Proceedings of the ASME 2012 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2012
July 1-6, 2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

OMAE2012- 83551

ROCK BERM DESIGN FOR PIPELINE STABILITY

David J Chamizo Dean R Campbell

Atteris Pty. Ltd., Atteris Pty. Ltd.,
Perth, WA, Australia Perth, WA, Australia

Eric P Jas Jay R Ryan

Atteris Pty. Ltd., Atteris Pty. Ltd.,
Perth, WA, Australia Perth, WA, Australia

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION
Stabilizing large diameter natural gas pipelines on the Pipelines are typically the most effective method for
seabed against extreme hydrodynamic loading conditions has transporting hydrocarbons from subsea wells to shore for
proven to be challenging in the northwest of Australia. Tropical processing. Extreme storm conditions and interference from
storms, which affect the area annually between November and shipping have resulted in numerous pipeline failures over the
April, can generate wave heights exceeding 30 m and storm past few decades and must be carefully designed for.
steady state currents of 2 m/s or more. Consequently, in shallow
It is common practice in the offshore industry to apply a
water depths, typically less than 40 60 m, subsea pipelines
concrete weight coating (CWC) to the pipeline to increase its
can be subjected to very high hydrodynamic loads, potentially
submerged weight for on-bottom stability. The concrete
causing significant lateral movement. To mitigate the risk of the
coating, which is typically a few inches thick, also provides
pipeline suffering mechanical damage due to excessive lateral
some degree of mechanical protection to the pipeline. However,
movement, quarried and graded rock is often dumped over the
there is a practical limit to how much weight coating can be
pipeline as a secondary stabilization solution.
applied to a pipeline, due to either the tension or handling
In order to satisfy functional requirements, the rock berm capacity of the pipeline installation vessel or the handling
must comprise of a sufficiently large rock grading size and capacity at the coating plant. In cases where the maximum
berm volume to withstand the design hydrodynamic loading coating thickness cannot provide the pipeline with a sufficient
such that the pipeline cannot break out of the berm. The design level of safety, a secondary stabilization method may have to be
of rock berms for pipeline secondary stabilization has adopted.
traditionally followed a deterministic approach that uses
One method for achieving pipeline secondary stabilization
empirical equations for preliminary rock sizing, followed by
and/or accidental external impact protection is by dumping
small-scale physical modeling for design verification and
quarried rock over the pipeline. Depending on the water depth
optimization. Whilst the traditional approach can be effective in
and armour rock grading size, a Side Dump Vessel (SDV) or
producing a robust rock berm design, opportunities for further
Fall Pipe Vessel (FPV) is typically used to install a rubble
optimization are inhibited by a lack of available data and an
mound near-bed structure that is commonly referred to as a
imperfect understanding of the failure mechanisms.
rock berm.
This paper presents an overview of an improved approach
This paper presents an overview of the rock berm design
for rock berm design optimization. A general overview of rock
concept, the analytical design methods, comparison of
berms, the design principles, benefits and risks are also
analytical method with physical model test results, and
presented.
recommendations for design practice

1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

DES
SIGN PRINCIIPLES sittuations. Thhis paper aimms to provide guidance on o this
suubject, which is based on a review of thhe relevant litterature
Pipe
eline Limit States
S annd experience designing seecondary stabiilization systeems for
several major gaas pipeline proojects over thee last decade.
The purpose of the rock berm design is to providde an
T
accepptable safety margin againnst relevant failure
f modes that In the absennce of strict guidance,
g the ddesigner may choose
may lead to exceeddence of pipelline limit statees. to design a rockk berm that iss considered tto be either sttatically
staable or dyynamically sttable under the characcteristic
Wheere the pipelinne external cooncrete weighht coating alonne is ennvironmental lload. Each appproach has iits own beneffits and
not considered
c to pprovide an accceptable level of safety agaiinst a drrawbacks.
givenn failure modde, rock berm ms may be useed as a seconndary
form
m of stabilisatiion. The relevvant pipeline failure modess are
Sttatic Stabilitty Design Ap
pproach
loss of pipeline oon-bottom staability and damage causedd by
exterrnal interferennce. Statically sstable structurres are those where no orr minor
daamage is allowwed to under design conditiions. The term m static
Excessive displacement ccaused by looss of on-boottom
E
im
mplies minimaal movement of o individual sstones. Conseqquently,
stabiility is consideered a serviceaability limit sttate (SLS) [2]. For
a berm cannott be considerred to be staatically stable where
pipelline stability,, the rock bberm must pprovide sufficient
freequent or widdespread rollinng of stones occurs, even if such
embeedment such that the hydrrodynamic loaads acting onn the
instability does not reduce thee height of thee berm
pipelline do not exceed the resisttance provided by the weigght of
the ppipeline and ppipe-rock fricttional forces [2].
[ Otherwisee, the The armourr rock gradingg is sized succh that the inddividual
pipelline may breakk-out of the bberm and potenntially resultinng in rock particles are virtually stable durinng the characcteristic
excessive lateral ddisplacement oof the pipeline.. ennvironmental loading
l condiition, which tyypically has a return
peeriod (RP) oof 100 years.. By ensurinng that the rrisk of
Roc
ck Berm Des
sign Require
ements siggnificant bermm degradation occurring oveer the pipelinee design
liffe is sufficienttly low, the pipeline stabiliity requiremennts may
IIn addition too the integrityy of the pipeeline, the desiigner bee satisfied by a no-cover rocck berm profilee.
mustt also considerr the stability of the rock beerm structure.. The
bermm dimensions should be opptimized to minimizem the total A no-coverr rock berm prrofile can be defined as whhere the
life-ccycle cost witthout sacrificiing ability to satisfy the deesign noominal height to which rockk is placed adjjacent to the ppipeline
requiirements. Thee total life-cyccle cost compprises rock suupply is level with thhe crown of thhe pipeline. F
Figure 1 provvides an
and installation costs (CAPE EX) and maaintenance w works exxample of a theoretical
t deesign profile for a no-coveer rock
(OPE EX). beerm.
C
CAPEX is a function of armour rock grading size, the A no-coverr rock berm may have a defined crest width.
numbber of layers aand the requireed rock quantity. A smaller rock Inncreasing the wwidth of the berm providees improved sstability
gradiing can be muuch cheaper to produce and iinstall, but is more
m aggainst hydrodyynamic loading at the expennse of increaseed rock
susceeptible to iinstability uunder hydroddynamic loadding. quuantities.
Simiilarly, a rock bberm with veryy steep side sloopes will requuire a
The requireed side slope for stability is a functionn of the
smalller rock quanntity, but willl be more prrone to excesssive
armmour gradingg and hydrodynamic loadding, howeveer, side
deforrmation that mmay require maaintenance woorks (OPEX).
sloopes of 1v:3h have been useed successfullyy on past projeects.
M
Maintenance w works may bee required if thhe berm crest level
drops below the m minimum leveel required to satisfy the deesign
requiirements.. Thhe decision oon whether or not to perrform
mainntenance workks is made by the t operator. Factors
F likely tto be
consiidered in the ddecision makinng process incclude the lenggth of
pipelline at risk, thhe frequency oof vessel moveement throughh that
particular area andd the remainingg design life.

mage Accepttance Criteriia

Dam
An important aspect of rock berm designn is specifyingg the
A FIGURE 1 TYPICAL
T NO-C
COVER ROCK
K BERM DESIG
GN
accepptance criteria for the deggree of bermm damage alloowed
durinng the design hydrodynamic
h c conditions. A no-coverr rock berm prrofile comprisiing a staticallyy stable
T
The CIRIA Rock manuaal [1] providdes guidancee on armmour rock grrading can prooduce a robuust and cost-effective
calcuulating damagge levels for thhis type of strructure, but onn the secondary stabillization solutioon. This approoach is most suitable
s
topicc of acceptancce criteria it states there is no strict guiddance for water depthhs of less thann 10 -15 meteers, in cases w where a
yet on
o which damage level sshould be app pplied in diffeferent redduced rock grrading size dooes not offer ssignificant bennefits to

2 Copyrigght 2012 byy ASME

the pproject. A stattically stable ddesign is also robust in thaat the thee rock gradinng to within thhe limits of a FPV can signnificant
levell of berm degrradation is noot sensitive to the frequencyy and redduce the cost of installationn when overduumping is factoored in.
durattion of storm events
e over thhe design life.
An additionnal benefit of reducing the armour rock ggrading
IIt should be noted that thee theoretical rock berm prrofile sizze is the reduuced risk of ppipeline damagge by falling armour
show
wn in Figure 1 represents a minimum ddesign profile that rock particles dduring berm innstallation. In cases where tthis risk
mustt be satisfied over the appplicable lengtth of the pipeline is considered unacceptable,, a protectivve coating m may be
routee. Due to inaccuracies off offshore rock placementt, an reqquired to absoorb impact eneergy.
addittional quantityy of rock mustt be allowed fo
for overdumpinng to
The main ddrawback of this approachh is the consiiderable
ensurre that the minimum ddesign profilee is consisteently
levvel of uncertaainty in predicting the deggree of berm damage
d
achieeved.
for a given hyydrodynamic loading conddition. This will w be
T
The accuracyy of the rockk placement is dependennt on discussed in thee following secction of the paaper. For this reason,
severral factors succh as the insttallation vesseel, the water ddepth phhysical modell testing is tyypically perfoormed to veriify and
and the seastatee conditions. Where berm m installationn is pootentially optim
mize a prelimiinary rock berrm design.
perfoormed by a sidde dump vesseel (SDV) in water depths grreater
than 20 m, the quantity off additional rock r allowedd for DE
ESIGN METHODS
overddumping can ooften exceed tthe theoreticall quantity baseed on
the ddesign berm pprofile. Consequently, the accuracy of rock Near-bed structures aree submergedd structures with a
placeement has a significant
s imppact on the coost of rock suupply rellatively low ccrest height ccompared to tthe water depth. The
deepth of submerrgence of thesse structures iss sufficient to assume
and installation and should be considereed in the deesign
selecction process. thaat wave brreaking doess not signifficantly affeect the
hyydrodynamics around the sstructure. It iss not uncomm mon for
quuarried rock tto be dumpedd over a pipelline in very shallows
waater near the sshore crossingg, although thee pipeline is tyypically
Dynamic Stabiliity Design A
Approach laiid in a trench such that the bberm crest is nnot above the natural
seabed level.
D
Dynamically sstable rock beerms are desiggned for signifficant
moveement of indivvidual rock paarticles duringg the characterristic Compared tto the stabilityy of rock slopees of breakwatters and
loadiing condition.. This results in a developpment of the berm
b suubmerged strucctures, relativeely scarce info
formation is avvailable
profiile, with indivvidual rock parrticles displaced by wave acction onn near-bed struuctures wheree currents and non-breakingg waves
until the transportt capacity aloong the profille is reduced to a form the prim mary design lload. This seection of thee paper
levell such that an almost
a static pprofile is reachhed. prrovides a brief literature reeview of desiggn methods fo for both
staatically stablee and dynam mically stablee rock bermss under
A key feature of a dynamiccally stable roock berm desiggn is
waaves and curreents.
an alllowable crestt level drop tthat is built-inn to the minim mum
desiggn dimensionss (Figure 2). The design m may also featuure a
Crritical Shearr Method
wideer crest level too allow greateer rolling of sttones without crest
levell drop. By inccorporating ann additional roock quantity inn the The traditioonal design method
m for hhydraulic stabbility of
desiggn to allow for some damagge, the armourr rock gradingg size rockfill is baseed on the inncipient motioon or critical shear
may be reduced. cooncept proposeed by Shields [5].
The stabiliity of the rockk berm is asssessed by calcculating
thee value of the Shieldds parameter,, , which is a
noondimensionallization of the shear stress annd is given byy Eq. 1
.
(1)
( r w ) gD

URE 2 ROCK B
FIGU BERM DESIGN
N FOR DYNAM
MIC STABILITY
Y
W
Where,

A potentiallyy significant benefit of reeducing the rock = bed shhear stress

gradiing size is to aallow berm insstallation withh a Fall Pipe V
Vessel r = rock particle densitty
(FPV
V), which gennerally are noot suitable forr rock sizes laarger
than 250 300 mm. m As FPVss typically havve a much grreater w = denssity of seawateer
loadiing capacity aand dumping accuracy thann SDVs, reduucing g = gravittational constaant

3 Copyrigght 2012 byy ASME

 D = rock particle diameter estimate of the required rock size, provided that the 1%-
exceedence wave height, H1%, and peak period, Tp, is used to
calculate the velocity at the berm crest. Use of the significant
wave height, Hs, can seriously underestimate the governing
shear stresses. A critical Shields parameter of cr = 0.030
The incipient motion method is based on the premise that should be used in combination with the full wave period
ovement of individual rock particles is initiated when the averaged shear stress, as per the recommendation by
Shields parameter , exceeds a critical value, cr.
CIRIA/CUR [1].
A pipeline designer can use this method to calculate the
required stable rock particle size D for a given set of Damaged Based Methods
hydrodynamic loading conditions and rock density. To account
An alternative approach to the critical shear method is to
for the fact that rock gradings produced in the quarry are not
allow for a certain level of berm damage during extreme storm
uniform, the characteristic rock particle size D in Shieldss
events, beyond which the pipeline may become unstable.
formula is commonly taken as the median nominal diameter
Several equations have been proposed to calculate the damage
Dn50. This infers that the largest 50% of rock particles by mass
to the structure as a function of the peak velocity (u), the weight
will remain stable for design loading condition, whilst the
of the stones and the number of waves (N). Most equations
smaller rock particles may experience some limited movement.
predict the damage in terms of the dimensionless erosion area
This approach is an attractive method to use for S, which is expressed as the ratio between the eroded area Ae
preliminary rock sizing in design practice, because it provides a and the nominal stone diameter (Dn50).
straightforward answer to the question of what rock grading
size is required to ensure a stable rock berm design. However,
the answer to this question is not so simple. The designer must Ae
decide on what value to assume for the critical Shields number, S (2)
Dn 50
and how best to calculate the bed shear stress for a combination
of waves and currents.
Where,
A key assumption of the Shields approach assumes that
there is a clear threshold of motion that can be expressed as a Ae is the erosion area of a cross-sectional berm profile
critical shear stress. In reality the boundary is not clearly
defined due to the stochastic nature of bed shear stress, Dn50 is the nominal rock particle size
protrusion, interlocking and rock particle size. This poses a
dilemma for designers because the selection of critical Shields
parameter, bed shear stress equation and the design wave height Van Gent and Wallast [7] performed scale model tests of
will all have a significant effect on the calculated rock size for the stability of near-bed structures under a combination of
stability. To maximize confidence in the results, design waves and currents. Analysis of the test results lead to the
engineers should select a combination that provides good following formula:
correlation with scale model test results.
CIRIA/CUR [1] recommends cr = 0.03 when the shear S 3
0.2
stress is averaged over a full-wave period, and cr = 0.056 N (3)
when the instantaneous maximum shear stress is used, in order
to get good agreement with the results of a set of scale model
test results performed by Rance and Warren [8] Where,
Van den Bos [6] conducted a comprehensive review of a is a dimensionless mobility parameter, which is similar
number of analytical design methods for near-bed structures in to the Shields parameter but a function of velocity at the
waves and currents, including a quantitative analysis of the berm crest level rather than shear stress, and is given by:
most promising methods against a dataset of scaled model tests.
This included the critical shear stress method for a number of
different wave-current interaction models and wave height 2 (4)
parameters.
u0
Van den Bos [6] concluded from his analyses that the
g Dn 50
critical stability method is not the most suitable method,
because the stability of a single stone could not be related to the
stability of the structure as a whole. However, the critical Where,
stability approach can be used to provide a conservative

4 Copyright 2012 by ASME

 uo is the maxximum wave--induced orbittal velocity aat the Coonsequently, itt is necessary to relate the ccrest level dropp to the
berm
m crest level aassociated withh the significannt wave. caalculated damaage number S or erosion areea Ae. The creest level
drrop for a givenn erosion areaa will depend on the proporrtion of
maaterial erodedd from the bermm slopes relatiive to the berm m crest,
A
An important aspect of the equation is thhe accumulatioon of whhich is not a constant.
damaage with the number of w waves N, as this governss the
Van den Boos [6] describbed four differrent damage pprofiles
sensiitivity of the design to storrm duration oor multiple stoorms
annd compared tthe predicted values for eaach method w with the
over its design life
fe. Saers [4] coonducted scaled model testts for
meeasured valuees in datasetts where botth S and zz were
irreggular waves annd suggests that the influencce of time (i.ee. the
meeasured. A connservative estiimate of the crrest level dropp can be
numbber of waves) could better bbe expressed w with a logarithhmic
functtion instead oof the square rroot function used by Van Gent
and W Wallast [7]. Hiis design form
mula is:

S 2.5
0.8
log(( N ) ((5)

obbtained by asssuming that a slice with a constant thickkness is

V
Van den Boss [6] analyzeed several daatasets from sscale remmoved from thhe crest of thee structure (Figgure 3).
modeel tests perforrmed by Van Gent and Waallast [7], Saerrs [4] FIGURE 3: SL
LICED PROFIL
LE [6]
and others.
o He fouund that the coorrelation betw
ween the preddicted
damaage and the oobserved dam mage could bee improved onn by Based on tthe sliced prrofile, the creest level drop can be
makiing several m modifications tto the design equation, succh as caalculated as folllows:
channging the relatiionship between S and N to S ~ N0.3:

S* 1.6 0.6 Bc Bc2 4m0 Ae (8))

a ( hc1% ) m0 (6) z
N 0.3 2 m0

Wheere,
a is a model cconstant The m most likely vaalue for the model
m hysical mod
Ph del testing
consttant is a = 0.0048, the upper bound is a = 0.12, the loower Given the limitations of o the variouus analytical design
bounnd is a = 0.02. meethods as weell as the highh consequences of failure, small-
hc1% is the dimensionless m mobility param
meter based onn the scale physical model testingg is almost aalways perform med to
peakk velocity at thhe berm crest aassociated withh H1% and Tp. veerify and optim
mize the rock bberm design.
m0 is the berm
m side slope. In additionn assessing the t response of the rockk berm
strructure to the design hydrodynamic loadds, physical modeling
m
S
S* is the dimeensionless erossion area per uunit of crest w
width, is a valuable toool for assessinng the likelihoood of lateral ppipeline
Bc, aand is given byy Eq. 7: displacement. Given
G that thee purpose of the rock berm m is to
prrovide pipelinee stability, it iis equally if not more impoortant to
unnderstand the rresponse of the pipeline.
Ae (7)
S* When asseessing the rresponse of the design to the
Bc Dn 50 chharacteristic hhydrodynamic loading conddition, the alllowable
beerm damage iss usually limitted such that it can be assum med the
pippeline is not aable to break-oout of the berm
m. For more eextreme
A common feeature of the vvarious damagged based metthods coonditions that are unlikely tto occur durinng the designn life of
is thhat they do noot include thee influence oof steady currrents. thee pipeline, thee performancee of the rock bberm may be judged
Van G Gent and Wallast [7] states that the influeence of the cuurrent onn whether it caan prevent pipeeline lateral diisplacement
can bbe neglected within
w the folloowing range: U/ uo < 2.2, w
where As is the case
c with the analytical meethods for rocck berm
U is the depth averraged current velocity (m/s)), for the followwing deesign, small-sccale physical modeling is not without its i own
rangee of the mobillity parameter:: 0.15 < < 3.5. lim
mitations and inaccuracies. This should bbe taken into account
a
IIt has been proposed eaarlier in thiss paper that the byy the pipeline designer whenn specifying thhe design acceeptance
accepptable level of damage for a dynamicallyy stable rock berm
b criiteria. The designer
d shouuld also aimm to minimiize the
be specified in teerms of an aallowable creest level dropp z. lim
mitations of mmodel testingg by selectingg an appropriaate test

5 Copyrigght 2012 byy ASME

facility, and by ensuring that all important design parameters Peak wave period s 12.6 13.5 13.7
have been scaled correctly. Zero crossing period s 9.4 10.1 10.3
Peak significant wave
m/s 1.52 1.59 1.62
orbital velocity
Steady current velocity m/s 0.86 0.96 1.03

There exists several types of test facilities that may be used

for physical modeling of near-bed structures under waves and Acceptance Criteria
currents. Each type of facility has unique benefits and
limitations, which are best suited to different environmental The following acceptance criteria were used for the rock
conditions. berm model tests:

A wave and current flume has traditionally been the most 100 year RP event the crest level may not drop below
commonly used facility for this work [10]. It allows for quasi- the crown of the pipeline. For the no-cover rock berm design,
2D modeling of structures exposed to long-crested waves and a any crest level drop is unacceptable.
co-linear steady current. The orientation of the model rock 1,000 year RP event some crest level drop is acceptable.
berm is typically perpendicular to the direction of waves and This may result in the entire crown of the pipeline being
currents. Some key advantages of using this type of facility are visible. Sufficient embedment and sheltering should be
availability and ease of model set-up and testing. Limitations provided by the rock berm such that pipeline instability does
are scaling effects for all but the largest flumes as well as end not occur.
effects due boundary conditions created by the walls of the test
section. Preliminary Berm Designs
A wave basin has been utilized on several past projects for Two rock berm design options were selected based on the
3D model testing of secondary stabilization designs [9]. Both results of empirical design methods and previous project
complex local bathymetry and directional waves can be experience.
modeled to provide a more realistic representation of the A no-cover rock berm design, comprising a 300 mm D50
prototype conditions. It is also possible to assess multiple rock grading, a berm crest height and width equal to the
designs in a single test run. Disadvantages of using this type of pipeline outer diameter, and side slopes of 1v:3h (Figure 1) was
facility include scaling effects, increased model set-up time and chosen as the base case design. The incipient motion approach
difficult to model steady currents. was used to calculate the required rock grading for a statically
structure under the 100 year return period tropical cyclonic
DESIGN CASE STUDY conditions.
The design outcomes from a recent project are presented in A full-cover rock berm profile, with a significantly smaller
this section of the paper to provide an example of how pipeline armour rock grading size that could be installed using a fall
designers may select a rock berm design for secondary pipe vessel, was selected as an alternative design. The design
stabilization. comprised a 175 mm D50 rock grading, a berm height of 2.1 m,
The preliminary berm designs were selected based on the crest width of 2.0 m and side slopes of 1v:2.5h (Figure 2).
empirical methods that have been discussed earlier in the paper. Results from damage based methods indicated that design
Physical modeling was performed to verify the preliminary would be dynamically stable, with any damage to the berm
designs and select a final design. likely to be within acceptable limits.

The paper will also provide some discussion of the test Physical Model Set-up
results, which will be compared against the predictions from The two preliminary rock berm designs were modelled in a
analytical design methods. wave/current flume at a length scale of 1:35. The flume is 30 m
long, 1.0 m wide and 1.5 m deep. At one end is a wave
Design Conditions generator capable of generating regular and irregular waves. At
To provide a summary of the extreme hydrodynamic the opposite end is a parabolic beach to absorb wave energy
loading conditions, the design values of the most relevant and create as little wave reflections as possible in the flume.
metocean parameters are listed in Table 1. Three wave gauges were positioned in the flume to measure the
surface elevation at three points.
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF METOCEAN DESIGN VALUES A 50 cm diameter return pipe, a flow impeller, and the
Return Period (years) various connections at either end created circulation flow in the
Parameter Units flume/pipe system. With a flume water depth of 0.5 m, this
100 1,000 10,000
Still Water level m 14.2 15.0 15.9 system is capable of producing a current up to 60 cm/s.
Significant wave height m 6.5 6.9 7.3 Currents were measured by an Acoustic Doppler Velocity

6 Copyright 2012 by ASME

meteer, a prototyppe location 1.4 m above the sea bed and Co
omparison o
of Test Resu
ults with Em
mpirical Meth
hods
approoximately 2 m in front of thhe toe of the sttructure.
To investiggate the effecttiveness of thee different annalytical
Each berm design was tessted for hydrodynamic loaading
E meethods describbed in this paaper, the prediicted crest levvel drop
condditions equivaalent to a return periodd of 100 yyears, haas been calculaated over a rannge of velocitiies.
1,0000 years and 110,000 years. Each test w was ran for 2,0002
Both the predicted
p andd measured vvalues (at prrototype
wavees. In this case, 2,000 wavee represents a storm duratioon of
scale) are based on the alteernative rock berm design with a
approoximately 7 hhours, which is typical of teests carried ouut for
m3 and a
1775 mm D50 rocck grading, a rock density oof 2600 kg/m
coasttal structures.
stoorm duration oof 2000 wavess.

Testt Results
F
For both the bbase case andd alternative roock berm dessigns,
the oobserved levell of berm deggradation was within acceptable
limitts for all three loading condiitions that werre tested.

F
FIGURE 4: BE
ERM PROFILE AFTER 100 YE
EAR RP TEST

FIGURE 6: CCREST LEVEEL DROP OBSERVED D DURING

PH
HYSICAL MOD
DEL TESTING AGAINST PRE
EDICTED VAL
LUES.
The academ mic value of this scale moodel test proggram is
lim
mited by the nnumber of tessts and the lacck of instrumeentation
to accurately measure tthe change in berm profile.
Coonsequently, the comparisson between the predicteed and
obbserved crest level drop cannot provvide any deefinitive
F
FIGURE 5 : BE
ERM PROFILE
E AFTER 1,000 YEAR RP TES
ST coonclusion on the most suittable damaged based methhod for
deesign practice. However, F Figure 6 doess show a reassonably
A
As expected from the rrelevant theorry, movemennt of goood correlationn between thee observed creest level drop and the
indivvidual stones occurred m much more frrequently forr the moost likely vaalues predictted by the methods
m from
m both
m D50 rockk grading thhan for the 300 mm D50 rock
175 mm Vaan den Bos [6]] and Van Gennt and Wallast [7].
gradiing. Despite widespread
w roolling of stones back and forth
over the structuree, less than 55% of stones were transpoorted GUIDANCE FO
OR DESIGN
N PRACTICE
awayy from the sstructure and crest level drop was w within
accepptable limits ffor all tests (Fiigures 4 and 55). The responnse of This paper has outlined several methoods for modelling the
the mmodel rock bberm to the teest conditionss provided a ggood response of a rock berm ddesign to dettermine whethher the
exam
mple of a dynaamically stablee structure. strructure can bee expected to satisfy
s its desiggn requiremennts.
In most casses it is relatiively simple tto ensure thatt a rock
Design Outcom
me beerm structure satisfies the project requuirements durring its
Based on the results, both ddesigns were cconsidered to have
B liffetime in term
ms of acceptablle failure ratess and cost, givven that
a sim milar level oof reliability.. The alternaative design was thee designer hass a large enouggh budget to w work with. It iis much
recommmended baseed on the assuumption that itt could be insttalled moore difficult tto demonstratee that the struucture represeents the
usingg a Fall Pipe Vessel (FPV)) For this partticular projectt, the ecconomic optim mal design.
closeest suitable rock loadd-out facilityy was loccated Simple rulees for optimizzing the cost oof rock bermss - such
approoximately 1550 nautical m miles from site.
s Potentiall for as minimizing rock volume at the expennse of a largeer rock
signiificant CAPEX X savings exxisted by redducing the arm mour grrading or vice-versa - are nnot universallyy applicable too every
rock grading size tto within the limits
l of a largge FPV, whichh has prroject. The economic optim mal design is likely to channge for
signiificant advanttages over moost SDVs in terms of loaading eaach new projeect, even forr cases wheree the environnmental
capacity, sailing sppeed and dumpping accuracyy. coonditions are iddentical. This is due to variaations in consttruction

7 Copyrigght 2012 byy ASME

related factors such as the distance between site and rock load-
out, or the cost and limitations of available installation vessels.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
As a general rule, it is recommended that both statically
stable and dynamically stable rock berm designs be considered Significant room for improvement remains for predicting
in the design optimization process. The critical stability method the rock berm response to different environmental conditions,
can be used to determine the minimum armour rock grading and for quantifying cost and risk to reach the optimal design.
size to ensure a statically stable rock berm with the minimum
Opportunities for improvement are currently limited by
design height and width. A damage based method can be used
to predict the required berm dimensions based on an armour lack of quality data from scale model tests, and more so from
rock grading size that is small enough to be reliably installed berms in the field.
with a fall pipe vessel, and/or safely dumped on an unprotected Damage based equations are still evolving with new
pipeline. Both design methods should use the characteristic research. As new sets of test data become available, the model
loading conditions with a return period of 100 years, as well as constants are likely to change and new parameters may be
the minimum density of rock that can be expected from the introduced. It is important to note that the equations are largely
quarry. based on scale model tests rather than prototype
This process may lead to two or three different rock berm tests/observations. It is understood that scaling factors tend to
designs, of which one should be selected on the basis of have a conservative influence on the results, but this is difficult
reliability and cost. Physical model testing is often a to quantify. Additional prototype data would provide increased
worthwhile undertaking to gain an increased understanding of confidence in using these equations for design optimization.
the reliability of each design under different environmental
conditions including wave height and water depth. It is CONCLUSION
generally recommended to perform physical model testing in This paper has provided guidance on designing rock berms
order to verify that the structure responds acceptably to the for pipeline stability. Damage acceptance criteria have been
design loading conditions. Scale model testing is also useful for suggested and the potential benefits of designing for both static
investigating the sensitivity of the design to more onerous stability and dynamic stability have been discussed.
conditions and to different angles of wave attack.
The most suitable design approach for a particular project
As part of the design selection process, the cost of rock will largely be governed by the relative influences of rock
supply, load-out and installation should be estimated for each grading size and rock volume on the cost of rock supply and
rock berm design option. The total quantity of rock must be rock dumping. Consequently, the designer should identify step-
calculated by considering the minimum design volume, the changes in the cost of rock installation with increasing armour
necessary overdump allowance and the bulk density of the rock rock grading size.
berm structure. Productivity rates are estimated based on
expected values for the vessel loading capacity, rock dumping Several empirical methods for preliminary rock sizing have
cycle time and expected standby time due to bad weather, crew been presented. It is important to consider the limitations of
change and breakdown. each empirical method, which are typically more applicable for
either wave dominant or current dominant conditions. Given
The cycle time for rock dumping should by estimated by the limitations of empirical methods, it is generally
considering the average time taken for each step in the recommended to perform physical model testing in order to
installation cycle, as shown in Figure 7. qualitatively assess the design reliability.

Rock Load-out Sailing to Site Dumping

Mooring Sailing from Site Surveying

FIGURE 7 FLOW CHART OF ROCK DUMPING CYCLE

Information on vessel costs and productivity rates are

based on past project experience and input from rock dumping
contractors.

8 Copyright 2012 by ASME

REFERENCES [6] Van den Bos, J. P. (2006) Design of granular near-bed
[1] CIRIA (2007), The Rock Manual The use of rock in structures in waves and currents, MSC Thesis, Delft
hydraulic engineering (Second addition), CIRIA C683, University of Technology.
London [7] Van Gent, M. R. A., and Wallast, I (2001) Stability of
[2] Det Norske Veritas, 2010a, On-Bottom Stability of near-bed structures and bed protections; analysis of
Submarine Pipelines, Recommended Practice DNV RP- physical model tests with waves and currents, WL|Delft
F109 Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands, Delft Cluster Report
HC030204H3804
[3] Det Norske Veritas, 2010b, Risk Assessment of Pipeline
Protection, Recommended Practice DNV RP-F107 [8] Rance, P.J. and Warren, N. F. (1968) The Threshold
movement of coarse material in oscillatory flow In: J W
[4] Saers, W. (2005) Erosion of rubble mound near-bed Johnson (ed), Proc 11th int conf in coastal engg, London.
structures under irregular waves, TU Delft, Delft, The
Netherlands, MSc thesis [9] Jayewardene. I.F.W., Modra, B., Campbell., D.R.,
Chamizo., D. J. (2011), 2D and 3D Physical Modelling of
[5] Shields, A. (1936) Anwendung der Current and Wave Interactions for Rock Berm Design,
Aenhnlichkeitsmechanik und der Turbulenzforschung auf Proc. Coasts and Ports 2011.
die Geschiebebewegung, Mitteilungen der Preuszichen
Versuchsanhalt fuer Wasserbau und Schiffbau (no 26),
Berlin, Germany, PhD thesis

9 Copyright 2012 by ASME