3-5 November 2009 | Grimaldi Forum Monaco | Monte Carlo, Monaco

BUCKLE INITIATION AND WALKING

MITIGATION FOR HP/HT PIPELINES

Daniel Carneiro*, João Gouveia, Rafael Parrilha

Bureau Veritas Group, Rio de Janeiro Technical Center, Brazil

Carlos de Oliveira Cardoso

Petrobras Research Center – Cenpes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

ABSTRACT

Non-buried pipelines subjected to high internal pressures and temperatures (HP/HT) are
susceptible to lateral buckling and longitudinal ratcheting, which might induce high strains,
which could cause the pipe steel wall to failure, and/or excessive axial movements (walking).
Engineering solutions to deal with those effects in a feasible, safe and reliable manner are highly
encouraged since pipeline systems may represent major cost items in the development of
deepwater fields.

This paper summarizes the thermal expansion control strategy for two 219mm (8.625in) OD,
25.4mm (1.0in) thick, 6km length oil production pipelines recently installed offshore Brazilian

* Corresponding author – daniel.carneiro@br.bureauveritas.com

1
coast, in water depths from 1443m up to 1572m. Arrangement employs dual sleepers to limit
buckling spacing and end anchoring to prevent pipeline walking.

Several studies were performed using non-linear tri-dimensional finite element models
considering: pipe-soil interaction with full 3D seabed bathymetry; load history maintained from
pipelay to operational cycles, including temperature transient effects; plastic strains (including
steel properties de-rating due to high temperature) and section ovalization; mechanical contact
between pipe and appurtenances during both installation and operational phases. Pipe-soil
interaction comprised embedment considering dynamic pipelay effects and full non-linear
response in lateral and axial directions. Strain concentration factors due to field joints were
evaluated using detailed solid models considering non-linear response of both steel and
insulation materials. Buckle initiator geometry was assessed through critical force sensitivity
study, and their adequate locations were determined on seabed roughness analyses.

Extensive engineering workload and tools were invested on finite element models to realistically
represent the system relevant parameters (pipe, soil, operational data, etc.) covering several
scenarios, keeping the adequate level of conservatism required for subsea systems assets.

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents an overview of the challenges overcome in the engineering design of two oil
production pipelines, each one connecting a single well to the FPSO (floating production, storage
and offloading platform) Cidade de Vitória at Golfinho field, offshore the Brazilian State of
Espírito Santo. The lines are 219mm (8.625in) outer diameter (OD), 25.4mm (1.0in) wall
thickness C-Mn steel pipelines (API 5L X60), 6071m and 5372m length, respectively, with
60mm thick polypropylene thermal insulation coating. The design oil inlet temperature and
pressure are 90°C and 35MPa, respectively, for both lines, decreasing less than 10°C and 2MPa
along their length. The routes are straight lines between the pipeline end terminations (PLETs).
The water depth is approximately 1500m and the average route declivity is 1.27° (2.2%). The
two pipelines were successfully installed by reeling last July.

2
The high pressure and high temperature (HP/HT) operating conditions and sour content
associated with the small diameter required to single well oil production would usually lead to
flexible flowline solution in Brazilian fields. The decision of employing small diameter thick-
walled rigid C-Mn steel pipelines with thick thermal insulation made necessary extensive
engineering work to achieve a safe and robust thermal expansion control arrangement, including
the design of walking mitigation and buckle initiation devices. Those issues are focused in this
paper; a wider overview of the engineering design was presented by Carneiro et al. (2009).

Several studies were performed using non-linear three-dimensional finite element (FE) models.
Global analyses using SAGE Profile 3D v1.2 considered: pipe-soil interaction with full 3D
seabed bathymetry and evaluation of embedment during pipelay; load history maintained from
pipelay to operational cycles, including temperature transient effects; plastic strains (including
steel properties de-rating due to high temperature) and section ovalization; mechanical contact
between pipe and appurtenances. Local analyses were performed using ANSYS v.12.0 to:
account for more complex pipe-soil response models and buckle initiators geometry; evaluate
strain concentration factors due to field joints; extract natural frequencies of post loaded
deformed free spans for vortex induced vibration (VIV) assessment. Installation analyses,
including the assessment of pipeline dynamic impact onto pre-installed sleepers, were done with
Orcaflex v9.2.

Next sections address the lateral buckling strategy proposed for control thermal expansion,
followed by the mitigation designed to avoid longitudinal ratcheting throughout the heat-up/cool-
down cycles. Afterward, the lateral ratcheting over the sleepers, which was not anticipated but
observed in the FE analyses, is described. The text is then concluded with a brief summary of the
outlined issues.

CONTROLLED LATERAL BUCKLING

Pipeline heat-up to operational temperature induces thermal expansion, which is restricted by the
frictional resistance along the pipe-soil interface, as well as restrains at end connections. The
resulting axial compressive force can induce the pipeline to buckle laterally. The lateral
deformation will grow until a new balance configuration is reached, which may not occur before
3
the failure of the pipe wall. The amount of bending that will relieve the axial compression is
function of the length of pipeline expanding into the buckle, which is called feed-in length. A
section of pipeline (sufficiently apart from its ends) will feed into a buckle unless (i) it is far
enough from the buckle so that the compression (due to pipe-soil friction) built up from the
buckle is sufficient to convert all the thermal expansion into mechanical strain; or (ii) it will feed
into other closer buckle.

The traditional design procedure is to prevent buckling, restraining the pipeline by trenching,
burying or rock dumping. Modern trend is to permit buckles, provided that the induced stresses
and strains are within safe limits. For moderate operational temperatures and pressures, one can
check if the buckles associated with conservatively long feed-in lengths meet the codes
stress/strain limits. For more severe design conditions, the designer shall ensure that the pipeline
will buckle as often as required, which might involve artificial buckle initiators.

The use of controlled lateral buckling, to limit the length of pipeline expanding into a single
buckle and thus the bending induced strains, is being investigated for more than 20 years. Hobbs
and Liang (1989) proposed rock dumping at discrete intervals, which was used, for example, in
the design of the Åsgard Transport pipeline (Nystrøm et al., 2001). Frederiksen et al. (1998)
studied the feasibility of using regular curves in the pipeline route as buckle initiators, what they
called “snaking configuration”. This technique was employed in Penguins flowline (Matheson et
al., 2004, Hooper et al., 2004). Different buckle initiation devices were proposed by Harrison et
al. (2003) for the design of the King flowlines, including buoyancy sections and sleepers, being
this last device the one chosen and installed. Two joint industry projects (JIP) named Safebuck
(Bruton et al., 2005) and Hotpipe (Collberg et al., 2005) intend to develop design guidelines for
the design of pipelines subjected to HP/HT. In the last years, controlled buckling strategy has
been more and more utilized in the design of pipelines, although to the date only a limited
number of those have operational data published and the state-of-art did not take benefit from
sufficient field information for full validation and mature understanding of this approach.

Buckle Initiation Strategy

For the pipelines under discussion, preliminary analyses indicated that an on-bottom buckle
would only be safe for feed-in lengths below 1km. However, pipeline will only buckle after
4
compressive forces builds up to sufficient level that will trigger it, known as critical force which
depends on the pipeline geometry and boundary resistance. Typical spacing between buckle
initiators to ensure they will work adequately is 2 to 3km (Bruton et al., 2005). Hence, a suitable
solution should meet major constraints:

(i) Limit states at engineered and rogue buckle locations should meet design codes;
(ii) Spacing between engineered buckles should be large enough to guarantee proper initiation;
(iii) Critical buckling force on initiators should be low enough to avoid rogue buckles close to the
engineered buckles locations, which could reduce the compression build up length for the
initiator, thus preventing it from working properly.

A possible approach to deal with the uncertainties and variability in both the soil resistance and
the out-of-straightening due to laydown and bathymetry is to develop a probabilistic model,
which would quantify the probability of a proposed configuration for buckle initiation not
comply with the three abovementioned constraints. If a given configuration keeps this value
significantly low, it could be considered adequately safe. However, for the present work it was
preferred to have all the constraints fulfilled when combining the characteristic parameters in
pre-defined critical conditions, so that a wide range of soil properties would be covered by the
buckle initiation strategy.

An extensive study was dedicated to properly represent the soil characteristics and variability in
the numerical simulations considering data provided by geotechnical campaigns. The undrained
shear strength su and submerged weight γ were investigated in nine different soil bores along the
routes region. Statistical treatment was given to the data to fit Weibull distribution curves. The
three characteristic values: the best estimate (BE) and the lower and upper bounds (LB and UB)
corresponding to 5% probability of exceedance, were used throughout the analyses. For each pair
of su and γ, a nominal embedment was calculated and, from this, the axial and lateral response
curves were determined.

Embedment was assessed according to the formulation by Verley and Lund (1995) considering a
lay factor over the pipeline submerged weight to take account of both reaction concentrations at
touch down region and dynamic effects during pipe lay. This factor was calibrated from the
surveys feedback in previous assessed pipelines. The peak axial resistance was calculated

5
multiplying the pipe-soil contact area for the nominal embedment values by the respective su and
by an adhesion factor. The residual axial resistance was obtained dividing peak value by clay
sensitivity. Lateral break-out and residual resistance values were calculated using the empirical
formulae proposed by Bruton et al. (2006). The end resistance provided by the PLETs was also
modeled as non-linear springs, calculated similarly to the pipe-soil axial resistance, considering
the total area of the PLETs foundations.

Several FE analyses were performed to better understand the pipe-soil interaction, the post-
buckling behavior and sensibility in the response of the pipelines to the buckle initiation strategy.
It was observed that an engineering solution by single sleeper installation would not properly
fulfill the constraints. An alternative solution adopting distributed buoyancy sections installed
along specific pipeline segments faced project restrictions due to the required procurement time
span that would not fit the project schedule. The pipelines length limited the possible
alternatives, while the bathymetry restricted the feasible initiator locations.

The final solution, using dual sleepers sets spaced 1.3km to 2.0km, apart showed up to be the
most reliable while feasible. This solution consists in installing two sleepers, which are sections
of large diameter pipe (over a shallow foundation) pre-installed perpendicularly to the pipeline
route to provide initial upset thus trigging the buckle, a few meters apart so they will work
together (Figure 1). By lifting up the pipeline in their vicinity, they also permit it to deform
laterally with negligible influence of the soil resistance, hence resulting in smoother bends and
lower stresses and strains at the buckle apex. The use of dual sleepers permits increasing the
uplifted length while limiting large free spans which could be subjected to over bending due to
its own weight or fatigue due to VIV.

6
 Figure 1 – Pipeline crossing a dual sleeper set; sleeper drawing

Buckle Initiators Geometry and Location

The sleepers’ height and spacing were optimized through sensibility analyses, accounting for the
triggering force, acceptable feed-in length as well as code checks of the formed free spans.
Several finite element (FE) models were used to assess the critical buckling force which will
trigger a buckle over the initiator for different sleeper arrangements. Both ANSYS and SAGE
programs were employed, presenting very good results’ agreement. Sensitivity analyses were
performed to determine the sleepers’ height (h) and spacing. Some results of normalized critical
force, which is the critical force on the initiator over the design minimum on-bottom critical
force, are presented in Figure 2. Sensitivity to the pipeline-sleeper friction (µ) was also
investigated, but it is observed that this parameter is not significant to the critical force as it is
believed to be to the post buckle behavior. The solution using 0.8m height sleepers 20m apart
was chosen as further increase in these values would result in marginal Pcr reduction while
bringing VIV issues in the formed spans.

7
 1.4
µ = 0.2
Normalized Critical Buckling Force

1.2 µ = 0.3
µ = 0.4
µ = 0.5
1

0.8

0.6 ANSYS h = 0.5

SAGE h = 0.8
0.4
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 10 15 20 25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Sleeper Height (m) Sleeper Spacing (m) Initial lateral displacement (m)
for a 70m aprox. curve length

Figure 2 – Sensibility analyses to determine dual sleepers’ geometry

For the acceptable feed-in length, the strains induced to the pipe wall would meet displacement
controlled code check after buckling, as well as accumulated plastic strain limits and low cycle
fatigue and fracture checks through heat-up/cool-down cycles. These strains were assessed
through FE models (Figure 3), built with ANSYS 12.0 PIPE289 elements, starting from 100mm
long with 36 integration points around the circumference, getting coarser as distance from buckle
apex grows. The steel stress-strain curve was considered by a bilinear curve, with linear-
perfectly plastic behavior. The yield stress was de-rated due to the temperature effects. Contact
between the pipeline and the sleeper was modeled with 3-D line-to-line contact elements, the
sleeper was considered a rigid cylinder with a prescribed friction coefficient. Contact between
the pipeline and the seabed was modeled with 3-D node-to-surface contact elements, with
detached axial and lateral plastic non-linear behavior.

8
 Figure 3 – ANSYS FE model of buckling over dual sleeper

Prior to code checking, the obtained strains are majored by a strain concentration factor (SNCF),
which was calculated in specific local models to consider the discontinuity in the pipe bending
stiffness induced by the field joints, in which the thick thermal coating is manufactured in
polyurethane, whose Young’s modulus is significantly lower than the polypropylene one. These
models considered both the pipe wall and the thermal coating, modeled with solid elements, with
their expected stress-strain curves. The maximum feed-in length was preliminarily based on
ultimate limit state check with the maximum design strain. The cyclic loading due to operation
shutdown and heat-up were assessed by repeatedly unloading and re-loading the model for a
prescribed number of times. While the maximum displacements increases for further cycles, the
buckles get smoother and the strains are thus reduced. Although the maximum feed-in length
presented moderate plastic strain (total strain of the order of two times the yield strain), plastic
strain was not observed in the re-loading cycles.

The compressive force that would induce buckling over the dual sleeper was set below the
minimum force which could trigger an on-bottom buckle, calculated based on as-laid out-of-

9
straightening records from the operator. Notwithstanding, the first global FE analyses
considering the sleepers resulted in rogue buckles relatively close to the initiators, preventing
them to adequately initiate buckles. It was observed that the rough seabed presented features
where the triggering force was drastically reduced.

These seabed profile features were mapped through bottom roughness analyses (Figure 4), by
observing the effective axial force diagrams while gradually loading the FE models. For some
buckle susceptible regions, moving the initiators farther would not guarantee their effectiveness.
For those cases, the solution was to place the initiators on these specific spots. Although
buckling is expected to occur without the sleeper, an on-bottom buckling would result in
unacceptably large strains. In a trial and error basis, three dual sleepers’ sets were adequately
placed along each pipeline route so that possible rogue buckles will occur far enough not to
prevent them to work properly. An additional care taken was to prevent rogue buckles close to
pipe ends, which could induce excessive bending on PLETs flanges.

1425 500

1450
400
Water depth (m)

1475
300
Pcr (kN)

1500

200
1525

1550 100
P-12 route
P-13 route LB BE UB
1575 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
KP (km) KP (km)

Figure 4 – Seabed profiles; identified critical forces for P-13 pipeline

LONGITUDINAL STABILITY

When a pipeline is first exposed to operational pressure and temperature it will expand axially.
The soil friction will convert part of this expansion into mechanical axial strain. Depending on
the resulting compressive force, actual geometry and boundary conditions, pipeline may buckle,

10
relieving the compressive strain by lateral movement along some tens of meters. If it is shut
down for time enough to cool back to its original temperature it will contract, but due to the axial
friction and possibly to the lateral displacements it will not contract back to the original position.

The axial soil resistance may act in an unsymmetrical manner while heating-up and cooling-
down: seabed slope will impose an axial component of weight, acting always in the same
direction; heat-up will occur gradually from the upstream end downstream, while cool-down
occurs uniformly. Those effects might induce a net axial shift after each cycle. Although much
smaller than the heat-up expansion, this global displacement will accumulate throughout the
operational cycles, possibly leading to significant axial movement of the whole pipeline. The
axial ratcheting due to the temperature transient was first formulated by Tørnes et al. (2000).
Carr et al. (2006) presented a comprehensive description of what they called pipeline walking
due to seabed slope, temperature transient as well as tension at the end of the flowline associated
with a steel catenary riser.

By the time of the thermo-mechanical analyses of Golfinho oil production pipelines, the
temperature transient has not been well defined. This, allied to the uncertainty in the axial soil
resistance, required the assessment of two opposing possible behaviors: a steeper temperature
gradient along pipeline length during heat-up associated with higher soil resistance could induce
axial ratcheting towards the FPSO (shallower) pipeline end; while a more uniform heat-up in a
less resistant soil would provoke accumulated displacements towards the well (deeper) end. First
FE analyses indicated that only the second possibility was really a concern. Despite the moderate
1.27° average declivity, a tendency of moving downwards with gravity was observed, with
global axial displacements building up to 10m at the end of the pipeline design life.

The proposed mitigating measure was to install torpedo anchoring piles connected to the PLET
at the shallower end of each line. Further analyses indicated that in the worst condition, the loads
at those piles would increase rapidly in the first cycles then converging to something just below
700kN (Figure 5).

11
 700

600

500
Pile Reaction (kN)

400

300

200

100

0
1st_Shutdown

2nd_Shutdown

3rd_Shudown

4th_Shutdown

5th_Shutdown

6th_Shutdown

7th_Shutdown

8th_Shutdown

9th_Shutdown

10th_Shutdown

11th_Shutdown

12th_Shutdown

13th_Shutdown

14th_Shutdown

15th_Shutdown

16th_Shutdown

17th_Shutdown

18th_Shutdown

19th_Shutdown
Figure 5 – Reaction on the anchoring piles throughout cool-down cycles

RATCHETING OVER THE DUAL SLEEPERS

Some following interesting results were obtained from the further analyses. The dual sleepers’
sets divided each pipeline into four sections which behaved almost independently from each
other in respect to the axial ratcheting. Figure 6 presents the results of the first 45 cycles in one
of the several analyses performed in the design of the two flowlines. The lateral displacements
over each of the dual sleepers are presented for each consecutive heat-up cycle, while the
longitudinal displacements at a representative point in the middle of each of the four mentioned
sections (A, B, C and D) refer to the cool-down conditions. It is observed that the anchor pile
restrains the first section within a few cycles. However, it took about 25 cycles to reach balance
between the lateral ratcheting on the dual sleepers and the axial ratcheting in the two central
sections, so they stopped moving further.

12
 20.00 -2.40
1st dual sleeper
15.00 -1.80

Longitudinal displacement (m)

Lateral displacements (m)

2nd dual sleeper

at intermediate sections
over dual sleepers

10.00 -1.20
3rd dual sleeper

5.00 -0.60 Section A (shallower)

0.00 0.00 Section B

-5.00 0.60 Section C

Section D (deeper)
-10.00 1.20
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45
Heat up/cool down cycles

Figure 6 – Results of lateral and longitudinal displacements from a detailed analysis

For certain conditions of soil parameters and temperature loading procedure, such as that of
Figure 6, lateral ratcheting showed up to be “stronger” than the axial one in the last (deeper)
section. In those cases, after several cycles, the net axial movement in this section reverses,
passing through the original position and going further towards the other side. A slight tendency
of convergence is noticed but the analyses did not proceed to confirm it as the lateral
displacement over the last dual sleeper overcame (not showing any tendency to stop) the
maximum sleeper length that could be installed with the available vessel.

The lateral ratcheting over the sleepers can be explained as follows: when pipeline contracts it
tend to its original route position, thus projecting the vector of the pipeline force on the sleeper
on a vertical plane along the sleeper axis, it will point inwards to the as laid position and
downwards to the seabed (Figure 7). An approximately opposite force will appear when the pipe
expands. The uplift component in the heat-up reduces the weight of pipeline supported by the
sleeper and thus the limit lateral resistance due to friction, permitting larger lateral movements
than in the cool-down when the vertical reaction and thus the lateral friction increases.

13
 Original
Buckled
pipeline
pipeline
position
Sleeper

Figure 7 – Elevation view of pipeline buckling over the sleeper

Instead of installing additional anchors at the deeper ends of the pipelines, additional FE analyses
were performed to evaluate what would happen to the pipe in case it hit the sleepers end stoppers
(Figure 8). Results indicated that the ratcheting would stop while the maximum induced pipeline-
stopper contact force would remain low enough not to bring any harm to pipe coating or to the
structures themselves. The maximum bending strain at the buckle apex slightly increase after the
first touch, in comparison to that from the preceding heat-up cycle, but still far below the
maximum strain obtained in the first loading. For the further cycles, this strain returned to the
original diminishing tendency (Figure 9).

End
stopper

Figure 8 – Sleeper end stopper

14
 0.25% 50kN

0.20% 40kN
Maximum total strain

Reaction at stoppers
0.15% 30kN

0.10% 20kN

Stopper at first sleeper

0.05% Stopper at second sleeper 10kN
Maximum total strain

0.00% 0kN
1st startup
1st s.down
2nd startup
2nd s.down
3rd startup
3rd s.down
4th startup
4th s.down
5th startup
5th s.down
6th startup
6th s.down
7th startup
7th s.down
8th startup
8th s.down
9th startup
9th s.down
10th startup
10th sdown
11th startup
11th sdown
12th startup
12th sdown
13th startup
13th sdown
14th startup
14th sdown
15th startup
15th sdown
16th startup
16th sdown
17th startup
17th sdown
18th startup
18th sdown
19th startup
19th sdown
20th startup
20th sdown
21th startup
21th sdown
22th startup
22th sdown
23th startup
23th sdown
24th startup
24th sdown
25th startup
25th sdown
26th startup
26th sdown
27th startup
27th sdown
Figure 9 – Results of the local model considering the sleeper end stopper

CONCLUSIONS

The design of two small diameter rigid pipelines for single well oil production in 1500m water
depth was outlined through the article, focusing on the engineering challenges related essentially
to the high temperature, high pressure sour content associated to large plastic strains imposed to
the pipe wall. The extensive engineering work permitted a reliable thermal expansion control
arrangement.

Interesting aspects of the pipeline behavior, such as the ratcheting effects induced by operational
cycles, were observed throughout the design analyses. An overview of how they were
investigated and the foreseen results were also discussed. Adequate monitoring of the pipeline
behavior in the course of its operating life would bring noteworthy contribution to the
understanding of these phenomena, and was therefore recommended within the design reports.
The close cooperation between operator, designer, installer and certification body was a key
success factor to provide a safe and feasible engineering solution in the tight project required
schedule.

15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Those involved in reviewing the design reports within the certification body, the installer and in
particular the final client PETROBRAS (with due mention to engineer Eduardo Oazen)
recurrently enriched the works through deep and pertinent discussions. Their assist shall be
gratefully acknowledged.

The authors would also like to thank PETROBRAS for permitting the publication of the
interesting aspects of the project.

REFERENCES

BRUTON, D., CARR, M., CRAWFORD, M., POIATE, E., 2005. The safe design of hot on-
bottom pipelines with lateral buckling using the design – guideline developed by the
SAFEBUCK joint industry project. In: Proceedings of the 17th Deep Offshore
Technology Conference DOT2005, Vitoria, Brazil.

BRUTON, D. A. S., WHITE, D., CHEUK, J. C. Y., et al., 2006. Pipe/soil interaction behavior
during lateral buckling, including large-amplitude cyclic displacement tests by Safebuck
JIP. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-eighth Offshore Technology Conference OTC2006,
Houston, USA.

CARNEIRO, D., GOUVEIA, J., PARRILHA, R., OAZEN, E., TARDELLI, L., CARDOSO, C.,
2009. Design of Small Diameter HT/HP Sour Service Reeled Rigid Pipelines. In:
Proceedings of the 7th Rio Pipeline Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

CARR, M., SINCLAIR, F., BRUTON, D. A. S., 2006. Pipeline walking – understanding the
field layout challenges, and analytical solutions developed for the Safebuck JIP. In:
Proceedings of the 38th Offshore Technology Conference OTC2006, Houston, USA.

COLLBERG, L., MØRK, K. J., LEVOLD, E., VITALI, L., 2005. Hotpipe JIP: design guidelines
for HP/HT pipelines. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE2005, Halkidiki, Greece.

16
FREDERIKSEN, P. S., ANDERSEN J. B., JØNSSON, P. H., 1998. Controlled lateral buckling
of submarine pipelines in snaked configuration. In: Proceedings of the 17th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE98, Lisbon, Portugal.

HARRISON, G. E., BRUNNER, M. S., BRUTON, D. A. S., 2003. King flowlines - thermal
expansion design and implementation. In: Proceedings of the 35th Offshore Technology
Conference OTC2003, Houston, USA.

HOBBS, R. E. AND LIANG, F., 1989. Thermal buckling of pipelines close to restraints. In:
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering OMAE89, v. 5, pp. 121-127, The Hague, Netherlands.

HOOPER, J., MASCHNER, E., FARRANT, T., 2004. HT/HP pipe-in-pipe snaked lay
technology - industry challenges. In: Proceedings of the 36th Offshore Technology
Conference OTC2004, Houston, USA.

MATHESON, I., CARR, M., PEEK, R., SAUNDERS, P., GEORGE, N., 2004. Penguins
flowline lateral buckle formation analysis and verification. In: Proceedings of the 23rd
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE2004,
Vancouver, Canada.

NYSTRØM, P. R, TØRNES, K., KARLSEN, D. S., ENDAL, G., LEVOLD, E., 2001. Design of
the Åsgard Transport gas trunkline for thermal buckling. In: Proceedings of the 11th
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference ISOPE2001, Stavanger,
Norway.

TØRNES, K., OSE, B. A., JURY, J., THOMSON, P., 2000. Axial Creeping of high temperature
flowlines caused by soil ratcheting. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE2000, New Orleans, USA.

VERLEY, R. L. P., LUND, K. M., 1995. A soil resistance model for pipelines placed on clay
soils. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
& Arctic Engineering OMAE95, v. 5, pp. 225-232, Copenhagen, Denmark.

17