A Case Study and Lessons Learned: Retaining Wall Design and Construction of the Maid of the Mist Winter Storage Facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In late 2013, Maid of the Mist constructed a single winter storage facility along the U.S. shoreline for the storage of floating docks and tour boats operating in the lower Niagara River for both the United States and Canada. Micropiles grouted to rock were originally considered by others for support of the storage facility, which is retained by a cantilever concrete wall. The test borings indicated that the site is underlain by talus over bedrock. Due to the depth of competent rock that was found to be much deeper than anticipated over nearly half of the project site, micropiles were proposed to be grouted into the talus. During construction, substantial grout loss occurred during installation of the test micropiles in the talus deposits, resulting in delays in completion of the test micropiles. To allay the concern over the lengthy construction delay required for installing production micropiles, the design team decided to support the retaining wall on a significantly modified shallow foundation over the talus deposits without any micropiles. This prompted a concern over the overall performance of the retaining wall, given the inherent heterogeneity of the talus deposits. This issue was addressed in the design, and the project moved ahead without micropiles in the talus deposits. The project was successfully completed within construction schedule and below budget, with over 150 micropiles being eliminated. Instrumentation of the wall during and after construction indicated that the wall performs very well with insignificant ground deformations. This paper presents (1) the design logistics of using a conventional retaining wall in lieu of micropiling over the talus deposits, (2) an overview of the construction challenges encountered in the field, and (3) the importance of team work and partnership with contractor for a design-build project.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".