0
Research Papers: Offshore Geotechnics

Two-Dimensional Model for Pore Pressure Accumulations in the Vicinity of a Buried Pipeline

[+] Author and Article Information
H.-Y. Zhao

Griffith School of Engineering,
Griffith University,
Gold Coast Campus,
Gold Coast, Queensland 4222, Australia
e-mail: hongyi.zhao@griffithuni.edu.au

D.-S. Jeng

Professor
Griffith School of Engineering,
Griffith University,
Gold Coast Campus,
Gold Coast, Queensland 4222, Australia
e-mail: d.jeng@griffith.edu.au

Z. Guo

College of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China
e-mail: nehzoug@163.com

J.-S. Zhang

Professor
State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water
Resources and Hydraulic Engineering,
Hohai University,
Nanjing 210098, China;
College of Harbor,
Coastal and Offshore Engineering,
Hohai University,
Nanjing 210098, China
e-mail: jszhang@hhu.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received November 12, 2013; final manuscript received May 5, 2014; published online August 4, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Colin Leung.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 136(4), 042001 (Aug 04, 2014) (16 pages) Paper No: OMAE-13-1107; doi: 10.1115/1.4027955 History: Received November 12, 2013; Revised May 05, 2014

In this paper, we presented an integrated numerical model for the wave-induced residual liquefaction around a buried offshore pipeline. In the present model, unlike previous investigations, two new features were added in the present model: (i) new definition of the source term for the residual pore pressure generations was proposed and extended from 1D to 2D; (ii) preconsolidation due to self-weight of the pipeline was considered. The present model was validated by comparing with the previous experimental data for the cases without a pipeline and with a buried pipeline. Based on the numerical model, first, we examined the effects of seabed, wave and pipeline characteristics on the pore pressure accumulations and residual liquefaction. The numerical results indicated a pipe with a deeper buried depth within the seabed with larger consolidation coefficient and relative density can reduce the risk of liquefaction around a pipeline. Second, we investigated the effects of a trench layer on the wave-induced seabed response. It is found that the geometry of the trench layer (thickness and width), as well as the backfill materials (permeability K and relative density Dr) have significant effect on the development of liquefaction zone around the buried pipeline. Furthermore, under certain conditions, partially backfill the trench layer up to one pipeline diameter is sufficient to protect the pipelines from the wave-induced liquefaction.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Seed, H. B., and Rahman, M. S., 1978, “Wave-Induced Pore Pressure in Relation to Ocean Floor Stability of Cohesionless Soils,” Mar. Geotechnol., 3(2), pp. 123–150. [CrossRef]
Madsen, O. S., 1978, “Wave-Induced Pore Pressures and Effective Stresses in a Porous Bed,” Géotechnique, 28(4), pp. 377–393. [CrossRef]
Hsu, J. R. C., and Jeng, D.-S., 1994, “Wave-Induced Soil Response in an Unsaturated Anisotropic Seabed of Finite Thickness,” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 18(11), pp. 785–807. [CrossRef]
Sumer, B. M., and Fredsøe, J., 2002, The Mechanism of Scour in the Marine Environment, World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ.
Jeng, D.-S., Seymour, B. R., and Li, J., 2007, “A New Approximation for Pore Pressure Accumulation in Marine Sediment Due to Water Wave,” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 31(1), pp. 53–69. [CrossRef]
Jeng, D.-S., 2013, Porous Models for Wave-Seabed Interactions, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.
Zen, K., and Yamazaki, H., 1990, “Mechanism of Wave-Induced Liquefaction and Densification in Seabed,” Soils Found., 30(4), pp. 90–104. [CrossRef]
Cheng, A. H. D., and Liu, P. L.-F., 1986, “Seepage Force on a Pipeline Buried in a Poroelastic Seabed Under Wave Loading,” Appl. Ocean Res., 8(1), pp. 22–32. [CrossRef]
Dunn, S., Vun, P., Chan, A., and Damgaard, J., 2006, “Numerical Modeling of Wave-Induced Liquefaction Around Pipelines,” J. Waterw., Port, Coastal Ocean Eng., 132, pp. 276–288. [CrossRef]
Sumer, B. M., Fredsøe, J., Christensen, S., and Lind, M. T., 1999, “Sinking/Floatation of Pipelines and Other Objects in Liquefied Soil Under Waves,” Coastal Eng., 38, pp. 53–90. [CrossRef]
Gao, F. P., Gu, X. Y., and Jeng, D.-S., 2003, “Physical Modeling of Untrenched Submarine Pipeline Instability,” Ocean Eng., 30(10), pp. 1283–1304. [CrossRef]
Pan, D., Wang, L., Pan, C., and Hu, J., 2007, “Experimental Investigation on the Wave-Induced Pore Pressure Around Shallowly Embedded Pipelines,” Acta Oceanol. Sin., 26, pp. 125–135.
Ulker, M. B. C., Rahman, M. S., and Guddati, M. N., 2012, “Breaking Wave-Induced Response and Instability of Seabed Around Caisson Breakwater,” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 36, pp. 362–390. [CrossRef]
Jeng, D.-S., and Ye, J., 2012, “Three-Dimensional Consolidation of a Porous Unsaturated Seabed Under Rubble Mound Breakwater,” Ocean Eng., 53, pp. 48–59. [CrossRef]
Jeng, D.-S., Ye, J.-H., Zhang, J.-S., and Liu, P. L. F., 2013, “An Integrated Model for the Wave-Induced Seabed Response Around Marine Structures: Model Verifications and Applications,” Coastal Eng., 72, pp. 1–19. [CrossRef]
Gao, F.-P., and Wu, Y.-X., 2006, “Non-Linear Wave Induced Transient Response of Soil Around A Trenched Pipeline,” Ocean Eng., 33, pp. 311–330. [CrossRef]
Lin, P., and Liu, P. L.-F., 1999, “Internal Wave-Maker for Navier–Stokes Equations Models,” ASCE J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 125(4), pp. 207–415. [CrossRef]
Liu, P. L.-F., Lin, P., Chang, K. A., and Sakakiyama, T., 1999, “Numerical Modeling of Wave Interaction With Porous Structures,” ASCE J. Waterw., Port, Coastal Ocean Eng., 125(6), pp. 322–330. [CrossRef]
Lara, J. L., Garcia, N., and Losada, I. J., 2006, “RANS Modeling Applied to Random Wave Interaction With Submerged Permeable Structures,” Coastal Eng., 53, pp. 395–417. [CrossRef]
Rodi, W., 2000, Turbulence Models and Their Application in Hydraulics-State-of-the-Art Review, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Biot, M. A., 1941.,“General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation,” J. Appl. Phys., 26(2), pp. 155–164. [CrossRef]
Jeng, D.-S., and Ye, J., 2012, “Response of Seabed to Natural Loading-Waves and Currents,” ASCE J. Eng. Mech., 138(6), pp. 601–613. [CrossRef]
Jeng, D.-S., and Seymour, B. R., 1997, “Response in Seabed of Finite Depth With Variable Permeability,” ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 123(10), pp. 902–911. [CrossRef]
Ulker, M. B. C., Rahman, M. S., and Jeng, D.-S., 2009, “Wave-Induced Response of Seabed: Various Formulations and Their Applicability,” Appl. Ocean Res., 31(1), pp. 12–24. [CrossRef]
Sumer, B. M., Kirca, V. S. O., and Fredsøe, J., 2012, “Experimental Validation of a Mathematical Model for Seabed Liquefaction Under Waves,” Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng., 22, pp. 133–141.
de Alba, P., Seed, H. B., and Chan, C. K., 1976, “Sand Liquefaction in Large-Scale Simple Shear Tests,” ASCE J. Geotech. Div., 102, pp. 909–928.
Liu, B., and Jeng, D.-S., 2013, “Laboratory Study for Pore Pressure in Sandy Bed Under Wave Loading,” 23rd International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, (ISOPE2013), Anchorage, AK, June 30–July 5, pp. 1432–1437.
Turcotte, B. R., Liu, P. L.-F., and Kulhawy, F. H., 1984, “Laboratory Evaluation of Wave Tank Parameters for Wave-Sediment Interaction,” Joseph F. Defree Hydraulic Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Technical Report No. 84–1.
Sumer, B. M., Truelsen, C., and Fredsøe, J., 2006, “Liquefaction Around Pipelines Under Waves,” J. Waterw., Port, Coastal Ocean Eng., 132, pp. 266–275. [CrossRef]
Sassa, S., Sekiguchi, H., and Miyamamot, J., 2001, “Analysis of Progressive Liquefaction as Moving-Boundary Problem,” Géotechnique, 51(10), pp. 847–857. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Sketch of wave-seabed-pipeline interactions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Mechanisms of wave-induced pore pressures (not in scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Distribution of vertical distribution of maximum wave-induced oscillatory pore pressure versus relative soil depth. Notation: solid lines = the present 2D model; symbols = 1D experimental results [27], and dashed lines = the analytical solution [3].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Verification of the present seabed-pipe model against experimental data in Ref. [28]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of model results with the experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of the residual pore pressure between the present numerical model and experimental data [12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The distribution of the initial effective stress near a pipeline after consolidation in seabed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Development of liquefaction zone around the pipeline (a) without preconsolidation due to self-weight of a pipeline; and (b) with preconsolidation due to self-weight of a pipeline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure with different initial effective stress conditions at three different locations (black lines (2, −2)—point A, red lines (0, −2.5)—point B, blue lines (10, −2.5)—point C, referring to Fig. 1, see online version for color.). Notation: solid lines = with preconsolidation due to self-weight of a pipeline; dashed lines = without preconsolidation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure at the bottom of the pipeline for different buried depth (e)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Development of liquefaction zone in the vicinity of a buried pipeline (solid lines) and no pipeline (dashed lined) for various buried depth (e)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure at the bottom of the pipeline for various specific gravity of pipeline (γp)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Development of liquefaction zone for different specific gravity of pipeline (γp)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

The distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure at the bottom of the pipeline for various consolidation coefficient (cv)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Development of liquefaction zone for various consolidation coefficient (cv)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

The distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure at the bottom of the pipeline for various consolidation coefficient (Dr)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Development of liquefaction zone around the pipeline for various soil relative density (Dr)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

The distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure at the bottom of the pipeline for various wave height (H), d = 12 m and T = 10 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Development of liquefaction zone in the vicinity of the buried pipeline for various wave height (H)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

The distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure at the bottom of the pipeline for various water depth (d)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Development of liquefaction zone in the vicinity of the buried pipeline for various water depth (d)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

The distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure at the bottom of the pipeline for various wave period (T)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Development of liquefaction zone in the vicinity of the buried pipeline for various wave period (T)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Wave-seabed-pipe interaction within a trench layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Development of liquefaction zone around the pipeline within the trench soil with various permeability K˜ of the backfill material at different wave cycle. (Hb = B = 1.6 m)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure at the bottom of the pipeline within the trench soil with various permeability K˜. (Hb = B = 1.6 m)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Development of liquefaction zone around the pipeline within the trench soil with various relative density D˜r of the backfill material at different wave cycle (Hb = B = 1.6 m)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure at the bottom of the pipeline within the trench soil with various relative density D˜r (Hb = B = 1.6 m)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Development of liquefaction zone versus wave cycle with different trench width W (Hb = B = 1.6 m)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure versus wave cycle at the bottom of the pipeline with various trench width W (Hb = B = 1.6 m)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Development of liquefaction zone versus wave cycle with different trench thickness B (Hb = B)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure versus wave cycle at the bottom of the pipeline with various trench width B (Hb = B)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 33

Velocity field for various thickness of backfill material Hb

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 34

Development of liquefaction zone versus wave cycle with various thickness of backfill material Hb

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 35

Distribution of wave-induced residual pore pressure versus wave cycle at the bottom of the pipeline with various thickness of backfill material Hb

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In