Comparison of horizontal ground displacements in Avonside area, Christchurch from air photo, LiDAR and satellite measurements regarding pipeline damage assessment

  • S. Toprak
  • E. Nacaroglu
  • A. C. Koc
  • T. D. O’Rourke
  • M. Hamada
  • M. Cubrinovski
  • S. Van Ballegooy
Original Research Paper
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

Recent earthquakes show that pipeline damage is severe in the areas where permanent ground deformations (e.g., liquefaction zones) occur. Ground movement hazard to pipeline systems can be assessed by using ground displacement measurements around the location of pipelines. There are many different ways of measuring ground displacements after an earthquake occur. This paper compares displacements measured in Avonside area, Christchurch, NZ, by using four different ways with respect to their effects on pipeline damage assessments. They are air photo, satellite, high resolution light detection and ranging (LiDAR) surveys data presented at 4- and 56-m grids acquired before and after the Mw6.2 22 February 2011 earthquake. Avonside area was in the liquefaction zones of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Where possible, benchmark measurements were also included in the comparisons. In this study, the focus was on asbestos cement and cast iron water pipelines as the length of the pipelines and the number of damages in the study area was much higher compared to other pipe materials, providing sufficient repair rate data passing the screening criteria to develop linear regressions. The correlations between pipeline damage and lateral ground strains were developed by calculating the horizontal strains from these four different type displacements. The comparisons show that satellite imagery is good for estimating total movements but not so good for estimating lateral strains and conversely LiDAR surveys are not so good for estimating total movements, but much better for estimating lateral strains. Hence, pipeline damage correlations with LiDAR calculated strains provide higher determination coefficient (r2) value. The results of comparisons are presented and discussed.

Keywords

Air photo Lateral ground strains LiDAR Liquefaction Pipeline damage Satellite 22 February 2011 earthquake 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) supported the research presented herein under Project No. 114M258. The Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT), Christchurch City Council (CCC), Earthquake Commission (EQC), Contact Energy, and Tonkin and Taylor Ltd. are acknowledged for their assistance. Special thanks are extended to John Noonan of SCIRT, Prof. Dr. Sang-Soo Jeon, Dr. Dimitra Bouziou, and Prof. Dr. Ellen Rathje of University of Texas. EQC and CERA provided all LiDAR survey and liquefaction observation data. Prof. Rathje and her team provided satellite measurements.

References

  1. Bouziou D (2015) Earthquake-induced ground deformation effects on buried pipelines, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  2. Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) (2012) Geotechnical database for Canterbury earthquake sequence. https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com
  3. Cook RD (1995) Finite element modeling for stress analysis. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  4. GNS Science (2011) The Canterbury earthquake sequence and implications for seismic design levels, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2011/183, commissioned by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, NZ, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  5. Hamada M, O’Rourke TD (1992) Case studies of liquefaction and lifeline performance during past earthquakes. Technical report NCEER-92-0001, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  6. Hamada M, Yasuda S, Isoyama R, Emoto K (1986) Study on liquefaction induced permanent ground displacement. Association for the Development of Earthquake Prediction, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  7. Jinguuji M, Toprak S (2017) A case study of liquefaction risk analysis based on the thickness and depth of the liquefaction layer using CPT and electric resistivity data in the Hinode area, Itako City, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. Explor Geophys 48(1):28Google Scholar
  8. Martin JG (2014) Measuring liquefaction-induced deformation from optical satellite imagery. M.S. Thesis, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  9. Martin JG, Rathje EM (2014) Lateral spread deformations from the 2010–2011 New Zealand earthquakes measured from satellite images and optical image correlation. In: Proceedings of the 10th national conference in earthquake engineering 2014, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AKGoogle Scholar
  10. O’Rourke TD, Toprak S (1997) GIS assessment of water supply damage from the Northridge earthquake. In: Frost JD (ed) Geotechnical special publication. ASCE, New York, pp 117–131Google Scholar
  11. O’Rourke TD, Jeon SS, Toprak S, Cubrinovski M, Jung JK (2012) Underground lifeline system performance during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. In: 15th world conference in earthquake engineering, 2012, September. Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  12. O’Rourke TD, Jeon SS, Toprak S, Cubrinovski M, Hughes M, Ballegooy S, Bouziou D (2014) Earthquake response of underground pipeline networks in Christchurch, NZ. Earthq Spectra 30(1):183–204.  https://doi.org/10.1193/030413EQS062M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rathje EM, Franke KW (2015) Remote sensing for geotechnical earthquake reconnaissance. In: 6th International conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering 1–4 November 2015 Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  14. Rathje EM, Woo K, Crawford M, Neuenschwander A (2005) Earthquake damage identification using multi-temporal high-resolution optical satellite imagery. In: International geoscience and remote sensing symposium, IEEE, Seoul, South Korea, July (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  15. Rathje EM, Kayen R, Woo KS (2006) Remote sensing observations of landslides and ground deformation from the 2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu earthquake. Soils Found Jpn Geotech Soc 46(6):831–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rathje EM, Secara SS, Martin JG, van Ballegooy S, Russell J (2017) Liquefaction-induced horizontal displacements from the canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand measured from remote sensing techniques. Earthq Spectra 33(4):1475–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sano Y, O’Rourke TD, Hamada M (1999) GIS evaluation of Northridge earthquake ground deformation and water supply damage. In: Proceedings of fifth U.S. conference on lifeline earthquake engineering, TCLEE Monograph No. 16, ASCE, pp 832–839Google Scholar
  18. Stewart JP, Hu J, Kayen RE, Lembo AJ Jr, Collins BD, Davis CA, O’Rourke TD (2009) Use of airborne and terrestrial LiDAR to detect ground displacement hazards to water systems. J Surv Eng 135(3):113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Toprak S, Taskin F, Koc AC (2009) Prediction of earthquake damage to urban water distribution systems: a case study for Denizli, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68:499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Toprak S, Nacaroglu E, Koc AC (2011) Seismic damage probabilities for segmented buried pipelines. In: Faber M, Köhler J, Nishijima K (eds) Applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering. ETH Zurich, Switzerland, pp 2199–2203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Toprak S, Nacaroglu E, O’Rourke TD, Koc AC, Hamada M, Cubrinovski M, Jeon SS (2014) Pipeline damage assessment using horizontal displacements from air photo and LiDAR measurements in Avonside area, Christchurch, NZ. In: Second European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, 25–29 Aug, 2014, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  22. Toprak S, Nacaroglu E, Koc AC (2015) Seismic damage probabilities for segmented buried pipelines in liquefied soils. In: 6th International conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering 1–4 November 2015 Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  23. Toprak S, Nacaroglu E, Koc AC (2016) How important the ground strain and pipeline orientation for the seismic damages. In: 4th International conference on new developments in soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. June 2–4, 2016 Near East University, Nicosia, TRNCGoogle Scholar
  24. Toprak S, Nacaroglu E, Koc AC, Van Ballegooy S, Jacka M, Torvelainen E, O’Rourke TD (2017) Pipeline damage predictions in liquefaction zones using LSN. In: 16th World conference on earthquake, Santiago Chile, January 9th–13thGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Ballegooy S, Malan P, Lacrosse V, Jacka ME, Cubrinovski M, Bray JD, O’Rourke TD, Crawford SA, Cowan H (2014) Assessment of liquefaction-induced land damage for residential Christchurch. Earthq Spectra 30(1):31–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Ballegooy S, Wentz F, Boulanger RW (2015) Evaluation of CPT-based liquefaction procedures at regional scale. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 79(3):315–334.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global Construction Ltd.TekirdagTurkey
  2. 2.Civil Engineering DepartmentPamukkale UniversityDenizliTurkey
  3. 3.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Civil and Environment EngineeringWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan
  5. 5.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  6. 6.Tonkin + Taylor LtdAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations