Proceedings of the 8th International Pipeline Conference

IPC2010
September 27-October 1, 2010, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Proceedings of IPC 2010
International Pipeline Conference
September 27-October 1, 2010 Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2010-
IPC2010-31329
Surface, Sub-Surface Mapping, Geohazard Identification and Associated Risk Mitigation for
Pipelines
Todd Mitchell Chris Hitchcock Dima Amine
Remote Sensing Manager Principal Engineering Geologist Geophysicist
Fugro SESL Geomatics Ltd. Fugro William Lettis & Associates Fugro Airborne Surveys
Calgary, Alberta, Canada Walnut Creek, California, USA Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT environmental sensitivity all pose potential risks to a pipeline

Capture and analysis of remote sensing data of surface
and sub-surface conditions can provide significant logistical
information for improved efficiencies and cost savings in
pipeline construction, upgrade, and maintenance programs.
Cutting-edge LiDAR topographical mapping as well as sub-
surface electromagnetic and magnetic sensing datasets are
practical tools for evaluation of surface and subsurface
geologic-related hazards (‘geohazards’), landslide and fault
avoidance, alternate routing options, salinity/corrosion
detection, determining construction feasibility and constraints
including bedrock and overburden detection, and encroachment
discovery. Resulting datasets can be placed into a GIS database
as well as a three-dimensional visualization environment for
complete design planning, asset management and future health
modeling.
INTRODUCTION
This paper provides an overview and specific
representative examples of how remote sensing data of surface
and sub-surface conditions can provide significant logistical
information for cost savings in pipeline design, construction,
and maintenance. The demand for additional oil, gas and water
transmission capacity is driving industry to expand existing
pipeline networks primarily through construction of new lines
as well as upgrades to existing ones. Given the vast scope of
many of these projects, the need for proper design, engineering
and planning is vital to successfully completing these projects
on time and under budget.
Geohazards are geological and/or environmental
conditions that are associated with surface and subsurface risks
to the pipeline network, either producing an event causing
damage to the network or increased cost during construction
and maintenance. Initial identification, assessment, and cost-
benefit analysis of geohazards during corridor selection and
design is a critical phase in planning and maintenance.
Landslide and debris flow modeling, earthquake fault
identification, fluvial hazards, drainage issues and
and mitigating these risks is vital for maintaining a safe,
reliable pipeline network.
REMOTE SENSING DATA COLLECTION
TECHNIQUES
Airborne and satellite-based remote sensing tools allow for
detailed topographical mapping of the Earth’s surface along
proposed and existing pipeline corridors using LiDAR,
topographic InSAR, Persistent Scatter Interferometry, aerial
photography, video, electromagnetic and magnetic sensing
datasets for the evaluation of subsurface conditions and related
geohazards.
Acquisition and interpretation of airborne and satellite
remote sensing data is increasingly applied for pipeline corridor
studies, including route planning, discovery, mapping existing
geologic and topographic conditions and associated surface
geohazards along pipeline corridors, including the potential for
flooding, erosion, and slope failure among other significant
hazards.
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
Topographic remote sensing data has always played a key
role in pipeline route design. In the past, contour maps,
satellite imagery and aerial photography (either stereo imagery
and/or orthorectified imagery) have had held center stage for
this application.
However in recent years, LiDAR has become a highly
utilized data source for both new construction and more
recently for depth of coverage studies as well [1] (Figure 1).
LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) utilizes a scanning laser
mounted in an aircraft and positioned with GPS and an inertial
device to create highly accurate and dense topographic models.
Higher resolution LiDAR technology integrated with aerial
imagery can even allow accurate mapping of very fine features,
including infrastructure such as roads, buildings, fences, water
bodies and vegetation.

1 Copyright © 2010 by ASME


Figure 1: Automated depth of coverage analysis using LiDAR and as-built survey data
Topographic InSAR is a viable alternative to LiDAR for
long pipelines in extremely remote and heavily vegetated areas,
such as tropical rain forests. This technology is exceptionally
efficient in its ability to collect vast areas of land in a short
amount of time as well as penetrate very dense vegetation
canopies such as the Amazon rain forest. InSAR plays an
important role for long pipelines in remote regions where the
route definition is not defined yet existing regional DEM data is
insufficient for defining a route.
Naturally, the existence of free data and applications has
entered mainstream use as well. Google Earth, Microsoft
Virtual Earth and ESRI ArcExplorer are in widespread use for
route planning. Utilizing various imagery sources and the
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) DEM data, these
applications provide a very course, but inexpensive or free
visualization of pipeline routes.
All of these different data sets can play a vital role in route
design and planning. Identification of land-ownership, route
selection, right-of-way mapping, water crossing design, ground
trenching conditions, and three-dimensional visualization and
presentation for design or public consultation all utilize remote
topographic sensing data.
SURFACE CHANGE DETECTION
Persistent Scatter Interferometry (PSI) is a precision
surveying tool for modeling displacements in the order of
millimeters, of the ground and structures on the Earth’s surface,
based upon Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite data.
Subsequent SAR satellite images can be compared to identify
areas of stability and areas subject to heave and/or subsidence.
This technique requires the presence of stable, identifiable
features be present in the area of interest (either existing or
installed for the purpose of monitoring). The PSI technique is
most suited to a historical displacement analysis over long time
periods. Pipelines can be evaluated using this technique to
establish areas of significant motion which can cause
problematic stressing and eventually failure of pipelines.
SUB-SURFACE MAPPING
Technology now exists that allows aerial collection of data
about the geology below the earth’s surface. Airborne electro-
magnetic resistivity surveys (EM) allow users to identify
critical information about sub-surface soil conditions by
actively emitting electro-magnetic energy from the aircraft and
observing the effects of the ground materials on the magnetic
field.
Airborne electromagnetic surveys are commonly used to
map ground conductivity along existing pipeline corridors or
assess a planned route corridor. Electromagnetic resistivity
datasets are valuable in identification of areas of high
conductivity due to the presence of clays or saline soils and the
associated risk of pipeline corrosion. These data can also be
used to derive pertinent information regarding depth to bedrock
and rippability for pipeline placement.
Either separately or in conjunction with EM surveys,
passive magnetic surveys can also be performed. Relying upon
highly sensitive magnets, these sensors identify magnetic
anomalies below the ground surface.
Airborne magnetic data has been proven to be fast and
effective in locating man-made metallic objects when accurate
infrastructure maps are not available. The continuous dataset
coverage serves as a check for buried, unknown pipelines, wells
and power transmission lines. Correlating magnetic anomalies
with electromagnetic signatures is also used to map geological
discontinuities associated with geological features such as
faults.
APPLICATION OF REMOTE SENSING DATA TO
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Geohazards intrinsic to shallow geologic deposits and
associated soils along pipeline corridors include slope failures
(landslides and debris flows), expansive and corrosive soils,
flooding and localized erosion that might expose and damage
buried pipelines.
Well defined topographic information collected by LiDAR
and/or topographic InSAR are highly valuable tools allowing
the interpretation and detecting the presence of geohazards that
present risk of disturbance, disruption and failure of a pipeline.
Aerial imagery, be it stereo, orthomosaic, oblique, video or
satellite are highly valuable for interpreting existing features.
Integrated data sets incorporating topographic terrain
information with imagery are highly valued by design
engineers
These potential impacts to pipeline networks typically can
be identified and characterized based on surface features.
Understanding the geohazards and their risk to the pipeline
allow mitigation of the risks in a cost effective manner. Where
identified, even minor relocation of the pipeline may reduce the
potential impacts during catastrophic events.
Fig. 2 shows a planned pipeline route superimposed upon an
terrain model rendered in a 3D environment..
2 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 along which further landslide can occur is obvious in the
inverted section as the more conductive bottom layer overlain
by dry weathered rock. Shrink-swell potential is a relative
hazard related to how changes in water content may cause
expansive soils to shrink or swell, an effect that is a minor
design consideration for pipelines. Index shrink-swell values
commonly are derived from the amount and composition of
clay in the soil. Clays are associated with a higher conductivity
in comparison to sandy soils that are more resistive. Since
material type is associated with conductivity, clay content can
also be estimated from airborne EM surveys.

Figure 2: Rendering of planned pipeline route in 3D environment

LiDAR and aerial imagery can be very useful in making

decisions dealing with water challenges. These data sources
can be used together to identify not only existing water features
but also seasonal and ephemeral water courses, which can be
very valuable in understanding seasonal water movement. The
data can also be used for planning stream crossings, especially
in suspended pipelines as well as in evaluating slope erosion.
Electromagnetic data can support this by providing coarse
bathymetry information regarding water depth without the need
for personnel or a vessel exposed to the safety risks of a rapid,
turbulent river.
LiDAR can also be used for vegetation height analysis to
identify wetland and muskeg areas based on the inability to
support tall vegetation (see Fig. 3 as an example). Figure 3: Vegetation Height Mapping: tall vegetation is represented by green, short
Topographic data can also be applied to mapping high vegetation by orange and spares or no vegetation is grey. This map helps identify wetland
consequence areas, impact circles and the relative locations of areas near the river

the pipeline to critical infrastructure, such as schools, office

buildings. This allows engineers to adequately minimize risk to
the general public while maintaining legal compliance with
regulations.
Terrain analysis of LiDAR-derived topography to delineate
likely debris flow source zones combined with identification of
anomalous vegetation patterns on aerial photography can allow
for rapid mapping of debris flow hazard, similar to that
conducted for shallow earth flows and deeper-seated landslides.
Subsurface discontinuities related / associated with dry
weathered soil layers can be detected with airborne
electromagnetic surveys. Resistivity data can be associated
with soil type and, given enough geo-electrical contrast,
inversions along pipeline routes can help identify soil layers.
Distinguishing these layers helps identify areas at higher risk of
potential landslides. Figure 4 below shows resistivity data Figure 4: Resistivity map along mountain slope depicting landslide risk zone (analysis by
Nippon Engineering).
along a mountain slope. The clay surface, a likely surface

3 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

IDENTIFICATION OF GROUND CORROSIVITY
Soil corrosivity values are based on the rate uncoated steel
or concrete may corrode when buried in a soil, an effect that is
an important consideration for selection of pipeline materials
and Cathodic protection. Corrosivity index values typically are
derived from soil texture, drainage, acidity, and electrical
conductivity data that can be compiled and queried within a
GIS environment [2].
Of these values, shallow soil texture (sand and clay content
ratios) and drainage can readily be derived from analysis of
remote sensing data – primarily terrain analysis (LiDAR) and
aerial photography. However, helicopter electromagnetic
(HEM) surveys provide the most direct, and cost effective,
means for mapping in-situ electrical and magnetic properties as
an aid to characterizing ground soil corrosion. In addition,
these data can also be used to estimate other constructability
factors – including depth to bedrock.
Flying over a pipeline route corridor to map soil corrosivity
is often done by flying several lines parallel to the planned path
or centerline [4]. This offers continuous coverage data and as
shown in Figure 5 a map of conductive and resistive areas.
Figure 5: Apparent resistivity map along existing pipeline route in central Canada
(modified from Airborne Resistivity Mapping for Pipeline Corrosion)
A combined airborne EM and magnetic survey gives a fast
and effective assessment of grounding needs and provides an
economical data collection method to assess site soil
conditions. The continuous coverage can distinguish areas
where the overburden surrounding the pipe is more conductive
increasing rates of corrosion. Figure 5 shows more conductive
areas in red and purple. The pipeline itself is shown as a red
line going through the route corridor.
Conductivity is also associated with salinity or
contamination in the soils. Flying an airborne survey over an
already existing pipeline route can distinguish any large leaks
or contaminants as conductive anomalies. Although not a cost-
effective means to monitor small leaks on a pipeline route it
remains an added value. Changes in water salinity in the region
can also be mapped as the pipeline ages; salt water intrusion
may become a problem over time putting the pipeline at a
higher risk of corrosion.
APPLICATION OF REMOTE SENSING DATA TO
SEISMIC HAZARDS
In seismically active areas, the effects of strong ground
shaking, associated ground deformation, and fault rupture may
be of primary concern to the safe operations of pipeline systems
and associated facilities. Ground surface displacement, or
surface rupture, caused by an earthquake is a design
consideration in the design of pipeline systems that cross active
faults and siting of new pipelines, pumping stations and other
support facilities.
Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep
within the earth breaks through to the surface. Surface rupture
can damage or destroy buried and above ground pipelines.
However, most surface faulting is confined to a relatively
narrow zone several feet to tens of feet wide, avoidance is the
common mitigation method. In addition, even substantial
surface displacement along a fault may not result in failure of
the system, as shown in Fig. 6.
Fault rupture typically follows preexisting faults, which are
zones of weakness. Specific linear geomorphic features
commonly coincide with the locations of repeated fault rupture.
Thus, identification of active faults that might produce surface
rupture requires: (1) location of existing faults and, (2)
evaluation of the recency of activity on the faults. The most
useful and direct method of evaluating fault rupture hazard is to
document the presence or absence of fault-related geomorphic
landforms in the vicinity of known fault zones.
No other technology is comparable to LiDAR for identifying
faults in heavily forested or vegetated areas. High-resolution
LiDAR data can be instrumental in identifying previously
undetected fault traces and/or extending known fault traces.
LiDAR-based fault mapping can form the basis for pipeline
routing. Such mapping that integrates remote sensing data can
ensure that pipelines are not located directly on or crossing the
trace of the active or potentially active fault, as per the
examples below.
Liquefaction is an earthquake ground failure mechanism
that occurs in loose, saturated granular sediments (principally
sandy soils), and has caused extensive damage to pipeline
systems during past earthquakes. Damage primarily consists of
differential settlement, bearing capacity failure, flotation of
buried structures, lateral translation (lateral spreading), ground
cracking, and ground oscillation. All these surface effects can
directly impact pipelines, as well as pumping stations and other
supporting facilities.
However, subsurface physical properties of geologic
deposits govern the degree of resistance to liquefaction during
an earthquake. These properties include sediment thickness
(and depth below the ground surface), grain-size distribution,
density, cementation, and saturation. Sediments that lack
resistance to liquefaction (susceptible deposits) commonly
include saturated young sediments that are sandy and loose.
Sediments resistant to liquefaction include older surficial
deposits that are dry or sufficiently dense.
Electromagnetic resistivity techniques can be used produce a
continuous geological model between core samples which can
be used to target areas of abrupt change in the geology and
better identify evidence of previous fault activity.
Remotely sensed evidence of susceptibility to seismic
hazards can vastly improve the confidence in engineering and
design work while helping to identify areas requiring further
on-site investigation.
4 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Figure 6: Combined with estimates of potential fault offset during an earthquake,
appropriate design can mitigate potential effects on pipeline
APPLICATION OF REMOTE SENSING DATA TO
CONSTRUCTION CONSTRAINTS
In rugged or poorly characterized areas, geologic
information may be lacking for pipeline routing decisions.
Specifically, the depth and character of bedrock may be
unknown. In karst terrain, underlain by limestone, the presence
of voids from dissolution may be of concern. In areas of
current or historic mining, active groundwater, oil withdrawal
or steam or CO2 injection, ground subsidence and/or heave
may be a critical factor for pipeline system planning. With these
potential problems unique to different geologic environments,
remote sensing can provide an initial characterization of
subsurface conditions and associated geohazards.
The purpose of geotechnical characterization of bedrock
and soil conditions within a proposed pipeline corridor is to: (1)
provide the design team with the necessary information
required to construct the pipeline with minimal cost, and (2)
reduce the exposure of the pipeline to potential maintenance
issues. Representative borings and/or cone penetration testing
(CPT) is typically are required to characterize depth to rock,
soil stratigraphy and changes in materials along the corridor.
Use of remote sensing data, combined with detailed geologic
and geohazard mapping, can reduce the number of borings
required, thus reducing the initial exploration costs.
Non-tectonic land subsidence can be induced by both
natural and human phenomena. Natural soil subsidence can be
caused by consolidation, hydro-compaction, and oxidation or
dewatering of organic-rich soils. The most common cause of
man-induced subsidence is the withdrawal of fluids; including
oil, gas, and water.
Persistent Scatter Interferometry (PSI) from satellite
imagery is perhaps one of the best methods of subsidence and
heave measurement that can be used to detect change (e.g. Fig.
7). The high precision of change detection offered by this
technique can be in the order of millimeters.
Figure 7: Comparison of relative heights of locations along a pipeline corridor.. Areas of
subsidence can be identified and tracked over time to evaluate the severity of the trend
Aerial magnetic surveys can be used to identify likely
areas coincident with subsurface voids (such as those created
by mining activity) along a pipeline corridor, which can be
valuable for pre-emptively identifying areas prone to
subsidence.
As described, electromagnetic resistivity data can be used
to produce a continuous geological data set allowing for
targeted borings (positionally, depth and method) and an overall
reduction in the scope of boring program (e.g. Figure 8). At the
same time, this data set can be analyzed to calculate depth to
bedrock and be presented as a geological cross-section [4], as
shown below, Figure 9. This section is derived from the depth
information along the central flight line(s) of the map shown in
Figure 8.
This collection of remotely sensed geological and
geophysical data can provide a wealth of information to the
engineers designing the facility and can better inform engineers
regarding areas of concern and target specific locations for site
visits and/or additional borings, CPT and geotechnical
investigation.
5 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 risk and allow for informed alignment and route selection
decisions.
Naturally, the contents, operating pressure, location,
maintenance and material costs of a pipeline will have an
impact on how various risks are managed and the relative
importance of these risks can be factored into this analysis to
optimize the overall cost/risk/benefit to the pipeline operator.
This also greatly improves the builder’s / operator’s
understanding of construction and maintenance costs.

Figure 10: Integrated GIS Database (from [1]).

SUMMARY
Accurate and rapid determination of ground conditions
along a proposed pipeline corridor can reduce the planning risk
Figure 8: Apparent resistivity associated with overburden or bedrock (modified from [4]). considerably, including reducing the need for expensive site-
specific exploration for foundation design. Characterization of
surface and subsurface conditions and associated geohazards
from remote sensing data requires careful design,
implementation, and interpretation of various survey types. In
summary, as shown in Table 1, different remote sensing data
collection techniques are appropriate to different surface and
subsurface geohazards and it is important to note that several
Figure 9: Geological cross-section indicating overburden and bedrock location (modified
from [4]). technologies can be applied to several different geohazards.
TABLE I
INTEGRATION OF REMOTE SENSING DATA WITHIN APPLICABILITY OF REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES TO GEOHAZARD
GIS CHARACTERIZATION
Geologic and geohazard datasets can be fully integrated
with airborne-derived base data and placed into a GIS database GEOHAZARD
PRIMARY REMOTE SECONDARY REMOTE
SENSING TECHNIQUES SENSING TECHNIQUES
for three-dimensional visualization of possible route corridor
alternatives. These data can then be used for design, asset AERIAL
LAND SLIDING LIDAR
PHOTOGRAPHY
management and future health modeling. AERIAL
Geographic information systems (GIS) technology enables FAULT RUPTURE LIDAR
PHOTOGRAPHY
sophisticated, numerical-based mapping of natural hazards, CORROSIVE SOILS EM
AERIAL
including liquefaction and landslide susceptibility [3]. The PHOTOGRAPHY
AERIAL
results of the entire process of capture and interpretation of EXPANSIVE SOILS EM PHOTOGRAPHY.
remote sensing data can be captured in a GIS environment to LIDAR
allow day-to-day mapping applications, data queries and VOIDS/SUBSIDENCE GEOMAG, EM INSAR, LIDAR
database tracking throughout the life of the pipeline asset. AERIAL
FLOODING/EROSION LIDAR
A cost path analysis can be conducted to determine the PHOTOGRAPHY
optimal locations of the pipeline based on an alignment that SHALLOW BEDROCK EM
AERIAL
minimizes geologic hazards, in combination with all other PHOTOGRAPHY
potential limitations (such as environmental constraints) and
cost factors. As part of the cost path analysis, a surface of Investment into capture and analysis of remote sensing
combined risk can be created in GIS to show areas of relative data can offer great value to project design, timelines for
engineering and construction as well as reducing the risk of

6 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

future failure all by better understanding the topography,
geology and the relative risks associated with them.
Remote sensing cannot replace the need for field
investigations; however it can greatly improve the reliability of
desktop studies and front-end engineering and design phases of
pipeline development, reducing the risk of costly re-routing and
remediation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of
Adam Thomas of Fugro NPA, Greg Hodges of Fugro Airborne
Surveys, Arjan Van Houwelingen of Fugro SESL Geomatics,
Pieter Franken (formerly of Fugro-Inpark), Adam Thomas of
Fugro NPA, and David Slayter and Mark Zellman of Fugro
WLA for examples provided in this paper.

REFERENCES
[1] Bayirli, S., “Mapping From Above”, World Pipelines,
November 2007

[2] Slayter, D.L. and C.S. Hitchcock, “Development of a

GIS Database of Corrosion Hazards for use in Pipeline Integrity
Assessments”, in Proceedings of the 7th International Pipeline
Conference, 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers.

[3] Hitchcock, C.S., Slayter, D.L., Sundermann, S.T.,

Zellman, M.S., Givler, R.W., Lee, C-H., Manegold, W.,
Nishenko, S., Sun, J. and Ferre, K., “Hazard Mapping With
GIS”, Transmission line and Gas Technology, pp. 50-53
November-December 2008.

[4] Hodges, Greg, Rudd, Jonathan, Boitier, Dominique,

Mapping Conductivity with Helicopter Electromagnetic
Surveys as an Aid to Planning and Monitoring Transmission
line Construction. SAGEEP 2000.

[5] Hitchcock, C.H., Nishenko, S., Lee, C.H., Sun, J.,

Sundermann, S., Zellman, M., Givler, R., GIS-based seismic
hazard mapping for pipeline integrity management,
International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada:
25-29 September 2006.

7 Copyright © 2010 by ASME