is especially important at the initial phase
as effective stresses (v
) are generally low due to positive excess pore pressures (u) generated during the
laying process.
The properties of the shallow seafloor (sf) soils (typically 0.1 to 0.7 m below sf) are of particular interest
for design and analysis of seabed pipelines. Determination of representative properties in this depth range
is difficult due to extremely low v
and shear strengths
(su ) (White & Randolph 2007). It was also noted that
the time scale for consolidation in the shear zone next
to the pipeline is difficult to quantify with confidence.
Hence, model tests are well suited to improve the
understanding of this process.
Recent numerical studies on dissipation of
u around pipelines have been carried out by
Gourvence & White (2010), Krost et al. (2011) and
Chatterjee et al. (2012b). The theoretical solutions proposed in these studies are compared to the results from

1.2 Pipe embedment theoretical background

Pipeline embedment has been the focus of research
using plasticity solutions, centrifuge testing and large
strain finite element analysis to develop the conventional bearing capacity theory for embedment analysis.
These studies include; Randolph and Houlsby (1984),
Aubeny et al. (2005), Randolph and White (2008),
Merifield et al. (2008) and Chatterjee et al. (2012a).
Pipeline penetration is commonly predicted based on
a simplified plasticity solution, using a power law
expression for routine estimations. Chatterjee et al.
(2012a) presented a variation on this approach, which
is used herein and captures the effects of strain rate,
strain softening and the buoyancy of the soil. The penetration response can be modelled using Equation 1:

where V is vertical load, D is the outside pipe diameter, Nc is a bearing capacity factor (see below), and
su0,eq is an equivalent undrained shear strength at the
pipe invert incorporating the effects of strain rate and
softening parameters (see Chatterjee et al. 2012a for

375

details). Nc varies non-linearly with depth, according

to two expressions that are tied at w/D = 0.1:

where w/D is the normalized penetration depth of the

pipeline. The second term of Equation 1 relates to
the buoyancy of the soil, varying with the submerged
cross-sectional area, As , which can be calculated as:

where is the angle from the pipe invert to the intersection of the pipe surface and the original soil surface,
given by:

White & Randolph (2007) noted that soil heave

around a pipe during penetration increases the shearing resistance, by up to 15% to 25%, thus providing
increased surcharge in comparison to that of a pipe
that is wished-in-place based on a plasticity solution.
The buoyancy force is enhanced due to heave, leading
to fb = 1.5 (Merifield et al. 2009).
1.3

Consolidation, theoretical solutions and berm

effects on dissipation analysis for pipelines

Chatterjee et al. (2012b) showed that for a rough pipe

there was an initial increase in u at all embedments
in a normally consolidated soil which was attributed to
the Mandel-Cryer effect (Mandel 1950, Cryer 1963).
This was not captured by the simple hyperbolic equation proposed for dissipation analysis of large strain
finite element (LDFE). Results shown in Figure 1
also show that the non dimensional time for 50%
dissipation of u (T50 ) varies with w/D.
Through comparison of T50 values from small strain
finite element (SSFE) analysis with elastic solutions
and LDFE with modified Cam Clay plasticity model
Chatterjee et al. (2012b) found that there was no effect
of a soil berm at shallow embedment, w/D 0.2, while
with increased embedment T50 values increased by
up to 22%. This suggests that with increased embedment the soil berm delays dissipation due to a longer
drainage path. Figure 1 shows Curve A, w/D = 0.3, is
similar in the case of heave and no heave while for
Curve B and C, w/D = 0.4, there is some difference
between these conditions. These findings are contrary
to that by Gourvence & White (2010) using an elastic
analysis solution. However both analyses show a delay
in dissipation with increased embedment independent

Figure 1. Theoretical solutions for consolidation under on

bottom pipelines: normalised u (U = u/ui ) with time
factor (T).

of the presence of a berm, see Figure 1. Hence, estimation of the appropriate w/D for analysis of any solution
is important as this is shown to influence the rate of dissipation and position of T50 with U to a greater extent
than the effect of heave for a variation of 0.1 w/D.
Analysis of the consolidation process requires good
estimation of u from the installation phase. In the
FE analysis Chatterjee et al. (2012b) found that u is
almost constant along the axis of the pipe (x) (15%
for 0.4 < x/D < 0.4 from the mid point). This is an
important finding and supports the use of u measured along the centre line of the pipe in spots as
a representative u (15%) under the pipe model.
The loading condition during the laying process are
also important for analysis of the consolidation stage.
This effects the apparent overloading ratio of the
soil. Chatterjee et al. (2012b) maintained the final
resistance after penetration as a constant load during
consolidation.
White & Randolph (2007) indicated that faster consolidation times for pipelines may be estimated due to;
a curved pipe consolidating a reduced volume of soil
compared to that under a strip footing (Schiffman et
al. 1969), positive u may be suppressed due to soil
dilatancy (negative u may be generated), faster dissipation in loaded soil rather than to the far field and
a greater permeability at the pipe-soil interface due to
surface roughness. Hence a conservative (high) estimate of time to reach equilibrium may be estimated
based on cv and pipe diameter. A primary uncertainty
in pipeline dissipation analysis is assessment of the
appropriate cv for the solution (White & Randolph
2007).
2
2.1

METHODS, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL

General

This section presents the material and equipment used

in the pipe model tests, see Table 1 for a summary.

376

Table 1.

Figure 2. Settlement profile of slurry in the tank and IL

tests.

The pipe model equipment, test tank and frame are the
same as that presented by Smith & White (2014). A
dry kaolin clay (KC) powder was batch-mixed at 1.85
times the liquid limit. Mixing of each batch took several hours and the clay was left to cure overnight. The
batches were then combined, re-mixed, levelled and
allowed to cure for a further 48 hours. Consolidation,
v
, was 35 kPa. This stress was applied using a vacuum system connected to the top and bottom of the
tank allowing two-way drainage. Once consolidation
was complete, see Figure 2, the clay was unloaded and
allowed to swell.
Two incremental load oedometer (IL) tests were carried out on the bulk slurry. The oedometer specimens
were 60 and 30 mm high. The void ratio versus normal
stress plots are also presented in Figure 2 for comparison with the test tank. The estimated settlement at
35 kPa was 35% of the initial height of the oedometer specimen. This agreed reasonably well with the
measured settlement in the tank.
A mini T-bar full flow penetrometer with a diameter
of 20 mm was used to infer su and su-rem profiles, see
Figure 3. Four T-bar tests between footprints 01 and
02 and two adjacent to footprint 03 (No. 2324) are
shown. Based on experience, the strength profiles are
interpreted using an NT-bar factor of 10.5. A sensitivity
(St ) of 1.5 to 2.5 was estimated from the T-bar tests.
This is at the lower range of St suggested by Randolph
(2004) for marine clays. An intact su profile with depth
(w), applicable up to 160 mm, was fitted to the su,T-bar
results using Equation 4 and is shown in Figure 3 with
su and su-rem for comparison.

Initial data and soil parameters.

Parameter

Range

Unit

Dimensions of bin (Length width)

Pipe model (Length diameter)
T-bar (Length diameter)
Initial water content of slurry
Initial depth of slurry
Maximum consolidation stress
Average water content
Average depth of clay
Plastic limit, wP
Liquid limit, wL
Plasticity index, IP
Sensitivitya)

3.4 1.75
1.4 0.12
0.125 0.02
125
0.435
35
73
0.285
31.5
67.3
35.8
1.52.5

m
m
m
%
m
kPa
%
m
%
%
%

a) Based on T-bar Nkt 10.5 and Nktrem 14.5 (Lunne et al.

2010).

Figure 3. T-bar su and su-rem profile with depth.

Figure 4. cv from IL tests and consolidation phase of

models.

where constants a = 2.6, b = 155, c = 1 106 and

d = 3.5. Despite the soil being consolidated to a
high stress of 35 kPa the su profile does not reflect an
expected overconsoliation (OC) crustal which may
be found in offshore seabed surface locations. In this
case the soil is of very low strength close to the surface
and increasing slightly with depth.

2.2 Analysis for cv

Results of cv from the IL tests are plotted in Figure 4
against v
. A cv of 5 107 m2 /s, indicated on the figure, was selected based on recompression results (v
:
418 kPa). This cv will be used in the fitting of measured dissipation data with the theoretical curves. A
back calculated cv from each of the pipe model tests is

377

also presented with the footprint number. These results

will be discussed further.

2.3

Pipe model test sequence

Three pipe model penetration tests, referred to as KC

01 to 03, are presented in Figure 5. The specific details
of each test are presented inTable 2 with corresponding
roughness and submerged vertical pipe stress (V/D).
Vertical load, displacement and pore pressures are
monitored during the penetration and consolidation
phase. Prior to laying the pipe model two vertical load
cells are mounted between the model and the jacks
used to embed the model. There are 13 differential
pore pressure sensors on the underside of the model,
see Smith & White (2014). The submerged weight of
each pipe was recorded before the penetration phase
commenced.
The two manually operated jacks were used to
penetrate the pipe into the clay at a steady rate of
approximately 0.4 mm/s. This is considered to be
within the undrained range for the soil (normalized
velocity,V, 96 using cv of 5 107 m3 /s and D 120 mm).
Once the target penetration was attained (nominally
0.3D), the jacks were quickly unloaded. The soil then
consolidate under the self-weight of the pipe. The time
between the end of penetration and unloading of jacks
varied between 46 and 165 s. The ratio of maximum
vertical bearing capacity (Vmax ) or final load at end
of penetration to self-weight of the model (V) (overloading ratio (OLR) (Zhang et al. 2002)) reduced with
increased V/D from 5.33 to 1.3, see Table 2. The consolidation phase was between 48 and 72 hours by
which time excess pore pressure had fully dissipated.
The predicted penetration resistance determined using
the Chatterjee et al. (2012a) formulation is shown
in Figure 5 for comparison with measured penetration resistances of each pipe model. Table 3 shows
the parameters used in the Chatterjee et al. (2012a)
prediction.

Figure 5. Penetration resistance and n with w/D.

Table 2.

Foot Pipe Surface

print weight roughness* OCR

1
2
3

V/D
kPa
1.83
3.30
5.50

Ra
m
13
21
21

c
/(V/D)

19
10.6
6.4

Max
Initial bearing
invert stress (OLR) Time
w/D

0.40
0.38
0.27

Vmax /D
kPa
9.76
10.24
7.14

Vmax /V

5.33
3.10
1.30

sec
46
165
140

Time from end of penetration to start of unloading

* measured by SINTEF using a white light interferometer

Table 3. Parameters for prediction of embedment

(Chaterjee et al. 2012a).

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

3.1 Analysis of penetration phase

The Chatterjee et al. (2012a) prediction for penetration resistance shows good agreement above w/D
0.1 while with increased penetration the prediction
underestimates the resistance, e.g. at w/D of 0.25
underestimation is >40% for KC 02 and 20% for KC
03. There is reasonable agreement between the penetration resistance for KC 01 and 03, see Figure 5,
and the Chatterjee et al. (2012a) prediction despite it
underestimating penetration resistance. The kaolin is
considered homogenous and this is supported by the
T-bar profiles from different positions in the tank, Figure 3. The calculated normal stresses, n , at the pipe
soil interface are also shown in Figure 5. The profiles are relatively consistent with n increasing up
to w/D of 0.15 and then becoming more constant with

Details of pipe model penetration.

Parameter

Unit

ref
95

% s1

Definition
1
3 106
30
0.1

fr

0.7

fs

0.8

vp
rem

mm/s

0.4
0.5

Shear strength gradient

Reference shear strain
Ductility parameter
Rate of increase in su
per decade
Avg. operative per
increment
Related to equivalent
plastic strain
Pipe velocity
Ratio su-rem to su

increasing depth. At w/D of 0.2n varies from 12 to

25% across the three profiles. Through the laying process the pipe models were embedded to different w/D
ratios. This is often the case in offshore conditions as
dynamic loading conditions can lead to over embedment. The lightest pipe in this case was embedded to
the greatest depth.
Figure 6 shows the measured penetration u values
along the 1400 mm pipe for the seven invert sensors.
Two penetration tests are shown, KC 01 and 03. A
uavg value, used in further calculations (for example

378

Figure 6. Penetration resistance and n with w/D.

Figure 7. Normalised u (uavg /uavg,i ) & time factor (T).

in the normalised pore pressure ratio (ru )) shows good

agreement with the seven invert sensors for each pipe
model test. The uavg uses sensor 4 (midpoint of the
pipe), 2 and 6 (500 mm offset to each side of the mid
point). These are all in on the invert of the pipe. The
pore pressure system is very sensitive to pipe movements which provides confidence in the measurements
and analysis techniques to estimate u at the pipe soil
interface.
3.2 Analysis of the consolidation phase:
dissipation, time factor and estimation of cv
The dissipation of uavg(2,4,6) is based on start of dissipation (to ) which occurs at the end of penetration
(Vmax ) (referred to as post peak Vmax ). This point
defines the initial ui used to estimate u/ui of
0.5. The uavg(2,4,6) dissipation response from each test
is compared to the theoretical solutions presented by
Chatterjee et al. (2012b) and Gourvenec and White
(2010), see Figure 7. The theoretical solutions are presented using the dimensionless time factor, T = cv t/D2 .
A cv = 5 107 m2 /s is used for comparison of the
measured dissipation curves. See Figure 4 for comparison with IL tests cv values. This cv is somewhat
higher than cv in recompression at 4 kPa. However it
is difficult to assess the appropriate cv to use in this
comparison. An attempt to back calculate cv from the
tests to fit the solutions is made, the corresponding
cv values are presented in Figure 4. The figure shows
that the closest agreement between cv in the IL tests
and the back calculated value is for the heaviest pipe.
There is also an increase in the back calculated cv to
a maximum of one order of magnitude for the lightest
pipe model. This suggests faster consolidation times
for lighter pipes. However this pipe was also subject
to the greatest embedment.
The results show a trend for an increase in time for
consolidation with a reduction in embedment.
The IL tests showed a trend of reducing cv with
reducing recompression stress while the pipe model

results show a trend of increasing cv in for reduction

in stress level. There is also a link to an increasing
OC level for reducing stress level of each pipe, see
Table 2. This may suggest higher cv for lighter pipes
in an apparent OC soil. The uavg increased above
ui in the first two tests. This response may be due to
the Mandel-Cryer effect discussed by Chatterjee et al.
(2012b). For the third test and heaviest pipe model, KC
03 this did not occur.
There is good agreement between KC 03 and the
theoretical solution presented by Chatterjee et al.
(2012b) and the shape of the overall curves match
well. The shape of the Gourvenec & White (2010)
curve does not match well for any of the dissipation
curves. The cv value used for all the tests does not
match the theoretical rate of dissipation in the case of
KC 01 and 02, see Figure 7. With a reduction in V/D
and an increase in Vmax /V there was a trend of increasing disparity between the measured dissipation and the
theoretical solutions, as shown for KC 01 and 02.
For increased penetration, it is expected that the predicted dissipation curves move to the right as shown
in Figure 1. Overall a variation in the cv used in Figure 7 for the different pipe models would account
for a better fit with the theoretical dissipation curves.
This suggests that the behaviour during dissipation is
influenced more by the pipe weights rather than the
embedment for the range shown here.

CONCLUSIONS

The penetration resistance predicted using the

Chatterjee et al. (2012a) solution underestimated
resistance for this over consolidated kaolin clay at
w/D > 0.1. The consolidation analysis showed a considerable variation in the time required to reach
equilibrium in pore pressure measurements for the
different pipe weights. As a result it was not possible to asses trends of increased consolidation time

379

for variation in embedment or heave effects as suggested by Gouvrence & White (2010) or Chatterjee et
al. (2012b).
There was an initial response of increase in u/ui
for two pipe models tests. This response agreet with
the Chatterjee et al. (2012b) LDFE analysis for a rough
pipe. The behaviour was attributed to the MandelCryer effect. WhenVmax /V was close to unity and OCR
was 6 there was good agreement with the theoretical
dissipation solution by Chatterjee et al. (2012b) and the
measured consolidation phase for the pipe model. The
shape of the consolidation curves were similar from
start to end in this case suggesting that this solution
may be most suitable for use in design analysis.
It is important to consider conditions in the field
where laying of pipelines is a dynamic process before
load conditions become constant. Hence modelling
numerically or physically should attempt to reflect this
process as closely as possible especially in the case
of consolidation analysis for a conservative approach.
This factor was highlighted with the variation of consolidation times for different pipe weights and the
potential influence of Vmax /V or OCR on results.
The results showed difficulties associated with analysis at low stress levels where consolidation phases
varied considerably. The estimation and theoretical
analysis for cv estimation under on bottom pipe lines is
influenced by dynamic conditions between penetration
and unloading making it difficult to determine initial
conditions. The significance of this effect may vary for
different pipe weights. Hence there is a need to account
for potentially faster consolidation times with a variation in V/D in the theoretical solutions and variation
in loading conditions during the laying process.
Model testing in kaolin provides a valuable insight
into the application of theoretical solutions for pipeline
analysis. Further testing is required to investigate the
application of the consolidation solutions for various
pipe weights, roughnesses and a NC soil state. With
this in mind it is important where possible to reliably estimate cv or ch for site specific soils for use
in predictions and design. However the application of
an appropriate cv required further analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support
of the Norwegian Research Council. The authors are
grateful to Victor Smith, Jan Gundersen and Gudmund
Havstad of NGI for assistance in setup, execution and
data analysis of tests.
REFERENCES
Aubeny, C. P., Shi, H. & Murff, J. D. 2005. Collapse loads for a
cylinder embedded in trench in cohesive soil. International
Journal of Geomechanics 5(4): 320325.

Bruton, DAS, White, D.J., Cheuk, C.Y., Bolton M.D. & Carr,
M.C. 2006. Pipe-soil interaction behaviour during lateral
buckling, including large amplitude cyclic displacement
tests by the Safebuck JIP. Proc. Offshore Tech. Conf.
Houston. OTC Paper 17944.
Chatterjee, S., Randolph, M.F., & White, D.J. 2012a.
The effects of penetration rate and strain softening on
the vertical penetration resistance of seabed pipelines.
Gotechnique 62(7): 573582.
Chatterjee, S., Yan, Y., Randolph, M.F. & White, D. J. 2012b.
Elastoplastic consolidation beneath shallowly embedded
offshore pipelines. Gotechnique Letters 2(2): 7379.
Cryer, C.W. 1963. A comparison of the three dimensional
consolidation theories of Boit and Terazghi. Q. J. Mech.
Appl. Math. 16(4): 401412.
Gourvenec, S.M. & White, D.J. 2010. Elastic solutions for
consolidation around seabed pipelines. Proc. of theAnnual
Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, USA 2: 9961010.
Krost, K., Gourvence, S.M. & White, D.J. 2011. Consolidation around partially embedded seabed pipelines.
Gotechique 61(4): 167173.
Lund, K.M. 2000. Effect of increase in pipeline soil penetration from instillation. Proc Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston,
USA OTC Paper 1876.
Lunne, T., Andersen, K.H., Low, H.E., Randolph, M.F. &
Sjursen, M. 2010. Guidelines for offshore in situ testing and interpretation in deepwater soft clays. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 48(4): 543556.
Mandel, J. 1950. tude mathmathique de la consolidation
des sols. Actes du Colloque International de Mcanique,
Poitier, France 4: 919.
Merifield, R.S., White, D.J. & Randolph, M.F. 2008. The
ultimate undrained resistance of partially embedded
pipelines. Gotechnique 58(6): 461470.
Merifield, R.S., White, D.J. & Randolph, M.F. 2009. Effect of
surface heave on response of partially embedded pipelines
on clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE. 135(6): 819829.
Randolph, M.F. & White, D.J. 2008. Upper bound yield
envelopes for pipelines at shallow embedment in clay.
Gotechnique 58 (4): 297301.
Randolph, M.F. 2004. Characterisation of soft sediments
for offshore applications. Keynote lecture. Proc. 2nd
Int. Conf. on Site Characterisation, Porto Portugal 1:
209231. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Millpress Science
Publishers.
Randolph, M.F. & Houlsby, G.T. (1984). The limiting pressure on a circular pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil.
Gotechnique 34, (4): 613623.
Schiffman, R.L., Chen, A.T-F. & Jordan, J. 1969. An analysis
of consolidation theories. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE 95(SM1): 285312.
Smith, V. & White, D. 2014. Volumetric Hardening in Axial
Pipe Soil Interaction. In Offshore Technology ConferenceAsia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 2528 March 2014. Paper
OTC 24856-MS.
White, D.J. & Randolph, M.F. 2007. Seabed characterisation and models for pipeline-soil interaction. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering 17(3):
193204.
Zhang, T., Stewart, D.P., Randolph, M.F. 2002. Modelling
of shallowly embedded offshore pipelines in calcareous
sand. Proc. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. 128(5): 363371.

380