Trenching and survey challenges facing burial of

pipelines at shore approaches and landfalls

Brunning, P.(1), Dyer, J.(2) & Machin, J.(3)
(1) Marine Geotechnics Ltd, (2) GeoDDO, (3) Subsea Consulting Services Ltd.

Abstract
Considerable challenges are encountered in connection with design and
installation of pipelines and cables in the nearshore zone. Industry-wide it is
recognised that numerous mishaps and delays to oil and gas and renewable power
projects occur in the shore approaches. The scale of the problems encountered is
usually disproportionally greater than those associated with the longer offshore
sections of the route.
One specific issue is that coastline geology and geomorphology is invariably more
complex than that found in deeper offshore waters, heightening the risk associated
with seabed hazards. This is not necessarily a problem per se because hazards,
if known about, can be planned for, or avoided. However, nearshore survey data
is often found to be of poorer quality than that gathered in deeper water; or in the
worst case is missing altogether. The other concern relates to trenching pipes and
cables in shallow water and in particular whether to decide on a traditional pre-lay
solution using dredgers or to adopt a post-lay burial strategy which may interface
better with trenching operations if burial is continued into deeper water.
This paper focusses on these two critical issues. Technical difficulties with
geophysical surveying in shallow water are discussed; existing and emerging
geophysical survey techniques suited to shore approach work are reviewed along
with some guidance regarding the scope of work for geotechnical surveys.
Alternative and new post- or simultaneous-lay and trenching technologies
appropriate for pipeline and cable burial in shallow water are discussed and
guidance of suitability and application of the methods and tools is given.

1. Introduction
Submarine pipelines and cables1 are often buried in the seabed as a means of
safeguarding them against the threat of impact hazards such as interaction with
fishing trawl gear, dropped objects and ship anchors. Burial is also frequently
required in shore approaches to permanently stabilise the pipeline or cable against
the hydrodynamic forces which can be particularly severe in shallow water where

For the purposes of this paper the term cable encompasses fibre optic communications cables,
umbilicals for oil and gas developments and any type of electrical power cable.
1

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 1

current and wave action is strong. It is also why many larger diameter (relatively
light) pipelines are concrete coated over their shallow water section to increase the
submerged unit weight and improve stability. However, more often than not, the
weight coating itself does not provide all the required stability resistance and burial
of the pipe in the seabed by trenching is then usually seen as the best way of
eliminating this risk.
Although cables tend to have a higher specific gravity than pipes and are therefore
generally more likely to be stable, they are at risk from abrasion damage (chafing)
arising from lateral movement across the seabed, or indeed movement of the
underlying seabed itself. So even if a cable has sufficient inherent stability, burial
may still be required to remove this risk.
Due to the elevated threat levels in the nearshore zone, burial specifications are
normally far more demanding than those required for deeper water offshore areas.
Burial depths of between 2 and 3 m to top of pipe or cable would be a typical
nearshore specification whereas further offshore this may well be relaxed to
somewhere about 1 m.
Burial2 of submarine pipelines and cables is always a challenge and subsea
trenching is notoriously one of the highest risk offshore operations. All too often it
results in significant project delays, cost over-runs, contractual disputes and
insurance claims. For example, it is widely reported by global insurance companies
that 80% of insurance pay-outs to the wind farm sector relate to cable damage,
with most incidents occurring in shallow water.
Several factors contribute to the trenching risk profile but by far the most important
are the properties of the seabed itself. This risk tends to be proportional to the
shape and composition of the seabed so at one end of the geological spectrum,
for example, trenching across a flat seabed in soft clay conditions, burial may
proceed relatively smoothly but at the other end in some of the harder
heterogeneous glacial soils, such as boulder clays which are found extensively
across the continental shelves of the Northern Hemisphere, it can be extremely
onerous. In other parts of the world, such as the Middle East, Asia and Australia,
hard substrates comprising cemented carbonate materials are commonly found in
coastal shelf areas creating very difficult trenching conditions (e.g. Brunning &
Machin, 2014).

It should be noted that the discussions and topics in this paper relate to burial that make use of
open trenching methods; it does not address the subject of closed construction methods such as
tunnelling and horizontal directional drilling (HDD). Many publications covering this topic are
available e.g. Sriskandarajah et al (1994), Palmer and King (2004), de Silva et al (2013).

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 2

In general, the trenching risk increases substantially when considering the shore
approach and landfall, despite the relatively small distance this section covers
compared to the overall route length it often represents a far greater challenge for
engineering and installation. Key reasons for this are related to the environment
(i.e. geology and metocean) whilst others are linked to the type and number of
products3 to be buried, the specified depth of burial, whether backfill is required
whether a pre-lay, simultaneous-lay, or post-lay strategy is adopted and how this
interfaces with trenching plans if burial in deeper water is required.

2. Coastal Geology and Geohazards

Physical processes such as wind, wave and current action modify nearshore
sediments producing a coastal geomorphology that is markedly different to that
found onshore or in deeper offshore waters. Natural variations in the shape of a
coastline (or those resulting from human construction) often lead to local areas of
erosion or deposition. For example, the effect of even a minor promontory in an
area of tidal or wave-generated currents can result in active erosion, coarse
sediment and bedrock exposure in one area, local deposits of finer sediment in
another and migrating sand wave or megaripple fields in a third area, all within the
space of a few hundred metres.
Common geohazards of particular threat to landfalls are outcrops (exposures) of
rock or shallow sub-cropping rock, mobile seabed material, sediment transport
along the shore through the process of longshore drift, presence of very soft
sediments on delta fronts and within sheltered bays and presence of fine granular
soils such as sand and silt that are susceptible to hydrodynamic liquefaction. Peat
has also been found to extend from onshore into the marine environment where it
can pose a threat to excavation and trenching activities and in certain areas of the
world; S.E. Asia and West Africa for example, buried tree trunks can also be a
potential hazard.

3. Examples of why survey matters?

Fundamentally, the successful completion of projects involving landfalls requires a
level of knowledge of the geological and geotechnical conditions sufficient to
enable identification of hazards and provide engineering inputs to design the
landfall and to make reliable burial assessments.
The price paid for unforeseen problems encountered during construction due to
lack of survey data will far outweigh (often many times over) the cost of undertaking
an adequate survey from the outset. However, despite this axiom, surveys are
often given scant regard, or in the worst cases are completely omitted. The authors
are aware of at least two major pipeline landfall construction projects where no
3

The term product as used in this paper refers generically to any type of pipe or cable

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 3

survey was carried out in the nearshore zone. Unsurprisingly both suffered
significant delays and financial losses far exceeding the cost of performing a
survey.
In one of the cases, the loss was significant and amounted to several months pipelay vessel standby and corresponding delay to beach operations due to
unexpectedly high pipe pull-in resistance which brought operations to a halt. The
only soils data gathered for this project was from a geotechnical investigation that
was performed after the event to identify the cause of the pull-in problems. The
results of this geoforensic survey indicated presence of very soft silt and clay
sediments that were unable to support the weight of the pulling wire and tow-head
so that after pulling for a short distance the tow-head and pipeline gouged into the
seabed until the resistance exceeded the beach winch capacity. Had the soil
conditions been known beforehand, simple addition of buoyancy would have
eliminated this problem.
In the other case, the pipe tails at the seaward end of the cofferdam self-lowered
several meters into the underlying sand over a storm cycle resulting in
considerable unplanned cost to excavate down and recover the ends. It was later
concluded (again through geoforensic work) that the sands were particularly
susceptibility to hydrodynamic liquefaction, a fact that would very likely have been
identified had geotechnical data been available and preventative action could have
been taken. Both these are excellent examples of the geotechnical engineers
adage that says you pay for a ground investigation whether you have one or not
(Littlejohn, 1993).
Good quality data is also desirable from a contractual perspective. Lack of data
will typically result in an unnecessarily qualified tender or a contract based on
assumptions rather than fact. Failure to acquire the correct level of information at
the appropriate time makes contractual negotiations with potential pipeline
installation contractors, dredging contractors and trenching equipment suppliers
difficult and they will generally be unwilling to enter risk-reward mechanisms
without an acceptable level of data on which to assess their risk exposure.

4. Difficulties of geophysical surveying in shallow water

Although acquisition of geophysical and geotechnical data in shallow water is
beset by logistical and technical challenges an adequate level of data can usually
be acquired, provided surveys are given the attention and budget they deserve
and are conducted at the right time. The following section provides an overview of
the general problems associated with nearshore survey and introduces some less
conventional geophysical methods that can be used to advantage in shallow water.
Geophysical surveys in shallow water depths (~ < 20 m) have traditionally been
the most troublesome for survey companies. Where a quotation for shallow water
OPT Asia 2016
Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 4

work is required as part of a longer route survey mainly in deeper water, it is often
either not tendered at all, or is offered as an option with significant additional costs
due to the need for a separate vessel and equipment as well as an increased
weather risk for operation. Operating small marine craft in the surf zone is also
difficult. As a result, shore approaches are generally surveyed to standards well
below those of the offshore section often by inexperienced but more economical
subcontractors employing local vessels of opportunity poorly suited for use as
geophysical survey vessels. The result is often poor-quality data and recordings
marred by vessel noise and acoustic or electrical interference from the various
equipment.
.
Side scan sonar records are frequently of limited use due to the inability in shallow
water to operate the sensor using an optimal geometry. Sub-bottom profile records
from water depths < 5 m can be unusable due to signal ringing and interference of
sea-bottom multiple reflections. Data coverage of the multi-beam echo-sounder is
also often incomplete. Accurate bathymetric data in the nearshore areas is of vital
importance since it is the profile on which an installation contractor determines how
close to the beach their pipe-lay vessel can approach. On a gently sloping seabed
a vertical difference of just one meter in water depth can mean a difference of
several hundred meters or more in vessel standoff with obvious consequential
operational and financial implications.
Success of a shallow water survey depends very much on the experience of
people involved and how they understand the goals of the survey and the best use
of methods and equipment to achieve them. However even under the most
favourable circumstances, certain environmental and geological conditions act to
degrade record quality and are difficult to remedy. Several of these potential
problems are described below.
4.1.

Suspended sediment in the water column

Wave action and tidal currents can result in a greater load of suspended sediment
in shallow water relative to the generally calmer environment at greater water
depths. This sediment tends to degrade the higher frequency acoustic signals, with
a consequent loss of resolution. A solution for side scan sonar data may be to use
a lower frequency source, for example 100 kHz instead of 500 kHz frequency. This
will likely result in better looking recordings, but at the cost of a lower resolution. In
this situation, the operator of the equipment must be allowed to make the decision
to optimise the side scan sonar frequency to obtain a useable record instead of
recording useless data at a higher frequency setting even if this means deviation
from a contractual specification.
The same problem may occur with sub-bottom profilers with the same data
degradation at the highest frequencies resulting in a loss of vertical resolution.

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 5

4.2.

Local accumulation of shallow gas

Although gas blanking on seismic records is not unique to the shallow water
environment, shallow gas resulting from decay of organic material in certain
environments (deltas, lagoons, mangrove swamps) may form local pockets and be
difficult to discriminate from other features such as rock-head or reef. In other
cases, geotechnical sampling may be required to confirm gas as the cause of the
acoustic blanking.
4.3.

Risk of equipment damage

In areas where rock outcrops at seabed, rough seabed topography, rapidly

shoaling landfall approaches or in areas of strong currents and waves, the risk of
damage to the geophysical equipment is significantly greater than for offshore
survey work. This applies in particular to any towed sensor but the risk can be
largely mitigated by the use of vessel-mounted equipment.
4.4.

Promising Advances

The following sonar, laser and electrical technologies are particularly well-suited
for use in shallow water, allowing full bathymetric data coverage and sub-bottom
records largely free from ringing and interference from multiple reflections.
4.4.1. Parametric sub-bottom profilers
The nonlinear parametric sub-bottom profiler transmits two different high
frequencies that interfere to form a lower frequency signal. The transducer is
usually hull-mounted and suitable for use on very small vessels and has both high
vertical and horizontal resolution. The very short signals are transmitted with none
of the ringing that occurs with traditional linear sub-bottom profilers, a vast
improvement for work in shallow water. The narrow beam width, which allows the
high horizontal resolution, will typically not detect buried objects, but this can be
remedied by running additional survey lines with the transducer tilted at an angle
(Schneider von Deiming et al. (2016).
Like pinger and most chirp sources, parametric sub-bottom profilers have limited
penetration in dense, coarse-grained sediments but can be very successfully used
for profiling in cohesive to fine-grained soils.
4.4.2. Airborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Bathymetry
Airborne LiDAR Bathymetry (ALB) records water depth by using laser pulses
transmitted at two frequencies. A lower infrared frequency is reflected off the sea
surface, while a higher frequency green laser penetrates the water column and
reflects off the seabed. With good water clarity this system can reach depths of 50
meters. It is a relatively expensive survey to carry out, but the potential future use
of drones may reduce costs in the future.

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 6

4.4.3. Electrical Resistivity

Another complimentary, but little used, geophysical method - electrical resistivity
(ER) has been found to add significant value to the integrated geological model.
Using a towed cable equipped with electrodes this method injects a current into
the seabed and measures the electrical resistance of the substrate which is
essentially a proxy measurement of the materials porosity and this in turn is related
to soil/rock type.
ER is particularly suited to areas where shallow rock is expected or extensive
areas of cemented deposits can be found, such as the Arabian Gulf, Australian
Northwest Shelf and South China Sea. These materials are very difficult to trench
and understanding where, and at what depth they lie is important. Figure 1 shows
standard sub-bottom profiling data together with ER profile with the outcrops and
sub-crops of cemented carbonate deposits being far more clearly revealed by the
latter. The method provides qualitative rather than quantitative data so mechanical
parameters such as unconfined compressive strength for example cannot be
deduced.

Figure 1. Comparison of standard sub-bottom profiling and electrical resistivity data.

5. Geotechnical Survey
Geotechnical properties of the soils underlying the pipeline or cable route corridor
are required for design purposes. Common geotechnical calculations that are
performed as part of the design of landfalls and burial assessments are
summarised in Table 1 along with the recommended penetration depth for the
intrusive investigation and pertinent design soil parameters.

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 7

Table 1. Summary of site investigation techniques and geotechnical parameters for landfall
and shore approach design (partially based on OSIG 2004)
Relevant penetration
depth

Key design
parameters (1) (2) (3)

Shallow foundations
for winch bases

At least a depth of
1.5 times foundation
width

Index properties, ,
Su, compressibility

Sheet piling (coffer

dams and hold-back
walls)

To at least the
anticipated depth of
pile + 20%

Index properties, Su,

, Dr,

On bottom friction
for pull-in
calculations
Determining
maximum slope
angle for open
subsea trenches
Trench Infilling rates
(in the case of
natural backfill)
Potential for
liquefaction

At least 3 pipeline
diameters

Su, , ,

1.0 to 1.2 times

expected trench
depth

Index properties, Su,

, Dr

~ 1 metre

Index properties,
current velocities

~ 5 metres

Selection of
trenching method
and tool buoyancy
Trench production
rates

~ 5 metres

Index properties, Su,

S, , Dr, permeability,
compressibility, cyclic
strength
Index properties, Su,
, Dr

~ 5 metres

Index properties, Su,

, Dr

Backfill properties

>= trench depth

Index properties, Su,

, Dr, S, consolidation

Typical sampling
method and field
tests
Rotary boring (or
percussion onshore),
CPT/SPT, Trial pits,
Dynamic
penetrometer
Rotary boring (or
percussion onshore)
with SPTs and/or
CPT
Shallow CPT, drop
core, grab samples,
dilatometer
Shallow CPT/drop
core/grab samples,
dilatometer, insitu
vane
Buried box or tank
tests
CPT, seismic cone,
SPT, rotary and
percussion boring
Geophysical profiling,
drop cores, shallow
CPT
Geophysical profiling,
drop cores, shallow
CPT
Geophysical profiling,
drop cores, shallow
CPT, insitu vane

Notes:
(1) Index properties = Particle size distribution, Atterberg Limits, bulk/submerged unit weight, SG
and moisture content.
(2) Design parameters may be obtained from insitu tests, laboratory tests or from both.
(3) Su (undrained shear strength), friction angle, steel-soil friction angle, S (sensitivity) D
r
(relative density), (submerged unit weight).

6. Burial of pipes and cables in shore approaches

Many factors must be considered simultaneously when deciding the best strategy
for burying pipes and cables as they approach shore. Economics, weather
constraints, availability of vessels and scheduling all have to be balanced against
the technical requirements for burial and installation. Although no two landfalls are
exactly the same, one common dilemma is whether to excavate trenches as a preOPT Asia 2016
Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 8

lay operation or whether to post or simultaneously lay and bury the pipes and
cables; or possibly a hybrid solution combining both. In addition to soil conditions
and water depth, separation/type of products and burial and backfill specifications
all have to be accounted for in deciding the optimal trenching strategy.
Often in oil and gas projects, multiple type products come ashore together. Figure
2 illustrates this well with four rigid pipelines with at least 2 different diameters and
two umbilical cables. The desired goal is to use just one trenching method or tool
for burial of them all.

Figure 2. Example of several different products involved in a landfall

Burial requirements vary depending on the Operator and their pipeline design
house but are often divided into two different specifications; one for deeper burial
in the landfall/shore approaches where the level of threat is high and a less
onerous depth of burial for the offshore sections. A burial depth of between 2 and
3 m to top of pipe would be a typical nearshore specification whereas further
offshore this would normally be relaxed to somewhere more like 1 m.
6.1.

Trenching methods

Table 2 summarises the suitability of various trench excavation methods to the

general task of burying pipelines and cables.

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 9

Table 2. General applicability of trench excavation and burial methods for rigid pipelines
and cables

Trenching
Method

Tool / asset
Pipeline plough

Ploughing
Cable Plough
Mechanical
Cutting

Tractor (wheel or chain)

Tractor
ROV

Water
Jetting

Dredging

Towed jet sled

Pipe riding jet sled
Mass flow excavation
(MFE)
Water Injection by
dredger
Trailing Suction/
backhoe/ cutter suction

Rigid Pipelines
Pre-lay
Post-lay

(2)

Cables/flexible flowlines
Pre-lay
Post-lay
Simlay.(1)

(2)

Notes
(1) Simultaneous lay and burial operations
(2) An exception is Deepocean chain cutter T3200 which is capable of pre-cutting an open V profile trench
Key:

Method/tool generally suitable but contingent on water depth, soil conditions and product properties
Method/tool generally unsuitable for technical and/or commercial reasons

Key conclusions that can be drawn from this table are:

No one method or tool is suitable for all permutations

None of the water jetting techniques are suitable as a pre-lay option, although
in certain circumstances MFE could be considered for use in pre-lay trenching
The best pre-lay option is dredging of any type except water injection dredger
Other than water injection, dredging of any type is generally not suited for postlay burial
Post-lay, or simultaneous lay and burial, can be achieved using a cable plough
for cables and, if soil conditions are suitable, most water jetting techniques
regardless of product
With the exception of one particular machine, mechanical cutting is only suited
to post-lay burial

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 10

6.2.

Pre-lay Trenching

In this technique a trench is excavated ahead of laying the pipes. The trench has
to be made sufficiently wide such that all products can be laid into it. An example
of this type of trench profile taken from a recent Asian project is shown in Figure
3. Alternatively, a series of narrow trenches using a plough for example could be
cut such that each pipe or cable is individually placed.

Figure 3. Pre-lay trench profile

It is generally impracticable to use a pipeline plough in shallow water so it is

perhaps hardly surprising that dredgers have been used extensively for shore
approach work. Dredging (of all types) has various advantages and disadvantages
when compared with post-lay or simultaneous lay and burial techniques. Some of
these are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of pre-lay dredging compared with post-lay or
simultaneous lay and burial

Advantages
A dredger may be required on site for
other reasons e.g. to dredge channel for
shallow water lay barge
Pipelines are immediately stable once
they have been laid into their trench(es)

Wide channels can be formed

accommodating any product and
separation
Deep channels can be excavated
meeting the most onerous burial
requirements
Trenching is removed from critical path
Backfill can be provided in the form of
spoil or engineered fill such as rock
dump
the trenching equipment makes no
mechanical contact with the product

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

Disadvantages
Trenches are susceptible to infilling
between excavation and lay operations.
Dredger has to remain on location until
pipe-lay for remedial work to trenches or
an alternative soil removal method has to
be provided.
Can be expensive compared to
alternative trenching technologies
The spoil has to be dumped (or stockpiled
for reuse) away from site
Larger volumes of soil are handled
Dredging contractors traditionally tend to
be risk averse regarding seabed
conditions

October 18-19, 2016

Page 11

These advantages do not necessarily extend to burial in deeper water where postlay trenching is far more routinely used for burial. A selection of typical pre-lay
trenching equipment is shown in Figure 4.

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

Figure 4. Equipment solutions for Pre-lay Trenching. a) Pre-lay Plough (courtesy of Ecosse
Subsea), b) Pre-lay clamshell dredger (courtesy of Boskalis), c) Trailer Hopper Suction
Dredger (courtesy of Boskalis), d) Cutter Suction Dredger (courtesy of Jan de Nul), e)
Backhoe excavator (courtesy of Van Oord)

Of the above equipment options, a) and b) can be deployed from vessels of

opportunity. Options c) to e) are specialist dredgers in which the trenching
equipment is integrated into a dedicated vessel, although this is not always the
case for the backhoe excavators. Trailer Hopper Suction Dredgers are nowadays
quite readily available in most regions. The Cutter Suction Dredger, which only
becomes a necessity in the event of encountering rock or reef features, are fewer
between and commensurately costlier to mobilize.
6.3.

Post-lay Trenching

In this method products are laid individually on the seabed and then subsequently
buried using a trenching machine which is designed to be towed (or self-propelled)
along the products lying on the seabed. One variant is the pipe riding trencher
which runs along the pipe supported on rollers. These tools can be equipped with
cutting devices or with jet swords but they are generally not favoured because of
the risk of damaging pipeline coatings and anodes due to the contact.
The post-lay technique is only suitable for individually laid products and they must
be spaced sufficiently apart such that the trenching tool does not interfere with an
adjacent product. Typically, this implies a minimum spacing of at least 5 m between
products.
One key advantage of the technique is that it can be relatively rapid and efficient.
Pipe is laid on the seabed rather than in a trench which tends to speed up pipe-lay
operations. Furthermore, subject to scheduling, the same burial tool(s) should be
able to trench in the shore approach zone as well as the deeper water sections.
The main disadvantage of this technique is that pipeline temporary stability on the
seabed, following lay but prior to trenching, can present a design problem.
Frequently pipelines have to be weighted specifically to deal with such issues
resulting in increased wall thickness and/or use of concrete weight coatings etc.
OPT Asia 2016
Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 12

6.4.

Simultaneous lay and trench

The simultaneous lay and trench methodology normally assumes that trenching
equipment is actually deployed from the pipe-lay vessel itself and trenching is
conducted at the same time as the pipe or cable is laid. Due to the operational
complexity, long layback distance and generally low trenching speeds slowing
down pipe-lay, the technique is rarely, if ever, used during rigid pipe installation.
However, it is often adopted for installation of cables and flexible pipelines where
the touch down point and lay-back distances are closer to the lay vessel and cable
tensions can be better managed. An example of this is shown in Figure 5 where
the MFE tool Twin R2000 is shown being used for simultaneous lay burial of a
flexible flowline.
The authors are aware of one case in South America where the pipe tow head was
shackle mounted behind a passive plough share. The plough-pipe was lowered to
the seabed from the lay vessel and then pulled ashore from a heavy duty beach
winch with the plough share forming a V shaped trench in the seabed ahead of the
pipe. Although this is an innovative idea the plough share requires a significant
pulling force and the beach winch and its foundation have to be sized for the task.
6.5. Trenching tools specifically designed for post- or simultaneous lay
in shallow water
Until fairly recently, most trenching tools were developed for use in the oil and gas
industry to bury submarine pipes and cables in water depths typically greater than
20 m. In response to the difficulties experienced in the nearshore zone and the
growing demand for post-lay or simultaneous lay and burial, some of the specialist
trenching subcontractors and dredging companies have focussed their efforts on
delivering a trenching tool that can accommodate as many different product types,
diameters and stiffness as possible but that can also operate from the beach to
water depths normally considered to be in the offshore section.
Some examples of specialised trenching tools that have been specifically designed
for burial of cables and pipelines in nearshore shallow waters are shown in Figure
5.

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 13

SWT1 - Operator Deepocean

Operating depth 0 40 m
All soil types and weak rock
Interchangeable tools: wheel cutting or jetting mode
Simultaneous or post-lay trenching
Maximum trench depth / product diameter (jetting
mode) 2 m / 200 mm
Maximum trench depth / product diameter (cutting
mode) 1.2 m / 200 mm
Trenchformer - Operator: VBMS (Boskalis)
Interchangeable tools: jet sword, chain cutter and
disc cutter.
All soil types and weak rock
Operating depth 0 400 m
Simultaneous or post-lay trenching
Maximum trench depth / product diameter (jetting
and cutting mode) 3 m / 200 mm
Cable Plough various operators
Operating depth 0 1000 m
Simultaneous lay only
Typical maximum diameter 200 mm
All soil types and weak rock

Post-lay towed jet sledge various operators

Operating depth typically less than 25 m
Most suited to rigid pipelines up to ~ 36
Jettable soils only

Twin R2000 operator James Fisher Subsea

Excavation
Operating depth 1.5 m to 300 m
Jettable soils only

Figure 5. Examples of shallow water post-lay and simultaneous lay burial tools

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

Several geophysical techniques are available that are particularly well-suited to
shallow water work but are not widely used. In part this is down to cost and in part
due to a general unfamiliarity of the methods.
OPT Asia 2016
Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 14

There is no 100% guarantee that a geophysical survey will provide the perfect suite
of information. However, ways of ensuring the most cost-effective survey with a
satisfactory result are i) to undertake a desk-top study of the landfall approach area
prior to writing the survey scope of work - the greater the understanding of the
geology and of the likely hazards that may be encountered, the more targeted, and
cost-efficient the survey can be, and, ii) phrase work scopes in terms of the desired
results of the survey instead of specifying particular equipment and settings and
avoid using old work scopes/specifications as templates as they may be totally
unsuited to a new area.
With the development of new shallow water trenching tools designed specifically
for nearshore burial work, post- or simultaneous lay and trench methods are now
more feasible than before. Some of these tools can be operated directly from the
beach or from the lay vessel itself and can operate across a wide range of soil
types. For certain projects this can offer significant advantage if burial of products
is to continue into deeper water.
References
Brunning, P. & Machin, J. 2014. Applications and Performance of Trenching
Technologies in Asia-Pacific. Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, Asia.
Kuala Lumpur. Paper OTC 24833.
Littlejohn, G.S. Ground: Reducing the Risk. Briefing. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers. Volume 102 Issue 1, February 1994, pp. 3-4
Palmer, A. C., & King, R. A. (2004). Subsea pipeline engineering. Tulsa, Okla:
PennWell
Schneider von Deiming, J., Held, P., Feldens, P and D. Wilken, 2016, Effects of
using inclined parametric echosounding on sub-bottom acoustic imaging and
advances in buried object detection. Geo-Marine Letters Vol.26, Issue 2, pp 113119.
Society for Underwater Technology. Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics
Group (OSIG). 2004. Guidance Notes on Geotechnical Investigations for Marine
Pipelines.
Sriskandarajah, T, Easter A D, Watkins, J H, 1994. A Critical Review of Near
Shore and Landfall Pipeline Design and Construction. Aspect '94. Advances in
Subsea Pipeline Engineering and Technology pages 35-58.

OPT Asia 2016

Brunning, Dyer & Machin

October 18-19, 2016

Page 15