4.7 Article

Study on the dynamic embedment variation of shallow embedded submarine pipelines in sand

Journal

OCEAN ENGINEERING
Volume 290, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.116335

Keywords

Submarine pipelines; Pipe-soil interaction; Cyclic motion; Model tests; Finite element model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The clarification of the pipe-soil interaction mechanism is crucial for the design of in-situ stability of shallow embedded pipes in subsea areas. This study investigates the effects of horizontal cyclic motion on soil and proposes a method for calculating dynamic embedment depth.
The clarification of the pipe-soil interaction mechanism is a critical link in the design of the in-situ stability of shallow embedded pipes in subsea areas, and the in-situ embedment of pipelines is an important parameter in the pipe-soil interaction mechanism. A large-scale plane strain model test was performed for a shallow embedded pipeline with horizontal cyclic motion in sand. Additionally, a numerical analysis model that is applicable to multicycle submarine pipe-soil interactions in sand was constructed, which can consider the dynamic change in the pore ratio of sand during the motion of a shallow buried pipeline. The development law of dynamic embedment and factors influencing the pipeline after multiple horizontal cycles were studied. A method for calculating the dynamic embedment of pipelines in sandy soil was proposed. The results reveal that horizontal cyclic movement of the pipe in sandy soil increases the embedment depth, and dynamic embedment rises by 1.09-11.78 times depending on the initial state of the pipeline. Furthermore, a soil berm rises on both sides of the pipe following cycling, and the sand around the pipe is sheared and shrunken, causing a large increase in soil resistance during the horizontal movement of the shallow embedded pipe.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available