Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering OMAE2010 June 6-11,

2010, Shanghai, China Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering OMAE2010 June 6-11, 2010, Shanghai, China

OMAE2010-20
OMAE2010 - 20988

EFFECTS OF FREE SPANS ON ON-BOTTOM STABILITY OF PIPELINES A GLOBAL APPROACH

Olav Aamlid, Knut Vedeld and Hvar Sollund Det Norske Veritas, Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Hvik, Norway

ABSTRACT On-bottom stability design of pipelines normally assumes that the pipeline rests on a flat seabed without any free spans. This paper presents on-bottom stability calculations accounting for the presence of free spans. It should be noted however that the calculations presented in this paper are only meant to be indicative, and not for design purposes. The absolute static stability criterion in DNV-RP-F109 is given on a form that directly compares the hydrodynamic loads on the pipeline to the resistance provided by the pipe soil interaction. Hence, by following this line one can estimate the effect that the presence of free spans has on both the load and the resistance. It is known that hydrodynamic loads, lift and drag, are higher close to the seabed than away from it. This will obviously be beneficial from an on-bottom stability point of view. The effect that the free spans have on the pipe soil resistance is not so obvious. Often, one assumes that this resistance consists of two components, pure Coulomb friction and so-called passive resistance due to penetration. The Coulomb friction part is herein assumed to be independent on the span fraction as the total weight remains the same, whereas the soil models in DNV-RP-F109 predicts an overall reduction in passive resistance due to the presence of free spans. For the on-bottom stability calculations it turns out the approach predicts a beneficial effect for pipelines on a sandy seabed. However, under most conditions on clay, where the beneficial passive resistance is more important, the prediction is that the presence of free spans is not beneficial. Keywords: Pipelines, On-Bottom Stability, Free Spans.

INTRODUCTION In 2007 DNV issued DNV-RP-F109 as an updated recommended practice for on-bottom stability of submarine pipelines, Ref. [1]. To DNVs knowledge, all the work on this subject is based on the assumption that the pipeline is resting on a flat seabed without free spans. E.g. the work leading up to the two special purpose software packages for full dynamic analyses of on-bottom stability of submarine pipelines, PONDUS Ref. [2] and AGA Level III, Ref. [3]. DNV-RP-F109 does not give details about the effects from free spans, but states that the presence of free spans is beneficial from an on-bottom stability point of view since the loads are decreased due to the gap and that the resistance from pipe soil interaction increases due to more concentrated contact pressure. Since the effects of free spans are neglected, DNV is often approached by the industry on this and asked about this effect and how it may be included in design. For lateral on-bottom stability, three design methods are presented in DNV-RP-F109: dynamic lateral stability analysis a generalized lateral stability method based on data base results from dynamic analyses/simulations an absolute lateral static stability method. The dynamic lateral stability analysis gives general requirements to a time domain simulation of pipe response, including hydrodynamic loads from an irregular sea-state and soil resistance forces. To DNVs knowledge, neither of the two special purpose finite element codes PONDUS and AGA Level III are capable to model free spans with load reduction due to spans and increased contact force at the shoulders. There are other general purpose finite elements codes, e.g. ABAQUS and

Copyright 2010 by ASME

ANSYS, that are used by the industry for on-bottom roughness analyses of pipelines with free spans and realistic contact forces. However, again to DNVs knowledge, these programs have not implemented the rather complex models for hydrodynamic loads and cyclic pipe soil interaction models that are utilized by the special purpose codes for on-bottom stability analyses. The generalized lateral stability method and the absolute lateral static stability method give detailed specific design results for two approaches to stability design. The absolute lateral static stability method is a design wave approach, i.e. it ensures absolute static stability for a single design (extreme) wave-induced oscillation. In order to substantiate the interaction between on-bottom stability and the existence of free spans, a small study has been performed and presented in this paper. Since only the design approach for absolute static stability in DNV-RP-F109 deals with explicit expressions and models for hydrodynamic loads and pipe soil interaction, this design approach was chosen for this study. It should be noted that the approach presented here is not meant to be used as design recommendations, only as a brief study on the effect of free spans. There are several aspects that are not treated (in detail) herein, e.g.: The validity of the curves used for reduction on lift and drag due to the presence of gaps, The length of the considered pipeline section, and Local effects on span shoulders. NOMENCLATURE D Pipe hydrodynamic diameter.
CD CL CM CY* C
* Z

RR

Correction factor on passive resistance due to the presence of free spans. Relative passive resistance R = FR / FC . Correction factor on required submerged weight due to change in resistance due to presence of free spans. Correction factor on required submerged due to change in loads and resistance due to presence of free spans. Fraction of free spans, i.e. fraction of a pipeline (section) that is not in contact with the seabed.

R
* RLR

* RL

sf

HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS In the absolute stability criterion in DNV-RP-F109, peak load coefficients are presented for the horizontal (drag plus inertia) force and the vertical (lift) force that acts on the * pipeline, CY* and C Z , respectively. These are highly dependent on the current to wave ratio M* and the Keulegan-Carpenter number K*. Some of these are presented below. Table 1 Peak horizontal force coefficients K* CY* 2.5 10 40 0.0 13.0 4.55 2.40 0.2 9.02 3.15 1.58 M* 1.0 3.25 1.75 1.34 5.0 1.11 1.07 1.01 Table 2 Peak vertical force coefficients K* * CZ 2.5 10 0.0 5.00 4.85 0.2 3.16 3.74 M* 0.5 1.05 1.28 1.0 0.91 0.93

100 1.52 1.18 1.01 1.00

Drag coefficient. Lift coefficient. Inertia coefficient. Peak horizontal force coefficient. Peak vertical force coefficient. Pipe soil contact pressure. Passive soil resistance. Peak Keulegan-Carpenter number. Peak current to wave ratio. Correction factor on drag factor due to the presence of free spans. Correction factor on lift factor due to the presence of free spans. Correction factor on horizontal peak load factor due to the presence of free spans. Correction factor on vertical peak load factor due to the presence of free spans. Correction factor on required submerged weight due to change in loads due to the presence of free spans.

40 2.26 1.45 0.91 0.90

100 1.26 1.00 0.90 0.90

FC FR
K*

M*
RD RL RY*
* RZ

* RLL

There are several sources in the literature that presents hydrodynamic loads on a pipeline as functions of the gap between pipeline and seabed, e.g. Refs. [4], [5] and [6]. For the sake of this study, those presented in DNVs Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems from 1981, DNV81, Ref. [4] are used. The reduction factors on drag and lift are plotted versus gap height in Figure 1 below. It is recognized that these curves are valid for constant current only and that they show a larger reduction than other sources, see e.g. Ref. [10]. However, they are deemed appropriate for the rough calculations presented herein. It is seen from the graph below that the drag coefficient is reduced by approximately 40 per cent with a relative gap height in the range of 0.2 whereas the lift coefficient is reduced by about 80 per cent with the same gap height. Furthermore, an increase in gap height beyond this has a much smaller effect on the hydrodynamic loads.

Copyright 2010 by ASME

Note that any vortex induced vibrations in a free span which will increase the horizontal loads significantly is neglected in the simplified approach presented here.
1.0

0.8

Another simplification made above is to neglect the fact that the lift force reduces the contact force and thus the resistance and the critical phase angle for on-bottom stability. The effect of this depends also on the applied friction coefficient and is neglected here. This is a conservative simplification since it would shift the critical phase angle towards a drag dominating situation and increase the reduction applied to the drag contribution. The relative force contribution from drag FD is thus calculated as:
* FD C D (cos + M ) = 2 FY* CY* (1 + M * ) 2

Reduction factor [-]

Drag
0.6

(2)

0.4

Using the critical phase angles above the approximate ratios between drag force and total horizontal force are found as presented in Table 4.
Lift

0.2

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Relative gap height e/D [-] Figure 1 Reduction factors on lift and drag from DNV81 Now, the peak horizontal load calculated from the procedure in DNV-RP-F109 includes the contributions from both drag force and inertia force whereas the load reduction plotted in Figure 1 applies to drag alone. Furthermore, these loads are out of phase and one needs thus to separate these two components:
FY* = 1 2 2 w D C D U * (cos + M * ) 2 2 D 1 2 + w C M * U * sin 2 K

Table 4 Drag to total load contributions K* FD / FY* 2.5 10 40 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.2 0.00 0.05 0.57 M* 1.0 0.11 0.43 0.73 5.0 0.80 0.92 0.99

100 0.64 0.83 0.99 1.00

(1)

The phase angles where maximum horizontal load occurs are tabulated in Table 3 with the simplifying assumption of a drag force equal to 1 and an inertia coefficient equal to 3.29. It is seen that for small values of K* and M*, the inertia for dominates and the maximum load occurs at 90 when the inertia force has its maximum and that for large values of K* and M*, it occurs close to zero degrees when the drag force is at its maximum. Table 3 Phase angles in degrees for maximum horizontal force K* 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 90 90 24 9 0.2 88 73 20 8 M* 1.0 80 43 12 5 5.0 49 15 4 2

SOIL MODELS In RP-F109 Soil resistance is assumed to consist of two parts: a pure Coulomb friction part and a so-called passive resistance FR due to soil penetration. These models are taken from Refs. [7] and [8]. The total weight of a pipeline is obviously not dependent on whether it is in contact with the seabed or not. Hence, the Coulomb friction component is assumed not to be dependent on the fraction of pipeline length that is in contact with the seabed. In the following DNV-RP-F109 recommendation for lower bound lateral friction coefficients of 0.2 and 0.6 for a clayey and a sandy seabed, respectively, are assumed. Passive resistance FR on sand and clay can be calculated according to Equations (3) and (4) for sand and clay, respectively: 1.25 z (5.0 s 0.15 s2 ) p if s 26.7 D FR = 1.25 FC zp (3) if s > 26.7 s D ' D 2 s' D 2 , FC = ws FY s = s = ws FY FC
FR 4.1 c = FC G 0.39 G= z p D
1.31

su s D s D and c = u = u D s ws FY FC

(4)

Copyright 2010 by ASME

Relative passive resistance [-]

The passive resistance is dependent on soil penetration which is here based on initial penetration due to self weight only, and can be calculated by Equations (5) for sand and (6) for clay: z pi 0.67 (5) = 0.037 s D

0.30

0.25

s g = 1.1

0.20

z pi

G 0.3 G 0.3 = 0.0071 + 0.062 D c c

3.2

0.7

s g = 2.0
0.15

(6)

0.10

Figure 2 shows the relation between relative soil penetration and contact pressure between pipe and soil for a typical sand with submerged density equal to 10kN/m3 and three different clays with dry weight equal to 18kN/m3. Both the sand and the clay models depend moderately on the soil density which is not investigated further here. For clay, however, there is in addition a very strong dependency on the un-drained shear strength su. The effect of this is investigated by varying the un-drained shear strength su so that the non dimensional parameter G = su/(Ds) obtains the values 0.056 (soft clay), 0.56 (medium clay) and 5.6 (stiff clay).
0.05

0.05

0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

Relative penetration z/D [-] Figure 3 Relative passive resistance on sand Figures 4 and 5 shows passive resistance for pipes on clay as function of soil penetration, Figure 4 for the very light pipe with specific gravity sg equal to 1.1 and Figure 5 for a relatively heavy pipe with sg = 2.0. Again the square markers indicate the obtained penetration and corresponding relative penetration for the specific pipe and soil characteristics. It is seen that (except for the heavy pipe sg = 2.0 on very soft soil G = 0.056) the relative passive resistance ranges between 0.11 (sg = 2.0, G = 5.6) to 0.15 (sg = 1.1, G = 0.056). The values obtained for relative passive resistance can be compared directly to the Coulomb friction factor of 0.2. The passive resistance based on self weight only on clay is in the range of 55 75 per cent of Coulomb friction compared to the ratio 12 13 per cent seen above for sand. The extreme case (sg = 2.0, G = 0.056) has a relative passive resistance of 0.62.
0.30

Soft clay

Medium clay

Relative penetration z/D [-]

0.04

0.03

Sand
0.02

0.01

Stiff clay

0.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000

G = 5.56

Relative passive resistance [-]

Submerged weight ws [N/m] Figure 2 Relative penetration versus contact pressure The two curves in Figure 3 show typical relations between relative penetration and relative passive resistance for one very light and one relatively heavy pipe on a sandy seabed calculated according to Eq. (3). The two markers indicate the initial penetration that the two pipes will obtain due to self weight and the corresponding passive resistance. It is worthwhile to note that this passive resistance is for both pipes approximately equal to 0.08, i.e. 12 13 per cent of the Coulomb friction factor. An outer pipe diameter of 0.5m is used throughout the examples shown herein.

0.25

G = 0.56

0.20

G = 0.056

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Relative penetration z/D [-] Figure 4 Relative passive resistance clay, sg = 1.1

Copyright 2010 by ASME

0.80 0.70

G = 5.56

Relative passive resistance [-]

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30

G = 0.56

G = 0.056

with e.g. a high force close to the touch down points and less force a distance from the free span. This local effect is neglected in this study as the weight from the pipe in free spans is assumed to be smeared uniformly over the sections where contact exists. Hence, the results from this limited study can be regarded as a first order assessment of the effect that free spans have on on-bottom stability, see also Ref. [9].
0.10

Relative passive resistance [-]

0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

0.08

0.06

s g = 1.1 s g = 2.0

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.04

Relative penetration z/D [-] Figure 5 Relative passive resistance clay, sg = 2.0 Obviously, the pipe will lose all passive resistance in the free spans proportional to the span fraction sf. On the other hand the pipe weight in the free spans will have to be carried by the soil where contact exists and thus the contact force will here be locally increased. This will give rise to a local increase in soil penetration and passive resistance. The question then is whether this locally increased passive resistance is sufficient to compensate for the loss of resistance in the free spans. The figures below will show that this is entirely dependent upon pipe data, soil conditions and also free span fractions. Figures 6, 7 and 8 attempts to illustrate qualitatively what happens when free spans are introduced in the model. First Figure 6 where the dashed curves show the trajectories that are followed when spans are introduced for a pipe on a sandy seabed. It is seen that for the lighter pipe with sg = 1.1, the trajectory is very steep upwards meaning that both penetration and passive resistance increases, before it at a relative penetration of approximately 0.013 reaches a maximum. For larger span fractions the relative penetration continues to increase, however, the local passive resistance increase is no longer sufficient to compensate the total loss of resistance in the increased amount of free spans. The heavier pipe with sg = 2.0 experiences a loss in total resistance as soon as the first fractions of spans are introduced. It is interesting to note that the trajectory for the lighter pipe seems to merge with the trajectory for the heavier pipe for the same relative penetration. This variability in model response is due to its dependency on the non-dimensional sand soil parameter s presented in Eq. (3). With the pipe and soil parameters used herein and with no free spans, s equals 12.5 for sg = 1.1 and 1.25 for sg = 2.0. When introducing free spans this parameter is assumed to increase by the divisor (1 sf) in the locations where contact exists. By choosing e.g. a different pipe diameter (0.5m is used herein) the range for the non-dimensional sand soil parameter will be shifted, and the soil model response to free spans will be different. Furthermore, it should be noted that the contact force between a pipe and soil will vary a lot when free spans exists

0.02

0.00 0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Relative penetration z/D [-] Figure 6 Relative passive resistance on sand Similar plots are presented for a clayey seabed, the lighter pipe in Figure 7, the heavier pipe in Figure 8. Again, it is seen that the response from the soil model varies significantly. The light pipe on stiff clay, G = 5.56 in Figure 7, experiences loss of resistance from the first fractions of spans and this reduction, although the slope decreases, continues as more free spans are introduced. With a softer soil, e.g. G = 0.056, the initial decrease is much less pronounced and for a larger fraction of spans, the total passive resistance starts to increase. For the heavier pipe shown in Figure 8, this change in response continues; on a medium soft and very soft clay, this heavy pipe experiences a markedly increase in total resistance from the first free span fraction that increases significantly as the span fraction increases. The variability in model response is again due to its dependency on the non-dimensional soil parameter c presented in Eq. (4). With the pipe and soil parameters used herein and with no free spans and sg = 1.1, c equals 1.25 for G = 0.056, 12.5 for G = 0.56 and 125 for G = 5.6. For sg = 2.0, c is decreased by a factor 10 for the three values of G. It should, however, be noted that a free spanning pipeline on a clayey seabed will most likely rest on a relatively stiff clay. This is obviously because the pipe will rest on peaks and that these peaks will not be soft, that is why they form peaks on the seabed. Hence, the examples with the very soft soil are deemed to be more of academic interest.

Copyright 2010 by ASME

G = 5.56

Accumulated fraction [-]

0.30

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

Relative passive resistance [-]

0.25

G = 0.56 G = 0.056

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

Relative gap height e/D [-] Figure 9 Gap height distribution

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

0.00 0.00

Relative penetration z/D [-] Figure 7 Relative passive resistance clay, sg = 1.1
0.80 0.70

G = 5.56

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

G = 0.56

G = 0.056

Accumulated load correction factors [-]

Relative penetration z/D [-] Figure 8 Relative passive resistance clay, sg = 2.0

FREE SPANS AND LOADS The effect that the free spans have on the total loads on the pipeline is assessed by smearing out the total load on a pipeline section with the span distribution shown in Figure 8. One may then integrate the loads from the fractions of pipeline with increasing gap height and scale this to the loads without correction for free spans. Figure 10 shows the accumulated force correction factors for lift and drag, assuming the gap height distribution shown in Figure 9 and the correction factors in Figure 1. It is seen that with the assumption above with 75% of the pipeline in contact with the seabed, it starts off at 0.75 (75% of the length is in contact with the seabed and is thus without correction), then the contributions from the fraction of pipeline length with increasing gap height, and thus decreased hydrodynamic forces, decreases significantly. E.g. for e/D > 0.5, the lift force correction factor is less than 0.1 and the contribution from the fraction of pipeline with this span height decreases. Hence, the added lift force contribution from the high spans is close to zero. The correction factors that would apply to the pipeline are the accumulated values at maximum gap height, in this case e/D = 2: 0.89 on the drag force and 0.78 on the lift force.
1.0 0.9 0.8 Lift 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.89 Drag 0.78

SPAN DISTRIBUTION In order to assess the effect that free spans have on onbottom stability, one must know, or assume, the fraction of pipeline that is spanning and the span height distribution for the pipeline (section) in question. This may be presented as in Figure 9 where it is assumed, as an example, that 75% of the pipeline has contact with the seabed (e/D = 0) and the accumulated fraction of span height increases linearly up to the highest span of two diameters. E.g. 90% of the pipeline has a span height less than 1.2 diameters. Obviously, the simplified linear distribution assumed below is no restriction to the approach presented in the following.

Relative passive resistance [-]

Relative gap height e/D [-] Figure 10 Accumulated load reduction factors
* For the vertical (lift) force, the correction factor RZ = 0.78 can be applied directly to the peak load whereas the correction factor on the horizontal load should only be applied to the drag component with the fractions given in Table 4 depending on the current to wave ratio M* and the Keulegan-Carpenter number

Copyright 2010 by ASME

K*. The results from this exercise are the numbers presented in Table 5. It is seen that no reduction is obtained for low values of K* and M* where the inertia term dominates whereas a factor RY* = 0.89 is obtained at the other extreme where drag is totally dominant.

Table 5 Correction factor on peak horizontal load K* RY* 2.5 10 40 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.2 0.99 0.99 0.94 M* 1.0 0.95 0.95 0.92 5.0 0.91 0.90 0.89

100 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.89

Table 7 - Correction factors on submerged weight neglecting free span effect on soil resistance with = 0.2 and FR = 0 K* * RLL 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 0.99 0.96 0.93 0.91 0.2 0.99 0.95 0.91 0.89 M* 0.5 0.98 0.93 0.90 0.87 1.0 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87
Two additional cases have been assessed in order to illustrate the effect of gap distribution. The case labeled 1 below is the case presented above, whereas case 2 has more spans with only 65% seabed contact, however the same two diameter as a maximum span height. Case 3 has also 65% contact fraction plus a larger fraction of high spans, up to three times the diameter. From the resulting load reduction factors presented Table 8 it is evident that an increase in the fraction of low spans has a major effect on the reduction factors whereas an increase in higher spans but maintaining the span fraction has little additional effect. This is of course as a result of the shape of the reduction factors shown in Figure 1; as the curves flatten out when the relative gap height exceeds 0.4.

If only Coulomb friction is accounted for in the soil resistance, one can assess the effect that the load correction factors has on required weight for (absolute) on-bottom stability. By using the non-dimensional weight parameter L*, this can be assessed by the following formula:
L* = CY*

* + CZ ,

L* =

ws 2 0.5 w D U * (1 + M * )

(4)

A correction factor on required submerged weight due to reduced loads can thus be expressed as
* RLL = * * RY* CY* + RZ C Z * * CY + CZ

Accumulated fraction [-]

(5)

1.00 0.90 1 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3

If one neglects the effect that the free spans have on soil resistance, the results presented in Table 6 ( = 0.2 clay) and Table ( = 0.6 sand) are obtained. It is seen that the effect is more predominant for the higher friction coefficient (sand) than the lower (clay). Furthermore, for wave dominated situations and small waves (M* and K* are small) the effect of free spans is moderate, down to a factor of 0.99 on clay and 0.96 on sand. However, for a current (drag) dominated situations and large waves (M* and K* are large) the effect of free spans is significant, reduction in required weight of 15% and 13% on clay.

Relative gap height e/D [-] Figure 11 Alternative gap distributions.

Table 6 - Correction factors on submerged weight neglecting free span effect on soil resistance with = 0.6 and FR = 0 K* * RLL 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 0.96 0.91 0.90 0.88 0.2 0.96 0.90 0.88 0.88 M* 0.5 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.86 1.0 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85

Table 8 Reduction factors

Case 1 2 3
RD RL

0.89 0.84 0.84

0.78 0.69 0.68

FREE SPANS AND RESISTANCE Figure 12 shows plots of relative passive resistance R = FR/FC = FR/ws as function of the fraction of free spans. Only initial penetration due to static self weight is included. Note that Equations 3 and 4 specifies that the lift force should be included when calculating the non-dimensional soil parameters

Copyright 2010 by ASME

s and c. In this present study, these parameters have been

Relative passive resistance [-]
calculated from the submerged weight only, i.e. neglecting the fact that the lift force will reduce the contact pressure. From Figure 12 it is seen that the lighter pipe experiences a total resistance increase of about 10% for a span fraction of 0.25, i.e. 75% of the pipeline is in contact with the seabed. The heavier pipe, however, experiences a decrease in total resistance, approximately 4% for a span fraction of 0.25.
1.20 1.15

1.00

0.99

G = 0.056

0.98

0.97

0.96

Relative passive resistance [-]

G = 0.56 & 5.6

0.95

1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95

s g = 1.1

0.94 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

s g = 2.0
0.90 0.85 0.80 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Free span fraction [-] Figure 13 Relative passive resistance as function of span fraction clay, sg = 1.1
1.20

G = 0.056

Relative passive resistance [-]

1.15

Free span fraction [-] Figure 12 Relative passive resistance as function of span fraction sand In the equation for absolute on bottom stability in DNVRP-F109 it is the absolute passive resistance FR that is to be entered, whereas this paper presents the relative passive resistance R = FR/ws. Note however that these are equivalent in this assessment as the introduction of free spans with a length fraction of sf will increase the local passive resistance by a factor (1 sf) whereas the length over which it acts is reduced by the same factor. Hence, these two effects will cancel and it is sufficient to look at the relative resistance. Figures 13 (light pipe) and 14 (heavy pipe) shows the same plots for a clayey seabed. It is seen that on stiff clays, the pipe monotonically loses resistance when increasing the span fraction whereas the response is somewhat different for softer clays. The light pipe on soft clay initially, for small values of sf, loses resistance whereas this trends is reversed when the sf exceeds approximately 0.4 after which the resistance increases. The decrease is for all cases moderate, less than 3% at sf = 0.25. The heavy pipe also loses resistance on the stiffest clay whereas the resistance is monotonically increasing on the softest clay. However, as stated above, it is very likely that a free spanning pipeline on a clayey seabed will rest on peaks of stiff clay. Hence, the overall reduction is deemed to be more relevant. The decrease at sf = 0.25 is for the stiff clay case less than 3%, very similar to the comparable cases for the lighter pipe.

1.10

G = 0.56
1.05

1.00

G = 5.6
0.95

0.90 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Free span fraction [-] Figure 14 Relative passive resistance as function of span fraction clay, sg = 2.0 One should note that the changes in soil resistance discussed above concerns the passive resistance only as this global approach assumes that the Coulomb friction part of the total resistance is unaffected by introducing free spans. Obviously, since the passive resistance constitutes only a part of the total resistance, the effect that free spans have on the total resistance will be lower than what is presented above. * When RR represents the ratio between passive resistance with spans and passive resistance without spans, the effect that the change in total resistance has on required submerged weight * RLR can be expressed as:
* RLR =

+ R * + RR R

(7)

Copyright 2010 by ASME

Relative increase in required weight [-]

It was shown above that the passive resistance on sand is less than 15% of the Coulomb friction term. A relatively moderate effect from the free spans, as shown in Figure 12, will not have a major effect on the total resistance for a pipe on a sandy seabed. Figure 15 shows the change in resistance due to free spans. Assuming sf = 0.25, the heavier pipe, which experienced a reduction in passive resistance, will require an increased submerged weigh of about 0.5% to compensate for this whereas the lighter pipe, which experienced an increased passive resistance, can reduce its required weight by approximately 1% for the same span fraction.
1.02

1.05

1.04

1.03

G = 0.56 & 5.6

1.02

1.01

Relative increase in required weight [-]

G = 0.056
1.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

1.01

s g = 2.0
1.00

0.99

Free span fraction [-] Figure 16 Increased required weight due to reduced passive resistance clay, sg = 1.1
s g = 1.1
1.03

Relative increase in required weight [-]

0.98

1.02

0.97 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

G = 5.6
1.01 1.00 0.99

Free span fraction [-] Figure 15 Increased required weight due to reduced passive resistance sand Similar plots are presented for a clayey seabed in Figures 16 and 17. The lighter pipe, Figure 16, experiences a decrease in passive resistance and must compensate for this by an increase in submerged weight. It is seen that for sf = 0.25 the increase in required weight is less than 0.5% for the softest clay and about 1% for the two stiffer clays. The heavier pipe, Figure 17, must also have an increased weight in the order of 1% on a stiff clay for sf = 0.25. The heavy pipe on a medium stiff clay may reduce is weight by somewhat more than 1% for sf = 0.25 whereas on the very soft clay (which is argued above to be an unlikely case in reality) can reduce its weight dramatically due to the very large increase in passive resistance when free spans are introduced. It should be kept in mind that passive resistance on clay constitutes a larger fraction of the Coulomb friction compared to sand. Hence, a change in passive resistance will also have a greater effect on the total resistance when compared to a sandy seabed.

G = 0.56
0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

G = 0.056

Free span fraction [-] Figure 17 Increased required weight due to reduced passive resistance clay, sg = 2.0

FREE SPANS AND ON-BOTTOM STABILITY It has been shown above that for all cases the introduction of free spans will reduce the driving loads because of the gap between pipe and seabed. The effect of this varies with the current to wave ratio M* and Keulegan-Carpenter number K* since the peak load factors and the fraction of drag and inertia load depends on these parameters. Furthermore, it has been shown that the effect that free spans have on total resistance is moderate for most cases. Exceptions are the unlikely cases that a pipe is resting on soft clay. The total effect that free spans has on the required submerged weight for lateral on-bottom stability can be * expressed through the factor RL :

Copyright 2010 by ASME

RY* CY*
* * * RL = RLL RLR =

* + RR R

* * + RZ C Z

+ R
CY*

(8)

* + CZ

The overall correction factors are tabulated below for various input parameters, however, all assuming the span fraction presented in Figure 9, i.e. sf = 0.25. For a sandy seabed, = 0.6, the main effect is from the reduced loads, and it is seen from Table 9 that the reduction in required weight is from 3 5% for low values of K* and M* where the inertia force dominates the peak horizontal load to 14 15% for high values of K* and M* where the drag force dominates the peak horizontal load. From Tables 10 and 11 it is seen that the same effect occurs for most cases on a clayey seabed, however, slightly higher correction factors, typically 1% for low values of K* and M* and 12 14% for high values of K* and M*. The one exception is the very heavy pipe on a very soft clay for which it was shown above experiences a very large, and beneficial, soil effect and correction factors down to 0.5 is seen in Table 11. However, this latter case is deemed of little practical interest it is not likely that a free spanning pipeline on a clayey seabed will rest on peaks of very soft clay.

Table 9 - Reduction factors on submerged weight - sand sf = 0.25, = 0.6, sg = 1.1 K* * RL 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 0.95 0.90 0.89 0.87 0.2 0.95 0.90 0.87 0.85 * M 0.5 0.94 0.89 0.87 0.84 1.0 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 sf = 0.25, = 0.6, sg = 2.0 K* * RL 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 0.97 0.92 0.90 0.88 0.2 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.87 M* 0.5 0.96 0.90 0.88 0.85 1.0 0.887 0.86 0.85 0.85
In this context it is worthwhile to keep in mind that the submerged weight discussed above can differ greatly from the fabricated dry weight. For sg = 1.1, the submerged weight is only 10% of the dry weight and a reduction of e.g. 10% in submerged weight constitutes only 1% reduction in dry weight. The practical effect of free spans is hence even smaller than what is indicated above. For sg = 2.0, the submerged weight constitutes half the dry weight and a reduction of 10% in submerged weight constitutes 5% reduction in dry weight.

Table 10 - Reduction factors on submerged weight clay & light pipe sf = 0.25, = 0.2, sg = 1.1, G = 0.056 K* * RL 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.91 0.2 0.99 0.96 0.92 0.89 M* 0.5 0.98 0.94 0.91 0.88 1.0 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.88 sf = 0.25, = 0.2, sg = 1.1, G = 0.56 K* * RL 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.92 0.2 0.99 0.96 0.92 0.90 M* 0.5 0.99 0.94 0.91 0.88 1.0 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 sf = 0.25, = 0.2, sg = 1.1, G = 5.6 K* * RL 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.92 0.2 0.99 0.96 0.92 0.90 M* 0.5 0.98 0.94 0.91 0.88 1.0 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 Table 11 - Reduction factors on submerged weight clay & heavy pipe sf = 0.25, = 0.2, sg = 2.0, G = 0.056 K* * RL 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 0.56 0.54 0.53 0.51 0.2 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.50 M* 0.5 0.55 0.53 0.51 0.49 1.0 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 sf = 0.25, = 0.2, sg = 2.0, G = 0.56 K* * RL 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.2 0.97 0.94 0.90 0.88 M* 0.5 0.96 0.92 0.89 0.86 1.0 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 sf = 0.25, = 0.2, sg = 2.0, G = 5.6 K* * RL 2.5 10 40 100 0.0 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.91 0.2 0.99 0.96 0.92 0.90 M* 0.5 0.98 0.94 0.91 0.88 1.0 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88

10

Copyright 2010 by ASME

CONCLUSIVE SUMMARY The following comments can be used to summarise the discussion within this paper: Free spans will reduce the hydrodynamic loads on a pipeline which is beneficial for on-bottom stability. The total effect depends largely on the ratio between drag and inertia force. Free spans will locally increase the contact pressure between pipe and soil which again will affect the passive resistance. The sand model used in DNV-RP-F109 predicts a small total effect from free spans, and depending on pipe weight the effect may be positive or negative. The clay model used in DNV-RP-F109 predicts, for most relevant cases, a small total effect from free spans, and depending on pipe weight and clay stiffness the effect may be positive or negative. For a span fraction of 0.25 and small values of K* and M*, it is estimated that, for most relevant cases, the total effect on required submerged weight is negligible. For a span fraction of 0.25 and high values of K* and M*, it is estimated that, for most relevant cases, the required submerged can be reduced by approximately 15%. REFERENCES
[1] DNV-RP-F109, DNV Recommended Practice, OnBottom Stability of Submarine Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas. [2] PONDUS Technical Manual, Marintek, Trondheim Norway. [3] Submarine Pipeline On-Bottom Stability Analysis and Design Guidelines, PRCI. [4] DNV-RP-F105, DNV Recommended Practice, Free Spanning Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas. [5] DNV81, DNV Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det Norske Veritas. [6] Sumer, B.M. and Freds, J.: Hydrodynamics around Cylindrical Structures, Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering Volume 12, World Scientific, London , 1997. [7] R. L. P. Verley and T. Sotberg: A Soil Resistance Model for Pipelines Placed on Sandy Soils, OMAE Volume 5A, 1992. [8] R. L. P. Verley and K. M. Lund: A Soil Resistance Model for Pipelines Placed on Clay Soils, OMAE Volume 5, 1995. [9] K. Vedeld, H. Sollund and O. Aamlid: Effects of Free Spans on On-Bottom Stability of Offshore Pipelines A Local Approach, OMAE 2010. [10] P. Justesen: Hydrodynamic Forces on Large Cylinders in Oscillatory Flow, Journal of waverway, port, coastal and ocean engineering, Vol 115, No. 4, July 1989

11

Copyright 2010 by ASME