Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90628

MULTI TIERED APPROACH TO SLOPE MOVEMENT MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY

Millan Sen Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada John Richmond AMEC Environment & Infrastructure Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Aaron Dinovitzer BMT Fleet Technology Ltd. Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Abdelfettah Fredj BMT Fleet Technology Ltd. Kanata, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT A major slope in southern Manitoba is currently experiencing deep seated movements of approximately 60mm per year. This 20m high x 70m long slope contains a pipeline right of way with five large diameter crude oil lines that were constructed from 1950 1998. It is estimated that the slope has moved over 3 meters since the pipeline installations. Management of the effects of this slope movement on the pipelines has involved cross-functional strategies that include geotechnical, integrity, and stress evaluations. The slope is assessed annually by a geotechnical engineer, and the most likely cause for the slope movements has been determined. Slope monitoring equipment has been installed at key locations and is monitored at frequent intervals. A toe berm has been installed to prevent lower slope failure at the creek bed that is located at the slope toe. A finite element stress analysis, which considers the interaction between the soil movement and pipeline, has been generated. This stress analysis evaluated the pipeline stresses due to the slope movements to date, and also due to a possible sudden mass movement. The results are backed up by a bending strain analysis based on inertial in-line inspection data was conducted for several of the lines. This paper presents an overview of the engineering assessment considering structural, material, geotechnical and operational concerns involved in developing an integrity management action plan.

INTRODUCTION A major slope in Southern Manitoba is the site of a pipeline right-of-way that contains 5 large diameter crude oil pipelines. There is a fish bearing creek is located at the toe of the slope, and a golf course is situated immediately adjacent to this creek as shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, a residential home is located at the top of the approach slope, and there is a town within 1 km of the site. Thus this site is of considerable interest with regards to pipeline integrity management, in consideration of the high consequence should a leak occur.

Figure 1 Overview of Slope

Copyright 2012 by ASME

This slope has been actively moving for decades as will be described in depth later in this paper. As the pipelines traversing the slope were installed from 1950 1998, some of the lines have been subjected to over 60 years of slope movements. Historically, it has been observed within industry that significant slope movements can induce rupture if the pipeline strain capacity is below the strain demand induced by the moving slope. Management of the effects of this slope movement on the pipelines has involved cross-functional strategies that include geotechnical, integrity, and stress evaluations. This management has ensured the safe operation of the pipelines that traverse the slope.

SLOPE DESCRIPTION The slope is approximately 24m high, 85m long, and exhibits an inclination angle of approximately 18 degrees. The currently observed slope instability near the ROW measures approximately 70m from toe to headscarp, extends approximately 80m across the length of the creek, and exhibits an overall slope angle of between 18 - 35 degrees. The interaction between the expected slope movement and the ROW is shown in Figure 2.

on a 1948 aerial photograph, the overall slope failure at the site was generally arc shaped and its failure limits were well defined at this time. The 1948 headscarp was in approximately the same location as currently, with the exception that the south limit of the failure at the crest of the slope was immediately north of the existing ROW. Review of a 1979 aerial photograph as shown in Figure 3 revealed that the headscarp of the failure had extended to cross the ROW by this time. The headscarp was visible midway downslope and passed through the entire width of the ROW. This aerial photo review also demonstrated that the slope in the vicinity of the ROW has been retrogressing over time. Furthermore comparison of the aerial photographs revealed that the ROW has been regraded several times since 1950. This has masked the extent of the headscarp that currently exists at the site.

Unstable Slope Rightof-Way

Figure 3 1979 Aerial Photo of Site

Rightof-Way

SLOPE MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION Various monitoring instruments have been installed at this slope over the years as a part of its overall management. This instrumentation is of importance for quantification of the effects of the slope movement on the pipelines, evaluation of the cause of the movements, and to provide characterization of the slope subsurface. Slope inclinometers have been installed to measure the lateral slope movement, stand pipes have been installed to provide pore water pressure information, and boreholes were excavated near the toe of the slope to support sub surface information gathering that would be required for any slope stabilization designs. A slope inclinometer was installed within the slide mass of the lower slope, immediately North of the ROW, in 2008. Within 3 months of installation 19mm of movement was measured, and this inclinometer was sheared off by the slope movement within

Figure 2 Plan View of Slope Movement and Instrumentation Review of surficial geology maps indicates that glaciolacustrine and glacial till deposits dominate the area, with linear glacial outwash channels existing to the west of the creek. Bedrock geology maps suggest that the bedrock is approximately 30m below the valley bottom in this area. Review of aerial photos reveals that a slope failure was present prior to the installation of the first pipeline at the slope. Based

Copyright 2012 by ASME

6 months of installation as shown in Figure 4. It had measured slope movements in the order of 30mm from September 2008 to March 2009, at a depth of 5.4m. Thus based on the measured movements of this slope inclinometer, a yearly movement rate of 60mm/year could be extrapolated, and over a period of 60 years 3.6m of slope movement at the site may be assumed. It is recognized that this is a fairly approximate estimate as the movements vary both seasonally and yearly, however this movement rate represents the best available information to date and will be validated using the additional instruments that have been installed at the site as described below. Furthermore, for the purpose of analysis a 100mm/year movement rate is assumed in consideration that higher movement rates would be expected in the spring/summer than the fall/winter. The direction of movement appeared to be slightly skewed from the pipeline direction.

A 2nd slope inclinometer was installed towards the top of the slope between the headscarp at the top of the slope, and the pipeline right of way as shown in Figure 2 as SI11-03. The purpose of this instrument is to monitor for sudden headscarp retrogression at the top of the slope, which could result in significant ground movement that would affect the pipelines. This allows for timely implementation of mitigation, if required. These instruments are being read quarterly to allow for an improved understanding of the seasonal slope movement variations at this site. Satellite monitoring of the slope monitoring instruments at this site, which would allow for continuous readings of the instruments are being considered to provide an improved understanding of the slope movement mechanism, however the current quarterly readings are acceptable for management of the pipelines at this slope. Review of a recent borehole drilling program demonstrates that within the slide boundaries the upper 2.5 4.7m of the subsurface consists of reworked clay. This zone identifies the depth of the slide mass. Clay shale was encountered beneath the reworked clay. This shale was considered silty, exhibited a stratified structure, and was dry to damp. Review of a borehole outside of the slide area indicates that subsurface is comprised of a thin layer of clay till that is underlain by clay shale. The water level in this borehole was 0.4m below surface one day after its drilling. Standpipes were installed several meters north of the right of way in 2008. These boreholes have exhibited water levels in the order of 2m above surface. This demonstrates that there are pore pressures present in the slope. Boreholes were installed at the toe of the slope. These have exhibited a soil stratigraphy comprised of clays and shales. This instrumentation information has provided information required for pipeline assessments.

Figure 4 Slope Inclinometer Measurements

In 2011, a replacement slope inclinometer was installed adjacent to this 2008 borehole to allow for continuation of the slope movement monitoring at this location. In addition, an SAA Array cable was installed within the same borehole, coincident to the slope inclinometer. This SAA is a rope-like array of rigid segments that are separated by special joints, where the sensors in the segments measure the tilt between segments to allow for lateral movement determination. The advantage of this device is that it can accommodate extensive slope movements without the need for replacement, however the disadvantage is that the measurements are digital opposed to manual which can lead to increased error. Installing both an inclinometer and SAA array cable within the same borehole allowed for calibration of the SAA Array cable readings with those of the slope inclinometer while in operation, and after the slope inclinometer becomes sheared off, the validated SAA Array cable will be used to report the slope movement.

MOVEMENT CAUSE There are several underlying factors that are generating movement at the slope. The medium to high plastic clay shale underlying the surficial soils on the slope is susceptible to softening and loss of strength when exposed to water. Ground water seepage or surface water infiltration can build up within the overlying soil increasing the pore pressure within the soil, increasing the weight, and reducing the strength of the soil. This can initiate failures along at the soil/bedrock interface. This has been verified through the evidence of seepage zones have been observed in the failure bowl near the base of the headscarp, whereby the majority of the materials within the failure bowl is soft and wet. Results from recent flood events in combination with historical review indicate that movement near the crest of the slope may occur following periods of

Copyright 2012 by ASME

prolonged rainfall. This causal assessment is based on desktop studies combined with on-site evaluations by geotechnical specialists, and have not been verified by comparing measured slope movements with seasonal environmental factors. The quarterly monitoring of the recent instrument installations will allow for these evaluations in the future. At the toe of the slope is the Deadhorse creek. This is a relatively shallow slow moving creek for most of the time. There is a dam approximately 1km upstream of the ROW crossing. During the spring months, the reservoir upstream of the dam fills to the top. This triggers opening of the dam, releasing water down the Deadhorse creek which significantly raises its water level. Trapping of the sediment within a reservoir that is located upstream of the dam causes degradation of the creek, within the reach of where the slope instability is located. In addition, over the years there has been a 50% reduction in the channel length between the spillway of the dam and the area of the instability, which has tended to increase the channel gradient. This correspondingly has increased the channel velocities and shear forces on the wetted perimeter of the channel, thereby increasing the erosion potential of the channel in the vicinity of the slope. Moreover whenever the dam releases, it induces a rapid increase in water level, and subsequent rapid draw down, which act to generate upward pore water pressures on the slope. This saturated soil condition tends to both increase the loading forces of the slope, and weaken the resistance of the toe which would otherwise stabilize the upper slope. Of the above described factors that are contributing to the slope movement, the main contributing factors are considered to be: shallow clay shale that is susceptible to degradation on exposure to water, high groundwater and groundwater seepage, and the releases of the dam. These conditions act to generate the annual movements of the slope that are required to be monitored to support right of way management.

IN-LINE INSPECTION EVALUATION Caliper in-line inspection tools, as shown in Figure 5, are used to measure pipe wall radial deformations in pipelines. Caliper inspections were conducted on all 5 lines that traverse the slope crossing, and were reviewed for the presence of radial deformations. There were no dents, wrinkles, or ovalities identified on any of the lines at the slope crossing. This demonstrates that the applied strains were below the strain capacity of the pipeline, as no wrinkles were identified at the time of the caliper inspections. This also demonstrates that there is no pipeline dent threat on the slope.

Figure 5 Caliper In-Line Inspection Tool Fitted with an IMU

SLOPE MOVEMENT EFFECTS ON PIPELINES Slopes with deep seated movements that interact with pipelines tend to apply axial and bending stresses to the pipe section in the vicinity of the moving soil block. This may induce compressive stresses that are sufficient to form a buckle in the pipeline, which is a serviceability concern. Correspondingly, the similarly induced tensile stresses could grow any preexisting manufacturing anomalies at girth weld locations to unacceptable size. This could result in a leak threat. It is important to evaluate these threats during slope movement management.

Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) in-line inspection technology has the capability of detecting open circumferential GW anomalies in pipelines. Review of the available MFL data indicates that there are no GW anomalies identified on any of the pipelines at the region of the slope. This demonstrates that there are no open GW anomalies that are being subjected to the tensile stresses being caused by the slope movement. Thus if there are any GW flaws on the pipelines crossing the slope, they are of a size that is below the tool reporting threshold, and correspondingly of minor concern. An on board inertial unit was attached to the MFL tools during inspections for three of the lines that traverse the slope. This IMU technology provides precise GPS positioning information about the pipelines along the slope at the time of the inspection. As pipe joints are straight when manufactured from the mill, any curvature measured by the IMU indicates that the pipe section has been subjected to bending loads. The ILI data analysts use the IMU measurements to quantify the pipeline curvatures, and calculate the corresponding bending strains. As the curvature of cold bends is considerably greater than that of bending that is caused while in-service, these are identified during the ILI analysis and omitted from the strain analysis. An example IMU results plot for one of the lines on this slope is

Copyright 2012 by ASME

shown in Figure 6, where the pipeline profile and bending strain in the horizontal and vertical directions are plotted against the pipeline chainage. For one of the lines, the IMU was run twice, with 6 years between inspections. This allowed for a comparison of the pipeline profiles between the inspections. As the profile was directly measured during the first IMU inspection, any change in position revealed in the subsequent inspection could be considered to be caused by external forces. This change in profile was translated to a pipeline strain differential to support pipeline assessment. The results of the IMU bending strain analyses indicated that the bending strains were below 0.20% for each of the three lines with IMU data, at the time of the inspections. This reported strain is below the tensile and compressive strain capacity of all of the pipelines that traverse the slope. While it is likely that the strains of the two lines without IMU data will exhibit similar bending strains, it is nevertheless planned to conduct IMU runs on these lines for verification.

analyses, assess the axial strains in the pipelines, allow for prediction of the pipe strains with future expected annual slope movements, and to assesses the pipeline strains in the unlikely occurrence of a sudden mass slope movement. The corresponding pipeline strain results provide critical information regarding the mitigation requirements for the slope crossing. The soil-pipe interaction under the soil block movement was analytically evaluated using the LS-DYNA Smooth Particle Hydrodynamic method (SPH). The results from one of the analyzed lines are presented in this paper. In the program the pipeline was modeled using Belyschko-Tasy shell elements with 5 integration points. Both nonlinear material behavior and large displacement effects were taken into consideration. The nominal pipeline diameter, wall thickness, and material grade were incorporated into the models. The soil in the model was represented using a two surface plasticity model, where the shear failure surface and pressurevolume strain surface are independent. The interaction between the pipeline and the surrounding soil was modeled by Lagarangian contact in which slip and separation was allowed. During loading, the soil particles on the surface of a postulated slip plane were accelerated using a horizontal half gravitational force acceleration. This allowed for evaluation of the expected rate of slope movement from the base of the slope to the crest as described in Figure 7. Average burial depths over the length of the pipeline within the estimated limits of the failure were used in determining the soil traction values on the slope.

Figure 6 IMU Bending Strain Analysis Result PIPE SOIL INTERACTION ANALYSIS Finite element pipe soil interaction analysis (FEA) may be used to analytically evaluate the strains moving slopes induce to pipelines. While IMU bending strain data provides direct measurements, and the FEA only provides analytical results, the advantage of the FEA tool is that it has the capability to provide predictive information that the IMU tool cannot. Correspondingly, an FEA is warranted for all of the pipelines that are affected by the slope movement. Some of the objectives of the FEA are to: assess the strains of the two lines that do not have IMU data, validate the IMU bending strain Figure 7 Illustration of the FEA Model Including the Pipeline The slope slide plane profile along each of the pipelines was estimated by extrapolating from the observed slide depth at two control points which were comprised of an off right-of-way slope inclinometer and borehole. This was carried out by assuming a typical bowl shaped failure surface that decreased in depth from north to south with the headscarp. The most deep-seated movement as reasonable was assumed, in order to be conservative. The estimated slide plane profile, plotted together with the ground surface, is provided in Figure 8 for

Copyright 2012 by ASME

one of the lines on the slope. The ground and pipe profile in this figure was based on a field survey that was taken to support generation of this FEA.

SLOPE MAINTENANCE One of the pipelines that traverses the ROW underwent an integrity program that required its excavation around its full circumference, along the entire slope length as shown on the left side of Figure 1. It is expected that this excavation acted to relieve any bending stresses that were induced to this pipeline by the moving slope (this is one of the lines that did not have an IMU run). As a part of this excavation, for construction purposes approximately half of the circumference of the adjacent pipeline was also excavated along the entire slope length. It is expected that this partial excavation would have acted to relieve some of this pipelines stresses as well. Signs of pipe springing were not observed during these excavations. Following the pipeline excavations, slumping was observed at the toe of the slope within the integrity repair backfill. This slumping was approximately 10-15m from the creek, was several meters wide, was positioned above the pipelines, and exhibited a headscarp that was approximately 1m high as shown in Figure 10. Observations on site indicated that flooding of the creek had occurred in the spring following the integrity excavation, and that the flood level extended to the approximate elevation of the failure headscarp. It is believed that the flood saturated the recently placed fill soil, increasing pore water pressures, reducing its strength, and initiating the failure. It was important to repair this slumping, as it would otherwise continue to retrogress. If this were to occur, accelerated deep seated slope movements could be expected, as the lower slope acts to provide resistance to the deep seated soil block movement. The slumping was repaired by constructing a toe berm of competent soil material, and a granular shear key at the base of the failure as shown in Figure 10. This repair has been continually maintained since its initial construction in order to ensure that the toe of the slope remains competent to provide resistance to the deep seated soil block movement.

Figure 8 Estimated Slip Plane Surface Following generation of the pipeline and backfill conditions within the FEA, internal pressure and temperature differentials were applied to the model to incorporate the pipelines axial loading condition. The pipeline structural performance was evaluated by applying movement to the defined slip/failure surface. The interaction between the soil constant stress elements, and the pipeline shell elements, provided the pipeline stress state as described in Figure 9 after long term slope movement rates were applied.

Figure 9 Pipeline Axial Strain Distribution for Soil Movement of 2m The result of the FEA model for this pipeline has shown that both the tensile and compressive strains are below the pipelines strain capacity, after being subjected to 3m of slope movement. This information in combination with the IMU bending strain analysis, and the absence of any wrinkles identified from inline inspection, demonstrates that it is currently safe to operate this pipeline. However, it is considered important to carefully manage the geotechnical stability of the slope to minimize accelerated movements in the future.

Figure 10 Observed Slumping (left) and Remediation (right)

Copyright 2012 by ASME

SUMMARY A major slope in southern Manitoba has been moving at a rate of 60mm per year based on 6 months of slope inclinometer data, and is assumed to be moving at a rate of 100mm per year based on interpretation of the measurement period. These movement rates will be confirmed through the monitoring of recently installed slope inclinometers which are being read quarterly, and the installation of an SAA Array cable which allows for capability of continuous readings through satellite monitoring. There are five pipelines that traverse this slope, and the moving soil block induces axial and bending forces to the pipelines. Management of the right of way has required crosscollaboration between many expertise sets within the field of pipeline integrity. Considerable slope monitoring instrumentation has been installed at this site to measure the magnitude of the slope movement and to define the subsurface conditions. In-line inspection data has been reviewed to demonstrate that there are no buckles, wrinkles, or GW anomalies present on any of the pipe segments on the slope. IMU bending strain analysis has been conducted on three of the lines to demonstrate that the pipe bending strains are currently acceptable. Finite element pipe soil bending strain analysis has been conducted to analytically evaluate the state of strain on the pipelines. The site is annually inspected on site by a geotechnical specialist to evaluate changes in conditions. Finally, slope maintenance is being conducted as required to minimize slope movement rates. These monitoring and remediation strategies have effectively managed the effects of the moving slope on the pipelines. The evaluations described herein have demonstrated that the pipelines are currently safe to operate. The learnings from this management program may be scaled as appropriate to apply to all pipelines that traverse unstable slopes, when the risk associated with the slope movement is sufficient to warrant this described level of slope management.

BMT Fleet Technology Ltd, Development of Techniques to Assess the Long-Term (Post Formation) Integrity of Wrinkled Pipeline Segments, Pipeline Research Council International, PR-214-05403, 2007 BMT Fleet Technology Ltd, West Approach Slope Stress Analysis, Enbridge Interim Report, 2012 Isherwood, A., Samcheck, A., Savigny, W., Deformation Analysis of a Pipeline River Crossing, IPC2002-27343, Proceedings of the 4th International Pipeline Conference, September 29-October 3, 2002, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, pp. 571-584 Measurand Inc., Measurand ShapeAccelArray (SAA) Specifications, PowerPoint presentation, www.measurandgeotechnical.com PII Pipeline Solutions, Curvature Report for 20 Crude Oil Pipeline, Enbridge Internal Report, 2011 PII Pipeline Solutions, Pipeline Movement Data and StrainComTM Assessment for 16 Crude Oil Pipeline, Enbridge Internal Report, 2011 Tera Environmental Consultants, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Request for Photos of Continuation of Integrity Dig Program on West Approach Slope, Letter Report Submitted to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2012

REFERENCES Note that in the below references the actual slope name has been replaced by West Approach Slope due to confidentiality AMEC Earth & Environmental, Geotechnical Assessment of West Approach Slope, Enbridge Internal Report, 2010 AMEC Earth & Environmental, West Approach Slope Toe Repair Recommendations, Enbridge Internal Report, 2011 AMEC Earth & Environmental, West Approach Slope Movement Assessment, Enbridge Internal Report, 2012

Copyright 2012 by ASME