ADA111 752 COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LAB HANOVER NH F/$ 8/13FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SOIL, REVIEW OF INDEX TESTS,(U)DEC 81 E J CHAMBERLAIN FAA/FHWA-8-3-0187

UNCLASSIFIED CRREL-81-2 NL

12.fflfflfllfllflfflf

IIIEIIEEIIIEIEEEEEIIIIEEIIEEIEIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEIIIEEEIIlflflflflflflflflflflflfllIIIIIIII

1111.0.1.2 IIII1-

1."25 Ill '. lL

V A , i ~ ', : i " , ,

Frost susceptibility of soilReview of index tests

[150

AA

* A

AV

Vistilutlo nlimitd 8 2

CRREL Monograph 81-2

Frost susceptibility of soilReview of index tests

Edwin J. Chamberlain

December 1981

Prepared for

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIONFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATIONOFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERSByUNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSCOLD) REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LABORATORYHANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, U.S.A.

Approved for public release, distribution unliited

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (*%onn Date Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSL REPORT NUMBER 1. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Monograph 81-24. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SOILReview of Index Tests

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(S) 6. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(O)

Edwin J. Chamberlain

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASKAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERSU.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory FHWA 8-3-0817Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 DA Project 4A762730AT42, Task A2, Work

Unit 002, and Task A3. Work Unit 006I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

Federal Aviation Administration (Systems Research and Development December 1981Service) and 13. NUMBER OF PAGESFederal Highway Administration (Office of Research) 121Washineton. D.C. 20590

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADORESS(ii different from Controlin Office) 1S. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

IS&. DECL ASSI FI CATION/DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thIs Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (01 the abetract entered In Block 20, Ii different from Report)

I. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I. KEY WORDS (Continue on revere* aide If necessary nd Identify by block number)

Frost heaveSoil classificationSoil mechanicsSoilsSoil tests

ABSTRACT ec..at - uavpl uh N nmeamaSy IdSrfir by block number)

Methods of determining the frost susceptibility of soils are identified and presented in this report. More than onehundred criteria were found, the most common based on particle size characteristics. These particle size criteria arefrequently augmented by information such as grain size distribution, uniformity coefficients and Atterberg limits.Information on permeability, mineralogy and soil classification has also been used. More complex methods re-quiring pore size distribution, moisture-tension, hydraulic-conductivity, heave-stress, and frost-heave tests havealso been proposed. However, none has proven to be the universal test for determining the frost susceptibility ofsoils. Based on this survey, four methods are proposed for further study. They are the U.S. Army Corps of EngineersFrost Susceptibility Classification System, the moisture-tension hydraulic-conductivity test, a new frost-heave test,and the CBR-after-thaw test.

DD i~~iI IMI=n o ovs sosL

D JA , Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Mvet, Date Itnteres)

PREFACE

The CRREL Monograph series is a continuation of the Cold Regions Science andEngineering series published by CRREL between 1961 and 1975.

This review was conducted by Edwin 1. Chamberlain, Jr., Research Civil Engi-neer, Applied Research Branch, Experimental Engineering Division, U.S. ArmyCold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Funding was provided by theFederal Highway Administrion and the Federal Aviation Administration underOrder No. FHWA 8-3-0187, Full-Scale Field Tests to Evaluate Frost Action Predic-tive Techniques, and by DA Project 4A762730AT42, Design, Construction andOperations Technology for Cold Regions, Task A2, Soils and Foundations Technol-ogy in Cold Regions, Work Unit 002, Seasonal Changes in Strength and Stiffness ofSoils and Base Courses, and Task A3, Facilities Technology for Cold Regions, WorkUnit 006, Volume Change Induced by Freezing and Thawing of Pavement Systems.

Members of the Board of Consultants reviewing this study are Dr. B.I. Demp-sey, University of Illinois; Dr. D.G. Fredlund, University of Saskatchewan; DrM.E. Harr, Purdue University, Edward Penner. National Research Council of Can-ada; and Dr. M.W. Witczak, University of Maryland. The author thanks RichardMcCaw for his early contributions to this review and Thaddeus Johnson and Dr.Richard Berg for reviewing the monograph.

The contents of this monograph are not to be used for advertising or promo-

tional purposes. Citation of brand names does not constitute an official endorse-ment of the use of such commercial products.

n >i

...r ;- ' .<. ..F-1

CONTENTS

PageAbstractPreface .... iiIntroduction . .. ....... . 1

Frost susceptibility and its relation to frost heaving and thaw weakening 2Requisite conditions for frost heave, 2Mechanics of frost heave 3

Capillary theory 3Secondary heave theory 4Adsorption force theory. 6

Experimental observations of factors affecting frost heave 8Soil texture 8Pore size 8Rate of heat removal 8Temperature gradient 9Moisture conditions ... . . .. 10

Overburden stress or surcharge .... 11

Repeated freeze-thaw cycling. 12

Types of frost susceptibility tests 15Particle size tests 15Pore size tests ... . . . 40

Soil/water interaction tests ..... 43Soil/water/ice interaction tests ... .. . 47Frost heave tests .... .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. 51

Evaluation of index tests ........... 69Tests using particle size characteristics. 69Tests using pore size characteristics 71Soil/water interaction tests . .. .... 72

Soil/water/ice interaction tests . 72Frost heave tests 73

Selection of frost susceptibility tests for further analysis 76Grain size distribution test 76Moisture-tension hydraulic-conductivity tests 77Frost heave test 79

Thaw-CBR test 82Conclusions . . ... ... 83Literature cited 83

Appendix A: Frost susceptibility classification methods based on grainsize characteristics. 89

Appendix B: Summary of frost susceptibility tests on natural soils 95Appendix C: Summary of direct frost heave tests 107

: iii

-,--

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page1. Section of an ice lens with a soil particle and soil pore 42. Primary frost heaving and secondary heaving 53. The nature of pore water pressure, pore ice pressure, neutral stress

and effective stress 64. Profiles for a static column . 65. Ice lens formingon the film water 7

6. Structure of the diffused freezing zone front. 7

7. Heave rate versus rate of frost penetration. 98. Influence of heat extraction on heaving rate ......... .. 9

9. Effect of temp-rature gradient and freezing rate on frost heave ina sand ......... 10

10. Hydraulic conductivity of three soils .. .... .... .. .... 1011. Effect of the depth to the water table on frost heave. 1112. Total frost heave rate vs pressure. 1113. Average CBR values of soils with less than 15% of their particles

smaller than 0.02 mm versus content of particles smaller than 0.02mm .. 12

14. Frost heave and frost penetration vs time for several freeze-thaw

cycles on James Bay glacial till.. .. . 1315. Influence of freezing and thawing of the frost heave of a clay soil 1316. Effect of freezing and thawing on frost heave ... 1417. Vertical permeability for Ellsworth clay after freeze-thaw cycling 1418. Limits of frost susceptibility according to the Canadian Department

of Transport ..... . 16

19. Guide to the frost susceptibility of soils according to the Ontario De-partment of Highways . 17

20. Grain size frost susceptibility criteria according to Riis ........ 1821. Limits of frost-susceptibile soils according to Croney 2022. Frost susceptibility classification of soils according to Orama..... 20

23. Frost susceptibility classification of soils according to Nielsen andRauschenberger 21

24. Frost susceptibility classification according to Pietrzyk 2225. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Vlad 2226. Frost susceptibility limits according to Beskow 2327. Limits for Gravel I and Gravel II .. .. . .. 26

28. Limits of non-frost-susceptible base materials in Texas according toCarothers .......... . . . 32

29. Range in thc degree of frost susceptibility of soils according to the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 34

30. Frost susceptibility classification according to Schaible 3631. Limits of frost susceptibility of soils according to lessberger and

Hartel .... .... . . .. 3732. Ruhr University, Bochum, frost susceptibility criteria 3833. Limits of non-frost-susceptibile base/subbase materials in W. Ger-

many 3934. Determination of pore size distribution curve 4135. Pressure-plate suction test apparatus 41

iv

Figure Page

36. Mercury-intrusion test apparatus 42

37 Comparison of three pore size tests 42

38 Differences between measured and predi(ted frost heaves 4

39 Test observations during measurement of the air intrusion value of

silt 44

40 Osmotic suction apparatus 44

41 Drying moisture-tension curve for a (ompacted dolomite aggregate 45

42 Schematic of permeabilitv apparatus 46

41 Typical relation between permeability and pore water pressure 46

44 Schematic drawing of freezing chambs'r 47

45 Pressure vs time for several soils 47

46. Frost susceptibility criteria based on frost heave stress 48

47. Schematic diagram of frost testing equipment developed at MIT 48

48 The development of heave pressure during freezing of New Hamp-

shire silt samples of different lengths 49

49. Pore water suction test apparatus 50

50. Typical suction vs time curve for a silty sand frozen at -50 C 5051. Frost heave test apparatus 51

52. Example of results for two gravels 52

53. Schematic of Belgian Road Research Center frost susceptibility ap-

paratus 52

54. Frost heave test cell 54

55. Penner's heave rate data vs the temperature gradient in frozen soil 54

56. Penner's heave rate data vs the temperature gradient in unfrozen soil 55

57. TRRL apparatus for testing frost susceptibility 56

58. Self-refrigerated unit to improve temperature control in the TRRL

frost susceptibility test 57

59. Precise freezing cell according to lones and Dudek 58

60. Experimental frost heave apparatus used at the Laboratoires des

Ponts et Chauss~es 58

61, Heaving as a function of the square root of the freezing index 59

62. Frost susceptibility apparatus bO

63. Swedish equipment for measuring the frost heave of soils 61

64. Interior diagram of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public

Facilities frost heave test cabinet 62

65. Inside-tapered freezing cell used in CRREL frost heave test 63

66. Details of soil freezing cabinet used at CRREL 64

67. Details of the University of Washington soil freezing cabinet 65

68. University of New Hampshire rapid freeze test equipment 66

69. Experimental apparatus of Alekseeva 66

70. Experimental results of Alekseeva 67

71. Frost heave apparatus 68

72. Freezing cylinder used in West Germany b873. Pressure cell permeameter for testing saturated and unsaturated hy-

draulic conductivity 78

74. Typical hydraulic conductivity vs pressure head curves 79

75 Moisture tension test results using a volumetric plate extractor and

an unsaturated conductivity cell 79

v

TABLES

Table Page1. Frost susceptibility criteria of Brandl 152 Frost susceptibility criteria for gravel of Brandl 163. Newfoundland frost susceptibility criteria 174. Nova Scotia frost susceptibility criteria 175. Ontario frost susceptibility criteria 176. Quebec frost susceptibility criteria 187. Capillarity frost susceptibility criteria used by the Danish State Road

Laboratory 188 East German frost susceptibility criteria according to Klengel 199. Factors which influence frost susceptibility 19

10. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Vlad 2211. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Beskow (1935) 23

12. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Beskow (1938) 2413. Frost susceptibility for different soil types according to Rengmark 2414. Grain sizes of different soil types according to Rengmark 2515. Swedish frost susceptibility criteria 25

16. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Ruckli 2517. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Bonnard and Recordon

(1958) 2518. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Bonnard and Recordon

(1969) 2619. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Recordon and Rechsteiner 2720. First level of the Swiss frost susceptibility criteria 2721 Second level of the Swiss frost susceptibility criteria 2822. Third level of the Swiss frost susceptibility criteria 2821 Arizona frost susceptibility criteria 2924 Frost susceptibility criteria according to the Bureau of Public Roads 2925 Frost susceptibility classification system according to Casagrande 3026 Materials considered least frost susceptible in Montana 3127 New Hampshire frost susceptibility criteria 3128 New lersey frost susceptibility criteria 3129 U S Civil Aeronautics Administration frost susceptibility criteria 3230 U S Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station frost susceptibil-

ity criteria 3331 U.S Army Corps of Engineers frost design criteria 3332 U.S Army Corps of Engineers frost design soil classification system 3533. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Koegler et al. 3634. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Schaible (1953) 3635. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Schaible (1957) 3636. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Floss 3737 Ruhr University at Bo(hum frost susceptibility criteria according to

I essberger 3918 West German frost susceptibility criteria 4039 Frost susceptibility classification according to Onalp 4540. Frost susceptibility classification according to Wissa et al. 4541. Frost susceptibility classification interpreted from Riddle 5142 Frost susceptibility according to the TRRI test 55

VI

Table Page43. Frost susceptibility according to the Laboratoires des Ponts et

Chausse~es 5944 CRREL frost susceptibility classification 64

45 I-rost susceptibility classes according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-

neers and the University of New Hampshire 6646 -rost susceptibility classification according to Kronik 6747 West German frost susceptibility criteria 6948. Index properties of soils for frost susceptibility performance analysis 70

49. Performance of grain size frost susceptibility criteria 71

50. Characteristics of existing frost heave index tests 80

vii

caa s

le MA

s3: -81 0.0

U 0*31.

U - a - -

In E E -''

5 2 nce

z I

di0

I ccL

cc -oz

* 3 55 5 i

FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SOILReview of Index Tests

Edwin J. Chamberlain

INTRODUCTION

The search for a reliable method to evaluate trast to a more comprehensive frost heave testthe frost susceptibility of soils has gone on for at or mathematical model of the frost heave pro-least the past 50 years. More than 100 methods cess). It is inidortant, though, that all methodshave been proposed since Taber's treatise (19291 for evaluating frost action in soid be consideredon the mechanism of ice segregation in soils and in the same context so that comparative judg-Casagrande's conclusions (1931) that "under ments can be made of their utility. Accordinglynatural freezing conditions and with sufficient this report will cover any method that holdswater supply one should expect considerable ice promise for indicating the frost susceptibility ofsegregation in non-uniform soils containing soils.more than three percent of grains smaller than It may be that no single method can be corn-0.02 mm, and in very uniform soils containing prehensive enough. However, it is the purpose ofmore than 10 percent smaller than 0.02 mm." this report to evaluate the available methods ofEven though there has been almost continuous determining the frost susceptibility of soil andresearch on frost heave since then, Casagrande's then to select for further analysis a few that ap-criteria are still the most successful for predict- pear to be the most reliable. The survey rangesing the frost susceptibility of soils, in spite of the from the early work of Taber (1929), Casagrandeprobability that he never intended that they be (1931), Beskow (1935) and Ducker (1939) to meth-universally applied. ods reported up to January 1981. Although an at-

The abundance of methods for determining tempt was made to identify all the index testthe frost susceptibility of soils is evidence of the methods developed during this period, somelack of success in developing a comprehensive may have been missed. The most serious omis-method. Obviously each has been developed sions may be from the eastern European andbecause others have proven to be unsatisfac- Asian nations because of the difficulty in gainingtory. In many cases the new criteria have been access to their literature.successful for specific but limited purposes. In It is important to explain frost susceptibilitymost cases, however, there is little evidence as before discussing the index tests. From this basisto the degree of success, i.e. most new criteria the various tests may be assessed according toreceive little scientific field validation, how they address the basic elements affecting

The sponsors of this study seek a relatively the frost susceptibility of soils.simple index test for frost susceptibility (in con-

FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY AND utlvr eetv oa h fet ftaITS RELATION TO FROST HEAVING utlvr eety oa h fet ftaAND THAW WEAKENING weakening can in many cases be of greater prac-

tical significance than frost heaving. Thaw weak-The freezing of frost-susceptible soil (with ening continues to gain importance, as the lack

water available) normally involves opposing ac- of clean, granular material makes it necessary totions: the downward advance of the freezing use marginal soils or recycle existing materials.front and upward frost heave. Heaving is the re- Even so, the assumption persists in many quar-sult of ice segregation during the freezing pro- ters that heaving must occur before thaw weak-cess. The advance of the freezing front causes ening can take place.alternating bands of soil and ice to form. The ex- It is important, then, that both kinds of frostternal manifestation is frost heave This struc- damage (heaving and weakening) be addressedture may or may not be visible to the unaided in any frost susceptibility criteria. Both are im-eye. When the ice melts, the aggregates of soil portant in evaluating soil materials for use inparticles usually can not reabsorb all the water road and runway foundations, as are bearingimmediately after thawing. Consequently soils capacity and settlement in the design of founda-are frequently weaker after thawing than before tions. Like bearing capacity and settlement, frostfreezing. With time and proper drainage the ini- heaving and thaw weakening have been treatedtial strength usually returns, as though they were unrelated Some link should

Frost heave is not necessary for thaw weaken- be developed between these two damaging re-ing. For instance, it is known that some clay soils sults of frost action. Realistically, until we aredevelop segregated ice (and hence thaw weaken- successful in 'cliably determining the suscepti-ing) while exhibiting little or no heave (Cook bility of soil to frost heave and thaw weakening1963, Titov 1965). The shrinkage of compressible separately, it is fruitless to attempt to combinesoil aggregates cancels the heave normally asso- the two in a single schemeciated with ice segregation, particularly where For the purpose of this discussion, then, frostthe water supply is restricted and the permeabil- heave susceptibility is equated with heave dur-ity is low, ing freezing, and thaw weakening susceptibility

It is apparent, then, that two major phenom- with the loss of strength after thawing. It followsena result from freezing and thawing: frost heav- that frost susceptibility (FS) simply reflects theing and thaw weakening. Both can cause consid- combined effects of frost heave susceptibilityerable damage to engineering structures, the and thaw weakening susceptibility.former during freezing and the latter during To select index tests for FS we first need tothawing. Both seem to be major indicators of know the material properties and freezing condi-frost-susceptible soils. However, for decades tions involved. Any index test must then be re-there has been an almost universal tendency to lated to one or more of these factorsdefine frost susceptibility in terms of frost heav-ing alone, i.e. a frost-susceptible soil was onewhich heaved when frozen. REQUISITE CONDITIONS

The definition given by the Highway Research FOR FROST HEAVEBoard Committee on Frost Heave and Frost Ac-tion in Soil (1955) focuses more on processes Frost heave is generally attributed to the for-within the soil than on external effects. It states, mation of ice lenses during freezing. For this to"A frost-susceptible soil is one in which signifi- happen, it is generally agreed that 1) subfreezingcant ice segregation will occur when the requi- temperatures. 2) water and 3) a frost-susceptiblesite moisture and freezing conditions are pres- soil must be present. With all of these factorsent." This has remained one of the most widely present the degree of ES may vary with the rateaccepted definitions. Here the basis of frost sus- of heat removal, the temperature gradient, theceptibility is seen to be "significant ice segrega- mobility of the water, the depth to the watertion,"~ a process occurring within the soil. This is table, the overburden stress, the soil density anda step ahead of previous definitions, which had texture and so on.relied on the external effects of freezing. To understand the effect of these factors on

However, this statement is only partially com- frost heave, it is helpful to understand the me-plete, as ice segregation and frost susceptibility chanics of frost heave and to review some ex-were associated solely with detrimental heaving perimental observations of frost heave.

2

MECHANICS OF FROST HEAVE ics could be used to predict the relationship be-tween the freezing point and the suction

The classic works of Taber (1929) and Beskow pressure(1935) on the migration of water to a growing ice Penner 019 59) also tried to understand ice seg-lens stood until the 1950's as the most serious at- regation in this way These studies led to thetempts to identify the mechanism of frost heav- work of Everett (1961) and Everett and Haynesing. Taber attributed the migration to "molec- (1965), who finally developed a rigorous equilib-ular cohesion" and identified the factors con- rium thermodynamics formula for ice growth introlling ice segregation as soil particle size, porous materials.amount of water available, size of voids and The resulting relationship, which has oftenvoid ratio, and rate of cooling Beskow related been referred to as the capillary rise model forthe suction pressure to "capillary rise" and ice segregation, takes the formshowed the relation~ships of the height of capil-lary rise to grain size and depth to the water P=P, 2o,,w (1)table. Neither of these explanations provided a r,.,rigorous theory for frost heave.

However, in the past two decades three funda- where p, steady state heaving pressure atmentally different explanations for ice segrega- the base of the ice lens (pore icetion and frost heave have received considerable pressure)attention. They are the so-called capillary pu=pore water pressure (pore watertheory, secondary heaving theory and segrega- tension)tion freezing theory. Until recently the first two o.a = surface tension at an ice/water in-appeared to be in harmony, the capillary rise terfacetheory being applied to* granular soils and the r,., radius of the ice/water interfacesecondlary heaving theory to clay soils. The seg-regation freezing theory, however, has always It is assumed that adsorption forces are negligi-been at odds with the others Although the ble and that the soil is an ideal granular material.theories disagree about the mechanism of frost For determining the maximum heaving pressure,heave, they are in general agreement on the fac- r., becomes the radius of the pore neckstors affecting frost heave A brief examination of through which the ice must grow (Fig. 1).these theories should help to demonstrate their This relationship has been verified experimen-differences and determine the material proper- tally by Penner (1966) for uniform glass spheresties and freezing conditions important to frost in a close-pack array However, for soils whichheave. No attempt will be made to judge the commonly have a range of particle sizes, chors-merits of these theories. ing a representative value of r,, can be a prob-

lem. Although Penner (1973) found that heavingCapillary theory pressures calculated from eq 1 were too large

Frost heave occurs as a result of ice segrega- when the average value of r,.,, was used, theytion. The capillary theory says that the heave agreed well with the measured values when thepressure and the suction pressures that develop size of the smallest particles was used.during the formation of ice lenses are related to The rate of heaving for a given soil is a func-the porous matrix of the soil. tion of the rate of heat extraction at the freezing

Penner (1957) and Gold (1957) observed that front, the stress borne by the ice lens, the suctionthe magnitude of the suction was related to the in the pore water, and the hydraulic conductivitygeometry of the porous soil matrix in which ice in the zone beneath the ice lens. in compressiblelenses develop. Penner concluded that moisture soils such as clays the rate of heave is also atensions develop as a result of freezing point de- function of the compressibility of the unfrozenpressions and that higher tensions develop in soil beneath the ice lens and the magnitude ofsoils with small pores than in soils with large the suction pressure generated at the freezingpores because the freezing point decreases with front. The compressibility becomes a factorthe radius of curvature of the ice/water inter- because of the increase in the effective stressface. beneath the ice lens.

Miller et al. (1960) concluded that when the According to Terzaghi (1936), the effectiveradius of curvature of the ice/water interface is stress between soil particles can be representedtaken into account, equilibrium thermodynam- by the following equation:

3

ADSORBED

HEAT FLOW SOIL PARTICLE

~-PORE WATER

Figure 1. Section of an ice lens with a soil particle and soil pore. (From Pen-ner 1959.)

a =O-on (2) stress on compressible soils is to decrease thepore size and thus increase the maximum values

where 6 = effective intergranular stress of pore water suction and frost heave stress ando = total stress change the hydraulic conductivity.an= pressure supported by the pore In summary, the capillary theory attributes

contents (sometimes called the frost heaving to 1) the rate of heat removal, 2)neutral stress). the pore size, 3) the hydraulic conductivity of

the unfrozen soil, 4) the compressibility of unfro-In saturated soils on is equal to the pore water zen soil, and .5) the weight of material supportedpressure. In partially saturated soils or, is a func- by the ice lens.tion of both the pore water pressure and thepore air pressure p., usually represented in the Secondary heav'e theoryform Miller (1972) disagreed with the simple capil-

lary theory and introduced the concept of secon-On pX, + (1 X)Pa 04X41. (3) dary heaving. He was bothered by the discrep-

ancy that was frequently found between theThe partition factor X rises with increasing de- measured and calculated values of heaving pres-grees of saturation Q(= 1 when the soil is 100% sure using the simple capillary model, and hesaturated). was not satisfied with Penner's explanations. In

Because on is always negative beneath a grow- 1977 Miller came to the conclusion that the onlying ice lens, the effective stress on the soil be- kind of ice segregation that could occur, accord-neath is always higher than before freezing. If ing to the simple capillary model (which hethe soil is practically incompressible under this termed the primary heaving model), was the for-stress (as are most dense sands), then an has little mation of needle ice at the soil surface.effect on the soil structure. If, however, the soil Miller has continued to revise his thoughts onis compressible (as are clay soils, for example), secondary heaving. The following is a brief re-then the void ratio decreases as the effective view of his secondary heave theory for satu-stress increases and the soil becomes more rated, salt-free, non-clay soils taken from papersdense. This has two important influences on published at the Frost Action in Soils Symposiumfrost heave. First, a surface manifestation of in 1977 and the Third International Permafrostfrost heave may not be apparent, as the in- Conference in 1978.creased volume of the segregated ice will be at Miller contended that secondary frost heaveleast partially compensated for by the decrease involves the growth of ice into some of the poresin volume occupied by the soil beneath the ice formed by stationary soil particles below the icelens. The effect is to overconsolidlate the soil by lens itself. He called this region where the icefreezing. Nixon and Morgenstern (1973), front propagates beyond the ice lens the "frozenChamberlain and Blouin (1978) and many others fringe" (Fig. 2). In this region both ice and liquid

have observed this process. water are transported.The second effect of the increase in effective The concept of the frozen fringe has also been

IceLens 9

9 9 U.Miller used eq 1 to describe the relationshipE between the radius of curvature of the ice/water

9 interface in a pore and the pore ice pressure and

0 pore water tension.Miller related the stresses by the effective

f t stress equation

=p + Xp + (1-X)p, O X4 1 (5)Figure 2. Primary frost heaving (left) andsecondary heaving (right). The shaded where p is the total stress on the ice lens. Thearea represents liquid water (**leading partition factor X, relating the contributions of

redge of the ice lens, *leading edge of the ice pressure and water tension to the effec-the frozen fringe). (After Miller 1977.) tive stress, equals one at the leading edge of the

frozen fringe, where the soil is ice-free, and zeroat the base of the growing ice lens, where all

reported by others. For instance, the Soviet sci- non-adsorbed water is frozen.entist Fel'man (1967) reported experiments that Pore ice pressure and pore water tension thusestablished that moisture migration during vary within the frozen fringe during ice lensfreezing takes place not only in the unfrozen soil growth (Fig. 3). The hydraulic conductivity alsobut also in a "certain zone of freezing soil." varies within the frozen fringe, possibly as illus-Hoekstra (1969) observed a layer adjacent to the trated in Figure 4. The thickness of the frozenice lens where "ice crystals are present... but the fringe is governed by the temperature gradient.ice phase is discontinuous and does not consti- Increasing the temperature gradient reduces thetute an ice lens." Miller (1978) reported that E.D. thickness of the fringe and its impedance to theErshov. another Soviet scientist, agreed with this flow of water. According to Miller (1972), theconcept. Penner (1977) and Penner and Walton limiting process in secondary frost heaving is the(1978) also seemed convinced of the frozen transmission of water through the frozen fringefringe concept. Penner (1977), however, ap- to the growing ice lens.peared to apply this concept only to clay soils. For unsaturated granular soils the process is

Loch (197)a) observed that the frozen fringe complicated by the air in the voids. Miller haswas 4-4.5 mm thick in silty clay and clayey silt not yet attempted to solve for the case wheresoils. Phukan -Morgenstern -Sha nnon (1979) re- the maximum pore water tension that can be sus-ported that the thickness of the frozen fringe tained at the leading edge of the frozen fringecan range from less than a millimeter to several becomes a factor. According to Miller, the temn-centimeters, depending on soil type. composi- perature gradient in the unfrozen soil controlstion, temperature gradients and applied pres- the pore water tension at this boundary. Obvi-sure. They also suggest that the moisture migra- ously the hydraulic conductivity and moisturetion to the freezing front is controlled entirely content of the unfrozen soil are also factors.by processes that develop in the frozen fringe. Although Miller does not specifically mention

According to Miller, the driving force for frost it, the principal difference in the analysis of frostheave in saturated granular soil is the interaction heave in granular and clayey soils is compressi-of pore ice, pore water and temperature and the bility. As in the capillary theory the compressi-swelling properties of adsorbed films within the bility of clayey soils complicates the treatment.frozen fringe. The Clausius-Clapeyron equation Thus, according to the secondary heave the-is used to relate the pore water tension pu and ory, frost heaving depends on 1) the rate of heatthe pore ice pressure pi to the freezing tempera- extraction, 2) the size of the soil pores. 3) theture T of the pore water: freezing point of the water at the base of the

growing ice lens, 4) the hydraulic conductivity of

Pu/e = pifQ1 + (L/K)T (4) the frozen fringe. 5) the temperature gradientwithin the frozen fringe. 6) the thickness of the

where 0 and Q, = densities of water and ice, frozen fringe. 7) the in situ moisture tension inrespectively the unfrozen soil, 81 the hydraulic conductivity

L = latent heat of fusion of the unfrozen soil, 9) the compressibility of theK = absolute freezing point of unfrozen soil, and 10) the magnitude of the over-

water. burden pressure.

5

PP P Old LensI -1

-* -- -N ew Lens- F

- 0 + 0 + - 0 +

Figure 3. The nature of profiles of pore water pressure p, pore ice pressurep,, neutral stress on and effective stress 5 in a heaving column; a) profiles amoment before a new ice lens is initiated; b) profiles immediately after in-itiation of a new lens; c) profiles just before initiation of another lens.Stresses and pressures are positive to right of the vertical lines at 0 and areequal to the overburden pressure at the vertical lines at P. (After Miller1977.)

X

0I O3 -O.O°C

Pu Pt -00

a b c P'd

kPo cm3/ M 3 1 kPo m/e00 200 0 0 1 . 0 2 I0 i| i W-l*OC

/K

Figure 4. Profiles for a static column; a) pore water pressure pu, pore icepressure pi; b) liquid water content 0 and approximate values of X; c) efiec-tive stress a and neutral stress on; d) tentative data for k. The base of thefrozen fringe is marked with an asterisk. All data are for a 4- to 8-m m silt frac-tion. (After Koopmans and Miller 1965.)

Adsorption force theory cific surface area of the soil particles, as sug-Another explanation of frost heaving has been gested by Anderson and Tice (1972). Takagi has

proposed by Takagi, the most recent versions be- not yet formulated a method for determininging published in 1978 and 1980. He suggested this limiting value.that the primary cause of frost heaving is the cre- According to Takagi's adsorption force the-ation of a "'solid-like stress" in the unfrozen film ory, the tension in the pore water is independentof water between the ice and soil surfaces The of the heaving stress. The origin of the tension isweight of the ice lens is supported by the film in the film water. The freezing film, in responseand the soil particle The heaving stress is deter- to the loss of its thickness to the growing icemined by the the SOitd-like stress in the film; it lens, generates the tension that draws pore watercannot exceed the pressure imposed by the ma- to the region of freezing (Fig. 5). If the uppermostterial overlying the growing surface of the ice part of the film water separating the soil parti-lens. The heaving stress is also limited by the seg- cles and the ice lens freezes, water must beregation freezing temperature, which cannot be sucked in from neighboring areas to maintainlower than the freezing point of the film water the thickness of the film. If the soil particles re-Takagi (1980) stated that the decisive factor for main stationary and the ice lens continues todetermining the treezing point depression, and grow, then frost heaving occurs. Takagi calls thisthus the limit of the heaving pressure, is the spe- process "segregation freezing." He has not yet

k6

H Overburden

AII IIIIA

Ice Lens - Film

B Water

C C

Figure 5. Ice lens forming on the film water.Pore Water (From Takagi 1979.)

Overburden

Ice Lens Film

8 Water

'0,c , CFigure 6. Structure of the diffused freezing zone

front. B is the leading edge of the growing ice lens,1 N IAM is the diffused freezing zone front, CC is the

"'I I {"""Ypore restricting pore water flow, D is the locationI" ,~,4/of the next ice lens, and N is the corresponding

Flow of location of the next diffused freezing zone front.Pore Water (From Takagi 1979.)

formulated a method for calculating the limit of perature gradient in the zone of diffused freez-the stress in the film water; however, he says that ing has a significant effect on the rate of waterthe suction results from the tension gradient in flow.the film water (near points B and C in Figure 5), As in the other theories the rate of heave de-

Takagi believes that there is another zone of pends on the rate of heat extraction, the rate offreezing, which he calls the "zone of diffused water flow to the growing ice lens, and the com-freezing" (Fig. 6). The lower boundary of this pressibility of the unfrozen soil.zone is the site of in situ freezing, which, accord- Thus, according to the adsorption force the-ing to Takagi, does not contribute to frost heave ory, frost heaving is affected by 1) the rate ofbut does govern the availability of water to the heat removal, 2) the freezing point of the filmfreezing zone. The upper boundary of this region water, 3) the specific surface area of the soil par-is where th- ice lens grows, causing frost heave. ticles, 4) the hydraulic conductivity of the filmjust as in Miller's frozen fringe theory the tem- water, 5) the thickness of the zone of freezing. 6)

7

the temperature gradient in the zone of freezing. Obviously grain size, mineralogy, uniformity,7) the hydraulic conductivity of the unfrozen and texture are only indicators of FS. The ques-soil, 8) the compressibility of the unfrozen soil, tion is, what in the frost heaving process doand 9) the weight of the material supported by these soil factors affect? From the discussion ofthe ice lens. the various frost heave theories, it is apparent

that the soil factors influence 1) the pore sizedistribution, 2) the pore water tension, 3) the

EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF frost heaving pressures, 4) the hydraulic conduc-FACTORS AFFECTING FROST HEAVE tivity in the unfrozen soil, 5) the hydraulic con-

ductivity in the frozen fringe, and 6) the com-Considerable study has been made of the fac- pressibility of the unfrozen soil.

tors affecting frost heave. A review of the litera-ture revealed that the most important factors Pore sizeare 1) soil texture, 2) pore size, 3) rate of heat r,: The influence of pore size on frost heave wasmoval, 4) temperature gradient, 5) moisture con- originally suggested by Taber (1930b). Consider-ditions, 6) overburden stress or surcharge, and 7) able time passed before Penner (1957, 1959) res-freeze-thaw cycling, urrected the idea that pore size was important in

interpreting pore water tensions during soilSoil texture freezing.

The most important soil factor affecting frost Later Csathy and Townsend (1962) reportedheave appears to be grain size. Grain size is used that "every essential factor in the mechanism ofas the basis for most FS criteria because it is the frost action is intimately related to pore size."most easily measured soil property that has been Jessberger (1969) concluded that "all of thecorrelated with frost heave. Soils with no par- frost-favoring potentials, such as capillarity, suc-tidles smaller than 74 y simply do not heave tion, and the thermal, electrical and osmotic po-under natural conditions. Taber (1929, 1930a) re- tentials," depend on pore size. Hoekstra (1969)cognized this long ago, and Casagrandle (1931) also showed that a good correlation betweensuggested that grain size be used to define the pore size and frost heaving pressure may exist.limits of frost-susceptible soils. Lambe (1953)repor,.,d that mineralogy is an important factor, Rate of heat removalparticularly for clay particles, as the nature of The effect of the rate of heat removal on frostthe exchangeable ion has a pronounced effect heave has long been studied. Beskow (1935) con-on FS. Lambe et al. (1969) reported that clay min- cluded from field observations that the rate oferals can both enhance and inhibit frost heave, heave is independent of the rate of freezing. TheConcentrations of only 0.1 % to 1.0% of mont- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACRREL 1968)morillonite fines in a silt caused an increase in arrived at the same conclusion from coldroomfrost heave; higher concentrations caused a studies. Penner (1960), however, came to a differ-decrease. ent conclusion; he found that "there is a strong

Linell and Kaplar (1959) recognized that the influence of net heat flow on heaving rate." Pen-soil texture and material type are the most im- ner (1972) further concluded that "the rate ofportant factors affecting frost heave and also heat extraction is the basic variable in the frostthat they are the most feasible elements to con- heave process." Kaplar (1970) concluded thattrol in highway pavement design for f rost regions. the heaving rate is directly proportional to the

Leary et al. (1968) concluded that the grain heat extraction rate, while Loch (1977) foundsize effect is very complex, that only a certain that the rate of heave did not depend on the ratefraction of particle sizes in a soil influences frost of heat extraction.heave behavior, and that the amount and activ- The confusion on this issue began because theity of the clay-size particles and the uniformity early research concentrated on a narrow band ofof the gradation of soil particle sizes less than heat extraction rates. Penner's work (1972) re-74 pi are controlling factors. More recently Pen- vealed that there is a limiting rate of heat extrac-ner (1976) concluded that soil texture, a measure tion below which the rate of heave increases andof particle size gradation, is the single most im- above which the rate of heave decreases (Fig. 7).portant physical characteristic of soil for pur- More recently this observation has also beenposes of identifying its FS. made by several other researchers, including Hill

Gravelly Sand. 5 %< 02mm. "max CodLoad 0 5 psi

,-_.Increasing Rate of 6"-. Heat Removal

o12

8

wa

Void WaterHeave Rate(Saturated)

0 4 8 16

Frost Penetration (in. /day)

Figure 7. Heave rate versus rate of frost penetration. (After Pen-ner 1972.)

50ZF.ZE-Horiguchi/

(1978)LIL3-Loch ZF

(19790)40-

TheoreticalLimit

, OOLDOL3

0 100 200 300

Not Heat Extraction Rate (W/rn2 )

tFigure 8. Influence of heat extraction onheaving rate. (After Jones 1980.)

Sand Morgenstern (1977), Horiguchi (1978), Tak- Because of this, both Penner and Loch con-ashi et al. (1978), Loch (1979a), and )ones (1980). cluded that frost heave tests should be conduct-Examples of Horiguchi's, Loch's and Jones's ed at a constant rate of heat removal. Further-observations are shown in Figure 8. Hill and more, they both advised that the rate of heat ex-Morgenstern have referred to the rate of heat traction should be similar to that in the field.flow at which the maximum rate of heave occursas the "limiting value." Both Penner and Loch Temperature gradienthave recognized that this limiting value is differ- The temperature gradient has only recentlyent for different soils and, therefore, that it is been recognized as a factor affecting frostmisleading to compare the frost heaves of differ- heave. Williams (1966), Loch and Kay (1978). andent soils when the tests are carried out at the Phu kan-Morgenstern- Shannon (1979) havesame frost penetration rate (i.e. different rates of shown that the temperature gradient affects theheat removal)., thickness and hydraulic conductivity of the

, .iCL

100 W9 , ,Moisture conditionsW490 It has long been assumed that the moisture

80 condition most likely to produce frost heaving is-t one where the soil voids are filled with water.jThat this is a logical and correct assumption can

be readily understood if one views the frostU60 2,,/m heave process as an interaction between the

6. driving forces in the freezing zone and the gravi-

tational and interparticle forces restricting the0 flow of water. As can be seen in a typical

moisture-tension curve for a soil (Fig. 10), the. moisture tension is zero at saturation, and as the

S- 10moisture content decreases, tension increases at10OA a rate that depends on the soil characteristics.

* For frost heave to occur, the tension generated0I in the freezing zone must exceed the tension in

j/L, Freezing Rate (mm/hr) the unfrozen material (Miller 1977). Further-more, as the moisture tension increases, the

Figure 9. Effect of temperature gradient hydraulic conductivity decreases (Ingersoll andand freezing rate on frost heave in a sand. Berg 1981), and thus the potential rate of frost(After Corld 1980.) heave is lowered. The depth to the water table is

important in determining the moisture tensionbefore freezing (and the hydraulic conductivity),and thus it is a major factor in determining the

frozen fringe. Most recently Gorld (1980) showed rate and magnitude of frost heave. McGawthat frost heave is strongly dependent on the (1972), Burns (1977), Kinosita (1978), Lochtemperature gradient under the ice front, as well (1979b), Jones and Berry (1979), Gorld (1980) andas on the rate of heat extraction (Fig. 9). He ob- many others have observed that the heave rateserved that the temperature gradient had the decreases as the distance to the water table in-greatest effect on sands, while it had no signifi- creases. Burns's observations (1977), for in-cant influence on silts. He concluded that the re- stance, are shown in Figure 11.producibility of direct frost heave tests can be Thus, the condition most conducive to heaveimproved by expressing the results as functions occurs when the soil is saturated and the waterof both the temperature gradient and the rate of table is at the frost front. If the pore water pres-heat removal. sure becomes positive prior to freezing because

10o-

S80

Clayey Silt

S60

Sil

* 40-

I 20

c0 001 010100Hydraulic Conductivity (cra/day)

Figure 10. Hydraulic conductivity of three soils. (After Inger-soll and Berg 1981.)

10

'N• of a confined seep or aquifier, frost heave is0 5%. . con.oee its even more severe, This is, however, an unlikely

'4 Mean ine (21 tess) design condition. Thus, it can be concluded that0 void saturation with a high water table is the

•N. most dangerous condition for frost heave.

1. Overburden stress or surchargeLong ago Taber (1929) and Beskow (1935) re-

cognized that increasing the applied stress on aN. '\ freezing soil decreases the heave rate. Linell and

20" Kaplar (1959) found in laboratory tests that theihckrwss "rate of heave for a range of soil types was re-

0 duced one order of magnitude by the applica-0 06 08 10 12 14 16 tion of an approximately 40-kPa surcharge. Simi-

h Of wa er Io WO(m) bek w s k e of o .amlar observations w ere m ade by Penner and U eda

Figure 11. Effect of the depth to the water table (1978) (Fig. 12). Aitken (1963, 1974) observed aton frost heave. (From Burns [1977], reproduced field test sites that the same surcharge reducedby permission of the Transport and Road Re- t6': }.eave by a factor of only three or four; he at-search Laboratory, Crown copyright.) -. i.ed the differences from the earlier results

i000Xt0 .- ,A, . I .

10 00LDA CLAY-1 82*C

I & 6 a

CAALAR Y

C STU " . " -

L ~~N NO1.181

,k V$ 9 |-00 t.C

MVS~ MV -09 4

0010

0

CALGAY 97CALGA

NOM EATR C O

L OA LAY IMPTIR C.3

I 2 - 45 2 .4

PRESSURE. kg1cm2

Figure 12. Total frost heave rate vs pressure. (From Penner and Ueda[1978], reproduced by permission of the National Research Councilof Canada.)

11

of Kaplar to the unlimited supply of water in the has been widely observed. The effects of freeze-laboratory tests. thaw cycling on the FS of soils and granular base

Penner (1958) theorized that there should be a materials have, however, been generally ig-critical pressure for any given pore size at which nored. lessberger and Carbee (1970) recognizedfrost heaving would cease. This theme has been this problem and demonstrated in a series of lab-taken up by numerous researchers (e.g. Penner oratory tests that freeze-thaw cycling caused1960, 1967, 1972; Koopmans and Miller 1966; progressively smaller thaw-CBR values, particu-Hoekstra 1969; Miller 1972; McRoberts and Nix- larly for clay soils (Fig. 13).on 1975; Loch and Miller 1975; Osler 1967). Hill Few observations of the effects of freezingand Morgenstern (1977) determined that there is and thawing on frost heave, however, have beena critical "shut-off pressure" at which moisture reported. At CRREL several unpublished studiestransfer to the freezing zone ceases. Penner and have shown that freezing and thawing can great-Ueda (1977), however, found that no shut-off ly affect frost heave. For instance, freeze-thawpressure exists below 465 kPa for sand, silt and cycling was reported (USACRREL 1974) to haveclay soils, although marked reductions in frost increased by a factor of four the frost heave of aheave rate were observed, till frozen under a surcharge of 14 kPa, most of

the increase occurring during the second freeze-Repeated freeze-thaw cycling thaw cycle (Fig. 14). Under higher surcharges (21

The occurrence of several freeze-thaw cycles and 100 kPa) little or no effect of freezing andin soil and granular base material during a winter thawing was observed (USACRREL 1974, 1978).

WLT (zi3.3)+ Non-Prefrozen WL .

PrefrozenAvg Sod range

*-10*C,24-hr freezing cycle

Corr. a- 5C. 60-hr freezing cycleCBR a 9-day consolidation after freezing

(0.2") 9 19-day consolidation after freezing

% TCS MPG ETS100 129.0) (29.3) (54.5 1

t' + .9-AFG-3

* iW.11AFG-6 130.0) +

so WLS

KOR-1(233)

60X N13.7) F

SMS :6oa\ss40 . ( 1 \

i\ O\ ,~ \ A20(2.4)

I I I t I L i I I I L I0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Content Particles. Percent finer than 0.02 mm

Figure 13. Average CBR values of soils with less than 15% of their particlessmaller than 0.02 mm versus content of particles smaller than 0.02 mm. Num-bers in parentheses are uniformity coefficients. (After lessberger and Carbee1970.)

12

24 1 T I

20-

16-

1 2

~08-

0.4

0

0 200 400 600 800 000 1200 1400 1600 800

S2 J 5j

0 200 40 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 10

Elapsed Time NOrs

Figure 14. Frost heave and frost penetration vs time for severalfreeze-thaw cycles on lames Bay glacial till (2.0 psi surcharge,135.9 pcf dry density, 8.5% molding water content. 8.5% testingwater content, 97% saturation). (After USA CRREL 1974.)

20

Venezuelan Clay (Von -I)1.6- O5psi Surcharge

S

12-

-0.60 -'Second Freeze

04-

First Free'

C - O*C Isotherm£ 2 (f rost Penletration)

2-S

V3 4-

0aigr 45 a m 12 le t0 24

Fiue1.Influence of freezing and thawing on the frost heave of a claysoil. (After USA CRREL 1977.)

13

7,

6 SAMPLE I 5.6 % FINES (<0.02 mm BY WEIGHT)

TEST TEMPERATURE -- S*C

Ist CYC E

3 3-d CYCLE

2 ~ ~ ---- a2ad CYCLE

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 TO soII 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 sOTIME . T (hours)

Figure 16. Effect of freezing and thawing on frost heave. (From Sherif et al.[1977, courtesy of Cold Regions Engineers Professional Association.)

Io- - ,- T I I For a clay soil a second freeze was reportedEIlsworth Cloy (USACRREL 1977) to have increased the amount

, of frost heave by a factor of eight (Fig. 15) whenthe surcharge was 3.5 kPa.

Sherif et al. (1977) reported that the amount of10

6 frost heave for a silty sand decreased with freeze-I \ thaw cycling (Fig. 16). They attributed the de-

1\0 crease to the reduction of heave potential and

-.\ \ the poorer continuity of the adsorbed waterE 4,2 \ films caused by the loosening and rearranging of

107_ d particles that occur with successive freeze-Tho-- 3*,11 thaw cycling.

I6 Chamberlain and Gow (1978) have shown that' 0 the freezing and thawing of silt and clay slurries

o frozen cause an increase in both density and permeabil-10, ity (Fig. 17). This rather incongruous behavior is

attributed to particle rearrangement and shrink-age cracking occurring beneath a freezing front

t2 because of the increase in effective stress. If thepermeability increases because of freezing andthawing, then the rate of frost heave would beexpected to increase if other factors remain con-stant. However, any change in structure that in-creases permeability would also be expected to

10 1 change the frost heave potential. This complex0. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 interrelated process obviously is not well under-

Void Ratio stood but must be considered, especially when

Figure 17. Vertical permeability for developing a direct frost heave test or relatingEllsworth clay after freeze-thaw cy- laboratory tests to field conditions.cling. (From Chamberlain and Cow1978.)

14

'I

TYPES OF FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTS

This survey of FS criteria has covered more Station 1957), which requires information about

than 100 methods in use or proposed for use the entire grain size distribution curve and the

Out of these, five fundamentally different meth- Atterberg limits (a soil/water interaction test)ods of determining FS have been identified They Others require information on capillary rise and

are based on 1) particle size characteristics, 2) hydroscopicity (Beskow 1935), permeabilitypore size characteristics, 3) soil/water interac- (Freiberger [in Jessberger 1976], Scheidig 1934,tion, 4) soil/water/ice interaction, and 5) frost and Koegler et al 1936), or mineralogy (Brandlheave. 1976, 1979).

Several reports proved to be particularly valu- A tabulation of soil classification tests for de-able in reviewing the literature on FS criteria, in- termining frost susceptibility is given in Appen-cluding those of Johnson (1952), von Moos dix A. Details on each are listed below by coun-

(1956j, Armstrong and Csathy (1963), Erickson try Each listing is followed by the reference(19630), Sutherland and Gaskin (19631, Townsend source and a brief description of the criteriaand Csathy (1963a, b), lessberger (1969, 1973, Where appropriate, the classification is dis-1976), Cominsky et al. (1972), GorlO (1973), Ober- cussed.

meier (1973), Johnson et al. (1975), and Christen-sen and Palmquist (1976). Austria

The more recent review by lessberger (1976) Brandl (1976) developed criteria for determin-was especially helpful in identifying a large num- ing the FS of coarse-grained base materials in

ber of methods, particularly from Europe. This Austria. These criteria are based on the 002-mmvery comprehensive report contains reviews of grain size and the mineral type. The classifica-

31 studies that classify soils as to their degree of tion is given in Table 1. Brandl (1979, 1980) re-FS. An earlier and even more comprehensive re- ported the revised mineral criteria for FS shownport by Jessberger (1969) proved to be nearly as in Table 2.valuable, as did the reports by Townsend andCsathy. The extensive report by Christensen and Table 1. Frost susceptibility criteria of BrandlPalmquist, although not yet translated from Da- (1976).

nish, provided information on several Europeanmethods of determining FS. Maximum

The report by Armstrong and Csathy provided percentageinformation on methods used in Canada, and the by weight Allowable mineral

report by Johnson et al, reviewed methods used of particles composition of0.02 mm non-frotr-susceptible soils

by the various states in the U.S., as well as some

of the more recent methods under development. 3 s50% chlorite

Obermeier also reviewed some of the more re- 10% iron hydroxide (crystalline)

cent developments. 5% iron hydroxide (amorphous)

5 1) Non-active Ca-montmorilloniteParticle size tests minerals

Classification methods based on particle size 2) Combinations of (1) and a maximum of

are by far the most extensively used tests for de- a) 10% kaolinite

termining the FS of soils. The simplest of these b)20% chloritec) 30% biotite mica

tests includes only grain size as the determining d)40% Na-montmorillonite

factor. The most widely used, the Casagrande e) 50% muscovite mica

(1931) criteria, requires the determination of the f 70% mlite

percentage of grains finer than 0.02 mm and the )80-90% kaolinite or chlorite and 10-20%

uniformity coefficient (Cu = D/Da, where 0o Na-montmorillonite

and D,0 equal the particle diameters correspond- e INon-active minerals with a maximum of

ing to 60% anti 10% finer on the grain size distri- 1% - 0 002 mmbution curve, respectively, 2) Quartz and feldspar in dolomite and

calcite obtained from quarries and rock

More complex classification systems, such as slides, for the rock slides. the fine chlorite

the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers (1965) criteria, and muscovite fractions must not exceed

are related to the Unified Soil Classification Sys- 5-8% 002 mm, if 10% chlorite, only 5%

tem (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 002 mm

15

Table 2. Frost susceptibility criteria for gravel of Brandl (1980) suggested that because a hydro-Brandl (1979, 1980). meter analysis must be conducted to determine

the percentage of particles finer than 002 mm,Maximum the percentage passing the 0.06-mm sieve should

percentage be correlated with the percentage finer than 0.02of grains Allowable mineral composition mm for certain classes of soils. Then determina-

<0.02 mm of non-frost-susceptible soils tions of the percentage finer than 0.02 mm can

3 Non-frost-susceptible, no mineral type deter- be made from the percentage finer than 0.06mination necessary mm. which can be more easily determined by

sieve analysis. Brandl also suggested that a mod-S Normally, if heave properties are knownifePrcocmptonesbeoduedo

from field or laboratory observations, no fied Proctor compaction test be conducted tomineral type determination is necessary If determine the amount of particle breakdownfrost heave properties are not known, the during compactiongravel is non-frost-susceptible if

1) the minerals are inactive or Canada2) there is a mixture of the inactive

minerals and a maximum of Alberta. In Alberta (Johnson et al 1975) thea)10% kaolinite U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1965) grain sizeb) 30% chlorite distribution criteria are used for subgrade soilsc) 30% vermiculite with a plasticity index (PI) less than 12. Claysd) 40% montmorillonite, and/or with a PI between 12 and 25 are considered toe) 50% mica.with boundary conditions of have medium FS, and clays with PIs greater thana)60% mica and chlorite 25 have low FS Base and subbase materials areb) 50% mica, chlorite and kaolinite non-frost-susceptible if less than 10% is finerc)50% mica and kaolinite than 0.074 mm and the PI < 5-6%.d) 40% mica, chlorite, kaolinite and Canadian Department of Transport. When ac-

montmorilloniteIn addition, up to 40% complex silicate is tual measurements are not available, the Cana-allowable dian Department of Transport (Armstrong and3) If evidence of iron hydroxide, frost Csathy 1963) uses a zoned particle-size distribu-

heave tests are required tion diagram (Fig. 18) in conjunction with infor-

a Inactrive minerals with 1% 40002 mm mation on the pavement and ground water con-ditions to estimate the probable spring loss in

U S. Std. Sieve Size and Noo00 4 10 40 2 Hydrometer

Little Frost

0- 1 Susceptibility_

O meFrostSuscept-

I bilityS60-

I I I

i i i I Fr s

10 10 0.' 001 000'Grain Size (mm)

SInd Sit or Clay

C ne ,Medium Fine

Figure 18. Limits of frost susceptibility according to theCanadian Department of Transport. (After Armstrongand Csathy 1963.)

16

0bearing capacity. The percentages between the 100

curves in Figure 18 are load reduction factorsused in their pavement design mcthod 20

Canadian National Parks. In the National Parks 80

(Armstrong and Csathy 1963), the CanadianDepartment of Public Works applies a combina- 40

tion of the criteria of Beskow and CasagrandeThey have determined that all silt and clay soils cs,

with 36% or more of the particles finer than 60

0.074 mm are frost susceptible and are notallowable within 3 ft of the pavement Clay soilswith plasticity indexes greater than 11 are also 2

frost susceptible if they lie within 5 -t of thepavement. 1

Manitoba. Armstrong and Csathy (1963) re-

ported that the province of Manitoba uses a 0 20 40 60 80 00

grain size method. Soils with less (han 20% clay % Sil

and greater than 60% silt and sand are classified -- jAcceptoble Material

as frost susceptible. Soils with 20-30% clay may Sorderliti Material

be frost susceptible. No details were given =Unacceptable Material

reported that in New Brunswick, soils with great- according to the Ontario Department of High-

er than 50% silt, gravels with 6-8% silt, and clay ways (1957).Ioams and loam tills with mica in small sizes

(>0.074 mm) are classified as frost susceptible.

Newfoundland Armstrong and Csathy (1963) Ontario. Townsend and Csathy (1963a) report-

also reported that Newfoundland uses grain size ed that the Ontario Department of Highways

to determine the FS of granular base courses. (1957) assesses the FS of soils using a classifica-

The classification is given in Table 3. tion based primarily on frost heaving (Table 5).Figure 19 shows this classification on a texturalclassification chart. More recently Johnson et al.

Table 3. Newfoundland frost sus- (1975) reported that the Ontario Department of

ceptibility criteria. Highways states that soils with 0-8% of the par-

ticles smaller than 0.074 mm and a P1 of zero areFrost Grains >0.074 mm non-frost-susceptible.

susceptibility (%)

None 0-6 Table 5 Ontario frost susceptibilityModerate 6-12 criteria.High >12

Amount ofAmount very fine

Nova Scotia. Armstrong and Csathy (1963) re- Frost ot silt sand and silt

ported that Nova Scotia uses the FS classifica- susceptibiity (%) t%)

tion system given in Table 4. None 0-40 0-45

Slight-medium 40-50 45-60High 50- 100 60-1I00

Table 4. Nova Scotia frost suscepti-bility criteria. Quebec. Armstrong and Csathy (1963) re-

Frost Grains >0.074 mm ported that the FS criteria in Table 6 are used in

susceptibility (%) the province of Quebec. More recently Johnsonet al. (1975) reported that Quebec classifies sub-

None 0-10 grade soils as frost susceptible when more thanModerate 10-30 10% of the particles are smaller than 0.074 mmHigh 30 and more than 3% are smaller than 0.053 mm.

17

Table 6. Quebec frost susceptibility soils as those having i Cu greater than S Riis re-criteria, ported that the meth ds of Beskow and Casa-

grande are in general agreement, however, for

Grains Amount of silt borderline materials the Casagrande method isFrost 0074 mm and tine sand more stringent. Beskow's capillaiity test is also

susceptibility 1%1 (%) used to augment the grain size criteria The limit-ations imposed are given in Table 7 The classifi-

None 0-10 0-20 cation of soils with capillarities between 2 andModerate 10-30 20-40 10 m is not specified. However, it is believed thatHigh '30 4 Beskow would have classified these materials as

highly frost susceptible Rits reported that in

Saskatchewan. According to lohnson et al. many cases, the capillarity rule alone is suffi-

(1975), Saskatchewan determines the FS of sub- cient to der ide it a given soil is frost sus(eptible

grade soils principally by experience. Base mate-rials with 7-10% of the particles smaller than0.074 mm are usually considered non-frost- Table 7. Capillaritysusceptible, as are subbase materials with 0- frost susceptibility cri-20% smaller than 0.074 mm. eria used by the Da-

nish State Road Lab-Denmark oratory (Riis 1948).

Riis (1948) reported that the Danish StateRoad Laboratory adopted frost susceptibility cri- Frost Capillarity

teria (Fig. 20) based on the criteria of Beskow susceptibility (ml

(1935) and Casagrande (1931). Homogeneoussoils (moraines) and heterogeneous soils (sedi- None 1

ments) are treated separately, the criteria being High 1-2more severe for heterogeneous soils. Homogen- High 10-20

eous and heterogeneous soils are not defined for Slight 20

the Beskow criteria. However, reference is madeto a Swedish soil classification system for de-tails. Under Casagrande's method Riis defines More recently Christensen and Palmquisthomogeneous soils as those having a uniformity (1976) reported that the Danish State Road Lab-coefficient Cu less than 5 and heterogeneous oratory specifies that soils with more than 10%

U.S. Standard Sieve No Hydrometer4

10 40 200

1 ilI I

so Limit% for Moroines_ (oter Beskow. 1935)

OIL its for Sediments

S i I (after Beskow,1935)- I

40 i i\_0

I , .<5.. L i~tsa .fI i 1 ! Ca d

to o 0t Obi oooiGravel Grain Size (mm)

ISand Sl rCaFineCree Medium I Fine Silt or C oy

Figure 20. Grain size frost susceptibility criteria accord-ing to Riis (1948).

18

Table 8. East German frost susceptibility criteria according to Mlengel (1970).

Particles0 1 mm Adsorbed Mineral frost Bearing capacity

Gravel diameter water chemical hea ve reductiontype 1%) capacity a ctIIv ityv susceptibility during thawring

Coarse-grained -10 025 Low to high None Noneaggregate 10-30 .030 Low Variable Slight

30-50 .0O30 Low Slight Slight to moderate

F ine-grained 50-75 0 30-0 50 Low Slight to moderate Moderate to highaggregate .75 0 50-0 80 Low Slight to very high Slight to moderate

,0 80 High Slight Slight

Table 9. Factors which influence frost susceptibility (Klengel 1970).

-short Duration of frost period long-

-high freezing temperature level low-

-low Water table high-

-much Quartz in sand-grain domain little-

Decrease -little + clay minerals much- Increase

in -little Quartz in silt-grain domain much- in

frost '-much + clay minerals little- frost

susceptibility -high Degree of compaction in gravel rich in silt low- susceptibility

-high Water content in gravel rich in silt low-

-low Degree of compaction for gravel rich in clay high-

-low Water content for gravel rich in clay high'-

-high toad low-

of the particles finer than 0.075 mm in diameter variable responses to frost, depending on grainare frost susceptible. size, adsorbed water, mineral type, availability

of water, compaction, load, and freeze-thaw his-tory. Klengel reported that bearing capacity re-

East Germany duction is generally affected to a greater degreeKlengel (1970) proposed the FS classification than is frost heave for the same conditions.

system given in Table 8 for use for gravels andcrushed stone in the German Democratic Repub- Englandlic (East Germany). This Classification method According to Townsend and Csathy (1963a, b),has been developed from field and laboratory Croney (1949) suggested that the gradation limits

*measurements of frost heave and reduction in shown in Figure 21 should be used to identifybearing capacity. Few details were given of frost-susceptible soils. These limits are based onthese observations. Kiengel concluded that FS is experience in Britain, where "frost rarelya "variable quantity" that changes value in penetrates more than 12 to 18 inches below theresponse to changing environmental factors. road surface." The criteria are apparently for theTable 9 shows the various influences Klengel has most severe conditions: a high water table and aidentified and how they affect the FS of crushed cold winter. According to this classificationstone or gravel. system, all soils with less than 20% of the grains

According to KMengel's classification system, smaller than 0.02 mm are not frost susceptible.soils with less than 10% of the particles smaller This limitation appears to be unreasonably highthan 0.1 mm are not affected by frost, and those and inappropriate for conditions in the Unitedwith more than 10% smaller than 0.1 mm have States. Indeed, Townsend and Csathy (1963b)J

19

U.S. Sid. Sieve Size and No.4 10 40 200 Hydrometer

00,TIT1

I FrostA 6 0 i Susceptible

Sois

II d :i

D. 0I 00 00

Grain Size(m

Sand Silt or CloyIC'rso Medium IFine I

Figure 21. Limits of frost-susceptible soils according toCroney (1949).

found this criterion to be the least reliable in re- Figure 22 shows that the grain size plot is di-jecting frost-susceptible soils. vided into four critical regions The boundary be-

tween Regions 3 and 4 is determined by Casa-Finland grande's criterion where 3% of the particles are

Jessberger (1976) reviewed Orama's report smaller than 0.02 mm and the uniformity coeffi-(19701 on the determination of FS of soils in cient is 15; the boundary between Regions 1 andFinland. The basis of the classification system is 2 is where 10% of the particles are smaller thanCasagrande's criteria (1931). 0.02 mm and the uniformity coefficient is 5.

U.S. Sid. Sieve Size and No.

so0 jl I I I I

A6 0 I

Always Frost40 14 1 2 Sestv

* I 3 2 Sensitive

20 I

0~ ~ 11 d

too 10 9.0 0.1 001Grain Size (mnn)

ICreel Fielre eimJFn it or Cloy

Figure 22. Frost susceptibility classification of soilsaccording to Orama (1970). The soii is non-f rost-sus-ceptible if all of its grain size distribution curve lieswithin Regions 2, 3 or 4.

20

U.S Sid. Steve Size and No

All soils with grain size distribution curves 4 10 40 200

that lie entirely within Region 1 are always frost 'I

susceptible. Soils with grain size distribution I

curves that lie wholly within Regions 2, 3 or 4 are s- IFS Ungraded I

non-frost-susceptible. These soil types with I" r I I

curves whose lower portions fall to the left of SedimentsRegions 2, 3 or 4 are frost susceptible. Soils for I60 NFS . 1Ait Soilswhich the lower portion of the grain size curve d S sceptilpasses through a region to the right are non-frost- 0o \.susceptible, as are soils where the upper portion I .Cof the curve is only partially in a finer-particle

I Eregion For borderline cases the capillarity of the 20 S Isoil is used (no details were given by lessberger). NFSO,

il ilI I II I , Ia . I

Greenland 10 1.0 0.1 0.01

Nielsen and Rauschenberger (1957) reported Grain Size (mM)

the following FS criteria based on an evaluation Sond or Cloyof soil particles smaller than 2 mm: C0rse Medium Fine

1 All the soil types containing less than 5% of particles less than 0 075 mm in diameter II1ng 2 1)(1 e soil Figure 23. Frost susceptibility classifica-types in which the grain-size curve drops below Point tion of soils according to Nielsen andA [Fig 231 are non-frost-susceptible) Rauschenberger (12). (NFS = non-

2 The other soil types are divided as followsa Sediments are not frost susceptible when less frost-susceptible.)

than 50% is smaller than 0 125 mm and at the sametime not more than 35% is smaller than 0)074 mmIi e when the grain-size curve lies below Points B of the Christensen and Palmquist report isand C) Sediments with grain-size curves which availablelie above Points B and C are frost Jsceptible

b Ungraded soil types are not frost susceptible According to von Moos (1956), Norway haswhen the grain-size curve lies below Curve D Un- been classifying soils with less than 25% of thegraded soil types with grain-size curves that lie particles smaller than 0,25 mm and 20% smallerabove Curve E are frost susceptible than 1.00 mm as non-frost-susceptible.3 If less than 20% of the sample passes through a

2-mm sieve, the soil is non-frost-susceptibleThis classification was developed for use in PolandGreenland and is based on the susceptibility to Pietrzyk (1980) developed the FS classificationfrost heave. scheme shown in Figure 24 for a temperature of

-51C. It appears that this classification is theJapan result of laboratory direct frost heave tests. The

According to Jessberger (1969), the Japanese author apparently has also developed similar(Japan 1960) classify all sands, gravels, crushed graphs for other temperatures; he admits, how-rocks and volcanic ash with less than 6% of the ever, that application to field problems is uncer-particles smaller than 0.075 mm as non-frost- tain because of the almost continuous variabil-susceptible. ity in air temperature. It should be noted that the

criteria in Figure 24 are for the worst hydrologicNetherlands conditions, where water is freely available. A

According to von Moos (1956), the unique feature of these criteria is the depend-Netherlands classifies soils with less than 5% of ence on overburden stress.

the particles smaller than 0.05 mm and less than3% organic humus as non-frost-susceptible. Romania

The Romanian FS standards are based on grainNorway size and Atterberg limits. Vlad (1980) reported

According to Christensen and Palmquist the Romanian standards shown in Table 10 and(1976), Brudal classified soils with less than 20% Figure 25. This standard is based on Schaible'sof the total sample less than 0.125 mm as non- most recent proposal (1957), with the plastic

frost-susceptible. No details on these criteria are limit introduced by the Romanians as a refine-

available as neither the original nor a translation ment.

21

- --

U.S. Standard Sieve 140to 40 200100 111111 1I 111 1 111

U.S. Standard Sieve No. Hydrometer4 10 200 I

I I I Non-frost- III I susceptible

60 Ij Frost* I 0 ' A Susceptible if eyrs

4 0 -l t 0j 3 S u sce p tib le if

\\ \X2: Non-frost- \" '_ sucpil I P. .0 .0

10 L.0 0.1 0.01 0.00.1010.10.0

Gravel Grain Site (mm) Grain Size (mm)il

San7 d Sito lySand Silt or ClayFinelCrlef Mediumn Fine Sito lyMed. Fin

Figure 24. Frost susceptibility classification ac- figure 25. frost susceptibility criteria accord-

cording to Pietrzyk (7980). ing to V/ad 11980)

Table 10. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Vlad (1980).

Criteria

Grading

Particle Percentage offrost Type of diameter the total

susceptibility -soil Plasticity (mm) specimen mass

None Non-cohesive Pt 0 '.0002 "I1soil without '0.02 '10clay '.01 '20

Low-high Non-cohesive P1 . 10 '0002 '6soil with clay <0 02 '20

'.01 '40

Cohesive soil PI A35

Very high 10, Pi 35 -.0002 --002 .20'01-4

Sweden and distance to the water table. However, he de-Beskow (1935) determined from numerous lab- cided that the degree of variation of these fac-

oratory experiments and field observations in tors is so strongly marked that for practical pur-Sweden that "non-frost-heaving" soils exhibit poses, limits were appropriate. He suggestedless than 3-4 cm of heave during one winter. He that limits be based on the soil type (sediment orconcluded that it is practically impossible to fix moraine), the average diameter, the amountsa definite grain-size boundary between frost- finer than 0.062 mm and 0.125 mm, the capillar-heaving and non-frost-heaving soil because of ity parameters KF and KM, and the hygroscopic-the effects of grain size distribution, surcharge, ity. Beskow did not define moraine or sediment,

22

US Standard Sieve No U.S Standard Sieve NoOO to 40 200 10 40 200

I 'Frost

80 so80-£ I ~~Trasto

IZone TTransitionFrost Zone I

-m I Trnito I40~Fos No-rZ-4 onestsu6e0tbl / I Susceptible

I 1

40 o po~_4- 10 0.1 001s

F $ue2.u rss ucetblt liit corin t Suseptib (93).(Ate

Fr ., t Soi dimee Am tpSsinsv 1

Non-fost-havin Sdi met 0-5

stanced

onl ur a6 Fot surfcsncfr Mrieptblt liit ac0- din to to 1793. (Ate

veyhihgounnd ater ay193.

whl rabae Mroainueptblt crtei accodin 22-3 1o (1935)

ver high groundrit waleropiit

Normayfrostheaving Sediment .0 01 -30 5-2

andy labto sfrt bnol Moraine - 0-5 3 0 1 -to14/fory gn waron deh

mhl odbs o oraines)1-5 2-6 1 At /

Noml rostheaving ly u Sediment) .- 0 -0 - 2 -20? 51)andt liable tofr boils M rie--5-622 -

Non-frost-heaving stiff (Sediment) - - -10"iclays

* In percent of material finer than 2 mm

t Original unclear

but according to Townsend and Csathy (1963b), what he meant by hygroscopicity, except that itthe uniformity coefficient for soils that Beskow is the water content of the soil particle surfacelabeled moraines is greater than 50, and for sedi- adsorbed from water vapor. The method used toments, Cu is less than 20. By capillarity, Beskow determine this was not reported.meant the suction required to break down capil- As a result Beskow proposed the followinglary saturation, KF being for loose packing and (Table 11 and Fig. 26):KM for dense packing. However, it is uncertain 1Soils with a capillarity K, less than one meter

23

(coarse silts, sand. and gravels) are under no circum- Soil Classification System, where the 0.074-mmstances frost-heaving For sediments this is defined as particle size is used to differentiate betweenmaterial of which less than 30% passes the 0.062 mm sands and silts.sieve and less than 55% passes the 0125 mm sieve For Rengmark (1963) presented the FS classifica-moraine. it is the material of which less than 15%passes the 0.062 and less than 22% passes the 0.125 tion system used by the National Road Researchsieve, all computed in % of the material that passes Institute in Sweden. These criteria are based onthe 2mm sieve both frost heave and thaw-weakening suscep-

"2 For small loads (and high ground water), soils tibility. However. no details for developing thesewith a capillarity of K, = 1-216 meters and KM = standards were reported.11/4-4 meters may be dangerous (silt sediments30-50% less than 0.062 mm). Such soils may cause Soils are classified according to their FS asbank slides even if they don't have any heave in road- follows:ways For an extremely high ground water and slow 1. Non-frost-susceptible soils are those in-freezing they may even be dangerous in the roadbed organic soils that are not prone to frost heaving

"3 Soils with a capillarity of KF greater than 2 and are not softened during the thawing process.meters and KM greater than 3 meters (fine silts andfiner sediments of which more than 50% is less than 2. Moderately frost-susceptible soils are those0062 mm) are under all circumstances frost-heaving inorganic soils that are normally subject to frostThese soils usually have a hygroscopic value of Wh heaving only when the rate of freezing is low orgreater than 1. when the depth to the ground water table is

"These values are for the upper limit of grain size small. During thawing, these soils undergo smallwhich are critical For the lower grain size limit the fol-

lowing data may be given: to moderate reductions in bearing capacity."1. Sediments The soils which are essentially frost- 3. Highly frost-susceptible soils are those in-

heaving and cause frost boils have a hygroscopic organic soils where frost heave is considerablevalue up to Wh = 4, which is the division between under normal freezing conditions or if thelean clay and medium clay. However, even the leaner ground water table is high. Large reductions inof the medium clays (W. = 4-5) may becomedangerous under very variable hydrographic condi- bearing capacity occur during thaw.

tions and under a very small load pressure. The ex- The soil types in each of these categories aretreme limit may then be put at Wh = 5 for soils which shown in Table 13 and the grain sizes for eachmay form frost boils. But stiffer clays may still be soil type are shown in Table 14.frost-heaving, and from a practical standpoint the en-tire range of medium clays may be considered frost-heaving Therefore, the ultimate limit for any dangerat all must be put at Wh = 10.

"2. Moraines. The limit is here quite difficult to fixdefinitely Only the silt and fine silt sediments are real- Table 13. Frost susceptibility for different soillV dangerous to form frost boils. For a considerable types according to Rengmark (1963).clay content, and especially when there is a very evendistribution of grain size causing a small pore volume, Frost Soilthe permeability and therefore the possibility of frost- susceptibility typeheave become very small"

Beskow (1938) later discussed the criteria ac- 1 None Graveltually used in Sweden. The original of this paper Sandwas not available for review. The details in Table Coaise mo (sandy silt)

12 have been taken from Townsend and Csathy Gravelly moraine

(1963a). This classification differs from the Bes- 2 Moderate (possibly none) Sandy moraine

kow (1935) classification principally in the sieve 2 Moderate Normal morainesize, apparently as a concession to the Unified Sandy moraine

Moraine clay

Heavy medium clayHeavy clay

Table 12. Frost susceptibility criteria according Very heavy clayto Beskow (1938). 2 Moderate (possibly high) Clayey moraine

3 High Moey moraineAllowable amount Allowable (sandy, silty)

Soil finer than 0.074 mm capillarity Silty morainetype (% (in) Fine mo (sandy silt)

SiltWell-sorted sediments '-40 , 1 Light clay

Well-graded moraines <19 < 1 Light medium clay

24

Table 14. Grain sizes of different Table 16. Frost susceptibility criteria accord-soil types according to Rengmark ing to Ruckli (1950). (After Jessberger 1976.)(1963).

Frost Soil

Soil Crain size susceptibility typetype (mmJ

I None Peaty and swampy soils

Boulders 1200 (22%,0 125 mm or GravelLarge stone 200-60 17%,0075 mm) Sand if '50% 40125 mmSmall stone 60-20 II Moderate MudCoarse gravel 20-6 (22% .0125 mm or LoamFine gravel 6-2 17% 0075 mm) Compacted ballastSand 2-0.6 Normal moraineMedium sand 0,6-0.2

Coarse mo (sandy silt) 0 2-006 III Considerable Rock flour (silt)

Fine mo (sandy silt) 0.06-0.02 Light loam

Coarse silt 0.02-0006 Moraine with high loam or siltF l6contentFine silt 0.006-0-002 Fine sand it , 50% , 0 125 mmClay 0002

Freddn and Stenberg (1980) reported that Bonnard and Recordon (1958) presented thesedimentary soils in Sweden are now classified early Swiss standards for determining the FS ofaccording to capillarity and the portion finer soils (Association of Swiss Road Engineers 1957).than 0.074 mm. The Swedish FS classification They considered soils to be non-frost-susceptiblesystem for sediments is shown in Table 15. This if less than 3% of the soil particles are less thansystem appears to have evolved from the early 0.02 mm in diameter. This appears to be based onwork of Beskow. the Casagrande (1931) criteria. A more detailed

classification based on gradation characteristicsis given in Table 17.

Table 15. Swedish frost susceptibility criteria.

Amount Table 17. Frost susceptibility criteria accordingfiner than to Bonnard and Recordon (1958).

Frost 0.074 mm Capillarity This standard was adopted by the Swiss Federal Governmentsusceptibility (%) (W) (norm 40325)

None <16 <1 Frost Soil Unified SoilLow-high 16-43 1.0-1.5 susceptibility type Classification*

High '43 >1 5 None Clean gravel and GW. GPclean sand SW. SP

Switzerland Slight Silty or claylike GM. CC

Ruckli (1950) proposed criteria for Switzerland gravel

based principally on Beskow's work (1935). Average Silty or clayey sand, SM, SC

These are basically frost heave criteria and do highly plastic clay, CH

not appear to consider thaw weakening. The organic clay OH

classification in Table 16 is taken from less- High Low or highly plastic ML. MHberger's review (1976). silt, clay of low CLplasticity, organic OLThese criteria must be modified to fit the siltsituation. Laboratory studies, such as those dis-cuse y eso (93)for determining hygro- C = gravel, S = sand. M =silt. C = clay. 0 = organic.cussed by Beskow (1935) W = well-graded, P - poorly graded, H = high plasticity.scopicity, capillarity and frost heave, may also L = low plasticity.

be necessary. The effect of the ground water lev-el in soils with relatively high permeabilitiesmust also be taken into consideration. Accord- Bonnard and Recordon (1969) discussed moreing to jessberger (1976), Ruckli essentially agrees recent developments in the Swiss FS standardswith Beskow (1938), Taber (1930a) and Ducker for gravel base course materials. The existing(1939) with regard to determining FS. standards and those under development are

25

U.S Standard Sieve Size and No. Hydrometer

100 3/4 4 i0 40 200

I -

GveSGravel i

-Go

gia 1. Graver

-

20 .111 k .i

1O0 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001Grain Size (rmM)

c be se a ie m a lims c o CartCra.Gainsizeistribton critea fr grIC'el aiigor I frezin ande i

Figure 27. Limits for Gravel I and Gravel be. Gravel I is non-frost-sus-

ceptible. Grave 1 requires a frost heave test and a loss of bearing ca-pacity test. (After Bonnard and Recordon 1 ia9.)

given in Table 18. Gravels with properties failing The essential factors include grain size charac-the criteria in the table are considered to be frost teristics before and after compaction, Atterbergsusceptible and cannot be used as road base ma- limits, compaction characteristics and CBR afterterial. Grain size distribution criteria for gravel soaking or freezing and thawing. Two categoriesclassifications I and 1 are given in Figure 27. of gravels have been established (Gravel I and

Recordlon and Rechsteiner (1971) presented a Gravel 11; the sensitivity to freezing must be de-

standard for determining the FS of gravel base termined in the laboratory. Materials passing theand subbase materials in Switzerland. This stan- standards given in Table 19 are non-frost-suscep-

dard was developed to permit the use of mar- tibds These FS criteria are among the mostginal gravels because clean gravels are becom- thorough of the methods reviewed. The principaling scarce in Switzerland. Both frost heave and limitation appears to be in adequately samplingthaw weakening are considered in the standard, heterogeneous gravels in their natural state.

Table 18. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Bonnard and

Existing Standards ins ta ndards preparation

I" l* I1"

Grain size characteristicsMaximum particle size 100 mm 30-100 mm 10-1(X mmAmountlessthanO02mm - 3% . 3% 1-10%Uniformity coefficient 4 15-100 -

Curvature coefficient 1-3 1-3 -

Atterberg limitsPlasticity index none none • 6%Liquid limit none none -. 25%

Laboratory tests required none none a) frost heavefor frost resistance b) loss of bearing (apacity

Gravel quality class

26

Table 19. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Recordon andRechsteiner (1971).

Gravel II

Gravel I Crushed andUndisturbed Compacted* undisturbed

material material material

Max particle diam (mm) 200 30-100 10-100

Amount finer than 0 02 mm (%) 3 .3 '10

Uni! nitv coefficient 3-15 10-50 -

Coefficient of curvature 1-3 1-3 -

Optimum water content I%) - 5 '10

Liquid limit (%) - - '25

Plasticity index (%) - - '6

CBRt (undisturbed) - - 30CBRt (crushed) - - 80CBRt reduction 1%) - - -50

Increase in amount of - <2" -20 02-Mm size after compaction

American Association of State Highway Officials compaction standardst After soaking for four days or after one freeze-thaw test.

If fraction exceeds 3%. then the material is usable only as Gravel II

The Association of Swiss Road Engineers CBR response will result. This test requires that

(1976) reported the most recent developments in the CBR is not reduced by more than 50%. As in

the Swiss standards. According to lessberger the earlier Swiss standard described by Recor-

(1976), this FS classification standard considers don and Rechsteiner (1971), the granular materi-

both frost heaving and thaw weakening. als are separated into two groups, Gravel I and

It makes the distinction between frost-safe Gravel II. Gravel I is the clean base or subbase

and frost-endangered materials. Frost-safe mate- material that would not be affected by frost ac-

rials are those in which no ice lenses form during tion, and Gravel II is the base or subbase materi-

ground freezing and which undergo little or no al that has a higher percentage of fines and for

reduction of load capacity during thawing, even which some small but acceptable effects of

when subjected to the worst hydrological and freezing are expected. Materials passing the re-

climatic conditions. Frost-endangered materials quirements given in Table 22 are determined to

are those which do not meet the above defini- be non-frost-susceptible.

tion. Frost heave damage can result from icelenses or the loss of load-carrying capacity uponthawing.

Three levels of determining the FS of soils arespecified. The first of these is based on the Casa-grande criteria, with some consideration of the Table 20. First level of the SwissU.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria. This classi- frost susceptibility criteria.fication is given in Table 20.

The second level used by the Swiss is based on Amount finer

soil classification tests. This standard, which is Frost than 0.02 mm*

essentially the same as the U.S. Army Corps of susceptibility 1%)

Engineers criteria, is given in Table 21.The third level in the Swiss standards is for de- Nonet 1 5

termining the FS of granular base and subbase Borderline 1 5-3

materials. It requires laboratory CBR tests be- High 3

fore and after soaking with water or after freez- *Applied only to the fraction smaller than60 mm

ing and thawing. It is not clear from the descrip- Homogeneous sands wh C -5 ae prac-

tion of this standard which of the two condition- tically non-frost-susceptible if they con-

ing tests are preferable or what differences in tam less than 10% finer than 002 mm

27

Table 21. second level of the Swiss frost susceptibility criteria.

Amount M%Frost Soil finer than Us,5 C. S soil

susceptibility trYoe 0.02 mm classification*

Slight Gravel 3-10 GW, GPCM, cc

Slight to a)CGravel 10-20 CM, CC-CLmoderate CM-CC. CM-ML

b) Sand 3-15 SW. SP. SM. SC

Moderate a) Gravel '20 CC-CL. CM-CC,CM-ML

b) Sand (except very fine -15 SC-CL. SM-SC.silty sand) SM-MI

c) Clays. PI ' 12 CL. CH

High a) Silt ML, MH

b) Very fine silty sand '15 SM-MI

c) Clayey silt, PI , 12 *. CL, CL-MI

d) Banded clays and other In alternate laversbanded fine soils CL, ML

CL. ML, SMCL, CH, ML

CL. CH, ML, SM

C = gravel, S = sand, M = silt, C = cfay. W =well-graded. P =poorly graded.H =high plasticity, LI low plasticity

Table 22. Third level of the Swiss frost susceptibility criteria.

Materials Cravel I Gravel itcharacteristics Round Broken Round Broken

Amount (%) < 0 2 mm .3 ..10Uniformity coefficient (C.) 12-100 10-50 - -

Coefficient of curvature (Qe 1-31- -

Maximum particle size (mm) 30-100 10-100Optimum water content 1%) ..S '10Plastic limit . 25Plasticity index (%) - 6CBR 2 or C8R,*% M t - 30 180CBR2JCBR, or CBR ICBR, f -05

CBR1 = COR as compacted CBR, = CBR after soaking with water forfour days; CBR I= CBR after one freeze-thaw cycle

t Gravel Ilis not subject to the CBR reduction test

.28

Table 23. Arizona frost susceptibility cri- California Johnson et al (1975) reported that

teria. California classifies subgrade soils with less than5% finer than 0 074 mm as non-frost-susceptible

Elevation above Maximum amount No limits were reported for base and subbasesea )evel greater than 0075 mm materials.

lit) -%) Colorado. Johnson et al (1975) reported that2Soo 12 Colorado calls base and subbase materials nor-

2500-3500 10 frost-susceptible if 5-10% of the particles are-35i00 8 smaller than 0074 mm

Connecticut. Haley (1963) and Johnson et al(1975) reported that the FS of soils in Connecti-

United States cut is determined with the Casagrande (1931) cri-Alaska. Johnson et al. (1975) reported that teria, with the special restrictions that less than

Alaska specifies that soils with less than 3% of 10% must be smaller than 0074 mm and thethe particles finer than 0.074 mm are non-frost- fines must be non-plastic.susceptible. The FS criteria based on the U.S Ar- Delaware.Haley (1963) reported that Delawaremy Corps of Engineers (1965) criteria are also allows non-frost-susceptible soils to contain upused. to 35% of their particles smaller than 0.074 mm.

More recently, Esch et al. (1981) reported that Idaho. According to Erickson (1963), all siltybase and subbase materials with 0-6% of the and organic clayey soils (with 36% smaller thanparticles finer than 0.074 mm are considered to 0.074 mm and PIs less than 10%) have been con-be non-frost-susceptible. sidered to be frost susceptible in Idaho. A more

Arizona. According to the method used in Ari- recent survey (Johnson et al 1975) found thatzona (Erickson 1963), FS depends on the eleva- base and subbase materials with more than 5%tion above sea level (Table 23). This effect is less than 0.074 mm are frost susceptible if theprobably related to climatic differences. sand equivalent is less than 30% of the total.

Asphalt Institute of North America. Johnson et Illinois. Johnson et al. (1975) reported that allal. (1975) reported that the Asphalt Institute uses silty soils with more than 36% of the particles7% finer than 0.074 mm as the dividing point be- smaller than 0.074 mm, a PI of less than 10%.tween non-frost-susceptible and frost-suscepti- and a LL of less than 40% are considered to beble soils. frost susceptible in Illinois, as are all other soil

Bureau of Public Roads. Morton (1936) estab- with 70% or more smaller than 0.074 mm.lished subdivisions within the Bureau of Public Iowa. Johnson et al. (1975) reported that soilsRoads soil classification system. According to with more than 15% of the particles smallerTownsend and Csathy (1963a), the basis for Mor- than 0.074 mm are considered to be frost suscep-ton's FS classification system (Table 24) was his tible.experience in New Hampshire. Kansas. Johnson et al. (1975) reported that all

Table 24. Frost susceptibility criteria according to the Bureau of PublicRoads.

Frost Potential Soil Soil Allowable amount (% )susceptibility frost heave (cm) classification* type finer than 0 (15 mm

None < 0,8 A-3 Cohesionless -

sand & gravels

Low 08-1 6 A-2G Sand & gravel • 10hard pans

Medium 1 6-24 A-2F Silt hard pans 10-25

High 2 4-3.5 A-2P Clay hard pans .25or boulder clays

Very high > 35 A-4 Fine-grained silts

*Bureau of Public Roads classification system

29

silty subgrade soils are classified as frost suscep- Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Casa-tible in Kansas, as are base and subbase mater- grande (1931), while studying the frost heaveials with more than 15% smaller than 0-074 mm. problem at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-

Maine. Johnson et al. (1975) reported that nology, concluded that "under natural freezingMaine has used the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- conditions and with sufficient water supply oneneers grain size distribution criteria for subgrade should expect considerable ice segregation insoils. Base materials with 0-5% less than 0.074 non-uniform soils containing more than 3% ofmm and subbase materials with 0-7% less than grains smaller than 0.02 mm, and in very uni-0.074 mm are classified as non-frost-susceptible. form soils containing more than 10% smaller

Maryland. Johnson et al. (1975) reported that than 0.02 mm." This conclusion was based prin-Maryland has used the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- cipally on a study of a test road at MIT and onneers grain size distribution FS classification sys- field observations in New Hampshire.tem for subgrade soils, but usually classifies Later, Casagrande (1934) stated that in soilsbase and subbase materials with as much as with less than 3% smaller than 0.02 mm little or12% smaller than 0.074 mm as non-frost-suscep- no ice is formed and that no ice segregationtible. would occur if less than 1% of the soil particles

Massachusetts. Haley (1963) reported that was smaller than 0.02 mm in diameter.Massachusetts has classified soils with more Jessberger (1976) criticized Casagrande's cri-than 15% smaller than 0.074 mm as frost suscep- teria, saying that they were based on insufficienttible. Johnson et al. (1975) more recently re- evidence; he stated that they fail to take into ac-ported that Massachusetts classifies subgrade count the depth to the water table, the varia-soils with more than 12% of the particles small- tions in climate and material type, and the losser than 0.074 mm and base and subbase mater- of bearing capacity during thaws. However, less-ials with more than 10% smaller than 0.074 mm berger conceded that Casagrande's criteria are aas frost susceptible. significant contribution, as they seldom lead to

According to Johnson et al. (1975), the Massa- adverse experiences.chusetts Turnpike Authority uses the U.S. Army Casagrande (1947) presented one of the earli-Corps of Engineers criteria for subgrade soils, est frost susceptibility criteria based on a soiland like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it classification system. The original report was un-classifies base and subbase materials with more available for review. According to Townsendthan 10% smaller than 0.074 mm as frost suscep- and Csathy (1963a), this is Casagrande's so-calledtible. Airfield Classification System, the forerunner of

Table 25. Frost susceptibility classification system accordingto Casagrande (1947).

Unified Sod FrostSoil type Classification' susceptibility

Well-graded gravel-sand, no fines GW None to ver5 slight

Well-graded gravel-sand vissh clay Cc Medium

Poorly graded gravel CP None to very slight

Gravel with fines, silty gravel GF Slight to medium

Well-graded sands, no fines SW None to very slight

Well-graded sands, clay binder SC Medium

Poorly graded sands, few fines SP None to very slight

Sands with fines SF Slight to high

Silts and very fine sands ML Medium to very high

Silty clays of low plasticity CL Medium to highOrganic silts, organic silt-clays OL Medium to high

Fine sandy, silty, micaceous silts MH Medium to very high

Inorganic clays of high plasticity CH Medium

Organic clays of medium plasticity OH Medium

*G = gravel. S = sand, M =

silt. C clay, W well-graded, P = poorly

graded, H = highly plasticity, L low plasticity

3104

the U S Army Corps of Engineer classitication dexes ot less than 6 are classified as followssystem (U S Army Engineer Waterways Exper- Base materils 8-12% 0 074 mm. non-trostment Station 1957) This classification system is sus( eptihie.given in Table 25 Subbase materials 5-13% K 0074 mm, non-

Michigan Johnson et al (1975) reported that frost-susceptibleUS in Michigan is determined from a visual in- New Hampshire. Haley (1963) reported thatspe-tion of subgrade soils, base and subbase ma- the FS classification system in Table 27 is used in

terials are classified as frost susceptible when New Hampshire Johnson et al. (1975), however,the loss of fines by washing is greater than 7% reported that officials in New Hampshire had

Minnesota. According to Johnson et al (1975), later adopted the Casagrande criteria (if lessMinnesota classifies all fine-grained soils and than 3% is finer than 0.02 mm, then the soil isbase and subbase materials with more than 10% non-frost-susceptible) for subgrade materialsof the particles smaller than 0 074 mm as frost For non-frost-susceptible base and subbase ma-susceptible terials, 0-8% less than 0.074 mm is allowable for

Montana Erickson (1963) reported that Mon- crushed stone, and 0-12% of the fraction finertana classifies A-i-a, A-i-b and A-2-4 granular than 5.2 mm can be less than 0.074 mm for sand,materials (AASHO soil classification, Table 26) gravel, and crushed gravel The New Hampshireas least frost susceptible rapid freezing test, which will be discussed later,

Nebraska. Johnson et al (1975) reported that is required when materials are borderline.Nebraska classifies all subgrade materials ex- New Jersey. Turner and Jumikis (1956) evalu-cept clean and coarse sands as frost susceptible ated the behavior of 30 New Jersey soils in termsBase and subbase materials with plasticity in- of frost heave and thaw weakening (Table 28).

Table 26. Materials considered least frost susceptible in Montana.

Material Soil Amount (%) finer than Liquid Plasticity

type classification* 0074 mm 042 mm 2 mm limit (%) index (%)

- A-i-a .15 <30 -. 50 - <6

- A-i-a '25 '50 - -6

- A-2-4 -.35 - - -.40 ,-10

Subbase & basesands & gravels - -12 - - 35 .6

*According to the American Association of State High ay Officials

Table 27. New Hampshirc frost susceptibility cri-teria.

frost Soil Amount tlsusceptibility classification* finer than 0 074 mm

None-low A2 .10

Medium A2 10-20High A2 25-35Very high A4 -35*According to the American Association of State Highway

Officials

Table 28. New Jersey frost susceptibility criteria.

Frost Soil Amount I%) Plasticity Liquid

susceptibility type finer than 00)4 mm index (%) limit 1%)

None Gravel, sand 25 '6 -

Uncertain Gravel, sand .35 '10 '40

Medium Silt ,35 '10 -40High Clay -35 ,10 .40

Very high Silt '35 '10 '40

Very high Clay '35 -10 '40

31

New York. According to Haley (1963), New U.S. Civil Aeronautics Administration. ThisYork has required that the Casagrande criteria be standard was contained in the CAA (1948) speci-used for both subgrade and base/subbase materi- fications for the construction of airports. Ac-als. An additional stipulation that the plasticity cording to Townsend and CsathV (1963b) theindex be less than or equal to three has also been CAA specified requirements for subbase mater-made. Johnson et al. (1975) confirmed all but the ials where the frost penetration is 10 inches orplasticity index requirement more. These requirements are primarily based

Ohio. Johnson et al. (1975) reported that Ohio on general strength considerations, but they con-has classified AASHO A-4 subgrade materials sider frost effects as well. No special considera-with more than 50% silt and a PI of less than 10 tions for frost are made for base materials. Theas especially frost susceptible. Base/subbase ma- requirements for non-frost-susceptible subbaseterials with more than 15% smaller than 0.074 materials are given in Table 29.mrn are also considered to be frost susceptible.

Oregon. Erickson (1963) reported that Oregon Table 29. U.S. Civil Aeronau-has classified all soils with more than 10% small- tics Administration fot sus-er than 0.074 mm as frost susceptible. More re-cently. Johnson et al. (1975) reported that offi- ceptibility criteria.cials in Oregon determine subgrade materials to Particle size Allowable amount

be frost susceptible if more than 8% of the parti- (mm) 1%)cles are smaller than 0.074 mm. Base materialswith more than 8% smaller than 0.074 mm and a 76 700.sand equivalent of less than 25% and subbase 042 70.materials with a sand equivalent of less than .20 lOOt30%, a liquid limit greater than 33%, and a plas- 042 25-75tticity index greater than 6% are also considered .0074 0-1st

to be frost susceptible. Percentage of total sample

Texas. Details of the Texas method for deter- t Percentage of portion smaller than

mining FS were reported by Carothers (1948) and 20mm

were taken from Townsend and CsathV (1963a).The gradation limits shown in Figure 28 were The liquid limit can be no more than 25% andsuggested for non-frost-susceptible base mate- the plasticity index, 6%. If more than 45% of therials. entire sample is larger than 2.0 mm, the amount

U S Sid Sieve Size and No

3 3/; 4 10 40 200 Hydrometertoo ,P - 1 .1 .1 1 ',f I

80-.

,,60-t

u.€ 40 "l

. , o , ., i s

.0 10 101001 01 00

I Grve San Sil orCa

I c',,. I Fine lc',--I".dium I Fine I

Figure 28. Limits of non-frost-susceptible base materials in Texas ac-

cording to Carothers (1948). (After Townsend and Csathy 1963a.)

32C's. F......Cr.....Me.ium..Fine

Fiue2.Lmt•fnnfotssetbebs aeil in Te...a.. ac-. , i=A

smaller than 0.074 mm may be increased to 25% "Soils and Geology- Pavement Design for Frostif no increase in the liquid limit or the plasticity Conditions" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1965)index occurs. This FS classification system, with some modi-

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta- fications, is essentially what is used today by thetion. In the Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers. It is based on Casagrande'sUSAE WES (1957) has identified the potential ef- system (the amount finer than 0.02 mm), exten-fects of frost action on soils (Table 30). This FS sive laboratory frost heave tests in which severeclassification is based on both frost heave and moisture and freezing conditions were imposed,thaw weakening. and field observations of reduced bearing ca-

pacity after thaw.Table 30. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex- The FS system (Table 32, Fig 29)presently usedperiment Station frost susceptibility criteria, by the Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers 1965) classifies most inorganic mater-Frost Soil Unified Soil ials with 3% or more of their grains finer than

susceptibility type Classification 0.02 mm in diameter as frost susceptible forpavement design purposes. Gravels, well-graded

None to very slight Gravels GW. GP sands and silty sands, especially those with den-Sands SW. SPSt mavs GM. S sities near the theoretical maximum densitySlight to medium Gravels GM. GC

Slight to high Sands SM. SC curve, are considered to be possibly frost sus-Medium to veryhigh Silts ML. MH ceptible if they contain 1.5-3% finer than 0.02Medium Clays, LL .50 CH. OH mm; they must be subjected to a standard FSMedium to high Clays. LL . 50 CL, OL test to evaluate their behavior during freezingSlight Peat PUniform sandy soils may have as much as 10%"G = gravel, S = sand, M = silt. C = clay. 0 = organic, of their grains finer than 0.02 mm without beingPT = peat. W = well-graded, P = poorly graded, H =high plasticity. L = low plasticity frost susceptible.

Soils classified as non-frost-susceptible mayU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Linell and Kap- heave measurably under field conditions. How-

lar (1959) and Linell et al. (1963) reported on an ever, few detrimental effects of frost heaving orearly version of the frost design criteria (Table thaw weakening would be expected.31) used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Table 32 and Figure 29 show that there is aThese criteria are primarily used to select a considerable range in the degree of FS withinpavement design method for given material frost groups. This variability probably reflectscharacteristics. The frost classifications F1, F2, the effects of differences in grain size distribu-F3, and F4 are used to determine the thickness of tion characteristics, dry density, mineralogy,base courses for various levels of road and air- etc., which are not included in the basic FS clas-field service requirements. Details of this design sification system. The variability is not neces-procedure are given in the Technical Manual sarily a problem, since the Corps of Engineers

Table 31. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers frost design criteria.

Frost design Amount 1%) Plasticitygroup- Soil type finer than 0.02 mm index

NFS All soils . 3 -Fl Gravelly soils 3-20 -F2 Sands 3-15 -F3 Gravelly soils "20 -

Sands -15 -

Clays - .12Varved clays/uniform subgrade - -

F4 All silts - -

Very fine silty sands 15 -Clays - '12Varved clays/non-uniform subgrade - -

"NFS = non-frost-susceptible, the degree of frost susceptibility generally in(reasesfrom ft to F4

33

SlLrS

and -clayey SIL rs

VERY HIGH

00

00

P NIGH

so&-X6-C. GRAVS VE C

. . . . . .Cla Clae SID

4.0 vc

t 20 6is9 2SAN 40DS00890

(S F 4iAlT IT

CLAY LOW It2 Fil

CL Y IP 2, On d L Y n (11 - - - - -

09R-q@I~bn~ adnot

NOESanadtnt efrmdb ol ein Rsac adEgnern abrtr. pcmn

VER L n. di.b0 .hg.I xna y erto ae.tapo mtl .2 n e awt

0pci e wer (8oen with 0at 3f rost pendraio 0.rinhll dy

FGe29.RaE i h ereo rs ucpiiiyo ol accoring totea.s r

m~,y ops of Eniees(16)

SAND (Eceptver fin sily SNDS 34

Table 32. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1965) frost design soil classificationsystem.

Amount finer Typical soil typefrost than 0.02 mm under Unified Soil

frost susceptibility* group Kind of soil 1% by weight) Classification Systemt

NFS-* None (a) Gravels 0-1 5 GW. GP(b) Sands 0-3 SW. SP

Possibly$ ? (a) Gravels 1 5-3 GW. CP(b) Sands 3-10 SW. SP

Very low to high F1 Gravels 3-10 CW, GP, GW-GM.GP-GM

Medium to high F2 (a) Gravels 10-20 GM. GM-GC. GW-GM,GP-GM

Negligible to high (b) Sands 10-15 SW, SP. SM.SW-SM. SP-SM

Medium to high F3 (a) Gravels -20 GM.GCLow to high (b) Sands. except -15 SM. SC

very fine siltysands

Very low to very high (c) Clays. PI 12 - C. CH

Low to very high F4 (a) All silts - ML. MHVery low to high (b) Very fine .15 SM

silty sands

Low to very high (c) clays. PI - 12 - CL. CL-MLVery low to very high (d) Varved clays - CL and ML, CL. ML.

and other fine- and SM. CL. CH,grained, banded and ML. CL. CH.sediments ML. and SM

*Based on laboratory frost heave teststC = gravel, S = sand, M = silt, C = clay, W well-graded, P = poorly graded, H = high

plasticity, L = low plasticity**Non-frost-susceptibletRequires laboratory frost heave test to determine frost susceptibility

lists all the soil properties and frost heave test than 25% of the particles larger than 0.074 mmresults used to develop these criteria (Appendix as frost susceptible.B). This tabulation contains the Unified Soil Clas- Vermont. According to Haley (1963), Vermontsification, detailed grain size distribution data, considers soils to be frost susceptible if 10% ofcoefficients of uniformity and curvatures, initial the particles are larger than 0.074 mm or 3% aredry densities and void ratios, Atterberg limits, larger than 0.02 mm. More recently, Johnson etaverage rates of heave per day and frost suscep- al. (1975) reported that Vermont considers alltibility classifications. This list includes 79 silt-clay subgrade materials with more than 36%classifications of gravels, 157 of sands, 52 of finer than 0.074 mm as potentially frost suscep-silts, and 89 of clays for a total of 377 cla'sifica- tible.tion tests with detailed information on material Washington. Both Erickson (1963) and Johnsonproperties. By comparing the properties of a soil et al. (1975) reported that Washington deter-in question with those of the most similar soil in mines all soil with 10% or more of the particlesAppendix B, one can determine the relative frost smaller than 0.074 mm to be frost susceptible.susceptibility without conducting the frost Wisconsin. Johnson et al. (1975) reported thatheave test. Wisconsin uses the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Utah. Erickson (1963) reported that Utah class- FS criteria for subgrade materials and generallyif ies all permeable fine sands and silts with more determines base and subbase materials to be

35

frost susceptible if 5% or more of the particles Table 34. Frost susceptibility cri-are smaller than 0.074 mm. teria according to Schaible (1953).

Wyoming. Erickson (1963) reported that Wy-oming has classified base and subbase materials Frost Amount 1%) finer than

as frost susceptible if 20% or more of the par- susceptibility 0.02 mm 01 mm

ticles are smaller than 0.074 mm, the liquid limitis greater than 25%, and the plasticity index is Medium 10-15 20-30

greater than 6%. Medium-high 15-20 30-40Very high >20 >40

West Germany *All percentages are expressed in terms ofAccording to Jessberger (1973), the system of the fraction finer than 2 mm.

Koegler et al. (1936) is a modification of the Cas-agrande (1931) criteria, where non-uniform soilswith 3% or less of the particles smaller than 0.02 Still later, Schaible (1957) modified his classifi-mm or uniform soils with 10% or less smaller cation system to one that divides soil types intothan 0.02 mm are non-frost-susceptible. Soils non-frost-susceptible, frost susceptible and veryfailing this test are rated as to their degree of FS frost susceptible groups on the basis of two grainaccording to their permeability, as shown in size distribution curves determined from theTable 33. 0.1-, 0.02-, and 0.002-mm-diameter particles.

These FS criteria are shown in Figure 30 and

Table 33. Frost susceptibility Table 35. It appears that these criteria are based

criteria according to Koegler et Table 35. Frost susceptibility criteria ac-al. (1936). cording to Schaible (1957).

Frost Permeability Frost Amount (%) finer thansusceptibility (m/s) susceptibility 0.002 mm 0.02 mm 0.01 mm

None >1 x10"* None-low <1 <10 <20moderate 1 X10' to 1 X10 Medium-high 1-6 10-20 20-40High 1 x10" to 1 x10-' Very high >6 >20 >40

U.S. Standard Sieve No. HydrometerThis modification apparently takes into ac- 10 40 '

count the amount of water that can be supplied , , ito the freezing front. According to jessberger(1976), these criteria are based principally on sofrost heave theory and have not been verified inthe field.

)essberger (1969, 1976) also reviewed Ducker's 60(1939) FS criteria and reported that Ducker de-fended the Casagrande (1931) criteria that all co- - Frosthesionless soils with more than 3% of the parti- i0 Susceptlbe .

cles smaller than 0.02 mm are frost susceptible.Ducker added that soils with no more than 10% Iof the particles larger than 0.1 mm and at least 2025% between 0.05 and 0.02 mm are frost suscep-tible, even if 0% is less than 0.02 mm. -

Schaible (1950) defined frost-susceptible soilsas those having greater than 20% of the parti- 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001cles smaller than 0.02 mm and permeabilities in Grain Size (mm)the range of 10-' to 10- 1 cm/sec. He later sug-gested (Schaible 1953) the criteria shown in s7 F Silt or CloTable 34. This classification is based on an anal- Md. Fine

ysis of 193 soil samples in the field and in the Figure 30. Frost susceptibility classification ac-laboratory. cording to Schaible (1957).

36

......... 20

U S Sid Sieve Size and No.

2 4 10 40 200 HydrometerIO0I IIUtoo r 11 r .fI I 1 1

!I I Frs

so- Slightly

Frost SusceptibleSusceptbleI~i CU J s , I "

, Non-frost-susceptible Frost," t I iSusc:eptible -

.40 jr

I Frost

20- Susceptible)I I

.I. ,I II

tOO 10 1.0 01 0.01 0001Groin Size (mm)

Grovel Sand

C're I Fine IC'rse Medium Fine Sill or Cloy

Figure 31. Limits of frost susceptibility of soils according to

)essberger and Hartel (1967).

on both frost heave and thaw weakening. Fac- tible soils if the water supply is limited and thattors such as the water table level, the drainage no danger from frost heave will occur if the max-conditions, the overburden stress and the freez- imum depth of the freezing front is farther froming conditions were not considered. It seems the ground water table than the height of capil-likely that these criteria are for the worst condi- lary rise. Other statements such as this led less-

tions. berger to conclude that these criteria are based

Maag (1966) suggested FS criteria based on the on an insufficient understanding of the frost

0.06-mm particle size, but Iessberger (1976) re- heave process and should not be seriously con-ported that these criteria are questionable. They sidered.

consider soil to be non-frost-susceptible if less A year later, Jessberger and Hartel (1967) re-than 15% of its particles are smaller than 0.06 ported a FS classification system based on grainmm and definitely frost susceptible when more size distribution curves (Fig. 31). This report wasthan 30% of its particles are smaller than 0.06 unavailable, so the basis for this classification ismm. The classification of the soil in the interme- uncertain. However, it appears to be the resultdiate range between 15% and 30% is not clear, of frost heave tests.

According to Jessberger (1976), Maag stated In the early 1970's Floss (1973) reported on thethat no frost damage will occur in frost-suscep- first FS classification system developed in West

Germany based on a soil classification system.

Table 36. Frost susceptibility criteria according to Floss(1973).

Frost Soil classification* Allowable amount %)susceptibility (West German Standards) finer than 0.063 mm

None S, G, TA, HN. FSU. GU, ST, CT 6

Low-medium OT, TM, TL, UL, UM -

SU, GU, ST. CT 20

High OU -SU, GU. ST, CT 40

*C = gravel, S =

sand. U = silt. T = clay. 0 = organic, HN peat,

F = mud, A = high plasticity. M = medium plasticity, L = lowplasticity

37

U.S Standard Sieve Na.10 40 200 10 40 200

Fl F2 "

SU T

60- 60- 60 -

40-

GU,GT GG

I0 0.1 1.0 0.1

Grain Size (mm)

Sand silt/I Sand Silt/m I Fine I Cloy Cr.Ie Medium I Fine I Clay

U.S. Standard Sieve Na.I0 40 200 10 40 200

F3 F4 TLFI -- F+-

80 i UL

SOS UM

.. 60 60 60 so's

40 40

"0. 25

20II

1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1Grain Size (miI

Sand Sit/ SanSilt/Cre Medium I Fine Clay CMedium Fine i clay

Figure 32. Ruhr University, Bochum, frost susceptibility criteria.F1 = non-frost-susceptible, F2 = slightly frost susceptible, F.1 =

moderately frost susceptible, F4 = highly frost susceptible; other

abbreviations are defined in Table 37. lAfter lessberger 1976.)

The Floss criteria were reported by Jessberger frost heave as are most of the classification sys-

(1976) and are shown in Table 36. According to tems. The classification is broken into four

Jessberger, load-carrying capacity during thaw is groups of increasing FS according to the soilconsidered in this classification. However, no type, the percentage that is smaller than 0.06details were given. mm, and the plasticity index. It appears that this

In the same report, Jessberger (1976) pre- FS classification system is a predecessor of the

sented what appears to be a modification of the FS criteria currently being considered for adop-Floss (1973) FS criteria (Table 37, Fig. 32). This tion as a standard in West Germany Accordingclassification was developed at Ruhr University to lessberger, these criteria are less strict than

at Bochum and is referred to as the RUB system. the Schaible, Casagrande and U S. Corps of Engi-It wasdeveloped from thaw-CBR values, not from neers criteria.

L3

Table 37. Ruhr University at Bochum frost susceptibil-ity criteria according to jessberger (1976).

I rost -Soil classification* Amount (%Isusceptibility (est German Standards) finer than 0 06 mm

None G. S -

SU, GU, ST, GT ,8

Low TA -

SU, GU, ST, GT 8-15

Medium IM. TL (PI .12) -

SO. ST 15-25CO. GT 15-40

High UL, UM. 1L (PI, 12) -su. ST 25-40

*G = gravel. S sand. U = silt, T = clay. A high plasti(ttv. Mmedium plasticity, L = low plasticity. 0 very silty. I = very(lavey

U.S Standard Sieve Size and No. Hydrometer3/4" 4 to 40 200

8. 0 IS// '

" I "''I "

i Non-frost-susceptible

10aseO/subbase Material ,

"40, Urna

I" 20I ~

I I I

0 ,

10 10 01 001 0.001Grain Size (mm)

Gravel SandFine ,C'r.oa Medium I Fine lay

Figure 33. Limits of non-frost-susceptible base/subbasematerials in W. Germany. (After lessberger 1969.)

According to jessberger (1969. the West Ger- are appaently regions of increasing frost sus-mans have been using a slightly modified form ceptibilik, However, no explanation was givenof Schaible's criteria (1957). Gravels are con- by Jessberger.sidered to be frost susceptible if 10% or more of The present stage of the West German FS cri-their particles are smaller than 0.1 mm and the teria, which are now being considered for adop-grain size distribution curve falls within the tion as a standard, are shown in Table 38 Thedesignated area for frost-susceptible soils in source of this table is an untranslated draft re-Figure 33. Sands are considered to be frost sus- port (Germany 1979) provided by Jessberger; itceptible if the organic content is greater than has apparently evolved from lessberger's work,1%. The regions marked I, II, Ilia, IlIb, and IV the thaw-CBR value being an important factor.

19

Table 38. West German frost susceptibility criteria (Germany 1979).

Frost Thaw Soil classification Allowable amount 1%)susceptibility CBR (West German Standards) finer than 1) 061 mm

None .20 GW, GI. G. SW. SI, St .

TAOT OH

Low-medium 4-20 i "I -

S., G 1 5Sit C 15. 15 if C bt

SU, GU 5 it , 15 it C. IA

ILUL, UM

High 4 Si. Gi

so. Go

*Listed in order of increasing frost susceptibility G gravel S s sand. U = silt.T clay, 0 = organic. H = peat. A = high plasti ity. M = medium plasticity,W well-graded, I = intermediate gradation. I = poorly graded, I = veryclayey. U = very silty

t If 6 Cu ii. then the allowable amount finer than 0063 mm should be linearlyinterpreted between 5 and 15%

Pore size tests Csathy and Townsend compared the pore size

The importance of pore size to frost action distribution data with field frost performance forwas recognized long ago by Taber (1929). Penner 39 soil samples taken from 30 locations They

(1959) also recognized that pore size strongly af- found that the slope of the pore size distribution

fects the FS of soils. However, Csathy and Town- curve between the 90% (P, 0 ) and 70% (P, 0 ) limits

send (1962) and Townsend and Csathy (1963b) generally became steeper with increasing FS. Us-were the first to express this soil property quanti- ing the notation Pu = P,dP,, they established

tatively and to include it in a FS criterion. Since that when Pu < 6, the soil was non-frost-then, Guillot (1963), Gaskin and Raymond (1973), susceptible.

Reed (1977) and Reed et al. (1979) have also sug- Csathy and Townsend compared the reliabili-gested using pore size as an index of FS. Each of ty of this method with numerous grain size distri-

these proposals is examined in the next para- bution methods and found that it was signifi-

graphs. cantly more reliable in determining the FS ofCsathy and Townsend determined pore size soils.

distribution in the laboratory using a capillary According to Jessberger (1969). Guillot (1963)

method. Their technique involved allowing has also proposed a pore size distribution criter-water to rise by capillarity in a soil column until ion. However, no details were provided and Guil-

it reached 160 cm or until 35 days passed. The lot's report was not available for review.water content is determined at various heights Because of the time required for the Csathy

above the water table. The degree of saturation and Townsend capillary rise test (up to 35 days),

versus the height above the water table is then Gaskin and Raymond (1973) evaluated two other

calculated, and the maximum pore diameter d methods: the pressure-plate suction test and the

that is still filled with water at any particular mercury-intrusion test. They compared the ef-

height h is determined from the surface tension fectiveness of all three methods with actual field

equation: observations of frost heave for 36 soil samples.The pressure-plate suction device (Fig. 35) was

d = 4OawJh (6) obtained from a commercial source. The meth-od uses successively increasing and decreasing

where Oa.w is the surface tension at an air/water pressure differentials (up to 100 cm of water)

interface. A plot of the pore size distribution can across wafers of soil to determine the relation-

then be made. Figure 34 illustrates this process. ships of drying and wetting moisture content ver-

40

Sample C/5 C S= 16.59.0=041

1o 50 -

43b0 00.

0 50 100 0 50 100h, Height above Water Table icm)

0iC

a:C

0.02 0.1 0.0 0.02 0.1 0.0

dlDi oeterof Largest Pare p, Effective Pare Site(MM)

Fittied with Watler (mra)

Figure 34. Determination of pore size distribution curve.

(After Csathy and Townsend 1962.)

MANOMETER

WATER t

RESERVOIRPRESSURE VESSEL P

.

PRESSURE

flU:6E: f ] SUPPLY

MEM RANEPOROUS CERAMIC PLATE

Figure 35. Pressure-plate suction test apparatus. (From

Gaskin and Raymond 11973], courtesy of the Organ-ization for Economic Cooperation and Development.)

sus pressure. At each pressure differential 2-5 also obtained commercially. However, it was

days are required for the moisture to reach equi- modified to increase its capacity from 0.3 to 20

librium. A specific pore diameter is calculated cm' of soil. This method requires dry soil. The

for each pressure differential using the surface volume of mercury that is intruded into the Sam-

tension equation, and the pore-size distribution ple is measured at successively increasing pres-

curve is constructed. sure increments. Pore size is calculated using the

A mercury-intrusion test device (Fig. 36) was surface tension equation; however, in this case

41

MAOMTE

FILLINGTUBE CALIBRATED

TUBE

MERCURY

TAP

ATMOSPHEREMERCURY BW

MANOMETER

SOIL SAMPLE

Figure 36. Mercury-intrusion test apparatus. (FromCaskin and Raymond [1973], courtesy of the Organ-ization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment.)

100 00-057 v ' -/*so 0

/0 -

0 LEGEND

*-OA2 /X X SATIY'S CAPILLARITY TEST

40 X/ & PRESURE PATE SXI)ON iTTIM5 TESTeW. 52X P.P.S. DRYIN TEST

20 " 0 FRIRURV INTRUSION TEST

0~ SI0 I ii I I 11I I I 1 I I ! II I

01 .02 04 06 09 .go 20 40 .60 0 1EFFECTIVE PORE DIAMETER (mm)

Figure 37. Comparison of three pore size tests. (From Cask in and Raymond[1973, courtesy of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel-opment.)

the interfacial surface tension is between mer- Townsend found and for the percentage of porescury and air, and the pressure is positive. The between 0.15 mm and 040 mm in diameter.mercury-intrusion test requires only 30 minutes Reed (1977) and Reed et al. (1979) also evalu-to complete. Typical results with these three ated the mercury-intrusion test. They comparedmethods are shown in Figure 37. their pore size distribution curves with heave

For each test Gaskin and Raymond deter- rate data obtained from rapid frost heave testsmined ratios of the percentage of pores less than conducted on saturated compacted samples.a given diameter to the percentage of pores be- Fixed top and bottom temperatures of -60 andtween certain sizes. They compared these ratios +40C, respectively, were applied to sampleswith field frost heave performance and found a with a 3.3-kPa surcharge, and heave was ob-high degree of correlation for only the capillary served for two days. To obtain the dry specimensrise test. Correlations with frost heave were ob- required for the mercury-intrusion test, samplestained for the same P,./P,0 ratio that Csathy and were cut from freeze-dried, compacted samples

This process took ten hours42

20-

E 4

2

-Ot

0-50%

Figure 38. Differences (residuals] between measured and predicted frost heavesY. (After Reed et al. 1979.)

Many pore size parameters were tested for Moisture-tension testscorrelations. The best correlation was found be- Air intrusion. Williams (1966) has proposedtween the cumulative porosity and the rate of that air intrusion values obtained from moisture-frost heave Y, which is given by the following tension curves can be used to determine the FSequation: of soils. His apparatus is similar to a convention-

A al pressure membrane device, but it has a muchY = -5.46-[29.46(X3 0 )]/(X0 -X0 4) higher permeability (5\10" versus 2x10 ,0

cmisec) Samples must be saturated and de-+ 581.1(X 3 0) (7) gassed They are placed in a plexiglass ring on a

membrane filter in the cell, the base of which is

where Xi. cumulative porosity for pores be- connected to a water column. The air pressure istween 3.0 and 30 pm raised in increments applied over several min-

X0 total cumulative porosity utes; the drainage at each increment is recorded.X04= cumulative porosity for pores be- At a certain pressure increment there is a sharp

tween 0.4 and 300 pm. acceleration of drainage (Fig. 39). This pressure isdefined as the air entry value. A typical test

Figure 38 shows the differences between ob- takes only one or two hours

served frost heaves and those determined by eq Williams suggested that the air intrusion value7. is related to the characteristic size of the largest

continuous opening. He found that for four natu-Soillwater interaction tests ral clay and silt soils and six graded fractions

Included in soil/water interaction tests are 1) prepared from silt, the air intrusion value is di-

moisture-tension tests, 2) capillary rise tests, 3) rectly related to the pore-water pressure at asaturated hydraulic conductivity tests, 4) unsat- penetrating frost line, i.e.

urated hydraulic conductivity tests, and 5) cen-trifuge moisture content tests. These tests all re- (Pa-Pu)oaw = (P,-Pu)/oi.w. (8)IV on the interaction of soil and water; becausethey address both, they are one step closer than The values for the variables on the left side ofthe pore size distribution tests to the factors af- the equation are determined from a moisturefecting frost heave, tension test; those on the right are determined

from a freezing test.43

t

4 .00 .

Drln

3.0 _ _ _ I__ _ _ _ _ _ _

A r pressure

oJ1.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 a 7 aTie. min

Figure 39. Test observations during measurement of the air intrusion value of silt. (FromWilliams [1966], courtesy of the Institution of Civil Engineers.)

Williams concluded that the air intrusion val-ue can be used to determine the susceptibility ofsoils to frost heave. He did not propose FS crite-ria but suggested that for a particular problem,the maximum value of ui (estimated from the air E

entry value pa -u, using the above equation, as- E

suming that p, is the overburden pressure) be ---compared with the in situ value of the suction- - - -

pressure near the frost line. If the suction pres- - __

sure due to freezing is greater than the in situc c- ---

value, then frost heave will occur. In situ values .

of suction u. can be obtained directly from fieldmeasurements or laboratory tests. Williams also - F -

suggested that ux can be estimated from the/ _--equation A

u* = (-d + x)/1000 kg/cm2 (9) -

where d is the depth to the water table (cm) and - - -

x is the depth (cm) where the suction is meas- _ G . .ured.

Osmotic suction. Jones and Hurt (1978) sug-gested that an osmotic-suction technique canprovide a simple and rapid methoo, , determin- Figure 40. Osmotic

ing the FS of coarse-grained materials from mois- suction apparatus.

ture-tension curves. Their apparatus is illus- (After Jones and Hurt

trated in Figure 40. Suction is applied to satu- 1978.)

44

Equivalent Entrance Diameter tou)o '0 I Table 39. Frost susceptibility classifica-

tion according to Onalp (1970).

S Saturted

frost hiwdauh(, conductivity€ %u ,( ept~bilrtv (cm see/

0

* fwidehn. 10.10 A 1 -.104 - trost ,u t-|ptbltI 1 .10 A 1 7-10 '

- Horderiine 1 7 10 . 10 10N ~one 10-10.k 1 0 10

2-

0 2 3 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity testsSuction (pF) Wissa et a) 1972) have proposed that both

Figure 47. Drying moisture-tension curve for a the unsaturated hydraulic conductivities and thecompacted dolomite aggregate. (After Jones and air entry suction values can be used to charac-Hurt 1978.) terize the FS of ojls Their apparatus is illus-

trated in Figure 42 Compacted specimens canbe tested at suctions of tp to 6 bars Saturation

rated degassed specimens through a semiperme- can be ensured by back-pressuring up to 7 barsable membrane by the osmotic pressure of an Moisture-tension relationships are obtained byaqueous solution of polyethylene glycol Osmo- monitoring the volume of water flowing out oftic suctions of up to 25 bars can be obtained by the cell at successively increasing pressure incre-varying the concentration of the solution. The ments After moisture-tension equilibrium is es-technique allows the aggregate suction charac- tablished for each pressure increment, the hy-teristics to be measured at suctions up to 25 draulic conductivity values are determined bybars. Rock suction characteristics can also be forcing water through the sample and monitor-determined with this apparatus. Typical results ing the outflow and the pressure drop across two3re shown in Figure 41 for a compacted dolo- piezometers placed in the sample A typical testmite aggregrate. As there is no well-defined air can be completed in three days Darcy's law isentry break in the curve. Jones and Hurt suggest- used to calculate the hydraulic conductivity.ed that the aggregate's FS be ranked according Permeabilities between 10 ' and 10 ' cm/sec canto the suction value at 70% saturation. No class- be measured. Figure 43 shows the results for aification method was given, silt. After an evaluation of 33 soil tests and a

This moisture-tension method is the best for comparison of the results with laboratory frostaggregates, as it avoids the problems of splitting heave tests, it was determi.,ed that the productmembranes and long moisture equilibrium times of the hydraulic conductivity at the air entrythat occur with the air-intrusion test. pressure K, and the air entry pressure itself V,

characterized the degree of FS The resultingCapillary rise tests classification system is given in Table 40.

Maag (1966) has proposed a "physical frostcriterion" based on capillary rise H, permeabil-ity, and height above the water table h. Accord- Table 40. Frost suscepti-

ing to Jessberger (1969), Maag related the bility classification ac-

amount of water transported to the permeability cording to Wissa et al.

and the H/h ratio. The effect of freezing was not (1972).

considered. Maag's report was not available forreview. Frost (K x V) x 10'

susceptibility (kgcm " s)

Saturated hydraulic conductivity tests Severe >20

According to Johnson (1980), Onalp (1970) pro- High 4-20

posed that saturated hydraulic conductivity be Medium 1-4

used as an indicator of FS. The suggested Low 02-1

classification is given in Table 39. Very low < 0.2

45

PRESSURECONTROL ivo

PANEL

Q 4HEAD LOSS

3 - - 4 M E A S U R IN G S Y S T E M

L 04 TSTSEIE

f igure 42. Schematic of permeability apparatus. (from " issa et at. 1972.1

1. 0

%STAGE STG s 1 STAG (itE

UKC

CLC

3

I-

i io

111

2 46

Centrifuge moisture content testsWillis (1930) concluded that non-plastic sandy

soils that have centrifuge moisture equivalentsless than 12 or clay soils with liquid limitsgreater than 50%, plasticity indexes appreciablygreater than the ratio (LL-14)/1 6, and shrinkage LOAD CELL

limits that do not greatly exceed 21 0-1 1LL-(LU/800)] are not sensitive to frost heave Unfortu-nately, the method for determining the centri-fuge moisture equivalent is not known.

PELTIERBATTERY

Soillwaterlice interaction tests 0 SAMPLETests that fall into the soilwaterice interac-

tion category are those that involve freezingsoils but not measuring frost heave or thaw COLD PLATEweakening. Some other quantity is measured to SOIPLE WETTING

characterize FS. Tests of this type m easure 1) A N

frost heave stress or 2) pore-water suction

Frost heave stress rFrost heave stress has been linked to FS for T -

many years. Penner (1959) reported that frostheaving pressure is a function of dry density fora single material Hoekstra et al (1965) observed figure 44. Schematic drawing of freez-that the maximum pressure that develops during ing chamber. (From Hoekstra et al.restrained freezing has a characteristic value for 1965.)

each soil. The apparatus for determining this val-ue is illustrated in Figure 44. Saturated com-pacted soils are frozen from the top down, withfree access to water at the base. Frost heavepressures are observed by means of a load cellplaced on the upper cooling plate. Thermoelec-tric cooling devices are used to freeze the sam-ples. Figure 45 shows the heave pressure results

for several soils. Hoekstra and Chamberlain----

V T'-

(1965) suggested FS criteria based on the maxi- LEVAA"V CLAY

mum heave pressure (Fig. 46) developed at a sta- totionary freezing front. mcw SIL r

Penner (1966, 1967, 1968) concluded that thefrost heaving pressures of soils can be directly c#REL Sri rrelated to the pore size of granular soils by eq 1If the so; is saturated, the pore water pressure is .. 71V. s S

zero when the freezing zone is lust below the a , .

water table Furthermore, if the soil is incom- - °

pressible and is restrained from heaving, the icepressure becomes the maximum heaving pres-sure. This is the same argument made by Hoek- &stra et al. (1965). 40# CLAS EW

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of .... tA_.4 "Technology (Wissa and Martin 1968, Shrestha1971, Martin and Wissa 1973, and Olsen et al.1974) were the first to make recommendations 0 1000 2000 3000

on how to conduct frost heave stress tests and TIME. m es

how to use the heave stress data to predict FS. Figure 45. Pressure vs time for several soils.Their apparatus (Fig 47) is essentially the same (From Hoekstra et al. 1965.)

47

0

z Very 10u High 40

Hielgh 13.51 1

H 126 1Med 7 1

24*Slight *.L-2.5U43

-None

C - I1 0 400 800

Mommrn Frost Heave Stress (kPo)

Figure 46. Frost susceptibility criteria based onfrost heave stress. The numbers in the boxesrefer to the percentage finer than 0.02 mm.(After Hoekstra and Chamberlain 1965.)

CosofTmp. rTemar

oath

Canditioning9 Cabinet -vwa

OwEEw, S.ft swdeAh

I Lid Coll

-WCed'w. Chge

L.--------- -- ----- ~soilwwy~e

Figre47 Sheatiw iga ffos etn qimetdvlpda MTrFo is adMri 98

tronodu48

3- - -

IV

I T TT T _T

AffXZ1N6 TiE (1-w)

Figure 48. The development of heave pressure during freez-ing of New Hampshire silt samples of different lengths.(From Wissa and Martin 1968.)

as that employed by Hoekstra et al. (1965). This the soil deemed most frost susceptible based ontest is predicated on the concept that the maxi- field performance.mum heave stress develops under steady stateheat flow conditions at a stationary freezing Pore-water suctionfront under a constant temperature gradient. The MIT researchers (Quinn 1968, Wissa andThe test is an open-system test (water is free to Martin 1968, Nussbaumer 1972. and Martin and

flow into and out of the soil) conducted at con- Wissa 1973) also evaluated the use of the pore-stant volume, Friction along the sample side is water pressure change that occurs below theminimized by using a tapered mold, while fric- freezing front as an indicator of FS. Their equip-tion between the upper cooling piston and the ment is similar to that of their heave stress test,

mold is minimized with a greased rubber mem- except for a few accessories that monitor pore-brane. The force required to keep the sample at water pressure. Water in the test specimen isconstant volume is the heave stress. back-pressured to prevent cavitation during

Typical results illustrating the logarithm of freezing. The reduction in pore pressure and thethe frost heave stress as a function of time are heave stress are measured when the temperatureshown in Figure 48. Wissa and Martin proposed gradient is constant and the freezing front sta-that the slopes R of the straight line portions of tionary.these curves are characteristic of FS. They later Saetersdal (1973) also evaluated the use of themodified this statement (Olsen et al. 1974) to suction below the freezing front and found it tostate that concave curves give only a lower be greatly dependent on the rate of freezing.bound to the correct R. They stated further that Riddle (1973) also studied the use of the suc-R values are not unique to the soil condition but tion that develops during freezing as an indica-are functions of the temperature. Similar obser- tor of FS. Figure 49 illustrates his apparatus. Novations have been made by Saetersdal (1973) for details were given about the dimensions of thethe maximum heave pressure. Wissa and Martin apparatus or about the temperature conditionsconcluded that it is essential that the tempera- imposed. Samples are frozen unidirectionallyture be standardized and that this be done for and very rapidly. Maximum pore-water suction

49

I

Heat Sink

- - P eli er [ ® Tharm i t o,

Feedback CodPae L Cold Plate

Soil /-Porous Gross Plate

~/-Rubber Membrane

Transducer

Figure 49. Pore water suction test apparatus. (AfterRiddle 1973.)

z 120 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0,

80 I 10

0'

Time (min)

Figure 50. Typical suction vs time curve for a silty sand frozenat -50C (cooling plate temp.), (After Riddle 1973.)

A-Mechanically induced nucleation results in rapid ice growth ofsupercooled water, which produces a small pressure increase andthe liberation of heat (the latent heat of fusion)

B-Frost line is just entering soil sample The greater the im-permeability of the soil, the greater the lag time for the suctionto be felt by the transducer.

C-Frost line has advanced about a quarter of the way through thesoil sample. The maximum suction plateau has been reached

D-Frost line had advanced about three-quarters of the way throughthe soil specimen with a slight loss of suction being recordedThe reason is not yet clear; however, it may be caused bymigrating fines.

E -Sample completely frozen through and frost line now beginningto penetrate the large pores of the porous brass filter plate,which produces a marked loss in suction

F-Heating and the resultant thawing of the soil specimen is achiev-

ed by reversing the leads to the thermo-electric unit from thePeltier module, which initially produces an increase in suctiondue to the volume decrease when ice changes to water

C-Complete thawing of the ice soil sample results in rapid loss insuction back to atmospheric pressure

50

data were usually obtained in less than 30 min the upper surface of the test specimen. Sampleswith this method. Figure 50 shows a typical suc- are subjected to rigorous freezing tests undertion versus time curve for a silty sand and an ex- different moisture conditions. A typical test in-planation of specific features of this curve. The volves placing the specimen in a freezing cabi-maximum suction occurred within 2 min of nu- net, lowering the air temperature to -240C for 24cleation, making this the most rapid index test hours, and raising the air temperature to + 20°C;reviewed. Riddle gives no classification scheme; this process is repeated ten times and then theTable 41 is interpreted from his test results. More sample is kept at -24 0 C for 10 days. In somedetails of this test must be obtained before it tests water was freely available at the samplecan be adequately reviewed. However, from Rid- base; in others water percolated from the topdata it appears that no back-pressuring system down. Figure 52 illustrates typical results. Brandlwas used. If this is true, the test is limited to soils did not offer a FS classification system, as hiswith pore-water suctions no greater than the work pertained only to individual gravels. He didcavitation pressure of water, 100 kPa. Perhaps conclude, though, that frost heave can be exces-Riddle assumed that soils that generate more sive in well-graded gravels if the amount lessthan 100 kPa of suction will be non-frost-suscep- than 0.02 mm exceeds 5-6%.tible because of low permeability. More recently Brandl (1980) proposed a scaled-

down frost heave test to serve as a standard forTable 41. Frost susceptibil- determining the FS of soils and granular mater-ity classification interpret- ials when his mineral and grain size criteria areed from Riddle (1973). inconclusive. Samples are compacted in a 12.5-

cm-diameter by 15-cm-high CBR mold. Details ofAverage soil the sample confinement during freezing were

Frost suction not provided; however, it is assumed that Brandtsusceptibility* (kPa) has continued to use the multi-ring mold. Sam-

Negligible 0-10 ples are frozen in a freezing cabinet at -150C

Slight 10-20 and are thawed at + 200C. The base is main-

Moderate 20-50 tained at + 40C and water is freely available dur-High >50 ing freezing and thawing. A surcharge of 5 kPa is*The basis for the frost heaveclassification is not known. Air -24*C to 20C

-/7-T7-/Frost heave tests Asphalt Concrete

Frost heave tests are perhaps the most directlaboratory method of assessing the FS of soils.Three types of laboratory frost heave tests havebeen conducted. One involves one or more step Plexiglass Ringschanges in the cold-side temperature and obser-vations of heave with time as thermal equilibri-um is established, the second uses a steadily de- Soil Samplecreasing cold-plate temperature and a constantrate of frost penetration, and the third uses aconstant rate of heat removal. Appendix C listsby country the tests found in the literature alongwith some of their features. Each of these tests isdiscussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Water ot 4'C'

Austria Wate- '-t Porous PlateBrandl (1970) proposed a large-scale frost . K I

heave test to determine the FS of gravels. Com-pacted samples are contained in a multi-ringmold with an i.d. of 30 cm and a height of 50 cm. Figure 51. Frost heave test apparatus; a) 10 cmFigure 51 illustrates the test apparatus. A sur- of asphalt concrete, b) sample. (After Brandlcharge of 10 cm of asphalt concrete is placed on 1970.)

51

so

40 I

30- Grovel A

6- 0 5 to

2 50

a 40-04I

30 I Grovel 10

to-

Time (days) water contentoffer Freezing I[%)

Figure 52. Example of results for two gravels; a.) 10 freeze-thaw cycles, b) thaw, c) freeze.(After Brandi 1970.]

Figure 53. Schematic of Belgian Road Research Center frost sus-ceptibility apparatus. (From Gorld 1980.)

1. sample 8 thermocouples2. water reservoir 9 ventilator3. measuring cylinder 10 refrigerator4. heater 11 heater5 thermometer 12 window6 load (3 4-kPa surcharge) 13 thermal insulation7 displacement transducer

52

maintained throughout the freeze-thaw cycling, and 5.0 kg/cml). Freezing is induced by circulat-Two freeze-thaw cycles are imposed for secon- ing a methanol-water solution through a heatdary road studies and four are imposed for main exchanger in the base of the cell. The piston tern-highways. The test takes 16 days for the former perature is determined by the air temperature inand 21 days for the latter. The maximum allow- the cold chamber in which the tests are con-able frost heave is 1-2 cm for secondary roads ducted.and 2.5 cm for main highways. The minimum Penner and Ueda (1978) observed that for aCBR value allowable is 20-25% for any type of step change in the cold-plate temperature, theroad. relation between frost heave and time is linear

for periods up to three or four days;- this relationBelgium is independent of frost penetration rate but de-

Gorld (1980) has developed a direct frost pendent on overburden pressure. They did notheave test at the Road Research Center in Bel- propose a FS classification based on frost heavegium to evaluate the effects of the principal rate, but suggested that the scale of heave ratesvariables affecting frost heave. His apparatus developed by Kaplar (1974) at the U.S. Army(Fig. 53) includes a multi-ring freezing cell with Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labora-an i.d. of 15.24 cm and a height of 12.7 cm. Each tory (CRREL) is acceptable.ring is 0.5 cm high. The sample can be saturated Penner and Ueda concluded that the bottom-and wall friction kept to a minimum. No other up freezing test is better than the CRREL test indetails were given, that 1) there is no wall adfreeze problem, and

The samples are frozen from the top down, thus there is no need for a tapered cell or mov-with water freely available at the base. The air able rings, and 2) the test can be conducted in atemperature at the top and the water tempera- much shorter time.ture at the base are kept constant throughout a Penner and Ueda emphasized that the heat ex-test. The final temperatures are varied from test traction rate and not the frost penetration rate isto test to evaluate the influence of freezing rate the fundamental parameter in the freezing pro-and temperature gradient. A surcharge of 3.4 cess and that the rates of heat extraction used inkPa is placed on all samples. the laboratory should be related to those in the

No details on compaction were given; how- field. Because of the variability in field condi-ever, it is clear that the samples are saturated tions, he suggested that two tests be carried outand stored at the base temperature for 48 hours at heat extraction rates bracketing the expectedbefore freezing. The freezing period lasts 24 field values.hours, during which the heave, the heave rate, Penner (1978) also suggested that heave ratesthe water inflow rate, the temperature profile can be interpreted on the basis of cold-side tem-and the frost penetration rate are measured. perature TC and overburden pressure P with the

Corldt did not report a FS classification sys- equationtem. However, he suggested that either the frost -PTheave ratio or the ice segregatation ratio (the dhTOT/dt = a expP/T (10)volume of ice to the volume of frozen soil) beused as an indicator of FS. where dhTGT/dt is the total heave rate and a and

b are coefficients determined by regressionCanada analysis. They observed that the warm-side tem-

Penner and Ueda (1978) described a frost cell perature has little effect on the heave rate. Theydeveloped by the Northern Engineering Service argued that under a constant surcharge pressure,Company, Limited, Calgary, Alberta, to deter- the cold-side temperature alone determines themine shut-off heave pressures. A feature of this suction potential at the growing ice lens andfrost cell is that freezing is imposed from the thus controls the heave rate.bottom up to minimize heave restraint. While the cold-side temperature may be a fac-

The test cell (Fig. 54) contains a sample 10.2 tor, it is only an indicator of something more fun-cm long by 10.2 cm in diameter. Water flows damental. When Penner and Ueda's heave-ratefreely through a porous disk in the load piston. data for constant pressure are compared to theThe sample is loaded by pressurizing the air temperature gradient in the frozen soil (Fig. 55),chamber mounted on top of the freezing cell it does indeed appear that the cold-side temper-(the surcharge pressures were varied between 0.5 ature determines the heave rate, However, it

53

CIACULATRION r OUS

Figur 54.SUR FrostSO hev etcl.( RO Denrad ea 17.

INE BIN GUD

PITO0t( Ht 0.2IN .4

Iemeraur TOdetI ris at(/m

FAurT5.Mene's(P7HEeaeRatEdt

vs he emerauregrdiet i foze s Il. LAIOa-warm~~~~ plt tmeatr 23

....... ---- cold pltete peaurON9C

IN CP O

7Z0

Ir

0.2 0.4 0.60.Temperature Gradient in Unfrozen Soil (C/cm)

Figure 56. Penner's (1978) heave rate data vs the temperaturegradient in unfrozen soil. 0 -warm plate temperature ==2.3 O.- cold plate temperature -0.90C.

seems doubtful that the temperature gradient in thin cardboard disk and a 0 5-cm-diameter brassthe frozen soil is a determining factor in frost push rod for measuring heave are placed on theheave. If the frozen fringe concept is valid, and top of the sample. After conditioning, the freez-Penner and Ueda concluded that it is, then it ap- ing cabinet is wheeled into a refrigerated roompears more likely that only the temperature gra- kept at -1 71C; the base is kept in + 40C waterdient within the frozen fringe influences the Frost heave is monitored for 10 days, and the to-heave rate. Figure 56. which is reconstructed tal heave for this period is used as an index of FSfrom Penner and Ueda's data, is a ploi of the To establish the FS classification criteria (Tableheave rate versus the temperature gradient in 42), subgrade soils from sites where frost failurethe unfrozen soil. The assumption is that the occurred were tested together with soils thattemperature gradient in the frozen fringe is more were not adversely affected by frost action.like the temperature gradient in unfrozen soilthan that in frozen soil. As can be seen in Figure Table 42. Frost suscepti-56. the heave rate is related to the temperature bility according to thegradient in the unfrozen soil, assuming that the TRRL test.scatter is due to experimental error and errors inreconstructing Penner and Ueda's data. It is frost heavemore appropriate, then, to relate the heaving frost in i0 daysrate to the temperature gradient in the unfrozen susceptibility lin

soil than to the cold-side temperature.None A 5

EnglandMarginal 0OS-0i7

A laboratory frost heave test was developed g 0

at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory(TRRL) in the 1940's (Croney and Jacobs 1967) Croney and Jacobs (1967) recognized that thisand has been used since 1969 as a compliance test can only roughly estimate the actual perfor-requirement for soils in British road construction mance of soils in a road structure, because other

4t (TRRL 1977). Compacted cylindrical samples factors such as drainage also affect the results.(10.2 cm in diameter and 15.2 cm long) are fro- This test appears to minimize the problem ofzen unidirectionallyV with one end in contact heave restraint. The variability in test results forwith water maintained at + 40C. The samples cohesive soils can be explained by differences inare contained by a stiff waxed paper sheet to dry density; the specimens with the highest com-minimize heave restraint, Nine samples are pacted dry density heave the least and the speci-placed in a cabinet (Fig. 57) to soak at room tem- mens with the lowest compacted dry densityperature for 24 hours; the space between the heave the most. A complete freezing test takes asamples is filled with a coarse dry sand. Little or long time (240 hours); it could, however, beno surcharge is applied during the test, as only a shortened to 100-1 50 hours (Jones 1980)

Ss

Rigid

Arrangement for brass bar Brass push rods

filling the water. Rubber gasketboth

Cabinet ' Cork logging

.Removable speciment~i I lll l I I 411 ... containerIIISoil specimen

- in i m, 6in high

Overflow pipe

SECTIONAL ELEVATION

PLAN

ShowingoC commodal aOnfor nine

spec me ns

Figure 57. TRRL apparatus for testing frost susceptibility. [FromCroney and Jacobs [1967, reproduced by permission of the Transportand Road Research Laboratory, Crown copyright.)

Field experience with the TRRL test (TRRL standards to approximate more closely the field1977) showed that the frost heave properties of densities and water contents for granulargranular materials were being misclassified. In materials Changes were also made in theparticular, many materials which had been class- refrigeration facilities to control temperaturesified as being non-frost-susceptible were found better.from field experience to be frost susceptible. Jones (1980) described other improvements onThe erroneous results were attributed to varia- the TRRL test. The major change is the additiontions in sample preparation, moisture and tem- of a self-contained refrigerated unit (Fig. 58) Itsperature. New test procedures (TRRL 1977) es- main advantage over the coldroom is that ittablished rigorous standards that minimize the does not require a defrosting cycle and thusinfluence of human and procedural variations gives better temperature control. lones has alsoon the test results. added a Mariotte vessel that automatically

The sample diameter was increased to 15.2 cm maintains a constant water table in the originalto allow particle sizes up to 37.5 mm, and the test, water had to be added manually every 24sample was compacted according to the British hours )ones also suggested using a vibratory

56

R 2

SPA CE FOR WATERCOOLER

Figure 58. Self-refrigerated unit to improve temperature control in the TRRLfrost susceptibility test. (From Jones 1980.)

B specimen I refrigerating coilsC removable box M Mariotte vesselD temperature indicator/control N chart recorderE water pump Q hour recorderF sparge pipe R1 thermocouple selector

G heater R2 thermocouple readoutH overflow

hammer test (BS 1377, test 14) to compact granu- A thermoelectric (Peltier) cooling device islar materials. placed on the copper cold plate that rests direct-

Jones and Dudek (1979) developed a method ly on top of the sample. A thermistor embeddedto improve on the TRRL FS test. Changes have between the copper plate and the upper surfacebeen made to the methods of temperature con- of the sample is coupled to a feedback controltrol and to the sample size. Jones and Dudek re- unit for the thermoelectric device, which is cap-ferred to their apparatus (Fig. 59) as the precise able of maintaining a constant cold-side temper-freezing cell (PFCJ. ature to within ±0.10 C The thermoelectric de-

Samples for the PFC are smaller than TRRL vice is cooled by tap water running to a drain.samples; the height and diameter are both 10.2 The PFC is placed in a refrigerated box main-cm. The body of the cell is formed of thin PVC tained at + 40 C, and the controls for the ther-tubes closed at their ends and separated by 50 moelectric cooling device are set at -6 ± 0.1 °C.mm of vermiculite insulation. A unique feature of the PFC is the guard ring

The soil specimen, which is wrapped in waxed that is placed in the annular space adjacent topaper and surrounded by 50 mm of sand for fur- the copper plate. By circulating an alcohol solu-ther insulation, sits on a porous disk connected tion through the guard ring, its temperature canto a constant-head water supply. The base tem- be maintained to within ± 0.50 C. This minimizesperature is maintained at +4 ± 0.1oC by circu- radial heat flow and thus allows a better simula-lating water from a constant-temperature bath. tion of field conditions.

57

DialGouge

Guard Rling PeltierCoolant Caoling Water

Power Supplyand

Thermistor Feedback

GuardContainer

Peltier Lase

Plate

Cup Disc

Constant Heat Device,-,InletWae

Bath

Figure 59. Precise freezing cell according to Jones and Dudek(1979).

0-

- Figure 60. Experimental frost heave appa-

* ratus used at the Laboratoires des Pontset Chaussdies. Dimensions are in milli-meters. (From Aguirre.-Puente et al. 1972.)

1 double-wall cylindrical cell2 reservnir

2 S 3 water supply for specimen4 soil specimen5 evacuated space6 foam rubber tube7 metal screen8 cold plate9 refrigeration line

-10 thermocouple for measuringsurface temperature

11 potentiometer7 12 nylon cord

-0E l 13 pulley

160 14 counterweight

58

20-- T -T - r-

(o)Alsatian Loess(.) lenod Fly-oshe,()Coon Sill(o Englos Sill(6) Monthety Sandy Cloy

- E 10 (w) Nancy Sand j " /

10- (W) Fontoinebleou Sond

/i('C hr)"/ 2

Figure 61. Heaving as a function of the square root of the freez-

ing index I. (After Aguirre-Puente et al. 1974.1

Specimens heave much less in the PFC than in Table 43. Frost susceptibility ac-the TRRL units because the temperature at the cording to the Laboratoires destop of the specimen stays constant as it heaves Ponts et Chaussdes.

Jones and Dudek did not propose that this testreplace the standard TRRL tests, because the Frost LirnltinR slope value. pcost is much higher (three times that of the stan- susceptibility [fmmO.oc h)2J

dard test). In addition, no FS classification sys-tern has been established for the PFC test. None p..005

Low tomedium 005 p. 040France Hgh p0 40

J. Aguirre-Puente and his colleagu~es ,t the

Laboratoires des Pont et Chausses hafve beer

developing test procedures for determining theFS of soils since the late 1960's (Aguirre-Puenteand Dupas 1970, Aguirre-Puente et al. 1972, Norway

197t 1974). The Norwegian Road Research Laboratory

Their experimental apparatus (Fig. 60) in- (NRRL) frost heave test has been described by

cludes a double-walled plexiglass cylindrical Loch (1979b). The multi-ring apparatus freezescell with the annular space evacuated and main- the samples from the top down Samples 10 cm

tained near 0°C to minimize radial heat flow, high and 9 5 cm in diameter can be tested. TheThe inside diameter is 7.5 cm and the height is 25 cylindrical surface of the sample is coated with

cm. Samples are compacted to a height of 20 cm rubber, and the sample is placed in the stacked

and soaked for 18 hours in the cell, with water ring holder The 2-cm-high rings are made offreely available at the base. A temperature of plastic.

-5.7°C is applied to the upper cold plate by Tests are carried out in a controlled-temper-

means of a circulating bath. The bottom temper- ature room at an ambient temperature ofature is maintained at 1°C. The heave is ob- +0.5°C. The multi-ring mold is surrounded by

served for 150-200 hours. When the amount of styrofoam beads to minimize radial heat flow.heave is plotted as a function of the square root Temperatures at the top and bottom are con-of the freezing index (the product of the cold- trolled by circulating an alcohol-water solution

plate temperature and the lapsed time), the char- The base plate is maintained at a fixed tempera-acteri:uc slope of the resulting straight line is ture slightly higher than O°C, and the tempera-determined (Fig. 61). Caniard (1978) reported that ture of the top plate is used to control the rate of

the FS classification in Table 43 has been heat extraction Early tests were conducted with

adopted by the Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaus- a fixed top-plate temperature of -17C, which

sees after considerable experience, froze samples to the bottom within two days.

~59

nd,

The inside dimee is 7, cm.. an th height is 2cyidcasufeofteamle .... cote with

However, since experiments by Loch (1979b) Romaniaand Horiguchi (1978) indicated that the heave Vlad (1980) reported on a direct freezing testrate depends strongly on the heat extraction rate being developed by the Road Research Stationand that the correlation is not always positive of the Polytechnic Institute of Jassy in Romania(Fig. 8), Loch concluded, as had Penner (1972), With the exception of the sample size, this test isthat the rate of heat extraction is the basic vari- very similar to the CRREL test.able in the frost heave process The samples are 10 cm in diameter and 20 cm

Loch suggested that a heave test should be high. They are compacted to the optimum dens-carried out at a standard rate of heat extraction. ity in five layers in a steel mold and are trans-He observed that if the heat removal rate is fix- ferred to tapered plexiglass molds for freezinged, then the heave rate will be constant and the Any space remaining between the sample andtest can be conducted in less than 24 hours. Loch the plexiglass cylinder is filled with paraffin Thefound that natural heat extraction rates occur- samples are saturated under a vacuumring in southern Norway approximated the opti- For freezing, four samples are placed in amum values for most of the soils tested in the freezing cabinet, the bottom of which is open tolaboratory. He concluded that a heat extraction the +41C ambient temperature of the labora-rate of 124 W/m2 should be used in the NRRL test tory (Fig. 62). The samples are frozen from theto determine the maximum heave rate for south- top down at an average frost penetration rate ofern Norway. Furthermore, he concluded that this 1 cm/day until 15 cm are frozen; the air tempera-rate of heat removal will cause the frost penetra- ture in the cabinet is adjusted to as low as -250 Ction rate to become small or negligible in later to maintain the constant rate of frost penetra-stages of the test, thus simulating the field con- tion. Samples are frozen with and without adition where the frost front is fairly stationary water supply to test the extremes of water avail-over much of the winter, ability. Overburden pressures are approximated

Loch also observed that there may be a sub- with lead weights. Heave is measured with dialstantial difference in laboratory frost heave re- gauges. Thermocouples are placed at 33-mm in-sponse between undisturbed and disturbed sam- tervals within each specimen to obtain tempera-pies of the same soil, and he therefore recom- ture profiles.mended that the test samples be representative After freezing, two of the samples are cutof field conditions, open to obtain data on the water content and

There has been little experience reported with the shape and size of the ice lenses. The otherthis test, and it has not been adopted for general two samples are thawed in place and subjecteduse by the Norwegians Flaate (1980) suggested to CBR tests. Two other samples, which werethat they are still considering modifications or maintained in the +40 C laboratory during theother methods for FS compliance testing. freezing test, are also subjected to CBR tests to

provide a basis for comparing the thaw CBRs.

9

Figure 62. Frost susceptibility apparatus.I k (II (From Vlad 1980.)

- , 1 1 1 insulated freezing cabinet4 -2 exposed (uninsulated) bottom of cabinet

3. insulated glass window4 cooling pipe5, test specimens6, foam plastic insulation

13.' 7 surcharge

58 heave rods9 dial gauges

10 water vessels11 water supply

12 thermocouples13 multi-channel recorder

60

Movement Gouge

Stand

Water

Control Unit ,Sample

000 0000 Temperature at I Heat FlowTemperature at 2j Indicator0 0 0 Pe- ltier Element

Cooling Water

Figure 63. Swedish equipment for measuring the frost heave of soils. (After Freddn andStenberg 1980.)

The FS is assessed using the following: Stenberg (1980) reported on larger-scale field1. The maximum heave in 15 days. tests to validate the Swedish frost heave test. He2. The average rate of heave, observed that in test cells 1.5 m in diameter the3. The frost heave ratio. heave was 20-25% greater than would be pre-4. The ratio of the thawed water content to dicted from laboratory tests. He attributed the

the liquid limit. differences to higher porosity in the segregated5. The consistency index, ice in the field tests. Stenberg also reported dif-6. The reduction in CBR in percent. ficulty in relating laboratory freezing conditions

No FS criteria were given by Vlad for the Roman- to field conditions, particularly when using theian frost heave test. Experience with the test ap- freezing index as a link between the laboratorypears to be limited, and field tests. Problems result because of the

effects of radiation and wind velocity on frostSweden heave and because the freezing index has little

The Swedish National Road and Traffic Re- effect on frost heave in late winter because ofsearch Institute frost heave test was described the dampening effect of the overlying frozenby Fredcn and Stenberg (1980). Compacted sam- material.pies are frozen from the bottom up at a constantrate of heat flow, similar to the method sug- Switzerlandgested by Penner and Ueda (1978). The soil speci- The Balduzzi and Fetz (1971) frost heave test ismen is tamped in an acrylic cell (Fig. 63)11.3 cm similar to the TRRL test. The sample is 5.64 cm inin diameter and 20.0 cm high and saturated by diameter and 10.00 cm long, essentially thecapillary rise for 1-10 days. A Peltier device same size as the Proctor mold. Samples are com-coupled to a heat-flow sensor is used to keep the pacted in the mold lined with acetvlcelluloseheat extraction rate at the base at 490 W/m 2 . Tap foil; they are ejected from the mold, placed inwater is used to cool the warm side of the Peltier holes in insulating blocks, and saturated at roombattery. During freezing, water is free to flow in- temperature until the samples cease to take upto the sample through the top. The surcharge water. When moisture equilibrium is reached.pressure can be varied from 2 to 18 kPa. the samples are placed in a freezing cabinet,

The heave ratio is used as an index of FS. How- where -17 0 C air is circulated over the top andever, FS criteria have not yet been developed. +4 0 C water is maintained at the base. Heave is

61

"saveDials

(+4Odeg. F)

LwrChamber Plswo

Figre64.Inerord iarm o Al s D rt e nlti rnstton nd Publi

$tons

Facilites fros heavetesutcit. FomEc e l 18.

+:.. ....... ... ......... .......... :..: ....... . ......: ........

observed until it stops, generally after 50-70 United Stateshours. Alaska Department of Transportation and Pub-

No FS criteria are given. However, Recordon lic Facilities. Esch et al. (1981) reported some de-and Rechsteiner (1971) reported that the Swiss tails on the Alaskan direct frost heave test. Thegovernment has adopted standards that include multi-ring freezing cell has a 15 2-cm inside di-a CBR-after-thaw test for gravels. The Swiss re- ameter and is 14 cm high.quire that the CBR after one freeze-thaw cycle Samples are compacted with a vibratory ham-(or after four days of soaking) be at least 30 for mer and sdturated by soaking overnight Onlyunbroken materials or at least 80 for crushed material smaller than 1.91 cm is included. Thematerials. An additional limitation is that the samples are frozen four to a cabinet (Fig. 64) bythaw-CBR value cannot be less than 50% of the maintaining a fixed -9.5 0 C air temperaturenormal value. above the samples and a +4.5 0 C temperature

62

*Oman"+o,./

LUCITE RING1 0" IGM

_J -"

6 00" 00

RUBBER MEMBRANE ,(OVER EACH JOINT)

/ SUPPORT DISK

4 EACH

NEOPRENE GASKET

Figure 65. Inside-tapered freezing cell used in CRRELfrost heave test. (After Kaplar 1974.)

beneath the samples. Samples are frozen for 72 The freezing cell is illustrated in Figure 65.hours and are classified on the basis of heave oc- The plexiglass cell is tapered inside from 14 0 cmcurring between 48 and 78 hours, when the aver- at the bottom to 14.6 cm at the top to reduceage rate of frost penetration is approximately1.3 friction during freezing. It is 15.2 cm high.cm/day. Samples are normally compacted in a steel mold

The FS classification system developed for the and transferred to the plexiglass cell They areU.S. Army Corps of Engineers is applied to the then degassed and saturated with degassedtest results. This method has not been incorpor- water. The cells are placed four to a freezingated into any specifications as yet, but it is pres- cabinet (Fig. 66) to temper at 3.50C for 18-24ently being field-validated, hours. Degassed water is supplied at the base of

U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engi- each cell; the level is maintained at the top ofneering Laboratory. The CRREL frost heave test the cell during tempering and 0.5 cm above thewas originally developed by its parent organiza- bottom of the sample during freezing. Except fortion, the U.S. Army Arctic Construction and Frost special tests a surcharge of 3.5 kPa is placed onEffects Laboratory for the U.S. Army Corps of the sample to simulate the minimum field situa-Engineers. Since 1950 the Corps of Engineers has tion of 15 cm of pavement and base. The speci-used it (with modifications) as a standard labora- mens are frozen from the top down by loweringtory test procedure for evaluating the FS of soils. the air temperature in the cabinet gradually, thisAccording to Linell and Kaplar (1959), this pro- maintains a constant rate of penetration of thecedure is based on the work of Taber (1929, 00 C isotherm of approximately 0.6-1 3 cmidav1930a,b), Casagrande(1931), Beskow(1935), Winn The FS classification (Table 44), developed byand Rutledge (1940) and others. Details of the Casagrande, is based on the rate of heave for atest were first published in 1952 (Haley and Kap- constant rate of frost penetration. Figure 29lar); more recent details have been published by shows the FS classification as a function of theKaplar (1974) and Chamberlain and Carbee percentage of particles smaller than 002 mm.(1981). Table 44 and Figure 29 are the result of several

J6

FAN

THERMOCOUPLETERMINAL BOARO CONTROL REFRIGERANT

HEATERS LINESCOOLINGPLATES

THERMOM-THERMOPANE ETERWINDOW INSULATED

THERMO- LOAD PRES8URE CABINET

G SGRANULATED

~SPECIMEN

WATER-LEVEL

CONTROLLDAIR TEMP GALV. SHEET METAL PLATE

38 to 40F OVER GRILL

(T) Thermocouple

*Glass thermometer locoted tn test cobinet may be iewed from this window

Figure 66. Details of soil freezing cabinet used at CRREL. (After Kaplar1974.)

Table 44. CRREL frost suscepti- duct this test. Studies have been conductedbility classification. (Kaplar 1971) to identify the causes of the vari-

ability in the frost heave rate. Kaplar found thatAverage rate a variable degree of friction may exist between

Frost of heave the specimen and its container during frostsusceptibilit, (mm/day) heave. Freezing tests conducted on soil samples

contained in horizontally segmented cells usu-Negligible 0-0.5 ally showed higher heave rates than did the testsVery low 05-1.0 conducted in the tapered, solid-wall cells. OtherLow 1.0-2.0Medium 2.0-4.0 factors that may cause variability are specimenHigh 4.0-8.0 heterogeneity, variations in the rate of heat ex-Very high >8.0 traction, and interruption of the water supply.

Kaplar (1971) also studied methods of decreas-ing the time required to conduct the tests; he

hundred laboratory tests; they represent a rela- found that useful data could be obtained intive FS classification for the severest conditions freezing times of two days or less by applying aof moisture availability and surcharge load. constant subfreezing temperature to samples

A tabulation of the results of all the tests per- confined in friction-free containers.formed by CRREL is given in Appendix B. As pre- National Crushed Stone Association. Kalcheffviously discussed, one can use this table to esti- and Nichols (1974) combined the CRREL and

mate the FS of a soil if its index properties are TRRL methods to develop a method for testingknown. the FS of soil aggregate mixtures. Compacted

There are two major difficulties with the samples (the dimensions are not specified butCRREL test: the relatively high variability in the samples appear to be approximately 15 cmheave rate for a given soil and the long period of in diameter and 20 cm high) are placed 18 to atime (approximately 14 days) required to con- freezing cabinet and are separated and insulated

64

by loose granular insulation. A surcharge of 1.4 finer than 0.02 mm, the cold-plate temperaturekPa is applied, and the samples are allowed to and the length of the freezing period were madedraw up water by capillary action for two to for a few soils. However, no attempt was madethree days at room temperature. The air temper- to relate the results to field observations norature above the samples is lowered to -1 20 C and were FS criteria suggested.the heave observed for 200 hours. The heave University of New Hampshire. Zoller (1972,

I. rate was constant and linearly related to the per- 1973) and his associates (Biddescombe et al.

centage of fines between 0.075 and 0.020 mm. 1966, Leary 1967, Leary et al. 1967, 1968, Kit-No classification system was proposed, as field tridge and Zoller 1969), after several years of de-performance of the materials tested had not velopment, have developed the University ofbeen adequately quantified. New Hampshire rapid freeze test. The test equip-

University of Washington. Sherif et al. (1977) ment is illustrated in Figure 68. Compacted sam-reported on a direct frost heave test being used pies are placed in a freezing mold consisting ofto study the variables affecting frost heave. This seven plexiglass rings with inside diameters ofis a constant cold-plate temperature test, with 13.7 cm and a total height of 15.2 cm. The multi-fixed temperatures of -20, -50 and -100 C em- ring mold is then placed in a cylindrical hole cutployed to determine the frost heave for a range in the center of a block of rigid foam insulationof temperature conditions. The freezing cell (Fig. and lined with waxed cardboard. A constant-67) is an acrylic cylinder 30 cm high and tapered head water supply is attached to a porous stoneon the inside from 12.62 cm in diameter at the at the bottom of the specimen. A Peltier thermo-bottom to 11.35 cm in diameter at the top. The electric device is placed in contact with a coldspecimens are frozen from the top down in a plate at the top of the specimen. The sample iswalk-in coldroom, while the base is maintained saturated by raising the level of the water tableat +4 0 C and water is freely available. Thermo- to the top of the specimen for 16 hours, duringcouples are used to measure the temperature of which the sample is cooled until the tempera-the test samples. ture at the upper surface is just above freezing.

Each soil specimen is prepared at optimum The water level is then lowered to 0.5 in. abovewater content and tempered in a plastic bag for the bottom of the specimen. The input current to24 hours in the +40C coldroom. The inside of the battery is increased to begin freezing thethe freezing cell is lubricated with silicone specimen and is adjusted so that heat is re-grease, and the samples are molded in four 2-in. moved at the constant rate of approximately 675layers with a compactive effort equal to that W/m 2 . At this rate the cold ends of most soil spe-used in the standard Proctor compaction test. cimens become stabilized at approximatelyThe compacted samples are allowed to soak for -40C. Heave is observed for 12 hours and the24 hours at +4 0 C with the water level about 1 average heave rate determined. Table 45 com-cm above the bottom of the specimen, pares the resulting frost heave classification

Correlations of frost heave with the amount with the CRREL system. The heave rates are con-

THERMOCOUPLE TERMINALBOARD

FREEZING CELL

OX CUT:LETTNSULATE 1

TO RECORDER

GLVANID SEIE

METAL PNELECTRIC HEAT TAPE S~TERRESEVOIR THERMOSTAT SENSING BULB

WATER RE.SERVOIRTEMP • !4*i

Figure 67. Details of the University of Washington soilfreezing cabinet. (From Sherif et al. (19771, courtesy ofCold Regions Engineers Professional Association.)

65

I'!

CA/4AR CLARCOLN

FILTETI__PAPEBATER

INSULAION- CUPLES

CYLINDE '..

- - e--1 Sq - -- --

Figure 68. University of New Hampshire rapid freeze test equipment. (From

Zoller 1973.)

\ Dial Gouge

Table 45. frost susceptibilityclasses according to the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers andthe University of New Hamp- Light Metal

shire. Plate

Avg. rate of heaveI mm/ia v)Plexiglass

Corps ,I.:UndisturbedRig

susceptibility fngineers UNH SmlBase

Negligible 0-0 5 0-6 5Verv low 05-1 0 65-80Low 10-20 80-103Medium 20-40 103-130High 40-80 130-150 Perforated LightVery high -80 150 Metal Disk

Figure 69. Experimental apparatus ofA lek see va ( 195 7).

66

- - -

8

6E

-2

2 -

0 20 40 60 80 0o40 160

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 V140 160

Time (hrs)

Figure 70. Experimental results of Alekseeva (1957).

siderably greater than in the CRREL tests, prob- determined as a function of frost penetrationably because of the larger amount of side fric- rate. No classification system is providedtion in the CRREL tests. The report of Kronik (1973) has not been trans-

lated but it appears that a frost heave test is in-U.S.S.R. volved. The criteria in Table 46 were established

Alekseeva (1957) proposed a frost heave test for frost penetration rates of less than 10 cm/dav.using multiple plexiglass rings to contain the testsample (Fig. 69). The sample is frozen by apply- Table 46. Frost sus-ing a temperature of -20 to -50 C at the upper ceptibility classifi-plate while maintaining a temperature of 0.5- cation according to1°C at the base, where water is available. The in- Kronik (1973).side diameter of the multi-ring container is 6 cmand the height is 10 cm. Details of the tests are Heavesketchy; however, it appears that undisturbed frost ratio

specimens are placed in the container for test- susceptibility (%)ing. The small diameter probably precludes test-ing coarse gravels. None .. 2

Figure 70 illustrates results obtained with this Low 2-5Medium 5-10

device. Frost penetration appears to be very rap- High 10

id, with the samples apparently completely fro-zen within 48 hours. No FS classification was giv-en Vasilyev (1973) developed a test but provided

Ganeles and Lapshin (1977) developed an- few details of his laboratory apparatus and pro-other method but gave few details. It is a frost cedures. However, it appears that a metal,heave test where the frost penetration rate var- stacked multi-ring mold is employed; its dimen-ies from an initial rate of 5-7 cm/day to 0.5 cm/ sions are 10 cm i.d. and 8 cm in height (each ringday in the final stages. The test requires one to is 1 cm high). The test is conducted to evaluatetwo weeks of freezing time, and the heave rate is the heave ratio of subgrade soils. Samples are

67

compacted and allowed to soak at the base. The after which the sample is removed and the depthsample is frozen from the top down by placing of frost and the water content in the unfrc, .'-nthe apparatus in a cold box maintained at -40 to and frozen zones are determined.-6 0 C. The average rate of frost penetration is Ducket found that ror soils with particle diam-1.2-1.5 cm/day. Although it is not stated, a test eters ranging from 0.5 to 0.006 mm the amountat this rate would take approximately eight or of frost heave increased dramatically ,.s the Dnine days. The frost heave ratio is the critical tide size decreased. The cold-side tempesa_,,-factor for the FS classification. Subgrade soils also affected the frost heave rate; the largestwith heave ratios exceeding 2-4% are con- heave always occurred when the cold-platesidered to be frost susceptible. temperature was set at -150C.

Ducker proposed that the ratio of the frostWest Germany heave to the depth of frost penetration (the

Ducker (1939) was probably the first to at- heave ratio) be used to express the degree oftempt to determine FS with a laboratory test. frost danger F. He proposed that the boundaryDucker's apparatus is illustrated in Figure 71. between frost-susceptible and non-frost-The sample mold is made up of four glass rings 1 susceptible soils be F = 3%. However, since thecm high and 3.85 cm i.d. stacked atop a 7-cm- F values differed by 10-20%, depending on thelong glass cylinder. Air-dried soil is placed within cold-plate temperature, this criterion clearly hasthe glass rings in contact with coarse sand in the some limitations. Ducker appeared to be awareglass cylinder below. The assembly is placed in a of this problem as well as of the effects of sur-pan of water maintained at +40 to +50C, and charge and moisture availability, and thereforethe sample is allowed to draw up water from the he did not propose that this criterion be the solewetted sand by capillary action for an undis- factor in determining the FS.closed amount of time. The apparatus is then Jessberger and Heitzer (1973) proposed aplaced in a small double-chambered refriger- freezing test where the CBR after sevenator, the lower chamber maintained at a temper- freeze-thaw cycles is used to determine FS. Theature just above 00 C and the upper chamber at samples are frozen in a tapered PVC cylinder-150 or -100 C. Heave is observed for four hours, (Fig. 72) lined with Teflon foil. The diameter at

Dial Gouge

POROUS STONE

SOIL SAMPLEHeater Aluminum

PVC-File CYLINDER

'X\ CWATER LEVEL;,. : k Sand . .

POROUS STONE-Water 1 -7Ii I i

Supply /I

BASE"zz TUBING NIPPLE

Figure 71. Frost heave apparatus. (After Figure 72. Freezing cylinder used in West Ger-Ducker 1939.) many. (From lessberger and Heitzer [19731,

courtesy of the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development.)

68

the top is 15 cm and at the bottom, 14.5 cm. The EVALUATION OF INDEX TESTSsample height is 12.5 cm. The samples are com-pacted at optimum water content in five layers Five fundamentally different approaches toin a steel container having the same dimensions determining the frost susceptibility of soils haveas the PVC cylinder. The method of compacting been identified These approaches were basedis similar to that used in the standard Proctor on 1) particle size characteristics, 2) pore sizetest. characteristics, 3) soil/water interaction, 4) soil/

The freezing cabinet consists of two cham- water/ice interaction, and 5)frost heave. The reli-bers, with separate cooling systems for control- ability of any approach is largely dependent onling the top and bottom temperatures. The air how well it addresses the factors affecting frosttemperature in the upper chamber is maintained heave.at -180 C during freezing and +180C during Another important factor in selecting a FS in-thawing. The lower chamber temperature is dex test is complexity. The simple particle sizemaintained between +20 and +60 C. Prior to criteria are the most popular because the testsfreezing, the samples are placed in a humid are faster and because they require less addi-room for three days at +200C and then allowed tional testing than is normally required for roadto soak for 24 hours with the water level 1 cm construction projects. Time, in fact, may be theabove the top of the sample. The saturation and deciding factor in selecting the method to bethe freezing and thawing are conducted with a used, as few road builders are willing to wait5.9-kPa surcharge on the sample. Water is freely weeks for test results from more complex meth-available at the base of the sample during freez- ods before deciding about the suitability of ma-ine. terials. Thus, both reliability and complexity

CBR values for a penetration depth of 2.5 mm must be considered in evaluating FS index testare determined 1) after three days in a humid methods.room (CBRo), 2) after four days of soaking(CBRu), and 3) after seven freeze-thaw cycles Tests using(CBFF). The CBR o and CBRu values are used to particle size characteristicsdetermine the suitability of the material without This group of FS index tests includes thosefreezing and thawing. methods where particle size is the principal fac-

lessberger and Heitzer (1973) did not propose tor. The simplest of these methods requires onlyFS criteria based on the CBR. However, in a later a sieve analysis of the portion larger than 0.074report (Germany 1979) provided by Jessberger mm. This type of criteria is popular with govern-the criteria in Table 47 are suggested. Along with ment agencies in the United States and Canadathe grain size criteria discussed earlier these An example is the 10% limitation on the amountstandards are being considered for adoption by of particles finer than 0.074 mm set by Connecti-the West German government. Although there cut. The range of allowable percentage of parti-has been little experience with this method, less- cles passing a given size of sieve is considerable,berger has convinced his government that thaw with only 5% finer than 0.074 mm allowed inweakening is more important than frost heave in Wisconsin and as much as 60% permitted indetermining the FS of soils and granular mate- Manitoba. Of the 97 grain size methods sur-rials. veyed, 43 require only the sieve analysis, obvi-

ously a concession to the simplicity of this test.Ten more require only the addition of the Atter-

Table 47. West German berg limit test.frost susceptibility crite- The remainder of the grain size methods re-ria (Germany 1979). quire the determination of the distribution of the

particle sizes smaller than 0.074 mm This re-Frost quires two tests in addition to the sieve analysis:

susceptibility CBR F the hydrometer analysis and the specific gravitytest. Eight methods employing only these three

None >20 tests were reported. Illinois is an example of aLow to medium 4-20 state using this type of criteriaHigh <4 Another 21 criteria require the Atterberg limit

test in addition to the grain size distribution

69

Table 48. Index properties of soils for frost susceptibility performance analysis.

Soil Soil Percent finer than frostno. class.* 4.76mm 0.42mm 0.074mm 0.02 mm O.Olmm 0.005mm Ct C:' LL PI class.

f

1 GW 49.0 10.0 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.5 17 1.4 - - NFS

2 GW-GM 42.0 14.0 5.3 2.1 1.2 0.7 38 2.2 - - NFS

3 GM-GC 54.0 30.0 20.0 15.0 9.0 5.0 485 1.9 - - NFS4 SP 72.0 7.0 3.0 1.3 0.9 0.5 5.3 2.0 - NFS5 SP-SM 100.0 100.0 6.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.9 1.0 - NFS6 GW 49.0 12.0 4.7 2.4 1.7 0.9 20 1.1 - - M-H7 GW-GM 44.0 18.0 7.0 2.9 2.1 1.5 57 2.0 - L-M8 GC 48.0 36.0 22.0 17.0 15.0 12.0 4000 1.2 - M-H9 SW 58.0 15.0 4.9 2.3 1.5 1.1 23 1.3 - M

10 SP-SM 77.0 27.0 7.1 3.3 3.0 2.6 13 0.7 - L-M11 ML 100.0 100.0 98.0 35.0 18.0 8.0 - 29.5 12.7 V1112 CL 100.0 98.0 91.0 33.0 24.0 19.0 - 28.0 12.0 H13 GP-GM 45.0 25.0 11.0 6.8 6.0 4.0 258 0.7 - L-i

14 GM 55.0 28.0 15.0 6.3 4.4 3.0 193 3.6 NI-H15 GP-GM 47.0 23.0 9.1 3.2 2.1 1.5 120 0.6 - - L-M16 GC 68.0 52.0 41.0 30.0 25.0 18.0 945 0.1 22.1 7.8 H-VH

* ULnified Soil Classification.

t Unifortmity coefficient.

** Coefficient of curvature.ft Frost susceptibility classification according to CRREL (Kaplar 1974).

data. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria To determine the reliability of all the grain

are an example of one of these methods. The re- size methods for determining FS, they were com-mainder of the particle size methods require pared with the laboratory frost heave perfor-

other tests, such as permeability, capillarity, mance of 16 soils from the report of KaplarCBR, and mineral type tests. (1974). (Comparisons with field observations

The reliability of particle size methods for de- would have been preferable, but sufficient infor-

termining the FS of soils is difficult to assess. The mation was not available for enough sites andperformance of only a few of the methods has material types.) The materials represent a range

been rigorously evaluated. Most may be satis- of soil types; however, the majority of materials

factory for the conditions in the region where were sands and gravels (Table 48).

they are used. Manitoba's criteria (60% finer Table 49 shows the results of this analysis. For

than 0.074 mm) are probably satisfactory for the each of the criteria the reliability in predicting

clay soils of that province but would obviously the performance of non-frost-susceptible and

be inappropriate for the silty soils of Connecti- frost-susceptible soils was determined. In addi-

cut, where only 5% finer than 0.074 mm is tion the overall reliability was determined.allowable. Where borderline conditions prevailed, it is

Townsend and Csathy (1963b), in a study of noted. For some of the criteria the reliability was

the field performance of FS criteria, found that not determined because of insufficient informa-grain size criteria were generally very successful tion on such properties such as mineralogy, per-

in rejecting frost-susceptible soils, but they also meability and Atterberg limits.

frequently rejected non-frost-susceptible soils. The most reliable of the criteria based on

In other words, these are safe but conservative grain size characteristics were the Swiss (Associ-

criteria. The most reliable of the nine methods ation of Swiss Road Engineers 1976) and the U.S.evaluated were the Casagrande (1931), Linnell Army Corps of Engineers (1965) methods. Few

and Kaplar (1959), and U.S. Army Corps of Engi- others approached the overall reliability of theseneers (1965) criteria. The latter two methods, two methods (0.91). It is no coincidence that the

which are modifications of the Casagrande crite- Swiss and Corps methods agree, as the Swiss cri-

ria, gave practically the same reliability figures. teria are based on the Corps criteria.

70

Table 49. Performance of grain size frost susceptibility criteria.

Reliabiolst in predicting Reliabdla in predictingNon-rot frost No ot Non trost frost No ofsusceptible susceptible borderline Overall susceptible susceptible borderline Oserall

Uer Of test' soils sod soils rehabdhtt User of test* sods so,/s soils relabldt

Alberta 080 0 36 0 Nebraska 080 0 56 2 064Arizona it 80 0 45 0 0 56 Netherlands 080 0 73 0 0 75Asphalt Institute 080 (182 ) 081 Nes BrunswiLk 081) 064 0) (69BesIoss 0 80 0 55 0 06 6 Newtoundland 0 60 0 82 0 0 75Bonnard & Re(ordon 080 073 0 O07 New Hampshire (801 045 0 0SbBonnard & Retordon 0 64 071 0 0 69 New York )80 ( 36 0 050Brudal 060 045 0 0 50 Nielson & Rausc henberger I (1 0 36 0 0 56Can Dept Trans 060 082 0 075 Norwav 080 0 16 0 050(arothers 080 55 O ) 063 Nova Scotia (180 ( 55 0 O bCasagrande 080 073 01 (175 Ohio O080 036 0 050Colorado 0 b7 0 75 5 07t Ontario 100 027 0 050Connecticut 080 0 55 0 0b3 Ontario 1 00 064 0 0 75Crones 1 00 0 36) 0 055 Orama 040 082 0 0 69Delaware 100 027 0 050 Oregon (180 0 55 0 0153Denmark 080 0 55 0 063 Oregon 080 018 0 0 38Ducker 080 073 0 0 75 Pietrzyk 3080 040 1 0 5Floss 080 1 55 0 061 Quebec 0 60 071 0 0 60Idaho 040 082 0 069 Rirs 080 073 0 075Illinois 100 018 31 044 Ruckli 080 0 3b 0 0SoIowa 0)80 045 0 0Sb Saskatchewan 0)80 055 0 063lapan 060 082 0 075 Schaible 100 0 3b 0 0 Sblessberger & fartel 0bo 064 0 063 Switzerland 067 1 00 5 091Jessberger 0 80 064 0 0 69 Turner & j umikis 100 0 27 0 044Kansas 080 0 3f 0 0 5O LIS CAA (180 0 55 0 0 i6tnell & Kaplar 080 082 0 081 ISA[ WES 067 071 b 070Maag 100 0 30 2 050 U S Armv ( orps ot ngrs 067 1t)O 5 0 91Maine 0440 0 82 0 0 b9 Vermont 080 0 73 0 067Maryland 080 045 0 0 S6 Vlad (180 0 50 0 0 5Massac husetts 0 80 0 55 0 1 bI Washington 0 80 0 64 0 0 69Mass lnpk Auth 080 055 0 Ob West Germnas 060 082 0 075Minnesota 080 0 55 L) 063 Wisconsin 0 40 0 82 0 069Morton 080 045 It 056 Wommng 1 00 0 36 0 073

*A description and reference for these tests are given in the text Many of the tests reviewed in the text are not included in this analysis because thesrequired more intormation than was available

Tests using pore size characteristics imate because 1) non-uniform void ratio changesEarlier in this report, details of three FS cri- oi ur due to swelling (affecting the degree-of-

teria based on pore size distribution tests were saturation calculations) and 2) the capillar, bun-discussed. Csathy and Townsend (1962) and die concept is a drastically simplified model forTownsend and Csathy (1963b) used a capillary a pore system.rise method to determine pore size distribution. As previously discussed, Gaskin and RaymondThey established that when P. < 6 (where Pu = (1973) evaluated the pressure-plate suction testsP9o/P 70 ), the soil was non-frost-susceptible. and the mercury-intrusion test to improve on theWhen they compared the reliability of this meth- time required for determining the pore size dis-od with several grain size criteria, they found tribution (up to 35 days). For the pressure-platethat it was significantly more reliable in deter- test, equilibrium moisture conditions requiredmining the FS of soils. This criterion was devel- two to five days at each pressure differential, oroped and tested only for the climatic and mois- up to one month per test. The mercury-intrusionture conditions in Ontario, Canada; the authors test was much faster, requiring only 30 minutesdid not suggest that it could be applied else- to complete.where without further study. Gaskin and Raymond observed significant dif-

Csathy and Townsend did not suggest that this ferences between the pore size distributionmethod indicates the true pore size distribution, curves obtained from the three tests (Fig 37)but that it gives a realistic picture of the effec- The relatively small differences between thetive pore conditions as reflected by unsaturated capillary rise and the pressure-plate wetting testupward moisture flow. They suggested that this results were attributed to the differences in voidmethod for determining pore size is only approx- ratio. The hysteresis between the pressure-plate

71

wetting and drying test results is a typical phen- Furthermore, Jones and Hurt (1978) reportedomenon in suction tests and is believed to be that there is no well-defined air entry value for

caused by small pores restricting the drainage aggregates. Ingersoll (1981) also observed this.

from large pores. The greatest differences were Jones and Hurt (1978) suggested that FS can beobserved between the mercury-intrusion and determined according to tension values at 70%

capillary rise results. Gaskin and Raymond at- saturation if there is no well-defined air intrusion

tributed these differences to the small pores re- value-

stricting the movement of mercury into larger Wissa et al. (1972) proposed that the productpores. of the air entry value and the corresponding

They found that the capillary rise method pro- unsaturated hydraulic conductivity be used to

duced results that had the best correlations with determine the FS of soils. Obermeier (1973) criti-

field observations. (None of the pore size distri- cized this interpretation because it assumes that

bution methods were more reliable in determin- the air entry value is unique and that the hy-

ing the FS of soils than criteria based on particle draulic conductivity and air intrusion values are

size.) Nonetheless, Gaskin and Raymond con- of equal importance. He suggested that FS crite-cluded that because of the short time of testing ria be based on the shape of the unsaturated hy-required, any further correlation of pore size draulic conductivity tension curve to account

distribution with FS should use the mercury-in- for the movement of water over a wide range of

trusion test, even though it appears to be the suction regimes. He stated, after correspondingleast accurate of the three methods evaluated, with Wissa and Martin, that bands or regions

The more recent study by Reed et al. (1979) using could be established graphically to distinguishthe mercury-intrusion method is an attempt to frost-susceptible and non-frost-susceptible soils.

follow up on this conclusion. In addition to the lack of well-developed cri-Reed et al. (1979) pointed out that the advan- teria based on moisture-tension and unsaturated

tage of using the pore size distribution criteria is hydraulic conductivity tests there are other

that they consider the compaction variables of problems with this approach. Cumberledge andmoisture and density. The correlation that they Hoffman (1976) had considerable difficulty infound betwee.; the predicted and observed val- obtaining reproducible results with a productionues was good (r = 0.91). However, the scatter in unit provided by Wissa. Problems occurred prin-predicted values is considerable (Fig. 38); the cal- cipally from clogging of the piezometer tips,culated values differed from the actual heave by assembly of the apparatus, and accurate deter-50% and more. In addition to the uncertain reli- minations of the head loss during the permeabil-ability of the mercury-intrusion method, there is ity tests. Recommendations were made for

another important disadvantage: the mercury- increasing the size of the piezometer tips andintrusion method has not yet been used success- the thickness of the sample, but no plans werefully on sands and gravels. This is a serious made to continue testing with the device.limitation, as it is these materials that are most The FS classification method based on satu-often in question. rated hydraulic conductivity suggested by

Onalp (1970) is rather simple. It assumes that

Soillwater interaction tests frost heave is uniquely related to the saturated

This group of tests for determining FS includes hydraulic conductivity of soils. This may be a

1) moisture-tension tests, 2) capillary rise tests, 3) good assumption when the water table is high.

saturated hydraulic conductivity tests, 4) unsatu- However, most frost heave problems occur in

rated hydraulic conductivity tests, and 5) centri- partially saturated soils where the hydraulic con-

fuge moisture content tests. ductivity depends on other factors, such as the

Williams (1966) concluded that the air intru- level of moisture tension and the pore size distri-

sion value determined from the moisture-tension bution. Because of this and because little detail

test can be used as a guide for determining the is known of this method, it will not be con-

susceptibility of soils to frost heave. Williams's sidered further, nor will there be any further dis-

approach may be valid for materials with single- cussion of the centrifuge moisture content meth-

size pores, but for soils with pores of many sizes, od of Willis (1930), as little is known of the meth-

the air intrusion value may not be well defined. od and its application.

Moreover, Chamberlain (1980) recently observedthat considerable moisture movement and frost Soillwaterlice interaction testsheave can occur at tensions well above the air The two tests in this category, the frost heaveintrusion value. stress test and the pore-water suction test, in-

72

volve freezing soils but not measuring frost Of those remaining, only the CRREL (Kaplarheave. 1974) and TRRL (Croney and Jacobs 1967) meth-

Rice (1978) evaluated the frost heave stress ods have established FS criteria and have been

test prepared by Wissa and Martin (1968) and compared with field performance These tests,concluded that the use of the slope R of the log- however, require 10 and 12 days, respectively, toarithm of the heave stress versus time curve in conduct and there appears to be a problem withpredicting the relative FS of a soil appears unreli- side friction in the CRREL test, particularly withable because the R value is very sensitive to fluc- coarser-grained materials (Kaplar 1968).tuations in test conditions and because it de- Side friction, in fact, appears to be one of thepends on the judgement of the investigator, major problems in direct frost heave testing. TheFurthermore, the correlation of R values with multi-ring freezing cell (MRFC) is by far the most

Casagrande's and the Corps of Engineers' FS popular method of minimizing the side frictionclassification systems indicated that this para- during frost heave. Nine of the twenty direct

meter is not a sensitive indicator of relative FS. frost heave tests surveyed used this method (forThe test of pore-water suction during freezing example, Brandl [1970, 1980], Loch 11979a] and

proposed by Wissa and Martin (1968) uses equip- Gorld [1980]). The next most popular method ofment similar to that used in their heave stress minimizing side friction is the tapered-cylindertest, but it is much more complicated. They con- freezing cell (TCFC), which is used by Jessbergercluded that the pore-water suction test provides ana Heitzer (1973), CRREL (Kaplar 1974), Sherifthe same information as the heave stress test et al. (1977) and Vlad (1980). Other methods toand that the heave stress test is preferable be- minimize side friction include bottom-up freez-cause it is much simpler to conduct. ing (Penner and Ueda 1977, Loch 1979a), and the

Riddle's (1973) pore-water suction test has the use of cellulose foil, waxed paper, polyethylene

additional limitation that it applies only to soils film (Croney and Jacobs 1967, Balduzzi and Fetz

with suctions no greater than 1 atm, which prob- 1971, Kalcheff and Nichols 1974, Jones and

ably eliminates all clayey soils. Dudek 1979), or lubricated rubber tubes(Aguirre-Puente and Dupas 1970).

Frost heave tests Both Zoller (1973) and Kaplar (1974) observed

The literature review of frost heave tests re- that side friction during freezing was consider-

vealed a wide variety of methods for determin- ably less with a MRFC than with a TCFC, particuing the FS of soils with a direct frost heave test. larly with coarse-grained materials. Even whenIt is clear from this review that no one test is the the TCFC is lined with Teflon, soil friction is amost desirable. problem because particles gouge the cylinder

Some of these methods can be immediately wall (Carbee, pers. comm.).

excluded, as they cannot accommodate coarse- No rigorous comparisons of the other alterna-grained base materials because of the small di- tives have been published. However, Kaplarameters of their freezing cylinders. These in- (1974) reported that waxed cardboard cylindersclude the Ducker (1939), Alekseeva (1957), were abandoned in favor of the TCFC to reduceAguirre-Puente and Dupas (1970) and Balduzzi side friction, and Zoller (1973) noted that when

and Fetz (1971) methods. Others, including the the tape used to hold the MRFC together duringVasilyev (1973), Penner and Ueda (1977), Jones compaction was inadvertently left in place dur-and Dudek (1979), Loch (1979a) and Vlao (1980) ing freezing, frost heave was considerably sup-methods, are marginally acceptable as they can pressed. It appears, then, that the MRFC offersbe used with coarse-grained materials only by the least resistance to frost heave and that theremoving the larger particles. The earlier meth- amount of the resistance depends on the frictionod of Brandl (1970) is also probably unaccept- characteristics between the soil and the side-able as a universal technique for all matt-nal wall material, the stiffness and strength of thetypes, as it requires a very large sample (30 cm in side-wall material, and the amount of frostdiameter and 50 cm long). To avoid removing all hpave.but the coarsest gravel particles (approximately The bottom-up freezing cell (BUFC) appears to25 mm in diameter), there appears to be a con- be equal to or better than the MRFC in minimiz-census among the various researchers that the ing side restraint for fine-grained soils. However,sample diameter should be between 12 and 15 for coarse-grained soils friction, problems simi-cm. A sample height in the same range also lar to or worse than those of the TCFC would beseems desirable. expected.

73

. . . . I _ . . .

These arguments regarding side restraint are tests) are probably nearly as good. Circulatingsubjective at best, as few comparative studies air is less desirable because of the largerhave been reported. The uncertainty can only be temperature variations inherent to air coolingresolved by rigorous testing systems. From another point of view, however,

Of all the tests only the CRREL (Kaplar 1974) the methods employing circulating air are moreand Vlad (1980) tests employ constant frost pen- desirable as they allow multiple samples to beetration rates. Keeping the ratio constant is tested (nine in the TRRL [Croney and Jacobsclearly a liability, as the temperature must be 19671 and Kalchef and Nichols 11974] tests, sevenadjusted frequently and the freezing conditions in the Balduzzi and Fetz [19711 test, and four inmay not necessarily be the most severe nor simi- the Jessberger and Heitzer [1973], CRREL [Kaplarlar to those in the field. The literature review 1974], Sherif et al. [1977], Vlad [1980], and Esch etshowed that the rate of heat removal and the al. [1981] tests). The Zoller and Freddn and Sten-temperature gradient, not the rate of frost pene- berg tests are unique in that they provide thetration, are the critical thermodynamic factors. best temperature control at the cold plate whileThe cold- and warm-plate temperatures can be providing none at all at the warm plate.adjusted to simulate field conditions in all the In most of the tests, radial heat flow is mini-tests except the Zoller (1973) and Fred~n and mized using foam insulation. The TRRL test usesStenberg (1980) methods, which do not have dry sand on the theory that the sand and thetemperature controls for the warm plate. How- samples will have nearly the same thermal con-ever, these tests could be easily modified. ductivities. When the upper surface of the

Most of the direct frost heave tests use fixed samples and the surrounding sand is exposed toboundary temperatures during freezing and thus freezing air temperatures, the heat flow isimpose a variable rate of frost penetration. The unidirectional upward toward the cold air.freezing temperatures ranged from -250 C for However, when cooling plates are used, thisthe Vlad (1980) test to -41C for the Zoller test. method is less desirable because of temperatureThe warm-side temperatures generally ranged discontinuities at the upper surface. Jones andfrom near 00 to +40 C. The Fred~n and Stenberg Dudek overcame this problem by adding foamand Zoller tests are conducted at normal room insulation and a temperature-controlled guardtemperatures, with the warm end insulated from ring around the cooling plate. Aguirre-Puentethe ambient temperature. and Dupas (1970) surrounded the test vessel with

The only test to employ a constant rate of a vacuum maintained at just above freezing. Theheat removal is the Fred~n and Stenberg meth- last two methods require very complicated testod Both Penner and Ueda (1977) and Loch equipment that is valuable for conducting(1979b) suvgested that a constant rate of heat re- research under precise conditions but is muchmoval be used, but they have not incorporated too complex and expensive for routine testing.the method into their tests because of the com- The best and simplest solution for controllingplicated control system required. The Freden radial heat flow is to use foam insulation backedand Stenberg test uses a closed-loop control sys- by an ambient temperature of 00 C, as in thetem, where a heat flow indicator on the under- TRRL test.side of the cooling plate senses the rate of heat The surcharges used in the direct frost heaveremoval and feeds a signal to an electronic con- tests reviewed ranged from 0 to as much as 18trol system, which automatically adjusts the cur- kPa; most used little or no surcharge (the TRRL.rent source ror the Peltier cooling device. This Aguirre-Puente and Dupas [19701 and Lochprocedure is probably the best method for simu- [1979a] tests, for example). The next most fre-lating field conditions. However, because of the quently used surcharge was one designed tocomplicated equipment required, it is not suit- simulate the load due to pavement. These sur-able for routine FS testing in highway charges ranged from 2.2 to 5.9 kPa; the 3.6-kPalaboratories surcharge of the Zoller, CRREL, Gorl4 (1980) and

The method of temperature control is also im- Esch et al. (1981) tests is typical. The surchargeportant in selecting a FS test Peltier thermoelec- could be varied in the Vasilyev (1973), Pennertric cooling devices (used in the Zoller, Freden and Ueda (1977) and Freddn and Stenberg (1980)and Stenberg, and Jones and Dudek [1979] tests. Other tests could probably be modifiedmethods) have potentially the best temperature readily to make the surcharge variable, as thecontrol, while circulating non-freezing liquids CRREL test has been on several occasions (Car-(used in the Loch [1979a], Penner and Ueda bee, pers comm.)(19771, and Aguirre-Puente and Dupas [19701 All of the tests surveyed provided free access

74

to water at the base of the sample during freez- CRREL test, but the normal procedure is to useing. One test (VIad 1980) specified that the water remolded samples.) Undisturbed samples areavailability should approximate the in situ con- preferable if they can be obtained For coarse-ditions. If specific site conditions are not known, grained materials this is usually impossible Asfree access to water is probably the preferable an alternative, compacted samples can be sub-method because it simulates the worst moisture mitted to several freeze-thaw cycles, the theoryconditions. being that the freeze-thaw cycling will condi-

Because of the heterogeneity ot soils, it is im- tion the soil as it would under natural condi-portant that a FS test integrate the heave re- tions Balduzzi and Fetz (1971), Jessberger andsponse over a sufficient sample length to ac- Heitzer (1973), Vasilyev (1973), Brandl (1980) andcount for material variations. The TRRL and Freden and Stenberg (1980) all suggest that twoCRREL tests are the only tests that subject the or more freeze-thaw cycles be used As previ-entire length of the specimen to freezing. In the ously discussed, the considerable experience atother tests the freezing zone does not reach the CRREL in frost heaving testing has revealed thatwarm end. In most of these, however, the critical the rate and amount of heave are considerablyFS factor (the magnitude or rate of frost heave) higher after two or more freeze-thaw cycles.develops over several centimeters of frost pene- In most of the methods surveyed, the samplestration and thus probably satisfies this require- are saturated by capillary action, i.e. by raisingment. the water table to the base of the sample and

None of the FS tests provides for varying the maintaining that level for one or more days. Jess-moisture tension, as all are directed toward the berger and Heitzer (1973) follow a 24-hour capil-most severe condition of saturation. In all but lary saturation by 72 hours of total submersion.the Penner and Ueda test and the Fredn and Zoller (1973) submerges his samples for 16 hours.Stenberg test, the moisture-tension profile could Others, such as Kaplar (1974), Penner and Uedabe readily adjusted to simulate the depth to the (1977) and GorlA (1980), use a vacuum saturationwater table if modifications were made to allow method. The last method, while more compli-the water table to be lowered or a vacuum to be cated than the others, is preferable because theapplied. These methods are, however, limited to sample can be more completely saturated andmoisture tensions of I atm at the sample base. the moisture conditions in duplicate samplesThe problem with freezing samples upward from can be reproduced more accurately.the bottom is that the effects of lowering the Most of the tests use the amount of frostwater table cannot be simulated precisely be- heave at a given time or the rate of frost heavecause the tension developed in the freezing zone as the critical factor in determining the FS ofis reinforced by the tension developed due to soils. The TRRL, CRREL, Penner and Ueda, Loch,gravity. In top-to-bottom freezing, this tension is and Fredn and Stenberg tests are examples.opposed by gravity. Others, such as Ducker (1939), Balduzzi and Fetz

This may or may not be a problem, depending (1971) and Vasilyev (1973), use the heave ratio.on the relative levels of the moisture tensions The Aguirre-Puente et al. test is unique in that itdue to freezing and the tensions in situ. If the employs the ratio of frost heave to the squaretensions developed during freezing are very root of the freezing index. Still others (Brandllarge compared to the in situ values, as they [1970, 1980], Balduzzi and Fetz, lessberger andwould be in fine-grained materials, then there Heitzer, and Vlad [1980]) use the CBR aftermay be little effect on the test. However, if the freeze-thaw cycling as the indicator of FS. Thesefreezing tensions are only slightly greater than last four methods are the only frost heave teststhe in situ tensions, then the direction of freez- that employ a direct measure of thaw weakeninging may have some effect on the observed frost in their FS criteria.heave. Whether or not this is a problem is uncer- Testing time is perhaps the most significanttain and can only be resolved with controlled factor affecting the choice of test for some lab-tests. oratories. The amount of time required to con-

Most of the frost heave tests use compacted duct the freezing and/or thawing portions of thesoils that are prepared to replicate field condi- tests ranged from four hours (Ducker 1939) to 28tions or are compacted to some adopted stan- days (Brandl 1970). Eleven of the tests could bedard, such as the Proctor test. Only Loch (1979b) completed in one week or less. The TRRL andsuggests that undistubed samples be used. (Un- CRREL tests, which are among the more widelydisturbed samples are sometimes used in the used tests, require 10 and 12 days, respectively.

75

SELECTION OF FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY and Heitzer 1973, and Jessberger 1976) Jessberg-TESTS FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS er concluded that the reduced bearing capacity

after thaw is the most important factor in any FSThe analysis of the literature related to frost classification system. The standard (Table 38)

heave, thaw weakening and frost susceptibility now under consideration for adoption in Westtesting has made it clear that there is much yet Germany (Germany 1979) relates the FS of soil toto learn. The mechanism of frost heave has not the soil type on the basis of thaw-CBR values.been clearly identified nor have all the factors Their classification system is similar to that pro-affecting frost heave been resolved. Most impor- posed by Jessberger (1976) but has combined thetant for this study, no FS index test has emerged low and medium FS categories into a singleas the ultimate solution for selecting non-frost- class. The standard thus includes three classes ofsusceptible materials or for determining frost FS, rather than four as originally suggested byheave or thaw weakening under field conditions. Jessberger. The German system also provides a

Since we need reliable FS criteria, however, it procedurefor conducting CBR tests afterfreeze-is essential that we analyze further some of the thaw cycling when materials of questionablemore promising tests. The choices should in- classification are encountered.clude tests of several levels of complexity and The Swiss FS standards were originally devel-sensitivity. If an array of tests was available, en- oped trom Casagrande's (1931) grain size criteriagineers could select a test with the appropriate and the Corps of Engineers criteria based on thedegree of reliability and complexity. The pro- Unified Soil Classification System (Bonnard andspective FS tests are therefore chosen from four Recordon 1958). Recently Bonnard and Recor-levels in the hierarchy of FS testing. The first and don (1969) proposed that the CBR after thaw bemost basic test is based on grain size characteris- included. Recordon and Rechsteiner (1971) intro-tics. The second test is related to the more fun- duced further changes for granular materials todamental moisture-tension hydraulic-conductiv- incorporate the coefficient of curvature, the op-ity aspects of frost heave. The third is an actual timum water content during compaction, andfrost heave test. And the final method is the the CBR after freezing and thawing or soaking.thaw-CBR test. The current Swiss (Association of Swiss Road

Engineers 1976) FS classification system includesGrain size distribution test three levels of screening (Tables 20-22). The first

Three classification systems based on grain level is a grain-s~ze criterion based on Casa-size emerge as candidates for further considera- grande's criterion. This level separates non-frost-tion. They are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers susceptible soils from those of unknown FS.(1965), the Swiss (Association of Swiss Road Engi- Questionable soils are subjected to a secondneers1976) and the West German (Germany 1979) level of screening that is based on soil type. AsFS classification systems. These have been se- with the first level of screening, the second levellected from the list of nearly 100 classification does not distinguish between frost heaving andsystems (Appendix A) because they appear to be thaw-weakening potential.the most rigorously developed. The others have A third level of screening is for sand and gray-been excluded from further consideration be- el subbase and base course materials of stillcausp their data bases are limited, such as for questionable FS. At this level the Swiss separatemost of the states or provinces where only re- coarse material into two categories: Gravel I andgional conditions are considered, or because Gravel I. Gravel I is the material that passes thethey have evolved into more recent FS criteria, first two levels of screening and needs no furthersuch as those of Casagrande (1931), Beskow testing. Gravel II materials must pass additional(1935, 1938), Ducker (1939) and Schaible (1950, classification tests and must be submitted to a1953, 1957). CBR test after soaking or one freeze-thaw cycle

The West German classification system has (the criteria for selecting one of these two op-evolved from the work of Schaible, under the in- tions are unknown).fluence of Hans Jessberger of Ruhr University at The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FS classifi-Bochum. In several reports (lessberger and Har- cation system (Table 32) also has evolved fromtel 1967, Jessberger 1969, 1973, 1976), Schaible Casagrande's original work (1931). In the 1930's,has evaluated the problem of determining the FS Casagrande (1934, 1938) clk'ified his grain-sizeof soils. As a result of these reviews and his own criteria; he later (Casagrande 1947) proposed astudies (Jessberger and Carbee 1970, lessberger FS classification system based on the Unified

76

Soil Classification. Numerous studies by the U.S. more closely than grain size tests do With testArmy Corps of Engineers Arctic Construction results characterizing the flow of water in soils,and Frost Effects Laboratory in the laboratory one can discuss all but the thermal dynamics otand in the field led to the development of a FS frost heave. Of the index tests reviewed only th,classification system (Linell and Kaplar 1959) critical permeability-suction test of Wissa et al

based on three levels of screening: 1) the per- (1972) allows the determination of the moisture-centage smaller than 0.020 mm, 2) the soil tension and hydraulic-conductivity characteris-classification, and 3) a frost heave test. The first tics. It is recommended, however, that neithertwo levels of screening are the same as the basis their equipment nor their method of analysis beof the Swiss criteria. The third level of screening employed. Their equipment has proven to be un-differs from that of the Swiss in that it calls for a reliable. Their method of analysis assumes thatfrost heave test rather than a CBR test after single points on the continuous moisture-tensionfreezing and thawing. The standards presently in and hydraulic-conductivity curves are uniquelyuse are provided in a U.S. Army technical manu- related to the frost heave mechanism. This isal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1965). probably not justified, as moisture flow occurs

The soil classification test that emerges as the over a range of suction values and hydrauliccandidate for further consideration is the U.S. conductivities. Alternative methods of analysisArmy Corps of Engineers (1965) Frost Design Soil must be developed that use more data fromClassification System. Together with the Unified these curves. The moisture-tension curve alsoSoil Classification equivalent groupings and the has a side benefit in that an effective pore sizeCRREL standard frost heave data, this method distribution curve can be developed from it

has probably the largest data base of any grain The pressure cell permeameter being used atsize or soil classification method. The great ad- CRREL (Ingersoll 1981) to determine moisture-vantage of this method is that it does not require tension and hydraulic-conductivity curves hasa higher level test (CBR or frost heave) for soils advantages over the apparatus of Wissa et alof questionable FS. The amount of frost heave The sample is placed in a cell with an inside di-and thus the FS classification can be estimated ameter of 7.5 cm and a height of 100 cm (Fi gfrom the large tabulation (Appendix B) of pre- 73). The porous piezometer cups for measuringvious frost heave test results. Another advantage the head loss during the hydraulic conductivityto this study is that CRREL personnel have ready part of the test are 6.4 mm in diameter. (They areaccess to the data, the soils, the CRREL frost considerably larger, expose more surface area,heave test equipment, and the field sites on and thus respond faster than those used bywhich the method was established. Wissa et al. [1972].) The distance between the

The disadvantage of the Corps method is that pressure sensors (6 cm) is also a large improve-it is based on frost heave, although according to ment over the Wissa et al. apparatus because itLinell and Kaplar (1959), thaw-weakening charac- allows the pressure gradient to be determinedteristics determined from field plate-bearing more accurately. Positive air pressure is appliedtests have also been taken into account. This is through a porous screen on the side of the cell todifferent from the West German method, which establish a pressure differential between thedirectly incorporates the reduced bearing capac- water in the soil voids and the atmospheric pre%-ity after thaw. sure. Water is expelled until the soil-water ten-

Whether or not the methods of the Swiss or sion is in equilibrium with the pressure differ-Germans are better than the Corps method is un- ential.certain, particularly in view of the fact that there After equilibrium is achieved, a falling-headhas been little field experience reported with the permeability test is conducted while maintain-European methods. The only certain way of de- ing the pressure differential. The inflow and out-termining the relative merits of the three criteria flow of water are monitored until they are equalis to subject them to a rigorous laboratory and The process is repeated at increasing incrementsfield evaluation. Such an evaluation is beyond of pressure. The present moisture-tension limitthe scope of this study. with the apparatus is 0.85 atm However, it is

now being modified to operate at up to 3 atm ofMoisture-tension tension.hydraulic-conductivity tests The hydraulic conductivity is calculated using

Moisture-tension hydraulic-conductivity tests the following form of Darcy's equationaddress the fundamental causes of frost heave

77

k = QL/hAt This device has several advantages over thatof Wissa et al. (1972). First, it appears to be more

where k = hydraulic conductivity reliable. The test is being routinely conducted atQ = quantity of flow in time t CRREL in support of a number of research pro-A = area of sample grams. Second, a data base of moisture-tensionL = distance between tensiometers hydraulic-conductivity curves is being estab-h = head loss between tensiometers. lished for a large number of soils. Finally, many

of the results are being used as input into theFigure 74 shows a hydraulic conductivity ver- mathematical model now being developed at

sus moisture tension plot for silt, sand and till CRREL. The same hydraulic-conductivity mois-soils. Figure 75 compares the results with mois- ture-tension data can thus be useful in two ap-ture-tension values obtained using a standard proaches to the FS problem, one complementingpressure-plate extractor. This dpp-atus has pro- the other. Experience with the model may helpyen to be reliable for a range of soni types, in- in selecting the appropriate hydraulic-conduc-cluding coarse-grained sands and gravels. tivity moisture-tension characteristics to use as

IA I41CBubble Tube Water SupplyP- (conastnt heedi

• Manomters(H,01

X

APs3-Way Valve

Figure 73. Pressure cell permeameter for testing saturated and unsaturated

hydraulic conductivity. (From Ingersoll and Berg, 1981.)

78

L

If~~~~~~~~~.1 ... R I IIllill"lil( I I I11 II.. .....

70C. 7T-r'TT-TT T , T'TT--- Tr

d (g/cm3

)600 C .'-Ciheno Silt (0.62)

, i (o) Hart Bros Sond 1173)500 (a) Manchester Fine Sand ( 47)

2 * (a) Sibley Till (.89)

u400X

300

a,

I00

0001 001 01 10 10 100Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/day)

Figure 74. Typical hydraulic conductivity vs pressure head(tension) curves. (From Ingersoll and Berg 1981.)

(e) Volumetric Plate Extractor(0 ) Unsaturated Conductivity Cell700| 1 1 1 1 1 1

Chena Sit art Bros. Sand

600

500-

. 400E

C

200

I-

0 20 400 20 40Water Content 1% by wt

Figure 75. Moisture tension test results using a volumetric plateextractor and an unsaturated conductivity cell. (From Ingersolland Berg 1981.)

an index of FS, while conducting more moisture- so that highway and geotechnical laboratoriestension hydraulic-conductivity tests may help in can conduct tests readily and obtain reliable re-developing the frost heave model. producible results.

2. The equipment must be reliableFrost heave test 3. The test must relate to frost heave in the

Be.ore selecting a frost heave test, we must fielu.

establish some guidelines for making the choice. 4. It must be of short duration1. A good test should be as simple as possible, 5. It must accommodate the complete range

79

C" C a " 00

o a o o o4, o4 0 0 0 0 0 0

04,004 04,04, 0 , 00 0 04

E c E Oc

o o4o ,

E"~ E E E

Sa _. 0

Q4, 0 R 0 lu

R CC L CL

0 0 0 0 4,4 00 4

0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0

.C - . : 0 S c -00 0 C

0 a 0~4C O 4, 0C 0 X'00-- k a,40 4

Do 0

0 0 00 00

a aa A a a A-Gto

> >

0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ~0

00 .0 744444

00

C, -C

os.O cc a -

CCIC

< CO Er .

0 4,

of material types; in particular it must accom- minimizing side friction while accommodatingmodate granular base and subbase materials the other important factors. Bottom-up freezingand fine-grained subgrade materials. is probably better (except for coarse materials),

6. The apparatus should be inexpensive to but it is difficult to use this technique, simulateconstruct and operate. field moisture-tension profiles, and overcome

One objective is not clear: Should the test rep- the compaction problems at the same time. Thelicate field conditions so that actual frost heave MRFC is not a new development in frost heavecan be predicted, or should the test be only an testing, as it was employed long ago by Taberindex test that imposes the most severe condi- (1929) and Ruckli (1950). The considerable expe-tions? Perhaps the best answer would be to de- rience with this method has revealed certainvelop a frost heave index test for the more se- drawbacks. For instance, it is difficult to com-vere conditions and to correlate that index test pletely saturate a specimen in a vacuum (Kaplarwith field observations. From the review it is ap- 1971), and when non-cohesive sandy soils are be-parent that the most severe conditions for frost ing tested, grains tend to fall through the jointsheave include 1) saturation prior to freezing, 2) between the ring segments beneath the freezingfreely available water, 3) no surcharge, 4) a criti- zone (Carbee, pers. comm.).cal rate of heat removal, and 5) a critical temper- The MRFC, however, is preferable to the meth-ature gradient. When there is a sufficient body ods employing waxed paper, cellulose foil, poly-of knowledge so that the FS criteria developed ethylene film, or foam rubber tubing, because itfor these conditions are reliable, the test pro- appears to offer less heave resistance. Thiscedures can then be modified to simulate actual choice has been made with some uncertainty,field conditions. and alternatives should also be explored. These

The test should also accommodate both re- include, but are not restricted to, 1) lining themolded and undisturbed samples and should be MRFC with a rubber membrane and 2) usingreadily adaptable to simulate other than the polyethylene film or a rubber membrane alonemost severe conditions in the field. The sur- to contain the sample.charge should be adjustable and side friction The sample should be large enough to accom-must be kept to a minimum. To simulate field modate coarse-grained gravels but not so largetemperatures, precise temperature control must as to require large amounts of material. A sam-be available at the top and bottom of the sam- pie with both a diameter and height of about 15pie, and lateral heat flow must be kept to a mini- cm would be appropriate.mum. It should also be possible to vary the The sample should be placed in the MRFC indepth to the water table. Table 50 includes a an undisturbed condition when possible. If un-checklist of these desirable characteristics, disturbed samples cannot be obtained the test

None of the methods surveyed fulfills all these specimen should be compacted to approximaterequirements. Thus, one has the choice of accep- the in situ density.ting an imperfect test or introducing desirable Prepared test samples should be saturated bymodifications. The question, then, is whether the soaking or by adding degassed water under alarge data bank on frost heave obtained using vacuum. The latter method produces more re-the CRREL test should be abandoned in favor of peatable results, but soaking is more practicala test that is much faster and has fewer problems for most laboratories.with side friction and freezing method. Although the moisture tension should be ad-

If a frost heave test is to be successful, it must justable, the pore water tension in the standardexclude the known imperfections and resolve test should be near zero to simulate a high waterthe difficulties that limit its reliability. A better table. A constant-head Mariotte table water sup-frost heave test should be established and a new ply device should be used to maintain the waterbody of experience developed to support it. Per- table ne, r the zone of freezing.haps some correlation with the CRREL frost The sur( harge should be variable to simulateheave test results can be made. The new test field conditions. Perhaps the 3.6-kPa value usedshould include 1) a multi-ring freezing cell by CRREL should be used as a standard. Air load-(MRFC), 2) circulating-liquid-cooled cold and ing devices have been used at CRREL (Carbee,warm plates, 3) an air-cooled room or cabinet for pers. comm.) and are very simple and reliablemultiple samples, 4) variable surcharge, and 5) Temperature control is probably best accom-adjustable moisture tension. plished by circulating a non-freezing liquid from

The MRFC appears to be the best method for controlled temperature baths through plates

81

placed in good thermal contact with the upper plete at least two freeze-thaw cycles will re-and lower surfaces of the test sample. Thermal quire careful design of the freezing conditions.contact between the cold plate and the soil spe- The first freeze can be accomplished at a rela-cimen must be maintained to prevent needle ice tivelv high rate of heat removal, so that the fullfrom forming (Carbee, pers. comm.). length of the sample freezes and thaws within

The heat extraction rate imposed in the test two days. The second cycle should be designedshould represent a severe condition or simulate so that only the upper 5-7 cm of the sample arethe actual field conditions. The user of the test frozen (at a rate of heat removal of approximate-should have the option to impose either rate. ly 100 W/m2). The second freezing would occur

According to Horiguchi (1978) and Loch on the third day and thawing on the fourth day.(1979a), the optimum heat extraction rate for Additional freeze-thaw cycles will have to besilts and clays is near 150 W/ml (no data are performed to validate this procedure, and theavailable for sands and gravels). Loch (1979b) de- test should be modified if necessary.termined that the heat extraction rate ranges be- The MRFC should be insulated radially withtween 20 and 120 W/m 2 immediately beneath as- foam insulation extending sufficiently above thephalt concrete pavements in southern Norway; cooling plate to ensure that no ring is exposed tohe therefore chose a heat extraction rate of 120 the ambient temperature as heaving occurs. TheW/ml for the Norwegian direct frost heave test. insulated MRFCs should be placed in a cold boxFr~den and Stenberg (1980), however, suggested or coldroom where the ambient temperature isthat 490 Wlm2 be used in the Swedish test. Ac- near freezing. Alternatives are to surround thecording to Loch (1979a), a heat extraction rate entire MRFC with a guard ring to maintain thethat high would preclude frost heave in undis- side temperature near the desired ambient tem-turbed silts and clays. Therefore, a standardized perature or to provide sufficient insulation soheat extraction rate more nearly like that sug- that radial heat flow is not a problem. Obvi-gested by Loch should be used in the test being ously, if the cold box or room can be eliminated,proposed. the test would be simpler and much less expen-

The temperature gradient should also either sive.represent a severe condition or simulate an ac- Moisture tension is probably best varied bytual field condition. Gorl (1980) showed clearly adjusting the height of the water reservoir or bythat this is important, especially for coarse mate- applying a vacuum to the reservoir. With theserials. He observed that the rate of heave in- methods the tension is limited to 1 atm by thecreased significantly as the temperature gradi- cavitation pressure of water. This is probablyent increased from 0.1 to 2.50C/cm. Temperature sufficient for most tests, particularly for the dir-gradients near 0.05°Cicm in the region immedi- ty gravels which are of much concern.ately beneath the freezing front occur naturallyduring much of the freezing season in the region Thaw-CBR testnear CRREL. The literature revealed few index tests for

The limits of the apparatus must also be con- thaw weakening. The most frequently discussedsidered. If a 0.05*C/cm gradient is used, the tem- method is the thaw-CBR test (e.g. lessberger andperature difference over the length of the sam- Carbee (19701 and lessberger [19751). The CBR-pie (assuming a 15-cm-long sample) would be after-thawing test procedures included in the0.750 C. This would be difficult to sustain in such methods of Austria, Germany, Romania anda relatively short column. A temperature gradi- Switzerland are the only index test proceduresent of 0.25 0 C/cm beneath the freezing front specifically developed for determining thaw-would be an appropriate compromise. The tem- weakening susceptibility. Others, such as theperature difference over the length of the sam- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers soil classificationpIe would then be 3.75*C. system, consid': thaw weakening only indirectly

At least two freeze-thaw cycles should be em- The repeated-load triaxial test now being con-ployed to account for the changes that occur ducted at CRREL (Chamberlain et al. 1979) mayunder natural freezing conditions. This is impor- also be considered to be a thaw-weakening test.tant in determining FS because repeated freeze- Its use, however, requires a commitment to anthaw cycling is always a factor in freezing soils, elastic layer analysis for pavement design. It iswhether the cycles are generated during a single not an index test, as it provides specific valuesseason or during several successive seasons. ,or the resilient modulus and resilient Poisson's

To limit the test to one week and still com- ratio for the entire freeze, thaw and recoveryperiods.

82

Other methods, such as the unconfined corn- to select a method with the appropriate degreepression test (Dempsey and Thompson 1973), the of reliability and complexity.triaxial compression test (Broms and Yao 1964), The simplest test should be based on grain-and the direct shear test (Thomson and Lobacz size characteristics. The frost susceptibility clas-1973), have been used but are too complicated sification system developed by the U.S. Armyor are incompatible with a frost heave test. Still Corps of Engineers appears to be the best of thisother methods, such as the shear vane and cone type. The second test recommended for furtherpenetrometer, cannot be used with coarse- evaluation is the more fundamental moisture-grained materials. tension hydraulic-conductivity test presently be-

Using the CBR test for thaw weakening is a ra- ing used at CRREL. The third is a frost heave testtional approach, particularly where the CBR test that will allow the frost heave susceptibility tois used in designing pavement systems. It is a be determined for both severe conditions of heatstandard test conducted by many transportation flow and moisture availability and actual fielddepartments and geotechnical laboratories; it is conditions. Because of limitations in all avail-much simpler to conduct than the repeated load able frost heave tests, a new frost heave testtriaxial test. It is also readily adapted to a frost should be developed incorporating the best fea-heave test. tures of the present tests. Finally, a CBR test

The CBR test after freezing and thawing after thawing should be evaluated as an indexshould be considered as one additional proce- for thaw weakening susceptibility, and proced-dure in the frost heave test for use with specific ures should be developed to include both frostsoil types, particularly sands and gravels. Proce- heave and thaw weakening in a new frost suscep-dures should be developed to include both frost tibility classification method.heave and thaw weakening in the FS criteria.

LITERATURE CITEDCONCLUSIONS

Aguirre-Puente, I. and A. Dupas (1970) Experimental method

This review identified over 100 methods for of classifying soils according to their degree of freezing (indetermining the frost susceptibility of soil. Of French) Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.these, most are based on particle size character- Bellevue Lab D'Aerothermique. Report 70-5, 53 pAguirre-Puente, I., A. Dupas and A. Philippe (1972) An experi-istics, four on pore size characteristics, five on mental method of classifying soils in terms of their degree ofthe interaction of soil and water, three on the in- frost susceptibility (in French) Bulletin de Liaison des Labora-teraction of ice, soil and water, and twenty on toires des Ponts et Chaussdes, no 60. p 105-11b (Also Coldfrost heave. Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory ICRREL] Draft

The criteria based on particle size characteris- Trans;ation 392 AD769719 )Aguirre-Puente, I., A. Dupas and A. Philippe (1973) Some re-tics are the most popular, probably because they suits of frost heaving [studies] and their application to classi-

require little or no more testing than is normally fication of soil as to its degree of frost susceptibility (indone for roads and other heavy construction French) In Proceedings, Symposium on Frost Action onprojects. However, particle size methods are Roads, Oslo. Vol 1 Paris Organization for Fconemic Coop-often unsuccessful because they address only eration and Development, p 267-278Aguirre-Puente, J., A. Dupas and A. Philippe (1974) Frostpart of the problem of frost susceptibility. Few heaving and the classification of soils in accordance withaddress the effects of mineralogy, moisture, den- their frost susceptibility Frost i lord, no 14, p 41-47sity, structure, freezing conditions, and sur- Aitken, G.W. (1963) Reduction of frost heave by surchargecharge. loading In Proceedings, First International Conference on Per-

The pore size, soil/water interaction, and ice/ mafrost, November 17-15, 1963, Lafayette, Indiana, p319-324

soil/water interaction tests are all closer to ad- Aitken, G.W. (1974) Reduction of frost heave by surchargedressing the causes of frost heave, but none have stress CRREL Technical Report .84. 24 p AD785505proven to be the universal solution to determin- Alekseeva, F.K. (19571 Laboratory technique for determininging susceptibility. Even frost heave tests, which ground heaving during frost penetration (in Russian) In Con-

be the ultimate solution, have not ference on fngineering and Geological Properties of Rocksmay appear to and the Methods of Their Investil, ion Moscow AN SSSR. pproven to be so. 304-306Because we need reliable frost susceptibility Anderson, D.M. and A.R. Tice (1972) Predicting unfrozen

tests, however, it is essential that the more pro- water contents in frozen soils from surface area measure-mising tests be analyzed further, The tests ments Highway Research Record, no 393. p 12-18si-ould be of several levels of complexity and Armstrong, M.D. and T.I. Csathy (1%3) Frost design practice

in Canada Highway Research Record, no 33. p 170-201sensitivity to allow project or design engineers Association of Swiss Road Engineers (1957) Design of pave-

(B

ments over frost susceptible subgrades. Swiss Standard soils. Proceedings. American Society of Civil Engineers, vol40325 (Also CRREL Draft Translation 204 AD874925 ) 73, no 6. p. 283 (Also Transactions, American Society or CivilAssociation of Swiss Road Engineers (1976) Frost susceptibili- Engineers, vol 113, p 901-991. 1948)ty of soil materials (Swiss Standard 40325) and Quality guide- Chamberlain, E.J. (1980) Determining differential frost heavelines for base materials (Swiss Standard 670120) (in German) by the probabilistic method. CRREL In-house Laboratory In-(In lessberger 1976.) dependent Research Progress Report. 43 pBalduzzi, F. and L. Fetz (1971) Soil freezing: Short-cut heaving Chamberlain, E.J. and S.F. Blouin (1978) Densification bylaboratory test for sub-base and base course materials. Per- freezing and thawing on fine material dredged from water-manent International Association of Road Congresses, ways In Proceedings of the Third International Conference onPrague Permafrost, July 10-13, 1978, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Beskow, G. (1935) Soil freezing and frost heaving with special Vol 1 Ottawa National Research Council of Canada, papplication to roads and railroads. The Swedish Geological 622-628Society, Series C. No 375 26th Yearbook. No. 3, 145 p Chamberlain, E.l. and A.j. Gow (1978) Effect of freezing ind(Translated by 1.0 Osberberg, Published by Technical Insti- thawing on the permeability and structure of soils In Pro-tute. Northwestern University, November 1974.) ceedings, First International Symposium on Ground Freezing,Beskow, G. (1938) Prevention of detrimental frost heave in Ruhr-Univ., Bochum, West Germany, p 31-44Sweden, Highway Research Board, Proceedings, vol. 18. pt. II, Chamberlain, F.j., D.M. Cole and T.C. Johnson (1979) Resilientp 366-370 response of two frozen and thawed soil. Journal of the Geo-

Biddiscombe, J.F., I.H. Zoller, ).., Sanborn and R.M. Leary technical Engineering Division, ASCE, vol 105. no GT2. p(1966) Frost susceptibility of New Hampshire base courses 257-271University of New Hampshire, Durham, 137 p Chamberlain, E. and D.M. Carbee(In press) The CRREL frostBonnard, D. and F. Recordon (1958) Road foundations Prob- heave test Frost i lord.lems of bearing capacity and frost resistance (in French) Christensen, E. and K. Palmquist (1976) Frost action in soilsStrasse und Verkehr, vol. 44, p. 311-381 (Also CRREL Draft theories, criteria, instruments, results (in Danish) TekniskeTranslation 524 ADA027017) hojskole. Instituttet for vejbygning, trafikteknik og plyplan-Bonnard, D. and F. Recordon (1969) Influence of frost and laegning. Report No. 4. Eksamensarbeide. 187 pthaw period on the performance of roads in Switzerland Cominsky, R.I., G. Cumberledge and A.C. Bhaiandas (1972Strasse und Verkehr vol 55, no. 11, p. 530-538. (Also CRREL Frost action phenomena in soils and pavements A compre-Draft Translation 252 AD8828511.) hensive literature survey on theories and design practicesBrandl, H. (1970) Large-scale tests to determine the degree of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. PENNOOT Pro-frost susceptibility of gravel (in German). Strasse und Auto- ject 68-30, 252 pbahn, vol. 21. no. 3, p. 102-111. (Also CRREL Draft Translation Cook, R.D. (1963) Some effects of closed-system freeze-251 AD882850L) thaw cycles on a compacted, highly plastic clay M.S thesis.Brandl, H. (1976) Mineral criterion for evaluating frost sus- Department of Civil Engineering. University of Alberta,ceptibility of gravel (in German). Strasse und Autobahn, vol. Canada, 24-,1, no. 9, p. 348-349. Croney, D. (1949) Some cases of frost damage to roads De-Brandt, H. (1979) Frost criteria from grain composition (in partment of Science and Independent Research, Road Re-German). Osterreichischen Ingenieur-und Architekten-Verein, search Laboratory, Berkshire, England. Road Note No 8no 70, p 21-33. Croney, 0. and I.C. lacobs (1967) The frost susceptibility ofBrandl, H. (1980) The influence of mineral composition on soils and road materials Transportation and Road Researchfrost susceptibility of soils In Proceedings, Second Interna- Laboratory, Berkshire, England, Report LR90, 68 ptional Symposium on Ground Freezing, Norwegian Institute of Csathy, T.I. and D.L. Townsend (1%2) Pore size and field frostTechnology, June 24-26, Trondheim, p 815-823 performance of soils Highway Research Board Bulletin, noBroins, B.B. and L.Y.C. Yao (1964) Shear strength of a soil after 331, p 67-80.freezing and thawing Journal of Soil Mechanics and Founda- Cumberledge, G. and G.L. Hoffmzn (1976) Fundamentals oftion Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol 90, frost action in subgrade soils. PENNDOT portion of researchSM4. p 1-25 on Research Project b8-13 Pennsylvania Department ofBurns, 1. (1977) Effect of water-table on the frost susceptibil- Transportation. Bureau of Materials, Testing and Research,ity of a roadmaking material. Transportation and Road Re- 69 psearch Laboratory, Berkshire, England, Supplementary Re- Dempsey, B.I. and M.R. Thompson (1973) Vacuum saturationport No. 305, 11 p method for predicting freeze-thaw durability of stabilizedCaniard, L. (1978) Fiost susceptibility of soils Experimental materials Highway Research Record, no 442. p 44-58method for classification of soils according to their degree of Ducker, A. (1939) Untersuchungen uber die Frostgefahrlich-frost susceptibility In Soil Freezing and Highway Construc- keit nichbindiger Boden Forschungsarbeiten aus demtion. Carlton University and Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Strassenwesen, vol 17 Berlin Volk und Reich VerlagChaussees, Chap IX, p 50-56 Erickson, L.F. (1%3) Frost considerations in highway pave-Carothers, H.P. (1948) Freeze damage in flexible pavements ment design Western United States Highway ResearchTexas Highway Department, Road Design Circular No 11-48 Record, no 33, p 61-75Casagrande, A. (1931) Discussion of frost heaving Highway Esch, D., R. McHattie and B. Connor (1981) Frost susceptibil-Research Board, Proceedings, vol. 11, p 168-172 ity ratings and pavement structure performance AnnualCasagrande, A. (1134) Soil investigations for modern road Meeting of the Transportation Research Board FHWA Re-construction (in German). Strassenbau, vol 25. p 25-28. port No AK-RD-81-9, 42 pCasagrande, A. (1938) Effects of frost in soil In Proceedings of Everett, D.H. (1%1) The thermodynamics of frost damage tothe Eighth PIARC Congress. Permanent International Associa- porous solids Transactions of the Faraday Society, vol 57, ption of Road Congresses, The Hague. p. 10 1541-1551Casagrande, A. (1947) Classification and idenrification of Everett, D.H. and I.M. Haynes (1%5) Capillary properties of

84

some model pore systems with reference to frost damage Ingersoll, 1. and R. Berg (1981) Simulating frost action usingRILEM Bulletin, New Series, vol 27, p 31-38 an instrumented soil column Preprint. Transportation Re-

Fel'dman, G.M. (1967) Moisture migration and stratified tex- search Board. 29 pture in freezing soils journal of Engineering Physics, vol 13. Japan (1960) Foundation work to prevent frost heave phenom-no. 6, p. 812-820. ena on roads in Hokkaido (in Japanese) Hokkaido Develop-Flaate, K. (1980) Letter to F H Sayles, CRREL (unpubl ment Agency, Hokkaido, Japan

Floss, R. (1973) Boden mechanische Gesichtspunkte bei der Jessberger, H.L. 1969) Ground frost A listing and esaluationAuswahl und Dimensionierung von Strassenbefestigungen of more recent literature dealing with the effect ot frost onStrasse und Autobahn, vol 1 the soil (in German) Research Report V, vol 44. Muniih. 429Freden, S. and L. Stenberg(1980) Frost heave tests on tills with p (Also CRREL Draft Translation 66 AD865128L )an apparatus for constant heat flow In Proceedings, Second Jessberger, H.L. (1973) Frost-susceptibility criteria HighwayInternational Symposium on Ground Freezing, Norwegian In- Research Record, no 429, p 40-46

stitute of Technology, June 24-26, Trondheim, p. 760-771 Jessberger, H.L. (1975) Bearing strength of trost-sensitive soilsGaneles, L.B. and V.Ia. Lapshin (1977) Laboratory technique after thawing as a parameter for dimensioning roads and as aof determining frost heave characteristics of ground (in Rus- measure for evaluating frost criteria (in German) Strasse undsian) Seminar on Methods of Engineering-Geological Inves- Autobahn, vol 24. no 12. p 511-519 (Also CRR[L Draft

tigations and Mapping in Permafrost Areas, Yakutsk. 1977 Translation 476 ADB004593L)Abstract of papers, vol 3. p. 114-116 Jessberger, H.L. 1976) Comparative evaluation of conven-

Gaskin, P.N. and G.P. Raymond (1973) Pore size distribution tional frost criteria or gravel-sand insulation, based on pub-as a frost susceptibility criterion In Proceedings, Symposium lished literature (in German) Strassenbau und Strassen-on Frost Action on Roads, Oslo. Vol. 1. Paris. Organization verkehrstechnik, vol 208. 104 p (Also CRREL Draft Trans-for Economic Cooperation and Development, p 295-309 lation 738)

Germany (1979) Prevention of frost damage in roads (in Ger- Jessberger, H.L. and D.L. Carbee (1970) Influence of frost ac-man). Forschungsgessellschaftfu6rdes Strassenwesser Arbeits- tion on the bearing capacity of soils Highway Researchgrupe "Untergrund-Unterbau" Arbeitsausschuss "Fros" Record, no 304, p 14-26

Memorandum, 41 p Jessberger, H.L. and F. Hartel (1967) Effect of pressure ten-

Gold, L. (1957) A possible force mechanism associated with sions on volume change of soil during freezing (in German)the freezing of water in porous materials Highway Research Bautechnik, vol 44. no 4Board Bulletin, no. 168, p. 65-71 Jessberger, H.L. and K. Heitzer (1973) The procedures to de-Gorle, D. (1973) Evaluation of frost susceptibility of soils by termine the bearing capacity of soils after thawing In Pro-

different methods (in French) In Proceedings, Symposium on ceedings, Symposium on Frost Action on Roads, Oslo. Vol 1Frost Action on Roads, Oslo. Vol 1 Paris: Organization for Paris. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-Economic Cooperation and Development, p. 279-293. ment. p 345-364Gorli, D. (1980) Frost susceptibility of soils: Influence of the )ohnson, A.W. 1952) Frost action in roads and airfields Athermal variables and depth to the water table In Pro- review of the literature Highway Research Board Specialceedings, Secoiid International Symposium on Ground Freez- Report No 1ing, Norwegian Institute of Technology, June 24-26, Tron- Johnson, B.D. (1980) Frost heaving and hydraulic conductivi-dheim, p. 772-783. ty In Proceedings, Second International Symposium onGuillot, P. (1%3) Toward new criteria for freezing of ground Ground Freezing, Norwegian Institute of Technology. lunesoil (in French). Revue Gdnirale des Routes et des Aero- 24-26, Trondheim, p 735 747dromes, vol 3, no. 383, p. 103-104. Johnson, T.C., R.L. Berg, K.L. Carey and C.W. Kaplar (1975)

Haley, J.F. (1%3) Frost considerations in highway pavement Roadway design in seasonal frost areas CRREL Technical Re-

design: Eastern U S Highway Research Record, no. 33. p 1-5 port 259 ADA010633Haley, J.F. and C.W. Kaplar (1952) Cold room studies of frost Jones, R.H. (1980) Developments and applications ot frost

action in soils Highway Research Board Special Report 2. p susceptibility testing In Proceedings. Second International

246-267 Symposium on Ground freezing, Norwegian Institute ofHighway Research Board Committee on Frost Heave and Technology, June 24-26, rondheim, p 748-759Frost Action in Soil (1955) Highway Research Board Bulletin. Jones, R.H. and K.G. Hurt (1978) An osmotic method for de-no. 111, p 107-110 termining rock and aggregate suction characteristics with ap-

Hill, D. and N.R. Morgenstern (1977) Influence of load and plicatilons to frost heave studies Quarterly Journal of Ing-heat extraction on moisture transfer in freezing soils. In Pro- neering and Geolog, vol 11, p 245-252

ceedings, International Symposium on Frost Action in Soils, Jones, R.H. and A.N. Berry (1979) Influence of subgrade pro-University of Lulea, Sweden, vol 1, p 76-91. pvrties ;' frost heave Highwavs and Public 1% ork% luly. pHoekstra, P. (1%9) Water movement and heaving pressures 7-22Soil Science Society of America, Proceedings, vol 33, no 4. p. Jones, R.H. and S.J-M. Dudek (1979) A pre(ise (ell compared512-518. with other tocilities for frost heave testing Proceedings

Hoekstra, P., E. Chamberlain and T. Frate (1%5) Frost-heaving Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. 29 p

pressures. CRREL Research Report 176, 12 p AD626175 Kalcheff, I.V. and F.P. Nichols 1974) A practical test pro(e-Hoekstra, P. and E. Chamberlain (1%5) Frost heaving dure for frost heave evaluation of granular base and subbasepressures CRREL Internal Report materials Preliminary draft for Symposium on Graded AgRre

Horiguchi, K. (1978) Effects of the rate of heat removal on the gate Bases and Base Materials, American Society for Testingrate of frost heaving, In Proceedings, First International Sym- and Materials

posium on Ground Freezing, Ruhr-Univ., Bochum, West Ger- Kaplar, C.W. (1968) New experiment to simplify frost suscep-many, p. 25-30. tibility testing of soils Highway Research Record. no 215. p

Ingersoll, 1. (1981) Method for coincidentally determining soil 48-59hydraulic conductivity and moisture retention characteris- Kaplar, C.W. (1970) Phenomenon and mechanism of frost

tics CRREL Special Report 81-2, 13 p heaving Highway Research Record, no 104, p 1-11

85

Kaplar, C.W. (1971) Experiments to simplify frost susceptibili- Maag, G. (1966) A physical frost criterion (in German) Strassety testing of soils. CRREL Technical Report 223, 26 p und Verkehr, vol 52, no 8, p 431-434AD719237 Martin, R.T. and A.E.Z. Wissa (1973) Frost susceptibility ofKaplar, C.W. (1974) Freezing test for evaluating relative frost Massachusetts soils Evaluation of rapid frost susceptibilitysusceptibility of various soils. CRREL Technical Report 250, tests Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Soils Pub-320,4

0 p AD781511 256 pKinosita, S. (1978) Effects of initial water conditions on frost McGaw, R. (1972) Frost heaving versus depth to water tableheaving characteristics In Proceedings, First International Highway Research Record, no 393, p 45-55Symposium on Ground Freezing, Ruhr-Univ., Bochum, West McRoberts, E.C. and I.F. Nixon (1975) Some geotechnical ob-Germany, p. 3-12 servations on the role of surcharge in soil freezing Preprint toKittridge, I.C. and ].H. Zoller (1969) Frost susceptibility of Conference on Soil-Water Problems in Cold Regions, 16 pNew Hampshire base courses Department of Civil Engineer- Miller, R.D. (1972) Freezing and heaving of saturated and un-ing, University of New Hampshire, Durham, 105 p saturated soils Highway Research Record, no 393, p 1-11Klengel, K.J. (1970) Recent investigations on frost heaving (in Miller, R.D. (1977) Lens initiation in secondary heaving Pro-German). Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Hochschule fuer ceedings, International Symposium on Frost Action in Soils,Verkehrswegen "Friedrich List," Dresden, vol 17, no 2, p University of Lulea, Sweden, vol 1. p 68-74372-377. (Also CRREL Draft Translation 383 AD912546 ) Miller, R.D. (1978) Frost heaving in non-colloidal soils In Pro-Koegler, A., H. Scheidig and H. Leussink (1936) Contribution ceedings of the Third International Conference on Permafrost,to the question of frost problems in road construction (in Ger- Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, July 10-13, 1978. Vol. 1 Ottawaman) Schriftenreihe Strasse, no 3, p 32-41 National Research Council of Canada, p 707-714Koopmans, R.W.R. and R.D. Miller (1966) Soil freezing and Miller, R.D., J.H. Baker and j.H. Kolaian (1960) Particle size,soil water characteristics curves. Soil Science Society of overburden pressure, pore water pressure and freezing tern-America, Proceedings, vol 30. p 680-685 peraft,e of ice lenses in soil. In Proceedings, Seventh Interna-Kronik, la.A. (1973) Frost susceptibility of soils used for build- tional Conference on Soil Science, vol 1, p 122-129ing hydraulic structures in the far north (in Russian). Moscow: Morton, J.O. (1936) The application of soil mechanics to high-lnzhenerno-stroitel'nyi institut. Sbornik trudov, no 115, p. way foundation engineering Proceedings, First International159-167 Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,Lambe, T.W. (1953) Frost investigations, 1952-1953 Cold- vol 1, p 243-246room studies. Third interim report of investigations. Mineral Nielsen and Rauschenberger (1957) Frost and foundationsand chemical studies U.S Army Arctic Construction and Elementary conditions for the planning and construction ofFrost Effects Laboratory (ACFEL) Technical Report 43/2, 25 p foundations in areas with winter frost and permafrost (inLambe, T.W., C.W. Kaplar and TJ. Lambie (1969) Effect of Danish). Greenland Tech Organization. Publ no 1, 20 p (Na-mineralogical composition of fines on frost susceptibility of tional Research Council of Canada. Technical Translation

soils. CRREL Technical Report 207, 31 p AD697134 No. 1021, 32 p.. 19621Leary, R.M. (1967) Rapid test for the determination of frost Nixon, J.F. and N.R. Morgenstern (1973) The residual stress insusceptibility of soils Prepared for FCP Research Review thawing soils Canadian Geotechnical Journal. vol 10. no 4.Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 12 p. p 571-580Leary, R.M., J.H. Zoller and IL. Sanborn (1967) Frost suscepti- Nussbaumer, M.F. (1972) Pore water pressure in soils belowbility of New Hampshire base courses Department of Civil the freezing front in a closed system M.S thesis. Massachu-Engineering. University of New Hampshire, Durham, 38 p. setts Institute of Technology. 184 pLeary, R.M., I.L. Sanborn, J.H. Zoller and I.F. Biddiscnmbe Obermeier, S.F. (1973) Frost heave susceptibility research In(1968) Freezing tests of granular materials Highway Research Proceedings, Symposium on Frost Action on Roads, Oslo VolRecord. no 215, p 60-74 1 Paris. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel-Linell, K.A. and C.W. Kaplar (1959) The factor of soil and opment, p 251-266material type in frost action Highway Research Board Olsen, I.M., A.E.Z. Wissa and T. Martin (1974) Use of theBulletin, no 225, p 81-128 freezing soil stress system to evaluate the frost susceptibilityLinell, K.A., F.B. Hennion and E.F. Lobacz (1963) Corps of of soils Massachusetts Institute of Technology. DepartmentEngineers' pavement design in areas of seasonal frost of Civil Engineering, Report R74-32. 118 pHighway Research Record, no 33, p 76-136 Onalp, A. (1970) The mechanisms of frost heave in so-Is withLoch, I.P.G. (1977) Frost heave mechanism and the role of the particular reference to chemical stabilization Ph D thesis.thermal regime in heave experiments on Norwegian silty soils University at Newcastle-upon-Tyne (unpubl )(in Norwegian) Norwegian Road Research Laboratory. Med- Ontario Department of Highways(1957) A guide fcr soils fielddelelse, no 50 inspectors Materials and Research Section, Department ofLoch, J.P.G. (1979a) Influence of the heat extraction rate on Highways, Ontario. Canadathe ice segregation rate of soils Frost i lord, no 20, p 19-30 Orama, R. (1970) Information for field construction and plan-Loch, I.P.G. (1979b) Suggestions for an improved standard ning (in Finnish) Journal of Roads and Waterways. vol 5,laboratory test .or frost heave susceptibility of soils Frost i Helsinki. Finlandlord, no 20. p 33-38 Oster, I.C. (1967) The influence of depth of frost penetrationLoch, J.P.G. and R.D. Miller (1975) Tests of the concept of on the frost susceptibility of soils Canadian Geotechnicalsecondary frost heaving Soil Science Society of America, Pro- Journal, vol 4, no 3, p 134-346ceedings, vol 39, no 6, p 1036-1041 Penner, E. (1957) Soil moisture tension and ice segregationLoch, I.P.G. and B.D. Kay (1978) Water redistribution in par- Highway Research Board Bulletin, no 168. p 50-64tially frozen, saturated silt under several temperature gra- Penner, E. (1958) Pressures developed in a porous granulardients and overburden loads journal of the Soil Science %vstem as a result of ice segregation Highway RsearchSociety of America, vol 42, no 3. p 400-406 Board Special Report 40

80I

ADI4Xl1 752 COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LAB HANOVER NH F/6 8/13FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SOIL. REVIEW OF INDEX TESTS.IU)DEC A1 E J CHAMBERLAIN FAA/FHBA-8-3-0187

UNCLASSIFIED CRREL-81-2

1'20

fil HIIIJI125 ll~ iWI

Penner, 1. (1959) The mechanism of frost heaving in soils Riddle, I.A. (1973) Susceptibility to frost heaving of soils at se-

Highway Research Board Bulletin, no 225. p 1-22 lected sites along the Liard River Valley, determined by porePenner, F. (1960) The importance of freezing rate in frost ac- pressure measurements Task Force on Northern Oil Develop-

tion in soils Proceedings, American Society for Testing and ment. Environmental-Social Committee Report 73-3, pMaterials, vol 60, p 1151-1165 465-511Penner, E. (1966) Pressure developed during the unidirec- Riis, A. (1948) frost-damage to roads in Denmark Proceed-

tional freezing of water saturated porous materials Proceed- ings, Second International Conference on Soil Mechanics andings, International Conference on Low Temperature Science, Foundations Engineering, Rotterdam, vol 2. p 287-291

Sapporo. vol 1, pt 2, p 1401-1412 Ruckli, R. (1950) Pavement design and the frost susceptibility

Penner, E. (1967) Heaving pressure in soils during unidirec- ot road foundations (in German) Strasse und Verkehr, vol 36.

tional freezing Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol 4, no 4. p 125-134.p 398-408. Saetersdal, R. (1973) Freezing mechanism and pressure condi-

Penner, E. (1968) Particle size as a basis for predicting frost tion at the freezing front In Proceedings, Symposium on Frost

action in soils Soils and Fo.. dations, vol 8, no 4, p 21-29 Action on Roads, Oslo. Vol 1 Paris. Organization for Eco-Penner, E. (1972) Influence of freezing rate on frost heaving nomic Cooperation and Development. p. 366-373

Highway Research Record, no 393. p 56-64 Schaible, L. (1950) Frost damage and countermeasures in roadPenner, E. (1973) Frost heaving pressures in particulate mate- construction (in German) Bautechnik, vol. 27. p 371-376rials In Proceedings. Symposium on frost Action on Roads, Schaible, L. (1953) Increasing danger of frost damage to ourOslo. Vol 1 Paris- Organization for Economic Cooperation roads (in German) Bautechnik, vol. 30, p. 262-266; and vol

and Development, p 279-385. 31, p 287-292 (1954)Penner, F. (1976) Grain size as a basis for frost susceptibility Schaible, L. (1957) Frost and Thaw Damage to Roads andcriteria Proceedings, Second Conference on Soil-Water Prob- Countermeasures (in German). Berlin: Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn,lems in Cold Regions, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, p 103-109 176 pPenner, E. (1977) Fundamental aspects of frost action Pro- Scheidig, A. (1934) Das kriterium fur die Frostgefahrlichkeit

ceedings, International Symposium on Frost Action in Soils, von Erdstorffen in Strassenbaus (in German) Bautechnik, 484

University of Lulea, Sweden, vol 2, p 17-28 pPenner. E. and T. Ueda (1977) Dependence of frost heaving on Sherif, M., I. Ishibashi and W. Ding (1977) Frost heave poten-

load application-Preliminary results. Proceedings, Interna- tial of silty sands Proceedings, Second International Confer-

tional Symposium on Frost Action in Soils, University of ence on Cold Regions Engineering. University of Alaska, p

Lulea, Sweden, vol. 1, p 92-101 239-251Penner, E. and T. Ueda (1978) Soil frost susceptibility test and Shrestha, B.S. (1971) Frost susceptibility of soils using heavea basis for interpreting heaving rates. In Proceedings of the pressure measurements M S thesis, Massachusetts Institute

Third International Conference on Permafrost, July 10-13, of Technology, 142 p1978. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Vol. 1 Ottawa: National Stenberg, L. (1980) Frost heave studies by natural freezing In

Research Council of Canada, p.721-727 Proceedings, Second international Symposium on GroundPenner, E. and T.A. Walton (1978) Effects of temperature and Freezing, Norwegian Institute of Technology, lune 24-26,pressure on frost heaving. In Proceedings, First International Trondheim, p 784-794

Symposium on Ground Freezing, Ruhr-Univ., Bochum, West Sutherland, ".B. and P.N. Gaskin (1973) A comparison of the

Germany, vol 2, p 65-72. T R R L and C R.R.E L tests for frost susceptibility of soilsPhukan-Morgenstern-Shannon (1979) Revised interim Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 10. no 3. p 553-557report- Development of a frost heave soil classification sys- Taber, S. (1929) Frost heaving Journal of Geology, vol 37. p

tem. Vol I Prepared for Fluor Northwest, Inc., Fairbanks, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 553-557Alaska, 81 p. Taber, S. (1929) Frost heaving Journal of Geology, vol. 37, pPietrzyk, K. (1980) Attempts of a new formulation on the cri- 428-461

terion of ground freezing. In Proceedings, Second Interna- Taber, S. (1930a) The mechanics of frost heaving Journal oftional Symposium on Ground Freezing, Norwegian Institute of Geology, vol 38. p 303-317Technology. June 24-26, Trondheim, p. 795-806. Taber, S. (1930b) Freezing and thawing of soils as factors in

Quinn, W.F. (1968) Study of the frost susceptibility test M.S the destruction of road pavements Public Roads, vol 11. no

thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 121 p 6, p. 113-132Recordon, F. and G. Rechsfeiner (1971) Definition of bearing Takagi, S. (1978) Segregation freezing as the cause of suction

capacity, stability, and fine-particle content of gravels for force in ice lens formation CRREL Report 78-6. 12 p. ADAsubgrades and their determination in the laboratory (in Fren- 055780.ch). Strasse und Verkehr, vol. 57, no. 7, p.

3 41-3 4 5. (Also CRREL Takagi, S. (1980) The adsorption force theory of frost heaving

Draft Translation 376 AD753033.) Cold Regions Science and Technology. vol 3. p 57-81Reed, M.A. (1977) Frost heaving rate of silty soils as a func- Takashi, T., H. Yamamoto, T. Ohrai and M. Masuda (1978) Ef-tion of pore size distribution. Indiana State Highway Commis- fect of penetration rate of freezing and confining stress onsion, Highway Research Project )HRP-77-15. 116 p. the frost heave ratio of soil. In Proceedings of the Third Inter-Reed, M.A., C.W. Lovell, A.G. Altschaeifl and L.E. Wood national Conference on Permafrost, July 10-13, 1978, Edmon-

(1979) Frost-heaving rate predicted from pore size distribu- ton, Alberta, Canada. Vol 1 Ottawa National Research

tion. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 16, no. 3. p. 463-472. Council of Canada, p 736-743Rengmark, F. (1963) Highway pavement design in frost areas Terzaghi, K. (1936) The shearing resistance of saturated soils

in Sweden. Highway Research Record, no. 33, p, 135-157 and the angle between the planes of shear Proceedings, First

Rice, D. (1978) Evaluation of the heave stress system in pre- International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations

dicting frost susceptibility Massachusetts Department of Engineering, vol 1, p 54-56Public Works, Interim Report 1974-1978. MDPW Geotechni- Thomson, S. and E F. Lobacz (1973) Shear strength at a thawcal Report, no. 095-1, 74 p. interface In Proceedings. Second International Conference

87

on Permafrost, Yakutsk. National Academy of Sciences, p of soil groups pertaining to roads and airfields U S Depart-419-426. ment of the Army, WES. Vicksburg, Mississippi. TechnicalTitov. V.P. (1965) Strength of thawing ground. Artomobil'nykh Memo 3-357. 9 pDoragakh. p. 178-183. (Also CRREIL Draft Translation 156 U.S. Civil Aeronautics Administralon(1948) Civil AeronauticsAD716438) Administration Standard Specifications for Construction ofTownsend. D.L and T.I. Ciathy (1963a) Compilation of frost Airports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.susceptibility criteria up to 1961. Ontario Department of Vasilyev, Y.M. (1973) Factors affecting the heaving ofHighways. Ontario Joint Highway Research Program Report subgrade soils at freezing. Frost i lord, no. 12. p 17-18.No. 4, 27 p. Vad, N. (1980) The determination of frost susceptibility forTownsend. D.L. and T.I. Csathy (1963b) Soil type in relation to soils using a direct testing method. In Proceedings, Second In-frost action- Ontario Department of Highways. Ontario Joint ternational Symposium on Cround Freezing, Norwegian In-Highway Research Program Report No. 15, Civil Engineering stitute of Technology, lune 24-26, Trondheim, p 807814Report No. 29. 69 p. von Moos, A. (1956) Designing roads with reference to protec-Transport and load Research Laboratory (1977) Frost heave tion against frost (in German). Strasse und Verkehr, vol. 42, no.

test-Interim specification for use with granular materials 9. p. 395-401 and Strasse und Verkehr, no. 11, p. 582.Supplementary Report No. 318. 12 p. Williams, P.1. (1977) Pore pressures at a penetrating frost lineTurner, K.A. and A.R. jumikis (1956) Loss of bearing capacity and their prediction Geotechnique, vol. 16, no 3. p. 187-208

and vertical displacements of New Jersey soils Highway Re- Willis, .A. (1930) Discussion on the relation of frostsearch Board Bulletin, no. 135. p. 77-106. phenomena to the subgrade by Burton and Benkelman Pro-U.S. Army Cold legiom Research and Engineering Labora- ceedings, Highway Research Board, vol. 10, p. 275.tory (1974) Cyclic freeze-thaw frost susceptibility and ther- Winn, H.F. and P.C. Rutledge (1940) Frost action in highwaymal conductivity testing on a gravelly silty sand core material bases and subgrades. Purdue University Engineering Bulletin,for earth dams. Unpublished data report prepared for lames vol 24. no 2. 104 p.Bay Energy Corporation, Montreal. 45 p Wissa. A.E.Z. and R.T. Martin (1968) Behavior of soils underU.S. Army Cold legions Research and Engineering Labora. flexible pavements- Development of rapid frost susceptibili-tory (1977) Frost susceptibility classification of Venezuelan ty tests Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Departmentclay Unpublished data report prepared for Exxon Production of Civil Engineering. R68-77.Research, 17 p Wism, A.E.Z., R.T. Martin and D. Koutsoftas (1972) Equip-U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labora- ment for measuring the water permeability as a function oftory (1978) Frost susceptibility tests on soil from the embank- degree of saturation for frost susceptible soils. Massachusettsment of Prompton Dam, Prompton, Pa. Unpublished data Institute of Technology. Department of Civil Engineering,report for Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers. 24 p Soils Publ.-316, 101 pU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1965) Soils and geology- Pave- Zoller, 1.H. (1972) Frost susceptibility of New Hampshire basement design for frost conditions Department of the Army courses Department of Civil Engineering, University of NewTechnical Manual TM 5-818-2. Hampshire. Durham, 58 pU.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (1957) The Zoller, 1.H. (1973) Frost heave and the rapid frost heave testunified soil classification system Appendix B: Characteristics Public Roads, vol 37, no 6, p 211-220.

88

APPENDIX A. FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY CLASSIFICATION METHODS

BASED ON GRAIN SIZE CHARACTERISTICS

89

R 'L a

APPENDIX A. FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY CLASSIFICATION METHODS BASED ON GRAIN SIZE CHARACTERISTICS.

Allowable percenltage Etrnsgorgat,allon '.ourco Vea, (1074 Mm 0 0.10 mm )iW e sti' £ftorm'1j,

AustriaBrandi 197b -

Brandl 19794 -

CanadaAlberta Johnson of al 197S - I st'

10 VetCarnadian 0 0)1 Armstrong & (sarhy 1461 1 % -

Canadian Natl Parks Armstrong & (sathy 19b1 It,Manittoba Armstrong & (sathv 1963 ht .10%New Brunswsick Armstrong 6 (sarh$ )9b) W0 -

b-8Newfoundland Armstrong & (sat',V 1964 bNowa Scotia Armstrong & Csathv 1944 10-Ontario lownsen) & (sathv 196 la 40. 45% fine sand and Sri)

Johnson of a) 19 7

t a -

Quebet Armstrong & ( sathy 196) 10 - 20% fine sand and sillJohnson ofta) 197s 10 - 3% 0051S mm

Ssslkatchewan I ohnson et al 1975 7-1t0 -

20) -

DenmarkState Road Lab ims 1948 - 10 SO% 0 125 & is% -00b2 mm-

Chritrensen& Palmcquit 1971, 10-

fatGrarKlengel 197o - 101% 0 10 mm

Enland

Greenland

Greenland loth 0,1g Nrelsen&Rausrhenberger 19S7 Sis 50%. 0 12Smm VPs

Japanlessberser 1949 b

Netherlandsvon Moos 1954, S% - 005 mm

Norwavvan Mot), 19%) - 25% 0 25 &20% - 10mm-( hrstencen &Palmqurst 147b -- 201% .0125 mm

Poland(rat ow lth tin., Pretrzyk 1981) -- grain size curves

RomaniaPolvtech Inst. I.ssv Vlad 19W) - Wt ~ 1%* OW12 & c201% -0 1mm

)les~kow 1915 - L041%. 0r2 & SS%-0125 inn vt's- 15% (j))b2& 22% 0 25 mm Vols

Iteskow 1919 40) -

Natt Road Re, Inst Rt'ngnarkc 1,061f reden & S tenibtg I qAI lb

SwitzerlandSwirss te M1(ot Rut kht 1954 17 -or 22% 0 125 inO.

Bionnard & Ret ordtrn 1958 - 4Vol5tBonnard & Re( ordon 19 vt's

Ret rrcltort Ret hsteinrr 197) Volyr'

leshtrg'r197h, 1 s v

sros

t In4 ncrUnited States

Alas)ka Johnston e't al 117 11r'Ist hePtta 19811 I

Ar,tona I rrtktn ... , n 12

9()

A tterberg Other I ype of Materiallimits factors classification I We ( vmments

-mineralogy passifail base-mineralogy pass Jail base

yes soil classification degree subgrade after U S Army Corps ot i ngrs (1965)

yes soil classification degree base subbase-grain size wurves degree all

yes -pass04.i silts. dys aler Ifeskoss l19fJr/ and (lasagrande (1911)

yes pasiail all?- mneralogy, passitail silts I-mineralogy passifail gravel,

-- degree base-- degree all-- degree all

yes - pas, fail all- - degree all

- -passifail subgrade- - pass/fail base- - pass/tail subbase

- - passifail homogeneous morarnes-grain size curves pass/fail heterogeneous sediments

- -pass/fail base'subbase

- -pass/fail gravels, crushed stone

-grain size curves degree all

- capillarity/grain size curves degree all after Casagrande (19311

- -pass/fail all-grain size curves pass/tail homogeneous soils in % of traction 2 mm. based on trost heave

-grain size curves pas/ifail heterogeneous soils

-- pass/tail sands and gravels also crushed rock

-organic content pass/tail all

- -pass/fail all-pass/fail all

-surcharge -pass/tail all based on lab frost heave tests

4yes -- all alter Schaible (1957. Romanian std

- capillarity, hygroscopocity degree homogeneous moraines- capillarity. hvgroscopocity degree heterogeneous sediments i ffa in-2m- capillarity pass/tail homogeneous moraines- capilfarity passifail heterogeneous sediments- s',il type degree all based on frost heave and thaw weakening

- capillarity degree all after Besliow 11935)

- soil type degree all also water table and permeability

yes soil classification degree all alter Casagrande (191). Swiss std- coefticient of curvature pass/fail all after Casagrande (19311. Swiss stdl . in %k of

fraction . 100 mm- coefficient of curvature pass/tail sand after Casagrande 019311. proposed new stdl

yes frost heavelthaw COR pats/lail gravel, crushed stone in % of traction - 100 mm

- coefficient of curvature pass/tail sand, gravel, crushed stone, alter Casagrande 11911. Swiss std . in %k oiundisturbed fraction ,20)0 mm

- coefficrentof curvature. w. pass/tail sand, gravel, crushed stone alter Casagrande 119311. Swiss std , in %k far-

compacted tion , 100 m, , 2% increase in %k - 002 mm

yes thaw or soaked CBR. win, pass/fail sand, gravel, crushed stone after Casagrande 11931) Swiss std-- degree most soils of %k of fraction - ISO mm

- -pass/fail homogeneous sands Cu' -yes soil classification degree all based on US Army ( orps of i ngrs (1965)

coffcintfcuvaur. . pass/fail sand, gravel, crushed stone afterocomaction 10mcoeffIct ofR cuvtue ww pass/fail sand, gravel, crushed stone i ko rcin.10m

essiclsiiaindegree all after U S Army Corps of Engrs (196,5)pass/fail base and subbase based on lab & field frost heave observations

eeainpassifail all

914

Appendix A (cont'd). Frost susceptibility classification methods based on grain size characteristics.

Allowable percentage passingOrganization Source Year 0074 mm 0 020 mm Other size Uniformity

Unied StaItes icont'd)Asphalt institute Johnson et al 1975 7 -Bureau of Public Roads Morton 1936 - - - yesCalifornia Johnson et al 1975 5Colorado Johnson et al 1975 5-10 -Connecticut Johnson et al 1975 10 3 yes

10 10 yesDelaware Haley 1963 35 - - -

Idaho Erickson 1963 36 - - -

Johnson et al 1975 5 - -Illinois lohnson et al 1975 36 - - -

70 -

Iowa Johnson et al 1975 15 -

Kansas lohnson et al 1975 15 -

Maine Johnson et al 1975 5 -

7 -

Maryland Johnson et am 1975 12 - - -

Massachusetts Haley 1963 15 - - -

Johnson ef al 1975 12 - -

10 - - -

Mass Inst Tech Casagrande 1931 - 3 - yes- 10 - yes

Casagrande 1947 - - - yes

Mass Turnpike Auth Johnson el al 1975 10 -

Michigan Johnson et al 1975 - - 7% fines lost by washing -Minnesota lohnson et al 1975 10 -Montana Erickson 1963 12-35 - 0 42 mm is 2 0 mmNebraska Johnson et al 1975 8-12 - - -

5-13 - - -New Hampshire Haley 1963 10 - - -

Johnson et al 1975 3 - - -a - - -

12 -

New Jersey Turner & lumikis 1956 25 -

New York Haley 1963 - - yes- 10 yes

Ohio Johnson et al 1q79 15 -

Oregon Erickson 1963 10 -

Johnson et al 1975 8 -Tenas Carothers 1948 16 8US Civil Aero Admmn Townsend & Csathy 1% 3a 15-25 -

U S Army Corps of fngrs Linell & Kaplar 1959 - I -

U S Army Corps of Engrs 1%5 - 1 5 - ves

- - yes10 ve,

U 8 Army fngr WES USAk WES 1957 -- -

Utah Erickson 1963 25 - -

Vermont Haley 1961 10 or I -

Johnson et al 1975 ;6 - -

Washington johnson et al 1975 10 - -

Wisconsin Johnson et al 1975 5 - -

Wyoming Erickson 1%3 20 -

West Germany

Ducker 1919 - I see test

Floss 1971 - - -

Fed trans Ministry lessherger 1%9 -- 10% - 0 1 mm- grain size turves

Germany 1979 - • 5% - 0(061 mm vesle(h Unv, Munich lzssberger & Hartel 1%7 - rai sire turves sme

Ruhr.Univ .Bochum lessberger 1976 - 8% 0(h mmKoegler et al 19th - -

- 10

Mav 1966 - - 15% • 0061 mmSchaible 195,0 - 20 -

Schaible 1954 - 10 1% - 0 10 mmSchaible 1957 - 10 20% 0 10 & • 1%. 00(12 mm -

92

JI

Atterberli Other lipe of Materiallimits ractori iassitis licfitjin omnrent%

-PaSslail1 allyes soil t lassili a.itof degree all

- -Pass~dal subgradle s... 1

-Pd'Sitarl all-- liass/lail heterogeneous s-is , based on ljasagrande 11411/

-passilait homogeneous soils-- pas,liail all

yes - pa'ssll siltv and iirganri t layes soils-sand equivalent piasslal base and subbase

yes Pass tail silly .Jsyes passtart all when Ps 10% & L 1 40%

-- passitail all- - pass ail as and .ubb.,se

- - pass tail base- - passIlail subbase- - pas tail base sied subbase- - passitail all- - pa'stail subgrade siiil1s

- -passfll base and subbase- -passllai heterogeneous soils

- -passiflil homogeneous soilsyes soil type degree all

- -passlail base and subbasepass/tail base and subbasepassla.l all

yes -passitail granular after U S Army Corps of tngrs /19trjyes -pastail baseyes pass/ail subbase

- -pass/tail silty soils- -passtail subgrade- - pass/ail crushed stone- -pas/tal sand and grasel

yes -degree allyes -passitail heterogeneous soils atter Casagrande (19 Illyes .- pa'sslail homogeneous soils

- -pas/tail base and subbase- -pass/tail all

yes sand equivalent pass/tail all-grain size curve% passitail base and subbase

yes -passitail subbaseyes soil type degree all based on lab Irost hease fi eld thass sweak~eningyes soil classification degree gravels,. heterogeneous soilsyes soil classification degree most inotg materialsyes soil classific~ation degree homogeneous sands

% oil classification degree all based on frost heave and thaw vieakunng_- pas/tail line sands and silts

- - passifai all- - pass/tail silt and clays- - pass/tail all- .- pass/tail base and subbase

yes - pass/fail base and subbase

- - passiail (ohesionless soils alter Casagfrande (11411I- soil classification degree all bearing ( apar its alter thass, iinsidered- grain site curves degree gravels alter Schaible (19S71- organic content degree sands

thaw (BR degree all thaw (IIR considered. based an ?esshergerllq7

b/-- degree all based on trost heave

yes degree all thaw C SR ioissidered- permeability degree heterogeneous soils alter Casagrande (19411- permeability degree homnogeneous soils- water table/capillary, rise pass/ail all- permeability pass/ail all- permeability degree all

-- degree all based on frost heave and thaw weakiening

93t

;A

... .. ..do a A .A-A- .,1 5,012 -A 4 44__4_A_4_A__ _ A-44-;

04.40 0 404 A . - M,,O( .0.= 340 -, . -,49 . g-440 144 4 N . '

A ~~.. .oo~~~~.-o.,.. ..o . . Q~... . . os' . 400. 00044 A,04

S 0~ . ..4'' .44' .4 .4 .' . 2

Z 00000 000000 004 00000 00000sc 000000o 00000 00000 C0

0- A 40 0 0 ~ ..

000000 AN f000 g .00§ 0400- 00000- 000R 000A

42 44Z'-

91i ~ 1 440~004 . 0004 04404 -044

0 l ... .. O.c

d c. .. I- - -,t0 - m

6 ~ ~ e 4 4 4 . .0 1 0 0 44'i44 N 44440 .0,. 400.0--N. 4-

040040, -4444 044. 04/O 0 00=,

c ~ -C d 00,,4 R0004' 0 ON N O 00000 -4440 000.4 2:100 1c-

UP -A -M.N

Z- 2 0

O00 . -i''- -400441:04 00i01 al0 -44.4 04,0 '

444..4 .4444/4/4 0.0.444.4 4/4444444 40..40 .440It

A 11?fo

Nt Ni___N__ la" 5JJ t t 5

95 Pk U M O U M 4 W I L

kt~~.. A *.. hi hhhhhh ..a . . .

4 3 0~ 0 04. -

00 ..

4*R : A- .. . ..

do, a..l __ _ _ _ __ _ _ a _a __J_6o _64666

*~~r sz -.- o -' - O990

CL *.. _____

4*__ _

~ I j)e ~ c!-~a, a, ~ ~a0S

Co co ____ 6 64 ___6

E 1 ~ o d e*do o~ oo po A

- 6 A c..PA O o ----

I 1w,,o0

4W r

as M Ia.

C()b

". .-. y JK a 88 7.S 8 8 UJZ

~~~~~m Z14 0 2 4OOI 4O

. . . . . . . . .- M - - I -- - -....

-It --- 0 -: ftI -40,

4 * * ~ *.~o 16cos 4--noco".l

~. iw ~ ~88 888 888. 888 '&~& 88&888-98S '98

430Z P0 I_9 AMM MM. 12%i. k .I? 1 .4 11 !cIt . .4%

AAAAA__ a00 00000 Alagon Aoa paga AIga4 0000*~ 00000 00000

~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~ q__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-A g£4 1,WI I A'.wI$,w,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

m -07- *q-w 64 - ~_Psedd -a 26 -Ape .de -A.0

-~~~ 1 . I4*0- .4 .~ 0.- 4.s4R4 00 0 .00. 044; N ftt pft NNN

62~~ -004 -4 -t - -- 0000 Q

0.* a 0 0004 0.-o~t. *NO4 0444-00 0000 - 0" 4'%0 00 0 .pU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - m a".oono.. '-~ ,vgr .aooof. ooc 44q4* 004 c4m . . .I- ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 C! IR o. o 0*00 1-R- 00. p...n' t- 00! I0 * I04.,. r0 % 0 ~~.* t 0 C44~~~ft,- NN 000 -%.4-. -0 0 -. 0 -0f-,0-00-

O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ C 1 .304 *04 t- 0.,. 00.4 00004- ,4-% .00

4Ps-;73 %p8R9a V Z

1110 1311

97

b- -r 8 W~i~ V~ it~ Iu~- I Ag vwt"Ub

CL- -- * -- - ~ e. t-' - - - - - - -

*~s g A4 0 m040 .49... P4'N 0N M'f- 11 -- IT, Z g -NI~ a ~ N. rS. NONN N0

1!N It*V~ I- C0 N -? 1 t1 7. 1C C 7C 1S N N*0000 4'tn4 4.4 ... oQ *ftQQ C t 4I-000. .440 &fNcvf..N, O..g~. C Nn--I .0r4 44 '-' .,. .-ts.~ c.o. coo,.9 !9 1 1 :141 !1:1 1

0 00-8

-a-Iz ve24' stC 0N-4- - - -

-c g. , 0 %, ' N

E~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ o 0; 00; 880 0;, C ;C d ; o C ;Co ;d ,Sd 53s< ; ( 440000- 00000

A- I r-. 5:4 z 5 E8 14 -5 -1P

0) -4 ____ __

f ~ ~ 0 r-M A

c 0 f11 -0 0 M2 9 P!P 9p

S .444.444'? N.AN.,

4Lt?~4~~444 . . . . . , . . . . . 4

O?.4S~t .C44.S~S N0.*440 ON.N. nN~ 0 '0V - C 44~N6

-; 6 U 0 , . 0 - - 0CI AA 44 -4A

6m'~ ' -0 0 0 0..~ 00

8c; &* 44 -. A

O OO . 0N---- .- - o 0-4 .40 N - 0

do..4.. I 0.4.4 0..... ..... ' O

'.mom- 0 4

11 I 61 00 1". 14N N4. 4 0. AOO" A04 In A

- 2 N N ' C J U - - . N 4 r ~ ' * ' ' ' ' 4 , 0

.0 p. .,...............E- N N N 00 0 0 ' ' ' '

§ I a'-s§'.4t r- t 01'OO0 NN S 1%M s gR 199- x&

7ow 4N040.C N~

o ~ ~ U\U'AAVC - - ~0. 4 4 1, 00- N N N

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E I ~ ~ OOa .444~~~444-00.4 1.N 4 .C00it I D

* Q N %NN . N H

, u I pp . P X, I 0 i f. f. A0 P t- .s f

* ~ ~~ 4 444.4.4. .44 0f 0 0 -1 -0 0 0

IM 7M T;S4 i, Z75OO Z0, *0*0 00

N * %~ ' ~ NNO NI0 O4' O. ~ C~~ C,---. -.--9-

44 4444 -- -

N- I% r-l , a 1z ~ ~ ~ - f -C '. -1-00 5 .>

Z> Ofa *0 ~ r.,aW -.J.

-. 0 ~ .~~~c- N C N.r , N~

_________ ~~ N0.-~-Nr~r-N-; 0.!,, * O,.r .. 'uVN.C 00 CrC =. r.8

~~~~~- - - -N -, -C - -0. -N~ -00

~~~~fi0a 0 ______ oA 6 Coo Co c00 ;d 000 00

0 , 000 00 000 000 800 0', 6- Q* 0'o '0 ; ;C 660' 0

4 'd - - 00

0000~ 0000 6 6 6 6 6d 6d ddd 6dd 66dd 0'0*- 00 06 6dcoocoooc666 6666666

42 I. 901ur 10 Ic C!, 0 .0 * 00

OOCN0.. 00 23- *

li ____l ____ ___- -1 an X'0

.0 t000

0 Co-...4 8-9ml.3 AA ,4 4; cg ~ ~ ~ ~ E-s .j~: ;3- ;3; 040C .. 01 0-.e-.4 4. .0C ,0009 .wJ

O ~ 5 ~ > & ' .t .. .. .* . .'0 0 .0 .C .

-71 o. o'" f, ~ . ,!0a 000

1NN NNN N .1 -W~:- *'00 0 0.0

0. ' .0....

0 0 8 -2_ _ _ . .N.N. .. # . .0 0 .I'. .t O . c- - - - 000 .-- --

0 ______

o 0 --c - -00 - - 0 o,

--e 40 ItI ee*Z

4 ~ 0 N010 0 4o m_ _ lit

04 41 1ii yiiNi

o 0 _ ___ ____ __99

ma 13. 11...

.- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ K SI' MQ 'A% %c .-... .c- .. .. -. 0t...s5

C 1 ARIA * . 450

F.4. C*=1 .44.4 6440 g. -' C

0-1-L . 4.II. - . I

V4. c elze d O

-a P% -a'

an ~ c *-;. C;C;0 ;.4 ~ ea - 5-%

c a 0

ga C1# ga 61 I

oS~~& 1R I4IAA . *'C

CL C

iii **ii ..41 ANN51a .. 44 N.%N .. 544 *.ve 4 4 N54. tN-

* _ _ _ _ _ _ .1_ _ _ _ _ _ _

.~ IAaCoe 0... *..~c..

.9Z A9I9 I *- -

2 0 d4C 741'~

JS I I5A~sA-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __v.4 4..44 4.

- ~ ~ ~ ~ Ag .4.34.44iA. ~ * .q 4 o CAIU

OW" 0RS d 0 0II~IISI4 14 -ftc -- 55.3s S5-pa 4.

EA.. . .IIII

IA H

006

I .. .... ........itA IMMMH III I IIA S Mr I I III8

3 -+ 4fl 00, .1-. . 0 .-9 ... %1- .%0. 0

00

t lo IAA-JA 2 3 ; ,AAA JKC I

0c40 ... coo+ 0 .. ... .. . .. . . .

,. a . ... at ...I e cps I I's nOcQ9j " . q. ,,,

ave VRi*dER jfn0. V

I ~~ ~ ~ g I ! i • + . I I i

J if4 A-;lr ..... =1!1! 9++ M,+ 9+++ r: PP9 M , o

A~ =4 Z Z_ 040

.1 P1 -A * A '-l.

# I I I ll l 8I I I $ $ I I I I IIse e I . , I I I I I I I t e l I I 1 I

:_|. +

A*11 29,,Tlliil+ +SIS 9 w)a99 13

I +i I 400 0It0 0

... a . 1.. ..

a.l l I i A . ... . .-- . .

*1 m NilC -1 .1C .3 GtJ 000 55** .... 4C,101c

d I m~ z .4.4.4.4.4 44..4- -cI.. 4.* l~f

,% .CVIC N S4% CO Ct-~ ~ 0 AIA 00- CI-UI06

sk* ..o. .... AR C j.4.' ~ @*A4~..

A1C @1. .4 . .C a .4' .. I .C-

o0... cc~a' 4c 0Aoc cc 0 .dA' o

V2___ I ~ ~ 4 _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

cc 448 0_ c oC__8_4818________eoo o

* 3

.. ..t:. I 4

4 . . . .. . ... . . . . . .ll

EU 4 -

0 oc %

1. .--- 192r.-UV FAI 13 R',00 ..AS CAIA 'A 1*I

-)RAA. . . . . . . .AAA.CC

E 1AAA 1111400 4.

1-. -. .tfo IA I ....II....A IA..

5-102

-I In : 1 1

41 -b . S'~ ~ ~ bts..~

N .

e"_ -I t ! 1

C?_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ __ _ _ _

S 14 t, 4 1 0 N 194

P e~ o ~ ~ . 4 ~ _ _ _ _

s tN N a S. NUN O~~.

NN N - - N4 N ..cr. 0. tN.

0' . 0 .0 C; 6 0.7 -* O-t . IC . l

& v4.44 - . *4 . Ct ~ t *NJ*.El b. --.-4

c t..0 O t 4 ' - - .N. e. .4-4..0 ' ~ -C6 Of'

c ' AAJ AAA,: - .0 4- 0 . NON.

P- *0z ;E e* *~ 0.0 .. 0CC.

=~~~ ~ ~ C -..bSE.!aa.NL

v a C: A_;4, ~w 0'0' 5k 4,

0 A a __________

Ma - .440C S , el

GD -'404C 4. **44 NN4 00 '49

10

ii . t MMI AlUII JiiiI

I'w -- i -

A ':0 C , 0 0 -a I I

bi~l'- - IN..

I-

I ii ..

z a ____ 1.4;4 P.o 00

p ip a m 2 .t~c a

IOU sit 0404000

030

i Im

-0

.8 - .lg§

r Bil 9

vot I

= 94 ~ Ie~ea.eaa .fill

K - _ 104

APPENDIX B. NOTES FOR TABLES I, B2 AND B3

1. The data reported in this Appendix pertain to specimens frozen in the laboratory under condi-tions which include the following:

a. Degree of saturation before freezing equal to or greater than 85%.b. Molded dry unit weight equal to or greater than 95% of the applicable maximum standard.c. Rate of penetration of the 32°F isotherm approximately 4 to %4 in./day.d. Load pressure:

Table B1 -0.5 psiTable B2-0.5 psiTable B3-0.073 psi (Y-in. steel plate only)

e. Height of molded specimen approximately 6 in.f. Free water supply at base of specimen (water maintained at approximately 38'F).

The specinens are listed in order of increasing percentage finer than 0.02-mm grain size with-in each soil classification group.

2. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, The Unified Soil Classification System.Technical Memorandum No. 3-357. vol. 1. Vicksburg, Mississippi, revised 1960.

3. Gradation coefficients (for reference - see note 2):

Cu coefficient of uniformity D6 0D10

(D3 o) 2

c - coefficient of curvature (D 0 ) D

c (D60) (D1o)

4. Atterberg limits tests performed on material passing the U.S. Standard no. 40 sieve. If no

limits are shown, material is nonplastic. LL - Liquid limit; PI - Plasticity index.

5. The maxikaum dry unit weight and the optimum moisture content are shown for the natural soilof each specimen. The type of compaction test used in each case is indicated by the letterin parentheses listed alongside the maximum dry unit weight:

a. AASHO T99-57' Method A.b. Providence Vibrated Density Test.c. AASHO T180-57 Method D.d. AASHO T180-57 Method A.e. Harvard Miniature Compaction Test.

6. Degree of saturation in percent at start of freezing test. Remolded specimens allowed to drainfor 24 hours just prior to freezing.

7. Permeability tested with de-aired water under falling head and corrected to 10'C. Values re-ported are for corresponding specimen void ratios.

8. Based on the original height of the frozen portion.

9. Rate of heave - the average rate of heave in millimeters per day, determined from a representa-tive portion of the plot of heave versus time, in which the slope is relatively constant andduring which the penetration of the 32"F isotherm is relatively linear and between '.4-in, and

%-in./day. Rate of heave is averaged over as much of the heave versus the time plot aspracticable, but the minimum number of consecutive days used for a determination is five.Maximum rate - the average of the three highest, not necessarily consecutive, daily heave rates.

105

10. Heave rate variability index - Maximum heave rate/Average heave rate.

11. The following tentative scales of average and maximum rates of heave have been adopted forrates of freezing between '4-in. and -in./day:

Rate of heave Relative frostmm/day susceptibility classification

0 - 0.5 Negligible N0.5 - 1.0 Very low VL1.0-2.0 Low L2.0 - 4.0 Medium M4.0 - 8.0 High H

> 8.0 Very high VH

12. Symbols indicate different types of specimen containers used during the studies:

SC - Straight-wall, waxed cardboardSM - Straight-wall, MicartaSL - Straight-wall, acrylicS-TR - Straight-wall. Transite pipeT - Inside tapered, acrylic

13. The specimens listed in supplementary Table B2 do not fulfill requirements given underNote la and lb above: otherwise all other notes apply.

14. The specimens listed in Table B3 have been tested under a load pressure of 0.073 psi. andmay or may not fulfill la and lb; otherwise all other notes apply.

106

EE

c V An c0 00 a,

v 01 20 0 aq x

0 ~ E *0 0

2 t:1 30 ~ 0

E .2I 0f

t: 0 0 0= -W .; 300 a 1 m1 01, -

.0

cA C,4E c 01

C; C; .0 0 T1

z 1 . 0 Q60. >0 >a c In

IIt

w 01

> 01

0 ID - -

a E

c6l E c 0 o

3 fo~ S 01 .z~t E 010w~

01 0 11 w

0 'AO .0116 .

>- cO. c" c4.E 1..0 E . ~ ~ 1 1 )

ir- u .

w0

m ~ 0 -1

0 .0 01.

E10 0 1 0 0a

O ~ Q ~ 0011200~ .

v 0 -T 6 107

m C6

.72 oo E 0E 0

00

Cc -

~C.C

Cl a.c 0 <a-

4I 04

--

0

CC

0 V' CV A - qE- 11 2 - %C 1 0 z v 00

m -0 0 !! -0 '

.0

00 *

LQ0 c

0.0 C E - o-. z S

.00 c 0

0 0

E V '. . w

E E

* .0d

.c Eoo Ea E M00.

1080

0-

C40 0

cc a- * -

0a a

A .2

-4'

I' c. E ~ if Z&s 0~ LV 0 - - r

a' v L I

.%0 _j 66~ L6

00 r

E0 c% 03c '. .2,

V aa m , 1

4C0 +.

0 c

060

0 3t

V.1 c -I

06' 0 0. -0 40 V; 9

E A

c~ %)~

'!

.- 0

0- E2 .2 4 N4

C6 I

C6u

~ m 0 C, +~Lu~ 0 '-

=00 3-CdA

00 m C6 I > r-U

- _ L0 Z U 0

C. 0

0 v~ AA

-S-

C~ .M

E .2 at

CL oo o ~ . m Z

> 0.o

0 'S !! 0

.m .O c U0 c mm +ccc

k -Z

0- ra

.~. 00 0~0 0 m40.r-~ o'-o C CO0 0. V m y0 ODE- -Me + -.0Um

E A0

m0 CCo .oo -ao

W- o ~0 cc -o -u- rt2 'oIL - o -0 .0~ I , ft bti

O6 .0 '8 .5 -E'o 0 -VOV

E 2 2 E 2 10 0 L. .

0' Eo~Cm mU~ 0 V.e so

-A 66 u.O u E 0

110

A facsimile catalog card in Library Of Congress MARCformat is reproduced below.

Chamberlain, Edwin J.Frost susceptibility of soil; Review of index tests/

by Edwin J. Chamb~erlain. Hanover, N.H.: U.S. ColdRegions Research and Engineering Laboratory; Spring-field, Va.: available from National Technical Informa-tion Service, 1981.

viii, 121 p., illus.; 28 cm. ( CRREL Monograph 81-2)Prepared for Federal Aviation Administration and

Federal Highway Administration by Corps of Engineers,U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labora-tory.

Bibliography: p. 83.1. Frost heave. 2. Soil classification. 3. Soil

mechanics. 4. Soils. 5. Soil tests. 1. United States.Army. Corps of Engineers. II. Army Cold Regions Re-search and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, N.H.III. Series: Cold Regions Science and Engineering Mono-graph 81-2.