Uplift resistance of buried submarine pipelines: comparison between centrifuge modelling and full-scale tests

Palmer, Andrew; White, David; Baumgard, A.J.; Bolton, M. D.; Barefoot, A.J.; Finch, M.; Powell, Toby; Faranski, A.S.; Baldry, Jas

doi:10.1680/geot.53.10.877.37522

Cited by 28 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The integrated effect of this behaviour is for a reduced N ª factor to be recorded for a larger shallow foundation, ignoring variations in strength and dilatancy with stress level. This type of progressive failure, leading to a reduced peak resistance, has been observed inside shear boxes, [23][24][25] and demonstrated analytically by Palmer et al 26 A reduction factor due to progressive failure along slip planes is not applicable to deep foundations, as failure does not occur through the propagation of shear bands along planes of slip.…”

Section: Soft Layermentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparing CPT and pile base resistance in sand

White

Bolton

2005

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The comprehensive database of load tests on closed-ended piles in sand has been re-examined to study the relationship between CPT resistance, qc, and ultimate base capacity, qb. The aim is to establish the origin of low reported values of qb/qc which contrast with continuum models that suggest qb = qc for steady deep penetration. Partial embedment of the pile tip into a hard layer underlying weak material has been accounted for by weighting qc. Partial mobilisation has been accounted for by defining failure according to a plunging criterion. When these two mechanisms are considered, the resulting values of qb/qc have a mean value of 0·90 and show no trend with pile diameter. The remaining slight underprediction of the ‘continuum’ model (qb = qc) could be attributed to the underestimation of plunging load in pile tests for which steady penetration is not reached. This exercise makes two contributions: first, it is suggested that any reduction of qc when estimating the end bearing capacity of closed-ended piles in sand should be linked to partial embedment and partial mobilisation, rather than absolute diameter; second, the dearth of high-quality pile load test data in the public domain is highlighted.

show abstract

Section: Soft Layermentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparing CPT and pile base resistance in sand

White

Bolton

2005

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on experimental data obtained from their study and a few studies found in the literature, (Dickin, 1994), results from strip anchor plates (Dickin & Laman, 2007) and the study undertaken by White et al (2001). As mentioned before, Palmer et al (2003) indicated that centrifuge test data may not be representative of the mobilised displacement associated with upheaval bucking. Although Dickin & Laman (2007) suggest that similar behaviour may be expected for both anchor plates and pipelines, they also highlight that 'significant differences do exist in displacements to failure'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Palmer et al (2003) reported that the peak uplift resistance shows good agreement between centrifuge and 1g modelling tests but indicated inconsistencies in the dimensionless mobilisation displacement because of localised shear zone formation. As a result, caution should be taken when centrifuge data of mobilisation distances are used for design purposes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uplift mobilisation resistance of subsea pipelines in loose sand

Ivanović¹,

Oliphant

2014

Géotechnique Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Upheaval buckling (UHB) is a well-known phenomenon associated with buried high-pressure hightemperature pipelines. A large number of research studies have been undertaken in the last two decades on developing reliable uplift resistance mobilisation models from which the current standards and recommendations are based. This paper examines Technip's extensive database consisting of experimental and numerical studies concerning sandy backfills only. The peak uplift mobilisation distances obtained are compared with the current DNV recommendations and a recent experimental study undertaken at the University of Cambridge. The trends obtained indicate differences associated specifically with the lower backfill cover depths and suggest that the current recommendations need to be updated. A new improved peak mobilisation distance model, which is able to capture the relevant data with a distinction made between very loose and loose sand backfill, is offered.

show abstract

“…Many researchers found that the pipe/soil interaction characteristics also affect the upheaval buckling behavior of submarine pipeline Schaminee and Zorn, 1990;Palmer, 2003;Newson and Deljoui, 2006;Cheuk et al, 2007;Merified et al, 2008). The uplift resistance and the mobilization distance are two important parameters which affect the critical axial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%