Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Numerical modeling of response of a saturated porous seabed around an offshore

pipeline considering non-linear wave and current interaction
F. Wen a , D.-S. Jeng a,b, , J.H. Wang a , X.L. Zhou a
a
Center for Marine Geotechnical Engineering Research, Department of Civil Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China
b
Division of Civil Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The evaluation of pore pressure in the vicinity of an offshore buried pipeline is particularly important for
Received 27 May 2011 pipeline engineers involved in the design of pipeline protection. Unlike previous investigations limited to
Received in revised form linear wave loading, the seabed response around a buried pipeline due to combined non-linear wave and
28 December 2011
current loadings is investigated in this study. Based on third-order approximation for the wavecurrent
Accepted 28 December 2011
interactions, a parametric study has been carried out to examine the inuences of wave non-linearity and
Available online 2 February 2012
current on the pore pressure rstly. Numerical results demonstrate the signicant effects of current in
case of larger water depth, smaller period wave and ne sand. Then, the conguration and lled materials
Keywords:
Pipeline
for a trench layer that normally is used for the protection of a buried pipeline are studied. The numerical
Wave and current loading results clearly show that an appropriate trench layer can reduce the risk of liquefaction around a pipeline.
Porous seabed
Seabed response 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction including pore pressure, effective stresses and soil displacements, is

Submarine pipelines have been extensively used for transporta-
tion of gas and crude oil from offshore platforms, disposal of
industrial and municipal waste into the sea and for cooling water in
nuclear power plants. To protect the pipeline from possible dam-
ages caused by wave, current and anchor dropping/dredging, it is
customary to bury the pipeline. The cost of trenching and relling
is high, and the expenditure often accounts for a large proportion
of the total budget of a pipeline project.
Design of marine pipelines regarding their stability is a rather
complicated problem. One of the important factors that must be
taken into account is the seabed instability around the pipeline.
When wave/current propagate over the ocean, they exert uctua-
tions of dynamic pressure on the sea oor. These uctuations will
further induce excess pore pressure within a porous seabed, which
have been recognized as a dominant factor in the evaluation of the
instability of a seabed. When the pore pressure becomes excessive
with accompanying decrease in effective stress, a sedimentary bed
may be moved in either horizontal (shear failure) or vertical direc-
tions (liquefaction); these type of motions lead to an instability
of the seabed [13]. Therefore, the evaluation of the soil response,
Corresponding author at: Division of Civil Engineering, University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN, UK. Tel.: +44 1382386141; fax: +44 1382384816.
E-mail address: d.jeng@dundee.ac.uk (D.-S. Jeng).
particularly important for marine geotechnical engineers involved
in the design of offshore pipelines.
Two mechanisms of the seabed response have been observed
in laboratory and eld measurements, depending on the deforma-
tion characteristics of seabed [4,5]. One is caused by the residual
or progressive nature of the excess pore pressure, which appears
in the initial stage of cyclic loading. This type of soil response is
similar to that induced by earthquakes, caused by the build-up of
the excess pore pressure. Another mechanism, caused by the tran-
sient or oscillatory excess pore pressure, and accompanied by the
damping of amplitude and phase lag in the pore pressure, appears
periodically to each wave. In this study, only the oscillatory mecha-
nism will be considered. More clarication of two mechanisms can
be found in the literature [6,7].
Numerous investigations of the transient response of seabed
under wave loading have been carried out based on Biots poro-
elastic theory [8] since the 1970s. Among these, Yamamoto et al.
[9] derived an analytical solution for an isotropic, poro-elastic and
innite seabed by treating the pore water and seabed as com-
pressible and deformable medium. Later, the model was further
extended to the unsaturated, isotropic seabed with nite thick-
ness and a layered seabed under three-dimensional short crested
waves loading [10,11]. Numerical modeling is another efcient tool
to investigate the transient response of seabed under wave loading.
Thomas [12,13] proposed a one-dimensional nite element model
to investigate the wave-induced soil response in a layered seabed.

0141-1187/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apor.2011.12.005
26 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537

Later, the model for the wave-induced soil response in a porous where  is the velocity potential. The horizontal and vertical veloc-
seabed with variable permeability and shear modulus along burial ities of the ow can be formulated as:
depth were investigated [14,15]. The seabed soil is unsaturated  
uf = and wf = (2)
and hydraulically anisotropic, and subjected to a three-dimensional x z
wave system. However, all these numerical models only considered
where uf and wf are the horizontal and vertical velocities of seawa-
the wave loading. A detailed review of previous relevant research
ter in ow eld, respectively.
can be found in Jeng [16].
The dynamic and kinematic boundary conditions at the free sur-
Although the importance of wavesoilpipeline interaction
face (z = d + ) are:
phenomenon has been addressed in the literature [2,17], this prob-
lem has not been fully understood because of the complicated soil  1 2
+ (x + z2 ) + g = C(t) at z = d +  (3)
behavior and geometry of the pipeline. Based on a potential the- t 2
ory, the hydrodynamic uplift forces on the buried pipelines have
   
been studied [1820]. It has been well known that the potential + = 0 at z = d +  (4)
theory is far away from the realistic conditions of the soil and pore
t x x z
uid two-phase medium. Furthermore, the potential theory does where d is water depth;  is the elevation of free surface relative to
not provide any information for effective stresses and soil displace- the still water level; C(t) is the Bernoullis constant. The bottom of
ments in the seabed that have been recognized as dominant factors uid domain is considered as impermeable:
in the analysis of seabed instability [16]. Based on Biots poro-elastic 
theory [8,21], numerous two-dimensional numerical studies have = 0 at z = 0 (5)
z
been carried out for the wave-induced soil response around buried
pipelines under various wave and seabed condition (such as non- Using the perturbation technique, the third-order approxima-
linear wave loading, non-homogeneous and anisotropic seabed) tion for the wavecurrent interactions [31] is summarized here:
[2228]. More recently, a few three-dimensional models for the Hg cosh kz
waveseabedpipeline interactions have been reported to inves- (x, z, t) = U0 x + sin(kx t)
2(U0 k 0 ) cosh kd
tigate the inuence of wave obliquity, but limited to linear wave
loading [29,30]. 3H 2 cosh 2kz
+ (U0 k 0 ) sin 2(kx t)
In the real ocean environments, the ocean wave and the ocean 32sinh4 kd
current generally exist simultaneously. In aforementioned inves-
3k3 H 3 (9 4sinh2 kd) cosh 3kz
tigations, only the wave loading was considered. Thus, how do + (U0 k 0 ) sin 3(kx t) (6)
the ocean current affect the seabed response is far from fully 512 sinh7 kd
understood. Actually, the pressure acting on the seabed is signif-
icantly different when there is a current in the ow eld, according H
(x, t) = cos(kx t)
to the potential ow theory. Therefore, it is necessary to under- 2
stand the inuence of wavecurrent interaction on the seabed 2
kH (3 + 2sinh2 kd) cosh(kd)
response. + cos 2(kx t)
In this study, an integrated model (PORO-WSSI (PIPE-
16 sinh3 kd
CURRENT)), linking wave/current interaction models with porous k2 H 3 (3 + 14 sinh2 kd + 2 sinh4 kd)
seabed model, is developed to examine the seabed response in the + cos(kx t)
512 sinh4 kd
vicinity of a pipeline due to natural loading including wave and
current, based on poro-elastic theory. A third-order approxima- k2 H 3 3(9 + 24 sinh2 kd + 24 sinh4 kd + 8 sinh6 kd)
+
tion of nonlinear wave and current is introduced in Section 2. The 512 sinh6 kd
boundary value problem of wave/currentseabed interactions is
cos 3(kx t) (7)
outlined in Section 3, together with the numerical scheme and the
verications of the present models. Using the numerical model, a
parametric study is carried out in Section 4 to investigate the effects
U02 H 2 (0 U0 k)2
of wave and soil characteristics on the seabed response. Finally, C(t) = (8)
2 16 sinh2 kd
several key conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
where the H is the wave height of rst-order wave; k is the wave
number; U0 is the current velocity; g is the gravitational accelera-
2. Wavecurrent interactions tion; and the dispersion relation is given by

The co-existence of wave and current in offshore environ- = 0 + (kH)2 2 (9)

ments is a common phenomenon and their interaction is one of 
where 0 = U0 k + gk tanh kd and
important topics in the practices of coastal engineering. The pres-
ence of a current in a propagating wave will change the original (9 + 8 sinh2 kd + 8 sinh4 kd)
characteristics of waves. In this study, to obtain more accurate 2 = (0 U0 k) (10)
results of seabed response under combined wave and current 64 sinh4 kd
loadings, a third-order solution of wavecurrent interactions [31] The dynamic pressure acting on the seabed can be expressed:
is used to determine the dynamic wave pressure acting on the  
f gH 2 k2 H 2
seabed. Pb (x, t) = 1 cos(kx t)
2 cosh kd 2 (U0 k 0 )
The seawater is considered as an incompressible and inviscid
uid and the ow is irrotational. The ow eld of seawater can be  
3f H 2 0 (0 U0 k) gk
described by Laplaces equation: + cos 2(kx t)
8 2 sinh4 (kd) 3 sinh 2kd
2 2
  3f kH 3 0 (0 U0 k) (9 4 sinh2 (kd)
2 = + =0 (1) + cos 3(kx t) (11)
x2 z 2 512 sinh7 kd
 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537 27

 and  = effective normal stresses in

where ns = soil porosity; sx sz
the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively;
sxz = shear
stress; ps = the pore water pressure;  = f ns + s (1 ns ) = the aver-
age density of porous seabed; f = the density of seawater; s = soil
density; ks = the Darcys permeability; g = the gravitational accel-
eration; s = the volumetric strain and w = the unit weight of
seawater. In Eq. (12), the compressibility of pore uid () and the
volume strain (s ) are dened as
 
1 1 Sr us ws
= + , and s = + , (15)
Kf pw0 x z

where (us , ws ) = the soil displacements in the horizontal and verti-

cal directions, respectively; Sr = the degree of saturation of seabed,
pw0 = the absolute static pressure and Kf = the bulk modulus of
pore water (Kf = 2 109 N/m2 [9]). For a fully saturated seabed,
= 1/Kf .

Fig. 1. Denition of wave/currentseabedpipe interactions.

0
where f is the density of seawater. When there is no current in
wave (U0 = 0 m/s), the above third-order solution can be reduced to 0.1
the classic form of the solution of third-order non-linear wave.
0.2 |x|/po |p|/po

3. PORO-WSSI II (PIPE-CURRENT) model 0.3

0.4
In this section, the wavecurrent interaction model is integrated
z/h

with porous model for waveseabedstructure interaction around 0.5

offshore pipelines, and form the new version of PORO-WSSI II (PIPE-
0.6
CURRENT) model, which is an extension of PORO-WSSI II [32].
0.7 |xz|/po
3.1. Boundary value problem for seabed model
0.8 |z|/po

In this study, the problem considered is illustrated in Fig. 1, 0.9

in which the seabed is treated as an elastic, isotropic and
homogeneous porous medium. The consolidation equation [8,33], 1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
which has been generally accepted as the governing equation
|p|/po; |x|/po; |z|/po; |xz|/po
for ow of compressible pore uid (including saltwater and air
or gas) in a compressive porous medium, is adopted to treat
wave/currentseabed interactions around a pipeline as (a)coarsesand( ks =102 m/sec)
 2 2
 0
|x|/po
ps ps ps s
ks + w ns = w , (12) 0.1
x2 z 2 t t |z|/po
0.2 |p|/po
Neglecting the inertia term, the equations governing the overall
equilibrium of a porous medium can be expressed as 0.3


sx
sxz ps 0.4
+ = , (13)
z/h

x z x 0.5

sxz 
sz ps 0.6
+ + g = , (14)
x z z
0.7 |xz|/po

0.8

0.9

1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

|p|/p ; | |/p ; | |/p ; | |/p
o x o z o xz o
4
(b)finesand( ks =10 m/sec)
Fig. 3. Comparison of the linear wave-induced seabed response between the
present model and the previous analytical solution (p0 is the amplitude of lin-
ear wave loading) [10]. Solid lines = the present model; points = analytical solution.
Input data: wave period, T = 15 s, d = 70 m, wave length, L = 311.59 m, h = 25 m, soil
shear modulus, G = 107 N/m2 , s = 1/3, ns = 0.3, Sr = 1.0. (a) Coarse sand (ks = 102 m/s)
Fig. 2. Mesh used in examples without a trench layer. and (b) ne sand (ks = 104 m/s).
28 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537

Fig. 4. The wave-induced pore pressure (p) along the periphery of pipeline. Solid lines = the present model; points = experimental data [38]. Input data is listed in Table 1. (a)
Sketch of the model in the experiments, (b) case 1, (c) case 2 and (d) case 3.

 
In this study, the linear poro-elastic constitutive model is  Es us ws
adopted for the transient seabed response. Under the condition of
sxz = + , (18)
2(1 + s ) z x
plane strain, the stressstrain relationship is given as

  where Es = the elastic modulus of soil; s = the Poissons ratio.

 Es us s s Substituting (16)(18) into (13) and (14), the governing equa-
sx = + , (16)
(1 + s ) x 1 2s tions for the equilibrium of a porous medium can be expressed
as
 
 Es ws s s Es Es s ps
sz = + , (17) 2 us + = , (19)
(1 + s ) z 1 2s 2(1 + s ) 2(1 + s )(1 2s ) x x

Table 1
Input data for verications.

Wave characteristics

Water depth (d) 0.533 m

Case no. Wave height (H) Wave period (T) Wave length (L)

1 0.0524 m 0.9 s 1.25 m

2 0.143 m 1.75 s 3.54 m
3 0.0302 m 2.3 s 4.91 m

Seabed characteristics Pipeline characteristics

Seabed thickness (h) 0.826 m Buried depth (b) 0.083 m

Youngs modulus (Es ) 1.7 106 N/m2 Diameter of pipe (D) 0.168 m
Permeability (ks ) 1.1 103 m/s Youngs modulus (Ep ) 3 1010 N/m2
Density of soil (s ) 1700 kg/m3 Poisson ratio (p ) 0.2
Poissons ratio (s ) 0.33 Density of pipe (p ) 2400 kg/m3
Porosity (ns ) 0.42
Degree of saturation (Sr ) 0.95
 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537 29

Table 2
Input data for numerical examples.

Wave characteristics

Water depth (d) 10 m Wave period (T) 4.45 s

Wave height (H) 1.0 m Current velocity (U0 ) 1.0 m/s

Seabed characteristics Pipeline characteristics

Seabed thickness (h) 20 m Buried depth (b) 0.5 m

Youngs modulus (Es ) 7 107 N/m2 Diameter of pipe (D) 1.0 m
Permeability (ks ) 1.0 103 m/s Youngs modulus (Ep ) 3 1010 N/m2
Density of soil (s ) 1700 kg/m3 Poissons ratio (p ) 0.2
Poissons ratio (s ) 0.3 Density of pipe (p ) 2400 kg/m3
Porosity (ns ) 0.4
Degree of saturation (Sr ) 1.0

Es Es s ps Therefore, there is no displacement and vertical ow at this bottom

2 ws + = , (20)
2(1 + s ) 2(1 + s )(1 2s ) z z (note: the x-axis coincides with the mudline).

To solve the governing Eqs. (12), (19) and (20), several boundary ps
conditions will be applied. us = ws = 0 and = 0 at z = h. (21)
z
First, the bottom of seabed (at a distance z = h from the
mudline, see Fig. 1) is considered to be rigid and impermeable.

1
1.8 U0=2.0 m/s
0.8
pwc3(+) 1.5
1.6
0.6

1.4
1.0
0.4
0.5
1.2 pw3 0.2
o
p/p

1
o

0
p /p
s

pw1
0.8 0.2 0.5

0.6 0.4
1.0
0.4 0.6
1.5
pwc3() 0.8
0.2
2.0
1
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(degrees) (degrees)

(a) along the periphery of pipeline

(a) along the periphery of pipeline
0
0
0.05 pipeline location
0.05

0.1 1.5
0.1

0.15 0.15 2.0 1.0

0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5

z/h

z/h

0.25 0.25 1.0

0.3 0.3
pw1np
pw3np
0.35 0.35 1.5
pwc3np(+)
pwc3np()
0.4
pw1p 0.4
pw3p
0.45 pwc3p(+) 0.45 U0=2.0 m/s
pwc3p()
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.5
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
p/p
o
p/p
o
(b) along a vertical line through the center of pipeline
(b)along a vertical line through the center of pipeline
Fig. 5. Distributions of pore pressure (a) along the periphery of pipeline and (b)
along a vertical line through the center of the pipeline under various conditions of Fig. 6. Distributions of pore pressure (a) along the periphery of pipeline and (b)
wave and current loadings (H = 3 m in Fig. 5). along a vertical line through the center of the pipeline for various current velocities.
30 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537

Second, the boundary conditions along the mudline can be
expressed as
ps (x, z = 0, t) = Pb (x, t) and
sxz = 0 at z=0 (22)
It is noted that the effect of current is merely through changing the
wave characteristics (thus wave pressure on the bed) in this study.
On the mudline, the wave plus current pressure should be equal
to the pore water pressure to make sure the vertical effective stress
of the soil is zero at the mudline. It is noted that boundary condi-
tion (22) implies that this approach does not consider the damping
due to porous seabed because the pore pressure on the mudline is
considered not to be affected by the seabed.
sxz = 0 means that soil is considered, which has been widely used and provides reason-
shear stress on the mudline is zero. It is a one-way coupling (or so-
called weak coupling, a mode on which the deformed seabed does
not affect the wave as wave propagating), rather than two-way
coupling (i.e., full coupling, a mode on which the deformed seabed
subjected to wave loading will impact the wave in return) process.
As concluded in [34], the damping of wave magnitude is less than
5% in 100 s for a solitary wave propagating in shallow water, and
on coarse sand seabed (ks = 102 m/s). In this study, the length of
computational domain is about two times the wave length. Com-
paring with the case given in [34], the damping of wave magnitude
could be less than 2%, when the wave is going through a compu-
tational domain that is even coarse sand. Therefore, the damping
of wave magnitude is small in the cases considered here. Another
simple analytical approach to examine the effects of seabed char-
acteristics on the wave characteristics was proposed in [37]. In
that paper, he demonstrates the inuence of seabed on the wave
parameters such as wave height, wave length, etc. However, the
inuence was less than 2% only, and after 100 wave cycles. There-
fore, in this study, a one-way coupling (or called-weak coupling)
able prediction of seabed response compared with experimental
data.
Thirdly, it is reasonable to assume that there is no ow through
the pipeline wall. Thus, the pressure gradient on the surface of the
pipe (r = D/2) should vanish, i.e.,
ps  D
= 0 at r = (x xo )2 + (z zo )2 = , (23)
n 2

d=5m
1 d=10m
d=15m
0.5

0.8
0.4
o

0.6
p/po
p/p

0.3
T=4.45sec
T=6.5sec
T=8.5sec
0.4
0.2

0.2
0.1

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(degrees) (degrees)
(a) along the periphery of pipeline (a) along the periphery of pipeline
0 0
pipeline location
0.05 pipeline location 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.15 0.3

0.2 0.4
z/h
z/h

0.25 0.5

0.3 0.6

0.35 0.7

0.4 0.8
T=4.45sec
d=5m T=6.5sec
0.45 d=10m 0.9
T=8.5sec
d=15m
0.5 1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
p/po p/po

(b) along a vertical line through the center of pipeline (b) along a vertical line through the center of pipeline
Fig. 7. Distributions of relative difference of pore pressure (p/p0 ): (a) along the Fig. 8. Distributions of relative difference of pore pressure (p/p0 ): (a) along the
periphery of pipeline and (b) along a vertical line through the center of the pipeline periphery of pipeline and (b) along a vertical line through the center of the pipeline
for various water depths. for various wave periods.
 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537 31

where xo and zo denote the coordinates of the center of the pipe
and n is the normal direction to the surface of the pipeline.
It is noted that the present model is based on the quasi-static
Biots consolidation equations [8], in which the acceleration of soil
displacement and relative displacement of pore uid to soil dis-
placement are ignored. As it is known, some analytical solutions
of dynamic response for a poro-elastic, isotropic seabed under
wave loading based on partly-dynamic approximation and full-
dynamic approximation were proposed [36,6]. A further extended
version of analytical solutions was proposed by Ulker et al. [37], and
the applicable range of all models are identied.
3.2. Numerical scheme
ABAQUS is one of the most famous Finite Element Analysis
Softwares and is worldwide used in many elds nowadays. It is
powerful to deal with nonlinear problems and usually can get sat-
isfying results. As to geotechniqual problems, stable or transient
consolidation of saturated soil can be analyzed.
In this study, ABAQUS is used to simulate reactions of seabed
and pipeline when the wave and current act on seabed embedded
with pipeline. Combined wave and current pressure can be loaded
by subroutine DLOAD, while pore pressure can be loaded to seabed
surface by subroutine DISP. As the load of wave and current is a
periodical load, one period loading can be divided into 4060 steps
depending on the period of the wave used in this study, then the
case becomes a static problem. The preliminary numerical study
indicates that this approximation method is feasible.
It is necessary to conduct a convergent test of mesh before fur-
ther study. In this study, attentions is paid to the distributions of
the pore pressure in a seabed, especially in vicinity of pipeline zone.
Therefore, the mesh is rened around the pipeline zone, as shown
in Fig. 2. The numerical results indicate that the following element
density is sufcient for our numerical model: x-directions with 200
elements and y-direction with 70 elements.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Verications of the present model
Since previous studies for combined wave and current-induced
soil response around pipeline have not be available in the literature,

0.46 0.5
b=0.5m
0.45 0.48 b=1.5m
b=2.5m
0.44 0.46

0.43 0.44

0.42 0.42
o

o
p/p

p/p

0.41 103 m/s 0.4

0.4 0.38
102 m/s
0.39 0.36

0.38 0.34
k=101 m/s
0.37 0.32

0.36 0.3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

(degrees) (degrees)

(a) along the periphery of pipeline (a) along the periphery of pipeline
0 0

0.05 pipeline location pipeline (b=0.5m)

0.1 0.1 pipeline (b=1.5m)

0.15 0.15 pipeline (b=2.5m)

0.2 0.2
z/h
z/h

0.25 0.25

0.3 101 0.3

0.35 k=103 m/s 0.35

0.4 10 2 0.4
b=0.5m
0.45 0.45 b=1.5m
b=2.5m
0.5 0.5
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
p/p p/p
o o

(b) along a vertical line through the center of pipeline (b) along a vertical line through the center of pipeline
Fig. 9. Distributions of relative difference of pore pressure (p/p0 ): (a) along the Fig. 10. Distributions of relative difference of pore pressure p/p0 : (a) along the
periphery of pipeline and (b) along the vertical line through the center of the pipeline periphery of pipeline and (b) along the vertical line through the center of the pipeline
for various soil permeability. for various burial depths.
32 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537

present numerical model agrees well with the previous analytical

0.46
solution [10].
Another comparison with existing experimental data [38] for
0.44 the pore pressure distribution along the pipeline is presented in
Fig. 4. The input data of wave and soil characteristics of the exper-
0.42 iment is tabulated in Table 1. Although some differences between
the present model and experimental data are observed, the present
numerical model overall agrees with the experimental data.
o

0.4
p/p

D=1.0 m
0.38 4.2. Wave non-linearity and current
1.5 m
0.36
The aim of this study is to examine the effects of wavecurrent
2.0 m interaction on the seabed response around an offshore pipeline. In
this section, the combined effects of wave non-linearity and current
0.34
on the pore pressure around the buried pipeline are examined. The
input data and denition of each case are listed in Table 2.
0.32 The distributions of the pore pressure along the periphery of the
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(degrees) pipeline and the vertical line through the center of the pipeline for
different combination of wave and current are presented in Fig. 5.
(a) along the periphery of pipeline In the example, pwNnp (N = 1 and 3) are the results of wave-induced
0 pore pressure without a pipeline (denoted as np), based on the lin-
0.05
ear wave (N = 1) and the third-order wave (N = 3) theories; pwNp is
for the case with a pipeline; pwcNnp and pwcNp are for the case with
0.1 1.0 burial depth wave plus current; while (+) and () denote the case with a follow-
ing current (the direction of a current is the same as the wave) or
0.15 1.5
opposite current (the direction of a current is opposite to the wave).
0.2 D=2.0 m As shown in Fig. 5, the effects of wave nonlinearity can be up to 20%,
compared with the linear wave loading (pw3 versus pw1). Further-
z/h

0.25 more, the case with a following current with the third-order wave
model (pwc3(+)) will be almost double of that with linear wave
0.3
without a current (pw1). For the case with an opposite current, the
0.35 pore pressure will be signicantly reduced to about 0.1p0 (p0 is the
amplitude of linear wave loading). This demonstrates the signi-
0.4
cant inuence of current on the pore pressure along the pipeline
0.45 surface.
Fig. 5(b) further illustrates the effects of pipeline on the dis-
0.5 tribution of pore pressure under different situations. The pipeline
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
p/p is located between z/h = 0.025 and 0.075. The gure shows the
o
inuence of wave non-linearity and current on the pore pressure
(b) along a vertical line through the center of pipeline along the vertical line through the center of the pipeline. The g-
ures also demonstrate the inuence of the existence of the pipeline,
Fig. 11. Distributions of relative difference of pore pressure (p/p0 ): (a) along the as compared to the case without a pipeline.
periphery of pipeline and (b) along the vertical line through the center of the pipeline To further examine the effects of current on the pore pressure
for various pipe diameters (b = 1.5 m in Fig. 11 for better meshes). around a pipeline, Fig. 6 presents the results with various values
of current under non-linear wave loading. In this gure as well
the proposed model can only be veried by comparing it with pre- as in Figs. 711, p is dened as (pwc3 pw3 ), where pwc3 is the
vious studies for wave loading only. results of third-order theory for combined wave and current load-
Fig. 3 presents a comparison between the present model and the ing and pw3 is that of third-order wave loading only. As shown in
previous analytical solution without a pipeline [10] in both coarse Fig. 6, the inuence of current on the relative difference of pore
sand and ne sand. The input data of the comparison is based on pressure (p/p0 ) increases as the current velocity increases. Sim-
the design wave condition of North Sea. As shown in the gure, the ilar to the previous example, the following current will increase
the pore pressure development, as (p/p0 ) increase positively. The
opposing current will work in the reverse way. It is noted that the
difference of pore pressure p can reach to 0.8p0 when U0 = 2 m/s.

Table 3
Additional input data for numerical examples.

Trench layer

Depth of trench (B) 3m

Youngs modulus (Es ) 2 108 N/m2
Density of soil (s ) 1700 kg/m3
Poissons ration (c ) 0.32
Trench angle ( c ) 60
Bottom width of trench (W) 3m
Permeability (kc ) 102 m/s
porosity (nc ) 0.46
Fig. 12. Mesh used in examples with a trench layer.
 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537 33

4.3. Wave and seabed characteristics effects of wave non-linearity and current become more important
in ne sand, compared with coarse sand.
In general, wave characteristics will play an important role in
the evaluation of the seabed response around a buried pipeline in a 4.4. Pipeline conguration
porous seabed [10]. In addition to the wave non-linearity, another
two major wave parameters, water depth and wave period, are con- In this section, the effects of pipeline conguration on (p/p0 )
sidered here. Fig. 7 illustrates the inuence of water depth on the are further investigated. This includes burial depth and pipe diam-
relative difference of pore pressure (p/p0 ). The gure clearly indi- eters. Fig. 10 presents the inuence of the pipe burial depth on
cates that the relative difference of pore pressure increases as water (p/p0 ). As shown in the gure, (p/p0 ) decreases as burial depth
depth increases, i.e., the inuence of wave non-linearity and current increases. This result is because (p/p0 ) in general decreases as the
become more important in larger water depth rather than smaller soil depth increases, as shown in Fig. 10(b).
water depth. It is also noted that p is almost a constant along the Another important parameter for pipeline conguration is the
pipe periphery. Furthermore, the difference of (p/p0 ) between the pipe diameter (D). The relative difference of pore pressure (p/p0 )
top and bottom of the pipeline also signicantly increases as water is signicantly affected by the pipe diameter (D), as shown in Fig. 11.
depth increases. Basically, (p/p0 ) increases at the top area of pipeline and decreases
The distributions of the relative difference of pore pressure in the other areas of the pipeline as D increases. This implies that
(p/p0 ) for various wave periods are plotted in Fig. 8. It is noted
that the effects of wave non-linearity and current become more
signicant in the case of a shorter period wave.
In summary, as shown in Figs. 7 and 8, the inuence of wave
non-linearity and current become more signicant in the case of
larger water depth and smaller wave periods.
As reported in the literature, soil permeability will signicantly
affect the wave-induced seabed response in a porous seabed [10].
Herein, the inuence of soil permeability on the relative difference
the effects of wave non-linearity and current become more impor-
tant in the evaluation of pore pressure around pipeline for a larger
pipe.
4.5. Trench layer
Pipeline protection is one of major concerns in offshore pipeline
projects. In general, pipeline engineers use a trench layer for the
protection of a buried offshore pipeline, which will involve the fol-
of pore pressure (p/p0 ) is examined between linear wave loading lowing design parameters: (1) the ll in material; (2) conguration
and combined non-linear wave and current loading. As shown in of the trench layer. In this section, the effects of the relevant param-
Fig. 9, p increases as soil permeability decreases. This implies that eters on the pore pressure around pipeline under combined wave

0.45

1.45 kc=101 m/s

kc=101 m/s

102 m/s
1.4 0.4
102 m/s
o

o
/p

/p
wc3p

wc3p

1.35
p

1.3 0.35 103 m/s

103 m/s

1.25

1.2 0.3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

(degrees) (degrees)
0 0

0.05 pipeline location 0.05 pipeline location

0.1 0.1

0.15 0.15

0.2 0.2
z/h
z/h

0.25 0.25

0.3 0.3

0.35 0.35

0.4 kc=101 m/s 0.4 kc=101 m/s

kc=102 m/s kc=102 m/s
0.45 0.45
kc=103 m/s kc=103 m/s
0.5 0.5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
pwc3p/po pwc3p/po

(a) U0 = 1 m/sec (b) U0 = 1 m/sec

Fig. 13. Distributions of the pore pressure (pwc3p /p0 ) along the periphery of pipeline and along the vertical line through the center of the pipeline for various values of
permeability of the trench layer (kc ) with (a) U0 = 1 m/s and (b) U0 = 1 m/s.
34 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537

and current loadings will be examined. In this parametric study,
the FE mesh given in Fig. 12 is used.
The lled material of a trench layer is one of important factors
in the design of pipeline protection. Among seabed character-
istics, soil permeability is one of parameters that dominate the
evaluation of the pore water pressure in the seabed [10]. Input
data of the numerical examples are tabulated in Tables 2 and 3
(note: the permeability of seabed ks = 1.0 104 m/s in examples).
Fig. 13 illustrates the distributions of pore pressure around a buried
pipeline for various lled material of the trench layer (kc ) for both
following and opposing current. As shown in the gure, the pore
pressure increases as kc increases. Furthermore, there is a sig-
nicant difference between the trench layer with kc = 102 and
103 m/s. It is noted that the results presented in Fig. 13 correspond
to wave crests positioned at the center of the pipeline, where densi-
cation normally occurs. On the other hand, when the wave trough
arrives at the center of the pipeline, the pore pressure along the
mudline and within the seabed will become negative, which will
result to increase of the excess pore pressure (Pb p) (Pb is the pore
pressure on the mudline (z = 0) and is obtained from Eq. (11); p is the
eld of pore pressure in seabed) as kc increases. This implies that
a coarser lled materials will reduce the potential of liquefaction
around the pipeline. More detailed discussions about liquefaction
will be provided in the later section.
In addition to the lled materials, conguration of the trench
layer (as shown in Fig. 1) is another vital issue for the design of the
trench layer. Figs. 1416 illustrate the inuence of the conguration
parameters of the trench layer, including depth, width and slope
angle of the trench layer. These gures clearly indicated that the
conguration parameters of the trench layer affect only slightly
the pore pressure acting on the top of the pipeline, while they may
have some visible effects on the bottom of the pipeline and its near
regions. It is noted that the results presented here is the case with
kc = 102 m/s.
4.6. Liquefaction around a burial pipeline
The phenomenon of liquefaction around a burial pipeline is a
vital issue in the design of offshore pipeline. Once the liquefaction
occurs, the pipeline may become oating or sinking, and eventually
this results to the damage of the pipeline. This section focuses at the
liquefaction potential around a buried pipeline subjected to com-
bined wave and current loading with and without a trench layer.
The input data for the numerical example is given in Table 4.
Two liquefaction criteria are employed in this study to estimate
the potential of liquefaction around the buired pipeline; these are:
Criterion (a): [5]
(s w )z + (Pb (x, t) p(x, z, t)) 0. (24)
where  s is the unit weight of seabed, w is the unit weight
of seawater, Pb is the pore pressure on the mudline (z = 0), p
is the eld of pore pressure in seabed. Actually, the rst item:
(s w )z means the vertical effective stress of seabed under

0.45

1.49
0.44
1.48

1.47 0.43

1.46
/po

pwc3p/po

0.42
wc3p

1.45 B=2 m
B=2 m 0.41
p

1.44
3m
1.43 0.4
3m
1.42 4m
4m 0.39
1.41

1.4 0.38
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

(degrees) (degrees)
0 0

0.05 pipeline location 0.05 pipeline location

0.1 0.1
B=2 m
B=2 m
0.15 0.15
3m 3m
0.2 0.2
4m 4m
z/h

z/h

0.25 0.25

0.3 0.3

0.35 0.35

0.4 0.4

0.45 0.45

0.5 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
pwc3p/po pwc3p/po

(a) U0 = 1 m/sec (b) U0 = 1 m/sec

Fig. 14. Distributions of the pore pressure (pwc3p /p0 ) along the periphery of pipeline and along the vertical line through the center of the pipeline for various depths of the
trench layer (B) with (a) U0 = 1 m/s and (b) U0 = 1 m/s.
 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537 35

1.5 0.45

1.49
W=2 m 0.44 W=2 m
1.48 W=3 m W=3 m
W=4 m W=4 m
0.43
1.47

1.46
o

o
0.42
pwc3p/p

pwc3p/p
1.45
0.41
1.44

1.43 0.4

1.42
0.39
1.41

1.4 0.38
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(degrees) (degrees)
0 0

0.05 pipeline location 0.05 pipeline location

0.1 0.1

0.15 0.15

0.2 0.2
z/h

0.25 z/h 0.25 W=2 m

W=3 m
0.3 0.3 W=4 m

0.35 0.35

0.4 W=2 m 0.4

W=3 m
0.45 0.45
W=4 m
0.5 0.5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
pwc3p/po pwc3p/po

(a) U0 = 1 m/sec (b) U0 = 1 m/sec

Fig. 15. Distributions of the pore pressure (pwc3p /p0 ) along the periphery of pipeline and along the vertical line through the center of the pipeline for various widths of the
trench layer (W) with (a) U0 = 1 m/s and (b) U0 = 1 m/s.

gravity. The larger value of (Pb p) will imply less possibility of where K0 is the coefcient of lateral earth pressure (normally,
liquefaction potential of the soil. K0 = 0.5). It is noted that criterion (b) takes into account the lateral
Criterion (b): [39] is: earth pressure.

(1 + 2K0 ) Fig. 17 illustrates the potential zone of liquefaction near pipeline

(s w )z + (Pb (x, t) p(x, z, t)) 0. (25)
3 with two different criteria. In spite of the criterion used in the

Table 4
Input data for liquefaction analysis.

Wave characteristics

Water depth (d) 10 m Wave period (T) 8s

Wave height (H) 6.0 m Current velocity (U0 ) 2.0 m/s

Seabed characteristics Pipeline characteristics

Seabed thickness (h) 20 m Buried depth (b) 0.5 m

Youngs modulus (Es ) 7 107 N/m2 Diameter of pipe (D) 1.0 m
Permeability (ks ) 1.0 104 m/s Youngs modulus (Ep ) 3 1010 N/m2
Density of soil (s ) 1400 kg/m3 Poissons ratio (p ) 0.2
Poissons ratio (s ) 0.3 Density of pipe (p ) 2400 kg/m3
Porosity (ns ) 0.4
Degree of saturation (Sr ) 1.0

Trench layer

Depth of trench (B) 3m Bottom width of trench (W) 3m

Youngs modulus (Es ) 2 108 N/m2 Permeability (kc ) 102 m/s
Density of soil (s ) 1400 kg/m3
Poissons ration (c ) 0.32 Porosity (nc ) 0.46
Trench angle ( c ) 60
36 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537

1.5 0.45

0.44

0.43

0.42
1.45
0.41
o

/po
pwc3p/p

wc3p
0.4

p
0.39
1.4
0.38

c =45o 0.37 c =45o

c =60o c =60o
0.36
c =90o c =90o
1.35 0.35
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(degrees) (degrees)
0 0

0.05 pipeline location 0.05 pipeline location

0.1 0.1

0.15 0.15

0.2 0.2
z/h

z/h
0.25 0.25

0.3 0.3

0.35 0.35

0.4 c =45o 0.4 c =45o

c =60o c =60o
0.45 0.45
c =90o c =90o
0.5 0.5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
pwc3p/po pwc3p/po

(a) U0 = 1 m/sec (b) U0 = 1 m/sec

Fig. 16. Distributions of the pore pressure (pwc3p /p0 ) along the periphery of pipeline and along the vertical line through the center of the pipeline for various slope angels of
the trench layer ( c ) with (a) U0 = 1 m/s and (b) U0 = 1 m/s.

example, it can be seen that the liquefaction area is strongly same loading case for seabed with trench. It indicates that trench
impacted by the existence of trench. The bottom of pipeline and can effectively prevent the soil in trench from liquefying and pro-
nearby zone of seabed without trench is liqueed under current tect pipeline. So the trench layer with the design given in Table 4
and wave loading while only outside of trench is liqueed in the may have the capacity against the liquefaction with the selected
wave and seabed characteristics.

0
2 5. Conclusions
z(m)

4
6
In this paper the effect of wavecurrent interaction is inves-
criterion(a) tigated with an ABAQUS model. Good agreements between the
8
criterion(b) present model and analytical solution for free seabed and experi-
10
20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 ment data for seabed with pipe are shown when current is zero. The
x(m)
impact of the wave and soil characteristics and pipeline congura-
tion on normalized relative pore pressure (p/p0 ) and the trench
(a)Without a trench layer
0
are studied through the numerical model. Based on the numerical
results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
2
z(m)

4
6
1. Current has great effects for the distributions of pore pressure in
criteria(a) a poro-elastic seabed with pipeline by changing the wave char-
8
criteria(b) acteristics. The following current will increase pore pressure in
10
20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 the seabed, while the opposing current will decrease the pore
x(m)
pressure. Ignoring the current may underestimate the risk of
(b) With a trench layer instability of seabed and pipeline.
2. The magnitude of current velocity will apparently inuence the
Fig. 17. Comparison of liquefaction zones around a buried pipeline. (a) Without a distribution of pore pressure in the seabed. As to following cur-
trench layer and (b) with a trench layer. rent, larger current velocity will lead to greater pore pressure in
 F. Wen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 35 (2012) 2537
the seabed and the reverse is true. For opposing current, larger
current velocity (absolute value) will make more reduction of
pore pressure (compared with the case current velocity is zero)
in the seabed, and the opposite is similar.
3. As to seabed without trench, water depth and wave period
apparently affect the relative difference of pore pressure in
seabed under wave and current loading. The larger water depth
and smaller wave period they are, the more obvious effects they
will be. As to soil permeability, the increase of permeability will
37
[11] Hsu JRC, Jeng D-S, Lee CP. Oscillatory soil response and liquefaction in an
unsaturated layered seabed. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics 1995;19(12):82549.
[12] Thomas SD. A nite element model for the analysis of wave induced stresses,
displacements and pore pressure in an unsaturated seabed. I. Theory. Comput-
ers and Geotechnics 1989;8(1):138.
[13] Thomas SD. A nite element model for the analysis of wave induced stresses,
displacements and pore pressure in an unsaturated seabed. II. Model verica-
tion. Computers and Geotechnics 1995;17(1):10732.
[14] Jeng D-S, Lin YS. Finite element modelling for water wavessoil interaction.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1996;15(5):283300.
[15] Jeng D-S, Lin YS. Non-linear wave-induced response of porous seabed: a nite
lead to (p/p0 ) decrease. It means that the current and nonlinear element analysis. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
wave have larger impact in ne sand seabed than in coarse sand in Geomechanics 1997;21(1):1542.
[16] Jeng D-S. Wave-induced sea oor dynamics. Applied Mechanics Reviews
seabed.
2003;56(4):40729.
4. Burial depth and pipe diameter also affect the value of (p/p0 ) [17] Herbich JB. Wave-induced scour around offshore pipelines. In: Proceedings
under wave and current loading. Larger burial depth will reduce offshore technical conference. 1977. p. 7990.
the (p/p0 ). But the larger pipeline diameter will increase [18] MacPherson H. Wave forces on pipeline buried in permeable seabed. Jour-
nal of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCE 1978;104(4):
(p/p0 ) on the top area of pipeline while decrease it in the other 40719.
area. It indicates that larger diameter will cause to bigger varia- [19] McDough WG, Davidson SH, Monkmeyer PL, Sollitt CK. Wave-induced forces
tion of (p/p0 ) near pipeline.
5. A higher permeable trench embedded with pipeline in the
seabed will reduce the excess pore pressure (Pb p) around
pipeline subjected to wave and current loading. It means a lled
material with a higher permeability in trench also can reduce
the potential liquefaction and protect pipeline, which is usually
working for the case with linear wave loading as it is known.
6. The other conguration of trench (such as bottom width, depth of
trench and slope angle) will have tiny effect of the pore pressure
on the top area of pipeline. This effect will be more apparent on
the bottom of pipeline and its nearby zone.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the nancial support from EPSRC
Grant # EP/G006482/1 (UK), State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engi-
neering Self-Development Grant # GKZD010053 (China), Sichuan
University State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River
Engineering Open Fund Scheme # SKLH-OF-1005 (China), and NSFC
Grant # 41176073 (China).
References
[1] Christian JT, Taylor PK, Yen JKC, Erali DR. Large diameter underwater pipeline
for nuclear power plant designed against soil liquefaction. In: Proceeding of
offshore technology conference. 1974. p. 597606.
[2] Clukey EC, Vermersch JA, Koch SP, Lamb WC. Natural densication by wave
action of sand surrounding a buried offshore pipeline. In: Proceedings of the
21st annual offshore technology conference. 1989. p. 291300.
[3] Jeng D-S. Mechanism of the wave-induced seabed response in the vicinity of a
breakwater: a review. Ocean Engineering 2001;28(5):53972.
[4] Nago H, Maeno S, Matsumoto T, Hachiman Y. Liquefaction and densication of
loosely deposited sand bed under water pressure variation. In: Proceeding of
the 3rd international offshore and polar engineering conference, vol. I. 1993. p.
57884.
[5] Zen K, Yamazaki H. Mechanism of wave-induced liquefaction and densication
in seabed. Soils and Foundations 1990;30(4):90104.
[6] Jeng D-S, Cha DH. Effects of dynamic soil behavior and wave non-linearity on
the wave-induced pore pressure and effective stresses in porous seabed. Ocean
Engineering 2003;30(16):206589.
[7] Jeng D-S, Seymour BR. A simplied analytical approximation for pore-water
pressure build-up in a porous seabed. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and
Ocean Engineering, ASCE 2007;133(4):30912.
[8] Biot MA. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. Journal of Applied
Physics 1941;26(2):15564.
[9] Yamamoto T, Koning H, Sellmeijer H, Hijum EV. On the response of a poro-
elastic bed to water waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1978;87(1):193206.
[10] Hsu JRC, Jeng D-S. Wave-induced soil response in an unsaturated anisotropic
seabed of nite thickness. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics 1994;18(11):785807.
on buried pipelines. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering,
ASCE 1988;114(2):22036.
[20] Spierenburg SJ. Wave-induced pore pressure around submarine pipelines.
Coastal Engineering 1986;10:3346.
[21] Biot MA. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a uid saturated porous
solid. Part I. Low frequency range. Journal of Acoustic Society, American
1956;28:16877.
[22] Cheng AHD, Liu PL-F. Seepage force on a pipeline buried in a poroelastic seabed
under wave loading. Applied Ocean Research 1986;8(1):2232.
[23] Madga W. Wave-induced uplift force acting on a submarine buried pipeline:
nite element formulation and verication of computations. Computers and
Geotechnics 1996;19(1):4773.
[24] Jeng D-S, Lin YS. Response of in-homogeneous seabed around buried pipeline
under ocean waves. Journal of Engineering Mechanics Engineering, ASCE
2000;126(4):32132.
[25] Mostafa AM, Mizutani N. Nonlinear wave forces on a marine pipeline buried
in a sand seabed. In: The 12th international conference on offshore and polar
engineering (ISOPE2002), vol. 2. 2002. p. 6875.
[26] Gao FP, Jeng D-S, Sekiguchi H. Numerical study on the interaction between non-
linear wave, buried pipeline and non-homogeneous porous seabed. Computers
and Geotechnics 2003;30(6):53547.
[27] Vun PL. Experimental and numerical studies on wave-induced liquefaction to
soil around marine structures founded in the seabed. PhD thesis, University of
Birmingham; 2005.
[28] Barry DA, Parlange J-Y, Sander G, Li L, Jeng D-S, Hogarth WL. Discussion
of closure to explicit solution to green and ampt inltration equation by
Sergio E. Serrano. Journal of Hydrological Engineering, ASCE 2006;132(3):
2824.
[29] Shabani B, Jeng D-S, Small J. Wave-associated seabed behaviour near submarine
buried pipelines. Nova Science Publishers Inc.; 2009. p. 3109 [Chapter 1].
[30] Zhang X, Jeng D-S, Luan MT. Dynamic response of a porous seabed around
pipeline under three-dimensional wave loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 2011;31(5-6):78591.
[31] Hsu HC, Chen YY, Hsu JRC, Tseng WJ. Nonlinear water waves on uniform cur-
rent in Lagrangian coordinates. Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics
2009;16:4761.
[32] Zhang J-S, Jeng D-S, Liu PL-F. Numerical study for waves propagating over
a porous seabed around a submerged permeable breakwater PORO-WSSI II
model. Ocean Engineering 2011;38(7):95466.
[33] Verruijt A. In: De Wiest RJM, editor. Elastic storage of aquifers. New York:
Academic Press; 1969. p. 33176 [Chapter 8].
[34] Liu PL-F, Park YS, Lara JL. Long-wave-induced ows in an unsaturated perme-
able seabed. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 2007;586:32345.
[37] Jeng D-S. A new wave dispersion equation: effects of soil characteristics. Journal
of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME 2001;125(4):17781.
[36] Jeng D-S, Rahman MS, Lee TL. Effects of inertia forces on wave-induced
seabed response. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering
1999;9(4):30713.
[37] Ulker MBC, Rahman MS, Jeng D-S. Wave-induced response of seabed:
various formulations and their applicability. Applied Ocean Research
2009;31(1):1224.
[38] Turcotte BR, Liu PL-F, Kulhawy FH. Laboratory evaluation of wave tank param-
eters for wave-sediment interaction. Tech. rep., Joseph F. Defree Hydraulic
Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University;
1984.
[39] Jeng D-S. Wave-induced seabed instability in front of a breakwater. Ocean
Engineering 1997;24(10):887917.