Review of the State-of-Art Practice of Foundation Engineering in Northern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In northern Canada where permafrost is prevalent, a shortage of accessible, affordable, and high-quality housing has been ongoing for decades. Design of foundations in permafrost presents unique engineering challenges due to permafrost soil mechanics and climate change. There is no specific design code for pile or shallow foundations in northern Canada. Consequently, the design process heavily relies on the expertise and experience of Arctic geotechnical engineers who have specialized knowledge in this field. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the practice or literature in foundation design in the Arctic would be necessary. The main objective of this review paper is to provide an overview of the common foundations in permafrost and the techniques adopted to counteract the effects of frozen soils. This study conducted a literature review of state-of-the-art practices on deep and shallow foundations used in northern Canada, including common steel pipe piles and thermosyphons. The review summarized the current principles, including adfreeze strength, creep settlement, and frost heave, used in the foundation design in permafrost. Then this paper summarized the findings from interviewing several engineers or professionals who have experiences in the design of foundations in permafrost. The interviews revealed the technical and non-technical aspects of foundation design practice in northern Canada. Lastly, in order to demonstrate the design methods, the paper presented two examples where screw piles and steel pipe piles were designed to support a residential building in northern Canada, according to the state-of-practice criteria for adfreeze strength, long term settlement and frost heave.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".