Geotechnical Assessments for Trenchless Water Crossings in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of trenchless methods for pipeline water crossings in the Province of Alberta has grown significantly during the past decade, primarily as a result of increasingly strict water protection regulations. Because the feasibility of using a trenchless method is dependent on subsurface conditions, a geotechnical assessment should be performed during the planning stages. The results of this assessment are used in the selection of the most appropriate crossing method, and to assess the risk of encountering difficulties during construction. A discussion of the current state of practice for geotechnical investigations of trenchless projects in Alberta is initially presented. The importance of a good understanding of the engineering geological framework and associated geological-geotechnical complexities is highlighted. Recommended stages of a geotechnical assessment are described, namely the desk study, the site reconnaissance, and the field exploration, which involves drilling and sampling and geophysical surveys where appropriate. It is described how each stage interacts with, and is dependent on the others. It is noted that because the cost of a field drilling and sampling can be expensive when compared to the construction costs, obtaining as much information as possible during the desk study and field reconnaissance stages is considered to be a cost effective strategy. Drilling and sampling techniques currently used in Alberta are briefly reviewed, including continuous flight and hollow stem augering, wet rotary, and cased down-hole air percussion methods. Emphasis is placed on describing the advantages and limitations of each method. Some of the concepts presented are illustrated through evaluation of a recent case study of a recent major river crossing in Central Alberta.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".