D. Jean Hutchinson, CGS VP Technical | vptech@cgs.ca
Andrea Lougheed, CGS Member | alougheed@bgcengineering.ca
Gholamreza (Reza) Saghaee, CGS Member | reza.saghaee@aecom.com
Andrew Drevininkas, CGS Member & Corporate Sponsor | andrew.drevininkas@ttc.ca
Subscription Rates:
CGS Members: Paper and electronic issues are included with membership. Electronic issues are available on the CGS member website. Non-CGS Members: Visit www.karma-link.ca/shop
Printed in Canada
Canadian Geotechnique is published by: Karma-Link Management Services Ltd. 2167 166 Street, Surrey, BC V3Z 0V6 info@karma-link.ca • www.karma-link.ca
CGS Membership: Contact admin@cgs.ca
Advertising: Contact Max Manuel at max@karma-link.ca
Submission of Feature Articles and News: Unsolicited feature articles and news items of interest to CGS members are encouraged
It is an honour for me to be providing this editorial message for Canadian Géotechnique in my new role as Executive Director of the Canadian Geotechnical Society. As many of you know, I have been involved with the Society as a volunteer for over 30 years, and I have benefited so much from my interactions with other members, and from many different opportunities that the CGS has given me. This position as Executive Director allows me to continue to serve the Society, by providing support to President Craig Lake and his Executive Committee, by working in partnership with Lisa Reny and her team at Karma-Link, and through many different interactions with members.
Craig has assembled an outstanding group of people to provide leadership to the Society at the national level: Jean Hutchinson our Vice-President Technical, Daniel Bertrand our Vice-President Finance, and Marie Lin Bréard Lanoix our Vice-President Communications and Member Services, who are all working hard in their new roles, together with the other Executive Committee members Jenn Day (Divisions and Committees Representative),
Having an expert of Jason’s calibre spending two weeks visiting centres across the country is an excellent benefit for our members, and a result of the many ongoing partnerships between our national office and our local sections.
Lilianne Landry‑Paré (Sections Representative), and Chelsey Yesnik (Young Professionals Representative). In April, we all visited Québec City for the Spring Meeting of the Executive Committee, which gave us a chance to meet with the Local Organizing Committee Chairs for the 2026 Canadian Geotechnical Conference Julie Therrien and Thomas Fournier, and have a tour of the conference venue.
In March I was asked to represent President Craig Lake and the Society at the annual meeting of the ASCE Geo-Institute in Louisville, KY. I spent one day at the conference – the Tuesday, which is when the Terzaghi Lecture is presented. I had some misgivings about visiting the US given the current political climate, but I am very glad I did. I was afforded the opportunity to speak to the plenary session, and I decided to start my presentation this way: ‘It is a real pleasure to be bringing warm greetings from Craig Lake, President of the Canadian Geotechnical Society, and from all your geotechnical colleagues, indeed friends, across Canada.’ The result was a spontaneous round of applause – reflecting the respect and affection that our American colleagues have for us and the Society, and their regret for the approach being taken by their current federal government in its relationship with Canada. The day started with delivery of the Koerner Lecture by Shobha Bhatia of Syracuse University (she earned her PhD at UBC in 1980), and it concluded with the Terzaghi Lecture given by Sarah Springman – both excellent presentations by women leading in their respective subfields. Sarah is currently the
Principal of St Hilda's College, Oxford, but is also a celebrated triathlete (she was appointed a Dame by Queen Elizabeth II, recognizing her contributions to both sport and engineering). Sarah made major contributions to efforts in the 90s to have the triathlon included for the first time as an Olympic Sport in Sydney (so as an enthusiastic Kingstonian, I have her to thank for the success of Canadian triathlete and local Kingston boy Simon Whitfield, who won the very first triathlon Gold Medal in 2000).
I continue to benefit from participating in local section activities, and I am writing this after attending the Cross Canada Lecture delivered by Jason DeJong. My sincere thanks to Suzanne Powell and her board at the Canadian Foundation for Geotechnique, and to BGC Engineering, Clifton, ConeTec Inc., Klohn Crippen Berger, Tetra Tech, and Thurber Engineering who provided funding for the tour this Spring. My thanks also to Lisa and Emily for helping make the travel arrangements. Having an expert of Jason’s calibre spending two weeks visiting centres across the country is an excellent benefit for our members, and a result of the many ongoing partnerships between our national office and local sections. Jason was super enthusiastic about his chance to tour our country, and he reflected on the high standing of Canadian geoengineers. I feel similarly about the quality and influence of our profession in Canada, and it is truly a wonderful thing to be serving as your Society’s Executive Director.
Ian Moore CGS Executive Director
Ian Moore, CGS Executive Director
2025-2026
CGS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
COMITÉ EXÉCUTIF DE LA SCG
CRAIG LAKE PRESIDENT PRÉSIDENT president@cgs.ca
D. JEAN HUTCHINSON VP TECHNICAL V.-P. TECHNIQUE vptech@cgs.ca
DANIEL BERTRAND VP FINANCE V.-P. AUX FINANCES vpfinance@cgs.ca
MARIE-LIN BRÉARD LANOIX VP COMMUNICATIONS & MEMBER SERVICES V.-P. COMMUNICATIONS ET SERVICES AUX MEMBRES vpcomm@cgs.ca
JENNIFER DAY DIVISIONS & COMMITTEES REPRESENTATIVE REPRÉSENTANTE DES DIVISIONS ET COMITÉS divcomrep@cgs.ca
LILIANNE LANDRY-PARÉ SECTIONS REPRESENTATIVE REPRÉSENTANTE DES SECTIONS secrep@cgs.ca
CHELSEY YESNIK YOUNG PROFESSIONALS REPRESENTATIVE REPRÉSENTANTE DES JEUNES PROFESSIONNELS yprep@cgs.ca
Hello CGS Members! I hope this message finds you well. As this is my first message to you as CGS President, I would like to extend my best wishes for a great start to 2025. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve as CGS President for the 2025-2026 term, and I look forward to working with our new Executive Committee Members – Jean Hutchinson (VP Technical), Daniel Bertrand (VP Finance), Marie‑Lin Bréard Lanoix (VP Communications and Member Services), and Chelsey Yesnik (Young Professional Representative) – as well as our returning Executive Committee Members – Lilianne Landry‑Paré (Sections Representative) and Jennifer Day (Committees and Divisions Representative) –to serve you, our valued CGS members. A special welcome goes to our new Executive Director, Ian Moore, who has taken over after Michel Aubertin’s 10 years of dedicated service. This new team will collaborate closely with Lisa Reny and her team at KarmaLink to ensure the continued success of CGS operations.
I also want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for your support as a CGS member. Your participation in our technical events, whether through local sections, committees, or divisions, is what makes our society thrive. As a long-time CGS member, I continue to be inspired by the
As a long‑time CGS member, I continue to be inspired by the energy and enthusiasm that our community brings. CGS provides an excellent platform to enhance your technical knowledge, expand your professional network, and develop leadership skills through volunteering.
energy and enthusiasm that our community brings. CGS provides an excellent platform to enhance your technical knowledge, expand your professional network, and develop leadership skills through volunteering. As part of the leadership team, our goal is to constantly refine the society’s operations to provide even greater opportunities for engagement and to ensure CGS remains a valuable resource both now and in the future.
The past year was a busy one for CGS, culminating in the CGS/IAH-CNC Annual Conference in Montreal. With over 1,000 delegates gathering in one of Canada’s most dynamic cities, the Local Organizing Committee of GeoMontreal 2024 and Conference Manager Karma-Link did an outstanding job in making the event a great success. A strike at the hotel couldn’t even slow the conference down! A huge thank you to François Duhaime and Daniel Verret for their leadership as conference chairs of GeoMontreal 2024 and a thank you to our partner, IAH-CNC for their involvement.
Our immediate Past President, Rob Kenyon, and his executive team initiated several key projects over the past two years that our current executive will work to implement and advance. These initiatives include the French translation of the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM), the publication of an errata for the CFEM, the development of a strategy for future CFEM editions, a review of the EDI Task Force recommendations, the implementation of Phase I of our new website transition, and an assessment of recommendations from our Finance Task Force. We also saw two excellent CCLT speakers in 2024 – Ellen Rathje and Jocelyn Hayley. Special thanks to Rob, Eliane Cabot, Pooneh Maghoul, and Silvia Nobre for their dedicated service on the Executive Committee. Additionally, I would be remiss not to acknowledge our former Executive Director,
Michel Aubertin, for his decade of dedicated and superb service. Michel has been an invaluable asset to CGS, often working behind the scenes, and we are deeply grateful for his contributions as he assists in the transition to our new Executive Director, Ian Moore
Looking ahead to this fall, Kent Bannister and his organizing team of GeoManitoba 2025 are excited to host you at our annual CGS conference in Winnipeg. This will be a joint conference with the Canadian Permafrost Association. The Local Organizing Committee is already busy preparing an outstanding technical program and social events for all attendees in the great city of Winnipeg. I encourage you to consider attending to not only reconnect with old friends but also make new ones. Check out the program at www.geomanitoba2025.ca. For our Young Professional members, the CGS 2025 YP Conference (www.cgsypc2025.ca) will be held immediately before GeoManitoba 2025, offering an excellent opportunity to present your technical work and gain valuable experience. Upcoming CCLT speakers include Jason DeJong of University of California and Paul Dittrich of WSP. These events are in addition to the many technical gatherings of our local sections, divisions, and committees. For a listing of many of these CGS events, please explore our website at www.cgs.ca. You can also stay updated on CGS activities through our CGS E-News, Canadian Geotechnique Magazine, and our LinkedIn and Instagram pages.
As we enter further into 2025, our new Executive Committee is already planning our initiatives for 2025/26. We will share those with you in a future article. Once again, thank you for participating in the CGS. Please feel free to reach out to me anytime at president@cgs.ca with any questions. See you in Manitoba!
2025-26 CGS President
Craig Lake
Craig Lake, 2025-2026 President of the Canadian Geotechnical Society
Chers membres de la SCG, J’espère que vous allez bien. Comme il s’agit du premier message que je vous adresse en tant que président de la SCG, j’aimerais d’abord vous souhaiter un très bon début d’année 2025. C’est à la fois un plaisir et un honneur de servir à titre de président de la SCG pour la période 2025-2026. J’ai hâte de travailler avec les nouveaux membres du Comité exécutif, Jean Hutchinson (viceprésidente technique), Daniel Bertrand (vice-président aux finances), Marie Lin Bréard Lanoix (vice-présidente aux communications et aux services aux membres) et Chelsey Yesnik (représentante de jeunes professionnels), ainsi qu’avec les membres du Comité exécutif qui seront de retour, Lilianne Landry Paré (représentante des sections) et Jennifer Day (représentante des sections et des divisions), pour vous servir, estimés membres de la SCG. Nous souhaitons la bienvenue à notre nouveau directeur général, Ian Moore, qui a pris la relève de Michel Aubertin, qui part à la retraite après 10 années de dévouement. Ce nouveau groupe collaborera étroitement avec Lisa Reny et son équipe chez Karma-Link pour assurer le succès continu des opérations de la SCG.
Je profite également de cette occasion pour vous remercier sincèrement de votre soutien en tant que membre de la SCG. Votre participation à nos événements techniques, que ce soit par le biais de sections locales, de comités ou
de divisions, est à la base du succès de notre société. En tant que membre de longue date de la SCG, l’énergie et l’enthousiasme qu’apporte notre communauté continuent à m’inspirer. La SCG offre une excellente plateforme pour améliorer vos connaissances techniques, élargir votre réseau professionnel et développer vos compétences en leadership grâce au bénévolat. À titre de membre de l’équipe de direction, mon objectif est d’optimiser constamment les activités de la société afin d’offrir encore plus de possibilités d’engagement et de veiller à ce que la SCG demeure, maintenant et à l’avenir, une précieuse ressource.
La dernière année a été très chargée pour la SCG. Elle a atteint son point culminant lors de la Conférence annuelle SCG/AIH-SNC qui s’est tenue à Montréal. Le Comité organisateur local de GéoMontréal 2024 et le gestionnaire de conférences Karma-Link ont accompli un travail remarquable pour faire de cet événement, qui a réuni plus 1 000 délégués dans l’une des villes les plus dynamiques du Canada, un grand succès. Même la grève à l’hôtel n’a pu ralentir la conférence! Un grand merci à François Duhaime et à Daniel Verret pour leur leadership en tant que présidents de la conférence de GéoMontréal 2024, ainsi qu’à notre partenaire, AIH-SNC, pour leur contribution.
Au cours des deux dernières années, notre ancien président, Rob Kenyon, et son équipe ont lancé plusieurs projets clés que notre direction actuelle s’efforcera de mettre en œuvre et de faire progresser. Ces initiatives comprennent la traduction en français du Manuel canadien sur l’ingénierie des fondations (MCIF), la publication des errata du MCIF, l’élaboration d’une stratégie pour les éditions ultérieures du MCIF, un examen des recommandations du Groupe de travail sur l’équité, la diversité et l’inclusion (EDI), la mise en œuvre de la phase I de la transition vers notre nouveau site Web et une évaluation des recommandations de notre Groupe de travail sur les finances. En 2024, dans le cadre de la Tournée de conférences transcanadienne (TCT), il a été possible d’assister aux présentations de deux excellentes conférencières, Ellen Rathje et Jocelyn Hayley. Nous tenons aussi à remercier tout particulièrement Rob, Eliane Cabot, Pooneh Maghoul et Silvia Nobre pour leur dévouement au sein du Comité exécutif. De plus, je m’en voudrais de ne
pas saluer notre ancien directeur général, Michel Aubertin, pour son travail dévoué et exceptionnel pendant une décennie. Michel, qui a été un atout inestimable pour la SCG, travaillait souvent dans les coulisses. Encore aujourd’hui, nous lui sommes profondément reconnaissants d’aider à la transition avec notre nouveau directeur général, Ian Moore
En prévision de cet automne, Kent Bannister et son équipe organisatrice de GéoManitoba 2025 sont impatients de vous accueillir à la conférence annuelle de la SCG à Winnipeg, un événement organisé conjointement avec l’Association canadienne du pergélisol. Le Comité organisateur local s’affaire déjà à préparer un programme technique exceptionnel et des événements sociaux pour tous les participants qui se réuniront dans la belle ville de Winnipeg. Je vous invite à envisager d’assister à cette conférence, non seulement pour renouer avec de vieux amis, mais aussi pour vous en faire de nouveaux. Pour en savoir plus long, consultez le programme sur le site Web www.geomanitoba2025.ca
Pour les jeunes professionnels (JP) membres de la SCG, la conférence 2025 des JP de la SCG (www.cgsypc2025.ca) se tiendra immédiatement avant GéoManitoba 2025. Cet événement constituera une excellente occasion de présenter votre travail technique et d’acquérir une précieuse expérience. Les prochains conférenciers de la TCT comprendront Jason DeJong de l’Université de Californie et Paul Dittrich de WSP. Ces événements s’ajoutent aux nombreuses rencontres techniques de nos sections, divisions et comités locaux. Pour obtenir une liste de plusieurs de ces événements de la SCG, veuillez consulter notre site Web à l’adresse www.cgs.ca. Vous pouvez également vous tenir au courant des activités de la SCG par l’intermédiaire de nos nouvelles électroniques, du magazine Géotechnique canadienne, ainsi que de nos pages LinkedIn et Instagram.
Alors que nous entamons l’année 2025, notre nouveau Comité exécutif planifie déjà des initiatives pour 2025-2026. Nous vous en ferons part dans un prochain article. Encore une fois, merci de participer aux activités de la SCG. Si vous avez des questions, n’hésitez pas à me contacter à tout moment à president@cgs.ca Au plaisir de se voir au Manitoba!
Craig Lake 2025-26 SCG PRÉSIDENT
Craig Lake, Président de la SCG 2025-2026
CGS Membership Registration for 2025
It is time to renew your Canadian Geotechnical Society membership for 2025! Please visit www.cgs.ca for more details or email info@cgs.ca for assistance.
Membership benefits include:
• online access to the monthly Canadian Geotechnical Journal (including all past issues)
• printed and online copies of the quarterly Canadian GeotechniqueThe CGS Magazine
• the monthly CGS E-News online access to past CGS Conference proceedings, featured special lectures, and past webinars
• reduced member pricing for CGS annual conference registration
• advance notice of the spring and fall CGS Cross Canada Lecture Tours
• primary membership in one of CGS’s seven divisions, and for Regular Members the associated international society
• involvement in one of 20 CGS local sections participation in any of the nine CGS committees
• opportunities to network with other Canadian geotechnical professionals
• access to exclusive virtual events
• Young Professionals mentorship program
We welcome all new and renewing members and look forward to your participation in 2025!
Call for CGS 2025 Award Nominations
It’s that time of year again – have a look closely at your colleagues and identify a geotechnical professional that deserves recognition!
The CGS recognizes the considerable contributions and achievements by geotechnical professionals in Canada and abroad with a family of awards, many of which will be presented during the Awards Ceremony at the CGS Annual Conference in Winnipeg, MB – GeoManitoba 2025 (September 21-24, 2025). Funding for many of these awards is provided by the Canadian Foundation for Geotechnique, so please
remember to support them when renewing your CGS membership for 2025. The various awards are summarized below, and you can also go to www.cgs.ca > Membership for more information about each award as well as the list of past recipients. When in doubt please contact the CGS National Office at admin@cgs.ca with any questions.
Nominations are due for most prizes by May 15, 2025 to the CGS National Office at awards@cgs.ca
Nominations should include the name and contact information of the nominator,
AWARD OR HONOUR BRIEF DESCRIPTION/COMMENTS
CGS Society Awards
a resume or curriculum vita of the nominee, and a letter highlighting the contributions and achievements that make the nominee a worthy candidate for that specific award. Letters of support from others, CGS members and non-members, are encouraged. If possible, nominations should include an appropriate head and shoulders photo of the nominee.
Submission details for Student Awards are available on the CGS website at www.cgs.ca > Membership > Students & Young Professionals, or contact Jamie Bartz, Chair of the CGS Student Awards Selection Committee, at jamie.bartz@umanitoba.ca
Legget Medal For significant lifelong contribution to the geotechnical field in Canada. The most senior and prestigious CGS award.
RM Quigley Award For the best paper published in Canadian Geotechnical Journal in the preceding year. Two runners-up are also recognized. CGS membership is not required.
Honorary Life Member For longstanding exemplary service to the CGS, and/or exemplary technical contributions to the geotechnical field in Canada or abroad. Only awarded occasionally.
CGS Division Awards
G Geoffrey Meyerhof Award Soil Mechanics & Foundation Division. For outstanding contribution to soil mechanics and foundation engineering.
Thomas Roy Award Engineering Geology Division. For outstanding contribution (publication or otherwise) to engineering geology.
Roger JE Brown Award Cold Regions Geotechnology Division. For outstanding contribution (publication or otherwise) to permafrost science or engineering. Awarded biannually.
John A Franklin Award Rock Mechanics Division. For outstanding publication in rock mechanics and/or rock engineering. Awarded biannually.
Geosynthetics Award
Geoenvironmental Award
Geosynthetics Division. For outstanding publication in the application of geosynthetics to civil, geotechnical or geoenvironmental engineering. Awarded biannually.
Geoenvironmental Division. For outstanding contribution (publication or otherwise) in geoenvironmental engineering. Awarded biannually.
AWARD OR HONOUR BRIEF DESCRIPTION/COMMENTS
Joint Awards
Robert N Farvolden Award Deadline Passed for 2025
Schuster Medal Deadline Passed for 2025
CGS Student Awards
Joint award of the CGS Groundwater Division and the International Association of Hydrogeologists Canadian National Chapter. For outstanding contributions by an individual or group to the disciplines of earth science or engineering that emphasize the role or importance of groundwater.
Joint award of the CGS Geohazards Committee and Engineering Geology Division and the Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists. For outstanding contribution to geohazards research in North America. Awarded biannually to a CGS member.
Graduate Presentation For best 15-minute technical presentation on video submitted by a graduate student at a Canadian university. One runner-up is also recognized. CGS membership is not required.
Undergraduate Individual Report For best undergraduate student report by an individual in Canada. One runner-up is also recognized. CGS membership is not required.
Undergraduate Group Report For best undergraduate student report by a group in Canada. One runner-up is also recognized. CGS membership is not required.
CGS Service Awards
AG Stermac Award For outstanding service to the CGS by a member at the local, national or international level. More than one award can be presented each year.
Certificates of Appreciation For deserving CGS members recognized by the President or others as having contributed noteworthy service to the CGS.
Adhésion à la SCG pour 2025
Il est temps de renouveler votre adhésion à la Société canadienne de géotechnique (SCG) pour 2025. Veuillez consulter le site www.cgs.ca pour en savoir plus ou nous écrire à info@cgs.ca pour obtenir de l’aide.
Les avantages de l’adhésion à la SCG comprennent :
• un accès en ligne à la Revue canadienne de géotechnique mensuelle (y compris aux numéros précédents);
• des versions imprimée et en ligne de la publication trimestrielle Géotechnique canadienne – Le périodique de la SCG ;
• le bulletin électronique mensuel E-info de la SCG;
• un accès en ligne aux comptes rendus des conférences précédentes de la SCG et aux principales conférences de spécialité;
• des prix réduits pour l’inscription à la conférence annuelle de la SCG;
• un préavis des Tournées de conférences transcanadiennes de la SCG du printemps et de l’automne ;
• une adhésion principale à l’une des sept Divisions de la SCG, et à la société internationale associée pour les membres ordinaires;
• une participation dans l’une des 20 Sections locales de la SCG;
• une participation à l’un (ou à plusieurs) des neuf Comités de la SCG;
• des possibilités de réseautage avec d’autres professionnels de la géotechnique au Canada;
• un accès aux événements virtuels exclusifs;
• un programme de mentorat pour les jeunes professionnels.
Nous souhaitons la bienvenue à tous les nouveaux membres ainsi qu’à ceux qui renouvellent leur adhésion. Nous sommes impatients de vous voir participer en 2025!
Appel de candidatures pour les prix 2025 de la SCG
C’est de nouveau le moment de l’année où nous vous demandons d’examiner de près vos collègues et de cibler les professionnels en géotechnique qui méritent d’être reconnus!
La SCG reconnaît les importantes contributions et réalisations des professionnels en géotechnique au Canada et à l’étranger, avec un ensemble de prix, dont un grand nombre
seront présentés durant la cérémonie de remise lors de la conférence annuelle de la SCG à Winnipeg, en Manitoba, GeoManitoba 2025 (21 au 24 septembre 2025). La Fondation canadienne de géotechnique finance plusieurs de ces prix, nous vous prions donc de ne pas oublier de la soutenir lorsque vous renouvelez votre adhésion à la SCG pour 2024. Les différents prix sont identifiés ci-dessous; vous pouvez aussi consulter la page www.cgs.ca >
Devenir membre pour en savoir plus ainsi qu’obtenir la liste des précédents lauréats. En cas de doute, envoyez vos questions au Bureau national de la SCG, à admin@cgs.ca
Le processus de mise en candidature par voie électronique prend fin le 15 mai 2025 pour la plupart de nos prix. Envoyez les candidatures par courriel au Bureau national de la SCG, à awards@cgs.ca
NOUVELLES DE LA SOCIÉTÉ
Les mises en nomination doivent comprendre le nom et les coordonnées de la personne qui les soumettent, un curriculum vitæ du candidat et une lettre soulignant les contributions et les réalisations qui font en sorte que le membre mérite ce prix. Des lettres de recommandation d’autres
personnes, membres ou non de la SCG, sont les bienvenues. Si possible, les candidatures doivent inclure une photo en buste du/ de la candidat(e).
Les renseignements concernant les candidatures pour les Prix pour les
étudiants sont affichés sur le site Web de la SCG, à www.cgs.ca > Devenir membre > Étudiants . Vous pouvez aussi écrire à Jamie Bartz , directeur du Comité de sélection pour les Prix pour les étudiants, à jamie.bartz@umanitoba.ca PRIX
Médaille Legget
R.M. Quigley
Membre honoraire à vie
Prix des divisions de la SCG
Prix G. Geoffrey Meyerhof
Prix Thomas Roy
Prix Roger J.E. Brown
Prix John A. Franklin
Prix de la géosynthétique
Prix du géoenvironnement
Prix communs
Prix Robert N. Farvolden
Date limite dépassée pour 2025
Médaille Schuster
Date limite dépassée pour 2025
Prix de la SCG pour les étudiants
Présentation d'un étudiant gradué
Rapport d'un étudiant de premier cycle
Rapport d'un groupe d'étudiants de premier cycle
Prix de service de la SCG
Prix A.G. Stermac
Certificats d'appréciation
Pour avoir contribué de manière importante au domaine de la géotechnique au Canada tout au long de sa carrière. Le plus prestigieux prix de la SCG.
Pour le meilleur article publié dans la Revue canadienne de géotechnique durant l'année précédente. Deux finalistes sont également reconnus. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'être membre de la SCG.
Pour un service exemplaire de longue date à la SCG et/ou des contributions techniques incomparables au domaine de la géotechnique au Canada ou à l’étranger.
Décerné occasionnellement seulement.
Division de la mécanique des sols et des fondations – Pour une contribution exceptionnelle au domaine de la mécanique des sols et de l'ingénierie des fondations.
Division de la géologie de l'ingénieur – Pour une contribution exceptionnelle (dans une publication ou autrement) au domaine de la géologie de l'ingénieur.
Division de la géotechnique des régions froides – Pour une contribution exceptionnelle (dans une publication ou autrement) au domaine de l'ingénierie ou de la science du pergélisol. Décerné tous les deux ans.
Division de la mécanique des roches – Pour une publication exceptionnelle sur la mécanique et/ou l'ingénierie des roches. Décerné tous les deux ans.
Division des géosynthétiques – Pour une publication exceptionnelle sur l'application de la géosynthétique en géotechnique, ou en génie civil ou géoenvironnemental. Décerné tous les deux ans.
Division géoenvironnement – Pour une contribution exceptionnelle (dans une publication ou autrement) au domaine du génie géoenvironnemental. Décerné aux deux ans.
Prix commun de la Division des eaux souterraines de la SCG et de l’International Association of Hydrogeologists – Canadian National Chapter. Pour une contribution exceptionnelle d’une personne ou d’un groupe dans les domaines des sciences de la terre et du génie qui met l’accent sur le rôle ou l’importance des eaux souterraines.
Prix commun du Comité sur les géorisques et de la Division de la géologie de l'ingénieur de la SCG, ainsi que de l'Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists. Pour une contribution remarquable à la recherche sur les géorisques en Amérique du Nord. Décernée tous les deux ans à un membre de la SCG.
Pour la meilleure présentation technique de 15 minutes sur vidéo soumise par un étudiant gradué d'une université canadienne. Un finaliste est également reconnu. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'être membre de la SCG.
Pour le meilleur rapport d'un étudiant de premier cycle au Canada. Un finaliste est également reconnu. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'être membre de la SCG.
Pour le meilleur rapport d'un groupe d'étudiants de premier cycle au Canada. Un finaliste est également reconnu. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'être membre de la SCG.
Pour un service exceptionnel rendu à la SCG par un membre, au niveau local, national ou international. Plus d'un prix peut être présenté chaque année.
Pour des membres méritants de la SCG reconnus par le président ou d'autres personnes pour avoir rendu un service digne de mention à la SCG.
Southern BC (Vancouver) Section
Jayasinghe & Aya Bayoumi, VGS Program Directors
The Vancouver Geotechnical Society (VGS) has kicked off the new season with a series of exciting events! Here is a recap of what we have been up to and a sneak peek at upcoming events:
September
We launched our annual VGS Legacy Lecture series, honoring the contributions of local geotechnical leaders. The first lecture of this series celebrated the legacy of the late Oldrich Hungr, with lectures by Paul Wilson (Thurber Engineering) and Scott McDougall (UBC) on Dr. Hungr’s lasting consulting and academic legacy. We also hosted Ross Boulanger of UC-Davis, who gave a presentation on the effects of subsurface heterogeneity on liquefactioninduced ground deformation, sparking valuable discussions about subsurface characterization and its role in earthquake analysis.
October
We had the honor of hosting Jocelyn L. Hayley of University of Calgary as part of the Fall CCLT. Jocelyn’s talk on permafrost thaw along the Hudson Bay Railway, which is now facing significant climate-related challenges, highlighted critical issues associated with stability and drainage of infrastructure networks built on permafrost.
November
November brought another exciting series of events, including a talk by Armin W. Stuedlein from Oregon State University on the seismic response of rigid inclusions. Additionally, we held a one-day short course on glacial landforms and sediments of British Columbia, taught by John Clague of Simon Fraser University, attracting over 100 attendees eager to enhance their understanding of glacial soils and their relevance to geotechnical engineering practice.
December
Alireza Javanbakht of Jacobs gave a presentation on performance-based liquefaction hazard analysis and probabilistic liquefaction mapping for the western Metro Vancouver, creating insightful discussions on the application of liquefaction analysis to civil infrastructure in the region.
2025 Look Ahead
• We are excited for a robust lineup of events for the rest of the season. In
January, we welcomed Sheri Molnar from the University of Western Ontario and her research team. In February, Ozgun Alp Numanoglu of Schnabel Engineering presented on postearthquake building settlements following the Türkiye Earthquakes.
• We were thrilled to host the third VGS Young Professional event in January, a panel discussion designed to support earlycareer professionals in collaboration with the CGS Young Professional Committee.
• We hosted a one-day short course titled “Geosynthetic Reinforced Walls and Slopes” in February, co-presented by Dov Leshchinsky (University of Delaware) and Ben Leshchinsky (Oregon State University).
• In March, we hosted our second Women in VGS event, featuring a panel of inspiring women in geotechnical engineering. This event highlighted their accomplishments and motivated the next generation of women in geotechnical engineering.
• The 31st VGS Symposium, focusing on Shallow and Deep Foundations, is scheduled for June at the Pinnacle Hotel Harbourfront in Vancouver.
These are just a few of the exciting events we have planned. To stay updated, please reach out to our VGS Registrars Karina Stapleton (kstapleton@klohn.com) or Simon Wong (laikan.wong@ubc.ca) to be added to our mailing list. We look forward to seeing you at the future VGS events.
Thushara
Section du Sud de la Colombie ‑Britannique
(Vancouver)
La Société géotechnique de Vancouver (VGS) a démarré sa nouvelle saison avec une série d’événements passionnants!
Voici un résumé de nos activités récentes et un aperçu des événements à venir :
Septembre
Nous avons lancé notre série annuelle de conférences VGS Legacy qui rendent hommage aux contributions des chefs de file locaux de la géotechnique. La première conférence de cette série a célébré l’héritage de feu Oldrich Hungr, avec des présentations de Paul Wilson (Thurber Engineering) et de Scott McDougall (Université de la ColombieBritannique). Ces présentations ont permis de souligner le legs durable du Dr Hungr en matière d’enseignement et de consultation.
Nous avons également accueilli Ross Boulanger (UC Davis), dont la conférence sur les effets de l’hétérogénéité des milieux souterrains sur la déformation des sols induite par liquéfaction a suscité d’intéressantes discussions sur la caractérisation du sous-sol et son rôle dans l’analyse des tremblements de terre.
Octobre
Dans le cadre de la TCT de l’automne, nous avons eu l’honneur d’accueillir Jocelyn L. Hayley (Université de Calgary). L’exposé de Mme Hayley sur la fonte du pergélisol le long du chemin de fer de la baie d’Hudson, qui fait maintenant face à d’importants défis liés aux changements climatiques, a mis en lumière des enjeux cruciaux associés à la stabilité et au drainage des réseaux d’infrastructure construits sur le pergélisol.
Novembre
En novembre, nous avons eu le plaisir de participer à une autre série d’événements passionnants, notamment une conférence d’Armin W. Stuedlein (Université d’État de l’Oregon) sur la réponse sismique des inclusions rigides. De plus, nous avons organisé un cours intensif d’une journée sur les formations glaciaires et les sédiments de la Colombie-Britannique, donné par John Clague (Université Simon Fraser), qui a attiré plus de 100 participants désireux d’améliorer leur compréhension des sols glaciaires et de leur pertinence pour la pratique de la géotechnique.
Décembre
Alireza Javanbakht (Jacobs) a présenté une analyse des risques de liquéfaction fondée sur le rendement et une cartographie probabiliste de la liquéfaction pour l’ouest de la région métropolitaine de Vancouver. Cette présentation a suscité des discussions enrichissantes sur l’application de l’analyse de liquéfaction à l’infrastructure civile de la région.
Un aperçu pour 2025
• Nous sommes ravis par la riche programmation d’événements déjà réalisés ou prévus pour 2025. En janvier, nous avons accueilli Sheri Molnar (Université Western Ontario) et son équipe de recherche. En février, Ozgun Alp Numanoglu (Schnabel Engineering) a présenté un exposé sur les constructions de bâtiments ayant suivi les tremblements de terre qui ont secoué la Turquie.
• En janvier, avec la collaboration du Comité des jeunes professionnels de la SCG, nous avons eu également le plaisir de tenir la 3e édition d’une table ronde pour les jeunes professionnels de la VGS, un événement conçu pour soutenir les professionnels en début de carrière.
• En février, nous avons organisé un cours intensif d’une journée intitulé Geosynthetic Reinforced Walls and Slopes (« Murs de soutènement et pentes renforcés par des matériaux géosynthétiques »), donné par Dov Leshchinsky (Université du Delaware) et Ben Leshchinsky (Oregon State University).
• En mars, nous avons accueilli la 2e édition de la table ronde Les femmes dans la VGS, qui mettait en vedette des femmes inspirantes en géotechnique. Cet événement a permis de mettre en lumière leurs réalisations et de motiver la prochaine génération de femmes en géotechnique.
• Le 31e Symposium VGS, axé sur les fondations superficielles et profondes, est prévu pour juin au Pinnacle Hotel Harbourfront à Vancouver.
Ce ne sont là que quelques-uns des événements passionnants que nous avons planifiés. Pour rester à jour, veuillez communiquer avec Karina Stapleton (kstapleton@klohn.com) ou Simon Wong (laikan.wong@ubc.ca), registraires de la VGS, pour être inscrit à notre liste d’envoi. Au plaisir de vous voir lors d’un événement à venir de la VGS!
Thushara Jayasinghe et Aya Bayoumi, directeurs du programme VGS
Engineering Geology and Geological Engineering Division
Introducing the New EG & GE Div Executive Team
The Engineering Geology and Geological Engineering Division of the CGS is pleased to introduce its current executive team. This dynamic group of professionals brings a wealth of experience in engineering geology and geological engineering, representing academia, industry, and consulting firms across Canada. The Engineering Geology and Geological Engineering Division (EG & GE) is led by a dedicated team of professionals from across Canada. The current Chair is Nicholas Vlachopoulos from the Royal Military College of Canada. Serving as Past Chair is Andrew Peach of Hatch Ltd. Renato Macciotta, from the University of Alberta, holds the position of Vice Chair, while Lucie Kijak of ARUP serves as Secretary. The division also includes three Members-at-Large: Stephen Butt (also past Chair) from Memorial University; Eliane Cabot (also past Secretary) of BBA; and David Wood of D.F. Wood Consulting. This diverse and experienced executive team works collaboratively to advance the field of engineering geology and geological engineering in Canada.
The EG & GE Division remains committed to fostering collaboration among professionals in the field and advancing the understanding of engineering geology and geological engineering across Canada and to work with our relevant international learned societies such as the International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment (IAEG).
Division Name Change: Aligning with International and National Contexts
The division recently underwent a significant transformation, changing its name from the “Engineering Division” to the “Engineering Geology and Geological Engineering Division (EG & GE) Division” This change was the culmination of extensive discussions and reflects the evolving landscape of geotechnical and geological sciences in Canada and beyond.
The rationale behind this decision stems from years of discussion within the division, making it clear that a definitive action was necessary. The inclusion of “Engineering Geology” in the division’s name aligns it with international
organizations such as the International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment (IAEG), ensuring consistency on a global scale. While “Engineering Geology” is widely recognized internationally, all formal university programs in Canada focus on “Geological Engineering” rather than “Engineering Geology.” To promote inclusivity and clarity, both terms were incorporated into the division’s name. This change was officially voted into effect during the 2024 Annual General Meeting (AGM) held at the GeoMontreal Conference in Montreal, Quebec, in September 2024.
Defining Engineering Geology: A Collaborative Effort
One of the division’s major initiatives has been the development of an official definition of “Engineering Geology.” Spearheaded by the Immediate Past Chair Andrew Peach, the definition seeks to provide clarity and consistency for professionals, regulatory bodies, and academia. The final definition reads as follows:
Engineering geology is the application of knowledge of the earth’s materials, earth-forming processes, and geotechnique to engineering practice. The principal objective of engineering geology is to ensure that the geological and geotechnical factors affecting engineering works and geological hazards are recognized and provided for to safeguard life and public welfare, infrastructure, and the environment.
Engineering geologists have specialized knowledge in geological sciences and the principles and methods of engineering analysis
acquired through education and professional experience. Engineering geologists are qualified to apply such knowledge, skill, and judgment to a wide variety of civil and mining works, and the prevention and remediation of geological hazards. They complete geological and geotechnical studies, inspections, and analyses, and provide recommendations and geological design associated with natural and built environments. They also develop measures to prevent, mitigate, and remediate geological hazards. Engineering geologists are critical to and should be considered key members in the development of the conceptual ground model for a given site.
(“Geotechnique” refers to the application of scientific knowledge and methods involving soil and rock mechanics, hydrogeology, structural geology, geomorphology, seismology, and other subdisciplines of geoscience as applied to the solution of geological, engineering, and environmental problems.)
This definition was crafted with input from various professional organizations across Canada. The feedback process included outreach to multiple regulatory bodies, including APEGNB, APEGMB, PGO, EGBC, NAPEG, APEGS, APEGA, APGNS, L’OGQ, and PEGNL, as well as consideration of jurisdictions where regulation does not apply, such as Yukon and Prince Edward Island. Engagement and feedback varied across these organizations.
Additionally, the definition of engineering geology is a moving target and will be habitually revisited to ensure its continued
Engineering Geology and Geological Engineering Division Meeting (along with Rock Mechanics Division members) at the Annual General Meeting at GeoMontreal 2024.
relevance and alignment with evolving industry standards and practices.
Looking Ahead
The Engineering Geology and Geological Engineering Division looks forward to collaborating with CGS members and the international engineering geology community,
including the IAEG. Through continued engagement, research, and knowledge sharing, we aim to keep the division vibrant, relevant, and impactful in advancing engineering geology and geological engineering in Canada. All CGS members are encouraged to engage with our division and contribute to its ongoing initiatives and discussions. If you have any
Geosynthetics Division
Geosynthetics Division Announces
New Leadership and Initiatives
The CGS Geosynthetics Division has unveiled its new leadership team and an ambitious vision for 2025-2027, signalling an era of collaboration, education, and innovation in the field of geosynthetics.
2025-2027 Division Executives
The division’s leadership team comprises seasoned professionals with a shared commitment to advancing geosynthetics awareness and application:
• Chair: Sam Bhat, Titan Environmental Containment Ltd.
• Vice Chair: Isabel Perez, Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc.
• Vice Chair: Ness Di Battista, Université de Sherbrooke
• Vice Chair: Eric Blond, EB Consultant
New Vision & Mission Statement
The Geosynthetics Division aims to foster collaborations to promote geosynthetics education, research, and industry interaction. Leveraging the extensive expertise of its executive team, the division seeks to elevate its impact within the geotechnical community.
Key Initiatives for 2024
Improved Communication Channels
Efforts are underway to enhance communication with division members. Plans include:
• Launching a LinkedIn group for discussions and updates
• Regular contributions to the CGS E-News
• Hosting webinars and virtual meetings
For the latest updates, visit CGS E-News.
Technical Contributions
The division contributed a technical paper, “On the Bending Response of Concrete Beams with Low- or High-Ductility Geogrid Reinforcement” by M.A. Shokr, M. Meguid, S. Bhat, and D. Malomo, featured in the Spring 2024 issue of Canadian Geotechnique
GeoAmericas 2024 Panel Discussion
A highlight of the year was the panel discussion at GeoAmericas 2024, titled “Geosynthetics for Transportation: Sustainable Approaches for the Future.”
• Panelists:
• Vimy Henderson, Consultant, PTech Engineering
• Tony Sangiuliano, Ministry of Transportation Ontario
• Erol Tutumluer, Abel Bliss Professor, University of Illinois
• Session Chair: Sam Bhat Host: Isabel Perez
Key discussion topics included the benefits of geosynthetics in road construction, innovations in geosynthetics technology, sustainability metrics, and human considerations in design. The session engaged attendees from academia and industry, yielding actionable insights for advancing the field. A few of the take aways were, that owners should specify geosynthetics for new roads construction as a proactive measure to foster sustainability, looking into balancing the human emotions of assessing overall benefits of
topics involving geological engineering or engineering geology, feel free to reach out to one of our executive members. We are always seeking new executive members and encourage members to consider making this division one of their first or second choices within CGS. More initiatives will be the focus of future articles – stay tuned!
using geosynthetics against any potential long-term disintegration of the polymers, document the performance of the projects over time, need to devise specific CO 2 saving calculations for various applications, and incorporating geosynthetics in pavement design.
2024 Geosynthetics Award
The prestigious Prix Geosynthetics was awarded to Cheng Lin at GeoMontreal 2024 in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the field. Division Chair Sam Bhat presented the award during the ceremony.
With a robust vision and an array of initiatives, the Geosynthetics Division is poised to drive meaningful progress in the geotechnical sector.
Looking Ahead: Activities for 2025
Webinar: Roundtable Discussion
A webinar featuring early-career academics will explore advances in geosynthetics practice and future directions. Dates and panelist announcements are forthcoming.
Short Course at GeoManitoba 2025
The division will host a short course titled “Geosynthetics Design Methodologies,” featuring presentations by prominent experts:
1. Richard Bathurst – Design methodologies for geosynthetic MSE walls.
2. Sam Bhat – Base reinforcement with geosynthetics.
3. Eric Blond – Designing geotextile filters and geocomposite drains.
4. Catherine Mulligan – Environmental applications of geosynthetics.
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division
The Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division offered a virtual workshop on reliability-based design in geotechnics and structures, to reflect the evolved design
principles in CHBDC and CFEM over the past 20 years. The workshop consisted of eight lectures in four events from November to December 2024 by Richard Bathurst, Jerry DiMaggio,
Gordon Fenton, Dennis Becker, James Blatz, Vaughan Griffiths, Laifa Cao, and Sina Javankhoshdel. The subjects covered MSE walls, pile foundations, slopes, analytical
methods, and fundamentals on reliability. The workshop was very well received. We have sold out more than 460 tickets, including 100 CGS members, 165 complimentary student tickets, 90 non-member professionals, and 100 sponsored tickets. About 15% of registrants were from outside Canada. The workshop was sponsored by 11 companies: Clifton Engineering Group Inc., Grounded
Engineering, Jacobs, KELLER, P. Machibroda Engineering, Dr. Sauer & Partners, Stratum Logics, Thurber Engineering, Terracon Geotechnique, Stantec, and WSP. All are much appreciated. We have shared the presentation slides with all registrants and issued certificates of 8 CPD hours. Five lectures were recorded and made available on the CGS members’ site.
Many committee members have dedicated numerous hours to the workshop, including Rashed Chowdhury, Markus Jesswein, Cheng Lin, Ashutosh Sutra Dhar, Keshab Sharma and so forth. Their contributions are recognized and appreciated!
Division de la géologie de l’ingénieur et du génie géologique
Présentation de la nouvelle équipe de direction de la division GIGG
La Division de la géologie de l’ingénieur et du génie géologique (GIGG) de la SCG est heureuse de vous présenter son équipe de direction actuelle. Ce groupe dynamique de professionnels, qui apporte une vaste expérience en géologie de l’ingénieur et en génie géologique, représente le milieu universitaire, l’industrie et les cabinets d’experts-conseils de partout au Canada. Une équipe dévouée de professionnels de partout au pays dirige la Division de la GIGG. Le président actuel est Nicholas Vlachopoulos (Collège militaire royal du Canada). Andrew Peach (Hatch Ltd.) assume le rôle de président sortant, Renato Macciotta (Université de l’Alberta) occupe le poste de vice-président, tandis que Lucie Kijak (ARUP) est secrétaire. La division comprend également trois membres à titre individuel : Stephen Butt, également ancien président (Université Memorial), Eliane Cabot, également ancienne secrétaire (BBA) et David Wood (D.F. Wood Consulting). Cette équipe de direction diversifiée et expérimentée travaille en collaboration pour faire progresser le domaine de la géologie de l’ingénieur et du génie géologique au Canada.
La Division GIGG demeure déterminée à favoriser la collaboration entre les professionnels du domaine et à faire progresser la compréhension de la géologie de l’ingénieur et du génie géologique partout au Canada. Elle s’engage également à travailler avec les sociétés savantes internationales pertinentes, telles que l’International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment (IAEG).
Changement de nom de la division : pour s’harmoniser avec les contextes international et national La division a récemment connu une transformation importante en changeant
À l’occasion de l’Assemblée générale annuelle à GéoMontréal 2024, réunion de la Division de la géologie de l’ingénieur et du génie géologique (avec les membres de la Division de la mécanique des roches).
son nom de « Division du génie » par « Division de la géologie de l’ingénieur et du génie géologique (GIGG) ». Ce changement, qui a été l’aboutissement de discussions approfondies, reflète l’évolution du paysage des sciences géotechniques et géologiques au Canada et à l’étranger.
La raison d’être de cette décision découle d’années de discussions au sein de la division, qui ont clairement montré qu’une mesure définitive était nécessaire. L’inclusion de « géologie de l’ingénieur » dans le nom de la division lui permet de s’harmoniser avec des organisations internationales telles que l’International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment (IAEG), ce qui assurera une cohérence à l’échelle mondiale. Bien que la « géologie de l’ingénieur » soit largement reconnue à l’échelle internationale, tous les programmes universitaires officiels au Canada mettent l’accent sur le « génie géologique » plutôt que sur la « géologie de l’ingénieur ». Pour promouvoir l’inclusivité et la clarté, les deux termes ont été incorporés dans le nom de la division. Cette modification, qui a été officiellement acceptée par un vote, est entrée en vigueur lors de l’Assemblée générale annuelle
de 2024 qui s’est tenue durant la conférence GéoMontréal, au Québec, en septembre 2024.
Définir la géologie de l’ingénieur : un effort collaboratif
L’une des principales initiatives de la division a été d’élaborer une définition officielle de la « géologie de l’ingénieur ». Dirigé par le président sortant Andrew Peach, ce processus visait à assurer la clarté et la cohérence du terme, tant pour les professionnels et les organismes de réglementation que pour le milieu universitaire. La définition finale se lit comme suit :
La géologie de l’ingénieur est l’application de la connaissance des matériaux de la terre, des processus de formation de la terre, ainsi que de la géotechnique jusqu’à l’exercice du génie. L’objectif principal de la géologie de l’ingénieur est de veiller à ce que les facteurs géologiques et géotechniques affectant les travaux d’ingénierie et les risques géologiques soient reconnus et pris en compte pour protéger la vie et le bien-être public, les infrastructures et l’environnement.
Les ingénieurs géologues possèdent des connaissances spécialisées en sciences
géologiques, ainsi que les principes et méthodes de l’analyse en génie acquis grâce à une formation et à une expérience professionnelle. Les ingénieurs géologues sont qualifiés pour appliquer leurs connaissances, leurs compétences et leur jugement à une grande variété de travaux civils et miniers, ainsi qu’à la prévention et à la rectification de géorisques. Ils effectuent des études géologiques et géotechniques, des inspections et des analyses, en plus de fournir des recommandations et des plans géologiques associés aux environnements naturels et bâtis. Ils élaborent également des mesures pour prévenir, atténuer et rectifier les géorisques. Les ingénieurs géologues sont essentiels à l’élaboration d’un modèle conceptuel de sol pour un site donné et devraient être considérés comme des éléments clés à cet égard.
(Le terme « géotechnique » désigne l’application de connaissances et de méthodes scientifiques faisant intervenir la mécanique des sols et des roches, l’hydrogéologie, la géologie structurale, la géomorphologie, la sismologie et d’autres sous-disciplines de la géoscience appliquées à la solution de problèmes géologiques, environnementaux et d’ingénierie.)
Cette définition a été formulée avec la participation de diverses organisations
professionnelles de partout au Canada. Le processus de rétroaction comprenait la communication avec plusieurs organismes de réglementation, dont l’Association des ingénieurs et des géoscientifiques du NouveauBrunswick (AIGNB), l’Association des ingénieurs et des géoscientifiques du Manitoba (AIGM), l’Ordre des géoscientifiques professionnels de l’Ontario (OGPO), l’Association des ingénieurs et géoscientifiques de la Colombie-Britannique (EGBC), l’Association des ingénieurs et géoscientifiques des Territoires du Nord-Ouest et du Nunavut (NAPEG), l’Association des ingénieurs et géoscientifiques professionnels de la Saskatchewan (APEGS), l’Association des ingénieurs et géoscientifiques professionnels de l’Alberta (APEGA), l’Association des géoscientifiques professionnels de la NouvelleÉcosse (APGNS), l’Ordre des géologues du Québec (OGQ) et l’Association des ingénieurs et géologues professionnels de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador (PEGNL). De plus, on a pris en considération les régions du Canada où la réglementation ne s’applique pas (p. ex. le Yukon et l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard). L’engagement et la rétroaction variaient d’une organisation à l’autre.
De plus, la définition de la géologie de l’ingénieur est une cible mouvante. Cette
Division des géosynthétiques
La Division des géosynthétiques annonce la nomination d’une nouvelle direction et le lancement de nouvelles initiatives
La Division des géosynthétiques de la SCG a dévoilé sa nouvelle équipe de direction, en plus de nous faire part de sa vision ambitieuse pour la période 2025-2027. Cette période devrait constituer une ère de collaboration, de formation et d’innovation dans le domaine des géosynthétiques.
Direction de la Division pour 2025-2027
L’équipe de direction de la division est composée de professionnels chevronnés qui partagent une volonté commune de faire progresser la sensibilisation et l’application des géosynthétiques.
• Président : Sam Bhat, Titan Environmental Containment Ltd.
• Vice-présidente : Isabel Perez, Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc.
Vice-présidente : Ness Di Battista, Université de Sherbrooke
• Vice-président : Eric Blond, EB Consultant
Nouvel énoncé de mission et de vision
La Division des géosynthétiques vise à favoriser les collaborations afin de promouvoir la formation, la recherche et l’interaction avec l’industrie dans le domaine des géosynthétiques. En tirant parti de la vaste expertise de son équipe de direction, la division cherche à accroître son impact au sein de la communauté géotechnique.
Initiatives clés en 2024
Amélioration des voies de communication
Des efforts sont en cours pour améliorer la communication avec les membres de la division. Parmi les mesures envisagées, on retrouve les suivantes :
• Lancement d’un groupe LinkedIn à des fins de discussions et de mises à jour
• Contributions régulières à l’E-Info de la SCG
• Hébergement de webinaires et de réunions virtuelles
Pour les dernières mises à jour, consultez l’E-Info de la SCG.
définition sera donc régulièrement réexaminée afin de s’assurer qu’elle demeure pertinente et conforme aux normes et pratiques en constante évolution de l’industrie.
Perspectives d’avenir
La Division de la géologie de l’ingénieur et du génie géologique a hâte de collaborer avec les membres de la SCG et la communauté internationale de la géologie de l’ingénieur, y compris l’IAEG. Grâce à un engagement continu, à la recherche et au partage des connaissances, nous visons à maintenir le dynamisme et la pertinence de notre division, ainsi qu’à assurer son impact dans l’avancement de la géologie de l’ingénieur et du génie géologique au Canada. Tous les membres de la SCG sont encouragés à collaborer avec notre division et à contribuer à ses initiatives et discussions en cours. Si vous avez des sujets d’articles concernant le génie géologique ou la géologie de l’ingénieur, n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec l’un des membres du Comité exécutif. Nous sommes toujours à la recherche de nouveaux membres au sein de la direction. De plus, nous encourageons les membres à envisager de faire de notre division leur premier ou deuxième choix au sein de SCG. D’autres initiatives feront l’objet des prochains articles. Donc, restez à l’écoute!
Contributions techniques
La division a contribué à l’élaboration d’un document technique intitulé On the Bending Response of Concrete Beams with Low or Highductility Geogrid Reinforcement (« À propos de la réponse en flexion des poutres en béton renforcées par des grilles géotextiles à faible ou haute ductilité »), de M.A. Shokr, M. Meguid, S. Bhat et D. Malomo, paru dans le numéro printemps 2024 de Géotechnique canadienne
Table ronde à GeoAmericas 2024
L’un des faits saillants de la dernière année a été la table ronde à GeoAmericas 2024, intitulée Geosynthetics for Transportation : Sustainable Approaches for the Future (« Utilisation des géosynthétiques dans les infrastructures routières : approches durables pour l’avenir »).
• Panélistes :
• Vimy Henderson, consultant (PTech Engineering)
• Tony Sangiuliano (ministère des Transports de l’Ontario)
• Erol Tutumluer, professeur (chaire Abel Bliss, Université de l’Illinois)
• Président de session : Sam Bhat
• Animatrice : Isabel Perez
Les principaux sujets de discussion comprenaient les avantages des géosynthétiques dans la construction de routes, les innovations dans la technologie des géosynthétiques, les mesures de durabilité et les considérations humaines dans la conception. La session a réuni des participants du monde universitaire et de l’industrie, ce qui a permis de récolter des renseignements exploitables qui feront progresser notre domaine d’activité. Parmi les leçons retenues lors des débats, on a souligné que les entreprises devraient toujours mentionner que les géosynthétiques destinées à la construction de nouvelles routes constituent une mesure proactive qui favorise le développement durable. On a noté également qu’il fallait tenir compte des émotions lors de l’évaluation de l’ensemble des avantages associés à l’utilisation des géosynthétiques par rapport à toute désintégration potentielle à
long terme des polymères. Mentionnons aussi l’importance de documenter le rendement des projets au fil du temps, de concevoir des calculs particuliers de réduction des émissions de CO2 pour diverses applications et d’incorporer les géosynthétiques dans la conception des chaussées.
Prix des géosynthétiques 2024 À l’occasion de GéoMontreal 2024, le prestigieux Prix des géosynthétiques a été décerné à Cheng Lin en reconnaissance de sa contribution exceptionnelle dans le domaine. Sam Bhat, président de la division, a remis le prix lors de la cérémonie.
Grâce à une vision solide et à un éventail d’initiatives, la Division des géosynthétiques est prête à réaliser des progrès significatifs dans le secteur géotechnique.
Perspectives d’avenir Activités pour 2025
Webinaire : Table ronde
Un webinaire mettant en vedette des universitaires en début de carrière explorera les progrès réalisés dans la pratique de la géosynthétique et les orientations futures.
Les dates et les annonces des panélistes sont à venir.
Cours intensifs à GéoManitoba 2025
La division organisera un cours intensif intitulé Geosynthetics Design Methodologies (« Méthodes de conception en géosynthétique »). Ce cours mettra en vedette d’éminents experts qui nous offriront les présentations suivantes :
1. Richard Bathurst – Design methodologies for geosynthetic MSE walls (« Méthodes de conception pour des murs de terre stabilisés mécaniquement par des solutions géosynthétiques »)
2. Sam Bhat – Base reinforcement with geosynthetics (« Renforcement géosynthétique de la base »)
3. Eric Blond – Designing geotextile filters and geocomposite drains (« Conception de filtres géotextiles et de drains géocomposites »)
4. Catherine Mulligan – Environmental applications of geosynthetics (« Applications environnementales des géosynthétiques »)
Division de la mécanique des sols et des fondations
La Division de la mécanique des sols et des fondations a offert un atelier virtuel traitant de la conception basée sur la fiabilité en géotechnique et en structures. Cet atelier visait à refléter l’évolution des principes de conception dans le Code canadien sur le calcul des ponts routiers (CCCPR) et le Manuel canadien sur l’ingénierie des fondations (MCIF) au cours des 20 dernières années. L’atelier comprenait huit conférences prononcées lors de quatre événements, de novembre à décembre 2024, par Richard Bathurst, Jerry DiMaggio, Gordon Fenton, Dennis Becker, James Blatz, Vaughan Griffiths, Laifa Cao et Sina
Javankhoshdel. Les sujets ont couvert les murs de terre stabilisés mécaniquement, les fondations sur pieux, les pentes, les méthodes analytiques et les principes fondamentaux sur la fiabilité. L’atelier a été très bien accueilli. Nous avons vendu plus de 460 billets, lesquels se sont répartis de la façon suivante : 100 membres de la SCG, 165 billets étudiants gratuits, 90 professionnels non-membres et 100 billets commandités. Environ 15 % des participants provenaient de l’extérieur du Canada. Les 11 entreprises suivantes ont parrainé l’atelier : Clifton Engineering Group Inc., Grounded Engineering, Jacobs, KELLER, P. Machibroda Engineering, Dr Sauer & Partners,
Stratum Logics, Thurber Engineering, Terracon Geotechnique, Stantec et WSP. Merci à tous pour votre contribution. Nous avons partagé les diapositives de présentation avec tous les participants et émis des certificats de 8 heures de formation professionnelle continue. Cinq conférences ont été enregistrées et mises à la disposition des membres sur le site de la SCG.
Plusieurs membres du comité ont consacré de nombreuses heures à l’atelier, notamment Rashed Chowdhury, Markus Jesswein, Cheng Lin, Ashutosh Sutra Dhar et Keshab Sharma. Leurs contributions sont reconnues et appréciées!
Young Professionals Committee
It is with tremendous gratitude in my heart that I present to you the last article of my term (Silvia Nobre) as the YP editor for the Geotechnique Magazine
This article was written by Chelsey Yesnik, the wonderful mastermind behind the first two CGS student competitions already held, which I proudly introduce to you as the incoming YP Rep and new YP editor!
For the past two years, the CGS Young Professionals (YP) Committee has successfully hosted a nationwide geotechnical student competition. The latest annual Canadian Geotechnical Student Competition (CGSC) was held at GeoMontréal 2024.
The competition was designed for and is being held at the annual CGS conference to increase undergraduate and graduate student engagement in the geotechnical field and within the CGS community. It highlights the design and construction skills of the participants while fostering collaboration and networking among students and geotechnical professionals.
The local student chapter (from the city hosting the conference) leads competition development, organization, and execution. The competition includes a geotechnical challenge, typically in the form of a smallscale geotechnical design problem, followed by construction and performance testing to determine the winning team. Each team is randomly assigned a young geotechnical professional to guide them through the process. This pairing provides students with opportunities to interact with professionals from consulting industries, government agencies, and academia, thereby expanding their social networks, mentorship prospects, and career development potential.
Over the past two competitions, 30 to 40 students from across Canada (and beyond) participated, including attendees from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec, as well as Germany and Brazil. These students were paired with YP mentors from the YP Committee, industry and academia.
Competition Highlights
The CGSC was first held at GeoSaskatoon 2023 as a wall building competition and most recently as a dam building competition at GeoMontréal 2024.
winner
The inaugural CGSC was hosted by the University of Saskatchewan (U of S) CGS Student Chapter. Eight student teams competed to construct small-scale mechanically stabilized earth walls within a 1-hour period. Teams were provided with a limited supply of newsprint paper sheets and dry sand to design and construct their walls. Later in the day, the walls were loaded until rupture. Scoring was done based on the height of the wall (as constructed), number of paper sheets used, and settlement due to serviceability and ultimate loads.
Up to $1,500 in cash prizes were awarded to the top three student teams. The first-place winner was Université Laval. The competition was generously funded by the following sponsors: Klohn Crippen Berger, Solmax, Stantec Inc., Thurber Engineering, Titan Environmental, WSP Canada and the CGS Soil Mechanics and Foundations Section. Special thanks are extended to the University of Saskatchewan student chapter, with particular recognition to Ian Adams, Tyler Casavant, and Chelsey Yesnik for their invaluable contributions to the successful completion of the 1st CGSC.
– Silvia Nobre
A student placing a newsprint paper sheet to reinforce their wall, at GeoSaskatoon 2023
The first-place winner team, Université Laval, at GeoSaskatoon 2023
The judges evaluating the dams, at GeoMontreal 2024
The first-place
team, Université Laval, at GeoMontreal 2024
Establishing a new committee is never an easy task, especially when it involves building a strong foundation and maintaining momentum over the years. The strong reputation of the CGS YP Committee would not exist without the countless hours of dedication invested in building and sustaining YP initiatives and involvement.
Following the 1st CGSC, the response from students, YP mentors, sponsors and spectators was overwhelmingly positive. Requests flooded in to host more social events to help bridge the gap between young professionals and industry. Following GeoSaskatoon 2023, the YP Committee and Western Québec Student Chapter were quick to begin planning the second annual CGSC at GeoMontréal 2024.
For the 2024 CGSC, students were presented a new geotechnical challenge, and came prepared with drawings, calculations, and matching team apparel. Once again, eight student teams competed by building smallscale earth embankment dams using clay, sand and/or till. The performance of each dam was assessed by gradually filling the upstream reservoir with water until reaching critical levels that triggered the collapse of the dam structure. A special thanks goes to Claudine Nackers, Paula Quiroz Rojo, and Niloufarsadat Sadeghi who were instrumental in delivering this new challenge.
Contrary to the previous year, the 2024 competition winners were decided by professional judges. The dams were assessed based on height, total volume of water retained, construction quality and the efficient use of materials. The panel of judges included experts from industry, academia, and government: Pierre Vannobel, Senior Geotechnical Engineer from Hydro-Québec; Chelsea Burdon, Geotechnical Engineer from Elevate Engineering; and Yannic Ethier, Professor at ETS and Associate at Geowave Inc.
Up to $1,000 in cash prizes were awarded to the top three student teams. The firstplace winner, for the second year in a row, was Université Laval. The competition was generously funded by Ėcole de Technologie Supérieure (ETS), Polytechnique Montréal,
and the collaboration of CGS National and the conference Local Organizing Committee.
Key Outcomes and Next Steps
The competition was enjoyed by all participants, resulting in a strong demand for its return. Thus, building on the success of the first two CGSCs, it is the goal of the YP Committee for the competition to continue indefinitely at the CGS annual conferences.
One key element needed for the continuation of this competition, though, is to have an active local student chapter. For GeoManitoba 2025, the CGS YP Committee and the University of Manitoba (UofM) CGS Student Chapter are already planning a new competition.
Looking ahead, if you are a student or professor from Québec or Toronto, we need your help! Also, stay tuned for your opportunity to participate in the 3rd annual CGSC, either as a student competitor, YP mentor, or sponsor.
If any of this already captures your interest, please feel free to message us at YPRep@cgs.ca
CGS Young Professionals Committee Updates
After two years of running a successful inaugural YP Committee, it is now time for a change in our leadership team starting in 2025! Chelsey Yesnik has accepted the role of Chair and CGS YP Representative. She has been involved with the CGS since 2022, starting with the University of Saskatchewan Student Chapter and later joining the YP Committee – first as an Executive at Large and then spending the last year as Lead – Network and Communications. Chelsey has found the experience of giving back to fellow YPs to be incredibly rewarding, and she looks forward to building on the momentum the YP Committee has gained so far.
Additionally, the YP Committee has welcomed some exciting new changes, with new and existing members spanning across Canada. We are pleased to introduce the 2025-26 YP Committee as follows:
Zarankumar Patel (Alberta), Vice-Chair
Naveel Islam (Alberta), Secretary and Fundraising Lead
Jade Kennan (Ontario), Lead – Knowledge & Impact
Patrick Machibroda (British Columbia), Lead – Communication
Liam McCann (Saskatchewan), Lead – Development
Zinan Urmi (Québec), Executive at Large
Ethan Landry (Saskatchewan), Executive at Large
Adam Mickey (Yukon), Executive at Large
Sudipta Chakraborty (Newfoundland), Executive at Large
Sarah Jacob (British Columbia), Executive at Large
Establishing a new committee is never an easy task, especially when it involves building a strong foundation and maintaining momentum over the years. The strong reputation of the CGS YP Committee would not exist without the countless hours of dedication invested in building and sustaining YP initiatives and involvement. Special thanks go to the following departing members who were instrumental in achieving this success:
Kshama Roy, Founding Chair
Silvia Nobre, Vice-Chair and YP Representative
Rajith Sudilan Dayarathne, Lead – Knowledge
Intisar Ahmed, Lead – Development
Kamelia Atefi Monfared, Lead - Impact
Chelsea Burdon, Lead - Collaboration
Brennan McMullin, Executive at Large
Comité des jeunes professionnels
C’est avec une immense gratitude que je vous présente le dernier article de mon mandat en tant que rédactrice en chef des jeunes professionnels (JP) pour Géotechnique canadienne
Chelsey Yesnik, le cerveau derrière les deux premiers concours de la SCG pour les étudiants, a écrit cet article. Je suis fière de vous présenter Chelsey, qui sera la nouvelle représentante des JP, ainsi que la nouvelle rédactrice en chef des JP!
Au cours des deux dernières années, le Comité des JP de la SCG a organisé avec succès un concours pour les étudiants en géotechnique à l’échelle nationale. Le plus récent Concours pour les étudiants canadiens en géotechnique (CECG) a eu lieu à l’occasion de GeoMontréal 2024.
Conçu pour être tenu dans le cadre de la conférence annuelle de la SCG, le concours vise à accroître l’engagement des étudiants de premier cycle et des cycles supérieurs dans le domaine géotechnique et au sein de notre communauté. Il permet de mettre en évidence les compétences en conception et en construction des participants tout en favorisant la collaboration et le réseautage entre les étudiants et les professionnels de la géotechnique.
Le chapitre étudiant local (c’est-à-dire de la ville qui accueille la conférence) dirige la préparation, l’organisation et la réalisation de l’événement. Le concours comprend un défi géotechnique, généralement sous la forme d’un problème de conception géotechnique à petite échelle, suivi de la construction et de tests de performance pour déterminer l’équipe gagnante. Chaque équipe est assignée aléatoirement à un jeune professionnel de la géotechnique pour les guider tout au long du processus. Ce jumelage offre aux étudiants des occasions d’interagir avec des professionnels de la consultation, des organismes gouvernementaux et du milieu universitaire, ce qui leur permet d’élargir leurs réseaux sociaux, ainsi que leurs perspectives de mentorat et de carrière.
De 30 à 40 étudiants de partout au Canada et même de l’étranger ont pris part aux deux derniers concours, y compris des participants de l’Alberta, de la Saskatchewan, du Manitoba, de l’Ontario et du Québec, ainsi que de l’Allemagne et du Brésil. Ces étudiants ont été jumelés à des mentors du Comité du JP, de l’industrie et du milieu universitaire.
Un étudiant place une feuille de papier journal pour renforcer son mu
L’équipe gagnante du premier prix, l’Université Laval, au GeoSaskatoon 2023
Faits saillants des concours
Le CECG s’est tenu à GeoSaskatoon 2023 sous la forme d’un concours de construction de murs et, plus récemment, à GeoMontréal 2024, d’un concours de construction de barrages.
Le chapitre étudiant de la SCG de l’Université de la Saskatchewan a organisé le premier CECG. Huit équipes étudiantes se sont affrontées pour construire en une heure des murs de terre stabilisés mécaniquement à petite échelle. Les équipes ont reçu une quantité limitée de papier journal et de sable
Les juges évaluent les barrages à GeoMontréal 2024
L’équipe gagnante du premier prix, l’Université Laval, à GeoMontréal 2024
sec pour concevoir et construire leurs murs. Plus tard dans la journée, les murs ont été soumis à des charges jusqu’à leur point de rupture. L’attribution des points a été effectuée en fonction de la hauteur du mur (tel qu’il a été construit), du nombre de feuilles de papier utilisées et du tassement en raison de l’état limite de service et des charges ultimes.
Des prix en argent pouvant atteindre jusqu’à 1 500 $ ont été remis aux trois meilleures équipes étudiantes. Le gagnant du premier prix a été l’Université Laval. Les commanditaires
– Silvia Nobre
suivants ont généreusement financé le concours : Klohn Crippen Berger, SOLMAX, Stantec Inc., Thurber Engineering, Titan Environmental, WSP Canada et la Division de la mécanique des sols et des fondations de la SCG. Un grand merci au chapitre étudiant de l’Université de la Saskatchewan, tout particulièrement à Ian Adams, Tyler Casavant et Chelsey Yesnik pour leur contribution inestimable à la réussite de la 1re édition du CECG.
À la suite de la 1re édition du CECG, la réponse des étudiants, des mentors des JP, des commanditaires et des spectateurs a été extrêmement positive. Nous avons été submergés de demandes relatives à l’organisation d’un plus grand nombre d’événements sociaux pour aider à combler le fossé entre les jeunes professionnels et l’industrie. Après GeoSaskatoon 2023, le Comité des JP et le chapitre étudiant de la Section Ouest du Québec de la SCG n’a pas perdu de temps avant de commencer à planifier la 2e édition annuelle du CECG qui s’est tenue lors de GeoMontréal 2024.
Lors du CECG 2024, les élèves ont fait face à un nouveau défi géotechnique. Ils se sont présentés bien préparés, avec en main des dessins et des calculs, sans parler des vêtements assortis de leur équipe respective. Une fois de plus, huit équipes étudiantes ont participé à la construction de barrages en terre à petite échelle en utilisant de l’argile, du sable ou du till. La performance de chaque barrage a été évaluée en remplissant progressivement d’eau le réservoir en amont jusqu’à atteindre des niveaux critiques qui ont déclenché l’effondrement de la structure. Nous remercions tout particulièrement
Claudine Nackers, Paula Quiroz Rojo et Niloufarsadat Sadeghi qui ont joué un rôle essentiel pour relever ce nouveau défi.
Contrairement à l’année précédente, des juges professionnels ont choisi les lauréats du concours 2024. Les barrages ont été évalués en fonction de la hauteur, du volume total d’eau retenu, de la qualité de la construction et de l’utilisation efficace des matériaux. Le panel de juges comprenait des experts de l’industrie, du milieu universitaire et du gouvernement : Pierre Vannobel, ingénieur principal en géotechnique (HydroQuébec), Chelsea Burdon, ingénieure en géotechnique (Elevate Engineering) et Yannic Ethier, professeur (École de technologie supérieure [ETS]) et associé (Geowave Inc.).
Des prix en argent pouvant atteindre jusqu’à 1 000 $ ont été remis aux trois meilleures
La solide réputation du Comité des Jeunes
Professionnels de la SCG n’existerait pas sans les innombrables heures de dévouement investies pour créer et maintenir des initiatives pour les JP et les mobiliser.
équipes étudiantes. Le gagnant du premier prix, pour la deuxième année consécutive, a été l’Université Laval. Le concours, que l’ETS et Polytechnique Montréal ont généreusement financé, a été réalisé grâce à la collaboration du Bureau national de la SCG et du Comité organisateur local de la conférence.
Principaux résultats et prochaines étapes Tous les participants ont apprécié le concours, ce qui a entraîné une forte demande pour sa réédition. Ainsi, en s’appuyant sur le succès des deux premiers CECG, le Comité des JP entend poursuivre indéfiniment le concours lors des conférences annuelles de la SCG.
Toutefois, pour que ce concours se poursuive, il est essentiel de pouvoir compter sur un chapitre étudiant local actif. Pour GéoManitoba 2025, le Comité des JP de la SCG et le chapitre étudiant de la SCG de l’Université du Manitoba sont déjà à pied d’œuvre pour planifier le prochain concours.
Si vous êtes étudiant ou professeur de Québec ou de Toronto, nous avons besoin de votre aide! De plus, restez à l’affût pour avoir l’occasion de participer à la 3e édition annuelle du CECG, que ce soit en tant que concurrent étudiant, mentor des JP ou commanditaire.
Si l’un de ces sujets suscite votre intérêt, n’hésitez pas à nous envoyer un message à YPRep@cgs.ca
Nouvelles concernant le Comité des jeunes professionnels de la SCG Après deux ans de gestion réussie du premier comité des JP, il est maintenant temps d’injecter du sang neuf dans notre équipe de direction pour 2025! Chelsey Yesnik a accepté le poste de présidente et de représentante des JP de la SCG. Présente au sein de la SCG depuis 2022, elle a participé aux activités du chapitre étudiant de l’Université de la Saskatchewan avant de se joindre au Comité des JP, d’abord en tant que membre à titre individuel, puis au cours de la dernière année, à titre de responsable, réseau et communications. Chelsey a trouvé l’expérience de redonner à ses collègues des JP incroyablement enrichissante. Elle a hâte de
poursuivre le travail de ses prédécesseurs et de tirer parti de la lancée des JP.
De plus, le Comité des JP a accueilli favorablement de nouveaux changements fort intéressants, notamment l’arrivée de nouveaux membres et la continuation de la participation des membres existants partout au Canada.
Nous sommes heureux de vous présenter les membres du Comité des JP 2025-2026 :
Zarankumar Patel (Alberta), vice-président Naveel Islam (Alberta), secrétaire et responsable de la collecte de fonds
Jade Kennan (Ontario), responsable en perfectionnement du savoir et de l’influence
Patrick Machibroda (British Columbia), responsable des communications
Liam McCann (Saskatchewan), responsable du perfectionnement
Zinan Urmi (Québec), membre à titre individuel
Ethan Landry (Saskatchewan), membre à titre individuel
Adam Mickey (Yukon), membre à titre individuel
Sudipta Chakraborty (Newfoundland), membre à titre individuel
Sarah Jacob (British Columbia), membre à titre individuel
La solide réputation du Comité des Jeunes
Professionnels de la SCG n’existerait pas sans les innombrables heures de dévouement investies pour créer et maintenir des initiatives pour les JP et les mobiliser. Nous tenons à remercier tout particulièrement les membres sortants, qui ont joué un rôle clé dans la réussite de ce comité :
Kshama Roy, président sortante et fondatrice
Silvia Nobre, vice-présidente et représentante des JP
Rajith Sudilan Dayarathne, responsable en perfectionnement du savoir
Intisar Ahmed, responsable du perfectionnement
Kamelia Atefi Monfared, responsable de l’influence
Chelsea Burdon, responsable de la collaboration
Brennan McMullin, membre à titre individuel
2025 EIC Medals and Fellowships –Seven CGS Members Recognized
The Engineering Institute of Canada has announced the recipients of the 2025 EIC Medals and Fellowships. The CGS is proud to report that our members will receive five of the five EIC Medals to be presented, and two of the 21 EIC Fellowships awarded.
CGS members receiving 2025 EIC Medals are: Jacques Locat, Professor Emeritus, Laval University, will be awarded the Sir John Kennedy Medal “for outstanding service to the profession or noteworthy contributions to the science of engineering”.
• Ian Moore , Professor, Queen’s University, will be awarded the Julian C. Smith
Medal “for achievement in the development of Canada”.
• Derek Martin, Emeritus Professor, University of Alberta, will be awarded the K.Y. Lo Medal “for significant engineering contributions at the international level”.
• Mamadou Fall , Distinguished Professor, University of Ottawa, will be awarded the John B. Stirling Medal “for leadership and distinguished service at the national level”.
• Mario Ruel, Independent Consultant, will be awarded the CPR Engineering Medal “for leadership and distinguished service at the regional/local levels”.
CGS members receiving 2025 EIC Fellowships include:
• Justyna Kos‑Fairless, Suncor (Alberta)
• John Sobkowicz, Thurber Engineering Ltd. (Alberta)
Since 1965 when the EIC began awarding medals and fellowships, CGS members have been awarded 86 EIC medals and 169 EIC Fellowships. The CGS would like to thank the CGS members who prepared the nominations and those who wrote letters of support. Without nominations and letters of support there would be no recipients.
Médailles et titres de Fellow de l’ICI pour 2025 –Sept membres de la SCG sont reconnus
L’ institut canadien des ingénieurs (ICI) a annoncé les lauréats de ses médailles et titres de Fellow pour 2025. La SCG est fière de signaler que cinq des cinq médailles de l’ICI seront décernées à des membres de la Société et que deux autres de nos membres figurent parmi les 21personnes qui recevront le titre de Fellow de l’ICI.
Les membres de la SCG qui vont recevoir une médaille de l’ICI sont :
Jacques Locat, professeur émérite de l’Université Laval, recevra la Médaille Sir John Kennedy, pour ses « services et contributions exceptionnels à la profession et au domaine de l’ingénierie ».
• Ian Moore, professeur à l’Université Queen’s, se verra décerner la Médaille
Julian C. Smith, pour ses « réalisations remarquables pour le développement du Canada ».
• Derek Martin, professeur émérite de l’Université de l’Alberta, obtiendra la Médaille K.Y. Lo, « pour ses importantes contributions en ingénierie au niveau international ».
• Mamadou Fall, professeur distingué à l’Université d’Ottawa, sera le lauréat de la Médaille John B. Stirling, « pour son leadership et ses services distingués au niveau national ».
• Mario Ruel, expert-conseil indépendant, recevra la Médaille Canadian Pacific Railway Engineering, « pour son leadership et ses services distingués au niveau local ».
Les membres de la SCG qui recevront le titre de Fellow sont :
Justyna Kos Fairless, Suncor (Alberta)
• John Sobkowicz, Thurber Engineering Ltd. (Alberta)
Depuis 1965, année où l’ICI a commencé à octroyer des médailles et des titres de Fellow, les membres de la SCG ont reçu 86 médailles et 169 titres de Fellow de l’ICI. La SCG aimerait remercier les membres de la SCG qui ont préparé ces mises en candidature et ceux qui ont écrit des lettres de recommandation. Sans ces nominations et lettres d’appui, il n’y aurait pas de lauréats.
NOUVELLES DES MEMBRES DE LA SCG
FROM THE CGS VAULTS
The following is a sampling of what was happening in the Canadian geotechnical community 10, 25, 50, and 75 years ago. If you know of possible items for future issues, please send them to info@karma-link.ca
IN 2015… 10 YEARS AGO
In January 2015, the first issue of the bilingual CGS E-News (l’E-Info de la SCG) was published and distributed electronically to all CGS members. Quoting from that issue, “Welcome to the first issue of what we hope will become a regular monthly electronic newsletter. The intent is to better keep all CGS members informed about what is going on in the Society and in the Canadian geotechnical profession in general.” One of CGS President Doug VanDine’s platforms for 2015–2016 was more frequent communication with the CGS membership and the CGS E-News was one of the planks in this platform. Prior to 2015, the only regular communication with the membership was the CGS News in Bitech’s published quarterly magazine Geotechnical News. Because items of interest for that magazine had to be submitted approximately three months before they were published, the CGS News was often not ‘news’. CGS E-News has continued to be published and electronically distributed regularly, under the guidance of the CGS VPs Communications and Member Services, with the support of Emily Fournier in the CGS National Office. CGS E-News provides timely information on a wide range of valuable topics including calls for award nominations; upcoming lectures, conferences, and workshops; calls for abstracts; names in the news; a monthly index of Canadian Geotechnical Journal papers; news from the CGS affiliates; and much more.
IN 2000… 25 YEARS AGO
The Canadian Liquefaction Experiment Project (CANLEX) was completed in 2000. In the early 1990s, the characterization of loose sandy soils was an area of uncertainty in geotechnical engineering. Unlike clay soils, it is almost impossible to obtain undisturbed samples of loose sandy soils using conventional methods, especially at depth. Therefore, in 1993, researchers at the University of Alberta, The University of British Columbia, Carleton University, and Université Laval began to study soil liquefaction to evaluate its potential at major mining sites in Canada. CANLEX was Canada’s largest collaborative geotechnical research project involving academia, industry, and engineering consultancies, with participation of more than 30 researchers and practitioners. The project included five research phases and fully characterized six field sites across Western Canada. Its key research findings improved the overall understanding of soil liquefaction and formed the industry’s state-of-practice. For example, CANLEX established a consistent lexicon of definitions for liquefaction phenomena within Canada. The project also improved the understanding of the safety of structures founded on loose sand deposits. Its success was recognized in 1998, when CANLEX won the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) Project Achievement Award. The project’s summary and conclusions were presented in a Canadian Geotechnical Journal paper in 2000 (vol 37, pp 563–591) by Peter Robertson, the lead researcher, and 33 (yes 33) co-authors.
IN 1975 … 50 YEARS AGO
Fifty years ago, the first draft, “for public comment”, of what we now call the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual was published as a 318-page document by the NRC Associate Committee on the National Building Code. In planning for the 1975 revision of the National Building Code, a Subcommittee on Foundations was formed and chaired by Tony Stermac (Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications). Stermac and the others on the subcommittee – Don Bazett (CBA Engineering), Ken Burn (NRC DBR), John Gadsby (Thurber Engineering), Victor Milligan (Golder Associates), Laval Samson (Terratech), François Tavenas (Université Laval), and Bill Trow (Trow Group) – authored the document. The preface stated: “It provides a state-of-the-art report on foundation engineering, containing recommended procedures for the design, installation and construction of foundations. It is intended to assist enforcing officials and designers in satisfying the intent of Section 4.2 (Foundations) of the National Building Code of Canada 1975”. Although published in draft, it was quickly embraced by the geotechnical community in Canada and abroad. Comparisons were made to US “NAVFAC” (Naval Facility Engineering Command) DM [Design Manual] 7 Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Earth Structures (NAVFAC, 1971). The 1975 draft sold for $3.00. It is not known how many copies were printed and sold. A French version of this document was not translated or published. In 2023, the CGS published the 5th Edition (digital only) of the CFEM. A French translation is currently being produced.
In 1950 … 75 YEARS AGO
Gordon McRostie (1922–2018) opened a geotechnical consulting practice in Ottawa, possibly the first private geotechnical consulting firm in Eastern Canada. McRostie graduated from the University of Toronto with a degree in Civil Engineering in 1944 and, after moving to Ottawa in 1945 and gaining a few years of practical engineering experience, he opened his own firm. Fifty-six years later, in 2006, his company, then known as McRostie, Genest, St-Louis & Associates, merged with Golder Associates’ Ottawa office, where he continued to work until 2017. McRostie helped organize the 1st Civilian Soil Mechanics Conference (the 1st annual Canadian Geotechnical Conference) in Ottawa in 1947. In the same year, he became the founding member of what is now the Ontario Geotechnical Group. In 1961, he helped form the Geotechnical Engineering Division of the Engineering Institute of Canada, which in 1972 evolved into the CGS. In 1963, McRostie was one of 10 geotechnical professionals who financially backed the first year of the Canadian Geotechnical Journal. He attended 68 of the 70 CGS annual conferences in his lifetime and was on the local organizing committees of a number of those conferences, including the 70th held in Ottawa in 2017. Among many other awards, in 2015 McRostie received the CGS’s first Honorary Life Membership for his lifelong contribution and dedication to the Society and to the geotechnical profession in Canada. You can read more about his full and colourful life on the CGS website at https://www.cgs.ca/virtual_archives_lives_lived.php
INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL SECTION ON VANCOUVER GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY
Intisar Ahmed and Mahdi Shahrabi, Special Section Editors
The Vancouver Geotechnical Society (VGS) is pleased to have prepared this Special Section for Canadian Geotechnique magazine. The Greater Vancouver area is home to some truly talented geotechnical engineers who regularly work on some of the world’s most challenging geotechnical projects. For this Special Section, we have compiled a series of articles that include technical topics, local academic history, and a biography of one of our most experienced and well-respected geotechnical engineers.
VANCOUVER GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY –PAST AND PRESENT
The VGS was formed in 1953 by Charles Ripley after encouragement from Robert Legget. The VGS hosted the national CGS conference for the first time in 1955 (9th Canadian Soil Mechanics Conference, predecessor to the annual CGS conference). Additional CGS conferences were hosted in Vancouver in 1966, 1976, 1983, 1995, 2006, and 2016. Original VGS participants included practitioners of engineering, soil mechanics, agronomy, and geology with initial (informal) meetings held at The University of British Columbia (UBC). For those interested in additional history of the VGS, we recommend the excellent summary prepared by Mustapha Zergoun in the September 2013
edition of Geotechnical News (predecessor to Canadian Geotechnique), which is available on our website at http://v-g-s.ca/history
We are a strong and active society that is pleased to be the Southern BC Local Section of the CGS. Our current membership is diverse and includes geotechnical engineers, engineering geologists, geoscientists, and technologists coming from consulting firms, contractors, suppliers, government, regulators, and academia. In 2023–2024, the VGS had 474 registered members, which included 400 regular paid members, 59 student members, and 15 lifetime members. Our program typically lasts from September to May and includes monthly lectures, at least one short course, and an annual one-day symposium. We collaborate with the Tunneling Association of Canada British Columbia Chapter and the UBC Geological Engineering Undergraduate Club (GeoRox) to co-host annual talks. Most of our event attendees are local to the Greater Vancouver area, though we also attract attendees from other regions of British Columbia, nearby Washington state, and Alberta for short courses and symposia. In the Section News feature earlier in this issue, Thushara Jayasinghe and Aya Bayoumi outlined our program thus far for 2024–2025 and included a look-ahead for future events.
Recently, the VGS has hosted additional events targeted towards women and young professionals. On January 25, 2024, we hosted a young professionals panel discussion titled “Wings of Wisdom: Ignite Your Geotech Career – A Spicy Bash for Young Professionals” in collaboration with the CGS YP Committee; local geotechnical engineers formed a panel and tackled career-related questions while contending with increasingly spicy hot wings. On April 10, 2024, we hosted a women’s panel discussion titled “Women in VGS – Inclusion in Action” where local women professionals answered a variety of questions related to career development for women in geotechnical engineering. Both events were very well received, and planning is underway for similar additional events in 2025.
The VGS also recognizes outstanding locals through various means. In 1996, we established the Vancouver Geotechnical Society Scholarship at UBC, which is offered annually to an incoming master’s student in geotechnical engineering (through either the civil or geological engineering programs) based on excellence in the last two years of an undergraduate curriculum. In 2018, we established the Vancouver Geotechnical Society Award at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, which provides an annual
graduate achievement award preferentially for students who have taken both Geotechnical Engineering 1 and 2 in the Civil Engineering program. We established the Vancouver Geotechnical Society Award in 1996, which is offered to a member of the VGS who has contributed in a significant manner to the VGS and/or geotechnical or geoenvironmental practice in the Vancouver area; recipients are generally recognized at our annual symposium and they are offered lifetime VGS memberships. In 2024, we established an annual Legacy Lecture series, which was designed to honour the legacy of local geotechnical engineering leaders.
Vancouver is also well recognized internationally as a global geotechnical hub. Numerous geotechnical conferences have taken place here. The American Society of Civil Engineers Geo-Institute (ASCE G-I, the US peer organization of the CGS) decided to host their first ever international Geo-Congress conference (equivalent to the annual CGS conference) in Vancouver. This was hosted February 25–28, 2024. The VGS liaison to the conference was Andrea Lougheed and VGS member and UBC Professor Mahdi Taiebat was a technical cochair. We were proud to welcome our American (and international) colleagues to Vancouver and were happy to learn that the conference was considered successful.
OVERVIEW OF VGS SPECIAL SECTION
Our Special Section kicks off with a threepart overview of geotechnical engineering education and research at UBC. Jonathan Fannin provides the civil engineering perspective and writes about early UBC connections with Karl Terzaghi, research (including soil testing, numerical modeling, and earthquake engineering), and available geotechnical engineering courses at the Civil Engineering Department of UBC. Erik Eberhardt then gives an overview of the Geological Engineering program at UBC and discusses how Reginald Brock developed the first geological engineering degree program worldwide, the geological engineering curriculum, and some of their notable faculty members. Finally, Tonia Welch provides the mining engineering input with discussion on how UBC incorporates geotechnical engineering, including rock mechanics and mine waste management, into a healthy Mining Engineering program.
Following the academic pieces, we delve into practice. Brian Mylleville discusses his team’s approach on repairing the breach
at the Sumas River Dike in Abbotsford BC, following a series of devastating atmospheric river events in November 2021. Brian discusses their approach to closing the breach using a zoned section of granular fill, emphasizing the critical role of fill gradation specifications during the initial breach closing. These specifications were essential for the eventual reinstatement works, which included construction of the low-permeability core using cutter soil mixing (CSM). While the CSM construction encountered challenges including heavy precipitation and large obstructions, a lowpermeability barrier was eventually constructed to maintain acceptable seepage flows.
After the piece on civil infrastructure, we move to tailings engineering. Rick Friedel provides his perspective on the transformation in tailings management in the last decade. We learn about how the industry has moved on from recent tailings storage facility failures in Canada and Brazil to make key advancements in tailings management. The advancements discussed include role awareness/empowerment, alternative tailings technologies, knowledge sharing, technology adoption, and risk-informed and performancebased design.
We then shift gears to a discussion on the geotechnical design challenges for temporary excavation support for the Broadway Subway Project. This project is an extension of the existing Millennium Line that is part of the Skytrain rapid transit system in Metro Vancouver. Karim Karimzadegan, Haroon Bux, Takahiro Shozen, and Robert Ng discuss a variety of geostructural design solutions for the deep excavation support at the Arbutus Station and Double Crossover, including tensioned tie-back anchors, pipe piles, braced soldier piles, as well as secant piles retained using a strutting system.
For the final Special Section article, we take a break from the technical. Brian Wilson presents a thorough overview of the career of Keith Robinson, the 2024 recipient of the VGS Award. Keith has had an adventurous career that has seen him learn from Ralph Peck, deployed to Alaska following the Great Alaskan earthquake, work on tailings dams around the world, and become a local Vancouver expert for development and infrastructure projects. We learn about Keith’s entrepreneurial spirit, having been recruited by major North American firms to provide geotechnical expertise and firm leadership. Even with an evidently busy career, Keith
found time to lead professional organizations and continues to mentor young engineers and support students. In our eyes, Keith is the example for career longevity as he continues to practice geotechnical engineering in his 80s. He is a worthy recipient of the VGS Award and his contributions to the geotechnical consulting industry cannot be overstated.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank everyone who contributed to this Special Section and hope that the readers enjoy the content. We also thank all the VGS Executive Committee members, past and present, who helped make the geotechnical engineering community in Vancouver so strong; we are both fortunate to have volunteered with many of them. Thank you as well to Nicholas Beier, Lisa Reny, and Lesia Beznaczuk for their editorial support. Lastly, thank you to the CGS for their various initiatives. Vancouver looks forward to eventually hosting a future GeoVancouver and (re)welcoming CGS members to beautiful British Columbia.
Intisar Ahmed, MS, P.Eng., is a Project Geotechnical Scientist with GeoEngineers, Inc. out of Seattle WA, USA, where he works on transportation, development, and dam/levee projects. Prior to moving to the US, Intisar worked in Vancouver, BC, for five years where he was involved in civil infrastructure projects across BC. Intisar was the inaugural Development Lead for the CGS YP Committee and is serving as Past-Chair for the VGS, having held several VGS Executive Committee roles since 2017. Since moving to the US, Intisar actively volunteers with the ASCE.
Mahdi Shahrabi, M.Sc., P.Eng., is a Senior Geotechnical Engineer with WSP Canada Inc. out of Vancouver, BC. He has over eight years of experience, providing geotechnical engineering services to public and private sectors in British Columbia since 2018. Mahdi has been a member of the VGS Executive Committee since 2020, serving as Technical Program Director and Treasurer in the past.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AT UBC: CIVIL ENGINEERING
Jonathan Fannin
In the years since then, another 13 faculty members have served the Department of Civil Engineering in geotechnical teaching and research, with national and international contributions to laboratory and in situ testing of soil, and numerical modelling of soil behaviour and soil–structure interaction.
CIVIL
ENGINEERING: THE EARLY
YEARS
The University of British Columbia (UBC) accepted its first students in 1915 and, as one of the founding departments, the UBC Department of Civil Engineering and Surveying began its longstanding commitment to undergraduate teaching (Damer 2016). In 1924, changing expectations of an emerging profession led the UBC Senate to approve its renaming to the Department of Civil Engineering.
It was in the following year that Dr. Karl Terzaghi, then a faculty member at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the USA, published (in 1925) his textbook “Erdbaumechanik” on the physics of earthwork mechanics. His subsequent research whilst at the Technical University of Vienna in Austria, and related international consulting, informed his lecture of 1939 to the Institution of Civil Engineers in London on “Soil mechanics –a new chapter in engineering science”. Around the same time at UBC Civil Engineering in Vancouver, Dr. Alexander Hrennikoff –a structural engineer whose graduate studies at MIT had included a course on soil science –introduced, in the 1940s, new content on soils to two existing undergraduate courses on foundations and on highway engineering, and acquired the first soils testing equipment for the department.
Together with faculty colleagues, Alexander Hrennikoff met with Karl Terzaghi when he passed through Vancouver in 1951 on one of his many consulting visits to British Columbia, and again in 1952 on the occasion of an invited lecture at the university. In 1953
Bob Spence, a geotechnical engineer, was appointed to deliver a new undergraduate course on soil mechanics and assume responsibility for a graduate course that Hrennikoff had earlier initiated (CGS 1983). In the years since then, another 13 faculty members have served the Department of Civil Engineering in geotechnical teaching and research, with national and international contributions to laboratory and in situ testing of soil, and numerical modelling of soil behaviour and soil–structure interaction.
CIVIL ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL
FACULTY: PAST AND PRESENT
Bob Spence was an alumnus of the Master’s program at Harvard University, where Terzaghi had taken an appointment upon return to the USA in the later years of his career. Although Bob resigned in 1955 to start a geotechnical consulting practice in Vancouver, he continued teaching undergraduate soil mechanics until the appointment of his successor.
Noel Nathan was appointed in 1958 (to 1991), with initial responsibility for teaching soil mechanics. Noel subsequently took a leave for doctoral studies in engineering mechanics and, upon his return in 1969, taught structural analysis and design.
Dr. Liam Finn was appointed in 1961 (to 1999). In the aftermath of devastating earthquakes in Alaska and Japan, in 1965 Liam commenced a lifelong program of research in geotechnical earthquake engineering and guided it to international recognition. He led companion efforts
to simulate large post-liquefaction displacements in slopes and dams, and made notable contributions to pile design.
Dr. Richard (Dick) Campanella was appointed in 1965 (to 1997). Early research interests in laboratory testing of soil subsequently evolved to focus on in situ testing of soil. Dick led significant contributions to development of the piezocone, the seismic cone, and the resistivity cone, as well as energy calibration for Standard and Becker penetration testing.
Dr. Peter Byrne was appointed in 1967 (to 2001). Peter made very practical contributions in the area of geotechnical and earthquake engineering, with a focus on the static and earthquake response of soil structures, soil-structure interaction, stress–strain models for soil, physical model tests, and deformation analyses.
Dr. Yoginder (Yogi) Vaid was appointed in 1979 (to 2002). Yogi had expertise in laboratory testing to inform on the stress- deformation and strength properties of sand, most notably in relation to concern for liquefaction and the effect of cyclic mobility. Amongst his many contributions is an internationally recognized dataset on the monotonic and cyclic behaviour of Fraser-River Sand.
Dr. Jonathan Fannin joined the department in 1989. Jonathan led in early contributions to improved design practices using geosynthetics for soil reinforcement and filtration. Expertise in the latter evolved
Jonathan led in early contributions to improved design practices using geosynthetics for soil reinforcement and filtration. Expertise in the latter evolved into a now world‑ leading program of laboratory and field research to advance a mechanics‑based modelling of internal erosion processes in zoned embankment dams and their foundations.
into a now world-leading program of laboratory and field research to advance a mechanics-based modelling of internal erosion processes in zoned embankment dams and their foundations.
Dr. Loretta Li joined the department in 1991. A geoenvironmental specialist, Loretta examines fundamentals of the transport of contaminants in subsurface soils. The results are contributing to a better understanding of mechanisms of contaminant migration in soil, geoenvironmental risk, and how to protect human health and our environment.
Dr. John Howie was appointed in 1997 (to 2020). John focused his research efforts on the application of in situ testing tools and procedures to characterize soils for geotechnical design, improvements to the understanding and quality of conventional site investigation practice, and fundamental laboratory studies of soil behaviour in relation to aging.
Dr. Dharma Wijewickreme joined the department in 2001. Dharma leads a research program in pipeline geotechnical engineering, and earthquake liquefaction of soils with particular interest in silts. Instrumental in development of the Advanced Soil Pipe Interaction Research (ASPIReTM) test facility, he serves as Director of the Pipeline Integrity Institute (PII) at UBC.
Dr. Mahdi Taiebat joined the department in 2009. Mahdi is leading innovative contributions to constitutive models, with emphasis on the anisotropic and nonlinear response in a multi-axial stress–strain setting, fully coupled modelling of porous media, and efficient implementation of models in computational platforms for static and dynamic simulations of soil–structure interaction.
Dr. Yahya Nazhat joined the department in 2014. Yahya brings extensive industry experience in site investigation and geotechnical design associated with major
infrastructure projects, including highways, tunnels, high-rise buildings, airports, and rail projects. In addition to his teaching in the undergraduate program in geotechnical engineering, he leads the two team-taught capstone design courses.
Additional contributions to advancing geotechnical research at UBC Civil Engineering were made during the appointments of Dr. Dawn Shuttle (2002–07) and Dr. Trevor Carey (2021–24), in relation to constitutive modelling and the liquefaction resistance of sands and gravels, respectively.
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM IN CIVIL ENGINEERING: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
In the current undergraduate curriculum, after preparatory courses on solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, and earth science for engineers, second-year students take Soil Mechanics I, a course on soil classification, the principle of effective stress, analysis of seepage, and an introduction to soil strength and slope stability. In third year, students take the companion Soil Mechanics II course that addresses consolidation settlements, and the stress–strain response of soils with application to the capacity of foundations and retaining walls. Students in these two courses perform laboratory tests on compaction, direct shear, and permeability; and on consolidation and triaxial compression, respectively.
Three elective courses are offered in the fourth and final year of the curriculum. The Foundation Engineering I course addresses empirical and analytical approaches used in professional practice in relation to site investigation, preloading, liquefaction assessment, ground improvement, design of shallow and deep foundations, and retaining structures. The Foundation Engineering II course examines design considerations through a series of case studies presented by prominent consulting engineers on topics of site investigation, terrain analyses, in situ testing, groundwater problems, deep foundations, tie-back walls and bracing, tailings impoundments, northern construction, ground ice, and dikes and dams. The Design of Earth Dams and Containment Structures course comprises a module on zoned embankment dam materials, slope stability, and seepage analysis, each of which is delivered with reference to an embankment dam case study, and complemented by a field trip to a Metro Vancouver dam.
The Department of Civil Engineering began its geotechnical research activities in the 1960s with the appointments of Dr. Liam Finn (left) in 1961 and Dr. Richard (Dick) Campanella (right) in 1965 (photo credit: UBC Archives).
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN CIVIL ENGINEERING: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
The Department of Civil Engineering offers three graduate degrees: the Master of Engineering ( M.Eng. ) based entirely on coursework (30 credits); the Master of Applied Science ( M.A.Sc. ) degree that involves a component of coursework (18 credits) and thesis research; and the Doctor of Philosophy ( Ph.D. ) degree that similarly involves both coursework (30 credits) and the completion of a dissertation. The primary coursework offerings for graduate studies in geotechnical engineering include Advanced Soil Mechanics, Experimental Soil Mechanics, Constitutive Models for Soil, Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering, Soil Dynamics for Design Practice, Seismic Hazard Analysis and Design Parameters, and a field-studies course on Dam Infrastructure in British Columbia . Students are also encouraged to select, as appropriate, courses across other specialist disciplines in Civil Engineering, Geological Engineering, and Mining Engineering as appropriate to an approved coursework program with a majority of courses in Civil Engineering.
REFERENCES
Damer, E. 2016. UBC Civil Engineering: The First Century. The University of British Columbia, 122p. Canadian Geotechnical Society. 1983. File No. 64: Bob Spence interview by Iain Bruce, June 21, 1983.
Jonathan Fannin, Ph.D., P.Eng., FEIC, is a Professor of Civil Engineering at The University of British Columbia. He is a two-time recipient of the UBC Killam Teaching Award (1998 and 2004), and a recipient of the APEGBC President’s Award for Teaching (2008). He has served as an Associate Editor of the Canadian Geotechnical Journal and is a recipient of the CGS R.M. Quigley Award (1996), the IGS Award (1998), and the CGS Geosynthetics Award (2012) for contributions to research. Photo credit: UBC Applied Science
Students of the 4th-year Civil Engineering Design of Earth Dams course on a field-trip to Cleveland Dam, one of several projects in British Columbia on which Karl Terzaghi provided specialist consulting advice in the 1950s and early 1960s (photo credit: Dennis Teo, Metro Vancouver).
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AT UBC: GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Erik Eberhardt
GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING: THE EARLY YEARS
Geological Engineering was introduced as a degree program at The University of British Columbia (UBC) in 1921, making it the first of its kind worldwide. This predates degree programs in the closely related disciplines of Geotechnical Engineering, Engineering Geology, and Applied Geology that were later developed in Europe, Australia, and the United States. Its creation was the circumstance of UBC appointing a geologist, Reginald W. Brock (see Figure 1), as the first Dean of Applied Science. This was in recognition of his leadership skills while Director of the Geological Survey of Canada and as acting Deputy Minister of Mines. As a new university in need of recruiting, Brock also
served as the first Head of the Department of Geology and Mineralogy. In this dual role, after returning from service in WWI, he threw his energy into the development of UBC and the Faculty of Applied Science, reflecting on the education of practising geologists:
“Personally, I am inclined to favor a good engineering foundation followed by training in geology. To mention only some of the advantages: It gives the student the necessary mathematics and sciences, they learn to apply this knowledge and to do things, they learn to treat problems quantitatively, and they are at home in the field with an understanding of the engineering problem. Not one of my former students with arts training has become a first-class practicing geologist; a large proportion of those with
engineering training have. My advice to students has always been to prepare for geology by first taking engineering, a degree I have come to call Geological Engineering.” (Brock 1923).
The recognition of the importance of geology in the training of engineers in the rapidly developing, resource-rich, mountainous province of British Columbia would have been imprinted on Brock more than a decade earlier when he was summoned by the Department of the Interior, together with Richard G. McConnell, to travel out west from Ottawa to investigate a “catastrophic landslide”. This was the 1903 Frank Slide, located in the Old Man River valley near the British Columbia border in what at the time was the Northwest Territories but later
Figure 1: (left) Reginald W. Brock, who in parallel was the first Dean of UBC’s Faculty of Applied Science, the first Head of the Department of Geology and Mineralogy, and the developer of the first Geological Engineering program worldwide. (right) Reginald W. Brock at home in the B.C. Coastal Range. (Photos courtesy of The University of British Columbia Library.)
Alberta. Arriving at the slide a week after it claimed approximately 90 lives in the mining town of Frank, McConnell and Brock (1904) reported their observations of the geology and influence of heavy precipitation and mining activity in the cause and triggering of the slide, their evaluation of its runout that they likened to a viscous fluid, and their assessment that similar conditions threaten the remainder of the town and that it should be relocated. Their report integrates geological observations, engineering mechanics, rock strength assessment, and hazard and risk at a time when such topics were not taught in any connected fashion. The Frank Slide landslide investigation demonstrated the value of geological observations for engineering decision-making that would later be reflected in Brock’s subsequent efforts to educate the next generation of engineers interfacing with the natural environment.
In 1921, UBC introduced the BASc and MASc degrees, and their offerings included Geological Engineering, with the first MASc student in Geological Engineering graduating in 1924 and the first BASc students in 1925. The program was built on a foundation of mathematics, physics, and civil engineering in Years 1 and 2, with geology, civil engineering, and mining engineering courses added in Years 3 and 4. The civil engineering courses included materials, statics, surveying, topographic and hydrographic mapping, foundations, and engineering economics.
Personally, I am inclined to favor a good engineering foundation followed by training in geology. … Not one of my former students with arts training has become a first‑ class practicing geologist; a large proportion of those with engineering training have. My advice to students has always been to prepare for geology by first taking engineering, a degree I have come to call Geological Engineering. (Brock 1923)
The geology and mining engineering courses included structural geology, petrology, economic geology, field geology, metal mining, placer mining, and metallurgy. In 1923, physical geography was added, a first for a Canadian university. Geomorphology and hydraulics were added in 1942, geophysics in 1949, soil mechanics in 1958, foundations in 1959, rock mechanics in 1966, and hydrogeology in 1967. This completed the building blocks that shape Geological Engineering today and its specialisations in geotechnical engineering (covering both soil and rock), environmental engineering (well before it became a dedicated degree program at UBC in 2001), applied geophysics, and mineral exploration engineering (the original focus from 1921).
The program has been managed and delivered by the Department of Earth,
Ocean and Atmospherics Sciences, and its predecessors (Geology and Mineralogy, Geology and Geography, Geological Sciences). Over its 100+ year history, more than 35 faculty have been hired as Geological Engineering professors, with 18 serving as the program Director. The cross-disciplinary nature of Geological Engineering is represented in the leadership positions taken on by its faculty with two serving as the Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science (Reginald W. Brock 19151935 and Henry C. Gunning 1954-1960) and one serving as the Dean of the Faculty of Science (Vladimir J. Okulitch 1964-1972). The current Geological Engineering faculty contingent comprises six professors: three with expertise in geotechnical engineering (Erik Eberhardt, Scott McDougall, Jason Yeung) and three with expertise in hydrogeology (Roger Beckie, Ulrich Mayer, Ali Ameli). The program has seen several
Figure 2: (left) Students mapping the site for a ‘proposed’ dam abutment for an exercise at the Geological Field School. (right) The newly opened UBC-Teck Geological Field Station in the Okanagan. (Photos courtesy of the UBC Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences.)
notable contributors to geotechnical research and teaching, including:
Reginald W. Brock (1921–1936) – First Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science and first Head of the Department of Geology and Mineralogy. His investigation of the 1903 Frank Slide contributed to his reputation as an eminently practical geologist in a profession that was often seen as preoccupied with pure science. He took leave from UBC to serve in WWI and was later seconded by the British Foreign Office as a geological intelligence officer in Palestine reporting on groundwater resources. Key focus areas of his research at UBC included leading investigations on the mineral resources of B.C., investigating the unstable slopes of the Cottonwood River required for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway to Prince George, and developing the first geological maps for Hong Kong. One of his final assignments, at the request of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett, was chairing the Harbour Commission of Vancouver.
Victor Dolmage (1933–1940) – Considered the first engineering geologist in British Columbia. He carried out the geological mapping of the tunnel on Mission Mountain as part of the first Bridge River Project for the B.C. Electric Railway Company. He was also involved in the construction of the Cleveland dam, First Narrows pressure tunnel for the Greater Vancouver Water and Sewage Board, Wahleach power project, Cheakamus power project, Ripple Rock Blast to improve the navigational channel in Seymour Narrows, the Kemano tunnel, and the W.A.C. Bennett dam. He had a close working relationship with Karl Terzaghi on all the latter’s consulting assignments in B.C. He left UBC in 1940 to start Dolmage and Mason Consulting Engineers (later Dolmage, Mason and Stewart Ltd.).
William. H. Mathews (1951–1984) – A giant of the geology of the Sea-to-Sky corridor, he pioneered the study of subglacial eruptions based on his fieldwork in the Garibaldi Lake area. He also conducted research on regional geomorphology, landslides, and hydrogeology. During his tenure as Director of the Geological Engineering program, he initiated the transition towards a more geotechnical focused program: "... a demand has arisen for geologists trained in interpreting the rocks and soil in the vicinity of major construction projects in terms of (1) potential hazards, (2) problems of construction, and (3) sources of raw materials. The geological engineer, soundly trained in both geology
and engineering fundamentals, is the man, we believe, best qualified to work closely with the civil engineer responsible for the execution of this work."
R. Allan Freeze (1974–1991) – Co-authored the widely referenced textbook “Groundwater” in 1979, which included a chapter on groundwater and geotechnical problems related to slopes, dams, tunnels, and excavations. He was widely recognized for his research on groundwater modelling, geotechnical studies of consolidation, land subsidence, slope stability and dam site seepage, and hydrogeological uncertainty and risk management. While serving as Director of the Geological Engineering program, he introduced an accredited geotechnical option.
J. Leslie Smith (1982–2017) – Held the Cominco Chair in Minerals and the Environment. His research specialized in groundwater flow and contaminant transport, with notable contributions related to mine waste management (tailings and waste rock), surface water–groundwater interactions, and geotechnical processes. He also pioneered the advancing mathematical modelling of fluid flow and solute transport in fractured rock, and the design of groundwater monitoring networks at hazardous waste management sites. He currently serves on a number of independent geotechnical and tailings review Boards, for companies both in Canada and internationally.
K. Wayne Savigny (1987–1995) – Advanced geohazard research focused on naturally occurring processes that cause large-scale slope instabilities. This included the use of remote sensing imagery and computer-based methods to spatially analyze the attributes that contribute to slope geohazards, and attendant risks to engineered development. In 1990, he co-founded BGC Engineering Inc. and left UBC to consult full-time with the company in 1995. His recognitions from the Canadian Geotechnical Society include the Thomas Roy Award and the Roger J.E. Brown Memorial Award for his contributions to engineering geology and permafrost research, respectively.
Oldrich Hungr (1997–2017) – Arguably the most influential and heavily cited landslide expert worldwide. His contributions included the development of the 3-D limit equilibrium program CLARA, the 3-D dynamic rockfall simulator PIERRE, and most notably, the dynamic landslide runout
program DAN. His experience as a consulting engineer with Thurber Engineering before joining UBC added a strong applied focus to his research on landslide hazards, risk, and the design of debris flow protective structures. His recognitions from the Canadian Geotechnical Society include the Thomas Roy Award and Schuster Medal for his contributions to engineering geology and geohazard research, respectively.
Erik Eberhardt (2004–present) – Introduced rock engineering to the Geological Engineering program, building on the contributions of Drs. Frank Patton, Douglas Piteau, and Dennis Martin who served as Industry Professors in Geological Engineering in the 1970s and 80s. He is widely known for his work on progressive failure in engineered slopes, brittle failure around underground excavations, and geotechnical hazards that impact surface and underground mines. His recognitions from the Canadian Geotechnical Society include the Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium, and the Thomas Roy and John A. Franklin awards for his contributions to engineering geology and rock mechanics, respectively.
Susan Hollingshead (2013–2023) – First female faculty member in Geological Engineering and first to follow the Educational Leadership path as a Professor of Teaching. Before joining UBC, she worked in the public sector, managing people, funding, and transportation infrastructure in the Metro Vancouver region, and in engineering consulting, mainly with Klohn Crippen Berger. She brought her experiences as a laboratory and field engineer, design engineer, and project manager to UBC to develop a new course in site investigation and, most notably, to introduce the highly transformative Geological Engineering capstone design course to replace the undergrad thesis. This introduced students to industry-supplied design problems guided by industry mentors and provided them with the opportunity to work through the entire design process, from the initial scope definition to presenting and defending their final design.
Scott McDougall (2017–present) – Current Director of the Geological Engineering program and first to have completed their PhD in Geological Engineering at UBC with a focus on geotechnical engineering. Joined as faculty after practising as a geotechnical consultant. He is internationally recognized for his work in developing the 3-D landslide
THE REFERENCE IN GEOTECHNICAL AND STRUCTURAL INSTRUMENTATION
CONTROL AND MONITORING OF NOISE AND VIBRATIONS
OUR PLAYGROUND, THE WORLD
runout simulator DAN3D and is currently leading research related to hazards associated with landslides and the breach of tailings dams. His recognitions from the Canadian Geotechnical Society include the Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium and the Thomas Roy Award.
Today, UBC’s Geological Engineering program is recognised worldwide as one of the top programs of its kind. Around it, Vancouver has become a key international centre for the geotechnical and mining resource sectors. The program enjoys strong support from industry and its alumni base, allowing it to expose its 160+ students to the remarkable projects carried out by local geotechnical companies and the career opportunities that await them when they graduate.
REFERENCES
Brock, R.W. 1923. The education of a geologist. Economic Geology, 18: 595–597. McConnell, R.G., and Brock, R.W. 1904. Report on the Great Landslide at Frank,
Alta., 1903; Extract from Part VIII., Annual Report, 1903. Department of the Interior, Dominion of Canada. Government Printing Bureau, Ottawa.
Erik Eberhardt, Ph.D., P.Eng., is a Professor of Geological Engineering at The University of British Columbia. He was the 29th CGS Colloquium Lecturer (2005) and was the 2013 recipient of the CGS John A. Franklin Award for outstanding technical contributions to rock mechanics and rock engineering, 2017 CGS Thomas Roy Award for outstanding contributions to the field of Engineering Geology in Canada, and 2023 CIM Rock Mechanics Award for significant and lasting contributions to the benefit of the mining industry.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AT UBC: MINING ENGINEERING
Tonia Welch
MINING ENGINEERING: THE EARLY YEARS
The Department of Mining Engineering was one of the three founding departments of The University of British Columbia’s (UBC’s) Faculty of Applied Science in 1915. Dean Reginald W. Brock and John M. Turnbull played pivotal roles in its formation, with Turnbull serving as the first department head. By 1919, the department expanded to include metallurgy and became one of the first engineering departments to offer fourth-year courses. The department graduated its first mining engineering class of four students in 1920, and a dedicated building on the Point Grey campus followed in 1925, reflecting the department’s growth (University of British Columbia n.d.). In 1945, Frank Forward took over as head of the department. Director of the Canadian Uranium Research Foundation in the 1960s, Forward was also president of both the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers and the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Although the department has undergone many changes throughout its storied history, the integration of geology and geotechnical engineering within mining is a relationship that remains central to the department’s focus throughout the years.
Extracts from Minutes of Meeting of the Faculty of Applied Science Sept. 20, 1961, reference Dr. Forward stating “…Geology and Mining Engineering had a much greater community of interest than Metallurgy and Mining Engineering…”. Shortly thereafter, UBC restructured its mining and metallurgy programs to reflect their increasingly distinct disciplines, and the Department of Mining and Geological Engineering was created. One of the goals of this change
was to integrate mining engineering with geology, while metallurgy became a separate department. This allowed for more of a focus on geotechnical engineering within the mining engineering department. Between 1964 and 1980 the department underwent two further name changes, from Mineral Engineering to Mining and Mineral Process Engineering, respectively. Finally, in 2006, the Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering (NBK Institute) was established;
Figure 1. John M. Turnbull, first Head of the Department of Mining Engineering (photo credit: UBC Archives).
Figure 2. Size of the graduating class of the NBK Institute of Mining Engineering from 1980 to 2024.
Dr. Norman B. Keevil is a leader in the mining industry and was President and CEO of Teck Corporation from 1981 to 2001.
Although the department has undergone many changes throughout its storied history, the integration of geology and geotechnical engineering within mining is a relationship that remains central to the department’s focus throughout the years.
With 38 new second-year students joining in 2024, the NBK Institute of Mining Engineering is well-positioned to train the next generation of engineers to address the complex geotechnical challenges involved in delivering the critical minerals essential for supporting the transition to a green economy
MINING ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICAL FACULTY: PAST AND PRESENT
Over the years, UBC’s Mining Engineering department has been home to several notable figures in geotechnical engineering:
Dr. Carroll Oliver “Chuck” Brawner: A pioneer in rock mechanics and slope stability, Dr. Brawner was with the department as a Professor from 1978 until the end of 1994. His work has been instrumental in advancing geotechnical practices in mining, especially in the areas of slope stability, open pit mining, and tailings dams. In 2008, Dr. Brawner was enacted in the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame for his contributions to open-pit mining and geotechnical engineering.
Dr. Rimas Pakalnis : A designated expert in the field of rock mechanics by Canadian and U.S. federal agencies, Dr. Pakalnis was a professor in the department from 1988 to 2011. He was a great champion of the empirical method for rock mechanics mine design and is responsible for the development of many empirical design tools in rock mechanics that have become industry standards.
Dr. Ward Wilson: Dr. Wilson was with the department in the early 2000’s. His primary area of expertise is around mine waste management, including both geotechnical and environmental aspects of tailings facilities.
Dr. Dirk Van Zyl: Having started as a professor in the department in 2008, Dr. Van Zyl is now a Professor Emeritus and also holds the position of Academic Director for the department’s Certificate in Global Mine Waste Management program. He is an internationally
renowned mining engineering expert with more than four decades of experience in tailings and wine waste management.
Dr. Davide Elmo: Joining UBC in 2011, Dr. Elmo’s research areas include discrete fracture network engineering, interaction between surface and underground mining, mechanical behaviour of hard rock pillars, slope stability analysis, and applications of synthetic rock mass modelling. An area of both professional and personal interest of his is investigating the role that cognitive biases play in inductive forms of engineering design.
Dr. Luis Alberto Torres Cruz: Appointed as the Teck Professor in Tailings Management and Innovation in 2024, Dr. Torres Cruz focuses on the geotechnical stability of tailings storage facilities and innovative tailings management practices.
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM IN MINING ENGINEERING: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
The undergraduate curriculum in Mining Engineering at UBC provides a comprehensive foundation in geotechnical engineering: • Second Year: Students take preparatory courses in solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, and earth sciences. Along with the Civil and Geological Engineering students, Mining Engineering students are required to take Soil Mechanics I, which covers soil classification, effective stress principles, seepage analysis, and slope stability, and is a pre-requisite for the mine waste
management courses they take in subsequent years.
Third Year: The curriculum includes Rock Engineering Fundamentals, which focuses on the mechanical behaviour of rock materials and rock masses, and Mine Waste Management, which delves into geotechnical, hydrological, and water management aspects of mine waste, including tailings, spent heap leach pads, and waste rock piles.
Fourth Year: Students are required to take Rock Engineering Design, which covers the design of rock slopes and underground openings concerning stress, structure, and rock mass properties. Additionally, all fourth-year students must complete the capstone design course, which is is a two-semester course that includes real-life engineering design problems sponsored by industry professionals. These often have components of geotechnical engineering design as a part of the project scope. Students also have the option of taking Block Caving Systems as a technical elective, which covers the design and operation of mass mining (caving) methods.
GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN MINING ENGINEERING:
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
The Department of Mining Engineering offers several graduate programs: 1. Master of Engineering (M.Eng.): A coursebased program focusing on advanced topics in mining engineering.
2. Master of Applied Science (M.A.Sc.): Combines coursework with thesis research, allowing for specialization in areas such as geotechnical engineering.
3. Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.): Involves comprehensive coursework and original research leading to a dissertation.
4. Graduate Certificate in Global Mine Waste Management, a 12-credit program designed for industry professionals. This program includes four core courses over two years, combining on-campus sessions with online learning, covering topics like mine waste characterization, integrated program design, risk assessments, and the responsibilities of the Engineer of Record for tailings management facilities. Graduates of the certificate program have the option to ladder their coursework into master’s programs offered by the department.
The graduate level course on Safety of Tailings Storage Facilities covers topics such as consequence classification,
construction methodologies, emergency preparedness, and geotechnical stability assessments of tailings dams. The Advanced Topics in Rock Engineering graduate course focuses on numerical modeling applied to rock engineering design, particularly in rock slopes and tunneling. Students also have the option of taking geotechnical courses in other departments such as Geological or Civil Engineering to satisfy their degree requirements.
REFERENCES
University of British Columbia. (n.d.). Department history. Retrieved November 22, 2024, from https://mtrl.ubc.ca/ department/history/#:~:text=1915%E2 %80%931924,Mining%20Engineering%2C %20which%20includes%20Metallurgy Historica Canada. (n.d.). Frank Forward. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 22, 2024, from https://www. thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/ frank-forward.
Turnbull, J.M. (n.d.). The story of the UBC Mining Department (1912–1945): Misspost-war era. [Unpublished document] University of British Columbia Faculty of Applied Science. 1961. Extracts from minutes/meeting of the Faculty of Applied Science. September 20. [Unpublished document]
Tonia Welch, P.Eng., M. Eng., is an Assistant Professor of Teaching in the Mining Engineering Department at The University of British Columbia. She teaches Introduction to Mining, Rock Engineering Design, and the Capstone Design Course in the department. Prior to joining UBC, Tonia was a practicing geotechnical engineer, with industry experience in both soil and rock mechanics.
REPAIR OF THE SUMAS RIVER DIKE BREACH, ABBOTSFORD, BC
Brian L. J. Mylleville
INTRODUCTION
On November 16, 2021, during a series of unprecedented atmospheric river events, the Sumas River Dike was breached –resulting in widespread flooding of the Sumas Prairie and closure of the TransCanada Highway in Abbotsford, BC. The widespread flooding posed significant challenges for initial emergency response that focused on closing the breach to
stop flowing water from the Sumas River entering Sumas Prairie. The approach developed for initial closure of the breach would prove to be crucial to further remedial work that was required to reinstate the breached section as a functioning dike. This article provides a summary of the project, more detailed information can be found in Mylleville et al. (2023) and Mylleville and Whitehead (2024).
THE BREACH
The breach occurred because of floodwaters from the Sumas River overtopping the dike followed by rapid downcutting of the dike structure – allowing floodwaters from the Sumas River to flow into the Sumas Prairie (see Figure 1).
Evidence of significant erosion and downcutting of the landside slopes of the dike
Figure 1. Sumas River Dike breach (water flow from right to left)
3. Initial emergency closure of the breach with coarser crushed rock could be seen with several sections eroded to near-vertical configuration at the landside crest of the dike slope (see Figure 2).
At the breach, most, if not all, of the dike structure was lost over a length of about 150 m, with a large scour hole eroded well below the land-side toe of the dike and beyond, extending some 150 m into a farm field to the southeast. The bottom of the scour hole was about 3–4 m below the base (bottom) of the existing dike.
CLOSING THE BREACH
Ideally, a dike should have a lower permeability core constructed of silty and/ or clayey soils. However, emergency repair work had to be carried out during periods of intense precipitation, working initially under conditions of flowing floodwaters and partially underwater, making it impossible and impractical to use fine-grained soils. To attempt to do so would likely have been disastrous. As such, the temptation might have been to close the breach using coarser material such as crushed rock mixed with some finer material; however, that would most likely have been problematic as well, the reason for which is discussed below.
The approach that was adopted for closure of the breach was to construct an initial crossing to stop flow from Sumas River, then continue to widen and build up or raise the closure once the open flowing water was stopped (see Figure 3). The entire closure of the breach was constructed using crushed granular fill
4. Constructing the central portion of the breach closure with finer crushed rock
of varying sizes, with coarser 600 mm minus crushed rock specified for the outside (initial crossing and along the side slopes) and finer 75 mm minus crushed rock specified within the central portion of the dike. The initial closure was widened to the south and raised using the finer crushed rock to allow for future installation of a low-permeability barrier.
The widening and raising of the breach closure continued using the smaller sized crushed rock (see Figure 4). This material was placed in lifts and compacted using a large vibratory compactor. Specifying the use of finer 75 mm minus crushed rock to construct the central portion of the cross-section for the dike closure was essential to provide some
Figure
Figure 2. Erosion along the landside slope of the dike near the breach
Figure
degree of flexibility in terms of considering options to reinstate a low-permeability barrier – without which, the dike would have continued to leak. Coarser crushed rock fill was then placed along the land-side slope of the closure to support the finer fill material within the centre of the closure. The initial emergency closure of the dike breach was completed in late November 2021.
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Following completion of the emergency closure of the dike breach, a geotechnical exploration was completed in the Spring of 2022 to check the extent (depth) of the recently placed crushed rock fill zone, the characteristics of the underlying foundation soils, and to confirm the presence or absence of larger rock sizes within the central portion of the repair (constructed of the finer crushed rock) that would present as obstructions to barrier construction. This information was also used to establish the required extent of the low-permeability barrier and to assess suitable options to construct a low-permeability barrier required to mitigate seepage through the breach closure. Twelve test holes were drilled using sonic drilling methods to just over 15 m depth within the central portion of the breach closure, spaced out along the length of the repaired section.
OPTIONS FOR SEEPAGE MITIGATION
Three options for seepage mitigation were considered: (1) reconstruction of the dike section with a low-permeability core, (2) construction of a steel sheet-pile barrier, and (3) construction of a low-permeability core using deep soil mixing.
Reconstruction would require removal of a large portion, if not most, of the repaired section and replacement with new engineered fill including a low-permeability soil core, filter(s), and drainage zones. Reconstruction would likely encounter constructability challenges (e.g., excavation support, dewatering, and the like) associated with earthworks being carried out 4 m or more below the groundwater table and in proximity of the Sumas River.
The steel sheet-pile wall option involves installing a continuous line of interlocking sections of steel sheet-piles along the centre of breach closure to act as a lowpermeability barrier to mitigate seepage through the dike fill. However, there could be constructability challenges associated
with driving sheet piles through wellcompacted 75 mm crushed gravel fill and encountering larger crushed rock sizes while maintaining connection between adjacent sheet piles.
The deep soil mixing option involves mechanically mixing the in-situ soil, in this case the finer 75 mm minus crushed rock fill, with a bentonite/cement slurry mixture to form a low-permeability barrier (core) along the centre of the breach closure. The barrier is constructed by building a series of overlapping rectangular panels along the centreline of the breach closure to form a continuous barrier to mitigate seepage. The primary construction challenge would be associated with encountering larger crushed rock sizes, resulting in cutter teeth breakage and possible cutter head damage.
One of the key considerations in selecting the preferred option to reinstate a lowpermeability barrier in the breach closure was that, as much as possible and practical, the preferred option should minimize the need for de-construction.
The option selected for construction of thelow permeability core was Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM), which is one of several proven and locally available methods for deep soil mixing and used successfully in other similar barrier applications (Arnold et al. 2011; Holzman et al. 2019; and others).
DESIGN OF THE CSM BARRIER
Steady-state seepage analyses were carried out to confirm the benefit of a barrier with low permeability (1×10–9 m/s) to mitigate seepage flows through the initial breach closure, which was constructed entirely of crushed rock of varying sizes as described previously. The findings of the seepage analysis indicated that for the breach closure without a lowpermeability barrier, the estimated seepage through the closure would likely range in the order of between about 5 and 20 litres/min per metre length of dike closure. This analysis considered conditions in the Sumas River that vary from “normal” to flood level. Installing a low-permeability barrier that is 640 mm thick and extends 4 m into the underlying foundations soils reduces seepage by about two orders of magnitude, or to between about 1×10–2 and 5×10–2 litres/min per metre length of the dike closure. To maintain flexibility in the barrier, an unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 1 MPa was specified for the constructed barrier.
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CSM BARRIER
The CSM process employs a cutting tool comprising counter-rotating drums fitted with cutting teeth with a configuration that is designed for cutting and mixing in-situ soils with bentonite and Portland cement slurries – to construct rectangular panels 2.8 m long by 640 mm wide extending to the target depth. As the cutting tool advances or cuts its way down into the ground, bentonite slurry is continually added to aid as a cutting fluid and to lower the permeability of the mixed soil-slurry mass. When the cutting tool reaches the target depth, Portland cement slurry (required for strength) is then introduced as the cutting tool is slowly retrieved from the ground. The contractor tailors the bentonite slurry and Portland cement slurry application to achieve the performance requirements set out in the contract specifications. Figure 5 shows the cutting tool being retrieved from the ground following completion of a CSM panel.
Despite best efforts during construction of the initial emergency closure to keep the zone of the central finer crushed rock separate from the outer coarser crushed rock, larger pieces of crushed rock were encountered by the CSM cutting tool, resulting in cutter teeth breakage and construction delay. To alleviate equipment damage and delays, predrilling (with casing) was used to remove larger rock fragments prior to installing the remaining CSM panels.
Figure 5. CSM cutting tool being retrieved from the ground following completion of a CSM panel
Figure 6 shows both the CSM rig (yellow) and pre-drilling equipment (white) on top of the dike breach closure with the water-filled scour hole in the foreground and Sumas River and Sumas Mountain in the background.
A total of 60 CSM panels were required to construct the low-permeability barrier, with depths varying between 5.25 and 12.75 m as measured from the top of dike. Construction of the CSM barrier was completed in December 2022.
CONSTRUCTION CHALLENGES
During the initial stages of the emergency works, heavy precipitation made for difficult working conditions including continued flooding of some crucial access roads. A second series of atmospheric rivers resulted in rising water levels in the Sumas River that threatened continued work at the breach site. Much of Sumas Prairie was flooded, therefore access and haul routes for equipment and materials had to be carefully planned, staged, and coordinated as many of the local roads including stretches of the Trans-Canada Highway were closed.
During the remedial phase of the project, obstructions such as larger pieces of crushed rock posed a challenge to CSM installation, but this was overcome with appropriate predrilling to remove the obstacles.
LESSONS LEARNED
Several lessons were learned from this (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime experience:
• An experienced and motivated team was crucial to the successful completion of the initial emergency works in a safe and timely manner;
• Foresight in specifying appropriate materials for the initial dike closure (with finer 75 mm minus crushed gravel for the central portion of the closure) proved to be crucial to the successful construction of a low-permeability barrier using CSM technology without the need to deconstruct the initial emergency works; and
• Pre-drilling with casing proved to be a successful approach to removing obstructions (larger crushed rock) within the finer dike fill and contributed to successful construction of the low-permeability barrier.
REFERENCES
Arnold, M., Beckhaus, K., and Wiedenmann, U. 2011. Cut-off wall construction using Cutter Soil Mixing: a case study, GmbH & Co. Geotechnik, 34 (2011), Heft 1. Holzmann, B., MacKay, Siddle, D., and Olivera, R. 2019. Site characterization for Cutter Soil Mixing of a vertical barrier
wall. In Proceedings of the 26th Vancouver Geotechnical Society Symposium (2019).
Mylleville, B.L.J., Wilson, B., and Kristiansen, C. 2023. Repair of the Sumas River Dike breach: a case history. In Proceedings of the 29th Vancouver Geotechnical Society Symposium (2023).
Mylleville, B.L.J., and Whitehead, J. 2024. Considerations in the design and construction of dike breach repairs. In Proceedings of the 30th Vancouver Geotechnical Society Symposium (2024).
Brian L.J. Mylleville, Ph.D., P.Eng. (bmylleville@kontur.ca) is a Senior Geotechnical Engineer with Kontur Geotechnical Consultants Inc., a Geotechnical Consulting Firm based in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. He has over 34 years of related experience in geotechnical engineering, focusing primarily on linear infrastructure projects throughout the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley of BC. Brian now resides in Cranbrook, BC, where he continues to provide senior level consulting with the Kontur team.
Figure 6. CSM rig and predrilling equipment on the dike breach closure
ADVANCES IN RESPONSIBLE TAILINGS MANAGEMENT OVER THE PAST DECADE AND A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
Rick Friedel
INTRODUCTION
The mining industry is a critical component of human and societal development. Metals produced by mining are essential to the continued technological and energy transitions required to support a more sustainable future. Managing tailings responsibly with respect for potential human, social, cultural and environmental impacts is a critical component of mining’s future. Canada’s abundant natural resources make it well positioned to be a key supplier in this future and take a leadership role in responsible mining.
Tailings are the ground-up ore (sand to clay sized) that remains after the economic minerals have been extracted through physical and chemical processes. They are a necessary byproduct of the mining process.
Over the past decade, tailings management is an area of mining that has gone through significant change and advancement. Unfortunately, this was driven by several major tailings storage facility (TSF) failures that had unacceptable impacts on the environment and downstream communities. The first major failure was at the Mount Polley Mine in B.C., Canada, in 2014. This was followed by two other major failures in Brazil: Mariana Dam failure at the Samarco Mine in 2015; and the Brumadinho Dam failure at the Córrego do Feijão Mine in 2019.
The importance of responsible tailings stewardship was recognized by mine operators and tailings professionals long before these events. However, these and other failures caused a loss of confidence in communities, regulators, and mining investors that forced the industry to critically assess how tailings were being managed.
This article discusses key advancements in tailings management practice over the
past 10 years, as well as challenges and opportunities moving forward, from the perspective of a multi-jurisdiction professional engineer and TSF Engineer of Record (EoR). Most of the concepts discussed have been implemented at some TSFs since well before the Mount Polley failure. However, their development has been accelerated along with a push for broader adoption.
ROLE AWARENESS AND EMPOWERMENT
A key focus has been to better define individual roles and responsibilities required to safely operate and manage a TSF. This is beyond design and field teams working on the TSF and extends to the site and corporate managers. The goal is to inform individuals of their role and empower them to execute it. In the author’s experience, the most effective measure to prevent TSF failures and negative impacts is an engaged tailings team that is supported and incentivized to focus on that goal.
TSFs are dynamic and their operational plan can change frequently in response to internal (e.g., mill production) or external (e.g., climate, actual condition different from assumed) factors. A focused tailings team, whose members understand their roles and are involved in the day-to-day TSF operation, can assess the potential impact of potential changes and adapt or push back. In addition, potential issues or unexpected behaviour are more likely to be identified and communicated so appropriate action can be taken.
Key roles related to TSF management that are most often referenced are Responsible Tailings Facility Engineer (RTFE); Engineer of Record (EOR); Accountable Executive (AE); and Independent Tailings Review Board (ITRB). These are based on the names defined in the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) (GTR 2020). The same or similar roles are defined in
other governance documents from the Mining Association of Canada (MAC) and the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). These roles are also being incorporated into regulatory documents such as the 2024 update to the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia (HSRC) (EMLI 2024).
Each of these roles existed prior to the GISTM; however, in many cases the responsibilities of each were not clearly defined or allocated to a specific individual, or the individual did not have the appropriate authority and/or resources to execute that role.
ALTERNATIVE TAILINGS TECHNOLOGIES
Tailings produced by most metal mines leave the mill in the form of a fluid-like mixture referred to as slurry. There has been increased interest in changing the composition, and/ or volume, of tailings produced by the mill. These are colloquially referred to as “tailings technologies” and often involve either reducing the amount of water within the tailings solids or repurposing tailings.
The Mount Polley failure Independent Expert Panel report (“Report on Mount Polley Tailings Storage Facility Breach”, January 30, 2015) highlighted filtered tailings as an opportunity to reduce TSF failures and related risks. This option is also viewed favourably by communities and groups outside of the mining industry. Filtered tailings have a lower water content and a soil-like consistency when leaving the mill. While filtered tailings TSFs have some advantages over those retaining slurry tailings, it is important to recognize that a filtered tailings TSF still poses risks and, if poorly designed and/or operated, can result in failure. One of the largest barriers to widerspread adoption of filtered tailings is that while they have been used at low throughput
mines (~10,000 tonnes per day (tpd) or less), scaling this approach to higher throughput operations (>100,000 tpd) is yet unproven.
There is no single design, technology, or operational approach that is best for all situations. Overall design and concept for each TSF must be selected considering all aspects of operational life and site conditions (e.g., climate, location, mine throughput, environment). Industry guidance documents (e.g., GISTM) and some regulations (e.g., HSRC) now require that the initial stage of any tailings project include a structured review and assessment of available tailings technologies. Continuing to develop alternative tailings technologies, like filtered tailings at higher throughputs, will give mine operators and tailings professionals more options and flexibility in choosing the appropriate tailings strategy for each project.
COMMITMENT TO DOING THINGS BETTER
The industry has committed to looking at tailings management holistically to find opportunities to do things better, rather than focusing on specific tasks or activities. This
should be spearheaded through a multipronged approach that involves a group of people with varied experience looking at TSF operations, design, surveillance, closure, and risk management. Success requires commitment to a culture of continual improvement that encourages an open questioning of how things are done and why. There is tremendous knowledge and experience on any mine site, including within the tailings team, that can be leveraged to find better ways of operating, managing risks, and making decisions.
Some changes that are having a positive impact now, and that will evolve to have a greater impact over time, are (a) more information sharing and (b) a greater adoption of technology.
Increased Sharing of Information across the Industry
Mine operators are increasingly willing to share their lessons-learned and case histories through public disclosures, informationsharing agreements, involvement with research projects, and at technical conferences.
For example, the Tailings and Mine Waste Conference is the largest of its kind and is hosted in Denver, Vancouver, and Banff, on a rotating schedule. Since 2016, conference attendees have grown from 265 to 918 in 2024. Additionally, the number of paper submissions has increased dramatically and there are now two or three times more submissions than available presentation slots. Similar increases are occurring at other major tailings conferences internationally. A large contributor to this growth is an increase in papers and attendees from mine operators.
Greater Adoption of Technology to Collect and Manage Information and Data
There is a significant shortfall of experienced tailings professionals, which impacts everyone across the industry. Most mine operators, consultants, and contractors are leaning on technology to improve efficiency and maximize the impact of their tailings teams. To this end, there are commercial or proprietary solutions capable of doing many routine tasks related to surveillance, data processing, and management; this frees the tailings team to spend more time interpreting and/or acting on information.
The end goal that industry strives to achieve, and society expects, is to manage tailings in a manner that prevents failures and eliminates/reduces risks.
Technology, if deployed properly, can also make large collections of information more accessible and easier to use. Generally, the easier information can be accessed, the more likely it is to be used. One of the most valuable requirements, in the Author’s opinion, to come from the GISTM (Principle 2), is the consolidated Knowledge Base for each TSF. Technology solutions are also available to better organize and consolidate historic information, often spanning decades, so that it is readily accessible and useable.
FOCUS DESIGN ON THE GOAL
The end goal that industry strives to achieve, and society expects, is to manage tailings in a manner that prevents failures and eliminates/ reduces risks (e.g., to the environment). Mine operators and tailings professionals are modifying how they make, communicate, and report on tailings-related decisions to keep this at the forefront; e.g., in TSF design.
Each TSF design is required to meet prescriptive criteria (e.g., slope stability factor of safety, manage a specific flood magnitude, or downstream water quality). These criteria may be imposed through regulation, governance, or some other mechanism. A design that is focused on meeting these criteria will be compliant, but may be unsuited to manage risks and prevent failure.
Recent guidance documents from the International Council of Mining & Metals (ICMM) (ICMM 2021) and ICOLD (ICOLD 2022) outline design approaches focused on preventing failure and managing risks, as well as meeting prescriptive criteria –e.g., the Performance-Based Risk-Informed Safe Design approach, proposed by Dr. Norbert Morgenstern in 2018. (Morgenstern 2018)
These design approaches start with a characterization of the proposed site and an understanding of how the TSF is intended to operate. That is used as a basis to complete a potential failure mode assessment (PFMA), to understand the mechanisms and
conditions that could lead to a failure or other unacceptable impact. Next, a design and operational plan is developed with controls to prevent such events from occurring. Design analysis is also undertaken to demonstrate appropriate criteria are met. The performance of the TSF and design is then reviewed through operations in a plan–do–check–act cycle.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
Over the past decade, there have been many new and updated guidance, regulation, and governance documents prepared, each of them with their own list of requirements (e.g., documents, submittals, reviews). In the author’s opinion, these are adequate to provide a framework for safe and responsible tailings management. The industry should focus on adopting these into routine practice and look to update and refine them as they mature.
Tailings management improvements are being witnessed across the industry, and there are still more to be made. This will continue as part of an ongoing, continual improvement process. The rate at which this occurs will be constrained by time and resources rather than good ideas or new opportunities. The greatest challenge facing the industry is the limited pool of tailings professionals, and we must ensure their time is being focused on the highest value activities.
Investing in technology, such as augmented reality, and leveraging advancements in artificial intelligence to reduce time spent on routine, non-judgment-based tasks and decisions, will help with the current resource limitations, as well as set the stage for an even greater future.
Mining is a critical part of providing materials for the future. As an industry, we need to celebrate this and engage with people to help them become excited about what a career in tailings can provide. It allows one to play a key role in responsible mining and offers opportunities and rewards few careers can match. The Canadian mining industry has long been a leader in producing global tailings
leaders and is well positioned to continue that into the future.
REFERENCES
Global Tailings Review (GTR). 2020. Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management. August.
International Council of Mining & Metals (ICMM). 2021. Tailings Management Good Practice Guide. May.
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). 2022. Tailings Dam Safety. Bulletin No. 194, Version 1.0. Final Version Submitted for Publication. November 16, 2022. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (EMLI). 2024. Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia, Revised. April.
Morgenstern, N.R. 2018. Geotechnical Risk, Regulation and Public Policy. The Sixth Victor de Mello Lecture, presented at the 9th Portuguese-Brazilian Geotechnical Congress, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil, August 2018. Published in Soils and Rocks, São Paulo, 41(2): 107–129. Associacao Brasileira de Mecanica dos solos e Engenharia Geotecnica
Rick Friedel, P.Eng. (B.C.), P.E. (Arizona, Alaska), Principal, Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd (KCB). Rick’s career in geotechnical engineering started at KCB in 2003 and has been focused on tailings management and design. His work has taken him across Canada and the world. With a broad range of experience, he has been involved in the design, construction, operational stewardship, independent review, and closure of tailings storage facilities, mine water infrastructure, and other earth-fill structures. Rick is currently the Engineer of Record for active and closed tailings storage facilities that store thousands to billions of tonnes of tailings. Over the past 10 years, a focus of his work has been on developing and implementing performance-based approaches to design, management, and planning of several tailings storage facilities. He also supports Mine Operators as they update their governance and management systems to align with regulatory and industry good practices.
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CHALLENGES FOR TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SUPPORT AT THE ARBUTUS STATION AND DOUBLE CROSSOVER FOR THE BROADWAY SUBWAY PROJECT IN VANCOUVER, BC
Karim Karimzadegan, Haroon Bux, Takahiro (Hiro) Shozen, and Robert Ng
INTRODUCTION
The Broadway Subway Project is located in Vancouver, BC, and is an extension of the existing Skytrain Millennium Line that is part of the local rapid transit system. The route will extend from the VCC-Clark Station to the intersection of Broadway and Arbutus Street and will include six new station locations. This article provides an overview of the geotechnical design challenges for temporary excavation support at the Arbutus Station and Double Crossover site, which forms the western-most station. This station extends the length of two city blocks as shown in Figure 1.
Excavation depths of up to approximately 20 m are required with vertical excavation slopes supporting adjacent buildings and infrastructure. Many existing underground utilities, which include storm, sanitary, water, telecommunications, gas, and electrical lines, are located below the road and sidewalk areas of Broadway. Significant existing underground infrastructure that requires support includes two Metro Vancouver large-diameter water
mains called Capilano Main No.4 (CMN4) and No.5 (CMN5) and a large concrete BC Hydro duct bank. Furthermore, permission for excavation shoring elements to encroach into adjacent properties varies across the project site with minimum required offset distances to reduce potential conflicts and damage.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(SURFICIAL AND BEDROCK GEOLOGY)
Based on published surficial geology information from the Geological Survey of Canada (Armstrong 1979), the site is underlain by Vashon Drift and Capilano Sediments. These surficial geology deposits generally consist of glacial drift that includes lodgement till, lenses and interbeds of glaciofluvial sand to gravel, and lenses and interbeds of glaciolacustrine laminated stony silt. Bedrock is estimated to be at a depth of 10 m or less below the ground surface. Subsurface investigations were carried out to characterize the local geology and groundwater conditions (EXP 2021; Golder 2019a, 2019b).
An interpreted east–west geological section along the project site is shown in Figure 2.
DESIGN CHALLENGES
The geotechnical design challenges for excavation shoring at the project site can be divided into six zones as conceptually shown on Figure 1. Each zone has site-specific design considerations and constraints that the shoring strategy is required to address.
In conjunction with the excavation shoring, pairs of piles will be installed along the north and south sides of Broadway as support columns for the traffic decks that will provide public access over the construction site. These traffic piles are considered free-standing from the shoring system; however, where the shoring system consists of secant piles or braced soldier piles, the traffic deck will be supported on these piles that are part of the shoring system.
Zone 1 is located along the west excavation face beside Arbutus Street and will be required to support the CMN4 and a concrete BC Hydro duct bank in addition to accommodating openings through the shoring face where tail track tunnels will be created. Encroachment
Figure 1. Plan view including various excavation design zones for Arbutus Station and Double Crossover
of shoring elements, such as tie-back anchors, are permitted into adjacent areas.
CMN4 is located along and under Arbutus Street at depths of about 2.0–5.5 m at locations adjacent to the west excavation face. Assessments of the CMN4 were carried out as part of the project and determined to require an approximately 50 m long segment of the pipe to be relocated to address potential risk associated with station excavation and the tail track tunnel works. The relocated segment of CMN4, as
shown in Figure 3, will be located approximately east of the existing pipe and at higher elevations. Connection of this new pipe segment to the existing CMN4 pipe will occur in caged areas located west of the Headhouse and outside of the southwest corner of the excavation footprint.
The BC Hydro duct bank contains various conduits and is aligned approximately parallel with Arbutus Street. The northern
approximate 50 m of this duct bank is situated about 1 m or less from the back of the west excavation face and thus would be supported by the excavation shoring. However, the west excavation face has a jog in the footprint that moves the shoring face about 4.7 m to the west, which results in the duct bank being located in front of the shoring face for a length of about 26 m before intersecting the south excavation face.
Figure 4. Elevation view of shoring solution at tail track tunnel openings in Zone 1
Figure 2. Geological section along Broadway Street at Arbutus Station and Double Crossover site
Figure 3. Shoring solution at south portion of west excavation face in Zone 1
The tail track tunnels will result in two openings through the west excavation face, as shown in Figure 4, at areas adjacent to the southwest corner of the project site. The bottom of these tunnel openings will be at elevations slightly above the excavation base. Each tunnel opening will be about 6 m wide by 6 m high with about 6.5 m of separation between the two tunnels. These tunnels extend westward from Arbutus Station and are intended to facilitate the future terminus box. Use of steel reinforcing, such as welded wire mesh, in the shoring face or metallic tie-back anchors at these tunnel openings is to be avoided due to potential conflict with or damage to tunnel excavation methods. Furthermore, cementitious shotcrete with a compressive strength of >35 MPa should also be avoided due to potential conflict with tunnel boring machine operation.
Zone 2 is located along the north and east excavation faces at the Headhouse, and the western approximate 63 and 55 m of the north and south excavation faces along Broadway, respectively. The excavation shoring system will need to support adjacent buildings with no deep basement levels and typical underground utilities. The north and east excavation faces at the Headhouse are also required to support a maximum 15 kPa vertical surcharge pressure from machinery/ vehicles placed within approximately 7 m behind the excavation face. Encroachment of shoring elements, such as tie-back anchors, is permitted into adjacent properties.
Figure 5. Elevation view of shoring solution for CMN5 abutment area in Zone 4
Figure 6. Typical braced soldier shoring solution in Zone 5
Figure 7. Conceptual shoring solution using walers and struts at Cypress Street opening in Zone 5
Zone 3 is an approximately 10 m deep excavation area located behind the south excavation face where exit stairs are to be constructed. The footprint of this excavation area is <6 m wide by 9 m long and is connected to the station excavation via an approximately 4 m wide by 5 m long access way.
Zone 4 is located along the north and south excavation faces of Broadway, generally extending approximately 95 m and 120 m west of Maple Street, respectively. The excavation shoring system will need to support adjacent buildings with basement levels and typical underground utilities. The excavation footprint in this zone jogs closer to the neighbouring properties to the north and south; thus, reducing the distance between the shoring face and adjacent buildings in comparison with Zone 2. At Maple Street, CMN5 is aligned approximately north–south and intersects the excavation footprint, as shown in Figure 5. CMN5 is to be suspended across the open excavation using pipe cradles at abutment girders located
at each side of the excavation in addition to hangers evenly spaced and hung from a girder bridge. The excavation shoring at CMN5 will need to be stepped into the slope to accommodate the structural components for supporting the pipe.
Zone 5 is located along the north and south excavation faces of Broadway between Maple Street and Cypress Street. The excavation shoring system will need to support adjacent buildings with basement levels and typical underground utilities, as shown in Figure 6. Encroachment of shoring elements into neighbouring properties is not permitted. At the east side of the Maple Street and Broadway intersection, an unobstructed opening across the excavation footprint from the excavation bottom to ground surface is required. This opening extends about 19.5 m north-south across Broadway and about 11 m east–west along Broadway. A second opening located beside the east excavation face at Cypress Street will be required to facilitate removal of the tunnel boring machines, as shown in Figure 7.
This second opening extends about 21 m north–south across Broadway and about 14.5 m east–west along Broadway.
Zone 6 is the east excavation face at Cypress Street. This excavation shoring system will need to support the traffic in addition to four 3 m by 3 m crane outrigger pads that exert an estimated 150 kPa surcharge pressure at each pad. The western set of outrigger pads may be setback 1.5 m from the excavation face. Below the outrigger pads, the tunnel boring machines will penetrate the shoring face to enter the excavation area, as shown in Figure 8. Each tunnel is about 6 m diameter with a separation of about 4 m between the tunnels. Design considerations include lateral stresses associated with the tunnelboring machine during penetration through the shoring face. Similar to Zone 1, use of steel reinforcing and metallic anchors is not permitted at the tunnel openings due to potential damage to the tunnel boring machines. Furthermore, the shotcrete strength is limited to 35 MPa or less.
Figure 8. Elevation view of shoring solution at Cypress Street in Zone 6
A shoring design with greater complexity in solutions due to increased constraints requires a collaborative team effort and consideration of a variety of solutions to accommodate the design challenges.
DESIGN SOLUTIONS
The design solutions developed for the excavation shoring zone as described previously required an iterative process with design team members and stakeholders. Moreover, changes to the design details would be required to address other considerations including construction sequencing, surcharge loads, available materials, and updated excavation geometries. The four general types of shoring systems used in the design solutions consisted of
• tensioned tie-back anchors and reinforced shotcrete infill panels,
• pipe piles with tensioned tie-back anchors and reinforced shotcrete infill panels,
• braced soldier piles with spiles and shotcrete infill panels, and
• secant piles with reinforced shotcrete waler and steel waler, tensioned with tie -back anchors.
INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING
As part of the construction risk management for this project, pre-construction surveys of buildings and existing infrastructure were carried out. Instrumentation and survey monitoring for buildings, the CMN4 and CMN5 pipes, and excavation faces are included in the design. For CMN4, the instrumentation and monitoring will include settlement monitoring gauges along the length of pipe that may be impacted by the tail track tunnels and station construction works and visual inspections during excavation. For CMN5, the instrumentation and monitoring will include settlement monitoring gauges at either end of the in-ground portion of the pipe, survey targets and nano sensor tilt meters on the exposed portion of the pipe, strain gauges on the girder bridge components, and visual inspections during excavation. The instrumentation and monitoring for the excavation shoring will include optical survey targets on buildings, inclinometers along excavation faces, strain gauges on select struts that were used to laterally support the pipe, nano sensor tilt meters, and InSAR satellite mapping; and their responses were used to avert unacceptable risk conditions for excavation slope stability or damage to
infrastructure, utilities, and buildings surveys. Measured movements would be compared with defined threshold values that trigger specific reviews to be carried out at each level.
CONCLUSION
The geotechnical design challenges encountered at the Arbutus Station and Double Crossover project site required an iterative design process to develop practicable solutions for the temporary excavation supports. Collaborative effort and communication between design team members were important to avoid conflicting details where different designs and purposes interface. The different complexities in the design solutions for this project reflect the range of constraints that govern practicable design options. Another important factor that assists with managing the design challenges is additional verification of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, locations of underground utilities, and locations of adjacent underground structures, such as basement foundation walls. In summary, a shoring design with greater complexity in solutions due to increased constraints requires a collaborative team effort and consideration of a variety of solutions to accommodate the design challenges.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the project owner, the Province of B.C., as well as the Broadway Subway Constructors General Partnership and other stakeholders for their support for this article.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, J.E., and Hicock, S.R. 1979. Geological Survey of Canada, "A" Series Map 1486A.1 sheet.
EXP. 2021. Geotechnical Design Report for Capilano No.4. BSP-BSCGP-GEORPT-00024 RB.
Golder. 2019a. Geotechnical Data Report. Broadway Subway Project. 1419105-050-R-Rev1.
Karim Karimzadegan is a Principal Geotechnical Engineer at RAM with 40 years experience in soil mechanics, shallow and deep foundations, excavation support, slope stability, and MSE retaining structures. He has experience with project management, technical specification preparation, and construction supervision for various geotechnical projects.
Haroon Bux is a Geotechnical Engineer at RAM who has gained a range of experience through consulting and contracting throughout the Lower Mainland, which includes soil mechanics, geotechnical investigation, geotechnical testing, vibration monitoring, water level monitoring, pile installation monitoring, and construction field reviews for various geotechnical projects.
Takahiro (Hiro) Shozen, a Senior Geotechnical Engineer at RAM, joined Horizon (now RAM) 20 years ago after working in Japan for 5 years as a Civil Engineer. His areas of technical expertise are in site investigation, engineering analysis, and geotechnical design associated with projects involving slope stability, specialized foundations, segmental retaining walls, reinforced earth slopes, soil mechanics, temporary excavation support, and stormwater management systems.
Robert Ng is a Senior Geotechnical Engineer at RAM with over 20 years experience in investigation, analysis, design, and construction. His areas of technical expertise in investigation, analysis, design and construction include slope stability, segmental retaining walls, reinforced earth slopes, soil and rock mechanics, and foundations.
KEITH ROBINSON –2024 VANCOUVER GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY (VGS)
AWARD RECIPIENT
Brian Wilson
Born on Vancouver Island in Duncan BC in 1940, Keith Robinson attended grade school in Oak Bay, a suburb of Victoria, before his family moved to North Vancouver where he spent his high school years. While at high school, although he found sports more interesting than academics, he seemed to be quite good at math and sciences and this piqued his interest in engineering. For financial reasons, and to mature a bit more, he attended Grade 13 at North Vancouver High School before taking the civil engineering program at The University of British Columbia in 1958, graduating in 1962.
Keith started his academic path slowly with a 66% average in his first year but adapted well to the university environment and the program so that he was at the top of his class when he graduated. He was fortunate to find summer employment after 3rd and 4th years with engineering consultants Bob Spence and Ripley Klohn & Leonoff, opportunities that gave him an initial insight into the field of soil mechanics, now referred to as geotechnical engineering. He also had the privilege of studying under Professor Liam Finn in Keith’s final year at UBC, Finn’s first. However, it was Bob Spence who really encouraged him to pursue a master’s degree if he wanted a career in geotechnical engineering. Interestingly, he inspected a deep drill hole for Spence in 1961 during construction of the first Port Mann bridge and 47 years later was involved in the peer review of the replacement bridge across the Fraser River.
During his last year as an undergraduate, Keith applied to five US universities to enter their M.Eng. program. He accepted a University of Illinois’ Terzaghi Research Assistantship, where he would work directly under Dr. Ralph Peck, a world-renowned professor and consultant. After working in the summer of 1962 with Ripley Klohn & Leonoff, Keith and his bride Carol Ann drove
to Illinois to start his assistantship. As an undergraduate, Keith financed his education through bursaries, scholarships, and summer work; financial help for post-grad work was thus essential. In addition to not having to pay entrance fees at Illinois, he was paid $250 per month, which was equal to what his wife was earning and allowed them to buy a new Ford Falcon, fully paid for, before leaving Illinois. He considers himself to be very lucky and knows how difficult it is now for students with the current high costs for everything. His graduate research was focused on analyzing partially embedded piles and resulted in some published technical papers.
However, the most significant part of his three semesters at Illinois, he feels, was listening to and participating in the review of over 30 case histories by Dr. Peck. Peck presented problem soil projects that encouraged thinking “outside the box” and considered how soil and rock variability can impact project risk.
Keith was awarded a M.Eng. in Soil & Rock Mechanics in January 1964, then joined Shannon & Wilson (S&W) in their Seattle office. On March 27th, just after joining the firm, the largest earthquake recorded in North America (magnitude 9.2) caused severe damage to Alaska. Keith was fortunate enough to be part
Keith’s VGS Award acceptance speech at the 2024 VGS Symposium
of the team deployed to review landslides, sink holes, building damage, and land settlement in Anchorage and Kodiak. This hands-on observational experience of this earthquakegenerated damage, just as he was starting his career, along with Dr. Peck’s lectures, served Keith well in the years ahead. As a result of the earthquake, S&W opened a San Francisco office to work on seismic upgrades to some of California’s water supply dams. Keith was transferred there to work on these projects after a year in Seattle.
In 1966, Keith returned to BC to work for IPEC (BC Hydro’s Engineering group), being assigned, amongst other things, to the final stages of design and construction of the Bennett Dam in northern BC, and the foundations for all the 500kV transmission line towers from the Bennett Dam to Vancouver. His children, Shawn and Shari, arrived during this period.
Golder Brawner came knocking in 1970, and with this firm Keith gained exposure to the mining industry, including tailings dam design and rock slope stability. He made two trips to the Philippines in 1971, working on a diversion dam and a tailings failure into an underground mine. This was also where his entrepreneurial consulting skills started to blossom.
Major incidents like the Alaska earthquake and some worldwide tailings dam failures spurred growth in geotechnical engineering in the late 1960s and 1970s. With major development of infrastructure in BC, as well as many mining company offices, Vancouver was being targeted by large US-based geotechnical engineering consultancies as a good place to set up offices. In 1973, Keith was approached by Dames & Moore (D&M), based in Los Angeles with 30 offices worldwide, to open a branch office in Vancouver.
Keith’s technical strength, strong communication style, and his ability to assess risk, fueled the growth of D&M in Vancouver, with Keith becoming a partner in 1977 and ultimately taking control of the Canadian operation under the name Robinson Dames & Moore (RDM) in 1980. This new firm was heavily involved in local industrial, commercial, and residential projects in a variety of soil conditions in this high earthquake risk area, as well as tailings dam projects throughout Canada and the US.
Keith was D&M’s and RDM’s lead tailings dam specialist. He travelled around the world
to mine sites in Australia, Indonesia, Spain, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, Iran, etc. as a senior review consultant, and spent over a year in the mid 1980s in South Africa on major tailings projects and overseeing the D&M operations there. During this period, Keith also became active with the Consulting Engineers of BC and the Association of Canadian Engineering Consultants (ACEC), ultimately becoming President of both organizations in 1990 and 1994, respectively. In addition, he became very active with the CGS in Vancouver, being on the organizing committee for CGS Conferences held in Vancouver every decade through 2002 and the SMFE Pan American
conference in 1983, where at least 12 postgrad students who attended Illinois were reunited with Dr. Peck. He attended most of the annual CGS conferences until he slowed his work schedule about 15 years ago, but is still active with VGS meetings.
During his time in South Africa, Keith got to know the Principals of Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (SRK). In 1988, after much discussion, he merged forces with Andy Robertson to bolster the emerging SRK office in Vancouver. SRK was focused on the mining industry, while SRK-Robinson maintained a civil geotechnical practice to continue to service Keith’s long-
Site inspection, Philippines 1971
Representing ACEC in Brazil 1994 with Prime Minister Chretien
Inspecting shoreline erosion in Maui before revetment design and construction in 1988
standing local, development, and infrastructure clients. Both groups flourished over the next few years with SRK-Robinson ultimately being sold to Jacques Whitford (JW) in 1998. Keith became the Vice President for the geotechnical division of JW’s practice across Canada and the northeast US.
In 2003, Keith joined EBA, the western Canada–based company purchased later by Tetra Tech, to lead their Vancouver geotechnical group and take the technical lead on major projects like Vancouver’s Canada Line through liquefiable soils in Richmond and YVR. With the help of FLAC specialists, he developed a unique, more bending resistant, expanded base pile design that did not require soil densification at each pier location. This saved significant foundation costs and reduced property purchase requirements.
In 2008, at age 68, with a view to cutting back his hours, Keith joined GeoPacific to provide senior review and mentoring of junior staff in a fast-growing consultancy largely serving the development industry. Then in 2018 he was asked by Tetra Tech to rejoin them as a Principal Consultant, working a limited number of hours a week, and providing peer review and guidance as well as his insight into geotechnical risk on projects such as waste dumps, dams, and major infrastructure. Of late, much of his work has been forensic in nature with issues related to pipelines, dams, excavations, and foundations. Keith has been impressed with the level of computational analyses that is now possible using programs such as FLAC and PLAXIS, which allow engineers to model multiple theoretical cases that often confirm the assumptions and more instinctive predictions. Older generations of engineers had to rely on more basic analytical approaches and experience.
Keith, now in his 80s, shows limited signs of slowing down. He still exercises regularly, which he started in 1973 after giving up soccer, although he bikes instead of running now to protect the knees. He and second wife Ruth travel to Europe and Mexico most years, with a fifth grandchild in London. He continues to consult, mentor, and support the next generation of geotechnical engineers. He has recently partnered with The University of British Columbia to fund four new undergraduate prizes, two graduate awards, and an annual field trip and special geotechnical presentation to students. He has provided a financial contribution of $50,000 per year for at least the next 10 years, with
a further estate commitment. He also gives of his time to attend the UBC field trips and engage with the next generation of graduates.
He particularly wants to encourage civil engineers to get involved in the geotechnical field and wants to support students who are not necessarily top of their class academically but have the passion for the subject and are practical in their outlook. Because of the high variability in soil and rock properties, geotechnical engineering requires experience and judgement and an understanding of the empirical relationships in much of the analytical work. Consequently, geotechnical engineering is part science, part art. Keith’s donation should encourage students to see things on the ground, to feel the soil between their fingers, and to see engineering solutions to dam and infrastructure design in person.
The Vancouver Geotechnical Society introduced the VGS Award in 1996. Each year it is bestowed on a member of the society who has contributed in a significant manner to the Vancouver Geotechnical Society and/or the practice of geotechnique or geoenvironmental practice in the Vancouver
area. Keith’s contribution to the practice of geotechnical engineering spans 60 years. His combination of technical knowledge, practicality, innovation, and business acumen has served the community well. He has mentored many within the local community, and his desire to give back to the next generation of budding geotechnical engineers made him an obvious choice for the 2024 VGS Award. Keith was presented with his VGS Award in May 2024 at the 2024 VGS Symposium.
Brian Wilson (brian. wilson@keller-na.com) is the Vice President for Keller Foundations Ltd. in British Columbia, and is based in Langley, BC. Brian is a graduate of The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, and following 10 years working in South Africa, has been active in the Vancouver geotechnical industry in both the consulting and contracting environments for the past 33 years.
VGS Award presentation to Keith by Brian Wilson (author) at the 2024 VGS Symposium
HERITAGE
Valérie Fréchette, Heritage Editor
Alexandre Collin is an unknown geotechnical pioneer and has written an unprecedented book in 1846 (yes!) on the landslides in clay. This book, written in French and translated by W.R. Schriever with the assistance of J.P. Carrière and R.F. Legget, has a prosaic style, far from the scientific papers of this day, containing some expressions such as “against the power of the Creator” (contre la puissance du Créateur). Doug’s article highlights how Collin developed his book from observations of landslides (mouvements spontanés) during the construction of the Burgundy Canal (1833–1840) and the colossal task of translating it.
Introduction
In 1846 (yes, 1846!), Alexandre Collin (1808–1890), a Parisian École Polytechniquetrained canal engineer, published a 168-page book (plus an “Atlas” of 21 figures) entitled Recherches Expérimentales sur les Glissements Spontanés des Terrains Argileux, accompagnées de considérations sur Quelques Principes de la Mécanique Terrestre [Experimental Research on Landslides in Clay Strata accompanied by considerations on Several Principles of Soil Mechanics]. In 1956, W.R. (Bill) Schriever of the Division of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada (DRB), published an English translation of Collin’s work, published by the University of Toronto Press. For the English translation, the title was simplified to Landslides in Clay. This translation
Landslides in Clay by Alexandre
Collin 1846
Translated by W.R. Schriever with the assistance of J.P. Carrière, R.F. Legget and D.H. MacDonald; with a chapter by A.W. Skempton
helped bring this, then 110-year-old, document to the attention of the Englishspeaking geotechnical world and, indeed, brought it out of obscurity for the Frenchspeaking geotechnical world as well.
How the English translation came about is an intriguing tale. It involves R.F. (Robert) Legget, then Director of the DRB in Ottawa, A.W. (Alec) Skempton, a professor at Imperial College in London, and obviously Schriever and several other interesting individuals. The foreword to the English translation, written by Legget, relates this tale. Legget’s foreword is followed by a chapter written by Skempton on the geotechnical significance of Collin’s work and a little about Collin himself.
This Canadian Geotechnique article summarizes Legget’s foreword and Skempton’s chapter. It also provides brief descriptions of the characters involved in, and some current sources of, the translation.
Legget’s 1956 Foreword
The following summarizes Legget’s foreword to the 1956 English translation using, as much as possible, his voice.
“Alexandre Collin is a name almost unknown in civil engineering. Anyone who reads Collin’s book, however, will realize that he was one of the pioneers of the profession, a leader in the study of soil mechanics, almost a century before soil mechanics was recognized. The fact that Collin published his book with the words “Mécanique
Doug VanDine for the CGS Heritage Committee
Terrestre” [Earth Mechanics] in the title is a clue to the extent of his early investigations into soil being considered as an engineering material.
My own interest in Collin was stirred in the mid1930s during my writing of the text Geology and Engineering [published by McGraw-Hill, 1939]. When researching documents associated with the topic of landslides, I examined the Report of the Committee of the [US] Natural Academy of Science on the Panama Canal, published in 1924. A footnote, which appears in Appendix XX of that report, first brought Collin’s book to my attention.
I could not help being attracted by the title and the date of publication. I initially thought the date was a misprint for 1896, but the date was confirmed. A search for a copy was started. Eventually, after the publication of my text, and with assistance from the Canadian Consulate in Paris, Collin’s book was found in France’s Bibliothèque Nationale. Arrangements for a copy were made but, unfortunately, my letter reached Paris the day before the Germans entered the city [June 14, 1940]. This seemed to be the end of my potential interesting technical inquiry.
Shortly afterwards, on a different topic, I was speaking with S.C. (Soloman) Hollister, Dean of Engineering of Cornell University, in Ithaca, NY. [Legget, at that time, was a junior faculty member in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Toronto.] During our discussions, I mentioned Collin’s work, and the bad luck I had in obtaining a copy. The dean remembered that Cornell has one of the finest collections of French literature outside Paris and, although Collin’s book is technical, not literature, Hollister made an inquiry of the university’s librarian. He
was delighted to find there was a copy of Collin’s book in perfect condition in the Cornell library. He arranged for a copy to be made and I received it in late 1940. As soon as I examined the book, its unusual value became apparent.
By this time, however, the war had developed a grim intensity and so all thought of further research on Collin’s book had to be put aside until 1945. That year, I discussed translating the book into English with my friend Colonel J-P. (Jean-Paul) Carrière (then Chief Engineer of the Canadian Army in France). On his return to Canada, Colonel Carrière started the actual work of translation, with me helping where I could. Progress was slow because of the complexities of those immediate post-war years. Colonel Carrière returned to his civilian post with the Department of Public Works, Canada, and in 1947, I left the University of Toronto, having been invited to establish the Division of Building Research within the National Research Council, in Ottawa.
With these changes and new responsibilities, it proved impossible to continue with the translation and so no progress was made until 1950. By that time, my small DBR staff had developed to such an extent that one member, W.R. Schriever, was assigned to work in Toronto as Research Engineer on the first subway of the Toronto Transit Commission. Schriever, a trilingual Swiss-Canadian, suggested that he might take up the task of translation, if time could be found from his research duties on the subway. Gradually, he was able to do so and, in association with D.H. (Don) MacDonald of the TTC engineering staff, he had completed about three-quarters of the translation by the time he returned to Ottawa in 1952.
By this time, it had become evident that the value of Collin’s work exceeded even preliminary anticipations. I therefore urged Schriever to complete his translation, and time at the DBR was made available for this. The first translation was completed in 1953.
As the task of translating progressed, some difficulties became evident. Much of Collin’s original text was written in a more French literary style of the mid-1800s, with some of the sentences extending for most of a page. Many of the words were quite unfamiliar. The first translation was merely a literal translation with little regard to the actual meaning. Accordingly, a second translation had to be made to ensure the English translation was accurate in meaning to the French original and in readable English. It was to this task that Schriever and I directed our attention, when time permitted during 1954 and early 1955. The task was unusually tedious and time-consuming, but eventually completed.
This tale has a further international flavour. When in the office of L.F. (Len) Cooling, Head of the Soil Mechanics Section of the British Building Research Station in 1951, I noticed a paper bearing the name of Alexandre Collin by A.W. Skempton, a professor at Imperial College. Skempton, in connection with his research in the history of engineering, had investigated Collin’s life and work, and described this in a paper to the Newcomen Society in 1946. [The Newcomen Society is now known as the International Society for the History of Engineering and Technology.] When Skempton heard that Collin’s work was being translated, he agreed to prepare a brief chapter on Collin, with an assessment of the significance of Collin’s book, for inclusion with the translation.
[Written in French at the end of Legget’s foreword] It is appropriate that this translation took place in Canada, a country with two languages. We hope that it further strengthens the links that exist between those who speak French and those who speak English.”
The chapter that Skempton contributed to the 1956 English translation is based on his 1946 Newcomen Society paper, “Alexandre Collin, 1808–1890, Pioneer in Soil Mechanics”, Transactions of the Newcomen Society, v. 25, 1946, pp. 91–103, and a similar paper he published in Geotechnique, “Alexandre Collin, a note on his Pioneer Work in Soil Mechanics”, v. 1, no. 4, 1949, pp. 215–222. Skempton’s 1956 chapter is titled “Alexandre Collin (1808–1890) and his Pioneer Work in Soil Mechanics”.
It is assumed, because Skempton wrote his first two papers on Collin and the significance of Collin’s work to slope stability, prior to the English translation being published, that Skempton was relatively fluent in, at least, the reading of French. The following is a direct quote from the introduction to Skempton‘s chapter to the 1956 English translation.
Skempton’s 1956 Chapter
Alec Skempton (source (UK) Geological Society)
1956 English translation titlepage, from a copy once owned by Don Shields
“In 1846 Alexandre Collin published his treatise on the stability of clay slopes. This is now recognized as an important pioneer contribution to soil mechanics and also as one of the classics of civil engineering literature. Some idea of the significance of the work can be readily gained when an examination is made of the excellent field data presented by Collin, and when it is realized that this was the first occasion on which the characteristic rotational slips in clay strata had been described accurately. In addition, Collin was the first to measure the shear strength of clay samples and, moreover, he used this strength in an analysis of slope stability.”
Skempton goes on to describe in some detail the geotechnical significance of Collin’s work and puts it very well in historical perspective. Stated very simply, prior to Collin’s work, and afterwards until the early 1900s, it was assumed that the shear strength of all soils relied solely on friction and that clay had an angle of repose.
Skempton’s chapter then summarizes Collin’s life and career. The following is my muchshortened summary of Skempton’s summary.
Collin was born in 1808 in Essoyes, a small village about 250 km southeast of Paris. In 1830, after graduating from École Polytechnique in Paris, he joined the Corps des Ponts et Chaussées and in 1833 he started on the design and construction of the Canal de Bourgogne [Burgundy Canal], a short distance south of Essoyes. It was Collin’s detailed observations and research on the slope failures in clay, associated with construction of this canal, that were the basis of his book. He submitted his first draft in 1840, but because his ideas were radically contrary to those of the day, his draft was rejected. But Collin persevered and his book was finally published in 1846.
In 1850, Collin became Ingénieur en Chef des Ponts et Chaussées. In 1855 he changed jobs and became Ingénieur en Chef de la Loire (the Loire Valley region in central France, known for its vineyards, historic towns, and more than 300 historic chateaux). In 1867, Collin returned to the Corps des Ponts et Chaussées, this time as Inspecteur Général, from which he retired in 1873. He continued to carry out research and write on technical topics, but over time his interests changed to religion and archeology. The year he retired, Collin became President of the Société Archéologique et Historique de l’Orléanais. He died in 1890 in Orléans in the Loire Valley at the age of 81.
Canadian Characters in this Tale of Translation
Robert Legget, late 1940s (upper left) and Bill Schriever (upper right), Jean-Paul Carrière (lower left), and Don MacDonald (lower right) in their later years (various sources)
Robert Legget (1904–1994) immigrated to Canada in 1929, after graduating from the University of Liverpool. He worked in construction and taught at Queen’s University and the University of Toronto before becoming the founding Director of the DBR. He is considered one of the Fathers of Canadian Geotechnique. Bill Schriever (1921–2018) graduated from Arthur Casagrande’s master’s program in soil mechanics at Harvard University in 1948. He spent his entire career with the DBR, eventually focusing his research on buildings and snow loads, becoming Head of the Building Structures Section of the DBR. Jean Paul Carrière (c.1907–?) did not attend university but studied engineering on his own and passed the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec exams to become a professional engineer. Before WWII he worked with the federal Department of Public Works. During
WWII he became a Colonel with the Royal Canadian Engineers. After the war he returned to civilian life and worked as an engineer for several organizations, eventually becoming President of Franki Pile (Canada) Ltd. Don MacDonald (1922-2007) had been a student of Legget’s at the UofT in the mid-1940s, went on to obtain a DIC from Imperial College (as an Athlone Fellow), and a PhD from the University of London in 1953. He eventually became President of H.G. Acres and Company (now a part of Hatch).
Sources of Translation
For those who wish to read Collin’s book for themselves, the original 1846 French version (but without the “Atlas”) is available for free download from Internet Archive (https:// archive.org/details/bub_gb_gR_sEyiE7dAC/ mode/2up).
Finding a copy of Schriever’s 1956 English translation, which includes the “Atlas”, is more difficult. The University of Toronto Press edition is out-of-print; however, at the time of writing (November 2024), several copies are currently available online from Abe Books (https//www.abebooks.com). In the mid1970s, a facsimile, print-on-demand edition of the translation could be purchased from University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI. That publishing company is now part of Clarivate PLC; however, emails to Clarivate, regarding the availability of Landslides in Clay, have gone unanswered.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jim Graham who forwarded me a facsimile copy of Schriever’s 1956 English translation, once owned by Don Shields (a former colleague of Jim’s). Thanks to Scott McDougall who provided a copy of Skempton’s 1949 Geotechnique paper. Thanks also to Valérie Fréchette for correcting my French and Heinrich Heinz for finding information on J-P. Carrière.
Doug VanDine is a retired geotechnical and geological engineer who has a keen interest in the history of Canadian geotechnique. He served as President of the CGS in 2015 and 2016.
Alexandre Collin, from the 1956 English translation
INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING
Pierre Choquet, Instrumentation and Monitoring Editor
In this I&M no. 21, Ivan Rivera and I discuss the push-in pressure cell, which is an interesting instrument with applications in both site investigations and geotechnical monitoring. Although it has been around since 1975, the push-in pressure cell is not very commonly used in North America, despite its relative simplicity and rather straightforward interpretation to evaluate the in-situ coefficient of earth pressure at rest (k0). Please let me know your comments and article suggestions et à bientôt. Pierre
The Push‑In Pressure Cell to Measure Horizontal In‑Situ Stresses in Soils
Ivan
Introduction
The push-in pressure cell, also called spade cell because of its shape, is a robust, low-cost instrument that is relatively easy to install and operate. It is used to measure total earth pressure in a variety of fine-grained soils from soft clays to very stiff clays, as well as in earth fills. In most cases, the push-in pressure cell is installed vertically and is therefore used to measure in-situ horizontal stresses, from which the coefficient of earth pressure at rest k0 (the ratio of the horizontal effective stress to the vertical effective stress) can be determined. The value of k0 is an important input parameter for design of retaining walls, deep foundations, ground improvement, and precast concrete lining for tunnel boring machine (TBM) tunnels in soft soils. It is also a key parameter for numerical modelling to establish the initial stress conditions.
The application of this type of instrument to measure in-situ earth pressures in soft clays was first reported by Massarsch (1975). Tedd et al.’s (1990) report on 10 years of experience using the cell at UK’s Building Research Establishment provides a summary of applications and results from long-term measurements. More recent articles of interest include Richards, Clark et al. (2007a) and Richards, Powrie et al. (2007b). Other methods are also available in geotechnical engineering practice to measure or estimate in-situ total horizontal stress in soils and have been used in the technical literature as comparison and benchmarks to validate/verify field
measurements obtained with push-in pressure cells. They include hydraulic fracturing, the Marchetti flat plate dilatometer, the electric piezocone, and the self-boring pressuremeter.
The push-in pressure cell is a low-cost instrument, relatively easy to install and read, and provides reasonably repeatable results. It is therefore an interesting alternative or a good complement to the other horizontal stress evaluation/estimation methods. Moreover, the push-in pressure cell also offers the option of being removed after the measurement is made or to be left in place for long-term measurements/monitoring, which the other options do not offer.
Description of the push in pressure cell
The push-in pressure cell is available from various geotechnical instrumentation manufacturers. It is similar in its working principle to a total earth pressure cell. It consists of two steel plates welded at the edge and with a thin de-aired hydraulic fluid, usually water–glycol in-between the plates. Instead of being circular as for a total pressure cell, the push-in pressure cell has an elongated shape that makes it suitable for pushing into soft soils. The active part of the cell is about 60 200 mm, and the thickness is about 6 mm (Figure 1). The cell must be designed so that it is thin enough to minimize soil disturbance, but strong enough to survive the push-in action.
Rivera and Pierre Choquet
Figure 1. Photograph and schematic of a typical push-in pressure cell (adapted from RST Instruments Ltd.)
A pore pressure measurement can also be made simultaneously to the earth pressure measurement, as a porous filter is incorporated in front of a small water ingress tube behind the active part of the cell that communicates with a vibrating wire pressure transducer located beside another similar pressure transducer that measures the earth pressure. These transducers are typically vibrating wire or strain gauge. Additionally, current designs incorporate a thermistor that allows monitoring of temperature variations so that field measurements can be corrected for temperature variations. The cell body also includes a thread on the end of the cell to allow for installation using lengths of steel pipes or drill rods, often AW rods. Additionally, a nothread adapter can be provided to push the cell to the desired depth, then pull out the rods.
Installation of the push in pressure cell
Push-in pressure cells are generally installed by first drilling a pilot hole, then pushing the cell 0.5 to 1.0 m beyond the end of the hole to the target depth as shown in Figure 2. The load required to push the instrument into the ground depends on the strength/stiffness of the soil. The cell may be installed for a short time to obtain insight into the total in-situ horizontal stress and pore pressure for design purposes or for a longer period to monitor stress changes caused by construction, ground improvement, tunnel boring or another event.
If the cell is left for the long term or permanently, the push-in rods should be removed and the borehole should be backfilled with grout with a permeability similar to that of surrounding soils so that the pore pressure measurements will be representative of groundwater conditions at the depth of installation. It is interesting to note that the embedded instrument becomes a dual-use instrument that will provide in the long term the horizontal pressure changes as well as the pore pressure changes. Hence, it allows in-situ measurement of the horizontal effective stress.
Over read and interpretation of the push in pressure cell
The installation of a full-displacement probe into the ground, such as the push-in spade cell, generates stresses and pore water pressure increments in the surrounding soil due to imposed strains. Due to an initial undrained loading, the penetration of the spade cell into saturated fine-grained soil generates high excess pore-water pressure and shear stresses locally around the probe. This is followed by a period when the excess pore-water pressure dissipates after penetration is halted. After full dissipation of
Figure 2. Installation of the push-in pressure cell at the bottom of a pilot hole (adapted from Tedd et al. 1990)
Figure 3. Correlation between over reading and s u for spade-shaped pressure cells (adapted from Tedd and Charles 1983)
excess pore-water pressure there might then be a third phase in which stress relaxation takes place without any changes in pore water pressures (Tedd, et al., 1990). In saturated fine-grained soils dissipation of these excess pressures requires a long period (up to a week) before the cell readings reach equilibrium. In this context the push-in pressure cell provides an in-situ measurement of the reconsolidation lateral stress after installation effects have reached equilibrium. When installed vertically, these reconsolidation stresses correspond to the in situ total horizontal stress.
Tedd and Charles (1983) were the first ones in studying the relation between the push-in spade-shaped cell over-read and soil stiffness in clay soils. They suggested that the extra stress or over-read, due to pushing the cell into the ground, could be estimated using the theory of elasticity. They also proposed a theoretical solution to estimate the additional stress caused by pushing the pressure cell into the soil based on the undrained Young’s modulus (E u) and Poisson’s ratio (n) of the soil and width(b)/thickness(d) of the blade.
Tedd and Charles (1983) pointed out that it was not practicable to derive a representative E u value from standard laboratory tests due to the complex stress path followed by the soil caused by the insertion of a spade-shaped cell. They overcame the problem on the spade cell over-read in firm to very stiff clays, by suggesting an empirical correlation between values of the amount by which spade cells with d/b = 0.05 had over-read plotted against the undrained shear strength (s u) of the soil (Figure 3). The use of s u to represent soil deformation was based upon the fact that clay stiffness was often related to s u and it was the most commonly determined engineering parameter (Tedd and Charles, 1983).
Tedd et al. (1990) compiled various comparative horizontal stress measurement results between push-in pressure cells, selfboring pressuremeter, and flat dilatometer tests and they have produced the correlation between the undrained shear strength s u and the over-read of push-in pressure cells shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 shows considerable scatter that can be attributed to a combination of variability of the stress in the ground, the repeatability of the pressure cell measurements, and variability in the measurement of s u. Nevertheless, most of the measurements indicate that the push-in pressure cell does over-read by a significant amount in firm and stiff clays and a correction of 0.5 s u generally improves the lateral stress measurement, while the over-read appears to be minimal for soft clays and can be ignored.
Figure 5 shows additional correlations by Ryley and Carder (1995) with results for very stiff clays. Rivera (2009) has compiled the data from both Figures 4 and 5 as well as other similar data also available from published literature to produce a more complete database of correlations between s u and overread (see Figure 6).
The selection of a logarithmic scale rather than linear in the horizontal axis in Figure 6 is to increase the detail in the area of low values of undrained shear strength (s u < 40 kPa). There was a considerable scatter in the data reported that could be attributed to a combination of variability of the in-situ stress, reproducibility of the push-in pressure cell measurements,
Figure 5. Correlations between s u and over-read of push-in pressure cells installed in very stiff clays (adapted from Ryley and Carder 1995)
Figure 4 . Correlations between s u and over-read of push-in pressure cells (adapted from Tedd et al. 1990)
errors associated with the “true benchmark horizontal stress reading”, and variability of the method used to measure su. Moreover, this dataset suggests that the push-in pressure cell over-read appears to be more variable and significant in firm to stiff clays than in soft to very soft clays. Hence, Figure 6 suggests that a correction of 0.5s u to the total horizontal stress measurement from a push-in pressure cell in fine grained soils with s u < 40kPa might provide a good initial estimate of the magnitude of over-read due to installation effects. Figure 6 also shows that the magnitude of the over-read in firm to very stiff clays appears to be higher than 0.5s u and site specific, hence requiring local calibration. Though, a good understanding of local geology and stress history of the soil deposit are required to assess whether horizontal stresses are representative of in-situ conditions.
As shown in Figure 6, fine grained soils with s u between 70 and 150 kPa fall within the shaded area limited by the 0.3s u and 0.8s u lines. Therefore, this dataset suggests that a correction of 0.5s u might also be appropriate in firm to stiff clays with 70 kPa ≤ s u ≤ 150 kPa.
Figure 7. Push-in pressure cell results in a high-plasticity silt before and during concrete inclusion reinforcement and embankment construction
(from Rangel-Núñez et al. 2019)
Figure 6. Correlation between s u and over-read for push-in pressure cells installed in various soils (compiled by Rivera 2009)
Typical results from the push in pressure cell
Figure 7 illustrates results from two push-in pressure cells installed at depths of 5 and 9 m in a high-plasticity silt with unit weight of 12 kN/m3, s u = 30 kPa and E u = 4.9 MPa. The push-in pressure cells were installed as part of a monitoring program to compare the surface settlements after construction of two 1.5 m high test embankments supported on soil with and without rigid inclusions within the silt formation in the foundation strata. The 30 cm diameter, 9 m long rigid inclusions were installed in an alternating pattern with centre-to-centre spacing (S) of 2.5 m using a low disturbance installation method (Rangel-Núñez et al. 2019). The two push-in pressure cells were installed at equal distance in-between two rigid inclusions.
Figure 7 shows pore pressure and horizontal total pressure evolution before and during installation of the rigid inclusions and fill placement for embankment construction. One of the conclusions of the monitoring program was that superficial settlements were reduced by only 13% when reinforcing the subsoil with rigid inclusions installed with S equal to eight times the inclusion diameter (S = 8D). Field data indicated that this spacing was too large for effective settlement reduction. Figure 7 also shows that the pore-water pressure and the total horizontal total stress were not modified considerably due to construction. During fill placement, the excess pore pressure increased as fill placement progressed, suggesting undrained loading as the embankment load was transferred to the soil strata at depth.
It can also be seen in Figure 7 that both pressures stabilize fairly rapidly after installation of rigid inclusions. The horizontal total pressure values were not corrected for
any over-read in this case because of the very low s u values of the silt deposit. The horizontal pressure values measured with the push-pressure cells were also interpreted to estimate in-situ stress conditions. Field measurements indicated k0 = 0.59 and this value was used for numerical back-analysis of the observed behaviour.
Concluding remarks
This article highlights the application of the push-in pressure cell to measure horizontal in situ total stresses in fine-grained soils ranging from very soft to very stiff consistency. It also shows that it is a relatively easy to implement field measurement method for both short term and long-term monitoring. A push-in pressure cell also provides the additional advantage, as compared to other in situ stress determination methods, to include a pore pressure measurement at the same depth, hence allowing measurement of in-situ effective stresses.
References
Massarsch, K.R. 1975. New method of measurement of lateral earth pressure in cohesive soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 12(1): 142–146.
Rangel-Núñez, J.L., Almanza-Hernández, F., Flores-Eslava, R., Cruz-López, L.A., IbarraRazo, E., and Rivera-Cruz, I. 2017. Behavior of an embankment built on a very soft soil deposit with and without rigid inclusions: monitoring and numerical modeling. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul 2017.
Richards, D.J., Clark, J., Powrie, W., and Heymann, G. 2007a. Performance of push-in pressure cells in overconsolidated clay. Geotechnical Engineering, 160(GE1; January): 31–41.
Richards, D.J., Powrie, W., Roscoe, H., and Clark, J. 2007b. Pore water pressure and horizontal stress changes measured during construction of a contiguous bored pile multi-propped retaining wall in Lower Cretaceous clays. Géotechnique, 57(2): 197–205.
Rivera Cruz, I. 2009. Literature survey of the push-in pressure cell. Unpublished white paper. To be published in 2026.
Tedd, P., and Charles, J.A. 1983. Evaluation of push-in pressure cells results in stiff clay. In Proceedings of the International SymposiumReconnaissance des Sols et des Roches par Essais en Place. Paris, France. pp. 579–584.
Tedd, P., Powell, J.J., Charles, J.A., and Uglow, I.M. 1990. In situ measurement of earth pressures using push-in spade-shaped pressure cells – 10 years’ experience. In Geotechnical Instrumentation in Practice, Thomas Telford Ltd., London, pp. 701–715. ISBN: 072771515.
Ivan Rivera (ivan. rivera@wsp.com) is a Senior Geotechnical Engineer with WSP in Vancouver, BC.
Pierre Choquet (pchoquet@ rstinstruments.com) is Technical Advisor for Orica Geosolutions (RST Instruments, Measurand, 3vGeomatics, Syscom Instruments, NavStar, and GroundProbe) and Vice-President Market Development, RST Instruments in Vancouver, BC.
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
Seán Mac Eoin, Professional Practice Editor
My first introduction to this topic of taboo words was in the late 1980s reading articles by the Associated Soil and Foundations Engineers (ASFE), now the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). It impressed me how much our words matter, how easy it is to slip into vague language, and how important it is to clearly communicate what we know and, sometimes more importantly, what we don’t. A version of this article appeared in ASFE communications many years ago and was recently published in the American Society of Civil Engineers magazine GeoStrata. John and ASCE graciously agreed to let CGS reprint it for our Canadian audience. If you are interested in limiting your professional liability, improving your practice and better understanding of how words matter, see what else the GBA has to offer. Storer Boone, Chair, Professional Practice Committee
The Geocurmudgeon:
100 Words and Phrases Not to Use in Instruments of Professional Service
John Philip Bachner
IMAGINE THIS: A representative of a client, constructor, or other party is upset with your firm, has made that upset known, has given you a chance to explain, but still reduces your fee or eliminates it entirely to “settle” the matter. You, insulted and angry, refuse to bend (typically because the representative has confused disappointment [e.g., “Where’d all these rocks come from that I have to pay to have removed? How could you have missed them?”] with negligence), the representative’s next step is to retain an attorney. The attorney’s first billable hours go to reviewing all project-related paperwork the representative has available; e.g., the proposal submitted to obtain the commission, the geotechnical-engineering study report, and project-related correspondence in the form (typically) of emails and texts. The attorney’s goal is to identify something you or another representative of your firm wrote and later wished could be undone because it could be construed as misleading, ambiguous, or otherwise worthy of a claim and, with luck, a juicy settlement. Key among the possible written culprits are subjective modifiers (adjectives and adverbs) and subjective phrases. “What are they?” you ask. Typically, they’re words and phrases that characterize things that should instead be quantified.
In one instance, I was reviewing a constructionquality-management report whose author noted that the paving constructor had installed “a thin, six-inch lift of asphalt.” The writing was far from sinful, but it was silly, given that the author had both characterized the lift (“thin”) and quantified it (“six-inch”). Why the characterization? What purpose did “thin” serve? Did it somehow differentiate the “thin, six-inch lift” from a “chubby, six-inch lift”? Realistically, the writer was guilty of verbal sloppiness, but that’s it. Had the person written “thin lift” without the “six-inch” quantification, problems could have ensued. (“If I had known it was a six-inch lift, I never would have approved acceptance of the work. Why didn't you tell me?”)
Similarly, I’ve often seen the truly venomous characterization “several” accompanied by a quantification to define the writer’s intent; e.g., “In several (10) areas... ” Feasibly, someone reading such pointless redundancy might have thought, “I always use ‘several’ for three or more, but not 10.” But that’s not at all the point. Or is it? Actually, it is, because the problem with subjective modifiers and phrases lies in the word “subjective.” The writer and reader both know what “several” means in general, but the writer’s “several” might be eight, while the reader’s might be four;
i.e., the quantified definition is established independently by the writer and reader, creating ambiguity and miscommunication.
One of the very first case histories I prepared for ASFE (now GBA) involved a young geotechnical engineer who had started his own firm in Atlanta, Ga. In his geotechnical-engineeringstudy report, he noted that the client’s site was underlain by “a number of boulders at the 12-ft level.”“A number of.” Hmmmm. I bet that’s a phrase you’ve heard a lot or, possibly, used a lot yourself. (How much is “a lot,” by the way?) Regardless, “a number of” is, in fact, a 100-percent-pure subjective phrase, given that the number involved could be infinitely small all the way up to infinitely large. In this instance, a representative of the excavation constructor that won the bid submitted a $500,000 change order, because, he said, the actual quantity of rock was far more than what the geotechnical
engineer had implied by using the term “a number of.” Needless to say, the geotechnical engineer went ballistic and consulted an attorney. The attorney told him that, because he was a learned technical professional, he needed to be accurate and precise. To be that he needed to quantify; he didn't. “A number of” was merely a characterization, and a highly ambiguous – and costly – one at that. The client offered to settle the dispute for $500,000, the change-order cost. Ultimately, the client agreed to $75,000, because the geotechnical engineer was uninsured. [Note: All monetary sums are given in 2024 U.S. dollars.]
The moral of that and many other cases is this: In those instances when you or a colleague
or mentoree is tempted to use a word like “several” or a phrase like “a number of” because you cannot be accurate, don’t try to hide or sugar-coat that fact through subjective weaselwording. Far better, e.g.: “We cannot be certain about the extent of the peat deposit in the northeast segment of the site. We will need to conduct additional sampling to quantify the area and depths involved. At your direction, we will prepare a proposal that presents four alternative sampling regimens for your consideration.”
Do not use, or use only with awareness and extreme care, any of the 100 subjective words and phrases I’ve listed. Not in your reports, proposals, and contracts, and not in any other instruments of professional
service, like emails, texts, or other forms of correspondence. (Note: The 100 subjective words and phrases I’ve listed comprise just some of [?!] those that geotechnical engineers need to be wary of. I don’t how many more exist, but I would be pleased to submit a proposal to conduct the additional research that, in my semiprofessional opinion, would be required to identify as many as 100 more.). Also note: Subjective words and phrases are not at all the only words and phrases geotechnical engineers should regard as taboo, including absolutes such as all, every, none, always, never, perfect, ideal, and empty, among many others.
And now, without additional ado, the 100.
A bit Extremely Minuscule Several A few Few More or less Short
A large amount of Frequent Most Short-term
A large number of Frequently Much Significant A little General Multiple Small A lot of Generally Narrow Some A number of Hard Not many Somewhat A quantity of Hardly any Not much Stacks of A small amount of Heavy Numerous Standard A small number of Hot Occasional Steep Abundant Huge Occasionally Strong Actually Hundreds of Often Substantial Awfully Immense Oftentimes Tall Big Imposing Ordinarily Temporary Brief In many cases Ordinary Thick Common Infrequent Quite Thin Commonly Innumerable Rare Tiny Considerable Large Rarely Uncommon Countless Largely Rather Usual Customarily Light Really Usually Dozens of Little Regular Various Dry Long Regularly Very Especially Long-lasting Scarce Wet Exceptionally Long-term Seldom Wide Extensively Many Seldomly With few exceptions
So there you have it: My hazardous hundred, the avoidance of which is far easier said than done. We all (yours truly not excepted) use these subjective words and phrases so commonly/mindlessly in our personal, dayto-day communication, it’s all too easy to use them accidentally/carelessly in what we write, and to not recognize them as hazardous when we review. Remember, too, the legal professionals’ axiom, “The best evidence is what’s in writing.” Best for whom? That just may be up to you.
John Philip Bachner (john@bachner.com) is an independent consultant who has been working with geoprofessionals since 1969. He is the author of some 300 books, manuals, and guides, many of which he’s focused on professional-liability-loss prevention. He is the creator of “Write Right,” “Hassle-Free Selling for Project Managers,” and other “BackYard Seminars” he has presented to some 50,000 geoprofessionals. Most recently, he is the author of Practice Management for Design and Environmental Professionals and GBA’s and Terra Insurance Company’s Contract Reference Guide, Edition 4
Spotlight On Young Professors: A Passion for Teaching and Research
The CGS Education Committee is delighted to present a series of interviews featuring recently appointed professors, where they share their insights into teaching geotechnical subjects to undergraduate students and highlight key areas of research interest. In this interview, we talk with Erdrick Leandro Pérez González, Associate Professor at Université Laval (ULaval) in Quebec City.
The interview was conducted in October 2024 by Andries Kirstein, David Evans, Alexandre Almeida, Owen Jiang, and Cheng Lin
INTERVIEWEE INTRODUCTION
Erdrick Pérez González is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering and Water Engineering at ULaval in Quebec City. Originally from Venezuela, Erdrick obtained his civil engineering degree from the Universidad Nacional Experimental Francisco de Miranda in 2008 and a Master’s in applied computer science from the Universidad del Zulia in 2014. In 2015, he conducted a research project at the National Laboratory of Materials and Structural Models of the University of Costa Rica, developing a permanent deformation model to evaluate the residual life of pavements using non-destructive testing. Erdrick completed his doctorate at ULaval in 2021, with his research focusing on quantifying the impact of superheavy vehicles on pavements. During his doctoral research, Erdrick contributed to developing i3CME and i3CSHL, software for the mechanical–empirical design and analysis of flexible pavements. After completing his PhD, Erdrick continued to work at ULaval, completing a postdoc and working as an engineering researcher. Erdrick is participating in a research chair funded by NSERC and Hydro-Québec about the life-cycle optimization of embankment dams (CRIBAR). Erdrick has over 25 publications covering geomaterials and geostructures subjected to vehicular loading and is an active member of the CGS.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
CGS Education Committee: What attracted you to the geotechnical field?
Erdrick Pérez González: I once heard that the best engineers are needed where resources
are scarce, and this idea resonated with me deeply. Coming from a developing country, I was drawn to the challenge of analyzing and predicting the behaviour of variable materials like soil and granular matter, often with only minimal data at hand. In Venezuela, we didn’t always have the luxury of detailed information, so I quickly learned the importance of making informed decisions based on essential principles and sound judgment.
Now, as a professor at ULaval, with access to state-of-the-art laboratories and equipment, my focus is on making advanced analyses and methods applicable to routine geotechnical practice. My goal is to bridge the gap between high-level research and practical applications.
This has motivated me to continually deepen my understanding of material behaviour, which keeps me excited to explore new avenues in this field.
CGSEC: Why did you choose to become an educator in the geotechnical field?
EPG: My decision was driven by a deep interest in the field and a genuine desire to share it with others. Geotechnical engineering is a field of constant discovery, where the complexity of soils and earth materials pushes us to create innovative, resilient solutions. I try to optimize my methods to ensure students not only learn effectively but also feel inspired by geotechnics. Seeing that moment when a concept ‘clicks’ for students is a truly gratifying
experience and one of the key reasons I pursued a career in education. My goal is to foster a supportive learning environment that may even encourage some students to pursue careers in the field and contribute to the next generation of geotechnicians. An additional benefit is that teaching is one of the best ways to deepen one’s own understanding, because it requires clarity and a mastery of the subject.
CGSEC: What are your favourite geotechnical topics to research and to teach?
EPG: In teaching, one of my favourite topics is consolidation. For me, this topic forms the foundation of soil mechanics. Introducing students to Terzaghi’s pioneering work and how fundamental theories can solve real-world problems that were previously unsolvable analytically is really rewarding.
In research, one of the topics I have been working on for the past few years is understanding the behaviour of geomaterials under unconventional loading conditions that were not considered in the design phase of a project. For example, I have studied the impact of heavy vehicles on embankment dams, which were designed to retain water and withstand seismic forces but were not designed to accommodate vehicular loads. I have also investigated the
effects of superheavy vehicles on pavements and embankments that were designed for standard heavy-vehicle loads. As part of my role as a CRIBAR Research Chair, I am also exploring new research directions, including characterizing the dynamic response of embankment dams and the effects of anisotropy in various soils and geomaterials.
This work has allowed me to bridge the gap between theoretical principles and full-scale practical testing. I am fortunate to work with several students on these projects, which not only advances the state of knowledge in general, but also allows me to grow alongside them in these exciting areas.
CGSEC: What teaching tools do you find most effective in helping students understand geotechnical concepts?
EPG: I find that visualization tools and hands-on learning experiences are invaluable for teaching geotechnical concepts. Using modelling software to simulate soil behaviour or analyzing real-world case studies allows students to see the practical applications of theoretical concepts, which is central to their development as future engineers. Though traditional by today’s standards, I think tools like these have a lasting impact on students’ understanding and retention. Although preparing and refining these materials often requires several iterations
to ensure they resonate, I believe they are essential to making the learning experience more engaging and memorable.
CGSEC: How do you teach students about the connection between academia and practice?
EPG: I use two main strategies in my classes. First, I incorporate project-based learning, where students work on solving real-world problems, often drawn from case studies related to my industrial collaborations. This approach allows students to tackle challenges similar to those they’ll encounter in their careers, applying classroom principles to realistic scenarios. Second, I invite guest speakers from industry to present their experiences and insights. I schedule these talks at the end of each major topic to reinforce how the concepts we’ve covered are directly applicable in the field.
CGSEC: What numerical tools do you think are becoming more important for undergraduate students to learn?
EPG: Finite element analysis and soil–structure interaction tools are becoming indispensable for undergraduates to learn, because these are widely used in practice. It’s important to introduce students not only to the tools themselves but also to the underlying logic and principles that guide their use. Doing so
GE0-INTEREST ensures they can critically interpret simulation results and understand how to make them representative of real-world conditions.
Additionally, familiarity with basic coding skills and with data analysis and interpretation is now essential. These skills enable students to handle complex scenarios and large datasets, which are increasingly common in our field.
CGSEC: What topics do you think should have a stronger emphasis in our undergraduate curricula?
EPG: I believe resilience engineering, sustainability, and risk assessment deserve stronger emphasis in our undergraduate curricula. Because climate change and increased loading demands are placing new pressures on infrastructure, it is crucial for students to understand how geostructures must adapt to these evolving conditions. There is also a growing demand for sustainable practices. As infrastructure projects increasingly aim to reduce environmental impact, geotechnical engineers will be tasked with integrating sustainable materials and methods into their designs.
CGSEC: What role do you think rapidly developing technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual/ augmented reality (VR/AR) might have in the future of geotechnical teaching?
EPG: We are approaching a time when these technologies will be adopted in regular practice, potentially creating a shift as significant as the adoption of finite element methods. AI has the potential to transform predictive modeling in geotechnics, equipping students and professionals with tools to make more precise predictions about soil and structural behaviour. This capability could vastly improve our ability to address uncertainty in design and analysis. Meanwhile, VR and AR offer groundbreaking opportunities for immersive learning, such as visualizing subsurface conditions or taking virtual tours of geotechnical sites. These tools make abstract concepts more accessible and give students hands-on experiences that are difficult to achieve in a traditional classroom setting.
CGSEC: Having academic experience in both North America and South America, what are some lessons that North American universities can learn from those abroad, and vice versa?
EPG: The first point to recognize is that North American and South American universities operate within distinct social, professional, and
labour contexts, so their academic approaches are naturally shaped to address regional needs. Each region has unique strengths from which the other can learn.
North American institutions could benefit from the practical focus often emphasized in South American programs, where hands-on fieldwork plays a central role. For example, during a foundation course, it is common to visit active construction sites where drilling and sampling are taking place, or to observe pile installation and construction processes. This approach encourages students to apply theoretical knowledge in real-world settings and to develop a deep understanding of local challenges early in their careers.
In contrast, North American universities are distinguished by their access to advanced laboratory facilities, which are not as readily available in South America. For example, at ULaval we have devices that simulate internal erosion in granular materials, equipment for the study of sensitive clays, a hollow cylinder torsional shear device, and a near full-scale heavy vehicle simulator. Such high-level laboratory tools are characteristic of many North American institutions, each of which has its own specific strengths. This allows for cutting-edge research and offers students the opportunity to perform advanced experimental work that may not be feasible elsewhere. Greater access to such tools could amplify the impact of South American research and facilitate collaboration on global issues.
CGSEC: Who are your past and/or current mentors and influences?
EPG: Like many in geotechnics, I’ve been greatly influenced by the foundational work of early geotechnical pioneers such as Terzaghi and Casagrande. Their problem-solving approach and commitment to advancing our understanding of soil behaviour continue to inspire me.
I owe much to Prof. Freddy Sanchez Naveda from Falcón, Venezuela. His research on transportation geotechnics and expansive clays – a significant issue in Coro, my hometown – was highly influential. Prof. Sanchez-Naveda was a student of Dr. Leonardo Zeevaert, a student of and collaborator with Terzaghi, making him, in a way, my direct link to those ‘first masters’ of geotechnics. His support and guidance when I began my academic journey were invaluable, and I greatly respect his professional and personal dedication.
In Canada, I have been fortunate to work with several mentors who have deeply influenced my path. Prof. Guy Doré, my PhD supervisor, provided the guidance and encouragement that helped me progress toward my current role, and Prof. Jean Côté, head of the CRIBAR, who has been my primary mentor in this new chapter as a university professor. They have inspired me through their professional expertise, kindness, and genuine commitment to supporting others.
CGSEC: How long have you been teaching and conducting research in your career and at ULaval as a professor?
EPG: I began my position as a professor in the Department of Civil and Water Engineering at ULaval in December 2022, so I’ve been in this role for nearly two years. Prior to that, I completed my PhD, postdoc, and worked as a research engineer at ULaval, giving me over seven years of experience with the institution.
Before coming to Canada, I was a professor at the Universidad Nacional Experimental Francisco de Miranda in Venezuela, from 2009 to 2016. Starting my academic career early gave me valuable teaching experience, but transitioning to a professorship at ULaval felt like a fresh start. While the core concepts remain the same, the student backgrounds, cultural context, and language differ, which has inspired me to continually refine my teaching approach.
CGSEC: What have you learned about yourself through teaching?
EPG: Teaching has taught me a great deal about patience and adaptability. I have discovered how much I enjoy breaking down complex concepts into manageable parts, and I have found that students grasp ideas more effectively when theory is linked to practical applications. Teaching has also strengthened my commitment to continuous learning: students’ questions often inspire me to delve deeper into topics or consider new perspectives.
One of the most valuable lessons I have learned through teaching is that it is not just about delivering information but about creating an environment where students feel comfortable engaging, asking questions, and learning from mistakes as they grow into future engineers. This experience has taught me to listen closely, remain open to different ways of thinking, and adapt my approach to meet students’ needs.
Pleins feux sur les jeunes professeurs : Une passion pour l’enseignement et la recherche
Le Comité sur l’éducation de la SCG est ravi de présenter une série d’entrevues mettant en vedette des professeurs nommés récemment dans lesquelles ils nous font part de leurs réflexions sur l’enseignement de la géotechnique aux étudiants de premier cycle, ainsi que de leurs principaux domaines d’intérêt pour la recherche. Aujourd’hui, nous nous entretenons avec Erdrick Leandro Pérez González, professeur agrégé à l’Université Laval de Québec.
Andries Kirstein, David Evans, Alexandre Almeida, Owen Jiang et Cheng Lin ont réalisé cette entrevue en octobre 2024.
PRÉSENTATION DE L’INTERVIEWÉ
Erdrick Pérez González est professeur agrégé au Département de génie civil et de génie des eaux de l’Université Laval à Québec. Originaire du Venezuela, M. Pérez-González a obtenu un baccalauréat en génie civil à l’Universidad Nacional Experimental Francisco de Miranda en 2008, et une maîtrise en informatique appliquée à l’Universidad del Zulia en 2014. En 2015, il a mené un projet de recherche au Laboratoire national des matériaux et des modèles structurels de l’Université du Costa Rica qui lui a permis de mettre au point un modèle de déformation permanente pour évaluer la durée de vie résiduelle des chaussées à l’aide d’essais non destructifs. En 2021, il a terminé son doctorat à l’Université Laval en effectuant des recherches axées sur la quantification de l’impact des véhicules super-lourds sur les chaussées. Au cours de sa recherche au doctorat, il a contribué à la mise au point de logiciels pour la conception et l’analyse mécanistes empiriques de chaussées flexibles (i3CME et i3CSHL). Après son doctorat, il est demeuré à l’Université Laval, où il a effectué un stage postdoctoral et a travaillé comme ingénieur-chercheur. Actuellement, il fait partie de la Chaire de recherche industrielle CRSNG –Hydro-Québec sur l’optimisation du cycle de vie des barrages en remblai (CRIBAR). Membre actif de la SCG, M. Pérez-González a publié plus de 25 articles scientifiques sur les géomatériaux et les géostructures soumis à des charges véhiculaires.
QUESTIONS DE L’ENTREVUE
Comité sur l’éducation de la SCG : Qu’est ce qui vous a attiré dans le secteur géotechnique?
Erdrick Pérez González : Un jour, j’ai entendu dire que la demande en ingénieurs qualifiés était particulièrement criante dans les régions où les ressources sont rares. Ce constat m’avait fortement interpellé. Étant originaire d’un pays en voie de développement, le défi que constitue l’analyse et la prédiction du comportement de matériaux variables, comme le sol et les matières granulaires, souvent avec un minimum de données m’a attiré. Au Venezuela, nous n’avions pas toujours le luxe d’avoir des données détaillées. J’ai donc appris rapidement l’importance de prendre des décisions éclairées qui se fondent sur des principes fondamentaux et un bon jugement.
Aujourd’hui, à titre de professeur à l’Université Laval, j’ai accès à des laboratoires et à des équipements de pointe qui me permettent de travailler à la mise en œuvre d’analyses et de méthodes avancées dans la pratique géotechnique courante. Mon objectif est de combler le fossé entre la recherche de haut niveau et les applications pratiques. C’est ce qui m’a incité à constamment approfondir ma compréhension du comportement des matériaux et à explorer de nouvelles avenues.
CESCG : Pourquoi avoir choisi de devenir professeur en géotechnique?
EPG : Le vif intérêt que je portais à ce domaine et un véritable désir de transmettre mes
connaissances ont motivé ma décision. La géotechnique est un domaine en constante évolution, où la complexité des sols et des matériaux terrestres nous pousse à créer des solutions novatrices et résilientes. J’essaie d’optimiser mes méthodes non seulement pour que les étudiants assimilent bien la matière, mais aussi afin que la géotechnique soit pour eux une source d’inspiration. C’est une expérience vraiment gratifiante que de voir le moment où se fait le déclic dans l’esprit des étudiants. C’est l’une des principales raisons pour lesquelles j’ai décidé de faire carrière en éducation. Mon objectif est de favoriser un environnement d’apprentissage qui pourrait même inciter certains étudiants à poursuivre une carrière dans ce domaine et à grossir les rangs de la prochaine génération de géotechniciens. Parmi les autres avantages, on sait que l’enseignement est l’un des meilleurs moyens d’approfondir sa propre compréhension d’un champ d’activité, car cette profession exige de la clarté et une excellente maîtrise du sujet.
CESCG : Quels sont vos sujets géotechniques préférés pour la recherche et l’enseignement? EPG : En matière d’enseignement, l’un de mes sujets préférés est la consolidation. Selon moi, ce sujet constitue le fondement de la mécanique des sols. C’est vraiment gratifiant de pouvoir présenter aux étudiants le travail de pionnier mené par Terzaghi, ainsi que de démontrer comment les théories fondamentales peuvent résoudre des problèmes réels qui étaient auparavant insolubles sur le plan analytique.
En recherche, l’un des sujets sur lesquels je travaille depuis quelques années est la compréhension du comportement des géomatériaux dans des conditions de chargement non conventionnelles qui n’ont pas été prises en compte lors de la phase de conception d’un projet. Par exemple, j’ai étudié l’impact des véhicules lourds sur les barrages en remblai, qui ont été conçus pour retenir les eaux et résister aux forces sismiques, et non pas pour être soumis à des charges de véhicules. J’ai également étudié les effets des véhicules super-lourds sur les chaussées et les remblais conçus pour les charges standards de véhicules lourds. Dans le cadre de mon rôle à la Chaire de recherche CRIBAR, j’explore également de nouvelles orientations de recherche, notamment la caractérisation de la réponse dynamique des barrages en remblai et des effets de l’anisotropie dans divers sols et géomatériaux.
Ce travail m’a permis de jeter un pont entre les principes théoriques et les essais pratiques à grande échelle. J’ai la chance de travailler avec plusieurs étudiants sur ces projets, ce qui non seulement nous aide à faire progresser les connaissances en général, mais me permet aussi de m’épanouir professionnellement dans des domaines passionnants.
CESCG : Selon vous, quels outils pédagogiques sont les plus efficaces pour aider les étudiants à comprendre les concepts géotechniques?
EPG : Les outils de visualisation et les expériences d’apprentissage pratique sont de précieux instruments pour enseigner des concepts géotechniques. L’utilisation de logiciels de modélisation pour simuler le comportement du sol ou l’analyse d’études de cas réels permet aux étudiants de découvrir les applications pratiques des concepts théoriques, ce qui est essentiel à leur formation en tant que futurs ingénieurs. Je pense que ces outils, bien qu’ils soient traditionnels selon les normes actuelles, ont un impact durable sur leur compréhension et leur mémorisation. Évidemment, la préparation et le perfectionnement de ces outils nécessitent souvent plusieurs rondes de changement pour s’assurer qu’ils trouveront écho auprès des étudiants; néanmoins, je pense que cela vaut le coup pour rendre l’expérience d’apprentissage plus mémorable et attrayante.
CESCG : Comment enseignez vous aux étudiants le lien entre le milieu universitaire et la pratique?
EPG : Dans mes cours, j’utilise principalement deux stratégies. Tout d’abord, j’intègre le principe de l’apprentissage par projet, ce qui oblige les étudiants à résoudre des problèmes réels, souvent tirés d’études de cas liées à des expériences de travail personnelles. Cette approche leur permet de relever des défis semblables à ceux qu’ils rencontreront dans leur carrière et d’appliquer les principes appris en classe à des scénarios réalistes. Ensuite, j’invite des conférenciers issus du secteur à présenter leurs expériences et idées. Je planifie ces conférences à la fin de chaque sujet important abordé en classe afin de renforcer l’idée que ces concepts sont directement applicables sur le terrain.
CESCG : Selon vous, quels sont les outils numériques dont la maîtrise devient de plus en plus importante pour les étudiants de premier cycle?
EPG : L’analyse par éléments finis et les outils d’interaction sol-structure sont devenus
indispensables pour les étudiants de premier cycle, car on les utilise couramment dans la pratique. Il est important de présenter aux étudiants non seulement les outils euxmêmes, mais aussi la logique et les principes sous-jacents qui encadrent leur utilisation. Ce faisant, les étudiants peuvent interpréter de manière critique les résultats de simulation et comprendre comment les rendre représentatifs des conditions réelles.
De plus, les connaissances de base en programmation, ainsi qu’en analyse et en interprétation des données, sont maintenant essentielles. Ces compétences permettent aux étudiants de gérer des scénarios complexes et de grands ensembles de données, lesquels sont de plus en plus courants dans notre domaine.
CESCG : Selon vous, quels sujets devraient être davantage mis en valeur dans les programmes de premier cycle?
EPG : Je crois que les programmes de premier cycle devraient accorder plus d’importance au génie de la résilience, à la durabilité et à l’évaluation des risques. Par ailleurs, comme le changement climatique et l’augmentation de la demande en matière de charges exercent de nouvelles pressions sur les infrastructures, il est crucial pour les étudiants de comprendre comment les géostructures doivent s’adapter à ces conditions changeantes. En outre, la demande en matière de pratiques durables ne cesse de croître. À l’heure où les projets d’infrastructure visent de plus en plus à réduire l’impact environnemental, les géotechniciens seront appelés à intégrer des matériaux et des méthodes durables dans leurs conceptions.
CESCG : On sait que certaines technologies, comme l’intelligence artificielle [IA] et la réalité virtuelle/ augmentée [RV/RA], se développent à un train d’enfer. Selon vous, quel rôle ces technologies pourraient elles jouer dans l’enseignement de la géotechnique à l’avenir?
EPG : Nous nous rapprochons du moment où ces technologies feront partie de la pratique habituelle, ce qui pourrait constituer un changement aussi important que l’adoption des méthodes par éléments finis. L’IA pourrait transformer la modélisation prédictive en géotechnique. Par exemple, elle pourrait permettre aux étudiants et aux professionnels de se doter d’outils grâce auxquels ils pourront prédire plus précisément le comportement des sols et des structures. Ces outils pourraient
grandement améliorer notre capacité à traiter les incertitudes dans la conception et l’analyse. Entretemps, la RV et la RA offrent des occasions exceptionnelles d’apprentissage immersif, comme la visualisation des conditions souterraines ou la visite virtuelle de sites géotechniques. Ces outils, qui rendent les concepts abstraits plus accessibles, offrent aux étudiants des expériences pratiques qui sont difficiles à réaliser dans le cadre traditionnel d’une classe.
CESCG : Compte tenu de votre expérience universitaire en Amérique du Nord et en Amérique du Sud, quelles sont les leçons que les universités nord américaines peuvent tirer de celles à l’étranger, et vice versa?
EPG : Le premier point à reconnaître, c’est que les universités nord-américaines et sud-américaines fonctionnent dans des contextes sociaux, professionnels et de travail distincts, de sorte que leurs approches sont naturellement façonnées pour répondre aux besoins régionaux. Chaque région possède des forces uniques dont les autres peuvent tirer des enseignements.
Les établissements nord-américains pourraient bénéficier de l’accent pratique souvent mis de l’avant dans les programmes sud-américains, où le travail sur le terrain joue un rôle central. Par exemple, lors d’un cours sur les fondations, il est courant de visiter des chantiers de construction où l’on effectue des forages et des échantillonnages, ou d’observer l’installation de pieux et les processus en cours. Cette approche encourage les étudiants à appliquer leurs connaissances théoriques dans des situations réelles et à mieux comprendre les défis locaux dès le début de leur carrière.
En revanche, les universités nordaméricaines se distinguent par leurs laboratoires de pointe, qui ne sont pas aussi facilement accessibles en Amérique du Sud. Par exemple, à l’Université Laval, nous avons des dispositifs qui simulent l’érosion interne dans les matériaux granulaires, des équipements pour l’étude des argiles sensibles, un appareil de cisaillement en
torsion à cylindre creux et un simulateur de véhicule lourd quasi grandeur nature. De tels outils de laboratoire de haut niveau sont caractéristiques de nombreuses universités nord-américaines, chacune ayant ses propres forces. On peut ainsi effectuer de la recherche de pointe et offrir aux étudiants la possibilité de mener des travaux expérimentaux avancés qui ne pourraient être réalisés ailleurs. Un meilleur accès à ces outils pourrait accroître l’impact de la recherche sud-américaine et faciliter la collaboration sur les questions mondiales.
CESCG : Quels ont été ou sont encore vos mentors et influences?
EPG : Comme bien d’autres géotechniciens, j’ai été grandement influencé par le travail fondamental mené par les pionniers de la géotechnique tels que Terzaghi et Casagrande. Leur approche en matière de résolution de problèmes et leur détermination à faire progresser notre compréhension du comportement du sol sont pour moi une source intarissable d’inspiration.
Je dois beaucoup au professeur Freddy Sanchez Naveda de Falcón, au Venezuela. Ses recherches sur la géotechnique des transports et les argiles gonflantes (un enjeu important à Coro, ma ville natale) ont eu sur moi une grande influence. Le professeur Sanchez-Naveda était un étudiant du Leonardo Zeevaert, étudiant et collaborateur de Terzaghi, ce qui a fait de lui, en quelque sorte, mon lien direct avec ces premiers maîtres de la géotechnique. Quand j’ai amorcé mon parcours universitaire, son soutien et ses conseils ont été inestimables. Je respecte grandement son dévouement professionnel et personnel.
Au Canada, j’ai eu la chance de travailler avec plusieurs mentors qui ont profondément influencé ma carrière. Le professeur Guy Doré, mon directeur de thèse, m’a fourni les conseils et les encouragements qui m’ont aidé à faire progresser ma carrière et à occuper mon rôle actuel. Le professeur Jean Côté, chef du CRIBAR, a été mon principal mentor dans ce nouveau chapitre en tant que professeur d’université. Tous
Cette expérience m’a appris à écouter attentivement les autres, à rester ouvert aux différentes façons de penser et à adapter mon approche aux besoins des étudiants.
ces gens m’ont inspiré par leur expertise professionnelle, leur gentillesse et leur engagement sincère à soutenir les autres.
CESCG : Depuis combien de temps enseignez vous et menez vous des recherches en tant que professeur à l’Université Laval?
EPG : C’est en décembre 2022 que j’ai commencé à travailler comme professeur au Département de génie civil et de génie des eaux de l’Université Laval. J’occupe donc ce poste depuis près de deux ans. Toutefois, j’ai aussi terminé mon doctorat et mon stage postdoctoral, ainsi que travaillé comme ingénieur-chercheur, à l’Université Laval, ce qui me donne plus de sept ans de vécu dans cet établissement.
Avant de venir au Canada, j’ai été professeur à l’Universidad Nacional Experimental Francisco de Miranda au Venezuela, de 2009 à 2016. Le fait de commencer tôt ma carrière universitaire m’a donné une précieuse expérience en enseignement. Cela dit, mon arrivée au poste de professeur à l’Université Laval m’est apparue comme un nouveau départ. Bien que les concepts de base restent les mêmes, les antécédents des étudiants, le contexte culturel et la langue sont différents, ce qui m’a incité à améliorer en permanence mon approche pédagogique.
CESCG : Qu’avez vous appris de vous même par l’enseignement?
EPG : L’enseignement m’a beaucoup appris sur la patience et l’adaptabilité. J’ai découvert à quel point j’aime déconstruire des concepts complexes pour en extraire des parties gérables. De plus, j’ai constaté que les étudiants saisissent mieux certaines idées lorsque la théorie est liée à des applications pratiques. L’enseignement a également renforcé mon engagement envers la formation continue : en effet, les questions des étudiants m’incitent souvent à approfondir des sujets ou à les envisager sous des angles nouveaux.
L’une des leçons les plus précieuses que j’ai apprises grâce à l’enseignement, c’est qu’il ne s’agit pas seulement de fournir de l’information, mais de créer un environnement dans lequel les étudiants se sentent à l’aise de participer, de poser des questions et d’apprendre de leurs erreurs à mesure qu’ils deviennent de futurs ingénieurs. Cette expérience m’a appris à écouter attentivement les autres, à rester ouvert aux différentes façons de penser et à adapter mon approche aux besoins des étudiants.
An Interview with Craig Lake CGS President 2025–2026
Periodically, Canadian Geotechnique profiles members of the Canadian Geotechnical Society. In this issue we profile Craig Lake, CGS President (2025–2026) and Professor, Civil and Resource Engineering, Dalhousie University. The following interview was carried out in January 2025.
Canadian Geotechnique: How did you get interested in the geotechnical field?
Craig Lake: Through my coop experiences in university. My dad was a surveyor and I enjoyed hearing stories about his work related to construction when I was growing up. In university, I did an initial coop work term at Jacques Whitford in the asphalt lab. I eventually made my way into the soils lab, doing lots of proctors and sieves and getting into some onsite testing and construction supervision work. I think what really drew me to geotechnical engineering was that combination of hands-on work combined with the technical approaches to solving problems.
CG: When and where did you obtain your degrees? Who were your supervisors/mentors?
CL: I started at Acadia University, located in a little town named Wolfville, Nova Scotia, which was about 20 minutes away from my hometown in Windsor, Nova Scotia. I did my initial two years at Acadia, and then I went on to finish my civil engineering degree at the Technical University of Nova Scotia, which is now part of Dalhousie University. I would say my mentors or people that I looked up to during this time were some of the people I worked with at Jacques Whitford and also my professors in my program. These people encouraged me to go and further my education at graduate school. I was weighing my choice of graduate schools between UofA and UWO, but got a call from this Australian guy named Kerry Rowe one day at my parents place and it got me excited about doing a graduate degree at
Western. So off I went, starting a Masters degree at Western and then switching into a PhD with Kerry, looking at contaminant migration through geosynthetic clay liners back in the mid to late 90s. It was a great environment for a graduate student back then. I made some really strong friendships and connections with other graduate students. I also had the chance to interact with people like Dr. K.Y. Lo, Dr. Ian Moore, Dr. Ernest Yanful, and Dr. Hesham El Naggar. Overall, a life changing experience for a kid from a small town in Nova Scotia.
CG: With what companies/ organizations have you worked? Where do you work now?
CL: I started my career after my graduate work with Jacques Whitford in Dartmouth, NS, where I worked for close to two years. I did a variety of things there – started off doing some test pits and drilling as well as some site supervision. The great thing about the company was that they gave you the opportunity to manage your own smaller projects and deal with owners and others involved in these projects. I also had the opportunity to get involved in technical work there as well – shallow and deep foundations, retaining structures, marine work, landfills, transportation projects. The most memorable project was a one-month stint offshore Newfoundland on the “Bucentaur”. After those two years, this job came up at Dalhousie in the civil engineering department. I applied and was really fortunate to get the job; I’ve been here ever
since. This is my 23rd year here at Dalhousie and was probably one of the best decisions I ever made in terms of my career. Not that I didn’t enjoy consulting, but I really do enjoy teaching and working with young people.
Craig experimenting with excavation work in the mid 1970s
Western University, late 1990s (Kerry Rowe, Craig, K.Y Lo)
CG: In your career, who were your mentors?
CL: I’ve had a lot of great mentors in my life. On the top of my list would be my parents. My mom was a school teacher who definitely instilled a work ethic in me. My father, watching him go to work every day as a surveyor and business owner was a great example for me. Professionally, Kerry Rowe has been a great influence on my life, maybe unbeknownst to him or maybe even me at the time. But you know, watching him work so hard and also watching how smart he works, I think was an amazing experience for me when I was younger. When I started at Jacques Whitford as a junior engineer, I had an amazing cast of people available to me – people like Joe Moore who was such an impressive engineer. I learned so much from just having an office beside him, it was really a great opportunity for me. Other people at Jacques like John Brown, Greg McNeil, Dan McQuinn, Brian Taylor. These senior people in my office were people that I looked up to and could get advice from on a daily basis. This definitely made a difference in my career. As a university professor, you know, I’ve got a lot of mentors, probably too many to name, but certainly my colleagues I work with at Dalhousie have been a great source of support. A great source of mentorship for me as a professor was actually my mom. As the years went by, I definitely talked to her a lot about teaching and ways to reach students. She had a lot of good insights, even though she was teaching 5 and 6 year olds!
CG: What are your main areas of interest in the geotechnical field?
CL: One of my problems is that I am interested in a lot of different things. Initially in my career I became interested in more of the geoenvironmental aspects of geotechnical engineering. When I came to Dal, I became interested in applying these concepts to different types of materials. I also have a real interest in all things soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. So I don’t think there’s any one thing. I sort of like it all to be quite honest. To this day, I still really enjoy learning about new analysis techniques and playing around with software.
CG: What have been some memorable projects you’ve been involved with?
CL: There’s two ways to define “memorable”. One is in a good experience and the other one is in a bad one. Probably one of the more memorable projects I have been involved with was my offshore trip to Newfoundland, which was a joint venture between Jacques and
Fugro. I got a chance to log a lot of interesting core, CPT testing, and perform some on-site triaxial testing. The other neat thing that I learned on that project was the level of planning involved in a trip like that. Probably the other memorable project was one of my first projects where I was involved from start to finish – designing the site investigation, going out and doing the drilling and logging, writing the report, and following through to the construction phase and dealing with
budgets, contractors. It was memorable from the perspective that I learned a lot by making mistakes, but it was it was definitely memorable. Ironically, I now live near that project, so it’s sort of neat every time I go in those stores!
CG: How has balancing work and family life been?
CL: It’s not easy; I’m lot better at it now than I used to be. No. 1, I have a very understanding,
Sediment sampling for a graduate research project in Boat Harbour Nova Scotia, 2017
Drilling supervision for installation of teaching monitoring wells, Dalhousie (2021)
lovely wife who puts up with me working on the weekends and in the evenings. When my son and daughter were younger, it was a challenge. Sometimes you’re doing work in your car at the rink parking lot or even inside the rink if it was warm enough. Dropping your kids off at daycare before a 8:30am lecture is also memorable. So yes, it’s challenging, but you know it’s easier to deal with when you enjoy what you do. Being happy with your work also creates a really good family life.
CG: What’s been your involvement with the CGS? Other organizations?
CL: I’ve been involved with the CGS since I moved back to Halifax from grad school. I got involved with the CGS local section, becoming one of the section chairs. That was quite enjoyable, to bring in speakers and organize short courses to help us develop our personal skills but also network with some of the local professionals. That then got me involved in the CGS Executive Committee (EC), where I learned a lot as a section Rep about the National Society from Peter Wu, who was the president at the time. The CGS has allowed me to build my professional network, being involved with the various divisions and committees. One of my bigger roles, though not with the CGS directly, was being the coEditor in Chief of the Canadian Geotechnical Journal. The last two years I have been the VP Tech for the CGS. It’s been really interesting to get back on the executive and see how the CGS National works and has changed over the years. The CGS has definitely been one of my go-to volunteer organizations. I also volunteer with Engineers Nova Scotia and previously with my kids’ sports teams.
CG: Where do you see the future of geotechnique going?
CL: That’s a big question! Since I started as a grad student I’ve already seen big changes in the profession, certainly on the software side of things. Going from DOS-based programs for doing slope stability analysis to some of the intricate modeling that you can do now. This will only keep evolving. AI is probably going enter into our profession more and more, likely for better and worse. We probably need to get more geoprofessionals involved in the development of some of these tools. I do feel pretty strongly that geotechnique is always going to require a strong human component and someone responsible for making good decisions around what we see in our living environment. This is something that I feel like the CGS will always be able to play a part in.
CG: Do you have any words of advice for students or young professionals in the field of geotechnique?
CL: I deal with students a lot in terms of career advice and direction. I never tried to push students in a certain direction or path. I try to encourage them to find out what they like, first of all. People that have ended up in geotechnique are likely there because of that combination of “hands on work” and technical work. Really, when you are young, you should try to get as many good and bad experiences as you possibly can. That’s how you learn. The more experiences you get, the more you can learn from those experiences and progress as a person. I feel like the CGS is a great place to learn from others and spend your volunteer time. You don’t necessarily have a lot of time to volunteer when you’re younger; but you know, organizations like the CGS I think are great ways to network with other people who are going through the same things as you are. It gives you a chance to get experience running a volunteer aspect of a technical organization such as a division or a committee or perhaps networking through the young professionals committee.
CG: What are your objectives for your term as CGS President
CL: I’ve had the fortunate experience of being VP Tech for the last two years, so I have a pretty good understanding of the organization and where it is at. Right now, we are undergoing a period of transition from our former Executive Director, Michel Aubertin, to our new Executive Director, Ian Moore. The first few months will be about getting Ian up to speed as well as our new Executive Committee coming on and learning their roles. Rob Kenyon, as CGS President, started a lot of initiatives and we are going to be spending some time finishing those. We want to make sure that we develop a strategy to ensure that the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual is updated in a timely manner. We want to make sure that our local sections and divisions/committees are continually engaged with the society. We also want to make sure our society is efficient in its operation – whether that means dealing with members or on the administration side. I think there are opportunities for us to make some improvement on that front and our partners at Karma-Link are essential in helping us achieve progress in this area. We are currently committed to implementation of the initial phase of our website renewal, which involves converting our membership management processes to a new system. Members probably won’t notice many changes when they renew in 2026, but it will allow us to be able to spend less time on
administrative tasks. We will be looking ahead at the front-facing aspects of the website for 2026, which will also give us better communication tools to interact with members. I also would like to ensure that the CGS is continually evolving to be appealing to our younger demographic members, who are the future of our society. Our EC will be listening to members to develop other plans as the year progresses.
CG: Thanks for your time. Is there anything else you would like to add?
CL: Thank you for taking the time to come up with these questions. To close, I really just want to encourage our current members to stay involved in the society and help us continue to make the CGS a great place to spend your time. Likewise, to anybody that’s reading this that is not a CGS member, get involved with the CGS and help us, help you, to further your career!
Family photo Cavendish PEI (Ben, Craig, Emily and wife Monique) (2013)
Quicksand tank demo for undergraduate students at Dalhousie (2019)
20 LOCAL SECTIONS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED ACROSS THE COUNTRY:
