Two Case Studies of Trenchless Technologies in the Urban Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998, EPCOR undertook an inspection program on the condition of 14 of their underground high voltage transmission lines where they crossed the riverbed of the North Saskatchewan River within the City of Edmonton. Based on the findings of this investigation, it was determined that two of the river crossings were at serious risk of mechanical damage. It was decided that they would be replaced by horizontal directional drilling (HDD) methods, at a sufficient depth into the bedrock below the river bottom to remove any risk of failure due to mechanical damage. This paper examines all phases of the work carried out from project inception to construction of the two crossings, first in the spring of 2003 and then in the dead of winter of 2004. Some of the technical considerations inherent in the design of the HDD installations included geotechnical concerns with potential drilling fluid frac-out and slope stability, as well as heat dissipation rates and operating constraints of the 72 kV oil-filled pipe type high voltage cables. This paper will focus on project constraints imposed by the existing urban (park and residential) locations, community and stakeholder concerns and the regulatory and approval requirements of three levels of government. In addition to the necessary geotechnical investigations, other investigations included addressing potential impacts on the river, vegetation, wildlife, archaeological, noise and construction concerns. An extensive public communications program was completed that included a number of open houses, delivery of construction notices to all surrounding residences, meetings with community league executives and other stakeholder groups. The paper will describe the challenges that the project team faced and how they were overcome and the amount of time and effort that went in to meeting those challenges. The paper will end with a discussion of the costs and time frames required to complete such a 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".