 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Dynamic onbottom stability analysis of subsea pipelines using finite element modelbased general offshore analysis software: a case study
BeniSuef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences volume 11, Article number: 36 (2022)
Abstract
Background
The dynamic onbottom stability analysis represents a fundamental task in the design process of the subsea pipelines. Such analysis ensures the stability of the aslaid pipeline on the seabed against the lateral displacements, which are induced by the surrounding hydrodynamic forces. In this paper, the dynamic onbottom stability analysis of a subsea pipeline is performed using finite elementbased advanced offshore engineering simulation software called Flexcom. The latter predicts the pipeline response in a timedomain simulation based on a given environmental condition (i.e., the sea state, the soil frictional resistance, and the nonlinear behavior of the pipeline). A case study is conducted on a 22in.diameter pipeline, which is placed on a sandy soil in shallow water, under different loading combinations from twodimensional irregular waves and a steady current.
Results
The resultant maximum lateral displacements and the associated stresses decreased by increasing the concrete weight coating thickness. Pipeline response due to drag, lift, and inertia forces increased by increasing the total water particle velocity induced from the summation of waveinduced particle velocity and current velocity. Different random wave patterns generated from different random seed numbers assigned to wave components are important to verify the selection of the concrete weight coating thickness. Ignoring passive soil resistance reduced the total soil resistance significantly and resulted in conservative stability weight requirement.
Conclusions
Several factors influence the pipeline stability such as pipeline submerged weight, hydrodynamic loads induced by random sea states, and soil friction model being used. The dynamic onbottom stability analysis can optimize the design and results in less concrete weight coating if the actual case is modeled accurately; therefore, ignoring passive soil resistance reduced the prime advantage of this analysis compared to other simplified methods.
Background
Various design methods may be employed for onbottom stability assessment of the subsea pipelines on the basis of hydrodynamic loads and soil resistance. These methods may be split into three categories as follows [49]. The first category includes the static analysis methods which are based on the forcebalance calculation that is firstly introduced in DNV 1976 [15] and in which the pipeline movement is not allowed under the extreme sea state; these methods include Level 1 program of Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) of the American Gas Association (AGA) and absolute lateral static stability (ALSS) method presented in RPF109 [16]. The second category includes the empirical or calibrated design methods such as the Level 2 program of the PRCI of the AGA [18, 33] which is known as AGA Level 2, and the generalized lateral stability (GLS) method presented in RPF109 [16, 17, 25]. The third category includes the dynamic lateral stability (DLS) analysis, which is based on the timedomain simulation of the pipeline dynamic response, the sea stateinduced hydrodynamic loads, and the pipe–soil interaction, using specialized finite element (FE) software packages. The DLS analysis usually represents the basis for validating other calibrated methods, to ensure stability and to provide lowerconservative and higheroptimized design.
The DLS analysis method is not widely used because of the associated complexities than other conventional stability methods that are represented by building a model with accurate simulation involving the fluid–pipe–soil interaction, the limited availability of the software packages, and the incentive to replace the static and calibrated methods with advanced dynamic ones is not existing [41]. In this regard, there are only two software packages recognized in the industry for the dynamic onbottom stability analysis of the subsea pipelines: PONDUS [21] and AGA Level 3 [1, 26, 33]. It is possible to use the other general FE software packages such as ABAQUS [12] and ANSYS [4] with integrated modules for modeling the hydrodynamic loads and the pipe–soil interaction. Ose et al. [31] introduced the first finite element model using ABAQUS [20] for the dynamic onbottom stability analysis of the pipelines by using simplified modeling of the hydrodynamic loads and the mutual pipe–soil interaction. Bai and Yu [8] used ABAQUS to compare the onbottom stability analysis results from the finite element model versus RPE305 [13] to ensure the validity of the numerical model. ABAQUS has also been used to build and solve the numerical model of pipeline stability problems using a finite element method as presented in Yang and Wang [47] and Bai et al. [7]. Based on different methodologies of calculating the hydrodynamic loads and the pipe–soil interaction, other modules have been developed and integrated with the ABAQUS FE solver for dynamic onbottom stability analysis of the pipelines. These modules are referred to by different names, such as SIMSTAB [50], UWAINT [40], and CORUS3D [6]. SIMSTAB has been utilized in several case studies as presented in Ref. [3, 24, 34]. UWAINT has been developed based on several numerical models developed by Tian and Cassidy [37,38,39]. CORUS3D has been used to study the dynamic response of pipelines as presented in Ref. [23, 28, 48].
Offshore software packages such as Flexcom [46] and OrcaFlex [30] may also be used as will be described in the subsequent sections of this paper by using Flexcom software [46].
In this paper, the DLS analysis is conducted on a 22in.diameter pipeline installed in shallow water on a sandy seabed. The sea state consists of irregular waves, represented by the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP) spectrum [19], and a steady current. It is worth mentioning that this paper is devoted to studying the installation phase of the pipeline with an empty condition, as a worst case, under the following combined loads from waves and currents: 1year return period values (RPV) wave + 10year RPV current and 10year RPV wave + 1year RPV current.
The acceptance criteria of the onbottom stability design of the pipelines depend on the design target and the factors that may affect the integrity of the pipeline. The acceptance criteria may be achieved either by the maximum allowable lateral displacement of the pipeline or by the stress limits for the design of the pipeline. Using both criteria, the numerical results are presented (sequentially) in the relevant subsections of this paper.
Methods
The dynamic onbottom stability analysis of a subsea pipeline is performed by using finite elementbased advanced simulation software, which is named Flexcom [46]. Flexcom is a highly versatile software package, which is commonly used in the structural analysis of conventional and unconventional offshore structures. The pipeline is modeled as a line with an automatic mesh generation, depending on the specified element length. The structural geometric properties (i.e., internal and external diameters, wall thickness, Young’s modulus, shear modulus, mass density, etc.) are assigned to the pipeline. The hydrodynamic loads in the form of drag, inertia, and lift force coefficients are allocated to the pipeline. The external and internal coatings, such as corrosion and concrete coatings, are added by deciding the thickness of each coating layer. The sea state consists of twodimensional irregular waves accompanied by a steady current, and both are perpendicular to the pipeline.
Figure 1 shows the external forces (including the waterinduced hydrodynamic forces, the selfweight of the pipeline, and the soil resistance) which affect the subsea pipeline segment.
The timedomain simulation is performed for a duration of 3 h (10,800 s), as recommended in RPF109 [16]. To perform full dynamic stability analysis for the pipeline, three different types of analyses are performed and then subsequently aggregated into one dynamic analysis. These three types of analyses include static analysis, quasistatic analysis, and timedomain dynamic analysis.
The static analysis is performed to study the effect of the timeindependent loadings such as water current and temperature loadings. In such analysis, the full model is designed to include the geometrical layout of the pipeline and its material and hydrodynamic properties, the environmental properties, as well as the geomechanical properties of the soil (shear strength, friction, adhesion, compressibility, abrasion, corrosion, permeability, seepage, lateral earth pressure, consolidation, bearing capacity, slope stability), and geotechnical properties of the soil (grainsize distribution, weight–volume relationships, relative density, Atterberg/consistency limits, soil texture, soil phases, etc.).
In the quasistatic analysis, all vertical constraints along the length of the pipeline are removed, and the pipeline is allowed to fall onto the seabed, under the combined effect of the gravity and buoyancy loads. Settling the pipeline quickly over the seabed under the combined effect of the gravity and buoyancy loads may be performed by specifying a significant mass damping to minimize initial transients. It is worth mentioning that the static and quasistatic analyses merely facilitate contact initiation between the pipeline and the seabed for penetration, due to the mutual action of pipeline selfweight and the seabed soil stiffness.
The dynamic analysis is performed in the time domain, to investigate the effect of the timedependent loads (e.g., the wave loads, etc.), and the nonlinear response of the concretecoated pipeline. For a given design condition, in which the pipeline is required to withstand combined static and dynamic loads, Flexcom [46] builds a fully dynamic solution for the combined loads by superposing the static, quasistatic, and dynamic analyses and then integrating all loads through all stages to get the full response of the pipeline at the end of the dynamic simulation.
Pipe–soil interaction
The interaction between the concretecoated pipeline and the soil plays a significant role in the overall pipeline response and its contribution to the onbottom stability as a resisting force to the surrounding hydrodynamic loads. Pipe–soil interaction is a very complex process because of the mutual influence between several parameters occurring throughout the pipeline installation and operation conditions. These parameters include the hydrodynamic cyclic loading on the pipeline and the pipe–soil interaction. Different hydrodynamic models have been developed based on the Morison's equations [29] to accurately predict the cyclic loadings on the pipeline from waves and currents. These models were developed in Ref. [11, 17, 22, 25, 35, 36, 42].
The seabed soil resistance consists mainly of two components: the friction between the pipeline and the seabed soil (i.e., pure friction term) and the resistance due to the embedment of the pipeline into the seabed soil (i.e., passive resistance term). Lyons [27] experimentally concluded that the Coulomb friction model was not appropriate to describe the pipe–soil interaction, especially when the pipeline is placed on a soil of soft clay or loose sand. Coulomb friction model does not function in the properties of wave, pipe, and soil.
The passive soil resistance models have initially been developed through the PIPESTAB project [10, 45] and then the AGA project [1, 9]. Both models were appropriate for use in predicting the dynamic pipeline response and for soft clay and loose sand soils, and both are implemented in PONDUS [21] and AGA software [33], respectively. By revisiting the PIPESTAB [10, 45] and AGA [1, 9] test data and other test data sources [32], an empirical approach was proposed by Verley and Sotberg [44] and Verley and Lund [43] to evaluate embedment for sand and clay soils, respectively. Both empirical approaches are considered the basis for the current design methodologies represented in RPF109 [16].
Neglecting the passive soil resistance results in decreasing its total soil resistance (compared to its actual resistance); especially when the pipeline is placed on soil of soft clay or loose sand, the m utual interaction between the pipeline and the seabed soil may not be modeled accurately [49], and the pipeline may also large ly displace in the lat eral direction.
In the present case study, only the pure friction term is considered, due to the present capabilities of the software, and it is represented herein by the Coulomb friction model. The Coulomb friction model is considered as the simplest method for modeling the interaction between the pipeline and the seabed soil, and it can be used in both the static and dynamic analysis [49]. The Coulomb friction model assumes pure steady plastic frict ional resistance between the pipeline and the seabed soil, and it does not consider any embedmentbased cyclic loads or passive soil resistance.
To ensure the stability of the pipeline on the seabed in the presence of the Coulomb friction model, Eq. (1) must be satisfied.
where \({F}_{\mathrm{f}}\) is the friction force induced by the wave and current between the pipeline and the seabed in a direction parallel to the seabed, \(\mu\) is the coefficient of friction between the pipeline and the seabed, and \({F}_{\mathrm{c}}\) is the contact force induced by the wave and current between the pipeline and the seabed in a direction perpendicular to the seabed: \({F}_{\mathrm{c}}={W}_{\mathrm{s}}{F}_{\mathrm{L}}\), in which \({W}_{\mathrm{s}}\) is the pipeline submerged weight in a direction perpendicular to its span and \({F}_{\mathrm{L}}\) is the lift force induced by the wave and current in a direction perpendicular to the pipeline.
The seabed is modeled as an elastic flat surface having longitudinal and transverse friction coefficients and a constant linear stiffness value. For the concretecoated pipelines (as per the present case study), the RPF109 [16] recommends a friction coefficient (\(\mu\)) of 0.6 for sand and rock soil and 0.2 for clay soil.
At each iteration step of the timedomain simulation, the software surveys all the nodes of the structural model of the pipeline, to check whether they are in contact with the seabed or not (as long as either a rigid or elastic seabed has been specified as part of the model). If any node registered such contact, and if either or both of the seabed friction coefficients are nonzero, it is assumed as attached to the seabed (in the plane of the seabed) using a friction coefficientbased nonlinear spring approach.
In an ideal Coulomb friction model, each of these nonlinear springs would have a force–deflection relationship in which its stiffness (in the region corresponding to zerodeflection point) is infinite. Assume, momentarily, that such infinite force–deflection relationship refers to the longitudinal direction. If there is no longitudinal force on the node, the node does not move (corresponding to zero deflection in the infinite force–deflection relationship). Indeed, the node should remain in the same location until the total nodal force exceeds the limiting friction force (\(\mu {F}_{\mathrm{c}}\)) at which point the node may move with this movement resisted by a constant force equal to the limiting friction force.
Flexcom [46] uses the modified Coulomb friction model as shown in Fig. 2, in which the infinite stiffness of the ideal Coulomb friction model (in the region corresponding to zerodeflection point) is replaced by a very high (but not infinite) stiffness (\(k\)) around the zerodeflection point. Such modification is performed by employing a slightly modified nonlinear spring characteristic.
The modified Coulomb friction model is performed to overcome the convergence difficulty inside the iterative scheme of the software while searching for the correct solution of the deflections (as in the case of most FE programs). This point is crucial to the operation of the seabed friction model. As the displacement at any arbitrary node depends, principally, on the stiffness of this section of the force–deflection curve, the stiffness is given by Eq. (2).
where \(k\) is the stiffness of the Coulomb friction model and \({L}_{\mathrm{m}}\) is the mobilization length which is taken as 5% of steel pipeline outer diameter.
The value of the mobilization length (\({L}_{\mathrm{m}}\)) affects the stiffness of the nonlinear spring, i.e., the smaller is this value, the greater is the stiffness and the closer the friction model is to an ideal model. However, reducing the mobilization length of the pipeline makes it harder for the program t o converge on a correct solution of the deflections. Note also that separate mobilization lengths may be used in both the longitudinal and transverse directions, with the longitudinal value typically being shorter than the transverse one.
Environmental loads
The environmental loads on the subsea pipelines, for an arbitraryselected sea state, are represented by a combination of twodimensional irregular waves and current loadings. Such loads are assumed to be dependent on the total velocity of water particles at the pipeline level and pipeline velocity. The total velocity of water particles is calculated as the summation of the waveinduced particle velocity and the steady current velocity. The waveinduced particle velocity is generated by the transformation of the wave spectrum at the sea surface. JONSWAP wave spectrum model [19] as given by Eq. (3) is selected to represent the twodimensional irregular sea waves.
where \(\alpha\) is the Phillip’s constant, \(g\) is the gravitational acceleration, \(f\) is the computational wave frequency, \(f_{{\text{p}}}\) is the spectral peak frequency, \(f_{{\text{p}}} = \frac{1}{{T_{{\text{p}}} }}\), \(\gamma\) is the peakedness parameter of the wave spectrum, and σ is the spectral width parameter given by Equation (4).
Based on the value of \(\varphi = \left( {T_{{\text{p}}} /\sqrt {H_{{\text{s}}} } } \right)\), the value of Phillip’s constant (\(\alpha\)) and peakedness parameter (\(\gamma\)) of the wave spectrum are calculated according to Eq. (5) and Eq. (6), respectively.
Different random seed numbers are used to get different time series of wave heights, by assigning different phases to wave components during discretizing the wave spectrum.
The current loading is represented by a uniform current velocity distribution considering the effect of the boundary layer at the pipeline level and seabed roughness. Current velocity is given by Eq. (7) according to RPF109 [16].
where \(U_{{\text{c}}} \left( {z_{{\text{r}}} } \right)\) is the current velocity at reference measurement height \(z_{{\text{r}}}\) in a direction perpendicular to the pipeline, \(D\) is the external pipeline diameter including all coatings, \(z_{{\text{r}}}\) is the current reference measurement height above the seabed, \(z_{0}\) is the seabed roughness parameter, and \(\theta_{{\text{c}}}\) is the angle between current velocity direction and pipeline.
Hydrodynamic forces
The hydrodynamic forces which result from the wave and current loadings on the subsea pipeline are divided into horizontal and vertical forces. The horizontal forces result from the drag force (\(F_{{\text{D}}}\)) and the inertia force (\(F_{{\text{M}}}\)) and are calculated using Morison’s equations [29] as given by Eqs. (8) and (9), respectively. The vertical forces result from the lift force (\(F_{{\text{L}}}\)) and are calculated as given by Eq. (10). The drag, inertia, and lift forces are directly applied in a direction perpendicular to the pipeline segment as distributed loads.
where \(\rho_{{\text{w}}}\) is the mass density of the seawater, \(D\) is the pipeline external diameter, \(C_{{\text{D}}}\) is the coefficient of the drag force associated with the ambient flow passing the pipeline, and \(U_{{\text{r}}}\) is the relative velocity between the fluid and the pipeline in a direction perpendicular to the pipeline, \(U_{{\text{r}}} = (U_{{\text{w}}} + U_{{\text{c}}}  U_{{\text{p}}} )\), in which \(U\) is the total velocity of the waterparticles contributed by the wave and current in a direction perpendicular to the pipeline: \(U = (U_{{\text{w}}} + U_{{\text{c}}} )\), and \(U_{{\text{p}}}\) is the pipeline velocity in a direction perpendicular to its span.
where \(C_{{\text{M}}}\) is the coefficient of the inertia force associated with the ambient flow passing the pipeline, \(C_{{\text{a}}}\) is the coefficient of the added mass associated with the ambient flow passing the pipeline, \(C_{{\text{a}}} = \left( {C_{{\text{M}}}  1} \right)\), \(\frac{\partial U}{{\partial t}}\) is the acceleration of the water particles contributed by the wave and watercurrent, and \(t\) is the computational time.
where \(C_{{\text{L}}}\) is the coefficient of the lift force associated with the ambient flow passing the pipeline.
Case study
The case study, which is considered in this paper, represents a 22in.diameter pipeline, extending along the 250m length, and subject to the combined effect of the twodimensional irregular waves and steady current loads. The data of the pipeline, environment, and soil, upon which the present case study depends, is presented in the following subsections.
Pipeline data
The pipeline with material grade API 5L X65 [5] has a geometric structural property, in the form of a rigid pipeline, associated with linear elastic structural properties. The pipeline data and material properties are presented in Table 1.
The pipeline is modeled as a single continuous line, which is restrained, as an initial position just above the seabed. A mesh is generated using a constant element length of 5 m throughout the pipeline length.
Seabed and soil data
The seabed is considered as an elastic, flat surface, and without slope. The seabed soil is modeled as loosetomedium sand, and it is defined by a single linear elastic stiffness. The longitudinal and transverse coefficients of the Coulomb friction model, as well as soil parameters, are presented in Table 2.
Environmental data
The characteristics of the seawater, as well as the design data of the wave and current, corresponding to two return period values (RPV), are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The directions of the applied wave and current are assumed to be perpendicular to the pipeline.
Boundary conditions
In the initial static analysis, both ends of the pipeline are assumed to be fixed in all translational and rotational degrees of freedom. An additional boundary condition is applied at regular intervals of 5 m along the pipeline to position the pipeline slightly hanging above the seabed.
In the quasistatic analysis, all vertical constraints along the length of the pipeline are removed to allow for the pipeline to fall onto the seabed, under the combined influence of gravity and buoyancy, and to allow for the penetration of the pipeline into the soil.
In the dynamic analysis, the pipeline is assumed to be fixed in all translational and rotational degrees of freedom at the left end, whereas it is assumed to be fixed in all rotational degrees of freedom only at the right end.
Assumptions

There is no temperature variation along the pipeline, to avoid the resultant excessive lateral displacements and bending moments.

There is no deterioration in the thickness of the pipeline wall due to corrosion.

A twodimensional irregular wave system is considered satisfactory to represent the sea model.

The coefficients of the hydrodynamic forces (i.e., inertia, drag, and lift) for a subsea pipeline resting on the seabed are assumed to be invariant during the whole analysis. According to DNV 1981 rules [14], and as reported by Verley et al. [42], the inertia, drag, and lift coefficients are taken as equal to 3.29, 0.7, and 0.9, respectively.

All added coating layers increase the weight per unit length for the pipeline only, but they do not contribute to its stiffness.

The concrete coating thickness increment is 5 mm.

During the first 100 s of the simulation, the wave loads are allowed to increase from zero to full value, by applying a linear ramp function according to RPF109 [16].

The effect of the cyclic loads on the embedment of the pipeline into the soil is not considered because of using linear soil stiffness.
Results
The dynamic onbottom stability analysis is conducted using Flexcom software to determine the required concrete coating thickness which satisfies the stability of the pipeline against the applied hydrodynamic loads and to investigate the dynamic pipeline response. Several simulation runs are performed under different loading combinations from waves and steady currents using (fixed) and (random) seed numbers, and different concrete coating thicknesses. To minimize the number of dynamic simulation runs, the initial guess of concrete coating thickness required for stability was determined using the ALSS method and considered to be the basis of conducting the dynamic analysis to minimize the number of dynamic simulation runs.
The acceptance criteria, which are used in this case study, can be summarized in two principal directions as follows: to achieve a relatively stable pipeline, i.e., to keep the lateral displacement of the pipeline less than half of its external diameter (\(D\)), and to keep the resultant stresses within their allowable limits. In this case study, the allowable limit of the von Mises stress is taken as 430 MPa (i.e., 96% of the SMYS). The resultant stresses are to be checked thoroughly to avoid excessive loading effects such as bending moments which may affect the integrity of the pipeline by causing local buckling or collapsing of the pipeline wall.
The combined load of 1year RPV wave + 10year RPV current
Under the action of the combined loading condition of 1year RPV wave + 10year RPV current, and for a concrete coating thickness less than or equal to 145 mm, the pipeline records an instability as shown in Fig. 3, and the lateral displacements recorded are beyond the allowable limit.
The von Mises stresses corresponding to the preceding lateral displacements are presented in Fig. 4. The associated stresses do not exceed the allowable limit, except the stresses recorded at a concrete coating thickness of 140 mm. For this range of concrete coating thicknesses (less than or equal to 145 mm), both design criteria (displacements and stresses) are not satisfied, which necessitates increasing the stability weight.
By increasing the concrete coating thickness, the pipeline becomes relatively stable at a concrete coating thickness greater than or equal to 155 mm as shown in Fig. 5. The von Mises stresses corresponding to these lateral displacements do not also exceed the stress allowable limit as shown in Fig. 6. Therefore, the design criteria (displacements and stresses) are satisfied for concrete coating thicknesses greater than or equal to 155 mm.
The combined load of 10year RPV wave + 1year RPV current
Under the action of the combined loading condition of 10year RPV wave + 1year RPV current, and for a concrete coating thickness less than or equal to 165 mm, the pipeline records an instability as shown in Fig. 7. And the lateral displacements recorded are beyond the allowable limit.
The von Mises stresses corresponding to these lateral displacements are presented in Fig. 8. The associated stresses do not exceed the allowable limit, except the stresses recorded at a concrete coating thickness of 160 mm. For this range of concrete coating thicknesses (less than or equal to 165 mm), both design criteria (displacements and stresses) are not satisfied, which necessitates increasing the stability weight.
By increasing the concrete coating thickness, the pipeline becomes relatively stable as shown in Fig. 9. The von Mises stresses corresponding to these lateral displacements are also within the specified allowable limit as shown in Fig. 10. Accordingly, both design criteria (displacements and stresses) are satisfied for concrete coating thicknesses greater than 170 mm.
Pipeline response investigation
In this numerical investigation, the first 3000 s only of the timedomain simulation of the pipeline right end is considered to investigate the pipeline response. Based on the numerical results shown in Fig. 9, and for a concrete thickness equal to 180 mm, the time history of the lateral and vertical displacements and the total velocity of the water particles is presented in Figs. 11, 12, and 13, respectively.
Figure 11 shows that the pipeline right end experiences highly oscillatory lateral displacements at certain time intervals (e.g., at 898, 1417, 2054, and 2452 s). The same is shown in Fig. 12 that the right end also experiences highly oscillatory vertical displacements for the same time intervals as in the case of the oscillatory lateral displacements.
The principal reason behind these lateral and vertical displacements is reverted to the drag, inertia, and lift forces which are induced under the action of the total water particles velocity at the pipeline level. As shown in Fig. 13, the total water particles velocity has few peak values at the same time intervals, which in turn increases the hydrodynamic forces affecting the pipeline and results in these lateral and vertical displacements.
Random seed numbers
The numerical results obtained in the previous sections are based on a single seed number, i.e., the same phase shift is assigned to all wave components constituting the irregular wave system, for all simulation runs. Indeed, to ensure the stability of the pipeline under the action of various irregular sea states, different seed numbers should be used. RPF109 [16] recommends performing seven simulation runs at least with randomly chosen seed numbers, to consider the effect of the different heights of the irregular waves on the pipeline dynamic response. Based on the numerical results, it is observed that the load combination of 10year wave + 1year current represents the worst loading condition, as is already indicated by the high concrete coating thickness required for pipeline stabilization. Therefore, this loading condition is selected to perform seven simulation runs at a concrete coating thickness equal to 180 mm.
Figure 14 shows the results for lateral displacements corresponding to different irregular sea states based on randomly selected seed numbers. The maximum lateral displacement of the pipeline has occurred at seed numbers 1 and 2, and both values exceed the allowable limit which indicates the importance of performing seven simulation runs using randomly selected seed numbers. However, the von Mises stress values are satisfying the stress limit criterion for the same irregular sea states as shown in Fig. 15.
It is observed that the induced stresses are increased in the region nearby the left fixed end because of the boundary condition at the left end of the pipeline. Therefore, the induced stresses at a location of 75 m from the left end of the pipeline satisfactorily represent the von Mises stresses.
Comparison with conventional stability methods
Ignoring the passive soil resistance term in the present DLS numerical calculations and analysis entails the necessity of studying its effect on the dynamic response of the pipelines. This study may be achieved by comparing the present DLS numerical results against those of the other conventional stability methods (e.g., ALSS and GLS) provided in RPF109 [16].
Table 5 shows the required concrete coating thickness which is necessary for stabilizing the subsea pipeline based on each method of stability; it is observed that both DLS and ALSS methods result in relatively high concrete coating thickness in comparison with the GLS method because of ignoring the passive soil resistance term. It is observed also that DLS analysis results in less concrete coating thickness in comparison with ALSS method despite ignoring the passive soil resistance. This proves that the DLS analysis method can optimize the onbottom stability design of the subsea pipelines and results in less concrete weight coating if the actual case is modeled correctly.
Discussion
The soil resistance was modeled using the pure friction term in between the soil and the pipeline, which was represented by the Coulomb friction model, but it did not consider the passive resistance of the soil due to the embedment of the pipeline, because of the present capabilities of the software.
Ignoring the passive soil resistance term has limited the acceptance criteria for lateral displacement to 0.5D instead of 10D because of uncontrolled lateral displacement and the simplicity of the soil model that is based on the Coulomb friction model.
The absence of passive soil resistance can be clearly noticed by recording either the lateral displacement of the pipeline nodes or the rapid change in pipeline stability. Obviously, the right end laterally displaces steadily in proportion to the applied hydrodynamic forces if the latter exceed the soil resistance force as shown in Fig. 11. The absence of passive soil resistance can also be noticed from the rapid change in pipeline stability with increasing its weight as shown in Figs. 7 and 9.
With regard the comparison with conventional stability methods presented in RPF109 [16], It is worth to highlight that both ALSS and GLS methods consider the effect of the passive soil resistance implicitly. The ALSS design method considers an initial embedment of the pipeline into the soil but does not consider the effect of any increment in the passive soil resistance due to any further embedment actioned by the hydrodynamic cyclic loading on the pipeline [2]. The GLS design method considers the effect of passive soil resistance based on design curves with nondimensional parameters presented in RPF109 [16]. These design curves are extracted from finite element dynamic simulations following the recommendations of dynamic lateral stability of the pipeline on the a flat seabed.
Conclusions
The paper investigates numerically the dynamic onbottom lateral stability of a concretecoated subsea pipeline using one of the available offshore simulation software, namely Flexcom [46]. Flexcom was used to model the pipeline in the realistic sea state, which is composed of a combination of irregular waves and steady currents.
The timedomain simulation of the DLS of a subsea pipeline offers a better understanding of its response, in addition to a clear prediction of the limits of its lateral displacements and associated stresses. Compared to the conventional pipeline stability approaches, this type of analysis is very timeconsuming and generally requires many details to accurately model the in situ subsea pipeline, using a finite element model. A brief discussion of the main conclusions that may be aggregated from this paper is:

If the joint probability distribution of the waves and currents is unavailable, then the mostworse loading combination of RPV of waves and currents shall be applied as recommended by RPF109 [16].

Hydrodynamic loads from drag, inertia, and lift forces generated on the pipeline are increased by increasing the total water particle velocity induced from the summation of waveinduced particle velocity and current velocity.

Ignoring the passive soil resistance term decreases the soil resistance dramatically and pipeline weight becomes the major factor in the assessment of onbottom stability analysis, especially when considering the pipe–soil interaction in terms of pure friction term only. Ignoring passive soil resistance also increases the concrete weight requirement markedly which increases line pipes manufacturing and installation costs.

Increasing pipeline weight increases the contact force on the seabed and hence increases soil resistance to the lateral displacement. Therefore, all mathematical models, which are based on the pure friction term, mostly result in conservative weights of stability.

In the critical cases in which the lateral displacements exceed their allowable limits, the stresses induced by such excessive lateral displacements should be thoroughly examined to ensure pipeline integrity. Excessive stresses (such as bending moments) may result in collapsing the pipe wall, in consequence losing its integrity.

Random seed numbers assigned to wave components have an impact on confirming the choice of the concrete coating thickness. Seven simulation runs with seven randomly chosen seed numbers should be performed as recommended by RPF109 [16].
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.
Abbreviations
 AGA:

American Gas Association
 ALSS:

Absolute lateral static stability
 API:

American Petroleum Institute
 DLS:

Dynamic lateral stability
 DNV:

Det Norske Veritas
 DNVGL:

Det Norske Veritas–Germanischer Lloyd
 FEA:

Finite element analysis
 FE:

Finite element
 GLS:

Generalized lateral stability
 JONSWAP:

Joint North Sea Wave Project
 RP:

Recommended practice
 RPV:

Return period values
 SMYS:

Specified minimum yield stress
 PRCI:

Pipeline Research Council International
References
Allen DW, Lammert WF, Hale JR, Jacobsen V (1989) Submarine pipeline onbottom stability: recent AGA research. In: Offshore technology conference. offshore technology conference, Houston, Texas, USA, pp 121–132. https://doi.org/10.4043/6055MS
Amlashi H (2017) Onbottom stability design of submarine pipelines—a probabilistic approach. Int J Coast Offshore Eng 1:29–40
Anderson B, Shim E, Zeitoun HO, Chin EJ (2017) Approach to lateral buckling and onbottom stability interaction assessment. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering. ASME, Nantes, France. https://doi.org/10.1115/omae201310250
ANSYS Inc. (2021) ANSYS Release 2021 R1
API (2018) API Specification 5L, Line Pipe
Atteris Pty Ltd (2011) CORUS3D onbottom stabilisation analysis software for submarine pipelines
Bai Y, Xu W, Ruan W, Tang J (2014) Onbottom stability of subsea lightweight pipeline (LWP) on sand soil surface. Ships Offshore Struct 12:954–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2014.962249
Bai Y, Yu Z (2011) Pipeline onbottom stability analysis based on FEM model. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2011 30th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering. ASME, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1115/omae201149384
Brennodden H, Lieng JT, Sotberg T (1989) An energybased pipe–soil interaction model. In: Offshore technology conference. offshore technology conference, Houston, Texas, pp 147–158
Brennodden H, Sveggen O, Wagner DA, Murff JD (1986) Fullscale pipe–soil interaction tests. In: Offshore technology conference. offshore technology conference, Houston, Texas, pp 433–440. https://doi.org/10.4043/5338ms
Cokgor S, Avci I (2003) Forces on partly buried, tandem twin cylinders in waves at low KeuleganCarpenter numbers. Ocean Eng 30:1453–1466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00298018(02)001439
Dassault Systèmes (2021) Abaqus FEA
DNV (1988) Onbottom stability design of submarine pipelines (No. DNVRPE305)
DNV (1981) Rules for submarine pipeline systems
DNV (1976) Rules for the design, construction, and inspection of submarine pipelines and pipeline risers. Det Norske Veritas
DNVGL (2017) Onbottom stability design of submarine pipelines (No. DNVGLRPF109)
Fyfe AJ, Myrhaug D, Reed K (1987) Hydrodynamic forces on seabed pipelines: largescale laboratory experiments. In: Offshore technology conference, Houston, Texas, USA, pp 125–134. https://doi.org/10.4043/5369MS
Hale JR, Lammert WF, Jacobsen V (1989) Improved basis for static stability analysis and design of marine pipelines. In: Offshore technology conference. Houston, Texas. https://doi.org/10.4043/6059ms
Hasselmann K, Barnett TP, Bouws E, Carlson H, Cartwright DE, Enke K, Ewing JA, Gienapp H, Hasselann DE, Kruseman P, Meerburg A, Muller P, Olbers DJ, Richter K, Sell W, Walden H (1973) Measurements of Windwave growth and swell decay during the joint north sea wave project (JONSWAP). Hamburg
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. (1988) ABAQUS, Ver. 5.8
Holthe K, Sotberg T, Chao JC (1987) An efficient computer model for predicting submarine pipeline response to waves and current. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas. https://doi.org/10.4043/5502MS
Jacobsen V, Bryndum MB, Tsahalis DT (1988) Prediction of irregular wave forces on submarine pipelines. In: The seventh international conferece on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering. ASME, Houston, Texas, pp 23–32
Jas E, O’Brien D, Fricke R, Gillen A, Cheng L, White D, Palmer A (2012) Pipeline stability revisited. J Pipeline Eng 12:259–268
Kien LK, Ming LS, Badaruddin MFB (2010) Dynamic onbottom stability of shallow water pipeline—a case study. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering. ASME, Shanghai, China, pp 813–825. https://doi.org/10.1115/omae201020850
Lambrakos KF, Chao JC, Beckmann H, Brannon HR (1987) Wake model of hydrodynamic forces on pipelines. Ocean Eng 14:117–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/00298018(87)900734
Lammert WF, Hale JR, Jacobsen V (1989) Dynamic response of submarine pipelines exposed to combined wave and current action. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, pp 159–170. https://doi.org/10.4043/6058ms
Lyons CG (1973) Soil resistance to lateral sliding of marine pipelines. In: The fifth annual offshore technology conference. OTC 1876, Houston, Texas, pp 479–484. https://doi.org/10.4043/1876MS
McMaster SY, O’Brien D, Scholtz DE, Ryan JR (2012) Onbottom stability analysis for a pipeline on a mobile seabed. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 31st international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering. ASME, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1115/omae201283291
Morison JR, Johnson JW, O’Brien MP (1953) Experimental studies of forces on piles. In: Coastal engineering proceedings. Chicago, Illinois, USA, pp 340–370. https://doi.org/10.9753/icce.v4.25
Orcina (2020) OrcaFlex
Ose BA, Bai Y, Nystrom PR, Damsleth PA (1999) A finiteelement model for insitu behavior of offshore pipelines on uneven seabed and its application to onbottom stability. In: Proceedings of the ninth international offshore and polar engineering conference. The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Brest, France, pp 132–140
Palmer AC, Steenfelt JS, SteensenBach JO, Jacobsen V (1988) Lateral resistance of marine pipelines on sand. In: Offshore technology conference. offshore technology conference, Houston, Texas, pp 399–408. https://doi.org/10.4043/5853ms
PRCI (2008) Submarine pipelines onbottom stability volume 1 & 2; Project No. PR17804405
Robertson M, Griffiths T, Viecelli G, Oldfield S, Ma P, AlShowaiter A, Carneiro D (2015) The influence of pipeline bending stiffness on 3D dynamic onbottom stability and importance for flexible flowlines, cables and umbilicals. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 34th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering. ASME, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE201541646
Sorenson T, Bryndum M, Jacobsen V (1986) Hydrodynamic forces on pipelinesmodel tests, Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), Contract PR170185. Pipeline Research Council International Catalogue No, L51522e
Sumer BM, Jensen BL, Fredsøe J (1991) Effect of a plane boundary on oscillatory flow around a circular cylinder. J Fluid Mech 225:271–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112091002057
Tian Y, Cassidy MJ (2011) Incorporating uplift in the analysis of shallowly embedded pipelines. Struct Eng Mech 40:29–48. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2011.40.1.029
Tian Y, Cassidy MJ (2010) The challenge of numerically implementing numerous forceresultant models in the stability analysis of long onbottom pipelines. Comput Geotech 37:216–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.09.004
Tian Y, Cassidy MJ (2008) Modeling of pipe–soil interaction and its application in numerical simulation. Int J Geomech 8:213–229. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)15323641(2008)8:4(213)
Tian Y, Cassidy MJ, Chang CK (2015) Assessment of offshore pipelines using dynamic lateral stability analysis. Appl Ocean Res 50:47–57
Tørnes K, Zeitoun HO, Cumming G, Willcocks J (2009) A stability design rational—a review of present design approaches. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2009 28th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering. ASME, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1115/omae200979893
Verley RLP, Lambrakos KF, Reed K (1987) Prediction of hydrodynamic forces on seabed pipelines. In: Offshore technology conference. Houston, Texas, pp 171–180. https://doi.org/10.4043/5503ms
Verley RLP, Lund KM (1995) A soil resistance model for pipelines placed on clay soils. In: Proceedings of the ASME 1995 14th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering. ASME, United States, pp 225–232. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/205471
Verley RLP, Sotberg T (1994) A soil resistance model for pipelines placed on sandy soils. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 116:145–153. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2920143
Wagner DA, Murff JD, Brennodden H, Sveggen O (1987) Pipe–soil interaction model. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, pp 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733950X(1989)115:2(205)
Wood Group (2018) Flexcom
Yang H, Wang A (2013) Dynamic stability analysis of pipeline based on reliability using surrogate model. J Mar Eng Technol 12:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2013.11020279
Youssef BS, O’Brien D (2017) Onbottom stability analysis of submarine pipelines, umbilicals and cables using 3D dynamic modelling. In: Offshore technology conference. Houston, Texas, USA. https://doi.org/10.4043/27727ms
Zeitoun HO, Tørnes K, Cumming G, Brankovic M (2008) Pipeline stability—state of the art. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2008 27th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering. ASME, Estoril, Portugal, pp 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1115/omae200857284
Zeitoun HO, Tørnes K, Li J, Wong S, Brevet R, Willcocks J (2009) Advanced dynamic stability analysis. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2009 28th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering. ASME, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1115/omae200979778
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their profound sense of gratitude to the Flexcom team, John Wood Group PLC, 15 Justice Mill Lane, Aberdeen, AB11 6EQ, UK, for providing an educational license of Flexcom software, their sincere help, guidance, and support. The opinions, analysis, and conclusions expressed in this research are those of the authors, for which they should be held responsible.
Funding
This study did not receive any funding from the public, private, or notforprofit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
KAH communicated to the software developers to get the license. MAA built the numerical model, performed the numerical simulation, interpreted the results, and drafted the manuscript. KAH and ANA supervised the research work and critically revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hafez, K.A., Abdelsalam, M.A. & Abdelhameed, A.N. Dynamic onbottom stability analysis of subsea pipelines using finite element modelbased general offshore analysis software: a case study. BeniSuef Univ J Basic Appl Sci 11, 36 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s4308802200219x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s4308802200219x
Keywords
 Dynamic onbottom stability
 Pipe–soil interaction
 Subsea pipelines
 Finite element analysis (FEA)
 Hydrodynamic loads
 Timedomain simulation