Geohazard Quantification: Landslides in

Deepwater Development Areas

David Rushton, Fugro GeoConsulting Limited
Why Quantify Geohazards?

• Exposure and vulnerability to

geohazards can make a significant
contribution to the risk profile for
offshore developments

• Risk management and risk-based

decisions are facilitated by a
detailed and quantitative risk
assessment 500 m

• Risk assessments of complex

deepwater offshore environments
require collaborative input from a
multi-disciplinary geoteam,
studying everything from process
understanding through to analytical
modelling

2/47 Geohazard Quantification: Landslides in Deepwater Development Areas www.fugro.com

Outline

• Introduction
• Data Acquisition
• Ground Model
• Quantitative Risk Assessment
• Conclusion

3/47 www.fugro.com
Introduction

CAUSE PREVENTION TOP EVENT MITIGATION CONSEQUENCE

Equipment
Exposure
Geohazard Equipment
Mitigation Consequence
Event Damage
Equipment
Vulnerability

Quantitative Risk Assessment:

• Probability of equipment damage is the

product of a chain of events, where each
event has a probability between 0 and 1.

• Consequence can be quantified in terms of

overall cost

4/47 www.fugro.com
Introduction

Geotechnical Geomorphologists
Engineers

Advanced Laboratory

Risk Analysts

Multidisciplinary
Geoteam

Geophysicists Analysts and Numerical Modellers Geologists

5/47 www.fugro.com
Outline

• Introduction
• Data Acquisition
• Ground Model
• Quantitative Risk Assessment
• Conclusion

6/47 www.fugro.com
Data Acquisition

• Offshore Data requirements:

• Similar to those of onshore engineering projects;
• Geotechnical sampling and in situ testing;
• Geophysical survey.

• Difference in accessibility presents both challenges and benefits

7/47 www.fugro.com
Data Acquisition

Geotechnical Site Investigation

a) Downhole sampling and testing

b) Seabed sampling and testing systems

• Box core (0.4 m);
• Short Piston Core (<5 m);
• Long Piston Core (>10m);
• Shallow Seabed T-bar testing;
• Deep Seabed CPT (10 and 20 tonne thrust)

c) Seabed drilling systems

8/47 www.fugro.com
Data Acquisition

Geotechnical Site Investigation

Motion
compensator
a) Downhole sampling and testing Top drive
power swivel

Moonpool

Re-entry
funnel

Hydraulic
pipe clamp
5” drill string

Seabed
frame

9/47 www.fugro.com
Data Acquisition

Geotechnical Site Investigation

b) Seabed sampling and testing

Lowering cables
and control
umbilical (no drill
string)

Box core

Piston core In situ testing

10/47 www.fugro.com
Data Acquisition

Geotechnical Site Investigation

c) Seabed Drilling Systems

11/47 www.fugro.com
Data Acquisition

Geophysical Site
Surveys

12/47 www.fugro.com
Data Acquisition

Geophysical Site
Surveys

Surface Tow
Hull Mounted
c. 1m

Hydrophone Source

Sub Tow

c. 0.5m

Deep Tow

c. 1m AUV-deployed

13/47 www.fugro.com
Data Acquisition

Geophysical Site
Surveys Hull-mounted multi beam echosounder

AUV Chirp AUV-mounted multi beam echosounder

150 m

15 m

300 m
Surface-towed Multichannel Seismic

14/47 www.fugro.com
Outline

• Introduction
• Data Acquisition
• Ground Model
• Quantitative Risk Assessment
• Conclusion

15/47 www.fugro.com
Ground Model

What is a ground model?

“The predictive ground model approach … is centred on the creation of a 3-D block model that captures
the geomorphology, main stratigraphic units, geological features, geohazards and representative
geotechnical conditions across the development footprint”

“The main objectives of the method are to:

(1) build a model that is reliable enough to infer the shallow subsurface conditions anywhere
within it
(2) To use the interpreted data for geohazard risk assessment, field layout planning and
engineering at most locations
(3) Limit site-specific geotechnical investigations to areas or structures that pose the biggest risk
or offer the best value engineering opportunities to the project”

Evans, T.G. (2011)

16/47 www.fugro.com
Ground Model

What is a ground model?

“The predictive ground model approach … is centred on the creation of a 3-D block model that captures
the geomorphology, main stratigraphic units, geological features, geohazards and representative
geotechnical conditions across the development footprint”

17/47 www.fugro.com
Ground Model

Soil Model

18/47 www.fugro.com
Ground Model
Undrained Shear Strength [kPa]
0 100 200
0
Soil Model

41 ky
10

Depth Below Seafloor [m]

20

30

1 metre

19/47 www.fugro.com
Ground Model
Undrained Shear Strength [kPa]
0 100 200
0
Soil Model

41 ky
10

Depth Below Seafloor [m]

20

30

1 metre

20/47 www.fugro.com
Ground Model

Soil Model
Seabed
Soil Unit A1
MTD
Soil Unit 1
Soil Unit 2
Soil Unit 3
Soil Unit 4
Soil Unit 5
Soil Unit 6
Soil Unit 7
a b c a b

Soil Province 1 Soil Province 2 Soil Province 3

21/47 www.fugro.com
Ground Model

Geomorphological process model

Classify geohazard
processes

Characterise
magnitude

• Soil model describes ‘static’ conditions

• Geomorphological process model

describes dynamic conditions Assess frequency

Risk assessment

22/47 www.fugro.com
Ground Model

Soil model /
Geomorphological
seismostratigraphy /
process model
geochronology
Environmental conditions e.g. delta fronts where
are less conducive to activity peaked during
geohazard activity times of sea-level rise
Environmental
History
Environmental conditions e.g. interior seas where
are still as during peak sea-levels have
rates of activity remained more constant

Is the past the key

to the future?
Environmental conditions e.g. basins with
are more conducive to accelerated fluvial
geohazard activity sediment inputs
Maybe…

23/47 www.fugro.com
Outline

• Introduction
• Data Acquisition
• Ground Model
• Quantitative Risk Assessment
• Conclusion

24/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

Qualitative Risk Assessment (as expressed in a risk register) is useful at an

early stage to:

1. Provide an overview of potential risks to site

2. Provide an indication of where best to focus future analysis
3. Steer data requirements for future site investigation and survey

To support design, quantitative risk assessment is needed to:

1. Refine the estimates of likelihood of damage to infrastructure and better

define the related consequences (to compare with other project risks)
2. Calculate relative risk for different route and siting options (to enable
avoidance)
3. Evaluate the need for geohazard mitigation in terms of potential costs
and benefits

25/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

Event Type 1 Probability of Probability of a Probability of

(e.g. landslide) event occurring hit given event damage given a hit

Event Type 2 Probabilistic Spatial probability Vulnerability

(e.g. fault offset) stability analysis (wrong place, analysis
wrong time)

Exposure (event
credible at facility
location?)

26/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment
Geohazard Probability Example: GIS-based Probabilistic Stability Analysis

. . sin cos ′

gravity earthquake

Assumed
seabed and
γ. .
shear surface

27/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment
Geohazard Probability Example: GIS-based Probabilistic Stability Analysis

Submerged unit
weight, ′ (kN/m3)

Seabed slope
angle, °
Failure surface: depth (m),
(kPa)

a
Seismic acceleration
input t

28/47 www.fugro.com
 Quantitative Risk Assessment

Geohazard Probability Example: GIS-based Probabilistic Stability Analysis

. . sin cos ′

Slope

GIS Spatial
Density Analysis

Strength

29/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

Gravitational stress ratio,

0 1

Stable zone
(r < 0)
? Quasi-stable zone
(0 < r < 1)

Failure initiation zone

(r > 1)

Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference 2015:

• Rushton, Gray, Puzrin and Hill (2015)
• Gray, Puzrin and Hill (2015)

30/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

Geohazard Probability Example: GIS-based Probabilistic Stability Analysis

31/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

Geohazard Probability Example: GIS-based Probabilistic Stability Analysis

32/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

Geohazard Probability Example: GIS-based Probabilistic Stability Analysis

33/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

Equipment Vulnerability

34/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

Equipment Vulnerability

Undrained Shear 3 50 [%]

Strength, Su [kPa] Submerged Unit Weight [kN/m ]
0 100 200 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
seabed 0

landslide
A

30

MM700
shear surface

60

Depth [m BSF]
4
5

90 6

7
120

8
P-Y Springs 150

35/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

Pile Head Deflection

DISPLACEMENT [m]

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

seabed 0

10

20

DEPTH BELOW SEAFLOOR [m BSF]

30

40 Onset of
platform
member
50 damage

60 Landslide
Thickness [m]
10.0 m
70 12.0 m
16.0 m
80
18.0 m
20.0 m
24.0 m
90

36/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment
Well Conductor Yield Stress
STRESSDISPLACEMENT
UTILISATION FACTOR
[m] (SUF) (-)

0.0-0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.2

0.8 0.3
1.0 1.20.4 1.4 0.5 1.6
-40 0

Point of well conductor

fixing to platform
-30 10

-20 20
Onset of
plastic

DEPTH BELOW SEAFLOOR [m BSF]

behaviour

DEPTH BELOW MUDLINE [m BML]

-10 30

MUDLINE
0 40 Onset of
Landslide platform
Thickness [m] member
10 50 2m damage
4m
6m
20 60
8m
10m
10.0 m
30 70 11m
12m
12.0 m
13m 16.0 m
40 80 14m 18.0 m
15m 20.0 m
Pile Head Deflection
16m 24.0 m
50 90

37/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

• Analytical approaches (e.g. Randolph et al,

2010) are available to assess the response
of pipelines to impacting landslide loads at a
screening level

• Numerical analysis provides a more rigorous

assessment, incorporating operational loads Randolph et al., 2010

• Induced stress and bending moments are

checked against steel yield values and
design code limits

38/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

• Pipeline routes can be planned to avoid major hazards if a route with fewer
geohazards is cheaper than geohazard mitigation measures

Prob Failure
Mapped Landslides
Component Geo-Cost Maps

Slope Angle LOW

LOW

Roughness
Channelosity

LOW

Rushton et al., 2016 Composite Geo-Cost Map

(OPT 2016)
39/47 www.fugro.com
Quantitative Risk Assessment

QRA Good Practice

• Large volumes of data should be

properly managed, preferably spatially
referenced within a GIS

• Geoteam continuity is very beneficial,

although not always possible given long
Schematic of GIS-based data management
project timescales

• Complete audit trails for all

interpretation and analysis is essential

40/47 www.fugro.com
Outline

• Introduction
• Data Acquisition
• Ground Model
• Quantitative Risk Assessment
• Conclusion

41/47 www.fugro.com
Conclusion

Questions faced by an offshore development project Geoteam:

1. Are there any showstoppers – is the project viable from a geohazard risk
perspective?
2. If so, where are the geohazard hotspots i.e. where are the most likely or most
onerous geohazard impacts?
3. Can these impacts be mitigated through design (wall thickness, pipeline
anchoring, foundation design)?
4. Alternatively, can these impacts be mitigated through avoidance (re-siting / re-
routing)?

All of these decisions typically involve commitment to large expenditure that can
make the difference in terms of project economics;

A quantitative risk assessment can help answer these questions;

It isn’t all bad news: quantification of the risk posed by some geohazards can result in
a reduced risk, relative to initial results from a qualitative approach.

42/47 www.fugro.com
Conclusion

Quantitative Risk Assessment Requirements:

• Multi-disciplinary Geoteam;
• Spatially resolute and spatially extensive data;
• Documented and auditable process to ensure continuity over long project
timescales;
• Rigorous data management to maximise the use of all available data.

Quantitative risk assessment should be an iterative process:

• First-pass results give an approximation of the risk and guide future data collection
and analysis, ultimately leading to refinement of the risk assessment;
• Continual risk reduction.

43/47 www.fugro.com
David Rushton (d.rushton@fugro.com)