Vulnerability of Pipelines Installed by Horizontal Directional Drilling to Landslides and a Proposed Framework for Developing Preliminary No Drill Zones for Landslide Avoidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is a method of trenchless pipeline installation which has been widely used in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) during the past 40 years to cross challenging terrain, including watercourses and slopes. In the case study presented, 7,952 pipeline slope crossings are considered, of which an estimated 14% are partially or fully crossed by HDD. Often the primary objective of the HDD installation at the time of construction was to cross a watercourse and adequate consideration was not always given to the possible presence of landslide terrain adjacent to the watercourse. Minimizing HDD cost often requires shallower and shorter installations, which combined with the practice of not always identifying existing landslide features resulted in an estimated 16% of HDD landslide crossings spatially intersecting landslides. Due to the increased stiffness and overburden stress of soil or bedrock with depth as well as other factors, pipeline vulnerability and hence probability of failure is significantly increased relative to shallower conventionally trenched pipelines. Within the case study inventory, the combination of historical HDD installations that did not effectively avoid landslides and the increased vulnerability of pipelines impacted by landslides at depth accounted for approximately 35% of landslide related pipeline failures within a recent 10-year period, a failure rate approximately 15 times that of conventionally trenched pipelines when adjusted for frequency of landslide intersection. Many pipeline operators have recognized the disproportionate risk landslides pose to ineffective HDD installations and are prioritizing assessment and management accordingly. This paper proposes a screening framework to provide guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of HDD installations avoiding landslides for both existing and planned installations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".