2018
DOI: 10.1007/s11440-018-0720-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Variations of the temperatures and volumetric unfrozen water contents of fine-grained soils during a freezing–thawing process

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
28
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Kruse et al Koopmans and Miller (1966); Kozlowski (2009); Hu et al (2020)), but few report data for both the freezing and thawing limb. Hysteresis is soil-dependant and most apparent in fine-grained silt and clay soils (Zhang et al, 2020). The freezing process tends to lag behind the thawing process (as seen in Figure 1) due to ice nucleation which depresses the initiation of freezing (Zhang et al, 2020;Wu et al, 2017), heterogeneity in thermal conductivity and freezing point (Amiri et al, 2018), and the Gibbs-Thomson Equation describing the effect of wetting angle and pore geometry on the freezing point (Gharedaghloo et al, 2020), where highly wetted soils (hydrophylic) have a larger freezing point depression.…”
Section: Hysteresismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kruse et al Koopmans and Miller (1966); Kozlowski (2009); Hu et al (2020)), but few report data for both the freezing and thawing limb. Hysteresis is soil-dependant and most apparent in fine-grained silt and clay soils (Zhang et al, 2020). The freezing process tends to lag behind the thawing process (as seen in Figure 1) due to ice nucleation which depresses the initiation of freezing (Zhang et al, 2020;Wu et al, 2017), heterogeneity in thermal conductivity and freezing point (Amiri et al, 2018), and the Gibbs-Thomson Equation describing the effect of wetting angle and pore geometry on the freezing point (Gharedaghloo et al, 2020), where highly wetted soils (hydrophylic) have a larger freezing point depression.…”
Section: Hysteresismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The volumetric unfrozen water content (calculated as the product of porosity and the degree of saturation of unfrozen water) in the permafrost layer is about 0.08. Li et al (2020); Zhang et al (2020) showed that the residual volumetric unfrozen water content for silty-clay, clay, medium sand, and fine sand is 0.12, 0.08, 0.06 and 0.03, respectively. These predictions fit well within the reasonable range of volumetric unfrozen water content for clay or clayey silt.…”
Section: Case Study For Characterization Of a Permafrost Site Using Surface Wave Techniquementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The volumetric unfrozen water content (calculated as the product of porosity and the degree of saturation of unfrozen water) 230 in the permafrost layer is about 0.08. Li et al (2020); Zhang et al (2020) showed that the residual volumetric unfrozen water content for silty-clay, clay, medium sand, and fine sand is 0.12, 0.08, 0.06 and 0.03, respectively. These predictions fit well within the reasonable range of volumetric unfrozen water content for clay or clayey silt.…”
Section: Case Study For Characterization Of a Permafrost Site Using Surface Wave Techniquementioning
confidence: 99%