Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Dynamic response of a porous seabed–pipeline interaction under

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

1. Introduction Although the importance of the wave–soil–pipeline

With the growing of offshore activities, design of off-
shore pipelines attract great attention from offshore engi-
neers. When gravity waves propagate over the ocean,
they exert fluctuations of wave pressure on the sea floor.
These fluctuations further induce excess pore pressures
and effective stresses, which have been recognised as a
dominant factor in analysing the instability of a seabed.
One of the important factors that must be taken into
account is the pore pressure acting on the pipeline and
the resultant internal stresses within the pipeline.
*
Corresponding author. Address: School of Civil Engineering, The
University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Tel.: +61 293512144;
fax: +61 293513343.
E-mail address: d.jeng@civil.usyd.edu.au (D.-S. Jeng).
interaction phenomenon has been addressed in the litera-
ture [1], this problem has not been fully understood
because of the complicated soil behaviour and geometry
of the pipeline. Based on a potential theory, the hydrody-
namic uplift forces on the buried pipelines have been stud-
ied [2–4]. However, the potential theory is somewhat
removed from the realistic conditions of the soil and
pore-fluid two-phase medium. Furthermore, the potential
theory provides no information for the effective stresses
and soil displacements in the seabed.
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
method [7]. Among these, Cheng and Liu [6] considered a
buried pipeline in a region that is surrounded by two
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

are directly related to the behaviour of marine structures,

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
for the problem of wave-induced pore pressure and effec-
tive stresses in marine sediments [6,7,14–18]. For the mar-
ine sediments with lower degree of saturation, our model
is not applicable.
Neglecting the effects of relative acceleration between
pore fluid and solid, the equations governing the overall
equilibrium of a porous medium can be expressed in terms
of pore pressure and soil displacements as
Gs
G s r 2 us þ rðr  us Þ ¼ rp  qs bs þ qs €
us ð6Þ
1  2ls
where qsbs is the body force of the soil.
In (6), qs is the apparent density of the soil that is the
mass of unit element in natural environments, which can
be determined by
qs ¼ ms =8s ð7Þ
where ms is the mass of soil and "s is the volume of soil in
natural environment or so-called apparent volume that is
defined as the sum of volume of solid and pore fluid.
Note that the above equation is so-called u  p approx-
imation, which was firstly proposed by Zienkiewicz et al.
[19], and applied to wave–seabed interaction problem.
Based on an elastic theory, the governing equation for
buried pipeline is given by
Gp
Gp r2 up þ rðr  up Þ ¼ qp bp þ qp €
up ð8Þ
1  2lp
where up ” (up, wp) is the vector of displacement of the pipe-
line, qpbp is the body force of the pipeline, qp is the density
of the pipeline, Gp is the shear modulus of the pipeline, and
lp is Poisson’s ratio of the pipeline.
In (6) and (8), €
up denotes the acceleration of the pipeline,
and €us represents the acceleration due to soil motion.
2.2. Boundary conditions
For a porous seabed of finite thickness, as shown in
Fig. 1, the evaluation of the wave-induced seabed response
requires the solution of (1), (6) and (8), together with the
appropriate boundary conditions.
Firstly, zero displacements and no vertical flow occurs at
the impermeable horizontal bottom, i.e.,
op
us ¼ ws ¼ 0 and ¼ 0; at z ¼ 0 ð9Þ
oz
Secondly, we assume that the bottom frictional stress is
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.
r0sz ¼ ss ¼ 0
cw H
p¼ cosðkx  xtÞ ¼ p0 cosðkx  xtÞ; at z ¼ s
2 cosh kd
ð10Þ
where p0 denotes the amplitude of the wave pressure at the
surface of the seabed, d is water depth, H is wave height, k
is the wave number and x is the wave frequency.
175
Thirdly, we assume that there is no flow through the
pipeline wall. This assumption is valid because the pipeline
is considered as an elastic impermeable material. Thus, the
pore pressure gradient on the surface of the pipeline (r = R)
should vanish, i.e.,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
op 2 2
¼ 0; at r ¼ ðx  x0 Þ þ ðz  z0 Þ ¼ R ð11Þ
on
where x0 and z0 denote the coordinates of the centre of the
pipeline and n is the normal direction to the surface of the
pipeline.
Fourthly, we consider the lateral boundary is imperme-
able, as show in Fig. 1, i.e.,
op
us ¼ 0 and ¼ 0; at x ¼ 0 and ‘ ð12Þ
ox
2.3. Soil–pipeline contact effects
In the analysis of seabed–pipeline interaction, there
may exist shear sliding at the interface between soil col-
umn and pipeline under wave loading. Most previous
investigations for the soil–pipeline interaction did not
consider the contact effects between soil and pipeline [6].
To simulate the contact effects along soil–pipeline inter-
face, a contact element can be established to link two
materials in the finite element analysis. Meanwhile, the
effects in normal and tangential directions are considered.
In the tangential direction, the contact effects include the
relative sliding and frictional shear stress. In numerical
calculations, the segment method is used. To simulate
the effects of interaction at the interface, we need to select
the contactor surface and target surface. An important
distinction between a contactor surface and a target sur-
face is that in the converged solution, the material overlap
at the contactor nodes is zero; the target nodes can over-
lap the contactor body. In general, the contactor surface
should select the surface of fine mesh. Thus, herein, the
outer surface of the pipeline is the contactor surface,
and the soil column with pipeline is considered as target
surface. According to the Coulomb friction theory, the
friction shear stress at the interface of seabed and pipeline
(sc) can be expressed in terms of frictional coefficient (l)
and contact pressure at two contact surface (pc), i.e.,
sc = lpc (l = 0.7 in this study). The shear sliding only
occurs when surface drag force is greater than frictional
shear stress.
3. Finite element formulation
3.1. Finite element formulations for the seabed
Applying the Galerkin method [20] to the Biot’s
dynamic consolidation governing equations (1) and (6),
the finite element formulation for a porous seabed under
wave loading can be written in the following coupled
systems:
176 M. Luan et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 173–186

 tþDt ( tþDt € ) " tþDt #(

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

XZ  tþDt sðmÞ ðmÞ

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

In the analysis of seabed–pipeline interaction under

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

Fig. 5. Convergent test of FE mesh. Input data is given in Table 1.

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
this seabed–pipeline interaction problem studies.
In this study, we determine the initial conditions with
the following steps:
(1) First, we determine the initial effective stresses within
soil and pipeline through static loading by confined
the freedom of pore water pressure at each node;
(2) Based on the results of stage (1), we release the free-
dom of pore water pressure, and re-calculate the ini-
tial stresses through static analysis;
(3) Introduce wave loading and boundary conditions for
pore pressure, determine the wave-induced soil
response around the pipeline and internal stresses of
pipelines.
3.5. Convergence of FE meshes
It is necessary to conduct a convergent test of mesh we
used before we do any further investigation. In this study,
we use the experimental data [23] as the input data to
examine the convergence of mesh. The input data are listed
in Table 1. We select Point A for normal stresses (rph/p0
and rpr/p0), Point B for shear stress (sprh/p0) and Point C
for pore pressure (p/p0), as depicted in Fig. 3. We vary
the number of mesh of pipeline in both r- and h-directions
(nr and nh), respectively (see Fig. 4). In general it is recom-
mended that the lengths of segments on the contactor
(pipeline) and target (soil) surfaces be approximately equal.
This is particularly important if multiple contact surface
pairs are considered in the analysis or if the contact surface
geometries are complex. As shown in Fig. 5, we can con-
cluded that (nr, nh) = (10, 20) is the minimum mesh we
should use in this study.
3.6. Comparison with experimental data
In this study, we compare our numerical models with
two set of experimental data available in the literature
[23,24]. First, the experimental data from Turcotte et al.
[23] is used here for a verification of the present model
(Fig. 6). The experimental study was conducted in the J.
H. DeFree Hydraulic Laboratory at Cornell University.
The input data of the experiment and numerical calcula-
tions are listed in Table 2 and Fig. 6. As Turcotte et al.
[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

The previous work without consideration of contact and Table 5

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

Table 6 and 1.7 m deep wave flume. The aluminium pipeline

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
forces. As shown in Fig. 8, inclusion of soil–pipeline con-
tact effect only slightly affects the wave-induced pore pres-
sure along the surface of the pipeline (Fig. 8a), while
internal stresses are affected by contact effect significantly
(Fig. 8b–d). It is found in Fig. 8b and c that the maximum
difference of internal normal stresses (rph/p0 and rpr/p0)
between the results with and without contact effect occurs
at h = 0, 90, 180, 270 and 360. On the other hand,
the maximum difference of shear stress (sprh/p0) occurs at
h = 45, 135, 225, 315.
Second, we examine the effects of inertial forces in the
case with contact effects. As shown in Fig. 9, inclusion of
inertial force only affects the pore pressure slightly, while
it has no influences on the internal stresses. This result is
reasonable, because inertial force is expected to affect the
soil response parameter when porous fluid flows through
the soil, not to the internal stresses of the pipeline.
4.2. Effects of geometry of the trench layer
It is interesting to examine the effect of geometry of the
trench layer (‘ and s) on the pore pressure (p/p0) and inter-
nal stresses (rph/p0, rpr/p0 and sprh/p0). As discussed
previously, the maximum difference of pore pressure
and internal normal stresses between the present model
and the previous models occur at Point F and D (see
Fig. 10), while it occurs at Point E for the shear stress.
Herein, we focus on these points to see the difference of
the present and the previous model. In the example, the
symbol ‘‘D’’ represents the difference between the present
and existing models, for example, Dp = (pcontact+inertia 
pno contact+no inertia).
As shown in Fig. 11, the geometry of the trench layer
almost has no influences on the difference of pore pressure
(Dp/p0  0). The difference of internal normal stresses
(Drph/p0 and Drpr/p0) increases as the depth (s) of the
trench layer decreases, but as the width (‘) of the trench
layer increases. A dramatically increase for the difference
of internal normal stress (Drph/p0) is observed in the
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
50 times of p0. For the difference of shear stress, Dsprh/
p0 increases as ‘/D increases, but it decreases as s/D
increases. A significant influence of ‘/D is observed in
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

20 and rpr/p0), but over-estimate the internal shear stress

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

5 4.3. Effects of wave periods and water depths

The above numerical examples are based on one wave

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
A rectangle trench layer is used as an example to demon-
strate the influence of soil–pipeline contact effects and iner-
tial items. It is also necessary to examine the cases with
different trench shape such as trapezoid and triangle. Con-
figuration of rectangle, trapezoid and triangle trench layer
used in this example is given in Fig. 14, and a comparison is
illustrated in Fig. 15.
As shown in Fig. 15, the wave-induced pore pressure on
the pipeline significantly affected by the shape of the trench
layer in the region near the bottom of the pipeline (i.e., near
270). The maximum difference between the triangle and
rectangle trench is about 10% of p0. Again, a significant
influence of trench shape occurs at h = 0, 90, 180, 270
and 360 for normal stress, but it occurs at h = 45, 135,
225, 315 for shear stress. It is concluded from Fig. 15 that
the triangle trench will reduce the pore pressure acting on
the pipeline, but it will increase the internal stresses.
5. Conclusions
The main contribution of this paper is to include the
soil–pipeline contact effects and inertial forces into the
existing models for the wave–seabed–pipeline interaction.
A generalised Biot’s model with inclusion of contact effects
and inertial forces is established. Good agreements between
the present model and the available experimental data are
performed.
Based on the numerical results presented, we found that
the soil–pipeline contact effect plays an important role in
the estimation of the internal stresses, but not the pore
pressure. On the other hand, inclusion of inertial terms will
affect the pore pressure, but not the internal stresses.
It is also noted that the geometry of the trench layer sig-
nificantly affect the internal stresses. For example, a signif-
icant change for internal stresses is observed in the range of
20 6 ‘/D 6 40 and 10 6 s/D 6 20. Generally speaking, the
difference of internal stresses between the present and pre-
vious models increases as the depth (s) of the trench layer
decreases, but as the width (‘) of the trench layer increases.
A simple comparison for different types of trench shape
is conducted in this paper. The numerical comparison indi-
cates that the triangle trench will reduce the pore pressure
acting on the pipeline, but it will increase the internal stres-
ses. Thus, pipeline engineers need to pay attention on the
shape of the trench when they design of trench layer for
the protection of a buried pipeline.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Professor
Dahong Qiu of Dalian University of Technology for his
continuing support and invaluable advice for the investiga-
tion. The financial supports for this study from National
Natural Science Foundation of China through the Grant
50439010, 50579006, 50639010, 50179006 and from the
State Ministry of Education of China are mostly grateful
and Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage-Interna-
tional Award (LX0665976).
References
[1] Clukey EC, Vermersch JA, Koch SP, Lamb WC, Natural densifica-
tion by wave action of sand surrounding a buried offshore pipeline. In
Proceedings of the 21st annual offshore technology conference,
Houston, Texas, 1989, p. 291–300.
[2] MacPherson H. Wave forces on pipeline buried in permeable seabed.
J Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean Eng, ASCE 1978;104(4):407–19.
[3] McDough WG, Davidson SH, Monkmeyer PL, Sollitt CK. Wave-
induced forces on buried pipelines. J Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean
Engineering, ASCE 1979;114(2):220–36.
[4] Spierenburg SEJ. Wave-induced pore pressures around submarine
pipelines. Coastal Eng 1986;10:33–48.
[5] Biot MA. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl
Phys 1941;12(2):155–64.
[6] Cheng AHD, Liu PLF. Seepage force on a pipeline buried in a
poroelastic seabed under wave loading. Appl Ocean Res
1986;8(1):22–32.
[7] Magda W. Wave-induced uplift force on a submarine pipeline buried
in a compressible seabed. Ocean Eng 1997;24(6):551–76.
[8] Jeng D-S. Wave-induced seafloor dynamics. Appl Mech Rev
2003;56(4):407–29.
[9] Sumer B-M. Special issue: Liquefaction around marine structures.
Processes and benchmark cases. J Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean
Eng, ASCE 2006;132(4):225–335.
[10] Sumer B-M. Special issue: Liquefaction around marine structures.
Miscellaneous. J Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean Eng, ASCE
2007;133(1):1–86.
[11] Teh TC, Palmer AC, Bolton MD, Damgaard JS. Stability of
submarine pipelines on liquefied seabeds. J Waterway, Port, Coastal
Ocean Eng, ASCE 2006;132(4):244–51.
[12] Sumer BM, Truelsen C, Fredsoe J. Liquefaction around pipelines
under waves. J Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean Eng, ASCE
2006;132(4):266–75.
[13] Dunn SL, Vun PL, Chan AHC, Damgaard JS. Numerical modelling
of wave induced liquefaction around pipelines. J Waterway, Port,
Coastal Ocean Eng, ASCE 2006;132(4):276–88.
[14] Verruijt A. Elastic storage of aquifers. In: DeWeist RJM, editor. Flow
through porous media. New York: Academic Press; 1969.
[15] Madsen OS. Wave-induced pore pressure and effective stresses in a
porous bed. Geotechnique 1978;28(4):377–93.
[16] Yamamoto T, Koning HL, Sellmeiher H, Hijum EV. On the response
of a poro-elastic bed to water waves. J Fluid Mech 1978;87(1):
193–206.
[17] Mei CC, Foda MA. Wave-induced stresses around a pipe laid on a
poro-elastic sea bed. Geotechnique 1981;31(4):509–17.
[18] Okusa S. Wave-induced stresses in unsaturated submarine sediments.
Geotechnique 1985;35(4):517–32.
[19] Zienkiewicz OC, Chang CT, Bettess P. Drained, undrained, consol-
idating and dynamic behaviour assumptions in soils. Geotechnique
1980;30(4):385–95.
[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-
metric contact problems. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1985;21:65–88.
[22] Bathe KJ, ADINA users’ Manual Version 8.2.2. Watertown: ADINA
R&D Inc, 2004.
[23] Turcotte BR, Liu PLF and Kulhawy FH, Laboratory evaluation of
wave tank parameters for wave–sediment interaction. Joseph H.
DeFree Hydraulic Laboratory Report 84-1, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, 1984.
[24] Sudhan CM, Sundar V, Rao SN. Wave induced forces around buried
pipeline. Ocean Eng 2002;29:533–44.