MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392381853 · doi:10.3390/geotechnics4010015

Foundations in Permafrost of Northern Canada: Review of Geotechnical Considerations in Current Practice and Design Examples

2024· article· en· W4392381853 on OpenAlexafffundabout
João Batista de Oliveira Libório Dourado, Lijun Deng, Yuxiang Chen, Ying Hei Chui

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMitacs
KeywordsPermafrostCurrent (fluid)GeologyGeotechnical engineeringForensic engineeringCivil engineeringEngineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In northern Canada where permafrost is prevalent, a persistent shortage of accessible, affordable, and high-quality housing has been ongoing for decades. The design of foundations in permafrost presents unique engineering challenges due to permafrost soil mechanics and the effects of climate change. There is no specific design code for pile or shallow foundations in northern Canada. Consequently, the design process heavily relies on the experience of Arctic engineers. To clearly document the current practice and provide guidance to engineers or professionals, a comprehensive review of the practice in foundation design in the Arctic would be necessary. The main objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the common foundations in permafrost and the geotechnical considerations adopted for building on frozen soils. This study conducted a review of current practices in deep and shallow foundations used in northern Canada. The review summarized the current methods for estimating key factors, including the adfreeze strength, creep settlement, and frost heave, used in foundation design in permafrost. To understand the geotechnical considerations in foundation design, this study carried out interviews with several engineers or professionals experienced in designing foundations in permafrost; the findings and the interviewees’ opinions were summarized. Lastly, in order to demonstrate the design methods obtained from the interviews and review, the paper presents two design examples where screw piles and steel pipe piles were designed to support a residential building in northern Canada, according to the current principles for adfreeze strength, long term creep settlement, and frost heave. The permafrost was assumed to be at −1.5 °C, and the design life span was assumed to be 50 years. The design examples suggested that for an axial load of 75 kN, a 12-m-long steel pipe pile or a 7-m-long screw pile would be needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.024
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnicsSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207