0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

1 Aufrufe14 SeitenPipeline

Feb 09, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

1 Aufrufe

- MODELING MAGNETO-ACTIVE ELASTOMERS USING THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
- me8180-assignment1
- Schmertmann 1970
- DESIGN AND CALCULATION OF RING SPRINGS AS SPRING ELEMENTS OF THE WAGON BUFFER
- MIPE Abstract
- STRUCTURAL_ Chapter 2_ Structural Static Analysis (UP19980818)
- Workshop15 Rolling Plate
- gfhfhdfghd
- ENGAGE E3S Dynamics Snakes on Plane
- Parcial2MC2008.pdf
- Dry Friction in Wheel-rail Contact
- O03.pdf
- Seismic Design and Analysis.pdf
- Adaptive Vehicle Structure to Optimize Crash Pulses
- Streangth of Material Lecture-NPTEL
- fulltext
- Friction Tutorial Sheet
- N9. Aislamiento Sísmico de Centrales Nucleares
- Full Thesis Final
- ch08.ppt

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

com

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

wave loading: Soil–pipeline contact eﬀects and inertial eﬀects

M. Luan a, P. Qu a, D.-S. Jeng a,b,*

, Y. Guo a, Q. Yang a

a

State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Oﬀshore Engineering, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, School of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering,

Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 11604, China

b

School of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Received 22 October 2006; received in revised form 28 May 2007; accepted 28 May 2007

Available online 9 July 2007

Abstract

The existing models for the pore pressure and internal stresses within the pipeline under wave loading have mainly based on the

assumption of no-slip boundary condition at the interface between pipeline and soil particles. In this paper, soil–pipeline contact eﬀects

and inertial forces are considered in the new model. A comprehensive comparison between the experimental data available and the pres-

ent model is performed and showing good agreements. Based on the numerical results, it is found that soil–pipeline contact eﬀects sig-

niﬁcantly aﬀect the internal stresses. The maximum diﬀerence of internal normal stress can reach 50 times of p0. On the other hand,

inclusion of inertial terms will only aﬀect the pore pressure acting on the pipeline. Numerical examples also conclude that the diﬀerence

of internal normal stresses between the present model (with contact eﬀects and inertial terms) and previous work (without contact eﬀects

and inertial terms) increases as the depth (s) of the trench layer decreases, but as the width of the trench layer (‘) increases. Finally, we

compare three diﬀerent types of trench shapes, rectangle, trapezoid and triangle trench layers, and found that triangle trench layer will

reduce the pore pressure, but increase the internal stresses.

2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Contact eﬀects; Inertial force; Pore pressure; Internal stress; Wave–soil–pipeline interaction

interaction phenomenon has been addressed in the litera-

With the growing of oﬀshore activities, design of oﬀ- ture [1], this problem has not been fully understood

shore pipelines attract great attention from oﬀshore engi- because of the complicated soil behaviour and geometry

neers. When gravity waves propagate over the ocean, of the pipeline. Based on a potential theory, the hydrody-

they exert ﬂuctuations of wave pressure on the sea ﬂoor. namic uplift forces on the buried pipelines have been stud-

These ﬂuctuations further induce excess pore pressures ied [2–4]. However, the potential theory is somewhat

and eﬀective stresses, which have been recognised as a removed from the realistic conditions of the soil and

dominant factor in analysing the instability of a seabed. pore-ﬂuid two-phase medium. Furthermore, the potential

One of the important factors that must be taken into theory provides no information for the eﬀective stresses

account is the pore pressure acting on the pipeline and and soil displacements in the seabed.

the resultant internal stresses within the pipeline. Based on Biot’s model [5], the wave-induced pore pres-

sure around a buried pipeline has been studied through a

*

boundary integral equation method [6] and a ﬁnite element

Corresponding author. Address: School of Civil Engineering, The

method [7]. Among these, Cheng and Liu [6] considered a

University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Tel.: +61 293512144;

fax: +61 293513343. buried pipeline in a region that is surrounded by two

E-mail address: d.jeng@civil.usyd.edu.au (D.-S. Jeng). impermeable walls. Magda [7] considered a similar case

0266-352X/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.05.004

174 M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186

with a wider range of the degree of saturation. All these Water surface

have only considered the wave-induced pore pressures Still water

around a pipeline in a uniform porous seabed [8].

Recently, a three-year EU program ‘‘Liquefaction

around Marine Structures (LIMAS)’’ has been carried

d Water

out [9,10]. The program has been undertaken by a con-

sortium of 10 institutes, including universities, hydraulics

and geotechnical engineering laboratory and consulting Seabed surface

companies. The objectives of the EU program are two- b

Impermeable θ

folds: (1) To investigate potential risks for failure of wall 2R

Impermeable

wall

structures due to liquefaction; and (2) To prepare and

s z

disseminate practical guidelines (guidance for design

Seabed

and maintenance), to be developed from the present

research and also taking into consideration all state-of- Impermeable rigid bottom

x

the-art knowledge. In this program, numerous papers O

including pipelines [11–13].

Fig. 1. Sketch of wave–seabed–pipeline interaction problem.

To date, the contact interface between pipeline and soil

was considered to be a non-slip boundary. This assumption

is somehow unrealistic and will directly aﬀect the internal op oðr us Þ

stresses of the pipeline. Furthermore, the inertial forces rT ðK rpÞ cw n0 b ¼ cw ð1Þ

ot ot

have not been considered in the previous model, which

where us ” (us, ws) is the vector of soil displacements, K is

may have signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the soil response within

the permeability matrix of the soil, cw is the unit weight

a porous seabed. Thus, to consider the soil–pipeline con-

of pore water, n 0 is soil porosity, p is pore pressure, t is

tact eﬀects and inertial forces in the wave–seabed–pipeline

the time.

interaction problem, and a new model needs to be

In Eq. (1), the compressibility of pore ﬂuid (b) is deﬁned

developed.

by

The aim of this paper is to investigate the distribution of

internal stresses and deformation of the buried pipeline 1 1S

b¼ þ ð2Þ

under ocean water wave loadings with contact eﬀects and Kw P w0

inertial forces. With the ﬁnite element model, a comparison where Kw is the true modulus of elasticity of water (taken

between the numerical model and the available experimen- as 2.1 · 109 N/m2), Pw0 is the absolute water pressure, S

tal data is performed. Then, the inﬂuences of soil–pipeline is the degree of saturation.

contact eﬀects and inertial items on the wave-induced pore Under conditions of plane strain, the plane stress–strain

pressure in the seabed and internal stresses within the bur- relationship can be expressed as

ied pipeline will be discussed in detail. The eﬀects of geom-

etry of the trench on the inﬂuence of above two factors will 0 ous ls

rxs ¼ 2Gs þ r us ð3Þ

be also examined. Finally, a brief discussion on diﬀerent ox 1 2ls

types of trench shape will be investigated. ows ls

r0zs ¼ 2Gs þ r us ð4Þ

oz 1 2ls

2. Boundary value problem

ous ows

ss ¼ Gs þ ð5Þ

oz ox

Considering a soil column in a porous seabed of ﬁnite

thickness (s), a fully buried pipeline (with a radius R) is where the shear stresses, ss, denotes the stress in the z-direc-

located in the seabed surrounding by two impermeable tion on a plane perpendicular to the x-axis. It is noted that

walls (see Fig. 1). The wave crests are assumed to propa- a positive sign is taken for a tension normal stress in this

gate in the positive x-direction, while the z-direction is mea- study. The shear modulus of the soil (Gs) is related to the

sured positive upward from impermeable rigid bottom, as modulus of deformation of soil (Es) and Poisson’s ratio

shown in Fig. 1. (ls) as Es/2(1 + ls).

In (1)–(5), the eﬀective stress is deﬁned as the total stress

2.1. Governing equations minus the pore pressure, which is valid in saturated soil.

This assumption is invalid for unsaturated soil if the degree

In this study, the consolidation equation [5], which has of saturation is low. In general, most marine sediments are

been commonly used as the governing equation for ﬂow in a situation of nearly saturation (S > 0.95). As suggested

of a compressible pore ﬂuid in a compressible porous med- in Verruijt [14], to simplify the complicated soil behavior,

ium, is adopted to treat the wave–seabed interaction with the deﬁnition of eﬀective stresses in saturated soil is used

variable permeability as for nearly saturated seabed. This has been commonly used

M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186 175

for the problem of wave-induced pore pressure and eﬀec- Thirdly, we assume that there is no ﬂow through the

tive stresses in marine sediments [6,7,14–18]. For the mar- pipeline wall. This assumption is valid because the pipeline

ine sediments with lower degree of saturation, our model is considered as an elastic impermeable material. Thus, the

is not applicable. pore pressure gradient on the surface of the pipeline (r = R)

Neglecting the eﬀects of relative acceleration between should vanish, i.e.,

pore ﬂuid and solid, the equations governing the overall qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

op 2 2

equilibrium of a porous medium can be expressed in terms ¼ 0; at r ¼ ðx x0 Þ þ ðz z0 Þ ¼ R ð11Þ

on

of pore pressure and soil displacements as

Gs where x0 and z0 denote the coordinates of the centre of the

G s r 2 us þ rðr us Þ ¼ rp qs bs þ qs €

us ð6Þ pipeline and n is the normal direction to the surface of the

1 2ls

pipeline.

where qsbs is the body force of the soil. Fourthly, we consider the lateral boundary is imperme-

In (6), qs is the apparent density of the soil that is the able, as show in Fig. 1, i.e.,

mass of unit element in natural environments, which can op

be determined by us ¼ 0 and ¼ 0; at x ¼ 0 and ‘ ð12Þ

ox

qs ¼ ms =8s ð7Þ

where ms is the mass of soil and "s is the volume of soil in 2.3. Soil–pipeline contact eﬀects

natural environment or so-called apparent volume that is

deﬁned as the sum of volume of solid and pore ﬂuid. In the analysis of seabed–pipeline interaction, there

Note that the above equation is so-called u p approx- may exist shear sliding at the interface between soil col-

imation, which was ﬁrstly proposed by Zienkiewicz et al. umn and pipeline under wave loading. Most previous

[19], and applied to wave–seabed interaction problem. investigations for the soil–pipeline interaction did not

Based on an elastic theory, the governing equation for consider the contact eﬀects between soil and pipeline [6].

buried pipeline is given by To simulate the contact eﬀects along soil–pipeline inter-

Gp face, a contact element can be established to link two

Gp r2 up þ rðr up Þ ¼ qp bp þ qp €

up ð8Þ materials in the ﬁnite element analysis. Meanwhile, the

1 2lp

eﬀects in normal and tangential directions are considered.

where up ” (up, wp) is the vector of displacement of the pipe- In the tangential direction, the contact eﬀects include the

line, qpbp is the body force of the pipeline, qp is the density relative sliding and frictional shear stress. In numerical

of the pipeline, Gp is the shear modulus of the pipeline, and calculations, the segment method is used. To simulate

lp is Poisson’s ratio of the pipeline. the eﬀects of interaction at the interface, we need to select

In (6) and (8), €

up denotes the acceleration of the pipeline, the contactor surface and target surface. An important

and €us represents the acceleration due to soil motion. distinction between a contactor surface and a target sur-

face is that in the converged solution, the material overlap

2.2. Boundary conditions at the contactor nodes is zero; the target nodes can over-

lap the contactor body. In general, the contactor surface

For a porous seabed of ﬁnite thickness, as shown in should select the surface of ﬁne mesh. Thus, herein, the

Fig. 1, the evaluation of the wave-induced seabed response outer surface of the pipeline is the contactor surface,

requires the solution of (1), (6) and (8), together with the and the soil column with pipeline is considered as target

appropriate boundary conditions. surface. According to the Coulomb friction theory, the

Firstly, zero displacements and no vertical ﬂow occurs at friction shear stress at the interface of seabed and pipeline

the impermeable horizontal bottom, i.e., (sc) can be expressed in terms of frictional coeﬃcient (l)

op and contact pressure at two contact surface (pc), i.e.,

us ¼ ws ¼ 0 and ¼ 0; at z ¼ 0 ð9Þ sc = lpc (l = 0.7 in this study). The shear sliding only

oz

occurs when surface drag force is greater than frictional

Secondly, we assume that the bottom frictional stress is

shear stress.

small and negligible. The vertical eﬀective normal stress

and shear stress vanish and pore pressure is equal to the

wave pressure at the surface of the seabed, i.e. 3. Finite element formulation

r0sz ¼ ss ¼ 0

cw H 3.1. Finite element formulations for the seabed

p¼ cosðkx xtÞ ¼ p0 cosðkx xtÞ; at z ¼ s

2 cosh kd

Applying the Galerkin method [20] to the Biot’s

ð10Þ

dynamic consolidation governing equations (1) and (6),

where p0 denotes the amplitude of the wave pressure at the the ﬁnite element formulation for a porous seabed under

surface of the seabed, d is water depth, H is wave height, k wave loading can be written in the following coupled

is the wave number and x is the wave frequency. systems:

176 M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186

tþDt _

)

Ms 0 Us Cs 0 Us Contactor Body

þ tþDt T

0 tþDt €

0 P K us p tþDt K ð1Þ

pp

tþDt _

P (i-1) Node A

" # ( ) Δk

tþDt tþDt

K us us K us p tþDt

Us tþDt

Ru C

þ tþDt ð2Þ tþDt

¼ tþDt s

0 K pp P Rp

Node k

ð13Þ t+Δt (i-1)

Node B nr ns xA

where the matrix components are given by r

s t+Δt (i-1)

XZ xC

tþDt tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞT tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ Target Body

Ms ¼ qs H us H us d vs ð14Þ t+Δt (i-1)

xk

tþDt vðmÞ

m s

XZ

t+Δt (i-1)

x B y

tþDt tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞT tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ

Cs ¼ js H us H us d vs ð15Þ

m

tþDt vðmÞ

s j

XZ T

tþDt

K us us ¼ tþDt

BðmÞ tþDt

DðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ

Bus d vs ð16Þ x

us s i

tþDt vðmÞ

m s

XZ T

tþDt

K us p ¼ tþDt

B ðmÞ

us I

ðmÞtþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ

H p d vs ð17Þ

tþDt vðmÞ t+Δt (i-1)

m s

λk

XZ T

ð1Þ tþDt 0ðmÞ tþDt

tþDt

K pp ¼b n H ðmÞ

p

tþDt

H ðmÞ

p d

tþDt ðmÞ

vs ð18Þ Contactor Body

tþDt vðmÞ

m s

1 XZ T Node k

ð2Þ

tþDt

K pp ¼ tþDt

BðmÞ

p

tþDt

K ðmÞtþDt B ðmÞ

p d

tþDt ðmÞ

vs ð19Þ Node A

cw m

tþDt vðmÞ

s

t+Δt (i-1)

λk

XZ T

tþDt sðmÞ ðmÞ

tþDt tþDt q tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ C

Rp ¼ Hp q d sq ð20Þ

tþDt sðmÞ

m q

XZ T Node B

tþDt

Rus ¼ tþDt

H ðmÞ

us

tþDt

f ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ

s d vs Target Body (i-1)

tþDt vðmÞ dj (i-1) (i-1)

m s

β dj

XZ tþDt sðmÞ ðmÞ

T

tþDt fs tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ

þ H us f s d s fs ð21Þ

tþDt sðmÞ

m fs

where Us and P are soil nodal displacement and pore pres- Fig. 2. Deﬁnition of variables for contact segment j: (a) Geometric

sure vectors, respectively. Ms and Cs are soil mass matrix variables and (b) contact forces.

and damping matrix, respectively. js is soil damping coef-

ﬁcient. Ds is soil elastic constitutive matrix. fs and q are

load vectors. Bus and Bp are gradient matrices for the dis- Table 1

Input data for convergent test of FE mesh

placement Us and pore pressure P, respectively. H us and

Hp are interpolation matrices for the displacement Us Wave characteristics

Wave length (L) 1.25 (m)

and pore pressure P, respectively.

Wave period (T) 0.9 (s)

Wave height (H) 0.0524 (m)

3.2. Finite element formulations for the pipeline Water depth (d) 0.533 (m)

Seabed characteristics

The standard Galerkin ﬁnite element discretization is Trench width (‘) 4.57 (m)

applied to the governing Eq. (8), and the ﬁnite element for- Trench depth (s) 0.826 (m)

mulation for the pipeline can be formed in the following Modulus of deformation (Es) 1.7024 · 106 (N/m2)

equations: Permeability (k) 1.1 · 103 (m/s)

Density (qs) 1700 (kg/m3)

tþDt € p þ tþDt C p tþDt U_ p þ tþDt K u u tþDt U p ¼ tþDt Ru

M p tþDt U Poisson ratio (ls) 0.33

p p p

Porosity (n 0 ) 0.42

ð22Þ Degree of saturation (S) 1.0

where Pipeline characteristics

XZ Buried depth of pipeline (b) 0.083 (m)

tþDt tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞT tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ Pipeline outer diameter (D) 0.168 (m)

Mp ¼ qp H up H up d vp ð23Þ

m

tþDt vðmÞ

p

Pipeline thickness (tp) 0.01 (m)

XZ Young’s modulus (Ep) 3.9 · 109 (N/m2)

tþDt tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞT tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ Density (qp) 1400 (kg/m3)

Cp ¼ jp H up H u p d vp ð24Þ

tþDt vðmÞ Poisson ratio (lp) 0.35

m p

M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186 177

C

XZ T

tþDt

K up up ¼ tþDt

B ðmÞ

up

tþDt

DðmÞ

p

tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ

B up d vp ð25Þ

tþDt vðmÞ

A m p

B XZ T

tþDt

Rup ¼ tþDt

H ðmÞ

up

tþDt

f ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ

p d vp

tþDt vðmÞ

m p

T

tþDt fp tþDt ðmÞ tþDt ðmÞ

þ H up f p d s fp

ðmÞ

m tþDtsf

p

Fig. 3. Selected points A, B and C for convergent test of mesh.

ð26Þ

where the subscript ‘‘p’’ represents the properties of the

pipeline; Up is the nodal displacement vector. Mp and Cp

are the mass and damping matrix, respectively. jp is pipe-

line damping coeﬃcient. Dp is elastic constitutive matrix.

fp is load vector. B up is gradient matrix for the displacement

Up; and H up is interpolation matrix for the displacement Up.

n θ =4 nθ =8

45° ã 45° ã 3.3. Finite element formulations for soil–pipeline contact

nr =2 nr =4

problem

wave loading, the phenomenon of shear sliding may occur

Fig. 4. FE mesh of the pipeline. at the interface of soil and pipeline, which lead to a contact

0.86 116

0.84 112

0.82

108

0.80

104

0.78

nθ=8 100

0.76

σpθ /p0

p/p0

nθ=12

96

0.74 nθ=16 nθ=8

0.72 nθ=20 92 nθ=12

nθ=24 88 nθ=16

0.70

nθ=20

0.68 84

nθ=24

0.66 80

4 6 8 10 12 4 6 8 10 12

nr nr

c 24

d 6.5

22 nθ=8

6.0

20 nθ=12

5.5

nθ=16

18

nθ=20 5.0

16

nθ=24 4.5

τprθ /p0

σpr /p0

14

4.0 nθ=8

12

3.5 nθ=12

10

3.0 nθ=16

8

nθ=20

6 2.5

nθ=24

4 2.0

4 6 8 10 12 4 6 8 10 12

nr nr

178 M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186

problem. Thus, it is necessary to consider the contact con- According to Bathe and Chaudhary [21], the potential

ditions. As suggested in Bathe and Chaudhary [21], each of for all contractor nodes k in sticking contact can be written

contactor and target bodies the contact conditions can be as

imposed by adding to the usual variational indicator, the

h

ði1ÞT ðiÞT ðiÞ ði1Þ

total potential of the contact forces with the constraint of W k stick ¼ tþDt kk þ Dkk ðDuk þ Dk Þ

compatible boundary displacements. Then, the incremental i

ðiÞ ðiÞ

ð1 bði1Þ ÞDuA bði1Þ DuB ð28Þ

total potential can be expressed as

X

P1 ¼ P Wk ð27Þ Similarly, the potential for all nodes k in sliding contact

k is

T

h

where P is the usual (incremental) total potential leading to Wk ¼ tþDt ði1Þ

kk

ðiÞ

DkðiÞ T

ðDuk þ Dk Þ

ði1Þ

slide s ns

the incremental

P equilibrium equations without contact con- i

ðiÞ ðiÞ

dition, k W k is the incremental potential of the contact ð1 bði1Þ ÞDuA bði1Þ DuB ð29Þ

forces.

ði1Þ

Fig. 2 shows how node k has come into contact with the where tþDt kk is the contact force at node k, which is

target segment j formed by nodes A and B, where tþDt xk ,

ði1Þ caused by target surface to contactor. The total contact

tþDt ði1Þ tþDt ði1Þ

normal stress is deﬁned by eﬀective normal stress plus

xA , xB are current global coordinates of nodes k,

pore water pressure at the contact surface. It is noted

A, B, respectively, after iteration (i 1) for the equilibrium

ði1Þ

that the contact force due to pipeline is identical to that

conﬁguration corresponding to time t + Dt; tþDt xC is cur- due to seabed, but in opposite direction. In (28) and

rent global coordinates of the assumed physical point of ðiÞ ðiÞ ðiÞ

(29), Duk , DuA and DuB are the displacement increments

ði1Þ ði1Þ

contact of node k, d j is the length of segment j; r and at nodes k, A and B in iteration (i), respectively. Dk is

(i1)

s are the local isoparametric coordinate systems along tar- the overlap, b is the parameter of location of physi-

ðiÞ

get surface. cal point of contact. Dkk is the change of contact force

1.1

Present numerical results Present numerical results

1.0 Experimental results [23] 1.0 Experimental results [23]

Results of Cheng & Liu [6] Results of Cheng & Liu [6]

0.8 0.9

L=1.25m

L=3.54m

T=0.9s 0.8

0.6 T=1.75s

p/p0

p/p0

H=0.0524m

0.7 H=0.143m

d=0.533m

d=0.533m

0.4

0.6

0.2 0.5

0.4

0.0

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

θ (degrees) θ (degrees)

c 1.1

Present numerical results

1.0 Experimental results [23]

Results of Cheng & Liu [6]

0.9 L =4.91m

0.8 T=2.3s

H=0.0302m

0.7 d=0.533m

p/p0

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

θ (degrees)

Fig. 6. Comparison between the present model and experimental data [23]. Input data is given in Table 2.

M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186 179

at node k, and DkðiÞs is the change of contact forces in the after iteration (i 1), t+DtR is the vector of total applied

normal direction at node k, ns is unit vector along the external forces at time t þ Dt; tþDt Rði1Þ

c is the vector of up-

local axes s. loaded contact forces after iteration ði 1Þ; tþDt Dcði1Þ is the

Substituting (28) and (29) into (27), and invoking vector of overlaps.

stationarity, dPi = 0, which leads the incremental ﬁnite More detailed information for the contact problem can

element equation of motion including contact condi- be found in Bathe and Chaudhary [21].

tions to

(" # )" # 3.4. Numerical procedure

tþDt ði1Þ

K 0 tþDt ði1Þ DU ðiÞ

þ ½ Kc

0 0 DkðiÞ In this study, Newmark-b method is used for the ﬁnite

tþDt " # " # ð30Þ element equations, the following ﬁnal equations used for

tþDt ði1Þ tþDt ði1Þ

R F Rc

¼ þ the porous seabed and pipeline system can be obtained:

0 0 tþDt ði1Þ

Dc

" tþDt #

(i)

where DU is the vector of incremental displacements in K us us þa0 tþDt M s þa1 tþDt C s tþDt

K us p

tþDt ð1Þ ð2Þ

iteration (i), Dk(i) is vector of interments in contact forces K Tus p

tþDt

K pp DttþDt K pp

in iteration (i), t+DtK(i1) is the usual tangent stiﬀness ma- tþDt " tþDt d #

Us Rus

trix and geometric nonlinearities after iteration tþDt ¼ ð31Þ

ð1Þ t

ði 1Þ; tþDt K ði1Þ

c is the contact stiﬀness matrix for the eﬀect P DttþDt Rp þ tþDt K Tus p t U s þ tþDt K pp P

of contact conditions after iteration (i 1), t+DtF(i1) is the ðtþDt K up up þa0 tþDt M p þa1 tþDt C p ÞtþDt U p ¼ tþDt Rdup ð32Þ

vector of nodal point forces equivalent to element stresses

Table 2 Table 3

Input data for the comparison with experimental results [23] Input data for the comparison with the experimental data [24]

Seabed characteristics Seabed characteristics

Trench width (‘) 4.57 (m) Trench width (‘) 2.0 (m)

Trench depth (s) 0.826 (m) Trench depth (s) 0.6 (m)

Modulus of deformation (Es) 1.7024 · 106 (N/m2) Modulus of deformation (Es) 4.8 · 107 (N/m2)

Permeability (k) 1.1 · 103 (m/s) Permeability (k) 8.1 · 104 (m/s)

Density (qs) 1700 (kg/m3) Density (qs) 1483 (kg/m3)

Poisson ratio (ls) 0.33 Poisson ratio (ls) 0.25

Porosity (n 0 ) 0.42 Porosity (n 0 ) 0.4

Degree of saturation (S) 0.95 Degree of saturation (S) 0.95

Pipeline characteristics Pipeline characteristics

Buried depth of pipeline (b) 0.083 (m) Buried depth of pipeline (b) 0.08 (m)

Pipeline outer diameter (D) 0.168 (m) Pipeline outer diameter (D) 0.2 (m)

Pipeline thickness (tp) 0.01 (m) Pipeline thickness (tp) 0.01 (m)

Young’s modulus (Ep) 3.9 · 109 (N/m2) Young’s modulus (Ep) 6.8 · 1010 (N/m2)

Density (qp) 1400 (kg/m3) Density (qp) 2700 (kg/m3)

Poisson ratio (lp) 0.35 Poisson ratio (lp) 0.32

1.1 1.1

Present numerical results Present numerical results

1.0 Experimental results [24] 1.0 Experimental results [24]

0.9 0.9

L=4.87m

L =4.23m

0.8 0.8 T =2.09s

T=1.87s

H=0.0938m

p/p0

p/p0

H=0.0938m

0.7 0.7 d=0.7m

d=0.7m

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

θ (degrees) θ (degrees)

Fig. 7. Comparison between the present model and experimental data [24]. Input data is given in Table 3.

180 M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186

Table 4 in which

Input data for parametric study

Wave characteristics

tþDt

Rdus ¼ tþDt Rus þ tþDt M s ða0 t U s þ a2 t U_ s þ a3 t U

€ sÞ

Wave length (L) 30 (m)

Wave period (T) 4.45 (s) þ tþDt C s ða1 t U s þ a4 t U_ s þ a5 t U

€ sÞ ð33Þ

Wave height (H) 0.1 (m) tþDt

Rdup ¼ tþDt

Rup þ tþDt

M p ða0 U p þ a2 U_ p þ a3 t U

t t € pÞ

Water depth (d) 10 (m)

Seabed characteristics þ tþDt

C p ða1 t U p þ a4 t U_ p þ at5 U

€ pÞ ð34Þ

Trench width (‘) 40 (m) (various in Fig. 11)

b

Trench depth (s) 20 (m) (various in Fig. 11) where a0 ¼ aDt1 2 ; a1 ¼ aDt 1

; a2 ¼ aDt ; a3 ¼ 2a1 1; a4 ¼ ba 1;

Modulus of deformation (Es) 7 · 107 (N/m2) b

a5 ¼ Dt 2a 1 . In general, when b P 0.5, a P

Permeability (k) 1 · 103 (m/s)

0.25(0.5 + b)2, the Newmark method is a non-conditional

Density (qs) 1700 (kg/m3)

Poisson ratio (ls) 0.3 stable.

Porosity (n 0 ) 0.4 The ﬁnite element code, ADINA was used in this study

Degree of saturation (S) 1.0 [22]. It simulates two-dimensional boundary value problems

Pipeline characteristics under plane strain or axi-symmetric conditions. The behav-

Buried depth of pipeline (b) 1.0 (m) ior of soil is analyzed using a coupled stress-ﬂow formulation

Pipeline outer diameter (D) 1.0 (m) based on Biot’s dynamic consolidation equations. In the

Pipeline thickness (tp) 0.04 (m) u p formulation, where u is the soil skeleton displacement

Young’s modulus (Ep) 3.0 · 1010 (N/m2)

Density (qp) 2400 (kg/m3)

and p is the pore pressure, the relative acceleration of ﬂuid to

Poisson ratio (lp) 0.2 solid skeleton is not included. Soil–pipeline contact condi-

tions can be speciﬁed in ADINA to model contact behavior

between two-dimensional solid elements. Both sticking and

0.90 60

contact

0.85 no contact

contact 40

0.80 no contact

0.75 20

0.70

σpθ /p0

0

p/p0

0.65

0.60

-20

0.55

0.50 -40

0.45

0.40 -60

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

θ (degrees) θ (degrees)

c 1.0

contact d 1.0

contact

no contact 0.8

0.5 no contact

0.6

0.0

0.4

-0.5 0.2

τprθ /p0

σpr /p0

0.0

-1.0

-0.2

-1.5

-0.4

-2.0 -0.6

-0.8

-2.5

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

θ (degrees) θ (degrees)

Fig. 8. Distributions of the wave-induced (a) pore pressure (p/p0), (b) and (c) internal normal stresses (rph/p0 and rpr/p0), (d) internal shear stress (sprh/p0)

along the pipeline for the cases with and without contact eﬀects. Input data is given in Table 4.

M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186 181

frictional sliding can be modeled. The code can be used in and rpr/p0), Point B for shear stress (sprh/p0) and Point C

this seabed–pipeline interaction problem studies. for pore pressure (p/p0), as depicted in Fig. 3. We vary

In this study, we determine the initial conditions with the number of mesh of pipeline in both r- and h-directions

the following steps: (nr and nh), respectively (see Fig. 4). In general it is recom-

mended that the lengths of segments on the contactor

(1) First, we determine the initial eﬀective stresses within (pipeline) and target (soil) surfaces be approximately equal.

soil and pipeline through static loading by conﬁned This is particularly important if multiple contact surface

the freedom of pore water pressure at each node; pairs are considered in the analysis or if the contact surface

(2) Based on the results of stage (1), we release the free- geometries are complex. As shown in Fig. 5, we can con-

dom of pore water pressure, and re-calculate the ini- cluded that (nr, nh) = (10, 20) is the minimum mesh we

tial stresses through static analysis; should use in this study.

(3) Introduce wave loading and boundary conditions for

pore pressure, determine the wave-induced soil

response around the pipeline and internal stresses of 3.6. Comparison with experimental data

pipelines.

In this study, we compare our numerical models with

two set of experimental data available in the literature

3.5. Convergence of FE meshes [23,24]. First, the experimental data from Turcotte et al.

[23] is used here for a veriﬁcation of the present model

It is necessary to conduct a convergent test of mesh we (Fig. 6). The experimental study was conducted in the J.

used before we do any further investigation. In this study, H. DeFree Hydraulic Laboratory at Cornell University.

we use the experimental data [23] as the input data to The input data of the experiment and numerical calcula-

examine the convergence of mesh. The input data are listed tions are listed in Table 2 and Fig. 6. As Turcotte et al.

in Table 1. We select Point A for normal stresses (rph/p0 [23] reported, the sediment was prepared to be uniform.

60

0.85 inertia

inertia no inertia

0.80 40

no inertia

0.75 20

0.70

0

σpθ /p0

p/p0

0.65

0.60 -20

0.55

-40

0.50

0.45 -60

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

θ (degrees) θ (degrees)

0.3

c d

inertia inertia

1.0

no inertia 0.2 no inertia

0.5

0.1

0.0

σpr /p0

τprθ /p0

-0.5 0.0

-1.0

-0.1

-1.5

-0.2

-2.0

-2.5 -0.3

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

θ (degrees) θ (degrees)

Fig. 9. Distributions of the wave-induced (a) pore pressure (p/p0), (b) and (c) internal normal stresses (rph/p0 and rpr/p0), (d) internal shear stress (sprh/p0)

along the pipeline for the cases with and without inertial terms. Input data is given in Table 4.

182 M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186

inertia eﬀects [6] is also included in the comparison. In Input data for parametric study

the ﬁgure, the solid line represents the present model, ‘‘Æ’’ Wave characteristics

denotes the experimental data, and ‘‘D’’ is the results of Wave length (L) 80 (m) (various in Figs. 12 and 13)

Wave period (T) 7.5 (s) (various in Fig. 12)

Cheng and Liu [6]. As seen in the ﬁgure, the present model

Wave height (H) 0.1 (m)

reasonable agrees with the experimental data, and slightly Water depth (d) 20 (m) (various in Fig. 13)

better than Cheng and Liu [6] results due to the additional

Seabed characteristics

eﬀects we considered. Trench width (‘) 40 (m)

Another comparison with Sudhan et al. [24] is presented Trench depth (s) 20 (m) (various in Figs. 12 & 13)

in Fig. 7. The tests were conducted in a 30 m long, 2 m wide Modulus of deformation (Es) 7 · 107 (N/m2)

Permeability (k) 1 · 103 (m/s)

Density (qs) 1700 (kg/m3)

F Poisson ratio (ls) 0.3

Porosity (n 0 ) 0.4

Degree of saturation (S) 1.0

Pipeline characteristics

Buried depth of pipeline (b) 1.0 (m)

Pipeline outer diameter (D) 1.0 (m)

Pipeline thickness (tp) 0.04 (m)

D E

Young’s modulus (Ep) 3.0 · 1010 (N/m2)

Fig. 10. Selected points D, E and F for eﬀects of geometry of the trench Density (qp) 2400 (kg/m3)

layer. Poisson ratio (lp) 0.2

0.10 -24

0.08 -26

l/D=20

l/D=30 -28

0.06

l/D=40 -30

0.04 l/D=50 -32

0.02 -34

Δσpθ /p0

-36

Δp /p0

0.00

-38

-0.02 -40

l/D=20

-0.04 -42 l/D=30

-44 l/D=40

-0.06

-46 l/D=50

-0.08 -48

-0.10 -50

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

s/D s/D

-0.9 0.80

0.75 l/D =20

-1.0

l/D =30

0.70

-1.1 l/D =40

0.65 l/D =50

-1.2 0.60

Δτprθ /p0

Δσpr /p0

-1.3 0.55

-1.4 0.50

l/D=20 0.45

-1.5 l/D=30

l/D=40 0.40

-1.6 l/D=50 0.35

-1.7 0.30

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

s/D s/D

Fig. 11. Distributions of diﬀerence of the wave-induced (a) pore pressure (Dp/p0), (b) and (c) internal normal stresses (Drph/p0 and Drpr/p0), (d) internal

shear stress (Dsprh/p0) along the pipeline between the present model (with contact eﬀects and inertial terms) and the existing model (without contact eﬀects

and inertial terms). Input data is given in Table 4.

M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186 183

Input data for the comparison of three diﬀerent conﬁguration of the 200 mm in diameter, 1.96 m in length with 10 mm thick

trench layers

wall was buried in sand pit 2.0 m · 2.0 m · 0.6 m in size,

Wave characteristics where the uniform and fairy homogeneous soil bed was

Wave length (L) 30 (m)

formed by using a standard raining technique. The main

Wave period (T) 4.45 (s)

Wave height (H) 0.1 (m) parameters of sand and pipeline are listed in Table 3. The

Water depth (d) 10 (m) input data of the wave loading are given in Fig. 7. The

Seabed characteristics

wave induced pore pressure distributions along pipeline

Trench width (‘) 20 (m) surface under the phase of wave crest are plotted in

Trench depth (s) 5 (m) Fig. 7. In the ﬁgure, the solid line represents the present

Trapezoid trench slope angle (a) 45 (degrees) model, ‘‘Æ’’ denotes the experimental data. Although there

Modulus of deformation (Es) 7 · 107 (N/m2) are some scattering experimental data from the present

Permeability (k) 1 · 103 (m/s)

Density (qs) 1700 (kg/m3)

model, the general trend between the present model and

Poisson ratio (ls) 0.3 experimental results is consistent (see Table 4).

Porosity (n 0 ) 0.4

Degree of saturation (S) 1.0

4. Results and discussions

Pipeline characteristics

Buried depth of pipeline (b) 1.0 (m)

Pipeline outer diameter (D) 1.0 (m) 4.1. Soil–pipeline contact eﬀects and inertial forces

Pipeline thickness (tp) 0.04 (m)

Young’s modulus (Ep) 3.0 · 1010 (N/m2) The main objective of this paper is to examine the con-

Density (qp) 2400 (kg/m3) tact eﬀects and inertial forces on the pore pressures (p/p0)

Poisson ratio (lp) 0.2

and internal stresses (rph/p0, rpr/p0 and sprh/p0). First, we

0.05 10

0.04 5 T=5s

T=5s T=7.5s

0.03 T=7.5s 0 T=10s

T=10s T=12.5s

0.02 -5

T=12.5s

0.01 -10

Δσpθ /p0

Δp /p0

-15

0.00

-20

-0.01

-25

-0.02

-30

-0.03

-35

-0.04 -40

-0.05 -45

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

s/D s/D

0.8

0.0 T=5s T=5s

T=7.5s 0.7 T=7.5s

-0.2 T=10s T=10s

-0.4 T=12.5s 0.6

T=12.5s

-0.6 0.5

Δτprθ /p0

Δσpr /p0

-0.8 0.4

-1.0

0.3

-1.2

0.2

-1.4

-1.6 0.1

-1.8 0.0

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

s/D s/D

Fig. 12. Distributions of diﬀerence of the wave-induced (a) pore pressure (Dp/p0), (b) and (c) internal normal stresses (Drph/p0 and Drpr/p0), (d) internal

shear stress (Dsprh/p0) along the pipeline between the present model (with contact eﬀects and inertial terms) and the existing model (without contact eﬀects

and inertial terms) for various wave periods. Input data is given in Table 5.

184 M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186

examine the soil–pipeline contact problem with inertial nal stresses (rph/p0, rpr/p0 and sprh/p0). As discussed

forces. As shown in Fig. 8, inclusion of soil–pipeline con- previously, the maximum diﬀerence of pore pressure

tact eﬀect only slightly aﬀects the wave-induced pore pres- and internal normal stresses between the present model

sure along the surface of the pipeline (Fig. 8a), while and the previous models occur at Point F and D (see

internal stresses are aﬀected by contact eﬀect signiﬁcantly Fig. 10), while it occurs at Point E for the shear stress.

(Fig. 8b–d). It is found in Fig. 8b and c that the maximum Herein, we focus on these points to see the diﬀerence of

diﬀerence of internal normal stresses (rph/p0 and rpr/p0) the present and the previous model. In the example, the

between the results with and without contact eﬀect occurs symbol ‘‘D’’ represents the diﬀerence between the present

at h = 0, 90, 180, 270 and 360. On the other hand, and existing models, for example, Dp = (pcontact+inertia

the maximum diﬀerence of shear stress (sprh/p0) occurs at pno contact+no inertia).

h = 45, 135, 225, 315. As shown in Fig. 11, the geometry of the trench layer

Second, we examine the eﬀects of inertial forces in the almost has no inﬂuences on the diﬀerence of pore pressure

case with contact eﬀects. As shown in Fig. 9, inclusion of (Dp/p0 0). The diﬀerence of internal normal stresses

inertial force only aﬀects the pore pressure slightly, while (Drph/p0 and Drpr/p0) increases as the depth (s) of the

it has no inﬂuences on the internal stresses. This result is trench layer decreases, but as the width (‘) of the trench

reasonable, because inertial force is expected to aﬀect the layer increases. A dramatically increase for the diﬀerence

soil response parameter when porous ﬂuid ﬂows through of internal normal stress (Drph/p0) is observed in the

the soil, not to the internal stresses of the pipeline. range of 20 6 ‘/D 6 40 and 20 P s/D P 10, as shown in

Fig. 11b. The maximum diﬀerence of rph/p0 can reach

4.2. Eﬀects of geometry of the trench layer 50 times of p0. For the diﬀerence of shear stress, Dsprh/

p0 increases as ‘/D increases, but it decreases as s/D

It is interesting to examine the eﬀect of geometry of the increases. A signiﬁcant inﬂuence of ‘/D is observed in

trench layer (‘ and s) on the pore pressure (p/p0) and inter- 20 6 ‘/D 6 40.

0.10

-12

0.08 d =10m

0.06 d =20m -14

d =30m

0.04 d =40m

-16

0.02

Δσpθ /p0

Δp /p0

0.00 -18

-0.02

-20

d =10m

-0.04

d =20m

-0.06 -22 d =30m

d =40m

-0.08 -24

-0.10

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

s/D s/D

c -0.6 d 0.35

d =10m

d =20m

-0.7 0.30

d =30m

d =40m

-0.8 0.25

Δτprθ /p0

Δσpr /p0

-0.9 0.20

d =10m

d =20m

-1.0 d =30m 0.15

d =40m

-1.1 0.10

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

s/D s/D

Fig. 13. Distributions of diﬀerence of the wave-induced (a) pore pressure (Dp/p0), (b) and (c) internal normal stresses (Drph/p0 and Drpr/p0), (d) internal

shear stress (Dsprh/p0) along the pipeline between the present model (with contact eﬀects and inertial terms) and the existing model (without contact eﬀects

and inertial terms) for various water depths. Input data is given in Table 5.

M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186 185

(sprh/p0), as shown in Fig. 11.

20 condition. In this section, we further examine the inﬂuence

of wave conditions on the relative diﬀerence of pore pres-

sure and internal stresses. Since we only consider linear

5 wave loading, wave heights are included in the reference

wave pressure at the seabed surface (p0), and wavelength

45° ã is determined by wave dispersion relation with a given

wave period and water depth. Thus, we only examine the

20 inﬂuence of wave periods and water depths. The input data

for numerical examples are listed in Table 5 (see Table 6).

As illustrated in Fig. 12, diﬀerences of internal stresses

5 (Drph/p0, Drpr/p0 and Dsprh/p0) are aﬀected by wave periods

signiﬁcantly. The ﬁgure clearly indicates that Drph/p0, D

rpr/p0 and Dsprh/p0 decreases as wave period (T) increases.

Fig. 14. Conﬁguration of three diﬀerent types of trench layers.

There is rapidly change between T = 5 s and T = 7.5 s, as

shown in Fig. 12b–d. Similarly, it can be concluded from

Fig. 13 that Drph/p0, Drpr/p0 and Dsprh/p0 decreases as

It is noted that exclusion of contact eﬀects and inertial water depth (d) increases, especially in the range

force under-estimate the internal normal stresses (rph/p0 10 m 6 d 6 20 m.

0.90

60 rectangle

rectangle

0.85 trapezoid

trapezoid

40 triangle

triangle

0.80

20

0.75

σpθ /p0

p/p0

0

0.70

-20

0.65

-40

0.60

-60

0.55

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

θ (degrees) θ (degrees)

c 1.5

d 0.30

rectangle rectangle

1.0 trapezoid 0.25 trapezoid

triangle 0.20 triangle

0.5

0.15

0.0 0.10

τprθ /p0

σpr /p0

0.05

-0.5

0.00

-1.0 -0.05

-0.10

-1.5

-0.15

-2.0 -0.20

-0.25

-2.5

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

θ (degrees) θ (degrees)

Fig. 15. Comparison of three diﬀerent trench layers. Input data is given in Table 6.

186 M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186

4.4. Comparison of diﬀerent types of trench layers State Ministry of Education of China are mostly grateful

and Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage-Interna-

A rectangle trench layer is used as an example to demon- tional Award (LX0665976).

strate the inﬂuence of soil–pipeline contact eﬀects and iner-

tial items. It is also necessary to examine the cases with References

diﬀerent trench shape such as trapezoid and triangle. Con-

ﬁguration of rectangle, trapezoid and triangle trench layer [1] Clukey EC, Vermersch JA, Koch SP, Lamb WC, Natural densiﬁca-

used in this example is given in Fig. 14, and a comparison is tion by wave action of sand surrounding a buried oﬀshore pipeline. In

Proceedings of the 21st annual oﬀshore technology conference,

illustrated in Fig. 15. Houston, Texas, 1989, p. 291–300.

As shown in Fig. 15, the wave-induced pore pressure on [2] MacPherson H. Wave forces on pipeline buried in permeable seabed.

the pipeline signiﬁcantly aﬀected by the shape of the trench J Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean Eng, ASCE 1978;104(4):407–19.

layer in the region near the bottom of the pipeline (i.e., near [3] McDough WG, Davidson SH, Monkmeyer PL, Sollitt CK. Wave-

induced forces on buried pipelines. J Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean

270). The maximum diﬀerence between the triangle and

Engineering, ASCE 1979;114(2):220–36.

rectangle trench is about 10% of p0. Again, a signiﬁcant [4] Spierenburg SEJ. Wave-induced pore pressures around submarine

inﬂuence of trench shape occurs at h = 0, 90, 180, 270 pipelines. Coastal Eng 1986;10:33–48.

and 360 for normal stress, but it occurs at h = 45, 135, [5] Biot MA. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl

225, 315 for shear stress. It is concluded from Fig. 15 that Phys 1941;12(2):155–64.

the triangle trench will reduce the pore pressure acting on [6] Cheng AHD, Liu PLF. Seepage force on a pipeline buried in a

poroelastic seabed under wave loading. Appl Ocean Res

the pipeline, but it will increase the internal stresses. 1986;8(1):22–32.

[7] Magda W. Wave-induced uplift force on a submarine pipeline buried

5. Conclusions in a compressible seabed. Ocean Eng 1997;24(6):551–76.

[8] Jeng D-S. Wave-induced seaﬂoor dynamics. Appl Mech Rev

The main contribution of this paper is to include the 2003;56(4):407–29.

[9] Sumer B-M. Special issue: Liquefaction around marine structures.

soil–pipeline contact eﬀects and inertial forces into the Processes and benchmark cases. J Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean

existing models for the wave–seabed–pipeline interaction. Eng, ASCE 2006;132(4):225–335.

A generalised Biot’s model with inclusion of contact eﬀects [10] Sumer B-M. Special issue: Liquefaction around marine structures.

and inertial forces is established. Good agreements between Miscellaneous. J Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean Eng, ASCE

the present model and the available experimental data are 2007;133(1):1–86.

[11] Teh TC, Palmer AC, Bolton MD, Damgaard JS. Stability of

performed. submarine pipelines on liqueﬁed seabeds. J Waterway, Port, Coastal

Based on the numerical results presented, we found that Ocean Eng, ASCE 2006;132(4):244–51.

the soil–pipeline contact eﬀect plays an important role in [12] Sumer BM, Truelsen C, Fredsoe J. Liquefaction around pipelines

the estimation of the internal stresses, but not the pore under waves. J Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean Eng, ASCE

pressure. On the other hand, inclusion of inertial terms will 2006;132(4):266–75.

[13] Dunn SL, Vun PL, Chan AHC, Damgaard JS. Numerical modelling

aﬀect the pore pressure, but not the internal stresses. of wave induced liquefaction around pipelines. J Waterway, Port,

It is also noted that the geometry of the trench layer sig- Coastal Ocean Eng, ASCE 2006;132(4):276–88.

niﬁcantly aﬀect the internal stresses. For example, a signif- [14] Verruijt A. Elastic storage of aquifers. In: DeWeist RJM, editor. Flow

icant change for internal stresses is observed in the range of through porous media. New York: Academic Press; 1969.

[15] Madsen OS. Wave-induced pore pressure and eﬀective stresses in a

20 6 ‘/D 6 40 and 10 6 s/D 6 20. Generally speaking, the

porous bed. Geotechnique 1978;28(4):377–93.

diﬀerence of internal stresses between the present and pre- [16] Yamamoto T, Koning HL, Sellmeiher H, Hijum EV. On the response

vious models increases as the depth (s) of the trench layer of a poro-elastic bed to water waves. J Fluid Mech 1978;87(1):

decreases, but as the width (‘) of the trench layer increases. 193–206.

A simple comparison for diﬀerent types of trench shape [17] Mei CC, Foda MA. Wave-induced stresses around a pipe laid on a

is conducted in this paper. The numerical comparison indi- poro-elastic sea bed. Geotechnique 1981;31(4):509–17.

[18] Okusa S. Wave-induced stresses in unsaturated submarine sediments.

cates that the triangle trench will reduce the pore pressure Geotechnique 1985;35(4):517–32.

acting on the pipeline, but it will increase the internal stres- [19] Zienkiewicz OC, Chang CT, Bettess P. Drained, undrained, consol-

ses. Thus, pipeline engineers need to pay attention on the idating and dynamic behaviour assumptions in soils. Geotechnique

shape of the trench when they design of trench layer for 1980;30(4):385–95.

the protection of a buried pipeline. [20] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The Finite Element Method. fourth ed.

London: MacGrawHill; 1989. p. 648.

[21] Bathe KJ, Chaudhary A. Solution method for planar and axisym-

Acknowledgements metric contact problems. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1985;21:65–88.

[22] Bathe KJ, ADINA users’ Manual Version 8.2.2. Watertown: ADINA

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Professor R&D Inc, 2004.

Dahong Qiu of Dalian University of Technology for his [23] Turcotte BR, Liu PLF and Kulhawy FH, Laboratory evaluation of

wave tank parameters for wave–sediment interaction. Joseph H.

continuing support and invaluable advice for the investiga- DeFree Hydraulic Laboratory Report 84-1, School of Civil and

tion. The ﬁnancial supports for this study from National Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, 1984.

Natural Science Foundation of China through the Grant [24] Sudhan CM, Sundar V, Rao SN. Wave induced forces around buried

50439010, 50579006, 50639010, 50179006 and from the pipeline. Ocean Eng 2002;29:533–44.

- MODELING MAGNETO-ACTIVE ELASTOMERS USING THE FINITE ELEMENT METHODHochgeladen vonshreedharkoilekar
- me8180-assignment1Hochgeladen vonSarat Sai
- Schmertmann 1970Hochgeladen vonrshaghayan
- DESIGN AND CALCULATION OF RING SPRINGS AS SPRING ELEMENTS OF THE WAGON BUFFERHochgeladen vonh_mahdi
- MIPE AbstractHochgeladen vonThiTang
- STRUCTURAL_ Chapter 2_ Structural Static Analysis (UP19980818)Hochgeladen vonRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Workshop15 Rolling PlateHochgeladen vonash1968
- gfhfhdfghdHochgeladen vonMarco Picchi Scardaoni
- ENGAGE E3S Dynamics Snakes on PlaneHochgeladen vonkhairnar_y87
- Parcial2MC2008.pdfHochgeladen voncarolinataringarcia
- Dry Friction in Wheel-rail ContactHochgeladen vonpaco morelli
- O03.pdfHochgeladen vonHồ Thắng
- Seismic Design and Analysis.pdfHochgeladen vonRAIMUNDO SUHERDIN
- Adaptive Vehicle Structure to Optimize Crash PulsesHochgeladen vonAnonymous YU0QeLgtS
- Streangth of Material Lecture-NPTELHochgeladen vonAgnibha Banerjee
- fulltextHochgeladen vonHeena Dhasmana
- Friction Tutorial SheetHochgeladen vonbaruaole
- N9. Aislamiento Sísmico de Centrales NuclearesHochgeladen vonJ RC
- Full Thesis FinalHochgeladen vonlokeshsany
- ch08.pptHochgeladen vonVijay Kumar
- ch 08Hochgeladen vonAgus Kusnayat
- Physics1 LabHochgeladen vonRichard Serquina
- Avo TheoryHochgeladen vonzeeshan225
- Buffer Seal Gb EnHochgeladen vonLuis Alberto Silva Navarro
- Design-ThrustRestraint(1).pdfHochgeladen vonJosé Hernández Barrientos
- 34614260.pdfHochgeladen vonlawrence
- Chapter_1Hochgeladen vonOmotayo Paul
- ttggrrHochgeladen vonGopala Rao Thellaputta
- lec1Hochgeladen vongtarun22gupta
- Unit II B QuestionsHochgeladen vonPiyush Bhandari

- Al Mansi Wave Refraction Patterns and Sediment Transport in Monifieth Bay, Tay Estuary, Scotland 1990Hochgeladen vonAnnisa Dwi K.S
- BasicResponse.pdfHochgeladen vonAnnisa Dwi K.S
- Numerical Modeling of Response of a Saturated Porous Seabed Around an Offshore Pipeline Considering Non-linear Wave and Current InteractionHochgeladen vonXavierJacob
- Process Safety Management in the Pipeline Industry_1Hochgeladen vonAnnisa Dwi K.S
- Behavior of marine pipelines under seismic faults_11.pdfHochgeladen vonAnnisa Dwi K.S
- 1-s2.0-S0165232X10000959-mainHochgeladen vonAngel Moreira Romero
- Mathematical Modeling of Sand Wave Migration_7Hochgeladen vonAnnisa Dwi K.S

- 9jhjsgkls;jgkl;.pdfHochgeladen vonahugandkiss77071
- Burst & Gross Plastic Deformation Limit StateHochgeladen vonMichelle Gross
- Pavan ThesisHochgeladen vonnghoangtung
- msc_marc_courseHochgeladen vonnonmivieneinmente
- mmdschemesyllHochgeladen vonVasudeva Bhattar
- ansaHochgeladen vonmsywuppertal
- Intro Fe MapHochgeladen vonAnonymous 5hC8fj
- 804 Cad Cam Cim (Me-804) Exp. ManualHochgeladen vonAnonymous z3RsdPTo
- Grounding Performance Analysis of the Substation Grounding Grids by Finite Element Method in Frequency DomainHochgeladen vonTiyar Yussuf
- fluent-fsi_14.0_ws3_hyperelastic_flap_part1Hochgeladen vonRaúl Sánchez
- Paper SPE-98869-MS-P-2 copy.pdfHochgeladen vonMichelle Guerra
- b.tech Mech r13 Ivyear i Sem Rivised SyllabusHochgeladen vonDudekula Ayub
- SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION STUDY ON PLANE BUILDING FRAME SUPPORTED ON PILE GROUP EMBEDDED IN COHESIVE SOILHochgeladen vonIAEME Publication
- 108963_4414677_CHW4Hochgeladen vonbauemmvss
- m Phil Phd Course Work II Syllabus Mechanical EngineeringHochgeladen vonAshvinkumarKapadiya
- ANSYS Quick StartHochgeladen vonapi-3833671
- CANDE 2007 UserManualAndGuidelineHochgeladen vonRicyteach
- 414Hochgeladen vonangel vandelan
- SOLIDWORKS Simulation 2019 ValidationHochgeladen vonluansaldanha
- Nonlinear Wave Guide and Non Destructive MethodsHochgeladen vonMuraleetharan Boopathi
- Comparative Analysis of Lateral Earth Pressures from Surface Line LoadHochgeladen vonAnonymous kw8Yrp0R5r
- 1483_hiweld_enRuotePeltonSaldateHochgeladen vonFolpo
- EPFL_TH7474.pdfHochgeladen vonAbdul Haris Siregar
- WEIGHT REDUCTION OF PLANETARY GEARBOX PEDESTAL USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSISHochgeladen vonPrabhakar Purushothaman
- Creo Simulate Tutorial Releases 1 0 Amp 2 SDC PublicationsHochgeladen vonVictor Possamai
- Monte-Carlo Simulation of Failure Phenomena using Particle DiscretizationHochgeladen vonSukumar Baishya
- 13-ME_THochgeladen vonShaheen S. Ratnani
- Practical-Design-of-Concrete-Shells.pdfHochgeladen vonAndrija
- Finite Element Methods Lecture NotesHochgeladen vonKiran Babu Satuluri
- FEM Question Bank 1 MarksHochgeladen vonMayank Patel

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.