Skip to content

Calculation of Frost Depth

Reviewed by licensed engineers

Checked against its sources by licensed professional engineers on the previous site, where reviewers weren’t recorded by name.

How articles are reviewed

On this page · 9 sections
  1. Density ( or )
  2. Moisture Content (w)
  3. Thermal Conductivity (k)
  4. Volumetric Specific Heat (C)
  5. Latent Heat (L)
  6. Freezing and Thawing Indexes
  7. Calculator
  8. Air and Surface Indexes
  9. Washington State Climate Data

Some equations and variables in this section are expressed in English units only due to their source.

Density (γd\gamma _{d} or γdry\gamma _{dry})

Typical densities for commonly encountered dry soils. Ice rich soils can have substantially smaller dry densities.

Table 1. Typical Soil Densities
Soilγ_d (lb/ft³)
Gravel and sand120 – 140
Silts and clays90 – 100
Peat˜ 20

Normally, dry densities are used in most calculations (gdg_{d}); however, the total density of a soil (including moisture) can be calculated as follows:

γtotal=γd (1+w/100)\gamma_{\text{total}} = \gamma_d\,(1 + w/100)

where:

  • ww = moisture content of soil expressed as a percentage
  • γd\gamma_d = dry density in kg/m³ (lb/ft³)
  • γtotal\gamma_{\text{total}} = total density in kg/m³ (lb/ft³)

For example, if a gravel has γd\gamma _{d} = 130 lb/ft³ and w = 5%, then γt\gamma _{t} = 130(1 + 5/100) = 136.5 lb/ft³

Moisture Content (w)

Soil moisture content can be calculated as follows:

w=(weight of water in soilweight of soil solids)(100)w = \left( \frac{\text{weight of water in soil}}{\text{weight of soil solids}} \right) (100)
=((weight of original sample)−(weight of dried sample)weight of dried sample)(100)= \left( \frac{(\text{weight of original sample}) - (\text{weight of dried sample})}{\text{weight of dried sample}} \right) (100)
Table 2. Typical Moisture Contents of Non-Ice Rich Soils
Materialγ_d (lb/ft³)
Gravel2 – 10
Sands5 – 15
Silts5 – 40
Clays10 – 50 or more
Organic (Peat)> 50

Thermal Conductivity (k)

The thermal conductivity is the rate of heat flow through a unit area under a thermal gradient (recall that 1 BTU is the energy (heat) required to raise the temperature of 1 lb of water 1 °F):

Units: BTU/hr • ft² • °F/ft or BTU/hr • ft • °FFurther, ksnow (loose)k_{snow\ (loose)} = 0.06, ksnow (compact)k_{snow\ (compact)} = 0.20.

In the range of water contents (5 to 10%) and dry densities (125-135 lb/ft³) commonly encountered in embankments and pavement base courses, thermal conductivity is very sensitive to moisture content and soil type. Soil thermal conductivities can be obtained from Figures 1 through 3 (from Kersten, 19491 and Air Force, 19662):

For example, using Figures 1 through 3:

Base Course (granular)

γd\gamma _{d}= 135 lb/ft³

w = 5%

kfrozenk_{frozen} = 1.8 BTU/hr • ft² • °F

kunfrozenk_{unfrozen} = 1.65 BTU/hr • ft²• °F

Subgrade (silt)

γd\gamma _{d}= 100 lb/ft³

w = 15%

kfrozenk_{frozen} = 0.8 BTU/hr • ft² • °F

kunfrozenk_{unfrozen}= 0.72 BTU/hr • ft²• °F

Average thermal conductivity for silt and clay soils, frozen and unfrozen (redrawn from Kersten, 1949 and Air Force, 1966).
Figure 1. Average thermal conductivity for silt and clay soils, frozen and unfrozen (redrawn from Kersten, 1949 and Air Force, 1966).
Average thermal conductivity for granular soils, frozen and unfrozen (redrawn from Kersten, 1949 and Air Force, 1966).
Figure 2. Average thermal conductivity for granular soils, frozen and unfrozen (redrawn from Kersten, 1949 and Air Force, 1966).
Average thermal conductivity for peat, frozen and unfrozen (redrawn from Kersten, 1949 and Air Force, 1966).
Figure 3. Average thermal conductivity for peat, frozen and unfrozen (redrawn from Kersten, 1949 and Air Force, 1966).

The equations used to develop Figures 1 and 2 follow. There are separate equations for frozen (tests conducted at -4 °C) and unfrozen (tests conducted at +4 °C) conditions.

Unfrozen silt-clay soilsk=(0.0833)(0.9log⁡w−0.2)(100.01γd)Frozen silt-clay soilsk=(0.0833)[(0.01(100.022γd)+0.085(100.008γd)(w)]Unfrozen granular soils (sands and gravels)k=(0.0833)(0.7log⁡w+0.4)(100.01γd)Frozen granular soils (sands and gravels)k=(0.0833)[(0.076(100.013γd)+0.032(100.0146γd)(w)]\begin{aligned} &\text{Unfrozen silt-clay soils}\\ &k = (0.0833)(0.9\log w - 0.2)(10^{0.01\gamma_d})\\ &\text{Frozen silt-clay soils}\\ &k = (0.0833)[(0.01(10^{0.022\gamma_d}) + 0.085(10^{0.008\gamma_d})(w)]\\ &\text{Unfrozen granular soils (sands and gravels)}\\ &k = (0.0833)(0.7\log w + 0.4)(10^{0.01\gamma_d})\\ &\text{Frozen granular soils (sands and gravels)}\\ &k = (0.0833)[(0.076(10^{0.013\gamma_d}) + 0.032(10^{0.0146\gamma_d})(w)] \end{aligned}

where:

  • kk = thermal conductivity (BTU/hr • ft² • °F/ft)
  • ww = soil moisture content (%)
  • γd\gamma_d = soil dry density (lb/ft³)

The equations for silt–clay were based on five soils and are valid for moisture contents of seven percent or higher. The equations for granular soils were based on four soils (two sands, a sandy loam, and a gravel) and are valid for moisture contents of one percent or higher. Farouki (19863) noted that Kersten's equations do not apply to dry soils or to crushed rocks. Use of the above equations to estimate k is more accurate than use of Figures 1 and 2.

Volumetric Specific Heat (C)

The volumetric specific heat expresses the change in thermal energy in a unit volume of soil per unit change in temperature (units are in BTU/ft³ • °F).

Volumetric heat is derived from specific heat. (Recall: specific heat is the change in thermal energy per unit weight per unit change in temperature. If objects of the same weight but of different materials receive the same amount of energy (heat), they will come to equilibrium at different temperatures. Or, stated another way, how much each object's temperature changes depends on the specific heat of the material, if the mass and energy inputs are identical).

Typical values of specific heat (c):

  • cwater=1.0 BTU/lb⋅∘Fc_{\text{water}} = 1.0\ \mathrm{BTU/lb}\cdot{}^\circ\mathrm{F}
  • cice=0.5 BTU/lb⋅∘Fc_{\text{ice}} = 0.5\ \mathrm{BTU/lb}\cdot{}^\circ\mathrm{F}
  • crock=0.17 BTU/lb⋅∘Fc_{\text{rock}} = 0.17\ \mathrm{BTU/lb}\cdot{}^\circ\mathrm{F} (soil minerals)

Volumetric specific heat relationship (C), for unfrozen soil:

Cu=γd(0.17+w100)C_u = \gamma_d \left( 0.17 + \frac{w}{100} \right)

and for frozen soil:

Cf=γd(0.17+0.5w100)C_f = \gamma_d \left( 0.17 + \frac{0.5w}{100} \right)

Example. Calculated values for a gravel with γd=130 lb/ft3\gamma_d = 130\ \mathrm{lb/ft^3} and w=5%w = 5\%:

  • Cu=130 (0.17+5/100)=28.6 BTU/ft3⋅∘FC_u = 130\,(0.17 + 5/100) = 28.6\ \mathrm{BTU/ft^3}\cdot{}^\circ\mathrm{F}
  • Cf=130 (0.17+(0.5) (5/100))=25.4 BTU/ft3⋅∘FC_f = 130\,(0.17 + (0.5)\,(5/100)) = 25.4\ \mathrm{BTU/ft^3}\cdot{}^\circ\mathrm{F}
  • Cavg=130 (0.17+(0.75) (5/100))=27.0 BTU/ft3⋅∘FC_{avg} = 130\,(0.17 + (0.75)\,(5/100)) = 27.0\ \mathrm{BTU/ft^3}\cdot{}^\circ\mathrm{F}

Latent Heat (L)

All objects have energy (heat). A portion of this thermal energy (stored heat) is released when the object cools. The sketch below represents a volume of soil with some moisture as it freezes:

As water freezes, thermal energy equal to L is released while the temperature of the soil remains nearly constant. Thus, the latent heat is the energy required to transform 1 lb of a pure substance from one phase to another at constant temperature. Further, 1 lb. of water gives off 144 BTU as it freezes. The latent heat of a soil can be represented by:

L=(144 BTUlb)(w)(γd)100L = \frac{\left(144\ \dfrac{\mathrm{BTU}}{\mathrm{lb}}\right)(w)(\gamma_d)}{100}

An embankment material with w = 5% and gdg_{d} = 140 lb/ft³,

L=(144 BTUlb)(5)(140 lb/ft3)100≅1000 BTU/ft3L = \frac{\left(144\ \dfrac{\mathrm{BTU}}{\mathrm{lb}}\right)(5)\left(140\ \mathrm{lb/ft^3}\right)}{100} \cong 1000\ \mathrm{BTU/ft^3}

Freezing and Thawing Indexes

Depth of freezing and thawing depends in part on the magnitude and duration of the temperature differential below or above freezing (32 °F) at the ground surface. The freezing or thawing index is therefore given by the summation of the degree-days for a freezing or thawing season.

Calculations for Freezing Index (FI) or Thawing Index (TI)

∑(Tˉ−32 ∘F)\sum \left( \bar{T} - 32\ ^\circ\mathrm{F} \right)

where:

  • Tˉ\bar{T} = mean daily temperature = 0.5(T₁ + T₂)
  • T1T_1 = maximum daily air temperature
  • T2T_2 = minimum daily air temperature
Calculator

Frost depth (Stefan and modified Berggren)

Stefan · modified Berggren (Aldrich and Paynter)
Climate
Soil

Average of frozen and unfrozen values (Kersten charts).

Read from α and μ, shown in the working. Leave blank for Stefan only.

Example values: the Modified Berggren Formula article’s sandy silt.

Example FI/TI Calculations

Table 3.
DayMaximumMinimumAverageCumulative Degree Days
129115-17
29-11-1-33
310-81-31
415-17-25
5301623-9
6383034+2
7301824-8

Notes:

  1. Assume Day 1 start of freezing season. The negative sign in this case indicates freezing degree-days (normally omitted).
  2. For the purpose of assessing spring load restrictions, use 29 °F in lieu of 32 °F. This accounts for the "dark" bituminous surface

Air and Surface Indexes

Normally, data are only available for air freezing and thawing indexes (@ 1 meter in air above ground). However there is still a need to establish potential heat flow at the air-ground interface. No simple correlation exists between air and surface indexes. Differences between air and surface temperatures are influenced by:

  • latitude
  • cloud cover
  • time of year
  • wind speed
  • surface characteristics
  • subsurface thermal properties
  • surface slope and orientation

However, designers generally use "n-factor" for purposes of correlation.

n-Factor for Freezing Conditions

"n" increases with increases in latitude and wind speed. Snow covered surfaces reflect large portion of incoming solar radiation with a resulting larger surface freezing index.

n=surface freezing indexair freezing indexn = \frac{\text{surface freezing index}}{\text{air freezing index}}
Table 4. Typical “n” Values for Freezing Conditions
Surface Type“n”
Snow1.0
Pavements free of snow and ice0.9
Sand and gravel0.9
Turf0.5

n-Factor for Thawing Conditions

"n" decreases with increases in latitude and wind speed.

n=surface thawing indexair thawing indexn = \frac{\text{surface thawing index}}{\text{air thawing index}}
Table 5. Typical “n” Values for Thawing Conditions
Surface Type“n”
Sand and gravel2.0
Turf1.0

Design Freezing and Thawing Indexes

For design purposes, generally use freezing (or thawing) index based on three coldest winters (or warmest summers) in last 30 years of record. If not available, use air-freezing index for the coldest winter in last 10 years.

Washington State Climate Data

Figure 4 and Table 6 provide an overview of Washington State mean FI data (summarized for 1951 to 1980). Figure 5 is a contour map of Washington for desig FI data. The FI contours for both Figures 4 and 5 are only approximate. FIs should be obtained at specific sites (projects) if possible.

Mean Annual Freezing Index Contour Map
Figure 4. Mean Annual Freezing Index Contour Map
Table 6. Listing of Mean Freezing Indices for Various State of Washington Locations (based on temperature data from 1951 through 1980)
StationMean Annual Freezing Index (°F-day)Mean Annual Freezing Index (°F-days)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Aberdeen180000000000624
Anacortes300000000000737
Battle Ground450000000000853
Bellingham5960000000001883
Bellingham Airport6770000000002397
Bickleton23168187000000042120
Blaine68700000000025100
Bremerton200000000000828
Buckly4080000000001765
Cedar Lake8526100000000914070
Centralia290000000000837
Chelan26211010000000029149560
Chewelah33915035000000062216802
Chief Joseph Dam29313617000000034175655
Clearbrook1031300000000639161
Table 7.
StationMean Annual Freezing Index (°F-day)Mean Annual Freezing Index (°F-days)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Clearwater220000000000628
Cle Elum2689422000000048151583
Colfax22645900000002999408
Colville32111929000000075221765
Concrete5790000000001884
Coulee Dam28410714000000035155595
Coupeville2800000000001139
Dallesport Airport1791400000000852253
Davenport31513325000000066198737
Dayton20630000000001861315
Diablo Dam12623900000001054222
Electron Headworks782080000000840154
Elma220000000000729
Elwha Rngr Station4760000000001467
Ephrata Airport285985000000041167596
Table 8.
StationMean Annual Freezing Index (°F-day)Mean Annual Freezing Index (°F-days)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Everett3500000000001146
Forks2250000000001037
Glenoma4790000000001773
Grapeview170000000000724
Hatton266540000000043124487
Hoquiam150000000000924
Kennewick20226000000001854300
Kent280000000000836
Kid Valley4380000000001667
Lacrosse248420000000030103423
Landsburg4880000000001571
Laurier35012135000000082238826
Lind266620000000043126497
Longview360000000000642
Millin Reservoir4260000000001361
Table 9.
StationMean Annual Freezing Index (°F-day)Mean Annual Freezing Index (°F-days)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Monroe3800000000001452
Moses Lake292920000000050153587
Mt. Adams Rngr Sta.197482200000003190388
Moxee City263630000000031134491
Mud Mtn. Dam56155000000002197
Newhalem881860000000739158
Newport30611249000000073199739
Northport2759419000000046174608
Oakville3500000000001045
Odessa273829000000041144549
Olga2900000000001140
Olympia3150000000001551
Omak34417528000000067234848
Othello276640000000035125500
Palmer581450000000025102
Table 10.
StationMean Annual Freezing Index (°F-day)Mean Annual Freezing Index (°F-days)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Pomeroy20132700000002266328
Port Angeles140000000000620
Prosser24046000000002284392
Pullman243770000000038118476
Puyallup3000000000001141
Quilcene3950000000001458
Quillayute225000000000936
Quincy3031069000000051189658
Paradise25416116185279009191032191047
Republic4081707300000001173041072
Richland19928000000001354294
Ritzville2819410000000042143570
Rosalia2699422000000049142576
Seattle110000000000617
Sea-Tac246000000000939
Table 11.
StationMean Annual Freezing Index (°F-day)Mean Annual Freezing Index (°F-days)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Sea U.W.140000000000620
Sedro Wooley4660000000001567
Sequim200000000000828
Shelton210000000000829
Snqlm. Falls44100000000001670
Spokane29910824000000058178667
Sprague2879414000000048148591
Stampede Pass283150116481300009105213937
Startup3870000000001358
Stehekin1957012000000044127448
Sunnyside21635000000001673340
Tacoma City Hall170000000000724
Vancouver570000000000865
Walla-Walla Airport19224000000001859293
Walla-Walla18820000000001450272
Table 12.
StationMean Annual Freezing Index (°F-day)Mean Annual Freezing Index (°F-days)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Wapato21436000000001880348
Waterville34915251000000084246882
Wenatchee233830000000022128466
Wilbur30612620000000053189694
Willapa Harbor120000000000012
Wilson Creek276796000000042163566
Winthrop4512066500000001083421172
Yakima258630000000031123475

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, "Degree Days to Selected Bases," National Climatic Center, Federal Building, Asheville, N.C., December 1982.

Design Annual Freezing Index Contour Map
Figure 5. Design Annual Freezing Index Contour Map

Depth of Freeze - Implications for Pavement Design

One of the implications of the preceding calculations, FI contour maps, etc., is that the total depth of the pavement structure should be influenced in some way by such results. For example, several SHAs use the rule-of-thumb that the pavement structure should equal at least one-half of the expected depth of freeze. To this end, Figures 6 and 7 were prepared. These contour maps show the expected depths of freeze corresponding to the design FI (refer to Figure 5) for fine-grain soil (Figure 6) and coarse-grain soil (Figure 7). The fine-grain soil calculations assumed a γd = 100 lb/ft³ (1600 kg/m³) and water content = 20 percent. The coarse-grain soil calculations assumed a γd = 130 lb/ft³) (2080 kg/m³)and water content = 5 percent.

Frost Depth Contour Map (inches) for Fine Grained Soil (dry density = 100 pcf, wc = 20%)
Figure 6. Frost Depth Contour Map (inches) for Fine Grained Soil (dry density = 100 pcf, wc = 20%)
Frost Depth Contour Map (inches) for Coarse Grained Soil (dry density = 100 pcf, wc = 5%)
Figure 7. Frost Depth Contour Map (inches) for Coarse Grained Soil (dry density = 100 pcf, wc = 5%)

Figure 8 shows contours of measured depths of freeze as determined during the extremely cold winters of 1949 and 1950 (letter correspondence from B. Tremper, State Materials and Research Engineer to W.A. Bugge, Director of Highways, dated, October 17, 1951).

Frost Depth Contour Map (inches) based on Field Measurements - Winters of 1949 and 1950
Figure 8. Frost Depth Contour Map (inches) based on Field Measurements - Winters of 1949 and 1950

The freeze depths were measured in dug holes often along the edge of the main lanes. The freeze depths were measured during February 1949 and January and February 1950 (a total of 401 holes). Figure 8 is, in general, similar to Figure 6 (calculated freeze depths based on Design Freezing Indices and fine-grained soil) with the exception of the Olympic Penninsula which is closer to those results shown in Figure 7 (coarse-grained soil). Some observations made by Highway Department personnel during the winters of 1949 and 1950:

  • Greatest freeze depths were observed in sandy or gravelly soils
  • Snow or ice cover substantially reduced the depth of the freeze
  • Frost heaving
    • Most heaving observed in coastal areas (higher availability of water)
    • Heaving somewhat infrequent in Eastern Washington but more severe when it did occur (again, likely related to the availability of water (or lack of))
    • Maximum differential heave of 225 mm (9 in.) noted in District 2
    • Silty sands showed the largest amount of ice lenses
  • Specific District Comments
    • District 1 (Seattle): Maximum frost depth was measured between Issaquah and North Bend 0.8 m (30 in.). On Camano Island, a 0.5 m (20 in.) frost depth was measured. Maximum differential heave was 100 mm (4 in.) (several district locations).
    • District 2 (Wenatchee): Maximum depth of freeze was 0.9 m (36 in.) measured in 1949 (Wauconda Summit) and 1.3 m (51 in.) in 1950 (between Brewster and Okanogan).
    • District 3 (Tumwater): Maximum depth of freeze in 1949 was 0.6 m (24 in.) and 0.4 m (17 in.) in 1950.
    • District 4 (Vancouver): Maximum frost depth was 0.5 m (20 in.) in 1950.
    • District 5 (Yakima): Maximum frost depth was 0.8 m (30 in.) measured in 1950 with a district-wide average of 0.6 m (24 in.) Differential heave of 150 mm (6 in.) was noted.
    • District 6 (Spokane): The maximum depth of freeze was 1.1 m (43 in.) with a district average of 0.9 m (35 in.) measured in 1949. In 1950, the maximum was 1.2 m (48 in.) with a district average of 0.7 m (28 in.)

The statement about SHA frost design needs a bit of explanation. A survey conducted during 1985 [2.23] revealed the following from several "northern" states:

Table 13.
AgencyUse of Frost Protection in Thickness Design
Alaska DOTMore than 50 percent but not full
Maine DOTMore than 50 percent but not full
Montana DOTFrost protection not included in design
North Dakota DOTFrost protection not included in design
Oregon DOTMore than 50 percent but not full
Washington DOTDepth > 50 percent

Thus, SHAs such as Alaska, Maine, Oregon, and Washington use knowledge about expected frost depths in the design process. Presumably, limiting the depth of frost into the subgrade soils limits, adequately, the potential for frost heave and thaw weakening for most projects/locations.

The above percentages (pavement structural section as a percentage of expected frost depth) are further reinforced by Japanese practice. Kono et al. [2.49] reported in 1973 that on the island of Hokkaido the pavement structure is set at 70 percent of the expected frost penetration (the pavement materials are non-frost susceptible).

Freezing and Thawing Indices - Implications for Maintenance Operations

The calculated FI and TI can be used to estimate the depth of freeze at a specific site (FI) and the resulting thaw (TI). The TI can be used to assess the need for seasonal load limits by maintenance personnel. Such measures are commonly used in District 2 during the winter and spring months. For more information on seasonal load restrictions, refer to Rutherford et al. (19854) or Mahoney et al. (19865).

Based on the referenced study (Rutherford et al. 19854, Mahoney et al. 19865), the following guidelines relative to spring highway load restrictions were developed and evaluated. These guidelines were verified based on results from District 2 (Miller et al. 19896). The guidelines can be divided into where, how much, when, and how long to apply load restrictions.

  1. Where to apply load restrictions. If pavement surface deflections are available to an agency, spring thaw deflections greater than 45 to 50 percent of summer deflections suggest a need for load restriction. Further, considerations such as depth of freezing (generally areas with air Freezing Indices of 400 °F-days or more), pavement surface thickness, moisture condition, type of subgrade, and local experience should be considered. Subgrades with Unified Soil Classifications of ML, MH, CL, and CH will result in the largest pavement weakening.
  2. Amount of load reduction. The minimum load reduction level should be 20 percent. Load reductions greater than 60 percent generally are not

warranted based on potential pavement damage. A load reduction range of 40 to 50 percent should accommodate a wide range of pavement conditions.

  1. When to apply load restrictions. Load restrictions should be applied after accumulating a Thawing Index (TI) of about 25 °F-days (based on an air temperature datum of 29 °F) and must be applied at a TI of about 50 °F-days (again based on an air temperature datum of 29 °F). Corresponding TI levels are less for thin pavements (e.g., two inches of asphalt concrete and six inches of aggregate base or less) in that the should TI level is 10 °F-days and the must TI level is 40 °F-days.
  2. When to remove load restrictions. Two approaches are recommended, both of which are based on air temperatures. The duration of the load restriction period can be directly estimated by the following relationship which is a function of Freezing Index (FI):

Duration (days) = 25 + 0.01 (FI) Further, the duration can be estimated by use of TI and the following relationship: TI ~– 0.3 (FI)

Teaching this? Figures and worked examples are free to use with credit. Course reading lists

Cite this page

APA

Pavement Interactive. (2026, November 1). Calculation of frost depth. HeadLight. Retrieved [the date you read it], from https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/design/design-parameters/calculation-of-frost-depth/

ASCE

Pavement Interactive. (2026). “Calculation of Frost Depth.” HeadLight, <https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/design/design-parameters/calculation-of-frost-depth/> ([the date you read it]).

BibTeX

@misc{pavint-calculation-of-frost-depth,
  author = {{Pavement Interactive}},
  title = {Calculation of Frost Depth},
  year = {2026},
  publisher = {HeadLight},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/design/design-parameters/calculation-of-frost-depth/}},
  note = {Accessed [date]}
}
This address will not change. The citation records the date you read it.
Sources (6)
  1. Kersten (1949). Thermal Properties of Soils. Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin 28, University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN. ↩
  2. Air Force (1966). Calculation Methods for Determination of Depths of Freeze and Thaw Soils — Emergency Construction. Department of the Air Force, Manual AFM 88-40, Chapter 46, Washington, D.C. ↩
  3. Farouki (1986). Thermal Properties of Soils. Trans Tech Publications. Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany. ↩
  4. Rutherford et al. (1985). Guidelines for Spring Highway Use Restrictions, Research Report WA-RD 80.1 (FHWA-RD-86-501), Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington, August 1985. ↩ ↩
  5. Mahoney et al. (1986). Research Summary Report — Guidelines for Spring Highway Use Restrictions, Research Report WA-RD 80.2, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington, June 1986. ↩ ↩
  6. Miller et al. (1989). Implementation of Guidelines on When to Apply Seasonal Load Restrictions, Proceedings, 40th Annual Road Builders' Clinic, Washington State University, March 1989. ↩
Report an error

Reports go to the editors, who check them against the cited sources. Corrections are noted at the top of the article.

Only if you want a reply. It is not published.