1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is based on a review of the available literature on ground freezing and
provides a brief history of ground freezing and its effects on typical geotechnical
engineering properties. It goes on to discuss considerations for implementing ground
freezing in the field, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the process.
Finally, two case studies of AGF implementation in the field are reviewed.
2.0 HISTORY
Currently, AGF has been applied to a wide variety of engineering projects where
stability, groundwater conditions, and containment are an issue. Example situations
include: vertical shaft construction for mining or tunneling, stabilization of non-
engineered earth fills (large obstructions), sites that require horizontal access (e.g. a
TBM canopy for cross passage construction), lateral and vertical contaminant
containment, contaminant redirection, groundwater cutoff (can be tied into bedrock),
and emergency support/stabilization using LN2 (Schmall and Braun 2006).
During the process, heat is removed from the soil in a cylindrical pattern around
freeze pipes. This produces columns of frozen soil. The columns continue to expand
until they intersect. From here, the frozen mass will expand outwards creating a wall
or solid ring of frozen soil (Sanger and Sayles 1979).
The following sections describe the effects of AFG on the engineering properties of
soils, namely hydraulic conductivity, stiffness, shear strength, and volume change
capacity. In addition, laboratory testing and classification of frozen soils is introduced
per JGS and ASTM standards.
3.1 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF FROZEN SOIL
The strength behavior of frozen soils, as with any other soil, is dependent on a number
of factors, including soil type, temperature, confining stress, relative density, and
strain rate. Frozen soils exhibit higher strength than unfrozen soils. In general, frozen
soil strength increases as temperature decreases and confining stress increases.
The strain softening behavior of the MFS shown in the Da Re et al. study is explained
by Kornfield and Zubeck 2013. They state that a decrease in stress past the initial
yield point is due to an increase in crushing and pressure melting of the frozen pore
water. Yang et al. 2009 and Xu et al. 2011 also showed that as confining pressure
increases, shear strength reaches a peak then decreases due to ice crushing and
pressure melting. Generally, at -10°C frozen sands and frozen clays have compressive
strengths of 15 MPa and 3 MPa respectively (Klein 2012).
The compressive strength of frozen clay was analyzed by Li et al. under variable
temperatures, strain rates, and dry densities. The clay was compacted to three
different dry densities and had a liquid limit of 28.8 % and plastic limit of 17.7%.
Uniaxial compressions tests were performed at different temperatures (-2 to -15°C)
and different strain rates (approximately 1 x 10-6 to 6 x 10-4 s-1) at each dry density.
Results of the study showed similar strength behavior to the study performed by Da
Re et al. for frozen MFS. The compressive strength of the clay tested increased with
increasing strain rate, decreasing temperature, and increasing dry density, similar to
the behavior of the MFS tested in the Da Re et al. study. Additionally, frozen clays
exhibited both strain hardening and strain softening behavior after an initial yield
stress was reached, which was highly dependent on the time to failure, which itself
depends on strain rate. The results of the study showed that frozen clay samples
loaded at low strain rates reached a low uniaxial compressive strength (approximately
2 MPa defined at 10% strain if no failure was reached) at a longer time to failure but
exhibited strain hardening behavior. Conversely, frozen clay samples loaded at high
strain rates reached a much higher uniaxial compressive strength (approximately 6
MPa at failure) but exhibited strain softening (Li et al. 2004).
In general, frozen soils are stiffer than unfrozen soils. Da Re et al., in their frozen
soil strength study on MFS, conducted a study on Young’s Modulus. They found that
frozen MFS had a Young’s modulus of approximately 23 GPa to 30 GPa. Because
the small strain strength behavior of the frozen MFS was similar throughout the
variables tested, Young’s modulus was independent of the variables tested (relative
density, confining stress, strain rate, and temperature).
Soil heave occurs in soils where ice lenses form within voids. The soil structure must
promote transfer of water from surrounding void spaces to the freezing front of the ice
lense through capillary forces. For this reason, silty soils are particularly frost-
susceptible (Widianto et al. 2009).
It is also important to note that clays may exhibit low frost susceptibility in some
cases. As the freezing front moves outward, clays exhibit heave due to volume
expansion of the ice lense, however consolidation may occur ahead of the freezing
front, where negative pore pressures are being generated by the movement of water
into the freezing zone. The net effect of heave and consolidation below the ice lense
may be small or negligible at the surface (Han and Goodings, 2006). Despite this, site
specific soils must be tested for frost-susceptibility if frost heave is expected to be an
issue to nearby structures.
With respect to frozen soils, both ASTM and JGS have some standards for laboratory
testing. However, many of these tests either apply to pavements, multiple freeze-thaw
cycles, or only provide information in the direction of heat flow. JGS 0171-2003 is a
test method for predicting the frost heave of a soil. This standard utilizes Takashi’s
equation for frost heave in the direction of heat flow. Kanie et al. 2013 has proposed
the use of a three-dimensional evaluation method involving a unique laboratory
apparatus and finite element method modeling.
Visible ice is represented by the color black in Figure 3. Visible ice may exist within
the soil structure as separate pockets of ice (Vx), coatings around soil particles (Vc),
irregular formations (Vr), or stratified formations (Vs).
Sayles et al. 1987 provides several recommendations for the complete description of a
frozen soil. These include unfrozen soil USCS symbol and description, frozen soil
symbol and description, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, as well as physical
properties such as ice content (frozen), water content (unfrozen), unit weight, specific
gravity of soil, saturation percentage, and salinity. These parameters have a strong
influence on the frozen strength and behavior of the soil. For artificial ground
freezing applications, it is recommended that the system described in Andersland and
Anderson 1978 be used (Sayles et al. 1987). Still et al. 2013 has proposed developing
standardized index testing for use in frozen soil classification.
4.1 EQUIPMENT
Ground freezing requires the use of a mobile refrigeration plant. The plant may run
on coolants such as ammonia or CO2, and works to remove heat from the circulating
fluid, which is typically calcium chloride or magnesium chloride brine (Jessberger
1980).
Figure 5. Mobile refrigeration plants during AGF (SoilFreeze)
Brine temperatures of -25°C or less are typically sufficient for most projects.
Commercial brines designed specifically for use with AFG are also available. It is
important to investigate the properties of these coolants to ensure compatibility with
other equipment (e.g. corrosion of pipes). The coolant used may depend on the
temperature requirement of the project, magnesium chloride brine freezes at -34° and
calcium chloride brine freezes at -55°C.
LN2 boils at a temperature of -196°C and may be used in the place of a generic
coolant. Due to the extremely low temperature of LN2, freezing soil in contact with
LN2 occurs much more quickly. Therefore, complete freezing can be accomplished
much faster using LN2 instead of chilled brine. However, due to its higher cost, this is
usually reserved for emergency stabilization, short-term freezing, and small-volume
projects. In this case, LN2 is transported to the site in specialized storage tanks and
inserted directly into the freeze pipes. It is not circulated through a refrigeration plant.
Rather, it is allowed to evaporate at the surface, as shown in Figure 5, after it has
removed heat from the soil (Jessberger 1980).
Figure 6. Liquid nitrogen evaporation during AGF (“Ground Freezing”)
Table 1. Summary of calcium chloride brine and liquid nitrogen properties for AGF
Freeze pipes can be made from a variety of materials. A typical setup may include 5
inch diameter steel outer pipes and 3 inch diameter plastic (e.g. polyethylene) inner
pipes (Klein 2012). Freeze pipes must be able to stand upright and withstand the
lateral earth pressures associated with the site. As a historical rule of thumb, freeze
pipes must be capable of withstanding 13 kPa per meter of shaft burial depth (Klein
2012). Freeze pipe integrity must be monitored to prevent damage to the pipes due to
soil heave.
One of the most important aspects of an AGF project is monitoring the soil conditions
during freezing and thawing. Typically, a hole is drilled near the frozen wall, where
temperature gauges are installed to monitor soil temperature. This is of vital
importance to the final product (frozen cutoff wall, frozen soil mass, etc).
Additionally, ground heave and settlement due to both freezing and thawing of the
soil after project completion are monitored. If excavation behind a frozen wall is to
take place, deflectometers, extensometers, and inclinometers may be used to measure
wall deflections. To determine if any windows of unfrozen soil exist in the frozen soil
mass, ultrasonic measurements may be taken. Finally, project specific measurements
such as heave pressures and deformations on existing structures due to heave
(tunneling, foundations, special project considerations) are performed if necessary
(Jessberger, 1980).
Using computer systems, much of the AGF process is automated. Automatic data
acquisition is used for temperature and deflection measurements. Additionally,
computer systems regulate the flow of coolant into the freeze pipes to more accurately
control the temperature of the ground.
The design parameters determined from site characterization are often modeled using
finite element method (FEM) computer programs, such as Ansys. This may be
necessary for more complex scenarios and subsurface conditions. Additional
programs such as GeoStudio’s SEEP/W and AIR/W are able to model convective
surface boundary conditions if required (Geo-Slope). TEMP/W is used in GeoStudio
to model thermal changes in the ground.
Due to its impermeable properties, frozen soil makes an excellent groundwater cutoff
material. Ground freezing has been used to create a water-tight seal around
excavations in and around salt mines. It also has the ability to tie in with bedrock and
other subsurface features (Schmall and Braun 2006). This creates an impermeable
barrier that may extend down into fractured bedrock. It should be noted that the
hydraulic conductivity of rock may increase after thawing due to further opening of
fractures during freezing.
Artificial ground freezing can be a time intensive process. Chilled brine is better
suited for projects with longer time frames on the order of weeks to months. The
brine is cycled through the piping system during the freezing phase until the ground is
fully frozen. After the soil has been sufficiently frozen, the temperature is kept
constant during the maintenance phase. Liquid nitrogen can be used for rapid ground
freezing as its temperature is much lower and freezing can be achieved in a matter of
days. It is often used for emergency situations in which rapid stabilization or
containment is necessary (van Dijk and Bouwmeester-van der Bos 2001). Freezing
time is a function of several factors, chief among them being pipe spacing and
temperature. A column of freezing spreads radially around each pipe. The soil is
considered fully frozen when the freezing columns have overlapped and all space
between them has been frozen. Larger spacing correlates with longer freezing time
(Johansson 2009).
Figure 8. AGF with brine, required freezing time as a function of pipe spacing (After
Jessberger and Vyalov 1978)
Figure 7 illustrates this relationship in both sandy and clayey soils. Clay soils will
generally require a longer freezing time than sandy soils for the same pipe spacing.
Greater moisture contents will require longer freezing times because a greater amount
of water must be frozen. As expected, a lower brine temperature will decrease the
required freezing time.
4.4 COST
The cost of a typical AGF project can vary greatly depending on the energy
requirements, size of the freezing area, site specific difficulties, coolant (liquid
nitrogen is much more expensive than brine), and timescale. Ground freezing
becomes cost efficient relative to other methods when the specific benefits of AGF
lend themselves to a project (Schmall and Braun 2006). AGF may become the
desired method due to difficult ground conditions (e.g. weak layers, non-engineered
fills) or when a suite of improvement techniques would otherwise be needed (van Dijk
and Bouwmeester-van der Bos 2001).
Internally, the cost effectiveness of increasing the size of a ground freezing project has
been analyzed by the Army Corps of Engineers on a frozen ground waste containment
operation at Ft. Detrick, MD. The geometry of the frozen area increased, and
consequently additional materials costs, energy requirements, and total capital costs
were estimated. Approximately 6.3 times the length of freeze pipe of the initial
design was required to achieve approximately 6.7 times the energy requirement of the
original design. The capital costs incurred were estimated at 6.4 times the costs of the
original design (Grant, 2001). The Grant study suggests an approximately linear
relationship between freeze pipe length, energy requirement, and cost increase on
some projects. It is important to recognize that this may not reflect the energy to cost
relationship of an AGF project. Each project will be different in design and
requirements.
5.1 ADVANTAGES
Additionally, ground freezing can create cutoff walls or frozen soil masses in a variety
of geometries (shown in Figure 8), simply by modifying the placement and spacing of
the freeze pipes. This is especially important during tunneling applications, where
freeze pipes are installed horizontally and at various angles to create stable frozen
ground for tunnel support and excavation.
Furthermore, ground freezing will likely be cost effective when the site conditions are
such that stability and/or containment must be achieved with multiple methods, which
combined have the same effect as applying ground freezing alone. Again, the Boston
CA/T project was one such project that determined ground freezing was the most cost
effective solution using a value engineering process.
5.2 DISADVANTAGES
The following sections provide brief summaries of projects which have successfully
implemented ground freezing, including the specific considerations and obstacles
which were overcome by implementing AGF.
The Boston CA/T project is perhaps the most well-known application of massive soil
freezing to date. The project involved the construction of underground expressway
tunnels to replace an aging elevated highway system. Three tunnels were to be
constructed using tunnel jacking. The subsurface profile consisted of miscellaneous
fill materials (boulders, cobbles, concrete and steel fragments, wood, brick, granite
blocks, among others) for 6-8 meters, overlying 3-5 meters of organic silts, clays, and
peat, overlying 1.5 meters of dense silty sand, overlying 5 meters of marine clays. To
stabilize the tunnel face, the initial design called for a combination of ground
improvement techniques to handle the extreme soil variability, including chemical
grouting, de-watering, horizontal jet grouting, and soil nailing.
Figure 10. Vertical section of tunnel during operation (Dijk and Bouwmeester-van den
Bos 2001)
A value engineering study showed that AGF could provide the stability required
through each soil layer at the site at a lower cost than implementing four different
ground improvement methods, therefore it was chosen to provide stability of the
tunnel face for excavation and support of the tunnel jacking system.
The Boston CA/T project required multiple site-specific design considerations. The
tunnel sections were constructed beneath a railway (shown in Figure 9), therefore the
freeze pipes were insulated at the top to keep the ground surface thawed for railway
operations and maintenance. Ground temperature and heave were monitored
throughout the project and any damages to the railway system were corrected with
routine maintenance. Additionally, the freeze pipes were terminated approximately 1
meter above the tunnel invert, to prevent the tunnel from experiencing thaw
settlements after construction. Finally, heat pipes were installed at the edges of the
frozen cutoff walls to prevent heave pressure from the expansion of the frozen wall
from burdening the tunnel jacking system during excavations.
The project employed the chilled brine cooling method of AGF successfully, and
varied pipe spacing to control the freeze time. The Ramp D tunnel required a faster
freeze time than the other two tunnels, therefore freeze pipe spacing was smaller (2.1
meters compared to 2.4 meters). Freeze times were on the order of 3-4 months,
depending on freeze pipe spacing.
One system failure occurred during freezing. The freeze pipes were damaged due to
frost heave, and leaks were detected. These leaks were repaired and all pipes were
outfitted with redundant closed-end steel sleeves to prevent future leaks.
The project was completed successfully without any further delays from failures of
the ground freezing system. The Boston CA/T project is an example of the successful
implementation of ground freezing under extremely variable soil conditions over a
massive volume of soil (van Dijk and Bouwmeester-van den Bos 2001).
6.2 NETHERLANDS SOPHIASPOORTUNNEL
Figure 12. Cross section of a service shaft and cross passages (Crippa and Manassero
2006)
The subsurface consisted of a 15 m thick clay layer above a 10 m thick layer of loose
sand (through which most of the tunnels exist) above another layer of clay. The
groundwater table was at a depth of 25 m.
For each of the fourteen cross passages, freeze pipes were installed horizontally
between the tunnels to create a horizontal frozen soil column for excavation and
support of the tunnel. Both chilled brine (10 cross passages) and liquid nitrogen (4
cross passages) were used successfully. Pipe spacing was on average 1 meter. For
each cross passage, 25 to 29 freeze pipes were installed to perform the freezing, with a
design wall thickness of 1.8 to 2.3 m. The total volume of frozen soil for all cross
passages was 4400 cubic meters.
Per the design, the brine method took longer to reach full freezing and closure than the
liquid nitrogen method. Specifically, for the brine method, shell closure was reached
in 8-15 days, with the minimum design thickness reached in 34-67 days. For the
liquid nitrogen method, closure was reached in 4-7 days, with the minimum design
thickness reached in 9-14 days, much quicker than the brine method (Crippa and
Manassero 2006).
7.0 CONCLUSION
AGF creates an impermeable, frozen soil barrier or mass, which has higher strength
and stiffness than the unfrozen soil. This also has the capacity for soil heave and
subsequent thaw settlements, which could become problematic for nearby structures.
Proper site characterization is key to anticipate the effects of ground freezing on the
soils at a particular site. Laboratory testing standards are available from both ASTM
and JGS. Classification standards for frozen soils are documented by ASTM.
AGF is implemented in the field using a mobile refrigeration plant, which circulates
chilled calcium chloride brine through freeze pipes, removing heat from the soil and
freezing the soil’s pore water. Liquid nitrogen may also be used, however it is
allowed to evaporate into the atmosphere rather than being recirculated. A number of
design considerations must be taken into account such as freeze pipe spacing, freezing
time, groundwater velocity, saturation, pore water salinity, estimated soil heave, and
costs. Temperature of the soil and coolant, as well as soil heave, settlement, and
pressures on existing structures as well as the freeze pipes are important to monitor
while implementing an artificial ground freezing program. Overall, artificial ground
freezing has a wide variety of applications, and an history of successful application in
the field. It has become economically competitive with traditional ground
stabilization methods and has the ability to be applied to a wide variety of projects.
8.0 REFERENCES
Andersland, O.B., and Anderson, D.M. (1978). “Geotechnical Engineering for Cold
Regions.” McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Andersland, O. and Ladanyi, B. (2004). Frozen Ground Engineering, 2nd ed., Wiley
and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Arenson, L., Johansen, M., and Springman, S. (2004). “Effects of Volumetric ice
Content and Strain Rate on Shear Strength under Triaxial Conditions for Frozen Soil
Samples.” Permafrost Periglac., 15, 261-271.
ASTM Standard D2488 (2000). "Standard Practice for Description and Identification
of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Standard D4083-89 (2007). "Standard Practice for Description of Frozen Soils
(Visual-Manual Procedure)," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Baker, T.H.W., Jones, S.J., and Parameswaran, V.R. (1981). “Confined and
Unconfined Compression Tests on Frozen Sands.” 4th Canadian Permafrost
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 387-393.
Bennett, L. and Nickling, W.G. (1984). “The Shear Strength Characteristics of Frozen
Coarse Granular Debris.” J. Glaciol., 106(30).
Da Re, G. et al. (2003). “Triaxial Testing of Frozen Sand: Equipment and Example
Results.” Journal of Cold Regions Engineering, 17(3), 90-118.
Erckhardt, H. (1981). “Creep tests with frozen Soils under Uniaxial Tension and
Uniaxial Compression.” Roger J.E. Brown Memorial Volume, Proc. of the 4th
Canadian Permafrost Conference, National Research Council of Canada. Calgary,
Alberta. pp. 394-405.
FHWA (2013). “Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels -
Civil Elements.” <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/pubs/nhi09010/index.cfm>
(April 6, 2014).
Geo-Slope (2014). “Thermal Analysis with TEMP/W.” Geo-Slope International.
<http://www.geo-slope.com/products/tempw.aspx>.
Hu, X. et al. (2010). “Safety Problem of Freezing Projects in Saline Soils.” Ground
Improvement and Geosynthetics, 255-262.
Japanese Geotechnical Standards. JGS 0171-2003. (2003). “Test Method for Frost
Heave Prediction of Soils.” Japanese Geotechnical Standards.
Japanese Geotechnical Standards. JGS 0172-2003. (2003). “Test Method for Frost
Susceptibility of Soils.” Japanese Geotechnical Standards.
Jessberger, H. and Vyalov, S. (1978). “1st Init Symp on Ground Freezing.” Bochum,
vol (2).
Johansson, T. (2009). “Artificial Ground Freezing in Clayey Soils - Laboratory and
Field Studies of Deformations During Thawing at the Bothnia Line.” Doctoral thesis,
KTH, Div of Soil and Rock Mech.
Li, H. et al. (2004). “Effects of temperature, strain rate and dry density on
compressive strength of saturated frozen clay.” Cold Regions Science and
Technology,39,(2004) 39–45.
Oestergaard, F.E. and Zubeck, H.K. (2013), “Practice of Testing Frozen Soils.”
Mechanical Properties of Frozen Soils, STP 1568, Zubeck, H. and Yang, Z. Eds., pp.
62-75, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Sanger, F.J. and Sayles, F.H. (1979). “Thermal and theological computations for
artificially
frozen ground construction.” Eng. Geol., 13, 311-337.
Widianto et al. (2009). “Foundation Design for Frost Heave.” Cold Regions
Engineering 2009, 599-608.
Xanthakos, P.P., Abramson, L.W., and Bruce, D.A. (1994). “Ground Control and
Improvement.” John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Xu, X., Lai, Y., Dong, Y., and Qi, J. (2011). “Laboratory Investigation on Strength
and Deformation Characteristics of Ice-Saturated Frozen Sandy Soil.” Cold Regions
Sci. Technol., 69, 98-104.
Yang, Y., Lai, Y., and Li, J. (2009). “Laboratory Investigation on the Strength
Characteristics of Frozen Sand Considering Effect of Confining Pressure.” Cold
Regions Sci. Technol., 60, 245-250.
Yasufuku, N., Springman, S.M., Arenson, L.U., and Ramholt, T. (2003). “Stress-
Dilatancy Behavior of Frozen Sand in Direct Shear.” Permafrost, Swets and
Zeitlinger, Amsterdam, p. 1253.
Zhu, Y., and Carbee, D.L. (1987). “Tensile Strength of Frozen Silt.” CRREL Report
87-15: Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.