Reuse of steel pile foundations: Greenock Creek Bridge, Walkerton, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following a preliminary assessment of bridge replacement/rehabilitation options for the existing Greenock Creek Bridge located near Walkerton in Southwestern Ontario, Canada, the removal of the existing superstructure and the reuse of the existing foundations was selected as the preferred option. The preferred alternative was based on a condition survey of the deck and superstructure and traffic mobility, economic, sustainability and environmental advantages. The decision is demonstrative of the Ministry of Transportation’s commitment to assess new technologies and applications that support ministry initiatives and operational needs and specifically to encourage the reuse of existing foundations. This paper describes the process of evaluation of the capacity, integrity and durability of the existing steel HP310x79 H-piles. A comprehensive programme was planned, organised and implemented that included exploratory boreholes to verify the subsurface conditions, retrieval of soil samples to determine the corrosivity of the soil and groundwater around the piles to assess the degree of corrosivity and geophysical testing including parallel seismic and borehole magnetometer testing to estimate the embedment lengths of the existing steel piles. The results of this investigation were used to assess if the existing steel pile foundations can carry the new superstructure loads for another 75 years.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".