Stabilization of Roadway Landslide Using Anchored Drilled Shaft Piles Performance Evaluation over the Last 15 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of drilled shaft concrete piles is generally not a widespread method of stabilization of landslides along Alberta highways as a result of perceived high costs and the uncertainty of performance of these structures in the long term. However, over the last 30 years, the use of drilled shaft piles has been the preferred method of stabilization of various sites where conventional methods were not feasible either because of site constraints or not considered appropriate. This paper presents a case history of a roadway embankment slide for which the most appropriate remedial measure was determined to be the use of a tie-back drilled shaft concrete pile retaining wall as a result of the deep-seated nature of the slide, inability to relocate the roadway, and concerns over using a toe berm. Stabilized in 1997, the roadway and pile wall are still performing satisfactorily despite some observed roadway undulations and movements of the sideslope behind the pile wall. This paper addresses the details of the site and slide activity, the judgments exercised in deciding the locations and depth of the concrete piles, and the design and construction of the pile wall retaining system.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".