Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters 5 (2015) 7479

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/taml

Letter

Assessment of pipeline stability in the Gulf of Mexico during

hurricanes using dynamic analysis
Yinghui Tian a , Bassem Youssef b , Mark J. Cassidy a,
a
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems and ARC CoE for Geotechnical Science and Engineering, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway,
Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
b
Atteris, Level 3, 220 St Georges Terrace, Perth, WA, 6000, Australia

article info abstract

Article history: Pipelines are the critical link between major offshore oil and gas developments and the mainland. Any
Received 23 October 2014 inadequate on-bottom stability design could result in disruption and failure, having a devastating impact
Accepted 9 January 2015 on the economy and environment. Predicting the stability behavior of offshore pipelines in hurricanes
Available online 25 February 2015
is therefore vital to the assessment of both new design and existing assets. The Gulf of Mexico has a
*This article belongs to the Solid Mechanics
very dense network of pipeline systems constructed on the seabed. During the last two decades, the
Gulf of Mexico has experienced a series of strong hurricanes, which have destroyed, disrupted and
Keywords:
Pipeline
destabilized many pipelines. This paper first reviews some of these engineering cases. Following that,
On-bottom stability three case studies are retrospectively simulated using an in-house developed program. The study utilizes
Dynamic lateral stability analysis the offshore pipeline and hurricane details to conduct a Dynamic Lateral Stability analysis, with the results
Force-resultant model providing evidence as to the accuracy of the modeling techniques developed.
Hydrodynamic load 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Chinese Society of Theoretical and
Applied Mechanics. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction The Gulf of Mexico is a small oceanic basin sur-
rounded by continental land masses and a relatively simple and
roughly circular structure approximately 1500 km in diameter [1].
As shown in Fig. 1, the Gulf of Mexico basin resembles a large pit
with a broad shallow rim. Approximately 38% of the Gulf comprises
shallow and intertidal areas (<20 m deep). The area of the conti-
nental shelf (<180 m) and continental slope (1803000 m) are 22%
and 20% of the total area, respectively. Abyssal areas deeper than
3000 m make up the final 20% [2]. The northeast Gulf of Mexico is
the region with the most reported damaged pipelines. This region
extends from east of the Mississippi Delta near Biloxi to the eastern
side of Apalachee Bay. The majority of this region is characterized
by soft sediments [3].
Five hurricanes hit the Gulf of Mexico between 1992 and 2005:
Andrew in 1992, Lili in 2002, Ivan in 2004, Katrina and Rita in 2005
and their paths are shown in Fig. 1. These hurricanes caused severe
destruction and the economic loss is estimated to be worth 75 bil-
lion US dollars due to Katrina alone [4]. Table 1 summarizes de-
struction of the 5 hurricanes. The majority of the pipeline failures
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yinghui.tian@uwa.edu.au (Y. Tian),
bassem.youssef@atteris.com.au (B. Youssef), mark.cassidy@uwa.edu.au
(M.J. Cassidy).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.taml.2015.02.002
2095-0349/ 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
are in areas perpendicular to the maximum current and in water
depths less than 60 m. Large displacements of pipelines have been
highlighted by Gagliano [5] and this agrees with the reported data
in Table 1. For example, an 18 inch (0.457 m) unburied oil pipeline
with a specific gravity of 1.6 drifted southward 910 m from its orig-
inal location during Hurricane Ivan. During Hurricane Katrina, a 26
inch (0.66 m) buried gas pipeline with a specific gravity of 1.4 in a
water depth of 15 m was displaced about 1219 m to the north over
14.5 km of its length. A sonar survey after Hurricane Ivan presented
in Thomson et al. [6] revealed that an 18 inch (0.457 m) pipeline,
approximately 44.25 km long, that ran from an oil gathering plat-
form westward to near the Mississippi River Delta was found dis-
placed by 580 m. In addition, approximately 100 pipeline failures
due to hurricanes were reported from 1971 to 1988, whereas about
600 cases of pipeline damage were reported after Hurricanes Kat-
rina and Rita in 2005 [7].
Pipeline on-bottom stability assessment post Hurricane
Ivan After the enormous destruction to the offshore oil and gas
facilities by Hurricane Ivan, many research publications assessed
and reviewed the design of the damaged pipelines [4,712].
As reported by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) [7], three on-bottom
pipeline stability studies were conducted to model pipelines under
Hurricane Ivan using the PONDUS software [13]. In the analysis, the
pipelines were assumed to be oriented perpendicular to the path
of Hurricane Ivan. Table 2 summarizes the input parameter values
 Y. Tian et al. / Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters 5 (2015) 7479 75

Table 1
Summary of the 5 hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.
Hurricane Hurricane Sea state Total damage Damages due
scale* to excessive
disp.

Andrew 4 Hs 10.712.2 m 485 pipelines and flow lines were damaged. Eight seven percent (87%) of the pipeline 44
damages occurred in small diameter pipes and most in water depths < 30.5 m.
Lili 4 120 pipelines were damaged. Eight five percent (85%) of the pipeline failures occurred in
small diameter pipelines and there was no apparent correlation with pipeline age.
Ivan 45 Hs > 2500 year 168 pipeline damages report with an estimated 16093 km out of the 53108 km of the 38
return period Outer Continental Shelf pipelines in the direct path of the hurricane.

Katrina 5 Hs 16.8 m 299 pipelines and flow lines were damaged. Approximate 35405 km out of the 53108 61
km of pipelines were in the path of
Katrina and Rita.
Rita 4 Hs 11.6 m 243 pipelines and flow lines were damaged 31
*
See DNV [4] for details about the hurricane scale based on SaffirSimpson scale standard.

Table 2
Three pipeline analysis cases in DNV [7].
Parameters Pipeline case 1 Pipeline case 2 Pipeline case 3

Significant wave height/m 11.7 11.7 11.7

Peak period/s 15 15 15
Water depth/m 63.7 95 100
Outer diameter/mm 465.4 406.4 355.6
Outer diameter of steel/mm 457.2 355.6 304.8
Wall thickness/mm 9.53 12.7 9.53
Current velocity at sea-bed/m s1 0.758 0.703 0.684
Submerged weight/N m1 892 (water-filled) 372 (empty) 871 (water-filled)
Soil undrained shear strength/kPa 50 1.47 50
Reported movement in field/m 914.4 518.2 0
Reported displaced length/km 43.5 3.4 0
PONDUS predicted displacement (under 3 h storm)/m 1446 628 254

Fig. 1. Gulf of Mexico location and the path of the main hurricanes.
used in the PONDUS simulations and the pipeline displacements
measured in the field. In the first two cases, pipelines experienced
massive lateral displacements of 914 m and 518 m, respectively,
and the third pipeline case did not experience any displacement
under Hurricane Ivan. The numerical simulation predicted that
all three pipeline cases would experience lateral movement,
1446 m, 628 m, and 254 m, respectively. It is clear that PONDUS
overestimated the pipeline displacement of the three pipeline
cases.
In-house developed dynamic finite element program Tian
and Cassidy [1416] and Tian et al. [17] developed an integrated
fluidpipesoil modeling Dynamic Lateral Stability package. Dy-
namic Lateral Stability analysis is considered to be the most
comprehensive method because a complete three-dimensional
pipeline simulation can be performed for any given combination of
waves and currents in time domain analysis (see DNV [18] for de-
tails). This in-house package adopted advanced plasticity pipesoil
force-resultant models [1922] and Fourier hydrodynamic load
models [23] to evaluate soil resistance and hydrodynamic load-
ing, respectively. The commercially available finite element pack-
age ABAQUS/Standard was used (implicit analysis), with modules
for pipesoil interactions and hydrodynamic loading implemented
as user subroutines UEL and DLOAD, respectively (see Dassault Sys-
tem for technical details [24]).
The pipesoil interaction module implements available force-
resultant models on calcareous sand [1921] and clay soil [22] as
ABAQUS user-defined elements through the user subroutine UEL.
Figure 2 illustrates the symbolic convention for loading acting on
a segment of a pipeline. The vertical component of the resultant
force is V = Ws Fv , where Ws is the pipeline submerged
weight and Fv is the vertical hydrodynamic loading. The horizontal
component is H = FH , where FH is the horizontal hydrodynamic
loading. Most available pipesoil interaction models are based on
the simplistic Coulomb friction concept [2527] and link H directly
to V through only one simplistic friction factor. More advanced
force-resultant models have been presented in the last decade,
allowing a more fundamental understanding of pipesoil behavior
by relating the resultant forces (V , H ) directly to the corresponding
displacement (w, u) within a plasticity framework. Schotman
and Stork [28] initially proposed the force-resultant concept to
pipesoil modeling. Subsequently, other fully developed force-
resultant pipesoil models have been presented by Zhang [19],
Zhang et al. [20], Calvetti et al. [29], Di Prisco et al. [30], Hodder
and Cassidy [22], Tian et al. [21], and Tian and Cassidy [16] through
experimental and numerical studies. Among these, Hodder and
Cassidy [22] conducted centrifuge testing at 50g with a pipeline
model 0.5 m in diameter and 2.5 m in length in prototype. The
tested soil samples of kaolin clay were commercially available but
can well represent the undrained behavior of clayey soil. These
76 Y. Tian et al. / Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters 5 (2015) 7479
Fig. 2. Pipe load and displacement convention.
Fig. 3. Yield surface.
force-resultant models provide an understanding of the complex
pipesoil behavior with a more fundamental theoretical basis.
Based on strain hardening plasticity theory, the force-resultant
model has a yield surface to describe the allowable resultant force
(V , H ). See Fig. 3, the yield surface size V0 , is directly related to the
vertical plastic embedment wp in a hardening law to describe the
expansion/shrinkage. See Hodder and Cassidy [22] for details about
the model and refer to Tian and Cassidy [15], Tian et al. [17] for the
detailed introduction of the development of the Dynamic Lateral
Stability package.
In the hydrodynamic loading calculation module, a three-
dimensional ocean surface is first generated using a wave spec-
trum (significant wave height Hs and peak time period Tp ) and
spreading function. The water particle velocity and acceleration
are then evaluated at the pipeline level, or, alternatively, input ve-
locity and acceleration time series are accepted by the program.
The Fourier model developed by Sorenson et al. [23] was adopted
to calculate the hydrodynamic loading on the pipeline. More ad-
vanced than the traditional Morison equation (which is based on
ambient flow velocity and time-invariant coefficients), the Fourier
models are proven to have better accuracy for the prediction of
time-variable hydrodynamic forces on a subsea pipeline [3134].
The Fourier model uses a composition of harmonic sine waves, 9
for regular wave and 5 for irregular wave, to calculate the drag
force FD and lift FL on a pipeline. The inertia force FI in the Fourier
model is calculated the same as in the traditional Morison formu-
lation but with a fixed inertia coefficient value of 3.29. The to-
tal horizontal hydrodynamic load FH equals the superposition of
drag force FD and inertia for FI , i.e., FH = FD + FI , while the ver-
tical load FV is considered equal to the uplift force FL . The devel-
oped integrated fluidpipesoil model has the capability to reduce
the hydrodynamic loads based on the pipe vertical and horizontal
displacements during the simulation (see Youssef et al. [35] and
Youssef [36] for details about the hydrodynamic load reduction).
With one force-resultant model simulating a small section
of pipesoil interaction, a three-dimensional long pipeline can
be represented by attaching numerous models in a Winkler
foundation style. As illustrated in Fig. 4, the pipeline structure
is modeled as beam elements, and the force-resultant models
Fig. 4. Illustration of program integration.
attached to the pipe nodes represent the surrounding soil behavior.
Hydrodynamic loads are applied along the pipeline and vary with
time and location.
Environmental loads A three hour storm was numerically
generated to represent Hurricane Ivan based on the environmental
conditions provided in Table 2. A 3000 m long pipeline is used
to represent the pipeline. The hydrodynamic loads acting on the
pipeline in case 1 after 20 min of the storm are shown in Fig. 5 for
illustration. Plotting the pipe self-weight of case 1 on the vertical
load diagram, Fig. 5(b) shows that the uplift loads exceed the
pipe self-weight in three spots along the pipeline at the moment.
Numerically, this load must be shared and distributed along the
pipe.
As a preliminary estimation, the hydrodynamic vertical loads
are averaged over the pipeline length of 3000 m. Figure 6 shows the
averaged hydrodynamic vertical load history for the three pipeline
cases. The corresponding pipe self-weights are also plotted on
the diagrams. It is clear that the pipe self-weight of the first two
pipeline cases is much less than the uplift loads. The pipe self-
weight of case 3 is almost double the uplift load. Therefore, the
first two pipelines are more likely to have had experienced large
uplifting load during Hurricane Ivan. In this scenario, the pipeline
may have been lifted from the seabed and drifted laterally with the
flowing stream. Therefore, this preliminary analysis suggests that
the first two pipelines are unstable. However, the self-weight of the
pipeline in case 3 is large enough to counterbalance the estimated
hydrodynamic vertical load.
Comparing the hydrodynamic loads and the initial yield surface
gives a rough indication of the applied loads and the expected
resistance capacity. To perform this comparison, the generated
hydrodynamic loads, FH and FV , at an arbitrarily selected location,
500 m from the pipeline end, are plotted in V H space by
considering that V = Ws FV and H = FH , as shown in Fig. 7 for
the three pipeline cases. For the first two pipeline cases, there are
many loading points located on the negative side of the V axis that
exceed the uplift capacity of the yield surface. Even expanding the
yield surface during the simulation could not accommodate these
loading values. Therefore, the soil should not be able to support
this loading scenario. Based on the comparisons presented in this
section, the first two pipeline cases may not be stable during a full
3000 m pipeline simulation, though the pipeline case 3 is expected
to be stable. However, during numerical simulation there is the
possibility that the hydrodynamic load may be shared along the
pipeline length, taken by the dynamic response of the pipe or
reduced due to the pipe movements.
Retrospective modeling using the in-house package To
numerically simulate the three pipeline cases using the integrated
hydrodynamic-pipesoil program, the pipeline was assumed to be
3000 m long and a flat seabed was assumed. Load concentration
 Y. Tian et al. / Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters 5 (2015) 7479 77

Fig. 5. Hydrodynamic loads acting along pipeline Case 1 after 20 min.

Fig. 6. Average vertical load along the three pipeline cases and the pipe self-weight.

during pipeline was assumed to be twice the pipeline weight

(for a study of the effect of load concentration please refer to
Youssef [36]). Thus, the initial pipeline embedment was calculated.
The pipeline was divided into 150 beam elements that were 20 m
long (for a study of the influence of element length please refer
to Youssef [36]). As the Gulf of Mexico mainly has clayey soil, the
Hodder and Cassidy [22] model is adopted to describe the soil and Fig. 7. Hydrodynamic loads 500 m from the pipeline end compared to the yield
151 force-resultant models were attached to structural nodes to surface.
78 Y. Tian et al. / Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters 5 (2015) 7479
Fig. 8. Influence of self-weight.
Fig. 9. Influence of load concentration factor.
model the pipesoil interaction. See Hodder and Cassidy [22] for
details about the model parameters.
In the first two pipeline analysis cases, the numerical analysis
can not complete the entire 3 h storm because the pipeline was
lifted completely off the seabed. In both cases, the yield surface of
some force-resultant models first shrunk to zero and thus became
inactive in the numerical package as the pipe self-weight was
insufficient to counterbalance the uplift loads. The loads acting at
the inactive pipesoil element zones are shared by the remainder
of the pipe nodes along the pipeline length. This caused these nodes
to reach the inactive state just afterward. These analysis results
of the first two pipeline cases indicate that these pipelines are
unstable in the Hurricane Ivan environment. On the other hand,
the 3 h analysis of pipeline case 3 was completed with a maximum
horizontal displacement of 19.25 m.
To explore what pipe self-weight would be required for these
pipeline cases to be stable during Hurricane Ivan, pipeline case
1 and case 2 were reanalyzed with self-weight values varying
2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 times the original pipe self-weight shown in
Table 2. Figure 8 shows the maximum lateral displacement results
for the reanalyzed cases. As can be seen, the simulation of using a
pipe weight of two times the original weight results in maximum
horizontal displacements of 92.0 m and 48.0 m for cases 1 and 2,
respectively.
The analysis of case 3 predicted a maximum horizontal dis-
placement of 19.25 m. However, during Hurricane Ivan the pipe
did not experience any horizontal displacement. One of the pos-
sible reasons for this difference between the numerical predicted
and the field measurement is assumed to the load concentration
factor during the pipeline laying, which essentially implies the ini-
tial yield surface size. As explained in Westgate et al. [37], the load
concentration factor is the ratio of the vertical load transmitted in
the touchdown zone during the pipelaying to the pipe self-weight.
The value of the load concentration factor depends on many factors
during the pipelaying, which include the sea state, water depth,
wind speed and direction. Load concentration factor values of 2.0
and 4.2 have been suggested by Cathie et al. [38] for the cases of
weak soil and strong soil, respectively.
The load concentration factor used in the previous simulation
was set as 2. To investigate the effect of the load concentration
factor on pipeline case 3 stability, four simulation cases are
conducted by varying 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4. The results for these
simulation cases are presented in Fig. 9. The simulation with load
concentration factor of 4 results in an almost static pipeline with a
final horizontal displacement of 0.01 m.
The numerical modeling results presented in this section
demonstrate the capability of the integrated hydrodynamic-
pipesoil modeling program to reasonably simulate the on-bottom
stability under strong hydrodynamic environment conditions.
Conclusions The developed in-house package was used to
investigate the hydrodynamic loads acting on three pipeline cases
during Hurricane Ivan and reported in the literature. In two of the
cases, 1 and 2, the pipe-weight and soil resistance was not enough
to resist the applied loads and a displacement scenario is suggested
as these two pipeline cases were lifted from the seabed and drifted
with the flowing stream (confirming the enormous displacements
of 914.4 m and 518.2 m reported in the literature, respectively).
To assess the on-bottom stability of the three pipeline cases,
the developed integrated program was used to conduct a 3-
hour pipeline simulation. The simulation analysis of the first two
pipeline cases terminated because the pipelines were lifted from
the seabed. The analysis results indicated that pipelines with
greater self-weight might be stable. Repeating the analysis of the
first two pipeline cases considering pipelines with greater self-
weight confirmed the conclusion above. Using a pipe self-weight
double the original weight results in horizontal displacement
values of 95.5 m and 48.7 m for pipeline case 1 and case 2,
respectively.
The 3-hour analysis of pipeline case 3 revealed a horizontal
displacement of 19.23 m. Repeating the analysis of pipeline case 3
with different load concentration factors during the pipeline laying
resulted in a maximum horizontal displacement of 0.01 m for a
load concentration factor equals 4.
It is concluded from the analyses presented for the three
pipeline cases that the developed integrated program can simulate
complex cases with reasonable accuracy.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Research Development
Awards of University of Western Australia, AustraliaChina Nat-
ural Gas Technology Partnership Fund and Lloyds Register Foun-
dation. Lloyds Register Foundation supports the advancement of
engineering-related education and funds research and develop-
ment that enhance the safety of life at sea, on land, and in the air.
The work also forms part of the activities of the Centre for Offshore
Foundation Systems (COFS) above, currently supported as a pri-
mary node of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence
for Geotechnical Science and Engineering.
 Y. Tian et al. / Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters 5 (2015) 7479
References
[1] A. Salvador, The Gulf of Mexico basin, in: The Geology of North America,
Geological Society of America, 1991, pp. 131180.
[2] R.H. Gore, The Gulf of Mexico, Pineapple Press, Inc., Sarasota, 1992.
[3] W.D. Nowlin, Water masses and general circulation of the Gulf of Mexico,
Oceanology 5 (1971) 2833.
[4] Det Norske Veritas, Pipeline damage assessment from hurricanes Katrina and
Rita in the Gulf of Mexico, Technical Report no. 44814183, Houston, Texas,
2007.
[5] M. Gagliano, Offshore pipeline stability during major storm events, in:
Government/Industry Pipeline Research and Development Forum, New
Orleans, LA, 2007.
[6] J. Thomson, M. Garrett, M. Taylor, T. George, M. Melancon, K. Behrens,
Sonar surveys for pipeline inspection show extent of pipeline displacement
and seafloor instability following hurricane Ivan, in: Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, 2005.
[7] Det Norske Veritas, Pipeline damage assessment from hurricane Ivan in the
Gulf of Mexico, Technical Report no. 44038570, Houston, Texas, 2006.
[8] A.T. Cox, V.J. Cardone, F. Counillon, D. Szabo, Hindcast study of winds, waves,
and currents in Northern Gulf of Mexico in hurricane Ivan (2004), in: Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2005.
[9] E.G. Ward, R. Gilbert, R. Spong, 2005 Hurricane Readiness and Recovery
Conference: Final Conference Summary Report, Report no. 10/05C155,
Offshore Technology Research Center, Austin, Texas, 2005.
[10] S. Mirza, J. Skinner, A. Mathew, L. Ekstrom, Hurricane Ivanpipeline damage,
integrity assessment, and on-bottom stability observations, in: Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2006.
[11] M.C. Nodine, J.Y. Cheon, S.G. Wright, R.B. Gilbert, Mudslides during Hurricane
Ivan and an Assessment of the potential for future mudslides in the Gulf of
Mexico, OTRC Report Library no. 10/07C185, The University of Texas at Austin,
Offshore Technology Research Center, 2007.
[12] M.J. Kaiser, Y. Yu, C.J. Jablonowski, Modeling lost production from destroyed
platforms in the 20042005 Gulf of Mexico hurricane seasons, Energy 34
(2009) 11561171.
[13] PRCI, Submarine Pipeline on-Bottom Stability, PRCI, 2002, Project Number PR-
178-01132.
[14] Y. Tian, M.J. Cassidy, Modelling of pipe-soil interaction and its application in
numerical simulation, Int. J. Geom. ASCE 8 (2008) 213229.
[15] Y. Tian, M.J. Cassidy, The challenge of numerically implementing numerous
force-resultant models in the stability analysis of long on-bottom pipelines,
Comput. Geotech. 37 (2010) 216312.
[16] Y. Tian, M.J. Cassidy, Incorporating uplift in the analysis of shallowly embedded
pipelines, Struct. Eng. Mech. 40 (2011) 2948.
[17] Y. Tian, M.J. Cassidy, C.K. Chang, Assessment of offshore pipelines using
dynamic lateral stability analysis, Appl. Ocean Res. 50 (2015) 4757.
[18] Det Norske Veritas, On-bottom stability design of submarine pipelines, DNV-
RP-F109, 2007.
[19] J. Zhang, Geotechnical stability of offshore pipelines in Calcareous Sand (Ph.D.
thesis), University of Western Australia, Sydney, 2001.
79
[20] J. Zhang, D.P. Stewart, M.F. Randolph, Modelling of shallowly embedded
offshore pipelines in calcareous sand, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 128
(2002) 363371.
[21] Y. Tian, M.J. Cassidy, C. Gaudin, Advancing pipe-soil interaction models
through geotechnical centrifuge testing in calcareous sand, Appl. Ocean Res.
32 (2010) 294297.
[22] M.S. Hodder, M.J. Cassidy, A plasticity model for predicting the vertical and
lateral behaviour of pipelines in clay soils, Geotechnique 60 (2010) 247263.
[23] T. Sorenson, M. Bryndum, V. Jacobsen, Hydrodynamic forces on pipelines-
model tests. Danish hydraulic Institute (DHI), Contract PR-170-185, Pipeline
Research Council International Catalog No. L51522e, 1986.
[24] Dassault Systmes, ABAQUS Users Manual, SIMULIA, Providence, RI, 2010.
[25] G.M. Wantland, M.W. ONeill, L.C. Reese, E.H. Kalajian, Lateral Stability of
Pipelines in Clay, OTC, Houston, Texas, 1979.
[26] H. Brennodden, J.T. Lieng, T. Sotberg, An energy-based pipe-soil interaction
model, in: Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 1989, Paper OTC
6057.
[27] D.A. Wagner, J.D. Murff, H. Brennodden, O. Sveggen, Pipe-soil interaction-
model, J. Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean Eng. ASCE 115 (1989) 205220.
[28] G.J.M. Schotman, F.G. Stork, Pipe-soil interaction: A model for laterally loaded
pipelines in clay, in: Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 1987,
Paper OTC 5588.
[29] F. Calvetti, C. Di Prisco, R. Nova, Experimental and numerical analysis of soil-
pipe interaction, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 130 (2004) 12921299.
[30] C. Di Prisco, R. Nova, A. Corengia, A model for landslide-pipe interaction
analysis, Soils and Found. 44 (2004) 112.
[31] A.J. Fyfe, D. Myrhaug, K. Reed, Hydrodynamic forces on seabed pipelines: large
scale laboratory experiments, in: Offshore Technology Conference., Houston,
Texas, 1987, Paper OTC 5369.
[32] V. Jacobsen, M.B. Bryndum, D.T. Tsahalis, Prediction of irregular wave forces
on submarine pipelines, in: 7th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering, Houston, 1988, pp. 2332.
[33] R.L.P. Verley, K. Reed, Use of laboratory force data in pipeline response
simulations, in: Proceedings of the International Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering Symposium, Hague, Netherlands, 1989.
[34] H. Zeitoun, K. Trnes, J. Li, S. Wong, R. Brevet, J. Willcocks, Advanced dynamic
stability analysis, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2009 28th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA,
2009.
[35] B.S. Youssef, M.J. Cassidy, Y. Tian, Balanced three-dimensional modelling of
the fluidstructure-soil interaction of an untrenched pipeline, in: International
Offshore (Ocean) and Polar Engineering Conference, Beijing, 2010.
[36] B.S. Youssef, The integrated stability analysis of offshore pipelines (Ph.D.
thesis), University of Western Australia, Sydney, 2012.
[37] Z.J. Westgate, M.F. Randolph, D.J. White, S. Li, The influence of sea state on as-
laid pipeline embedment: a case study, Appl. Ocean Res. 32 (2010) 321331.
[38] D.N. Cathie, C. Jaeck, J.C. Ballard, J.F. Wintgens, Pipelines geotechnicsstate-of-
the-art, in: Proc. of the Int. Symp. on the Frontiers in Offshore Geomechanics:
ISFOG 2005, Perth, Taylor and Francis Group, Australia, 2005, pp. 95114.