See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318217096

Effect of Drainage on Upheaval Buckling

Susceptibility of Buried Pipelines

Conference Paper June 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 71

2 authors:

Joe Tom David J White

University of Western Australia University of Western Australia
8 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS 221 PUBLICATIONS 3,075 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Image-based deformation measurement for geotechnical applications View project

Instrumented Free Fall Sphere View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joe Tom on 06 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Proceedings of the ASME2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2017
June 25-30, 2017, Trondheim, Norway

OMAE2017-61046

EFFECT OF DRAINAGE ON UPHEAVAL BUCKLING

SUSCEPTIBILITY OF BURIED PIPELINES

Joe G. Tom David J. White

Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems
The University of Western Australia The University of Western Australia
Perth, Western Australia, Australia Perth, Western Australia, Australia

ABSTRACT c consolidation coefficient

This paper investigates the effect of soil drainage on the soil effective friction angle
uplift resistance of buried pipelines, and their susceptibility to soil dilation angle
upheaval buckling. The uplift resistance of buried pipelines is soil effective unit weight
considered through analytical and numerical predictions for both pipeline imperfection height
drained and undrained conditions. Combinations of soil strength dimensionless groups for upheaval buckling
parameters for typical soils are estimated based on common v soil vertical effective stress
correlations. For certain ranges of typical normally consolidated
DNV shear strength reduction factor
soil conditions, particularly those with high critical state friction
angles, the drained uplift resistance may be lower than the
INTRODUCTION
undrained resistance. This observation is important because in
High temperature and pressure oil and gas pipelines are
typical practice only drained or undrained behaviour is
often buried in the offshore environment to prevent upheaval
considered depending on the general type of soil backfill used.
buckling and to provide protection from the environment and
In this case, the critical or minimum uplift resistance may be
fishing activity. The installation process may comprise
overlooked. Further, the changing undrained uplift mechanism
mechanical trenching followed by pipe placement or jet-
between shallow and deep conditions is investigated. It is found
trenching of a pre-laid pipeline. The subsequent engineering
that the common approach of considering the minimum of either
properties of the backfill material will vary depending on the
a local (flow around) or global (vertical slip plane) failure can
trenching method used as well as the environmental conditions
overestimate the uplift resistance in normally consolidated soils.
and time after backfill placement. The backfill material by the
commencement of operation may be a loose, normally
NOTATION
consolidated soil; although the reconsolidation process can take
D pipeline diameter
significant amounts of time particularly for clayey materials.
H soil embedment, measured to pipeline springline
However, in addition to the changes in soil properties over time,
K0 soil at-rest earth pressure coefficient
the response of a buried pipeline will also vary depending on
Pup soil resistance to upward pipeline motion
loading conditions and the resulting boundary conditions of the
L pipeline imperfection wavelength
uplift problem.
EI pipeline flexural rigidity
The latest DNV Recommended Practice for design of
V summation of effective pipeline weight and soil
buckling high temperature and pressure pipelines (DNV, 2007)
resistance
comments that both the drained and undrained uplift resistance
Fa effective axial force in pipeline
of a buried pipeline should be checked and that the lower of these
su soil undrained shear strength
should be adopted for the lower bound resistance in design. In
w pipeline effective vertical weight
general, DNV (2007) notes that the drained resistance will
Nc undrained uplift bearing factor
provide an upper bound on the available resistance, particularly
q deviatoric stress
at depth when the deep flow-round mechanism dominates.
p mean effective stress
However, it is useful to parametrically explore the variation in
M soil critical state stress ratio
response with a coherent set of soil parameters to ascertain under
t time for consolidation

1 Copyright 2017 by ASME

what conditions these assumptions hold, and whether simply
adopting the lowest calculated resistance is always appropriate.
From critical state soil mechanics, a soil element may,
depending on its state relative to the critical state line, tend to
behave in either a dilating or contracting state. For instance, a L
soil element loose of critical will generally have a drained No UHB
strength greater than its undrained shear strength for a given
stress path, all else equal. Similarly, for a dense of critical soil, UHB
the drained strength can be lower than the undrained shear
strength owing to dilation and negative pore pressure generation.
However, the collapse load of a loaded system does not
necessarily follow this logic directly, as the overall response
depends on the boundary value problem and the kinematics of L
the corresponding failure mechanism.
This paper explores the variation in the uplift response of
buried pipelines for a range of typical soil conditions and burial
depths (H/D < 4). In particular, the focus is placed on the
differences in drained and undrained behaviour and the Figure 1. Uplift design curve by Palmer et al. (1990)
conditions under which typical assumed failure mechanisms
hold.

UPHEAVAL BUCKLING
Early stage design for upheaval buckling of buried pipelines
is often done following the analytical solution presented by
Palmer et al. (1990). This method was developed by solving the
beam bending equation for a range of pipeline properties and
nondimensionalising the results to provide estimates of the
uniform download required (i.e. pipeline weight plus burial
cover resistance) to prevent buckling. The approach assumes that
buckling will occur in the vertical direction and that an
imperfection in the pipeline geometry (in a global sense) is
present following a sinusoidal shape. The resulting design curve
is presented in terms of nondimensional download and
imperfection length as:
= (1)
2 conditions, substantial variations occur between the different
= (2)
where is the nondimensional download, is the
nondimensional imperfection length, (= + ) is the are normal to the yield surface in conjugate stress space). Since
download force per unit length, is the effective weight of the
pipeline, is the uplift resistance provided by the soil, EI is the
flexural rigidity of the pipeline, is the effective axial force, L
is the imperfection wavelength and is the imperfection height.
The resulting design curve given by Palmer et al. (1990) is
shown on Figure 1. States that lie above the line are stable and
states below the line are susceptible to upheaval buckling.
H
nf nf su,ave su,ave
peak P peak D P
Figure 2. Limit equilibrium mechanisms: (a) Drained; (b)
Undrained
UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF BURIED PIPELINES
Methods for calculating the uplift resistance of a buried pipe
are usually based on limit analysis, limit equilibrium or finite
element analyses. For undrained conditions, these methods
generally provide similar calculated resistances, as shown for
instance by Merifield et al. (2001). However, for drained
methods, owing to the effect of flow rule of drained materials at
failure. The various solution methods are contrasted in the
following section.
The ability of limit analysis to accurately calculate a solution
to a given problem is predicated on the assumption of associated
flow of the material at failure (i.e. the plastic strain increments
under undrained conditions associated flow is generally true,
limit analysis approaches provide rigorous upper and lower
bounds on the load at failure for a given set of soil properties.
For this study, finite element limit analysis (FELA) was used
within the commercially available software, OptumG2
(OptumCE, 2017) to calculate the collapse loads, and the mean
of the upper and lower bound results are presented throughout.
For each run case, 5000 elements were used with 5 remeshing
steps.
On the other hand, under drained conditions associated flow
does not generally hold; and the use of limit analysis will
significantly overestimate the uplift resistance of buried

2 Copyright 2017 by ASME

pipelines. Drescher and Detournay (1993) suggested the use of
modified friction angles to account for non-associated flow.
Although this approach can provide reasonable (though not
rigorous) estimates of limit loads for many problems including
lateral breakout of partially embedded pipelines (Tom & White,
in preparation), Krabbenhoft et al. (2012) showed that this
approach can overestimate the uplift resistance for buried
anchors and pipelines. Therefore, other methods are required for
accurate calculation of drained uplift resistance.
Limit equilibrium is another commonly utilised method for
calculating the uplift resistance; however, these solutions do not
have the mathematical rigour of the limit theorems. Instead, the
flow rule at failure and the resulting failure mechanism can be
modified to match experimental evidence, for instance. White et
al. (2008) proposed a limit equilibrium approach for pipes buried
in sand, which assumed an inclined slip mechanism (Figure 2a)
and assumed the stresses on the failure planes to be related to in
situ K0 conditions. Following this approach, the peak uplift force
per unit length can be calculated by:
, = 1 + 2 , (3a)
8 How valid are analytical approaches such as Eq. 3-4 as
1 + 0
, = +
2 undrained soil parameters, how important is the effect of
(3b)
(1 0 )2
2
This formula was found to provide good estimates for the uplift
resistance for sand (i.e. drained failure) over a range of relative
densities and embedment levels, compared with experiments.
Similarly, a limit equilibrium solution for undrained
resistance can be derived in a straightforward manner by
assuming straight slip surfaces from the edge of the pipeline to
the surface, as shown on Figure 2b. From this, it follows that the
uplift resistance is calculated as:
, = 1 + 2, (4)
8
where , is the average undrained shear strength of the
material above the pipe springline. This shallow undrained
failure mechanism is often compared to a deep flow
mechanism, where the failure is confined to the local area around
the pipeline and does not extend to the soil surface:
, = , (5) Eq. 6 and the definitions of undrained shear strength and mean
where is some undrained bearing capacity factor, usually
taken as 9 to 12, depending on interface roughness and , is
the undrained shear strength at the pipeline springline. It is
common practice to take as the operative undrained uplift
resistance the lower of Eq. 4 and 5.
DNV (2007) recommends similar analytical approaches to
calculating the uplift resistance. For the undrained resistance, the
lesser of either shallow or deep failure (referred to as global and
local in the RP) is assumed to apply. The global failure in DNV
is the same as Eq. 4; but the local mechanism corresponds to Eq.
5 with the additional recommendation of a strength reduction
factor (of between 0.55 and 0.8) on the resistance. Discussions
in the DNV RP suggest that the local mechanism will generally
dominate as embedment depth increases, but only after the
adoption of the empirical strength reduction factor on the
undrained shear strength. For drained resistance, DNV suggests
using a similar approach to Eq. 3a but with specified empirical
values recommended instead of Eq. 3b as per White et al. (2008).
Displacement-based finite element analysis can also be used
to calculate the uplift resistance. In this study, the multiplier
elastoplastic module in OptumG2 has been used calculate the
drained, non-associated flow resistance as an additional
comparison. A Mohr-Coulomb model using the same number of
elements as the limit analysis results with 3 remeshing iterations
for each time substep has been utilised. Details regarding this
approach can be found from the program manual.
This paper aims to address two primary questions related to
pipeline uplift design, given these typical design approaches:
compared to more realistic FEA and FELA analyses?
For a given soil with a consistent set of drained and
potential soil drainage on the pipeline design, and which
drainage condition is critical?
SOIL PARAMETERS
Appropriate soil parameters for determining buried pipe
uplift resistance vary depending on soil type, deposition process,
loading history and rate of loading, amongst others. From a high
level perspective, the range in soil properties may be understood
through a critical state framework, e.g. Schofield and Wroth
(1968). Using the Modified Cam Clay model, a normally
consolidated soil under conditions has an undrained shear
strength defined as = /2. Since critical state conditions are
defined by the critical state stress ratio:
6 (6)
= =
3
where = is the deviatoric stress at failure, is the mean
effective stress at failure, which is defined as half the
consolidation mean effective stress, 0 , and is the critical
state friction angle. Under isotropic conditions, it follows from
effective stress at failure (for Modified Cam Clay) that:
= (7)
0 4 100
where 0 is the initial (consolidation) vertical effective stress.
3 Copyright 2017 by ASME
 Table 1. Adopted soil parameters Figure 3 shows the limit analysis results for these parameters
with the assumption of a rough interface on the top of the
Set 0
0 pipeline and a no tension interface on the bottom half
A 15 0.15 10 0.74 (representing the possibility of free water being left after the pipe
B 25 0.25 10 0.58 is laid, creating a water-filled zone at hydrostatic pressure). The
C 35 0.35 10 0.43 limit analysis results with the strength gradient compare well
D 45 0.45 10 0.29 with, but are slightly higher than, the shallow mechanism (Eq. 4)
E 55 0.55 10 0.18 up to an embedment depth of about 3. The slight overestimate is
due to differences in interface condition on the bottom half of the
The lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest, K0, which is pipe for the limit analysis, in which a purely smooth interface is
required for drained analyses, has been estimated based on Jaky's not assumed which is different than that assumed by Eq. 4 (for
equation, as a function of critical state friction angle: detailed discussion of these differences, see Houlsby & Puzrin
1999). However, for deeper embedments the global straight slip
0 = 1 (8) mechanism overestimates the capacity as compared to limit
analysis, which is consistent with the findings of Martin & White
This equation results in an increasingly small value of K0 as (2012). For the strength gradient case, the deep flow around
friction angle increases. The appropriateness of this can be seen mechanism does not occur until an embedment of at least 10
in the relative comparison of results for the limit equilibrium times the pipe diameter. Instead, a more complex global
solution with the elastoplastic finite element results, which only mechanism occurs, with slip planes that are not simply straight
uses K0 for the initial stress development, but subsequently and vertical. The limit equilibrium predictions from the
allows stresses to develop as appropriate. minimum of Equations 4 and 5 are inaccurate in this case, but
For analyses conducted herein, the unit weight is assumed the adoption of a strength reduction factor () happens to predict
to be constant for all analyses. For the remainder of this paper, the resistance reasonably well. This is due to compensating
the soil is assumed to be normally consolidated and therefore for errors the incorrect failure mechanism (Eq. 5) combined with
drained analyses, the peak friction angle is equal to the critical an adjusted strength can give the correct resistance.
state friction angle and the dilation angle is zero. The parameters
adopted for this study are shown in Table 1. The friction angles
(or undrained shear strength ratios) considered span the typical
range from soft deep-water clays to carbonate silts, which can
typically have critical state friction angles upwards of 45.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN VALIDITY OF UPLIFT

SOLUTIONS
Common industry practice for calculating the undrained
uplift resistance for pipelines buried in clay is to adopt the lesser
of the calculated resistance assuming either shallow or deep
undrained failure. DNV (2007) suggests a deep flow around
(local) mechanism, similar to Eq. 5, with some empirical
strength reduction factor and a shallow (or global) mechanism
is similar to Eq. 4. For the deep mechanism, the shear stress is
assumed to equal the strength at the pipe springline; but for the
global mechanism, the strength is the average strength between
the soil surface and the pipe springline. The lower resistance
resulting from the adoption of the strength reduction factor () is
suggested to account for lower than expected resistances evident
in experiments cited by DNV (2007).
In reality, there is a gradual transition of the mechanism
from a global to local mode, rather than an abrupt change. To
explore the transition from shallow (global) to deep (local) Figure 3. Undrained uplift resistance comparison of
mechanism, a set of undrained limit analyses were conducted for numerical results and code guidance. Solid circles: shear
a pipe at different embedment depths. In this case, the undrained strength gradient of . . Squares: uniform strength of
shear strength ratio was assumed to be constant at 0.25 and pairs . . Red symbols: shallow mechanism. Blue symbols:
of analyses were conducted by adopting undrained shear strength deep mechanism. Failure mechanisms represented by
profiles of: (a) strength gradient of 0.25 and (b) uniform contours of vertical displacement at failure.
strength of 0.25 .

4 Copyright 2017 by ASME

 Figure 4 compares the peak uplift response for the various
analysis methods, for both drained and undrained conditions, as
a normalised uplift factor, defined as:

= (9)

The undrained results show the global limit equilibrium

results to generally underpredict the limit analysis results, as
discussed for Figure 3. This is, as mentioned previously,
consistent with previous results in the literature and is simply due
to the more simplified failure mechanism and interface
conditions assumed in the limit equilibrium solution. Figure 4
also shows comparison of the drained results for the various
analysis techniques. Again, the global limit equilibrium method
is generally lower compared to the finite element analysis
results. This deviation is due to the assumption of the failure
mechanism as well as the assumed initial stress distribution,
which is likely to be more accurately modelled in the finite
element results. The limit equilibrium solutions thus provide
generally conservative estimates of the uplift resistance,
assuming that lower resistance is conservative, which is the case
for pipeline upheaval buckling analysis.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN CRITICAL DRAINAGE

CONDITION
Limit equilibrium results for each soil parameter set are
shown on Figure 5 in terms of the ratio of undrained to drained
resistance for different embedment ratios, H/D. These results
suggest that regardless of embedment ratio less than 5 the ratio
of undrained to drained resistance decreases with increasing
critical state friction angle for normally consolidated (i.e. non-
dilating) soils. Figure 5 also shows select results from limit
analysis and finite element analysis for combinations of soil
parameters and embedment depths, and additionally results for
the same friction angle but with the initial K0 set to 0.5 and 0.7.
The trends from these additional analyses are very similar to the
limit equilibrium results, confirming the overall response.

Figure 4. Nondimensional calculated uplift resistance. Blue: TIME SCALE TO FAILURE

undrained. Red: drained. Symbols from limit analysis The results of the parametric study show that with increasing
(undrained - circles) or finite element analysis (drained - critical state friction angle, the drained resistance may be lower
triangles). than the undrained resistance. In practice this means that if
upheaval buckling does not occur immediately at switch on then
Figure 3 also shows limit analysis results for the second set the system could still be susceptible to buckling at a later time,
of parameters assuming a uniform strength corresponding to the when excess pore pressures have dissipated and a drained failure
strength at the pipe waist. These results are always higher than mechanism can occur. The time for drainage to occur therefore
the strength gradient results. However, at embedment depths becomes a key parameter governing the behaviour.
greater than about 5, the evident mechanism switches from a
shallow-type mechanism to a predominantly deep flow
mechanism. The transition for this assumed uniform strength
profile scenario occurs at a shallower embedment depth than
predicted by the DNV RP without a strength reduction and is
approximately consistent with a strength reduction value of
about 0.8, which is at the upper end of the recommended range
in DNV (2007).

5 Copyright 2017 by ASME

 OptumG2
Results
Increasing cs
from 15 to 55
Pup,DR > Pup,UD
K0 = 0.5 K0 = 0.7 Pup,DR < Pup,UD
K0 = 1-sin(cs)
Figure 5. Ratio of drained to undrained uplift resistance
Figure 6. Contours of months required to achieve 90% excess
pore pressure dissipation at pipeline interface
Osman and Randolph (2012) presented a closed-form
analytical solution for consolidation around a laterally loaded
pile, which is analogous to a buried pipeline undergoing
sustained uplift loading. The authors show the form of the
normalised excess pore pressure dissipation curve for an element
of soil at the pile/pipe interface is relatively invariant over a
range of soil properties and zones of influence. Although the
dissipation at the pipe interface does not exactly capture the
drainage behaviour of the relevant failure mechanism for this
case, this does provide some insight into the relevant timeframe.
From Figure 7 of Osman and Randolph (2012), the
normalised time to 90% excess pore pressure dissipation, T90, is
about 1.25 for a range of soil properties, where this coefficient is
defined as:
90 = (10)
2
where c is some coefficient of consolidation, t is the time after
loading and D is the diameter of the pipe.
These results are represented on Figure 6 in terms of
coefficient of vertical consolidation versus pipeline diameter as
contours of months of sustained load required to achieve 90%
consolidation. These contours provide some indication of the
relative timeframes over which drainage may occur, although the
results are only approximate since the drainage on the actual
mechanism is not capture precisely by this solution. The range
of consolidation coefficient values shown approximately cover
reported values in the literature for offshore clays and carbonate
silts. The results suggest that for even relatively permeable soils
and small diameter pipelines, a drained response may not occur
until several weeks after switch on. In materials with high
friction angle, where the drained resistance can be lower than the
undrained resistance, this means delayed upheaval buckling
should be considered as a possibility.
UPHEAVAL BUCKLING
To illustrate the implications of these findings on the design
of buried pipelines, a simplified design example is useful to show
how the uplift behaviour influenced by drainage might affect
decision-making for pipeline burial. Table 2 lists relevant
pipeline properties for this exercise, which represent feasible
operating conditions in practice. The size of the vertical out-of-
straightness feature, /D, is taken to be a variable. This parameter
can be determined from surveys of a pipeline after laying and
before backfilling. The required backfill cover depth may be
selected based on the size of out of straightness (OOS) features,
defined by /D. Figure 7 shows the results for the adopted
parameters for both the undrained and drained resistance as well
as the corresponding download factor ratios for each of the two
resistances. These results assume that the hypothetical
imperfection wavelength, L, is linearly related to the vertical
imperfection height, , such that the ratio of /L is kept constant
at 100.
For the scenario indicated on Figure 7, upheaval buckling is
predicted for vertical imperfection heights, /D, between 0.91
and 1.3 at startup, which corresponds to undrained failure.
However, in this case there is also a wider range of potential
pipeline geometries (i.e. imperfection heights) from about 0.56
to 1.74 for which upheaval buckling could occur at some later
stage, once drainage is able to occur over the failure mechanism.
This simplified example highlights the need to consider the full
range of upheaval buckling scenarios that could occur over the
life of a pipeline system, which include variation in potential soil
response, e.g. drainage.
6 Copyright 2017 by ASME
 Table 2. Example pipeline properties
Property
Diameter, D
Wall thickness, t
Coefficient of thermal expansion,
Young's modulus, E
Poisson's ratio,
Vertical imperfection height, /D
Imperfection wavelength, L/
Pipeline submerged weight, w0
Internal pressure, p
Operational temperature change, T
Pipeline embedment, H/D
Soil effective unit weight,
Soil critical state friction angle, cs
Undrained shear strength ratio, S
Limit analysis results also find that the uplift resistance is
Units Value not simply the minimum of the conventional shallow (vertical
m 0.32 slip) and deep (flow around) mechanisms in undrained
m 0.02 conditions. Instead, there is a gradual transition between the two
1/C 1.2x10-5 types of mechanism, and the deep flow mechanism may not
GPa 206 occur until a burial of more than 10 pipe diameters, for a linearly
- 0.3 increasing soil strength profile. Current design codes
- 0.4 to 2.5 recommend adopting the minimum of the vertical slip and flow
- 100 around mechanisms, and apply an arbitrary strength reduction
factor that compensates for the simplified choice of mechanism.
kN/m 2
However, a more reliable approach is to select uplift resistance
MPa 25
factor that represent the true failure mechanism.
C 70
- 3.5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
kN/m3 6 The first author acknowledges his Research Studentship
45 support from the University of Western Australia. The second
- 0.45 author acknowledges the support of Shell through the Shell EMI
Chair in Offshore Engineering at UWA.

DNV (2007). Global buckling of submarine pipelines: Structural
/D = 0.56
L Recommended Practice F110, October 2007. Oslo, Norway:
No UHB
/D = 0.91
/D = 1.3
UHB
/D = 1.74
L Numerical Methods in Engineering, 90 (9), 1089-1117.
Figure 7. Comparison of undrained and drained results
compared to Palmer et al. (1990) design approach
CONCLUSIONS
The uplift resistance of buried pipelines has been explored
using rational sets of soil properties for normally consolidated
soils, considering both drained and undrained conditions. For
soils with relatively low friction angles, the undrained resistance
is generally lower than the drained resistance; however as
friction angle increases, the drained resistance becomes lower
than the undrained resistance. Both the undrained and drained
resistance should be checked in situations where the uplift load
may be sustained for some time, as illustrated by a design
example using typical pipeline parameters.
REFERENCES
design due to high temperature/high pressure,
Det Norske Veritas.
Drescher, A. & Detournay, E. (1993). Limit load in translational
failure mechanisms for associative and non-associative
materials. Gotechnique 43 (3), 443-456.
Houlsby, G.T. & Puzrin, A.M. (1999). The bearing capacity of a
strip footing on clay under combined loading. Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. A. 455, 893-916.
Krabbenhoft, K., Karim, M. R., Lyamin, A. V., & Sloan, S. W.
(2012). Associated computational plasticity schemes for
nonassociated frictional materials. International Journal for
Martin, C. M., & White, D. J. (2012). Limit analysis of the
undrained bearing capacity of offshore pipelines.
Gotechnique, 62(9), 847-863.
Merifield, R.S., Sloan, S.W. and Yu, H.S. 2001. Stability of plate
anchors in undrained clay. Gotechnique 51 (2), 141-153.
OptumCE (2017). OptumG2. http://www.optumce.com/.
Osman, A.S. and Randolph, M.F. 2012. Analytical Solution for
the Consolidation around a Laterally Loaded Pile. Int. Jour.
of Mechanics 12 (3), 199-208.
Palmer, A. C., Ellinas, C. P., Richards, D. M. & Guijt, J. (1990).
Design of pipelines against upheaval buckling. Proc.
Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, TX, paper OTC 6335.
Schofield, A.N. and Wroth, C.P. 1968. Critical State Soil
Mechanics. McGraw-Hill.
Tom, J.G. and White, D.J. 2017. Drained bearing capacity of
shallowly embedded pipelines. Manuscript in preparation.
White, D.J., Cheuk, C.Y. and Bolton, M.D. 2008. The uplift
resistance of pipes and plate anchors buried in sand.
Gotechnique 58 (10), 771-779.

7 Copyright 2017 by ASME

View publication stats