Research Report Specifications
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENHANCING LANDSLIDE INVENTORYING, LIDAR HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND ASSET MANAGEMENT Final Report SPR 786 ENHANCING LANDSLIDE INVENTORYING, LIDAR HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND ASSET MANAGEMENT Final Report PROJECT SPR 786 by Ben A. Leshchinsky Michael J. Olsen Michael Bunn Oregon State University for Oregon Department of Transportation Research Section 555 13TH St. NE Salem, OR 97301 June 2018 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-OR-RD-18-18 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Enhancing Landslide Inventorying, Lidar Hazard Assessment and Asset June 2018 Management 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Ben A. Leshchinsky, Michael J. Olsen, and Michael D. Bunn Report No. SPR 786 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) School of Civil and Construction Engineering Oregon State University 11. Contract or Grant No. 101 Kearney Hall Corvallis, Oregon 97331 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Oregon Dept. of Transportation Covered Research Section and Federal Highway Admin. 555 13th Street NE, Suite 1 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Salem, OR 97301 Washington, DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Technical Advisory Committee: Curran Mohney (Project Champion, ODOT), Katie Castelli (ODOT), Russ Frost (ODOT), Susan Ortiz (ODOT), Becky Knutson (ODOT), Nancy Calhoun (DOGAMI), Bill Burns (DOGAMI), Adam Booth (PSU), Kira Glover-Cutter (Research Coordinator, ODOT) 16. Abstract Landslides are frequent hazards that result in major economic, environmental and social impacts for operation, maintenance and construction of highways. Current landslide databases are limited and often fragmented since they are based on a variety of inventories/geologic maps from various sources, which have been mapped sporadically over time as funding permits. Recent geospatial technologies such as lidar provide detailed geomorphologic information of the topography that significantly improves the accuracy of landslide mapping, particularly in forested terrain where these features can be masked by vegetation. This research significantly modified and improved the Contour Connection Method (CCM), a semi-automated approach to mapping existing landslides from digital elevation models to efficiently produce inventories. Supporting GIS-based tools were developed for straightforward implementation of the research. A special paper documenting workflows to utilize the tool for different applications was produced and will be published by the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. The report also provides a detailed accuracy assessment of the accuracy and limitations of the CCM approach. The methodology was applied to large sections of several highway corridors that routinely experience landslides including US Routes 36 and 126, 42, and 101. The inventories were then integrated with traffic modeling analyses in a risk-based framework to evaluate economic consequences resulting from damages and closure time from the occurrence of landsliding. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Landslides, lidar, risk mapping https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES / 19. Security Classification (of this 20. Security Classification 21. No. of Pages 22. Price report) (of this page) 208 Technical Report Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized i ii SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA AREA 2 2 2 2 in square inches 645.2 millimeters squared mm mm millimeters squared 0.0016 square inches in 2 2 2 2 ft square feet 0.093 meters squared m m meters squared 10.764 square feet ft 2 2 yd square yards 0.836 meters squared m ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 2 2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha km kilometers squared 0.386 square miles mi 2 2 ii mi square miles 2.59 kilometers squared km VOLUME VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL L liters 0.264 gallons gal gal gallons 3.785 liters L m3 meters cubed 35.315 cubic feet ft3 ft3 cubic feet 0.028 meters cubed m3 m3 meters cubed 1.308 cubic yards yd3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 meters cubed m3 MASS NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3. g grams 0.035 ounces oz MASS kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb oz ounces 28.35 grams g Mg megagrams 1.102 short tons (2000 lb) T lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg TEMPERATURE (exact) T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams Mg °C Celsius temperature 1.8 + 32 Fahrenheit °F TEMPERATURE (exact) °F Fahrenheit 5(F-32)/9 Celsius temperature °C temperature * SI is the symbol for the International System of Measurement (4-7-94 jbp) iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the members of the ODOT Research Section, ODOT project champion Curran Mohney, and the Technical Advisory Committee for their sage advice and assistance in the preparation of this report. They also appreciate the assistance of Becky Knudson and Dejan Dudich in performing the traffic delay modeling. They appreciate the assistance of Michael Ewald who updated the SICCM code. They also thank the Oregon Lidar Consortium for providing the lidar data utilized in this study. Nancy Calhoun, Bill Burns, and Jon Franczyk from the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) tested the CCM algorithm and provided valuable feedback. OSU student Keava Cambell contributed to this research as part of the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) program. DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Oregon and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Oregon Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. v vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 COMPONENTS OF THIS STUDY .......................................................................................... 3 1.3 PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE AND LIMITATIONS ....................................................... 4 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 7 2.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 INTRODUCTION TO LANDSLIDES ....................................................................................... 7 2.3 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS IN OREGON .................................................................................... 9 2.4 LANDSLIDE MAPPING ...................................................................................................... 11 2.4.1 Inventory Mapping ............................................................................................................................... 11 2.4.2 Hazard Mapping .................................................................................................................................. 18 2.4.3 Risk Mapping ....................................................................................................................................... 19 2.4.4 Challenges and Future Opportunities.................................................................................................. 20 3.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 23 3.1 SEMI-AUTOMATIC LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAPPING..................................................... 23 3.1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 23 3.1.2 Base Data Acquisition and Processing ................................................................................................ 23 3.1.3 Scarp Identification Procedure ............................................................................................................ 25 3.1.4 Mapping Landslide Deposits ............................................................................................................... 31 3.2 RISK MAPPING WITH CCM LANDSLIDE INVENTORIES ................................................... 38 3.2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 38 3.2.2 Hazard Component .............................................................................................................................