Landslide and Land Subsidence Hazards to Pipelines
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline Research Council International, and DGH Consulting Inc. Landslide and Land Subsidence Hazards to Pipelines By Rex L. Baum, Devin L. Galloway, and Edwin L. Harp Open-File Report 2008–1164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey COVER NOTE. Natural gas pipeline crossing an active landslide in Archuleta County, Colorado. The 10-cm diameter, flexible steel pipeline is a temporary replacement for a 20-cm diameter pipeline that ruptured on May 2, 2008, when the landslide reactivated as a result of snowmelt. ii Landslide and Land Subsidence Hazards to Pipelines By Rex L. Baum, Devin L. Galloway, and Edwin L. Harp Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline Research Council International, and DGH Consulting Inc. This report consists of three chapters: 1. Landslide hazards to pipelines—Regional hazard mapping 2. Land subsidence hazards 3. Landslide investigation methods Open-File Report 2008–1164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey iii U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested citation: Baum, R.L., Galloway, D.L., and Harp, E.L., 2008, Landslide and land subsidence hazards to pipelines: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1164, 192 p. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. iv Contents Chapter 1. Landslide hazards to pipelines—Regional hazard mapping, by E.L. Harp.............. vii Chapter 2. Land subsidence hazards, by D.L. Galloway, G.W. Bawden, S.A. Leake, and D.G. Honegger ...............................................................................................33 Chapter 3. Landslide investigation methods, by R.L. Baum and G.F. Wieczorek...................107 v vi Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline Research Council International, and DGH Consulting Inc. Landslide Hazards to Pipelines–Regional Hazard Mapping By Edwin L. Harp Chapter 1 of Landslide and Land Subsidence Hazards to Pipelines Open-File Report 2008–1164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey vii Contents Contents…… ..............................................................................................................................viii Abstract……..................................................................................................................................1 Introduction…................................................................................................................................1 Regional Landslide Hazard Analysis.............................................................................................2 Documentation...........................................................................................................................2 Methods of Analysis...................................................................................................................2 Qualitative Methods ................................................................................................................3 Geomorphic Analysis ...........................................................................................................3 Weighted Parameter Analysis..............................................................................................3 Quantitative Methods ..............................................................................................................4 Statistical Analyses ..............................................................................................................4 Geotechnical Models............................................................................................................4 Shallow Landslide Analyses..............................................................................................5 Deep-Seated Landslide Analyses .....................................................................................7 Utility of the Various Susceptibility or Hazard Assessment Methods .........................................9 Qualitative Methods ................................................................................................................9 Quantitative Methods ..............................................................................................................9 Statistical..............................................................................................................................9 Deterministic/Probabilistic ....................................................................................................9 Estimation of Displacement or Runout .....................................................................................10 References Cited ........................................................................................................................12 Glossary of Terms.......................................................................................................................16 Figures 1A. Deep-seated rotational slump in San Benito County, California, that has broken a natural gas pipeline.....................................................................................................................17 1B. Toe of landslide in figure 1A showing broken pipeline (brown-colored pipe) and the temporary replacement. ..............................................................................................................18 2. Portion of landslide inventory map for landslides triggered by the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake.................................................................................................................19 3. Map of Anchorage, Alaska, depicting qualitative relative seismic susceptibility based on judgment of authors. ..............................................................................................................20 4. Rock-fall hazard map of Little Mill Campground, American Fork Canyon, Utah.....................21 5. Landslide susceptibility map produced from ratio grid based on elevation and slope. ...........22 6. Map of probability of debris flow occurrence for basins burned by the Hot Creek Fire, Idaho, in response to a 1-hour, 10-year recurrence storm. .........................................................23 7A. Shaded relief map of Seattle, Washington, study area and location of area shown in figure 7B......................................................................................................................................24 7B. Shallow landslide hazard map of portion of Seattle, Washington. .......................................25 8A. Location of metropolitan area of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. ...................................................26 viii 8B. Inventory of landslides triggered by Hurricane Mitch in Tegucigalpa, Honduras .................27 8C. Landslide hazard map for central part of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. ......................................28 9A. Location maps of Chuuk State in the Federated States of Micronesia ................................29 9B. Map of Chuuk islands within Chuuk (Truk) Lagoon .............................................................30 9C. Debris-flow hazard map of islands of Tonoas and Etten based on landslides triggered by Typhoon Chata’an...................................................................................................31 Tables Table 1-1. Advantages and disadvantages of different methods of landslide hazard assessment.................................................................................................................................11 ix Conversion Factors Inch/Pound to SI Multiply By To obtain Length foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Volume cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) cubic yard (yd3) 0.7646 cubic meter (m3) Hydraulic conductivity foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s) SI to Inch/Pound Multiply By To obtain Length meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi) Volume cubic meter (m3) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3) cubic meter (m3) 1.308 cubic yard (yd3) Hydraulic conductivity meter per second (m/s) 3.281 foot per second (ft/s) x Landslide Hazards to Pipelines–Regional Hazard Mapping By Edwin L. Harp Abstract Because of the long, linear nature of pipeline corridors, they often cross areas that are highly susceptible to landslides. Techniques to assess the hazard posed by the presence of landslides can be applied to these corridors provided certain minimum data requirements, such as slope and material properties, can be met within these areas. The level and sophistication of maps designed to portray landslide hazard or attributes that relate to landslide hazard vary widely. They range from maps that depict the qualitative judgment of the geologist, technician, or engineer to maps that display