Randolph, M. F. & White, D. J. (2008). Geotechnique 58, No. 4, 297301 [doi: 10.1680/geot.2008.58.4.

297]

TECHNICAL NOTE

Upper-bound yield envelopes for pipelines at shallow embedment in clay

M . F. R A N D O L P H * a n d D. J. W H I T E *
KEYWORDS: clays; failure; offshore engineering; pipelines;
plasticity; theoretical analysis

mechanism devised by Martin for the lateral motion of a

cylinder through soil (Martin & Randolph, 2006). The
generalisation is that, since the centre (S) of the mechanism
does not (in general) lie on a diameter normal to the
direction of motion, the angular velocity varies within the
rotational mechanism, leading to internal shearing between
adjacent cylindrical shells centred on S. The mechanism
may be continued through to the soil surface (with point C
then lying on FE) or may be replaced by a fan (centred on
F) and wedge system, much as in the standard upper bound
for a shallow strip footing but with internal shearing within
the passive wedge. Within the fan, the streamlines are
circles centred on point F, and there is internal shear
between each cylindrical shell, but at a different rate from
within the rotational mechanism BCF. Similarly, there is
shear between the straight streamlines in the passive wedge
DEF.
The second part of the mechanism comprises a rigid
rotating Martin mechanism, just as for a cylindrical pile.
The centre of rotation is at Q, lying on a diameter normal to
the direction of motion and at a distance R from the pipe
centre. Breakaway between the pipe and the soil is considered to occur where the pipe circumference is parallel to the
direction of motion.

INTRODUCTION
The penetration resistance and the force required to cause
lateral movement of pipelines at shallow embedment in soft
sediments has received increasing attention in recent years,
as deep-water oil and gas reserves are developed. In deep
water, pipelines are generally laid untrenched on the seabed,
but embed by a small amount owing to their own weight
and the additional loads imposed during the laying process.
Pipeline design requires the possibility of lateral buckling
during temperature-induced expansion to be considered, and
the soil restraint at different combinations of vertical load
and pipeline embedment is critical for such design (Bruton
et al., 2006).
This note documents yield envelopes derived from upperbound plasticity solutions for pipelines embedded by up to
half a diameter in clay soils with either homogeneous shear
strength or shear strength increasing proportionally with
depth. The pipeline is assumed to break away at its trailing
edge, a feature of behaviour that is consistent with experiments, where only transient negative excess pore pressure is
maintained on the trailing edge. The solutions are placed in
context, and compared with finite element solutions and
experimental data in a separate paper (Merifield et al.,
2008).
At this stage, the effect of the self-weight of the soil has
been ignored, largely because it has little effect on the pipe
resistance at shallow embedment for practical ratios of effective stress to shear strength. The solutions may be extended
to allow for self-weight relatively simply.

Geometric relationships and velocities

The centre of the forward mechanism is at S, located at
coordinates x0 and y0 from the centre of the pipe (Fig. 1), or
alternatively a distance r from the centre along a line of
angle above the horizontal. A general point P on the pipe
surface is defined in terms of the angle from the vertical
at the pipe centre. Point P is a distance s from the centre, S,
and the radial line subtends an angle to the vertical. The
various angles and distances are linked by the geometric
relationships
s sin
r cos

r cos
R sin

GENERAL UPPER-BOUND MECHANISM

The yield envelopes are derived from upper-bound solutions based on a single generic mechanism, which is illustrated in Fig. 1. The pipeline is assumed to be continuous,
leading to plane-strain conditions. The soil is modelled as an
isotropic rigid-plastic Tresca material characterised by an
undrained shear strength su . The pipe, of diameter D (radius
R) is embedded by distance w into the seabed and subjected
to loads V (vertical) and H (horizontal) acting through the
centroid of the pipe. The direction of motion of the pipe is
at angle
below the horizontal.
The mechanism comprises two parts. In front of the
advancing pipe there is a generalised form of the rotational

(1)

The soil velocity within the mechanism at P (which is

constant along the dashed line shown) is given by
v s v0

sin

sin

(2)

where v0 is the pipe velocity (at angle
) and is the

angular velocity, which may also be expressed directly as

v0 sin

r cos

(3)

The slip velocity at the pipe/soil interface is

Manuscript received 23 May 2007; revised manuscript accepted 17

December 2007.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 November 2008, for further
details see p. ii.
* Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, The University of
Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.

v v0

sin

sin

(4)

Within the trailing mechanism the angular velocity is v0 /R

297

RANDOLPH AND WHITE

298

Diameter D 2 Radius R

Centre of
rotation
x0

sf

y0
s

/2 f

Motion

Passive
wedge

s0

Breakaway

w
P

level

Fan zone

B
Martin mechanism

Generalised Martin mechanism

(with internal shear)

Fig. 1. General form of mechanism adopted for upper bound

(Martin & Randolph, 2006), and plastic work is confined to

the outer boundary and the pipe/soil interface.
Two special cases are important:
(a) Where the centre of the rotational mechanism, S, lies
on the diameter normal to the direction of motion (i.e.
/2

), the angular velocity becomes constant
within BCF so that all plastic work is confined to the
outer boundary, BC, and the pipe/soil interface. For
this case the optimal forward mechanism is obtained
by extending BC until C lies on the soil surface,
omitting the fan and passive wedge; for other cases,
the fan (often with zero fan angle) and wedge
continuation of the rotational mechanism is marginally
optimal.
(b) Second, where the trailing mechanism collapses (
0), and provided , /2

, the (angular) velocity on
the outer boundary is zero since the initial angle is
equal to

(see equations (2) and (3)).

Integration of plastic work

The plastic work within the forward mechanism may be
integrated by considering a series of shell elements, of width
ds, corresponding to changes in the central angle of d,
where
ds
R sin
d

(5)

The arc lengths are then s(f
) in the rotational part

SBC, where f is the value of at F, and (s
sf ) within
the fan zone FCD, while the length within the passive
wedge FDE is (s
sf )/tan(f + ). Where the shear
strength varies with depth, average shear strengths along
those lengths need to be used when integrating the plastic
work.
The shear strain rates within each region are given by

SBC: _
s

d
s
d

ds
R sin
d

v0 r cos

Rs sin3




d
s
FCD: _
s
sf
ds s
sf
"
#
v0
sf sin
r cos

s s
sf sin
R sin3

(6)

d
s
ds
"
#
v0
sin
r cos

sin
R sin3

s

FDE: _

In general it is easier to carry out the integration numerically, particularly where the strength varies with depth. For
homogeneous strength, closed-form expressions can be obtained for the fan and passive wedge regions, integrating
_ dA by parts (using the first part of the respective expressions in equation (6)). However, care must be taken within
the passive wedge, as for certain geometries the shear strain
rate changes sign (integration of the absolute value then
leads to greater plastic work than indicated by the closedform integration).
In addition to the plastic work within the mechanism,
work on the outer boundary (other than for the quite
common case referred to earlier, where is zero at the
boundary) and at the pile/soil interface needs to be evaluated, integrating the product of relative velocity v and
shear strength along the discontinuity. The external work
done by the applied loads V and H is then equated in the
usual way to the internal plastic work, integrated over all the
regions, A, and along the interfaces, S, to give

YIELD ENVELOPES FOR PIPELINES AT SHALLOW EMBEDMENT IN CLAY

299

Smooth pipeline
18
V sin  H cos v0 su j_jdA su jvj dS
(7)
Homogeneous strength
A

16

w/D 04

H/Dsu0

12

RESULTING YIELD ENVELOPES

Yield envelopes have been evaluated for pipe embedments
of 0.1D to 0.5D (at 0.1D intervals) for the extreme cases of
either fully rough or fully smooth pipes in soil with either
homogeneous shear strength, su su0 , or shear strength
proportional to depth, su kz. The yield envelopes are expressed in normalised form with the horizontal and vertical
loads expressed as H/Dsu0 and V/Dsu0 . For soil with strength
proportional to depth, su0 has been taken at the invert of the
pipeline (so su0 kw, where w is the embedment).

Breakaway

w/D 05

14

10

w/D 03

08

w/D 02

06
04

w/D 01

02
0
0

2
(a)

Rough pipeline
Homogeneous strength
Breakaway

20

Combined vertical and horizontal loading

Yield envelopes for combined vertical and horizontal
loading are shown in Fig. 3 for soil with homogeneous
strength and in Fig. 4 for soil with strength proportional to
depth. In order to illustrate comparisons for different pipe
roughness and shear strength profiles, Fig. 5 shows yield
envelopes for three different embedments: 0.1D, 0.3D and
0.5D. Apart from at the shallowest embedment in Fig. 5, the
normalised vertical capacities are quite similar for the two
different strength profiles, but the maximum horizontal resistance is lower for the case of shear strength proportional to

18

w/D 05

16

w/D 04

H/Dsu0

14
12

w/D 03

10
w/D 02

08
06

w/D 01

04
02

Greens solution

0
0

10

w/D 04

06

w/D 03
w/D 02
w/D 01

02
0
0

(a)
Rough pipeline
Strength proportional to depth
Breakaway

12
5

010
015

w/D 04
w/D 03

08

w/D 02

06
04

Smooth

030

Murff et al.
(1989)

w/D 01

02
0

035
040

10

Rough

020
025

w/D 05

Strength
proportional
to depth

005

Embedment, w/D

3
V/Dsu0

H/Dsu0

w/D 05

08

04

Normalised vertical resistance, V/Dsu0

1

Smooth pipeline
Strength proportional to depth
Breakaway

12

14

3
V/Dsu0
(b)

Fig. 3. Yield envelopes for soil with homogeneous strength:

(a) smooth pipe/soil interface; (b) fully rough pipe/soil interface

H/Dsu0

Vertical loading
Under purely vertical loading, the mechanism shown in
Fig. 1 may revert to a symmetric form, although the centres
of rotation Q and S are not constrained to lying on the
horizontal diameter (so that the trailing Martin mechanism
also becomes generalised with internal shear in the rotating
segment). However, as discussed later, in most cases an
asymmetric mechanism with breakaway behind the pipe
gives a lower resistance.
A summary of the vertical penetration resistance for
smooth and rough pipes and the two extreme soil strength
profiles considered is shown in Fig. 2, and compared with
the upper-bound results of Murff et al. (1989). For rough
pipes at shallow embedment, the upper-bound mechanism
shown in Fig. 1 is replaced by a standard Prandtl mechanism
with the central wedge angle adjusted if necessary (for
embedment greater than 0.15D) to ensure compatibility with
the sides of the pipe. The present upper-bound solutions are
mainly lower than those from Murff et al. (1989), apart from
at very shallow embedment (, 0.1D) for a smooth pipe.

3
V/Dsu0

0
Strength
homogeneous

045
050

Fig. 2. Vertical penetration resistance

3
V/Dsu0

(b)

Fig. 4. Yield envelopes for soil with strength proportional to

depth: (a) smooth pipe/soil interface; (b) fully rough pipe/soil
interface

RANDOLPH AND WHITE

300

Pipeline embedment 01D

Breakaway
Homogeneous
shear strength

06
05

Rough

H/Dsu0

04
03
Smooth
Shear strength
proportional
Greens solution to depth
(homogeneous)

02
01
0
0

05

10

15

20
V/Dsu0

25

30

35

40

(a)
Pipeline embedment 03D
Breakaway

14
12

H/Dsu0

10

Smooth

Rough

Homogeneous
shear strength

30

40

08
06
Shear strength
proportional
to depth

04
02
0
0

05

10

15

20

25

35

45

50

H/Dsu0

V/Dsu0
(b)
Pipeline embedment 05D
Breakaway

20
18
16
14
12
10
08
06
04
02
0

Rough
Smooth

Homogeneous
shear strength

One of the interesting features of the results is the sharp

point on the yield envelopes for the rough pipe (and the
smooth pipe at shallow embedment) for purely vertical load.
This feature is consistent with asymmetric motion of the
pipe, coupled with breakaway, and is illustrated in Fig. 6 for
the case of a rough pipe in homogeneous strength soil, for
an embedment of 0.3D. The mechanism in Fig. 6(a) is the
optimum symmetric mechanism, with two rigid rotating
blocks and a limiting vertical load of V/Dsu0 5.3. By
contrast, the asymmetric mechanism shown in Fig. 6(b) has
a failure load of V/Dsu0 4.7, which is associated with
movement at an angle of 478 below the horizontal.
This theoretical observation that purely vertical loading of
a symmetric system may result in an asymmetric failure is
not unique. The yield envelope from Greens (1954) theoretical solution for a surface strip footing also features a
discontinuity of slope at the vertical apex, allowing a range
of possible directions of footing movement at failure.
When a pipeline is laid, the embedment will generally
exceed that consistent with its submerged weight, owing to
increased contact force in the zone where the pipeline meets
the seabed and also cyclic loading effects due to motion of
the laying vessel and suspended pipeline. During operating
conditions, when the vertical load corresponds to the submerged pipeline weight, the initial load point prior to any
thermally induced lateral loading will therefore lie within
the yield envelope corresponding to the pipeline embedment.
Therefore the loading ratio H/V when lateral breakout occurs
depends on the ratio of the pipeline weight to the vertical
load at the apex of the yield envelope.
The manner in which the mechanisms evolve as the
loading ratio H/V decreases is illustrated in Fig. 7 for a
smooth pipeline in soil with strength proportional to depth,
embedded by half a diameter. For high H/V the pipe tends
to move upwards, ploughing a block of soil in front of it

Shear strength
proportional
to depth
0

05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
V/Dsu0
(c)

Pure vertical loading

and motion

Fig. 5. Comparison of yield envelopes at specific pipe embedments: (a) w/D

0.1; (b) w/D
0.3; (c) w/D
0.5

depth. With strength proportional to depth, the mean soil

strength mobilised during predominantly horizontal failure is
lower than for vertical penetration. This leads to a lower
ratio of the maximum horizontal resistance to the vertical
penetration resistance for proportional soil compared with
homogeneous conditions. In general, soil resistance for
smooth pipes is 1020% lower than for fully rough pipes.
As noted above, for a rough pipe at shallow embedment
in soil with homogeneous shear strength, the lowest upperbound solution for the vertical penetration resistance is
obtained from a standard Prandtl mechanism, with a central
active wedge spanning across the chord level with the soil
surface. That mechanism can be extended using Greens
(1954) solution to cut the corner of the yield envelope based
on the mechanism described here (see Fig. 3(b)).
The upper-bound theorem involves the assumption of
associated flow, and the response of a system composed
entirely of elements that obey associated flow will itself
exhibit normality (Prager, 1959): that is, the displacements at
failure will be normal to the yield envelope, when conjugate
loads and displacements are plotted on the same axes. This
behaviour applies here, so that the yield envelopes allow the
direction of pipe movement at failure to be identified.

Symmetric rigid rotating

blocks ( 098)
(a)

Pure vertical
loading

Motion direction
( 47)

Breakaway
level

Passive wedge
Fan

(b)

Fig. 6. Optimal mechanisms for pure vertical loading: rough

pipe in homogeneous-strength soil, w/D
0.3: (a) symmetric
mechanism, V/Dsu0
5.3; (b) asymmetric mechanism with
breakaway, V/Dsu0
4.7

YIELD ENVELOPES FOR PIPELINES AT SHALLOW EMBEDMENT IN CLAY

Motion direction
( 26)

Loading
direction
(H/V 1)

Passive edge
(fan angle zero)

Breakaway
level
(a)

Motion direction
( 0)
Loading
direction
(H/V 05)
Passive wedge
(fan angle zero)

Breakaway
level

301

CONCLUSIONS
The yield envelopes presented here offer a simple way to
evaluate the soil resistance to pipe movement under different
combinations of vertical and horizontal loading. Comparisons with finite element results and experimental data in a
companion paper (Merifield et al., 2008) show that the
upper-bound solutions are remarkably accurate. They therefore provide a useful basis to assess breakout resistance and
for developing force-resultant models for pipesoil interaction.
It should be emphasised that the solutions presented here
are for the ideal case of a horizontal soil surface on the
leading edge of the pipe. In practice, penetration and lateral
motion of the pipe will give rise to berms adjacent to the
pipe, and this will lead to increased resistance. Any underestimation of the limiting resistance from these solutions
may or may not be conservative, depending on whether the
pipe must remain stable, or be able to move laterallyfor
example to relieve thermal loading. While it is not feasible
to develop design charts for the wide range of berm
geometries that might arise, the mechanism proposed here is
sufficiently general to form the basis for upper-bound calculations for specific geometries.

(b)

Motion direction
( 155)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work forms part of the activities of the Centre for
Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS), established under the
Australian Research Councils Research Centres Program
and now supported under grants FF0561473 and DP0665958
and Centre of Excellence funding from the State Government of Western Australia.

Passive wedge
(fan angle zero)

Breakaway
level

REFERENCES
Loading direction
(H/V 03)

Trailing mechanism
( 09)
(c)

Fig. 7. Changing mechanisms for smooth pipe in soil with

strength proportional to depth, w/D
0.5: (a) upward motion,
H/V 1; (b) pure horizontal motion, H/V 0.5; (c) downward
motion, H/V
0.5

(Fig. 7(a)). A similar, but slightly deeper, mechanism holds

for H/V 0.5 (Fig. 7(b)), which is the loading ratio that
gives pure horizontal translation of the pipe. Finally, a more
complex mechanism develops (Fig. 7(c)) for H/V 0.3,
with the pipe moving downwards in the soil and a trailing
rotational mechanism in addition to the forward mechanism.

Bruton, D. A. S., White, D. J., Cheuk, C. Y., Bolton, M. D. & Carr,

M. C. (2006). Pipesoil interaction behaviour during lateral
buckling, including large amplitude cyclic displacement tests by
the Safebuck JIP. Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Paper OTC 17944.
Green, A. P. (1954). The plastic yielding of metal junctions due to
combined shear and pressure. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2, 197211.
Martin, C. M. & Randolph, M. F. (2006). Upper bound analysis of
lateral pile capacity in cohesive soil. Geotechnique 56, No. 2,
141145.
Merifield, R., White, D. J. & Randolph, M. F. (2008). Analysis of
the undrained breakout resistance of partially embedded pipelines. Geotechnique 58, (in press).
Murff, J. D., Wagner, D. A. & Randolph, M. F. (1989). Pipe
penetration in cohesive soil. Geotechnique 39, No. 2, 213229.
Prager, W. (1959). An introduction to the theory of plasticity.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.