See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/355029896

Pile Design Against Frost-heave for Lightly Weighted Structures in Northern

Regions

Conference Paper · October 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 830

1 author:

Greg Qu
Wood Group Canada
11 PUBLICATIONS   118 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Frost Heave, Helical Pile View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Greg Qu on 02 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pile Design Against Frost-heave for Lightly
Weighted Structures in Northern Regions
Greg Qu
Wood, Oakville, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT
For the piles supporting lightly weighted structures in northern regions, the frost heave load often governs the pile design
where frost susceptible deposit is encountered. With the fast growth of solar farms in Canada, pile frost jack-up failures
were encountered and reported more frequently in recent years. On the other hand, as an independent reviewer, the author
found that some pile design against frost heave appeared overly conservative and unnecessarily increased the cost of
piling. The factors contributing to these issues include (1) lack of in-depth understanding of frost heave mechanism, (2)
inconsistency in the current guidelines regarding frost-heave stress from different authorities, (3) inappropriately selected
geotechnical resistance factors. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the state-of-the-art design practice for piles
against frost heave in order to achieve a cost-effective and safe engineering solution. The key components in the design
include frost stress magnitude, frost depth, load combination selection and associated geotechnical resistance factors. The
first section of this paper presents a literature review of the frost heave mechanism and the historical field test data. A
design table is proposed to characterize the site-specific frost-heave stress as per the available research work and studies.
The next section reviews the approach to determine frost depth and illustrates the impact of the chosen return period of
winter freeze index to the calculated frost depth. Following this, the paper recommends a suitable load combination for the
frost heaving case and the geotechnical resistance factors for helical piles and driven piles as per the project-specific
conditions.

RÉSUMÉ
Pour les pieux supportant des structures légèrement lestées dans les régions du nord, la charge de soulèvement due au
gel régit souvent la conception du pieu là où un dépôt sensible au gel est rencontré. Avec la croissance rapide des parcs
solaires et d'autres structures de faible poids au Canada, des pannes de relevage par le gel des pieux ont été rencontrées
et signalées récemment. D'autre part, en tant qu'examinateur indépendant, l'auteur a constaté que certaines conceptions
de pieux contre le soulèvement par le gel semblent trop conservatrices et augmentent inutilement le coût des pieux. Les
facteurs contribuant à ces problèmes comprennent (1) le manque de compréhension approfondie du mécanisme de
soulèvement par le gel, (2) l'incohérence dans les lignes directrices actuelles concernant le stress dû au soulèvement par
le gel de différentes autorités, (3) des facteurs de résistance géotechniques choisis de manière inappropriée. L'objectif de
cet article est de présenter la pratique de conception de pointe pour les pieux contre le soulèvement du gel afin de parvenir
à une solution d'ingénierie rentable et sûre. Les éléments clés de la conception comprennent l'ampleur de la contrainte
due au gel, la profondeur du gel, la combinaison de charges et les facteurs de résistance géotechnique associés. La
première section de cet article a passé en revue la littérature concernant le mécanisme de soulèvement par le gel ainsi
que les données des essais sur le terrain précédents. Un tableau de conception a été proposé pour caractériser le stress
de soulèvement dû au gel propre au site, conformément aux résultats des travaux de recherche et des études en cours.
La section suivante a examiné l'approche d'évaluation de la profondeur de gel et a illustré l'impact de la période de retour
choisie de l'indice de gel hivernal sur la profondeur de gel calculée. Suite à cela, le document a fourni des recommandations
pour une combinaison de charges appropriée pour vérifier la charge de gel et les facteurs de résistance géotechnique
associés à utiliser selon les conditions spécifiques au projet, y compris le programme d'enquête sur le terrain, le type de
pieu, le type de gréement pour pieux et QA / QC programme.

1 INTRODUCTION even higher than initial construction cost in some cases.

In Canada, the incentive programs for clean energy
promote fast development of solar farm projects, which
usually need a large quantity of lightly weighted piles, for
example, about 20,000 piles are typically required for a 40
MW solar project. In such projects, the piling cost often
takes a major portion of the overall cost and the pile design
has a direct impact on the pile cost and the construction
schedule. Some developers from the United States or
Europe brought the standard pile design suitable for a
warmer climate without sufficient consideration of the frost-
heave jacking force in cold regions. During the past five to
eight years, several solar farms experienced excessive pile
jack-up after construction (Levasseur et al. 2015). The
required remediation program could be very expensive,
On the other hand, some of the solar farm projects were
carried out by the sub-contractors who lack engineering
experience in cold regions and used overly conservative
assumptions leading to uneconomical designs and extra
cost to the projects.
The objective of this paper is to present the state-of-
the-art design practice for piles against frost heave to
achieve a cost-effective and safe engineering solution.
The first section of this paper presents a literature review
of the frost heave mechanism and the historical field test
data. A design table is proposed to characterize the site-
specific frost-heave stress as per the available research
work and studies. The next section reviews the approach
to determine frost depth and illustrates the impact of the
chosen return period of winter freeze index to the
calculated frost depth. Following this, the paper
recommends a suitable load combination for the frost
heaving case and the geotechnical resistance factors for
helical piles and driven piles as per the project-specific
conditions. At last, this paper summarizes several lessons
learned from a series of cases with performance issues.
Among them, the risk of frost heave failure to the owner is
highlighted with suggestions of potential mitigation
measures.
2 FROST-HEAVING STRESS
2.1 Frost Heave Mechanism
The frost-heave only occurs with the three necessary
conditions, (1) frost susceptible soil deposit, (2) availability
of groundwater, and (3) cold temperature able freeze the
soil deposit. For the site satisfying all three conditions, the
designer should consider and address the frost-heave
issue for piles. It should be noted that the low ground water
level measured during a field investigation does not
necessarily guarantee a frost heave free condition.
Consideration should be given for seasonal groundwater
variation and potential capillary action.
Many studies have been completed for frost heave field
measurement and design consideration (Penner and Irwin
1969, Penner and Gold 1971, Penner 1974, Penner and
Goodrich 1983, Johnson and Esch 1984, Tang and Guan
1993, Ladanyi and Foriero 1998, Andersland and Ladanyi
2003, Olga 2017, Becker 2017). The frost-heave stress
was monitored and reported in several field testing
programs (Penner and Irwin 1969, Penner and Gold 1971,
Penner 1974, Penner and Goodrich 1983, Johnson and
Esch 1984, Tang and Guan 1993, Ladanyi and Foriero
1998) and laboratory test programs (Andersland and
Ladanyi 2003, Aldaeef and Rayhani 2020). These studies
showed the frost heave is caused by the formation and
growth of ice lenses/layers near the sub-zero frozen fringe
with supply of water from the unfrozen soil below. The
heave rate depends on soil’s frost-susceptibility, freezing
rate and groundwater conditions.
In this paper, the term “frost heave stress” refers to the
uplifting tangential stress acting on the peripheral surface
of steel piles from the adjacent frost-susceptible soil during
frost heave in a non-permafrost environment. The frost
heave is a progressive process with continuous soil
heaving against piles.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the frost-heave shear stress
consists of the following two zones.
• The lower zone is the initial bonding zone where (a) ice
lenses are initiated and adfreeze bonds are being
formed between soil and pile, (b) the relative
displacement between soil and pile is very small, (c) the
soil in this zone contains a mixture of free water and ice
in pores. The temperature in this zone is relatively high,
typically above -3 to -5 Celsius degree. The adfreeze
bond stress dominates in this zone.
• The upper zone is the residual zone where (a) the initial
adfreeze bond has been broken and adfreeze stress
reaches residual state with a certain level of bond
redevelopment, (b) the relative displacement between
soil and pile overpassed the threshold corresponding to
the peak adfreeze bond strength. Some studies in
literature (Andersland and Ladanyi 2003) showed that
a small relative displacement of a few millimeters could
damage the initial adfreeze bond between soil and steel
piles, (c) the temperature in this zone is lower than the
initial bonding zone. The free water in pores
significantly reduced and correspondingly the capability
of redevelopment of adfreeze bond decreased. The
magnitude of the residual adfreeze stress is low and
further reduces with the relative displacement
magnitude between soil and pile. Friction stress may
have some minor contribution as well. In summary, the
residual adfreeze stress governs the frost heave
resistance in this zone.
Figure 2 summarizes the development of frost heave
stress profile over time from the field monitoring data
reported by Tong and Guan (1993) and Zhang et al. (2020).
At the initial stage shown in Figure 2(a), the adfreeze bond
stress dominated. The peak frost heave stress was up to
about 200 kPa ranging from 0.1 m to 0.5 m depth. The
freezing fringe depth was shallow at about 0.5 m in this
stage. With the freezing fringe going deeper to about 0.7 m
as shown in Figure 2(b), the initial bonding zone shifted
downward to the depth range from 0.4 m to 0.7 m. In the
top 0.4 m, the frost heave stress reduced to about 150 kPa,
likely due to the relative displacement between soil and pile
and breakage of the initial adfreeze bond. Figure 2(c)
shows the initial bonding zone further shifted downward to
about 1.0 m. In the top 0.4 m, the frost heave stress further
reduced to about 100 kPa. The next stage is shown in
Figure 2(d) where a similar pattern continues. The
adfreezing fringe further extended to about 1.3 m depth.
The frost heave stress in the top 0.6 m reduced to about 50
kPa.
Overall, two observations are noted from the monitor
data: (1) The portion of the residual zone increased as the
frost fringe went deeper, and (2) the overall average of the
frost stress likely decreased with the increase of frost
depth.
Figure 1. Illustration of Frost Heave Shear Acting at a
Helical Steel Pile

Figure 2. Frost Heave Shear Profiles with Frozen Fringe
Advance (Data from Tong and Guan, 1993 and Zhang et
al. 2020, clayey deposit)
2.2 Field Test Data Review
Penner and his co-workers carried out detailed field test
programs to investigate the frost heave stress at steel piles
at the sites in northern regions from 1969 to 1971 (Penner
and Irwin 1969, Penner and Gold 1971, Penner 1974, and
Penner and Goodrich 1983). Those tests were conducted
in deposits of highly frost-susceptible Leda clay near
Ottawa, which typically has a very high water-content of
about 70% and contains about 30% silt and 70% clay
(Eden and Crawford 1957). Figure 3 summarizes the
monitoring data of the tests with 12-inch diameter steel
piles. As shown by the red line in Figure 3 (a), the average
frost-heave stress reached the peak value of about 150
kPa in the initial stage. In this stage, the freezing fringe was
shallow about 0.5 m deep as measured in December. With
further penetration of the freezing fringe from January to
March, the average frost-heave stress dropped to a
stabilized range about 50 kPa to 75 kPa. In contrast, as
shown by the green line in Figure 3 (a), the frost-heave
force reached its maximum value in March when the
freezing fringe extended to the full depth, as expected.
High frost-heave stress was observed in the initial stage
of frost penetration from both field tests by Penner (1974)
and Tang and Guan (1993). As illustrated in Figure 2, the
high average frost heave stress occurs as the adfreeze
bond stress governs in this stage. Further examination of
the soil frost heave appears to support the explanation. As
shown in Figure 3 (b), during the initial stage, the soil heave
near the pile was much less than that measured further
away from the piles, indicating strong bond between soil
and the pile. After the initial stage, the soil heave near the
pile increased quickly in January and reached a similar rate
with that further away from the pile. From January to the
middle of March, the large displacement between soil and
pile likely led to the reduction in the average frost-heave
stress.
Figure 4 summarized the field measured frost heave
stress data from literature (Penner 1974 and Vialov and
Egorov 1958). This figure presented the frost heave stress
in monthly average and daily peak value. The monthly
average represents a consistent frost load for a long
duration. If the pile resistance is less than the monthly
average of frost heave load, significant pile jacking up
would occur in that winter. Daily peak stress represents a
relatively short-term load. A small amount of pile heave
would cause some stress relaxation in frost heave force. If
the pile resistance is less than the daily peak value, pile
frost jacking up may occur over several winters. The test
data include the three field pile tests by Penner (1974) and
the field test data by Vialov and Egorov (1958). As shown
in Figure 4 (a) and (b), the frost-heave shear stress
reaches the maximum of typically 150 kPa to 250 kPa as
the freezing fringe extends to about one third of the
maximum frost depth. As the freezing fringe extends to the
full frost depth from 1.2 m to 1.6 m, the frost-heave stress
exhibits a trend of reduction and reaches a range from
about 30 kPa to 100 kPa as shown in Figure 4 (a) and (b).
Based on the findings above, this paper proposed a
baseline profile of frost-heave shear stress for steel piles in
frost susceptible deposits, as shown by the black line in
Figure 4 (b). The magnitude of frost-heave shear stress
ranges from 100 kPa at 1 m frost depth, reducing to 90 kPa
at 2 m and 80 kPa at 3 m, accounting for the trend of the
reduction of frost-heave stress with the increase of the frost
depth as per the findings from the field test data. The
proposed profile represents a characteristic line for the
data points of the daily peak data points and covers all data
points for the monthly average frost-heave stress, as
shown by the empty circle points and filled circle points in
Figure 4(b), respectively.
The following presents some further discussions
regarding the frost heave stress.
(1) The baseline frost heave stress profile in Figure 4 (b)
will lead to a reasonably conservative estimation of
frost-heave force. As shown in Figure 5, the
calculated characteristic frost-heave force is
conservative in comparison with the field measured
heave force from the initial to final stages.
(2) The frost action is a complex process, involving a
progressive progress of frozen fringe penetration and
temperature change with time and depth in deposits.
In the Author’s opinion, the laboratory tests regarding
frost heave stress appeared not able to fully capture
those factors. Some previous laboratory studies
(Tsytovich, 1975, Domaschuk 1982 and etc) reported
 high frost-action stress over 2 MPa and 234 kPa.
Those laboratory data of the frost-heave stress 0.0
Characteristic
measurement are considered not fully representative
Value
to the field condition and thus are not recommended
S12 Monthly Avg.
to be directly used in design practice. (Penner 1974)
(3) The Technical Manual-5 of the US Department of the S6 Monthly Avg.
Army and the Air Force (TM5, 1965) recommends 276 1.0 (Penner 1974)
kPa (40 psi) for an average value for the full depth of

Depth, m
S3 Monthly Avg.
the freezing in Section 4-8.f.3 “Pile Safety Against (Penner 1974)
Frost Heave” (page 4-139). However, the supporting Vialov and Egorov,
tests were conducted in permafrost areas with 1958
temperature below -40°C in winter for piles placed with 2.0 S3 Daily Peak
silt-water slurry prior to testing (Figure 4-44 and 4-45
S6 Daily Peak
in TM 5). The data are applicable only for the
permafrost condition and the pile construction S12 Daily Peak
approach during the test program. For the helical or
driven piles in the non-permafrost environment, these 3.0

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
data should not be directly used in pile design.
Frost Heaving Shear Stress
(Steel Pile), kPa
(a)
Freezing Fringe Force /Stress, kN/kPa

300
Frost-Heave Shear Stress (S12 Pile, Penner 1974)
250
Frost-Heave Force (S12 Pile, Penner 1974)
200 Freezing Fringe Depth (S12 Pile, Penner 1974)
150
100 0.0
50 Characteristic Value
0
-50
0.5 S12 Monthly Avg.
Depth (m)

-100
1.0
(Penner 1974)
-150
1.5 (a) S6 Monthly Avg. (Penner
-200 1.0 1974)
2.0
Depth, m

Dec. 1970 Jan. 1971 Feb. 1971 March 1971 April 1971 S3 Monthly Avg. (Penner
1974)
Vialov and Egorov, 1958
300
Frost Heave, mm

250 Freezing Fringe Depth (S12 Pile, Penner 1974)

2.0 S3 Daily Peak
200 Soil away from the S12 Pile, about 2.1 m from the Pile
150 Soil near the S12 Pile, about 0.15 m
S6 Daily Peak
100
50
S12 Daily Peak
0
Freezing Fringe

-50
0.5 3.0
Depth (m)

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140

-100
1.0
-150
1.5
(b)
-200
Frost Heaving Shear Stress
2.0
Dec. 1970 Jan. 1971 Feb. 1971 March 1971 April 1971 (Steel Pile), kPa (b)

Figure 3. Summary of the fielding investigation (the Figure 4. Summary of frost-heave stress with frost depth
detailed information such as air temperature and ground data.
temperature profile refer to the paper by Penner 1974).
Frost-Heave Force (S12 Pile, Penner 1974)
Calculated Baseline Frost-heave Load
300
Frost Heave Force , kN

Characteristic Frost-heave Load( kN): Approx. 155 kN

250
with a nominal frost-heave stress of 93 kPa and a frost depth of
200 1.7 m, where 93 kPa = 100 kPa - ( 1.7 m - 1 m ) x 10 kPa/m
150
100
50
0
Dec. 1970 Jan. 1971 Feb. 1971 March 1971 April 1971

Figure 5. Calculated frost-heave force in comparison with

monitoring data.
 gravel fill into highly frost susceptible soils surrounding a
2.3 Design Recommendation of Frost-heave Stress pile, as suggested in CFEM (2006) and Penner and
Goodrich (1983). If such a case can not be avoided in
There are three design guidelines regarding frost heave design, a 150 kPa frost-heave stress can be used as
stress from Canada, Russian, the United States and China, minimum for the saturated frozen gravel layer.
providing significantly different recommendations for steel Table 1b also presents a guidance to distinguish
pile design. among the high, medium to low, and non-frost-susceptible
• Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM, soils using one of the three proposed approaches:(1) a
2006): 100 kPa for the fine-grained soil. preliminary screening approach based the fine content
• Russian Building Code (1990): 91 kPa to 30 kPa. passing #200 sieve (0.075mm) where hydrometer tests are
(see Table A in Appendix for details) not available, (2) a soil classification system proposed by
• Technical Manual by U.S. Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) based on the soil
and the Air Force (1983): 275 kPa (40psi). particle content less than 0.002 mm size, and (3) lab tests
• Chinese Code (2019): 15 to 120 kPa from frost for frost heave rate. The level of effort required from those
susceptible soil and 120 to 200 kPa for soils with approaches increases from (1) to (3). The preliminary
significant to very significant frost heave potential screening approach can be used with routine washed sieve
(see Table B in Appendix for details) tests. The USACE soil classification approach requires a
The CFEM (2006) for frost-heave stress was based on hydrometer grain size test. The frost-heave lab test (ASTM
the detailed field studies by Penner and his colleagues at D5918) requires a specialized lab equipped with a
two sites with highly frost susceptible soil deposits and frost temperature-controlled room and qualified technician for
depth about 1 m to 1.7 m (Penner and Irwin 1969, Penner testing.
1974, Penner and Gold 1971, Penner and Goodrich 1983).
Unfortunately, there is no further field test studies at the site Table 1a Nominal Frost-heave Shear Stress for Steel Pile
with moderately frost susceptible soil or with a deeper frost
depth to the authors’ knowledge. The Russian code (1990) Soil Type Stress at Soil-Steel Interface
considered the impact of soil susceptibility and frost depth @ Given Frost Depth
to the frost-heave stress. It is noted that the CFEM and Frost- Susceptibility 1m 2m 3m
Russian code yield consistent frost heave stress of 100 High 100 kPa 90 kPa 80 kPa
kPa and 91 kPa for highly frost-susceptible soil with the
Medium to Low 70 kPa 65 kPa 60 kPa
frost depth of 1 m, respectively. The United States
technical manual (TM-5 852-4, 1983), however, Non-Frost-Susceptible N/A N/A N/A
1
recommends a much higher frost heave stress of 275 kPa. It should be noted that the worst frost heave case is that frost
As discussed in Section 2.2, the test program in TM-5 was penetrates through frost stable gravel fill into highly frost
carried out in permafrost areas with temperature below - susceptible soils surrounding a pile, as suggested in CFEM (2006)
and Penner and Goodrich (1983). If such a case cannot be
40°C in winter for piles placed with silt-water slurry prior to avoided in design, a 150 kPa frost-heave stress can be used as
testing. The pile installation condition in TM-5 appears not minimum for the saturated frozen gravel layer. 2The frost heave
representative for the helical and driven piles installed in stress can be interpolated for the frost depth between 1 m and 3
non-permafrost regions as discussed in this paper. The m.
Chinese code (2019) specifies the frost heave stress
according to the frost heave potential of soil deposit. The Table 1b Soil Classification for Frost-heave Shear Stress
field or laboratory test data to support this design guideline
(2019) are not publicly available to the best of the author’s Soil Type Soil Gradation Classification (3)Lab Test
knowledge. As such, this paper will not further discuss the Frost- (1)Preliminary (2)USACE Heave Rate
recommendations from the Chinese code (2019). Susceptibility Screening Classification (mm/day)
Table 1a presents a design table for the characteristic
frost-heave stress for steel pile design. This table was High Fines > 25% F3, F4 >8
based on the interpretation of the field test data discussed
in the previous sections. As shown in Table 1a, a base- Med to Low 6%<Fines F1, F2, S1, S2 >1 and <8
case frost-heave stress of 100 kPa was adopted for highly <25%
frost-susceptible soil with 1 m frost depth, consistent with Non-Frost- Fines<6% NFS <1
the recommendation from Canadian Foundation Susceptible
Engineering Manual (CFEM, 2006). The design frost- 1
SACE refers to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Frost Design Soil
heave stress reduces by 10 kPa per 1 m increase in frost Classification System. 2Fines refer to the soil particles less than
depth up to 3 m. Figure 4 (b) shows the design profile for 0.075 mm diameter passing #200 Sieve. 3Preliminary Screening
highly frost susceptible deposit representing a baseline Criteria were developed based on the study by Armstrong and
Cathy (1963) and should be used for preliminary study only.
estimate for the field test data. For the soil with low to
medium frost-susceptibility, a lower frost-heave stress was
recommended in reference to the Russian code (1990). 3 FROST PENETRATION DEPTH
Further studies are required in future to confirm the impact
to medium to low frost-susceptible soil, particularly using The frost penetration depth is often assessed using either
the field test studies. It should be noted that the worst frost the modified Berggren equation (Sanger, 1963) or the
heave case is that frost penetrates through frost stable modified Stefan’s approach (Konrad 2000) depending on
soil types. One key input for both approaches is the winter
temperature at the site. As winter temperature changes
significantly from year to year in northern regions, it is
reasonable to adopt a suitable return period in design to
estimate the most severe winter likely to occur in the design
life of the project. CFEM (2006) recommends a 10-year
return period for the design freezing index in evaluating
frost depth. The project may choose a more stringent
project-specific return period as needed. Table 2 presents
an example illustrating the impact of the return period to the
calculated frost depth for a site in Alberta.
For solar farm projects, the snow cover/protection for
the pile is usually ignored considering most snow is likely
blocked by solar panels from accumulating to form an
insulation layer near piles (see site photos from Levasseur
et al. 2015).
Table 2 Frost penetration depth versus the return period of
freezing index
Target return 1-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr
period (base-case)
Freezing Index
820 1459 1713 1906
(°C-day)
Frost Depth (m) 1.39 1.79 2.01 2.12
Ratio to Base
Case of Frost 78% 100% 112% 118%
Depth
4 DESIGN LOAD CASE AND FACTOR OF SAFETY
Where frost heave is a concern, the pile design should
consider the following two separate load combination
cases for geotechnical resistance:
• frost-heave uplift load and permanent load, but no
transient live load. This case often governs the
design.
• transient live load (wind uplift) and permanent load,
but no frost-heave load.
It is important to note that the frost-heave load and
transient live load (wind uplift) do not combine.
Both the working state design (WSD) approach and
the limit state design (LSD) are used in practice for pile
design. Becker (2017) offered insightful discussions on the
limit state design approach regarding the frost uplift to
lightly loaded piles.
Table 3 presents the factors of safety for working
stress design (WSD) and the geotechnical resistance
factors for limit state design (LSD) in practice. Helical piles
and driven piles have been widely adopted to resist frost-
heave load. In general, the uplift resistance from the helical
piles is considered more reliable due to the active
engagement of the helix anchor and the built-in monitoring
program for installation torque in comparison with the shaft-
only resistance for driven piles. A factor of safety (FoS) of
1.5 is generally acceptable for helical pile design in the
solar farm industry, given that the project adopts a field pre-
construction testing program and a field verification and
monitoring QA/QC program. To qualify the FoS of 1.5, the
installation torque should be monitored for each helical pile
during construction in reference to the pre-defined design
target torque and minimum depth. If the target torque can
not be achieved at the target depth range, the helical pile
will be rejected and remediation measures such as back-
up piles are to be taken. The QA/QC program for helical
piles can effectively identify the unexpected weak zone and
minimize the risk of insufficient geotechnical resistance. It
is noted that Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual
(CFEM, 2006, Table 8.3) allows a factor of safety from 1.5
to 2.0 for ultimate pile with load tests.
Driven piles, such as W piles, H piles and pipe piles,
are also used to resist the frost-heave loads. A higher
factor of safety of 2.5 is typically required for the driven
piles in solar farm projects. One key factor is the QA/QC
procedure such as PDA (Pile Driving Analyser) tests or pile
driving refusal criteria are not applicable for the driven piles
in solar farm projects. The pile driving rig for solar farm
projects is much smaller than those for bridge and building
foundations. The rig hammers the driven piles at a
controlled rate and reduces the power and the rate when
approaching the design depth. So standard PDA test or
hammer blow counting is not applicable for field verification
measures to the driven piles in this case. In addition, soil
natural variation may justify the choice of a conservative
factor of safety considering the large quantity of piles over
10,000 for a 20 MW solar farm. As such, a factor of safety
2.5 is typically recommended to address soil natural
variation over the site and the less QA/QC control in field
for the driven pile option. For the projects where PDA is
feasible, a lower factor of safety of 2.0 may be considered.
Other options include micropiles, bored piles, and
sleeved piles. The micropiles and bored piles typically
have a much higher cost and are used only to mitigate
challenging ground conditions such as frequent cobble and
boulder or shallow bedrock. Sleeved piles have been used
where the soil deposit is weak, the frost depth is deep, and
the conventional pile design is uneconomic.
For the limit state design approach, the design
equation of [1] should be satisfied.
Φ ≥Σ [1]
Where Φ is the geotechnical resistance factor. is the
nominal (ultimate) geotechnical resistance determined
from the analyses using characteristic (unfactored) values
for geotechnical parameters or from field tests. is the
load factor to a particular load accounting for uncertainties
in loads. is a specified load component of the overall
load combination.
For the frost-heave load combination, the load
resistant factor of is 1.0 for the ultimate frost-heave uplift
load calculated using the approaches in Sections 2 and 3
in this paper. Table 3 proposes the resistance factor of Φ
ranging from 0.33 to 0.65 corresponding to the specific pile
type and QA/QC program.
The selection of the resistance factors is a very
important component in design. It should be carefully
determined by the design engineer as per the project
specific condition. The design team should make it clear to
the construction team for the required field testing, QA/QC
program, and mitigation plan for potential pile rejections.
Unrealistic design assumptions may cause issues in
getting approval from the lender and/or during construction.

Table 3 Typical design factors for piles resisting frost-
heave loads
Factor of Safety in WSD
Description
(Φ, Geo Resistance Factor in LSD)
Driven Helical Piles
Driven Piles
Piles with with Torque
without PDA
PDA Monitoring
Uplift: 2.5 (0.4) 2.0 (0.5) 1.5* (0.65)
Analysis using
field loading
test results
Uplift: Semi- 3 (0.33) 2.0 (0.5) 3 (0.33)
empirical
analysis with
borehole data
1
*The factor of safety of 1.5 can be used only if the design utilizes
a field pre-construction testing program, a field verification and
monitoring QA/QC program. 2PDA refers to Pile Driving Analyze
test satisfying the requirement of ASTM D4945.
5 POTENTIAL RISKS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Pile heave failure is usually triggered by the cold
temperature encountered in the design life. It is noted that
the piles, even insufficiently designed, may perform well for
mild winters right after construction but would heave up and
cause damage in a cold winter encountered beyond the
construction warranty coverage (typically 3 years). This is
a risk particularly for the consideration of the owner and
lender. This risk can be minimized by specifying or
approving a suitable pile design basis to yield a safe and
sufficient pile design. Alternatively, the project can
negotiate an extended warranty period with the contractor
regarding the pile foundation, which may lead to a higher
cost to the owner.
The helical pile or driven pile against frost heave often
requires a certain penetration depth below the frost line.
The risk to the contractor is often related to the installation
issues, such as unexpected shallow bedrock, high pile
refusal rate due to cobble and boulders, due to insufficient
geotechnical investigation. In these situations, it often
needs a change of pile design to pre-bored piles or
micropiles within the concerned areas. Consequently, the
projects likely suffer a delay of schedule and extra costs to
bring additional rig and crews.
Levasseur et al. (2015) presented a series of lessons
learned for piles against frost-heave. The incidents from
those case studies included the piles jacked up by frost
actions likely due to insufficient uplift resistance and/or
underestimating the frost-heave loads. In one project in
southern Ontario, the sleeve was jacked up and split at the
top, likely due to the insufficient strength of the sleeve
material to withstand the jack up force. In design practice,
the sleeved pile can be an effective solution to mitigate the
frost heave but needs to be carefully engineered to ensure
the good long-term performance.
6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This paper discussed the state-of-the-art pile design
practice for the lightly weighted structures found on frost
susceptible deposit. The key components include frost
stress magnitude, frost depth, load combination and
associated geotechnical resistance factors. The following
summarizes the tentative recommendations regarding the
steel pile design against frost heave stress.
1. The frost heave stress can be chosen using the
proposed design table (see Table 1) in reference to the
soil frost susceptibility and the frost depth. The
proposed design table was based on the monitoring
data from the previous field tests. In comparison, the
frost heave stresses recommended in Table 1 are
between CFEM (2006, the upper limit) and Russian
Code (1990, the lower limit). More studies and research
efforts are needed to further delineate the frost-heave
stress for the low and the moderate frost-susceptible
soil.
2. The current practice for frost depth assessment uses a
one-in-ten-year return period for the winter freeze
index. The project may select a site-specific return
period, with the approval from the owner and the
responsible professional engineer, to suit the risk
tolerance level and cost optimization, as needed.
3. The load combination for frost heave force should be
checked in a separate case, excluding any live load.
The geotechnical resistance factors or the factors of
safety should be selected considering the project-
specific conditions such as pile types, field testing
program, installation rig and QA/QC program (see
Table 3). It is noted that a higher geotechnical
resistance factor is typically acceptable for helical piles
than that for driven piles against frost-heave loads in the
current design practice for solar farms.
4. The owner or lender should be aware of the potential
risk of pile heave issues that may occur, for the
insufficiently designed pile, years after construction, or
beyond the warranty period. It is important to review
and ensure the pile design basis is consistent with the
current standard practice to minimize such risk.
REFERENCES
Aldaeef, A.A. and Rayhani, M.T., 2020. Load transfer of
pile foundations in frozen and unfrozen soft
clay. International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 14(6), pp.653-664.
Andersland, O.B. and Ladanyi, B., 2003. Frozen ground
engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
Armstrong, M. D., & Csathy, T. I. (1963). Frost design
practice in Canada-and discussion. Highway Research
Record, (33).
Becker, D.E., 2017. Geotechnical Risk Management and
Reliability Based Design—Lessons Learned. In Geo-
Risk 2017 (pp. 98-121).
Crawford, C.B. and National Research Council Canada.
Division of Building Research, 1957. Geotechnical
 properties of Leda clay in the Ottawa area. Division of
Building Research, National Research Council.

Canadian Geotechnical Society, 2006, Canadian

Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM), the 4th
edition. Appendix

Technical Manual by U.S. Department of the Army and the Table A Russian Design Standard Tangential frost heave
Air Force. (1983). TM-5-852-4: Arctic and subarctic stress as per SNiP 2.02.04.-88 (1990)
constructions for structures. Department of the Army
and the Air Force Ground& water saturation Soil-Steel Stress (kPa) @
Frost Depth (m)
Johnson, J.B. and Esch, D.C., 1984. Frost jacking forces 1m 2m 3m
on H and pipe piles embedded in Fairbank silt. Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Silty clay with >0.5, fine and 91 77 63
silty sand with >95%
Division of Planning and Programming.

Ladanyi, B. and Foriero, A., 1998. Evolution of frost Silty clay with 0.25< ≤0.5, fine 70 63 49
heaving stresses acting on a pile. In Proceedings of and silty sand with
Seventh International Conference Permafrost. 80%< < 95%, Large-size
Yellowknife (Canada), Collection Nordicana (Vol. 55, rockfill with filling (clay, fine sand,
pp. 623-633). silt) over 30%

Levasseur, P., Maher, M.L.J. and Dittrich, J.P., 2015. A Silty clay with ≤0.25, fine and 56 49 30
case study of frost action on lightly loaded piles at silty sand with 60%< ≤ 80%,
Large-size rockfill with filling
Ontario solar farms.
(clay, fine sand, silt) 10% to 30%

Olga, T. (2017). Calculation of tangential frost heave

stresses based on physical, mechanical and stress-
strain behavior of frozen soil. Architecture and Table B Chinese Code (2019) – Standard tangential frost
Engineering, 2(3). heave stress for piles.

Penner, E. (1974). Uplift forces on foundations in frost Soil Deposit Frost Heave Stress (kPa)
heaving soils. Canadian geotechnical journal, 11(3), Very Significant Frost Heaving 160 to 200
323-338. Soil

Penner, E. and Gold, L.W., 1971. Transfer of heaving

Significant Frost Heaving Soil 120 to 160
forces by adfreezing to columns and foundation walls in
frost-susceptible soils. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 8(4), pp.514-526. Frost Heaving Soil 80 to 120

Penner, E. and Goodrich, L.E., 1983. Adfreezing stresses Weak Frost Heaving Soil 15 to 85
on steel pipe piles, Thompson, Manitoba. National
Non Frost Heaving Soil 0 to 15
Research Council Canada, Division of Building
Research.

Penner, E. and Irwin, W.W., 1969. Adfreezing of Leda clay

to anchored footing columns. Canadian geotechnical
journal, 6(3), pp.327-337.

USSR State and Construction Committee, 1990,

Construction Code and Regulations - Base and
foundations on the permafrost SNIP_2.02.04-88

Chinese Code – Specifications for Foundation Design of

Highway, Bridges, and Culverts, JTG 3363-2019, 2019

View publication stats