Comparison of methods for determining the frost depth

IF 4.2 2区 工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Šarūnas Skuodis, Mindaugas Zakarka, Juozas Bielskus, Neringa Dirgėlienė
{"title":"Comparison of methods for determining the frost depth","authors":"Šarūnas Skuodis,&nbsp;Mindaugas Zakarka,&nbsp;Juozas Bielskus,&nbsp;Neringa Dirgėlienė","doi":"10.1007/s10064-025-04507-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Over the past two centuries, the depth of ground frost has been steadily decreasing due to climate change. This study evaluates and compares different methodologies for determining frost depths, including analytical, empirical, numerical, and observational approaches, with a focus on widely used calculation methods. The analysis, performed in accordance with Lithuanian, European, and North American standards, reveals significant discrepancies between calculated frost depths and field observations from meteorological stations, particularly in areas affected by snow removal operations. Key influencing factors, such as air temperature variability, snow cover dynamics, and soil thermal properties, are examined to assess their impact on frost penetration. The comparison of different datasets highlights the limitations of existing models and underscores the necessity of updated climate data and advanced modeling techniques for more reliable geotechnical design in Lithuania. When comparing several ground frost depth determination methods under identical climate and soil conditions, differences in accuracy, applicability, and limitations of these methods become evident. The inclusion of up-to-date climate data in the revised Lithuanian standards highlights the growing need to assess and improve frost depth calculation models. This study contributes to that goal by evaluating the accuracy and limitations of widely used methods under uniform conditions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":500,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment","volume":"84 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10064-025-04507-5.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10064-025-04507-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the past two centuries, the depth of ground frost has been steadily decreasing due to climate change. This study evaluates and compares different methodologies for determining frost depths, including analytical, empirical, numerical, and observational approaches, with a focus on widely used calculation methods. The analysis, performed in accordance with Lithuanian, European, and North American standards, reveals significant discrepancies between calculated frost depths and field observations from meteorological stations, particularly in areas affected by snow removal operations. Key influencing factors, such as air temperature variability, snow cover dynamics, and soil thermal properties, are examined to assess their impact on frost penetration. The comparison of different datasets highlights the limitations of existing models and underscores the necessity of updated climate data and advanced modeling techniques for more reliable geotechnical design in Lithuania. When comparing several ground frost depth determination methods under identical climate and soil conditions, differences in accuracy, applicability, and limitations of these methods become evident. The inclusion of up-to-date climate data in the revised Lithuanian standards highlights the growing need to assess and improve frost depth calculation models. This study contributes to that goal by evaluating the accuracy and limitations of widely used methods under uniform conditions.

确定霜深方法的比较
在过去的两个世纪里,由于气候变化,地面霜冻的深度一直在稳步下降。本研究评估和比较了确定霜深的不同方法,包括分析、经验、数值和观测方法,重点是广泛使用的计算方法。根据立陶宛、欧洲和北美标准进行的分析显示,计算出的霜深与气象站的实地观测之间存在显著差异,特别是在受除雪行动影响的地区。研究了关键的影响因素,如气温变化、积雪动态和土壤热特性,以评估它们对霜冻渗透的影响。不同数据集的比较突出了现有模型的局限性,并强调了更新气候数据和先进建模技术对于立陶宛更可靠的岩土工程设计的必要性。在相同的气候和土壤条件下,比较几种地面霜深测定方法,这些方法在精度、适用性和局限性方面的差异是显而易见的。在修订的立陶宛标准中纳入了最新的气候数据,这突出表明越来越需要评估和改进霜深计算模型。本研究通过评估在统一条件下广泛使用的方法的准确性和局限性,有助于实现这一目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 工程技术-地球科学综合
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
11.90%
发文量
445
审稿时长
4.1 months
期刊介绍: Engineering geology is defined in the statutes of the IAEG as the science devoted to the investigation, study and solution of engineering and environmental problems which may arise as the result of the interaction between geology and the works or activities of man, as well as of the prediction of and development of measures for the prevention or remediation of geological hazards. Engineering geology embraces: • the applications/implications of the geomorphology, structural geology, and hydrogeological conditions of geological formations; • the characterisation of the mineralogical, physico-geomechanical, chemical and hydraulic properties of all earth materials involved in construction, resource recovery and environmental change; • the assessment of the mechanical and hydrological behaviour of soil and rock masses; • the prediction of changes to the above properties with time; • the determination of the parameters to be considered in the stability analysis of engineering works and earth masses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信