Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
55 Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents A P P E N D I X C
56 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring 97.67% 42 2.33% 1 Q2 Does your agency have unstable slopes such as embankments, cut slopes, and beyond-the-right-of-way slope hazard sites that exhibit movement or a threat of movement? Answered: 43 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 43 Yes No 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 57 97.67% 42 2.33% 1 Q3 Does your agency use any form of geotechnical instrumentation and monitoring for unstable slopes other than routine or incidental observation? Answered: 43 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 43 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No
58 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring 100.00% 43 51.16% 22 11.63% 5 11.63% 5 86.05% 37 13.95% 6 44.19% 19 2.33% 1 Q4 How are unstable slopes selected for instrumentation and monitoring? (check all that apply) Answered: 43 Skipped: 0 Total Respondents: 43 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) Please note that VDOT has 9 districts. In highly urbanized areas we repair unstable slopes. Our approach to unstable slopes throughout the districts varies. Judgment of geotechnical... Requests from DOT staff... Agency guidelines o... Claim or loss prevention Event history Public or other extern... As part of a site-specifi... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Judgment of geotechnical staff Requests from DOT staff outside of agency geotechnical program Agency guidelines or procedures Claim or loss prevention Event history Public or other external agency requests As part of a site-specific hazard or risk treatment plan Other (please specify)
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 59 Q5 What general instrumentation and monitoring approaches are used by your agency for unstable slopes? (select all that apply; if not familiar, leave blank) Answered: 42 Skipped: 1 Inclinometer systems... Inclinometer systems... Tilt measurement Surface extensometer... Borehole extensometer... Ground-based photogrammetry
60 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring Ground-based LiDAR Ground-based radar Ground-based survey Aerial photogrammet... Aerial LiDAR Satellite InSAR Significant Event detect...
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 61 Event warning systems to... Event warning systems to... Event video or photo captur... Real-time video streams Accelerometers Groundwater levels or flow Surface water flow or...
62 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring 2.86% 1 8.57% 3 91.43% 32 35 28.21% 11 35.90% 14 38.46% 15 39 21.88% 7 28.13% 9 50.00% 16 32 58.06% 18 12.90% 4 29.03% 9 31 58.06% 18 22.58% 7 19.35% 6 31 56.25% 18 37.50% 12 6.25% 2 32 28.57% 10 71.43% 25 0.00% 0 35 83.87% 26 9.68% 3 6.45% 2 31 8.33% 3 8.33% 3 88.89% 32 36 19.44% 7 33.33% 12 50.00% 18 36 53.13% 17 40.63% 13 6.25% 2 32 80.65% 25 19.35% 6 0.00% 0 31 86.67% 26 13.33% 4 0.00% 0 30 Not Used New Use (within ~10 years) Established Use (> ~10 years) GPS Strain gauges 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% NOT USED NEW USE (WITHIN ~10 YEARS) ESTABLISHED USE (> ~10 YEARS) TOTAL RESPONDENTS Inclinometer systems (Traversing probe systems) Inclinometer systems (In-place systems) Tilt measurement Surface extensometer/deformation system Borehole extensometer/deformation system Ground-based photogrammetry Ground-based LiDAR Ground-based radar Ground-based survey Aerial photogrammetry/imagery Aerial LiDAR Satellite InSAR Significant Event detection systems
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 63 58.82% 20 32.35% 11 8.82% 3 34 90.63% 29 6.25% 2 3.13% 1 32 70.59% 24 26.47% 9 2.94% 1 34 75.00% 24 21.88% 7 3.13% 1 32 87.50% 28 6.25% 2 6.25% 2 32 16.67% 6 22.22% 8 66.67% 24 36 50.00% 17 23.53% 8 29.41% 10 34 41.67% 15 36.11% 13 25.00% 9 36 53.13% 17 25.00% 8 21.88% 7 32 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) Tensiometers, water content sensors Recently started using MEMES array. Only slightly different from an IPI but worth mentioning Recently- (which is to say April 5th, 2019) after a landslide in Granite Falls, MN, I thought about using TDR and coax cables for a relatively fast-moving slide area impacting a highway; we may have a consultant apply the technique on the project as we don't have any of the equipment. Extensometer and tilt meter use is very new to department (began 2018) and used only selectively to monitor rockfall. System uses real-time data collection and cloud-based data viewing platform. Aerial drone surveys The state geologist out of Umass Amherst developed a map using areal mapping/lidar to potentiality identify unstable slopes. Vibrating wire and open well piezometers are used extensively. Occasionally (typically in emergency situations) simple visual methods such as rows of witness stakes or paint markings are used. Event warning systems to agency staff (e.g. operations, engineering) Event warning systems to public or external stakeholders Event video or photo capture systems Real-time video streams Accelerometers Groundwater levels or flow Surface water flow or precipitation GPS Strain gauges
64 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring Q6 Which of the following instrumentation and monitoring data collection, viewing and communication methods are used by your agency for unstable slopes? (select all that apply; if not familiar, leave blank) Answered: 42 Skipped: 1 Manual monitoring a... Manual monitoring a... Onsite real-time da... Onsite real-time da... Transmission of data offs... Onsite data analysis for...
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 65 12.82% 5 5.13% 2 84.62% 33 39 9.76% 4 41.46% 17 48.78% 20 41 31.58% 12 42.11% 16 28.95% 11 38 60.00% 21 28.57% 10 11.43% 4 35 45.71% 16 42.86% 15 11.43% 4 35 60.00% 21 28.57% 10 14.29% 5 35 Not Used New Use (within ~10 years) Established Use (> ~10 years) Remote real-time... Remote viewing of recorded... Web-based access or... Web-based presentation... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% NOT USED NEW USE (WITHIN ~10 YEARS) ESTABLISHED USE (> ~10 YEARS) TOTAL RESPONDENTS Manual monitoring and paper-based recording Manual monitoring and tablet or other electronic recording Onsite real-time data acquisition for 1 to a few instruments of the same type Onsite real-time data acquisition for several different types instruments Transmission of data offsite via wireless (radio, cellular, etc.) telemetry Onsite data analysis for decision support
66 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring 47.06% 16 47.06% 16 5.88% 2 34 45.45% 15 45.45% 15 9.09% 3 33 45.45% 15 48.48% 16 6.06% 2 33 75.76% 25 18.18% 6 6.06% 2 33 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) UDOT Geotech would be "Not Used" for most of these, but UDOT Avalanche control uses several types of remote, real-time, web-accessed data acquisition. Use of telemetry is not routine. (Two experimental projects.) Remote real-time viewing of data Remote viewing of recorded data Web-based access or presentation of data to agency staff Web-based presentation of data to stakeholders outside of agency
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 67 48.84% 21 9.30% 4 41.86% 18 Q7 Has your agency developed or deployed an innovative instrumentation or monitoring technology within the last 10 years for an agency special case or specific unstable slope problem? Answered: 43 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 43 IF YES, PLEASE DESCRIBE IF ABLE: Landslide warning system has been developed for one slope using tensiometers and water content sensors. Transient flow model was calibrated using instrument data and analyzed for a design storm. Threshold values were established for instruments along with appropriate plans of action. Using MEMS array and VW piezometers with cellular transmission on 30-minute intervals. In the past several years we have been using newer techniques including ShapeAccelArrays, GNSS satellite receiver stations, and automated total stations for assessing slope movement. Using cell modems and loading data to project websites is becoming more common for larger projects. We have been combining UAV photogrammetry and aerial lidar with verification from time-lapse photography for landslides since 2018. Deployed rockfall monitoring system in 2018 to monitor movement at select number of problematic sites. System uses real-time data collection from extensometers and tilt meters, up-loads data to cloud-based platform using cellular modems, and is viewable from office PC. System has email alarm capability, with thresholds set by user. No on-site warning to motorists, however. Using mobile LiDAR to monitor a series of slopes. Through a research project with our local university we implemented fiber optic sensors and also used drones to survey using a point cloud. yes with consulting No Yes If yes, please describe if... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES No Yes If yes, please describe if able:
68 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring CDOT has been involved in a few pilot studies involving corridor wide remote sensing (mostly photogrammetry). CDOT has also piloted various telemetry methods over the last 10 years at various sites around the state. Over the last 5 years the department has also worked with academia on innovative InSAR application to geohazards, automated photogrammetry methods, and LiDAR processing. Used LiDAR enabled drone to map two landside sites. Conducted multiple epochs of aerial photogrammetry for change detection at debris flow sites. Also installed and monitored soil temperature to determine alpine/headwater contribution changes associated with permafrost thawing. Conducted multiple epochs of ground-based LiDAR for change detection at rockfall sites. Inclinometer for I-91 embankment in Windsor CT We (partnered with Golder Associates as the lead designer) deployed an instrumentation plan for a large slope instability in Newport, Vermont. This project has been in the monitoring and design phase for years, and this program was deployed in 2013 following several years of installing many inclinometers and wells requiring manual readings. This program included two SAAs, two IPI's, 17 VW, one VW barometer, a tipping bucket rain gauge, and two dataloggers. A system was installed to receive real time web-based data with alert triggers in place, although we were not anticipating a catastrophic failure, more of a creeping behavior as had been exhibited in the past. Real-time monitoring during grouting. LiDAR and photogrammetry have been used several times for major slope failures. InSAR has been used for research study. Horizontal inclinometers used about 10 years ago for major construction project. We have installed some real time monitoring instruments and a camera on a rock slope--which is innovative to us. We have also used a consultant to evaluate the Beartooth highway using InSAR and inplace inclinometers. We have started using shape accel arrays within the last 5 years. Use of this includes remote website monitoring typically with Sensemetrics. We participated in early trials of the "ShapeAccelArray" in-place MEMS inclinometer. Described in TRB paper 09-2118. Currently monitoring several MSE walls using LiDAR and "CloudCompare" software. We have installed piezometers in various locations that we have installed horizontal drains. We use the data to monitor fluctuations in groundwater levels to determine when the horizontal drains need to be cleaned.
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 69 7.14% 3 35.71% 15 14.29% 6 23.81% 10 9.52% 4 9.52% 4 Q8 How many unstable slope sites are currently in a regular or planned instrumentation and monitoring program for your agency? Answered: 42 Skipped: 1 TOTAL 42 None 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Greater than 50 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES None 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Greater than 50
70 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring 27.91% 12 37.21% 16 48.84% 21 51.16% 22 27.91% 12 13.95% 6 Q9 In your agency, what describes the frequency that data obtained using instrumentation and monitoring technology are evaluated or interpreted for use in reporting or response actions on unstable slopes? (check all that apply) Answered: 43 Skipped: 0 Total Respondents: 43 Daily Weekly Approximately monthly A few times per year Once every 1 to 2 years Rarely 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Daily Weekly Approximately monthly A few times per year Once every 1 to 2 years Rarely
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 71 40.48% 17 88.10% 37 57.14% 24 92.86% 39 30.95% 13 7.14% 3 57.14% 24 66.67% 28 0.00% 0 Q10 How are data from the instrumentation and monitoring of unstable slopes used by your agency? (check all that apply) Answered: 42 Skipped: 1 Total Respondents: 42 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) There are no responses. Emergency or warning Establish extent and r... Improve reliability ... Tracking of movement or... Research activities Public or other extern... To establish if movement ... Supporting maintenance ... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Emergency or warning Establish extent and rate of movement for use in design of stabilization solution Improve reliability for site specific hazard mitigation design decisions Tracking of movement or activity to trigger additional treatment actions Research activities Public or other external stakeholder communications To establish if movement is within tolerance for construction activities Supporting maintenance and operational decisions Other (please specify)
72 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring 35.71% 15 71.43% 30 19.05% 8 52.38% 22 54.76% 23 26.19% 11 61.90% 26 7.14% 3 Q11 How is funding for instrumentation and monitoring of unstable slopes obtained? (check all that apply) Answered: 42 Skipped: 1 Total Respondents: 42 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) FHWA-funded, NMDOT Research Bureau award Research funds (Next answer does not include labor.) From discretionar... Agency pre-engineer... From dedicated funds in age... Emergency/con tingency funds... Operations or maintenance... Emergency/con tingency funds... Construction project... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES From discretionary funds in agency geotechnical budget Agency pre-engineering or engineering design project fund sources From dedicated funds in agency geotechnical budget Emergency/contingency funds within agency Operations or maintenance budgets Emergency/contingency funds external to the agency Construction project engineering funds Other (please specify)
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 73 23.81% 10 38.10% 16 16.67% 7 4.76% 2 16.67% 7 Q12 What is the estimated approximate range in annual funds committed to instrumentation and monitoring of unstable slopes in the agency? Answered: 42 Skipped: 1 TOTAL 42 < $10,000 $10,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $250,000 > $250,000 Unsure of approximate... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES < $10,000 $10,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $250,000 > $250,000 Unsure of approximate range
74 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring Q13 What approximate percentages of instrumentation and monitoring services are performed in-house? (select estimated percentage range; services that are not completed in-house would be performed by vendors, contractors, consultants, etc.) Answered: 41 Skipped: 2 Purchase of equipment an... Installation of... Remote Sensing Installation of warning...
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 75 26.83% 11 14.63% 6 24.39% 10 34.15% 14 41 24.39% 10 9.76% 4 26.83% 11 39.02% 16 41 67.57% 25 5.41% 2 16.22% 6 10.81% 4 37 80.00% 28 2.86% 1 2.86% 1 14.29% 5 35 29.73% 11 8.11% 3 10.81% 4 51.35% 19 37 19.51% 8 9.76% 4 14.63% 6 56.10% 23 41 0 to 25 % 25% to 50% 50% to 75% 75% to 100% On-going maintenance ... Data management 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 TO 25 % 25% TO 50% 50% TO 75% 75% TO 100% TOTAL RESPONDENTS Purchase of equipment and material from suppliers Installation of instrumentation and monitoring equipment Remote Sensing Installation of warning systems On-going maintenance and repair of in-situ installed instrumentation Data management
76 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring 95.24% 40 19.05% 8 2.38% 1 9.52% 4 Q14 How are unstable slope instrumentation and monitoring data managed? (check all that apply) Answered: 42 Skipped: 1 Total Respondents: 42 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) Some design-build projects and other projects are performed by the same geotechnical engineering consultants. Usually the projects web-based data is then hosted on their websites. Most current MnDOT monitoring data is shared across 2 consultant sites. Some data is in-house, and 1 project is on a 3rd consultant site. Inclinometer network is site-specific; rockfall monitoring is single system for all sites In the past, CDOT had a system that managed all of the instrumentation data in one place. With the implementation of a few pilot studies, CDOT is currently testing a few data management systems. This includes specific instrumentation data, and not any raw data or interpretation from other efforts such as photogrammetry or LiDAR. In the future, the program would like to move towards an all encompassing platform to manage and visualize all of our different data sources. Both of the above are happening. On-going effort to represent associated data within the databases maintained by Geotechnical Asset Management Program; the extent/success of that effort will depend on the extent of incorporation of geotechnical asset classes into the Department's TAM Program. Funding support for the GAM Program will be extremely limited for the foreseeable future. By site and the associat... A program-wide system that... Unsure Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES By site and the associated site-specific technologies A program-wide system that incorporates numerous or all sites in one database or system Unsure Other (please specify)
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 77 2.44% 1 17.07% 7 9.76% 4 70.73% 29 Q15 Has your agency developed internally, or procured contract services for development of, a web-based data acquisition and viewing system for instrumentation and monitoring data from unstable slope sites? Answered: 41 Skipped: 2 TOTAL 41 Yes â internally... Yes â procured external... Yes â a combination ... No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes â internally developed Yes â procured external services Yes â a combination of internal and external services No
78 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring 90.48% 38 61.90% 26 14.29% 6 9.52% 4 7.14% 3 2.38% 1 Q16 What visualization and communication methods are used by your agency for instrumentation and monitoring data from unstable slopes? (check all that apply) Answered: 42 Skipped: 1 Total Respondents: 42 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) Current web systems are VDV and sensemetrics Site specific reports... Instrumentation vendor... Custom agency developed/pr... 3D image viewing... Third party (but not an... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Site specific reports prepared with conventional word processing and spreadsheet software Instrumentation vendor developed software and/or web-based systems Custom agency developed/programed software or web-based systems 3D image viewing software or virtual reality systems Third party (but not an instrumentation vendor) commercial software as a service platform Other (please specify)
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 79 60.47% 26 74.42% 32 39.53% 17 60.47% 26 20.93% 9 20.93% 9 18.60% 8 11.63% 5 Q17 Which of the following would enable an increased use of instrumentation and monitoring for unstable slopes in your agency? Answered: 43 Skipped: 0 Total Respondents: 43 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) A more formalized geo-hazard or geo-asset program for slopes and embankment conditions. Based on current needs and depends on number of slopes needing monitoring. There is currently only 1 active slope issue that I am aware as a result of past significant rain event(s) season. Presently this is being motioned by conventional ground survey though district forces. Training Additional Funds Agency, FHWA, AASHTO or ot... Additional agency... External contractor... Agency staff resources... None necessary â donât... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Training Additional Funds Agency, FHWA, AASHTO or other formal guidance and procedures Additional agency geotechnical staff resources External contractor availability with specialty experience in instrumentation and monitoring Agency staff resources outside of geotechnical program None necessary â donât perceive a need for increased use Other (please specify) variable answers as we have 9 districts We do not have a GAM inventory for soil slopes. If we did, it might make a stronger cost-benefit argument for more instrumentation. However, additional manpower would also be needed.
80 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring Q18 If able, please provide additional comments to the survey responses above or descriptions of new instrumentation and monitoring technology used by your agency for unstable slopes. Answered: 19 Skipped: 24 RESPONSES Our consultants are applying new instrumentation in geotechnical studies. We have created a database of slide data and a ArcGIS collector app for visual monitoring of slides. We are currently using ground-based LiDAR for landslide/slope change detection in research projects with the eventual goal of deployment to the region geology/geotech units. We are interested in InSAR, UAS, and other remote sensing options. At this time we are interested in promoting the benefits of a state-wide investment in the $ needed to have contracts in place for the web-based monitoring of sites including cell-modem fees, web-hosting fees, set-up assistance and related "active" monitoring services. N/A No comments We checked InSAR several years ago, and found that our vegetation caused problems. Would like to see results when L band comes on board. real time monitoring Question 4: CDOT does not currently use instrumentation and monitoring as a "treatment", but we are looking for a way to quantify the benefit of monitoring. 5&6: Instrumentation and monitoring applications and data collection are somewhat determined by the needs of specific sites or corridors at this time. ex- emergency deployment of radar vs inclinometer to monitor a small embankment failure 8: We have about a dozen or so sites that are instrumented around CO, but are also working to monitor larger areas or in some cases corridors regularly. 16) At this time Data visualization methods are site and need dependent, but in the future, CDOT would like to have a standard visualization method for all monitoring data. 17) While Colorado is fortunate to receive dedicated Geohazard funding, most of these options would be helpful in creating a monitoring program that involves many data sources. Guidance from groups such as FHWA would be beneficial in that they could set an industry standard and give agencies a direction to move towards. Used shape array, aerial LiDAR from plane and drone There are only a small amount of slopes requiring monitoring. Most stability issues occur during temporary conditions during construction. We just started a pilot project utilizing lidar on a quarterly basis to monitor a newly constructed slopes movement. We are performing the survey in-house but then relying on a consultant to reduce the data into a heat map showing movement. This seems like a great use of our in-house survey folks and new technology, however the data reduction and costs associated are currently prohibiting us from expanding to more slopes. The remote system that we deployed on a large project in Newport was a great example for us to see the various tools out there and how they can be utilized, however likely not cost effective when scaled to a smaller project, which is the majority of our unstable slopes. We've found that guidance on interpreting the data acquired from instrumentation could be useful to our staff. LiDAR, InSAR and photogrammetry only used for research/demonstration, one major slope failure and a special study for Natural Bridge. Our prominent Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel expansion project does require monitoring with web-based access and published warning. This is a few years out. We are trying to increase our use of instrumentation and monitoring of unstable slopes. This is in combination with an asset management approach to this.
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 81 Digital slope inclinometer systems - manual read SAA technology Ground based side scanning radar for worker safety. We have an institutional tendency to stick with tried and true methods. For example, use of SAA or other telemetry-ready instruments has not gone beyond special demonstration projects. 'Newer' methods that we have adopted include directly attaching and grouting VWPs with inclinometer casings and the use of retrievable automated water level loggers with open well piezometers. We have not used LiDAR for unstable slope monitoring, however as mentioned we are using it for wall monitoring. We are looking at possibilities to expand LiDAR or SfM usage to the rock slope inventory for change detection. Key to these efforts is a very good working relationship with our department's Photogrammetry and Mapping Unit. No additional comments. Survey responses may be misleading. Due to arid climate in Nevada, slope creep and progressive failure mechanism is very rare. Use of technology is seldom needed. We are in the process of purchasing and being trained on geophysical instrumentation which may be used on unstable slope sites to enhance our site analysis. We need to coordinate more with our surveying group to gather LIDAR data and learn how to incorporate that into our analysis as well. n/a
82 Advances in Unstable Slope Instrumentation and Monitoring 95.24% 40 4.76% 2 Q19 May we contact you for additional information based on the answers provided in this survey? Answered: 42 Skipped: 1 TOTAL 42 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No
Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents 83 Q20 The synthesis team welcomes experience on lessons learned through the application of new instrumentation and monitoring technology for unstable slopes in the last 10 to 15 years. Please provide comments on this experience below, or if preferred, you can respond with âplease callâ and a member of the synthesis team will contact you for this information. Answered: 19 Skipped: 24 *Comments have been edited for relevance and to remove names and phone numbers COMMENTS There are many. Lessons learned relate to risk, cost/benefit, the value of geotechnical information for decision-making, and the value of investing in new (and usually expensive) technologies for improved data quality. Had problems with dozers cutting equipment. Problems with the vibrating wire technology - making sure the cables are buried securely. Vandalism. Had a few issues getting what we wanted out of the web based systems. We have an increasing need for geotechnical engineers and geologists to maintain database, application, and GIS development skills. new method I think one lesson learned has been the need to either install instrumentation during construction for post construction monitoring or be able to keep the current instrumentation in place and functioning. There have been a few scenarios in which I would have liked this and it wasn't thought of until after or the in place instrumentation was ruined during construction. Dunnicliff's key to success for instrumentation are still as pertinent today as they were 30 years ago. Programs need to be very well planned since running into complications, losing data, wasting money and time, etc., can quickly sour the mood for trying new things. Procurement rules are another obstacle, particularly for unique services or for items with recurring charges, such as for telemetry or web services. Please Call Comments 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
