Durability of Segmental Retaining Wall

Blocks: Final Report

Publication No. FHWA-HRT-07-021 April 2007

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296
Foreword 

Segmental retaining wall (SRW) systems are used commonly and successfully in a range of 

applications, including highway projects. Their popularity can be attributed to a combination of 

reduced construction costs, versatility, aesthetic appearance, and ease of installation. Despite 

these inherent advantages, there have been some reported problems with durability of SRW 

blocks in cold climates susceptible to freeze-thaw cycles. The premature deterioration of some 

SRW blocks has led to stricter performance specifications, and in some cases, the restricted use 

of these walls by some State Highway Agencies. 

In response to these concerns, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiated the 

Transportation Pool Funded research project, TPF-5(026), “Durability of Segmental Retaining 

Wall Blocks.” The primary objectives of this project were to determine the cause and extent of 

SRW block distress and to provide recommendations on the pertinent test methods and 

specifications to ensure the long-term durability of SRW blocks in highway applications. The 

report also provides some guidance on producing durable SRW blocks. 

Through this research project, it has been confirmed that the vast majority of SRW blocks have 

performed well and continue to perform well, even in cold climates and when exposed to deicing 

salts. However, this project also identified cases where SRW blocks showed significant 

deterioration in both field applications and laboratory evaluations. The factors that most affect 

frost resistance were identified, and modifications to the standard test methods ASTM C 1262 

and specification ASTM C 1372 have been developed for proposed revisions. 

Gary L. Henderson 

Director, Office of Infrastructure 

 Research and Development 

Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its 

contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, policy, or 

regulation. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ 

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the 

document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FHWA HRT-07-021 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

April 2007 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Durability of Segmental Retaining Wall Blocks: Final Report 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Cesar Chan, Kenneth C. Hover, Kevin J. Folliard, Randall M. 

Hance, and David Trejo 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. 

Concrete Durability Center 

The University of Texas at Austin 

10100 Burnet Road, Bldg. 18B, Austin, TX 78712 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-01-02-R00078 

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered 

Final Report 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Infrastructure Research and Development 

Federal Highway Administration 

6300 Georgetown Pike 

McLean, VA 22101-2296 

 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): Michael Adams, HRDI-06 

16. Abstract 

Segmental retaining wall (SRW) systems are commonly and successfully used in a range of 

applications, including highway projects. Their popularity can be attributed to a combination of 

reduced construction costs, versatility, aesthetic appearance, ease of installation, and an 

increasing number of proprietary designs available in the market. Despite these inherent 

advantages, there have been some reported problems with durability of SRW blocks in cold 

climates. The deterioration of some SRW installations in State highway agency (SHA) 

applications has resulted in concern over the long-term performance of SRW systems and has 

led to stricter specifications and, in some cases, restrictions on future use of SRW systems. 

In response to these concerns, a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-funded research 

project was initiated to determine the cause and extent of SRW block distress, to identify and 

recommend test methods for improving durability of SRW systems, and to recommend 

specifications for SHAs to ensure long-term durability and performance of SRW systems in 

highway applications. This report summarizes the key findings of this project and provides 

guidance on producing durable SRW blocks to ensure long-term performance of SRW systems 

in highway applications. 

17. Key Words 

Segmental retaining wall; SRW; freezethaw; salt distress; SRW blocks; frost 

resistance 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is 

available to the public through the 

National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

271 

22. Price 

 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
ii 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2

 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Approp e riate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003)
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE..................................................................................... 1

1.1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 SRW SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND SCOPE................................................................................ 5

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT.................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................... 11

2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 FROST DAMAGE IN CONCRETE............................................................................................. 11

2.2.1 Mechanisms of Frost Damage in Concrete ......................................................................... 11

2.2.2 The Role of Deicing Salts in Frost Damage......................................................................... 16

2.3 FREEZE-THAW DURABILITY OF DRY-MIXED CONCRETE PRODUCTS.................... 18

2.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 18

2.3.2 Mechanisms of Freeze-Thaw Damage in Dry-Mixed Concretes....................................... 19

2.3.3 The Role of Salts in Frost Damage in Dry-Mixed Concretes ............................................ 20

2.3.4 Role of Air and Compaction Voids ...................................................................................... 21

2.3.4.1 Air Void Characteristics in Low-Slump Concretes (Whiting, 1985) .................. 21 

2.3.4.2 Frost and Salt Scaling Resistance of RCC (Marchand et al., 1990) .................... 22 

2.3.4.3 Air Entrainment in No-Slump Mixes (Marchand et al., 1998)............................ 22 

2.3.4.4 Air Entrainment in Dry Masonry Concrete (Hazrati and Kerkar, 2000) ............. 23 

2.3.4.5 Other Studies (Pigeon and Pleau, 1995 and SEM, 2001) .................................... 24 

2.3.4.6 Summary of Studies on Air Entrainment and Compaction Voids....................... 24 

2.4 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 3: FIELD EVALUATION OF SRW BLOCKS ................................................................ 27

3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 27

3.2 FIELD EVALUATIONS OF SRWS IN WISCONSIN AND MINNESOTA............................ 27

3.2.1 Types of Distress Observed in SRW blocks ........................................................................ 27

3.2.2 Laboratory Evaluation of SRW Blocks Procured From Inservice Walls ........................ 35

3.2.2.1 Test Methods for SRW Blocks Procured From Inservice Walls ......................... 37 

3.2.2.2 Test Results for SRW Blocks Procured From Inservice Walls ........................... 38 

3.3 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... 40

CHAPTER 4: LABORATORY EVALUATIONS................................................................................ 41

4.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 41

4.2 SAMPLING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SRW BLOCKS .......................................................... 42

4.2.1 Current Sampling Guidelines............................................................................................... 45

4.2.2 Spatial Variability of Material Properties .......................................................................... 46
iv 

4.2.2.1 Within-Manufacturer Variability......................................................................... 46 

4.2.2.2 Between-Manufacturer Variability ...................................................................... 49 

4.2.3 Split Face Delamination........................................................................................................ 56

4.2.4 Recommendations for Sampling .......................................................................................... 60

4.2.4.1 Sampling of SRW Units....................................................................................... 61 

4.2.4.2 Extracting Specimens From SRW Units.............................................................. 62 

4.2.4.3 General Laboratory Practice ................................................................................ 67 

4.2.4.4 Other Research..................................................................................................... 70 

4.3 VARIABILITY IN FREEZE-THAW EQUIPMENT USED IN ASTM C 1262 (2003) ........... 70

4.3.1 Comparison Between Different Freezers ............................................................................ 72

4.3.1.1 Chest Freezer ....................................................................................................... 76 

4.3.1.2 Walk-in Environmental Chamber........................................................................ 79 

4.3.1.3 Cabinet Freezer .................................................................................................... 84 

4.3.1.4 Recommendations To Reduce Freezer Internal Variability................................. 91 

4.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FREEZE-THAW CYCLE ..................................................... 93

4.4.1 Significance of Freeze-Thaw Cycle ...................................................................................... 95

4.4.2 The Cooling Curve .............................................................................................................. 101

4.4.2.1 Ice Formation and Rates .................................................................................... 101 

4.4.2.2 Changes in Concentration for Saline Solution................................................... 105 

4.4.2.3 Damage Point..................................................................................................... 107 

4.4.2.4 Connection to Freeze-Thaw Test Specimens..................................................... 113 

4.4.2.5 Rates of Temperature Change............................................................................ 126 

4.4.3 Other Aspects Relevant to the ASTM C 1262 (2003) Test Method ................................ 128

4.4.3.1 Concept of Frozen Solid .................................................................................... 128 

4.4.3.2 Temperature Tolerance ...................................................................................... 129 

4.4.3.3 Cooling Rates and Target Cold Soak Temperatures.......................................... 129 

4.4.3.4 Degree of Saturation .......................................................................................... 135 

4.4.3.5 Warming Rate .................................................................................................... 136 

4.4.4 Summary—Implications for ASTM C 1262 (2003).......................................................... 136

4.5 SYNOPSIS OF NCMA STUDY .................................................................................................. 138

4.5.1 Variability Test Series......................................................................................................... 138

4.5.2 Performance Criteria (PC) Test Series.............................................................................. 139

4.5.3 Significance of NCMA Project Findings ........................................................................... 139

4.6 FROST DURABILITY INDICES FOR SRW UNITS.............................................................. 139

4.6.1 Background.......................................................................................................................... 140

4.6.2 Databases of SRW Block Freeze-Thaw Performance and Material Properties ............ 141

4.6.3 Synthesis of Data ................................................................................................................. 143

4.6.4 Discussion of ASTM C 1262 (2003) (in Water) Results ................................................... 145

4.6.5 Discussion of ASTM C 1262 (2003) (in 3 percent NaCl solution) Results ...................... 163

4.6.6 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 164
v 

4.7 SYNOPSIS OF STUDY ON EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE DEICING SALTS 

ON SRW BLOCK DURABILITY .............................................................................................. 164

4.8 RESEARCH ON DEVELOPMENT OF MORE REALISTIC FREEZE-THAW 

TEST FOR SRW BLOCKS......................................................................................................... 166

4.8.1 Phase I Investigation ........................................................................................................... 167

4.8.2 Phase II Investigation.......................................................................................................... 174

4.8.3 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 184

4.9 OTHER RESEARCH ................................................................................................................. 185

4.10 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 185

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ............. 187

5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 187

5.2 CONCLUSIONS—FIELD PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY OF SRW BLOCKS.... 187

5.3 CONCLUSIONS—SRW MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION AND SAMPLING........... 187

5.4 CONCLUSIONS—FROST DURABILITY OF SRW UNITS ................................................. 189

5.5 CONCLUSIONS—GENERAL FREEZE-THAW TESTING AND PROCESSES................ 195

5.6 CONCLUSIONS—ASTM C 1262 (2003) TESTING AND SPECIMEN PERFORMANCE 197

5.7 RECOMMENDATIONS—ASTM C 1262 (2003) TESTING FOR SRW UNITS.................. 202

5.8 RECOMMENDATIONS—FUTURE RESEARCH.................................................................. 202

5.8.1 SRW Material Characterization—Between-Unit Variability ......................................... 202

5.8.2 Frost Durability of SRW Units—Frost Index................................................................... 202

5.8.3 Dilation Tests for SRW Specimens .................................................................................... 203

5.8.4 Acoustic Emission Testing .................................................................................................. 203

5.8.5 Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycle on Specimen Performance................................................. 203

5.8.6 Effect of Specimen Preconditioning................................................................................... 204

5.8.6.1 Effect of Pretest Exposure ................................................................................. 204 

5.8.6.2 Effect of Saturating Specimens Prior to Freeze-Thaw Testing ......................... 204 

5.8.7 Significance of Mass Loss and 1 Percent Limit on Different Grades of SRW Mixes.... 204

5.8.8 Partial Versus Full Immersion of Specimens.................................................................... 205

5.8.9 Database of Mass Loss Prediction Constants ................................................................... 205

5.8.10 Efficacy of Silane or Other Coatings/Sealants in Mitigating Damage for Inservice 

SRW Blocks. ........................................................................................................................ 205

5.8.11 Freeze-Thaw Performance—Field and Laboratory Correlation Based on Critical 

 Moisture. .............................................................................................................................. 205

APPENDIX A: NEWLY PROPOSED VERSIONS OFASTM C 1262 (2003)— 

 FREEZE-THAW TEST FOR SRW BLOCKS).................................................... 207

ANNEX: RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE FOR SURVEY OF INTERNAL 

 TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION OF FREEZE-THAW CHAMBER.............. 228
vi 

APPENDIX B: NEWLY PROPOSED VERSION OF ASTM C 1372 (2003)— 

 SPECIFICATIONS FOR SRW BLOCKS................................................................ 241

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................ 249
vii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Drawing. Conventional forms of SRW construction (NCMA, 2005a)........................... 2 

Figure 2. Drawing. Soil reinforced forms of SRW construction (NCMA, 2005a)......................... 2 

Figure 3. Drawings. Sample sizes and shapes of SRW units for SRW systems 

(Bathurst, 1993). .............................................................................................................. 2 

Figure 4. Photos. Example applications of SRW systems.............................................................. 3 

Figure 5. Photo. View of mix during production of SRW units at block plant. ............................. 4 

Figure 6. Photo. SRW unit immediately after compaction and demolding. ................................... 4 

Figure 7. Photos. Comparison of internal structures between SRW and ordinary concretes. ........ 4 

Figure 8. Photo. Condition of SRW in Ithaca, NY. ........................................................................ 5 

Figure 9. Map. State highway agency requirements for freeze-thaw durability of SRW 

 blocks (Thomas et al., 2003).......................................................................................... 8 

Figure 10. Diagram. Powers’ rendition of an air bubble and its “sphere of influence” 

(Powers, 1949). ........................................................................................................... 12 

Figure 11. Photo. Demolding of SRW units during production. .................................................. 18 

Figure 12. Photo. Typical deterioration of SRW blocks with scaling most pronounced 

for cap units................................................................................................................. 28 

Figure 13. Photo. Severely damaged cap units on otherwise healthy wall................................... 28 

Figure 14. Photo. Effects of drainage and salt exposure from parking lot above SRW. .............. 30 

Figure 15. Photo. Deteriorated SRW blocks closest to roadway (bottom of photo) and 

undamaged SRW blocks farthest from roadway. ....................................................... 30 

Figure 16. Photo. Severe damage of SRW blocks in direct path of drainage from bridge 

overpass above............................................................................................................ 30 

Figure 17. Photo. Deterioration of SRW blocks due to exposure to fertilizers from adjacent 

golf course................................................................................................................... 32 

Figure 18. Photo. Cap block experiencing scaling of front face and macrocracking 

towards the back of the blocks.................................................................................... 33 

Figure 19. Photo. Deterioration of exposed vertical surfaces of SRW blocks. ............................ 34 

Figure 20. Photo. Another example of deterioration of exposed horizontal surfaces of 

SRW blocks. ............................................................................................................... 35 

Figure 21. Photo. Blocks obtained from SRW in Wisconsin (WI-2). .......................................... 36 
viii 

Figure 22. Photo. Blocks obtained from SRW in Wisconsin (WI-4). .......................................... 37 

Figure 23. Photo. Blocks obtained from SRW in Minnesota (MN-4).......................................... 37 

Figure 24. Graph. ASTM C 1262 test results for blocks obtained from Wisconsin 

SRW (WI-2), with samples tested in water. ............................................................... 39 

Figure 25. Photo. Internal structure of block from Wisconsin SRW (WI-4), showing large 

compaction voids and low cement paste content........................................................ 39 

Figure 26. Photo. Typical chloride concentrations for SRW blocks exhibiting poor field 

performance (data for WI-2 and WI-4, SRWs from Wisconsin)................................ 40 

Figure 27. Diagram. Concentration groups for the evaluation of ASTM C 1262 test method..... 42 

Figure 28. Photo. Units immediately after demolding.................................................................. 43 

Figure 29. Photo. Units prior to entering curing chamber. ........................................................... 43 

Figure 30. Photo. Splitting of conjoined units. ............................................................................. 43 

Figure 31. Photo. Split face of units. ............................................................................................ 43 

Figure 32. Photos. Definition of terms: SRW units (or blocks).................................................... 44 

Figure 33. Drawing and photo. Definition of terms: test specimens (or coupons)....................... 44 

Figure 34. Photo. Possible exposure condition of units in winter weather................................... 46 

Figure 35. Photo. Percentages in spatial distribution of absorption in large wall unit. ................ 47 

Figure 36. Drawing. Distribution of absorption in large wall unit. .............................................. 47 

Figure 37. Photo. Percentages in spatial distribution of absorption in small wall unit................. 48 

Figure 38. Drawing. Distribution of absorption in small wall unit............................................... 48 

Figure 39. Drawings. Simple random versus stratified random sampling from the face of 

an SRW unit................................................................................................................ 49 

Figure 40. Drawing and photos. Sampling of test specimens from SRW units from 

different manufacturers............................................................................................... 51 

Figure 41. Graphs. Spatial distributions of ASTM C 642 boiled absorption on split face 

of SRW units (values shown represent mass of absorbed water as percent of 

mass of oven-dried specimen). ................................................................................... 53 

Figure 42. Graphs. Spatial distributions of volumetric paste content........................................... 54 

Figure 43. Graphs. Spatial distributions of volumetric compaction void content. ....................... 55 

Figure 44. Photo. Sample A of split face delaminations on SRW units. ...................................... 56 

Figure 45. Photo. Sample B of split face delaminations on SRW units. ...................................... 56 
ix 

Figure 46. Drawings and photo. Suspected cause of split face delaminations. ............................ 57 

Figure 47. Photo. Breaking off of split face delamination due to ice “jacking” action in 

field SRW units........................................................................................................... 58 

Figure 48. Photo. Detached split face delamination under frost conditions in field 

SRW units. .................................................................................................................. 58 

Figure 49. Photo. Freeze-thaw damage on SRW unit in field. ..................................................... 59 

Figure 50. Photos. Section through region containing split face delamination. ........................... 60 

Figure 51. Drawing. Sampling of SRW units from pallet. ........................................................... 62 

Figure 52. Drawings. Extraction of freeze-thaw specimens from SRW unit. .............................. 63 

Figure 53. Drawing. Extraction of specimens shorter than the unit height (view into 

back face).................................................................................................................... 64 

Figure 54. Drawing. Extraction of specimens from middle layer................................................. 64 

Figure 55. Drawing. Solid unit showing recommended sampling locations (red dashed 

lines)............................................................................................................................ 66 

Figure 56. Photo. Sample of solid unit. ........................................................................................ 66 

Figure 57. Photo. Second sample of solid unit. ............................................................................ 66 

Figure 58. Drawing. Hollow unit showing recommended sampling locations (red dashed 

lines)............................................................................................................................ 67 

Figure 59. Photo. Sample of hollow unit. ..................................................................................... 67 

Figure 60. Photo. Second sample of hollow unit.......................................................................... 67 

Figure 61. Photo. Defects along edges of SRW units................................................................... 68 

Figure 62. Photo. Scratched surface. ............................................................................................ 68 

Figure 63. Photo. Example of sound surface. ............................................................................... 68 

Figure 64. Drawing. Recommended clearance from edges. ......................................................... 69 

Figure 65. Photo. Specimen before washing, following saw-cutting. .......................................... 70 

Figure 66. Photo. Specimen after washing, following saw-cutting. ............................................. 70 

Figure 67. Graph. ASTM C 1262 (2003) freeze-thaw cycle—definitions. .................................. 72 

Figure 68. Photo. Closed chest freezer used in study. .................................................................. 73 

Figure 69. Photo. Open chest freezer............................................................................................ 73 

Figure 70. Photo. Walk-in freezer used in the study..................................................................... 74 

Figure 71. Photo. View of inside of walk-in freezer..................................................................... 74 
x 

Figure 72. Drawing. Environmental chamber of walk-in freezer................................................. 74 

Figure 73. Photo. Cabinet freezer, closed..................................................................................... 75 

Figure 74. Photo and drawing. Inside of cabinet freezer. ............................................................. 75 

Figure 75. Photo. View of chest freezer with wooden frame and six specimens. ........................ 76 

Figure 76. Graph. Internal temperature variations in chest freezer loaded with six 

specimens—T-t response............................................................................................ 78 

Figure 77. Graph. Internal temperature variations in chest freezer loaded with six 

specimens—standard deviation-time response........................................................... 78 

Figure 78. Photo. View of walk-in chamber with thermocouples on shelving units and 

suspended from ceiling. .............................................................................................. 80 

Figure 79. Graph. Internal temperature variations in walk-in chamber loaded with 60 

specimens—T-t response............................................................................................ 81 

Figure 80. Graph. Internal temperature variations in walk-in chamber loaded with 60 

specimens—standard deviation-time response........................................................... 81 

Figure 81. Graph. Average temperatures in walk-in chamber with varying quantities of 

specimens (values shown are number of specimens). ................................................ 83 

Figure 82. Photos and drawings. View of thermocouple (TC) placement in cabinet freezer 

instrument to tests. ...................................................................................................... 85 

Figure 83. Photo. View of thermocouple (TC) placement with specimens in cabinet. ................ 85 

Figure 84. Graph. Internal temperature variations in cabinet freezer loaded with 28 

specimens—T-t response............................................................................................ 86 

Figure 85. Graph. Internal temperature variations in cabinet freezer loaded with 28 

specimens—standard deviation-time response........................................................... 87 

Figure 86. Drawing. Individual temperature locations (front view of freezer, plan view of 

each shelf). .................................................................................................................. 89 

Figure 87. Drawing. Temperature mapping in cabinet freezer (side view of the freezer 

cabin)........................................................................................................................... 89 

Figure 88. Graph. Average temperatures in cabinet freezer with varying quantities of 

specimens (values shown are number of specimens). ................................................ 90 

Figure 89. Graph. T-t curves for freezer air, water surrounding specimen and specimen............ 94 

Figure 90. Photo. Water surrounding specimen and specimen (as graphed in figure 89). ........... 94 
xi 

Figure 91. Photo. Temperature-monitored glass vials used to characterize freeze-thaw 

cycles and impact on water and saline solutions. ....................................................... 95 

Figure 92. Drawing. Location of thermocouples.......................................................................... 95 

Figure 93. Photo. Vials in freezer. ................................................................................................ 95 

Figure 94. Photo. Broken vials. .................................................................................................... 95 

Figure 95. Photo. View of typical specimen in test set A in cabinet freezer and walk-in 

freezer (NCMA study). ............................................................................................... 96 

Figure 96. Photo. View of open container with specimen............................................................ 96 

Figure 97 Graph. Comparative performance of specimens in test set A in cabinet freezer 

(darker lines) and specimens in walk-in freezer (lighter lines)—percent 

mass loss. .................................................................................................................... 97 

Figure 98. Graph. Comparative performance of specimens in test set A in cabinet freezer 

(darker lines) and specimens in walk-in freezer (lighter lines)—relative dynamic 

modulus....................................................................................................................... 97 

Figure 99. Graph. Cooling curves comparison for typical cycles in the two freezers.................. 99 

Figure 100. Graph. Rates of temperature change for curves in figure 99—temperature.............. 99 

Figure 102. Graph. Rates of temperature change for curves in figure 99—solution.................. 100 

Figure 103. Graph. Cooling curves and FP-t curves for plain water. ......................................... 103 

Figure 104. Graph. Cooling curves and FP-t curves for 3 percent NaCl solution...................... 103 

Figure 105. Graph. Cooling curves and rate of ice formation curves for water. ........................ 104 

Figure 106. Graph. Cooling curves and rate of ice formation curves for 3 percent NaCl 

solution................................................................................................................... 104 

Figure 107. Graph. Plots of FP as function of temperature. ....................................................... 105 

Figure 108. Graph. Changes in NaCl concentration in unfrozen solution.................................. 106 

Figure 109. Graph. Rates of ice formation and concentration changes for initial 3 percent 

NaCl solution. ........................................................................................................ 106 

Figure 110. Photo and drawing. Circuit resistance for detecting expansion damage in 

freezing vials.......................................................................................................... 107 

Figure 111. Photo. Strain gage for detecting expansion damage in freezing vials..................... 107 

Figure 112. Drawing and photo. Direct observation for detecting expansion damage in 

freezing vials.......................................................................................................... 108 
xii 

Figure 113. Graph. Results of water-filled unconfined vial in circular resistance test............... 109 

Figure 114. Photo. Water-filled unconfined vial. ....................................................................... 109 

Figure 115. Graph. Results of water half-filled unconfined vial in circular resistance test. ...... 109 

Figure 116. Photo. Water half-filled unconfined vial................................................................. 109 

Figure 117. Graph. Results from water-filled, mortar-confined vial in circular resistance 

test.......................................................................................................................... 109 

Figure 118. Photo. Water-filled, mortar-confined vial. .............................................................. 109 

Figure 119. Graph. Results of strain gage method—plain water................................................ 110 

Figure 120. Photo. Vial after test................................................................................................ 110 

Figure 121. Graph. Results of strain gage method— 3 percent NaCl solution. ......................... 110 

Figure 122. Photo. Vial after test................................................................................................ 110 

Figure 123. Graph and photos. Results for direct observation method of damage 

detection (for water)............................................................................................... 111 

Figure 124. Graph and photos. Results for direct observation method of damage detection 

(for 3 percent NaCl)............................................................................................... 112 

Figure 125. Drawing. Location of thermocouples (S1, S2, S3) embedded in SRW specimen .... 113 

Figure 126. Drawing. Location of thermocouples (Af, Am) and in water (Wu, Wa). .................. 113 

Figure 127. Photo. Container used to hold SRW blocks ............................................................ 113 

Figure 128. Photo. Varying container sizes................................................................................ 113 

Figure 129. Graph. Cooling curves for SRW mix A and B........................................................ 114 

Figure 130. Photo. SRW mix A.................................................................................................. 114 

Figure 131. Photo. SRW mix B. ................................................................................................. 114 

Figure 132. Graph. Specimen cooling curves for different volumes of surrounding water 

(reproduced from Hance, 2005)............................................................................. 116 

Figure 133. Graph. Simple approach to estimate length of freezing plateau.............................. 116 

Figure 134. Graph Specimen cooling curves for different container sizes (reproduced 

from Hance, 2005). ................................................................................................ 118 

Figure 135. Graph. Cooling curves for varying specimen quantities in the walk-in 

chamber—freezer air. ............................................................................................ 120 

Figure 136. Graph. Cooling curves for varying specimen quantities in the walk-in 

chamber—specimen cooling curves. ..................................................................... 120 
xiii 

Figure 137. Photo. View of chest freezer used for single-location repeatability tests................ 122 

Figure 138. Photo. View of chest freezer interior. The circled portion indicates the 

location of the instrumented specimen. ................................................................. 122 

Figure 139. Graph. Freezer air and specimen cooling curves for seven cycles.......................... 123 

Figure 140. Graph. Comparison of specimen cooling curve in 2 different freezers (chest 

freezer with 6 specimens, walk-in freezer with 40 specimens). ............................ 124 

Figure 141. Graph. Relationship between size of pores and freezing point from Pigeon 

and Pleau (1995). ................................................................................................... 125 

Figure 142. Graph. Relationship between size of pores and freezing point from Marchand 

et al. (1995). ........................................................................................................... 125 

Figure 143. Graph. Rates of temperature change for specimen and surrounding water............. 127 

Figure 144. Photo. Specimen after 4.5-hour cold soak in walk-in freezer appears frozen 

solid........................................................................................................................ 129 

Figure 145. Photo. Second specimen, also after 4.5-hour cold soak in walk-in freezer, 

shows wet spots as indicated in the circled areas. ................................................. 129 

Figure 146. Graph. Results of cooling in chest freezer............................................................... 131 

Figure 147. Photo. Half-filled vial after cooling in chest freezer. .............................................. 131 

Figure 148. Graph. Results of cooling in walk-in freezer........................................................... 131 

Figure 149. Photo. Half-filled vial after cooling in walk-in freezer. .......................................... 131 

Figure 150. Photo. Half-full vial after 30 minutes of exposure in the chest freezer................... 132 

Figure 151. Photo. Half-full vial after 40 minutes of exposure in the chest freezer................... 132 

Figure 152. Diagram. ASTM C 666 (ASTM 2004), Procedure A specified T-t exposure 

of control specimen................................................................................................ 134 

Figure 153. Graph. Comparison between cooling curves specified in European test 

methods and ASTM C 1262 (2003) specimens. .................................................... 135 

Figure 154. Drawing. ASTM C 1262 (2003) partially immersed specimen. ............................. 135 

Figure 155. Drawing. Definition of compaction void in ASTM C 457 (2004) testing. ............. 142 

Figure 156. Graph. Relating mass loss to material property for a given SRW unit type. .......... 143 

Figure 157. Graph. Mass loss versus material property for each of the SRW units 

evaluated using centroids....................................................................................... 144 
xiv 

Figure 158. Graph. Mass loss versus material property for each of the SRW units 

evaluated using boundary points............................................................................ 145 

Figure 159. Graph. ASTM C 140 compressive strength. Data representation by 

boundary points...................................................................................................... 148 

Figure 160. Graph. ASTM C 140 compressive strength. Data representation by centroids....... 148 

Figure 161. Graph. ASTM C 140 24-hour water absorption. Data representation by 

boundary points...................................................................................................... 149 

Figure 162. Graph. ASTM C 140 24-hour water absorption. Data representation by 

centroids................................................................................................................. 149 

Figure 163.Graph. ASTM C 140 Unit weight. Data representation by boundary points. .......... 150 

Figure 164. Graph. ASTM C 140 Unit weight. Data representation by centroids. .................... 150 

Figure 165. Graph. NCMA index. Data representation by boundary points. ............................. 151 

Figure 166. Graph. NCMA index. Data representation by centroids. ........................................ 151 

Figure 167. Graph. ASTM C 642 Boiled absorption. Data representation by boundary 

points...................................................................................................................... 152 

Figure 168. Graph. ASTM C 642. Bottom graph. Data representation by centroids. ................ 152 

Figure 169. Graph. ASTM C 642. Volume of permeable voids. Data representation by 

boundary points...................................................................................................... 153 

Figure 170. Graph. ASTM C 642 Volume of permeable voids. Data representation by 

centroids................................................................................................................. 153 

Figure 171. Graph. Saturation coefficient. Data representation by boundary points. ................ 154 

Figure 172. Graph. Saturation coefficient. Data representation by centroids............................. 154 

Figure 173. Graph. Total air and compaction voids content. Data representation by 

boundary points...................................................................................................... 155 

Figure 174. Graph. Total air and compaction voids content. Data representation by 

centroids................................................................................................................. 155 

Figure 175. Graph. Paste content. Data representation by boundary points............................... 156 

Figure 176. Graph. Paste content. Data representation by centroids.......................................... 156 

Figure 177. Graph. Paste-to-total-void ratio. Data representation by boundary points.............. 157 

Figure 178. Graph. Paste-to-total-voids ratio. Data representation by centroids........................ 157 
xv 

Figure 179. Graph. ASTM C 457 Specific surface. Data representation by boundary 

points...................................................................................................................... 158 

Figure 180. Graph. ASTM C 457 Specific surface. Data representation by centroids............... 158 

Figure 181. Graph. ASTM C 457 spacing factor. Data representation by boundary 

points...................................................................................................................... 159 

Figure 182. Graph. ASTM C 457 Spacing factor. Data representation by centroids. ................ 159 

Figure 183. Graph. Specific surface/total void content. Data representation by 

boundary points...................................................................................................... 160 

Figure 184. Graph. Specific surface/total void content. Data representation by centroids. ....... 160 

Figure 185. Graph. Evaluation of data points for mass loss less than 5 percent only. ............... 161 

Figure 186. Graph. Mass loss in 3 percent NaCl solution versus paste-to-total-voids ratio. 

Data representation by boundary points. ............................................................... 163 

Figure 187. Graph. Mass loss in 3 percent NaCl solution versus paste-to-total-voids ratio. 

Data representation by centroids............................................................................ 164 

Figure 188. Graph. Average ASTM C 1262 (2003) mass loss for all salt solutions 

evaluated. ............................................................................................................... 166 

Figure 189. Drawing. Exposure chamber. .................................................................................. 168 

Figure 190. Photo. Freeze-thaw test setup showing SRW blocks. ............................................. 169 

Figure 191. Photo. Smaller SRW block testing in Phase I. ........................................................ 170 

Figure 192. Graph. Percent weight change for samples from test 1 (ramp rate of 

0.33 °C/min (0.6 °F/min) with 1-hour hold time, sprayed with water). ................ 171 

Figure 193. Graph. Percent weight change for samples from test 2 (ramp rate of 

0.18 °C/min (0.3 °F/min) with 1-hour hold time, sprayed with 3 percent 

NaCl)...................................................................................................................... 171 

Figure 194. Graph. Percent weight change for samples from test 3 (ramp rate of 

0.33 °C/min (0.6 °F/min) with 1-hour hold time, sprayed with 3 percent 

NaCl)...................................................................................................................... 172 

Figure 195. Graph. Percent weight change for samples from test 4 (ramp rate of 

0.55 °C/min (1.0 °F/min) with 2 hour hold time, sprayed 3 percent NaCl). ......... 172 

Figure 196. Photo. Typical cracking and spalling from freeze-thaw damage from test 1.......... 173 
xvi 

Figure 197. Photos. Freeze-thaw deterioration over 40 cycles from Test 4: a. after 10 

cycles, b. after 20 cycles, c. after 30 cycles, and d. after 40 cycles....................... 174 

Figure 198. Photo. SRW block from manufacturer A. ............................................................... 175 

Figure 199. Photo. SRW block from manufacturer B. ............................................................... 176 

Figure 200. Photo. SRW block from manufacturer C. ............................................................... 176 

Figure 201. Photo. Typical stacking for larger SRW blocks tested in Phase II.......................... 177 

Figure 202. Graph. Typical block temperature data from Phase II investigation....................... 178 

Figure 203. Photo. SHA-approved block from manufacturer A (water exposure)..................... 179 

Figure 204. Photo. SHA-approved block from manufacturer A (3 percent NaCl solution 

exposure)................................................................................................................ 179 

Figure 205. Photo. Non-SHA-approved cap from manufacturer A (water exposure)................ 179 

Figure 206. Photo. Surface of non-SHA-approved block from manufacturer A (3 percent 

NaCl solution)........................................................................................................ 179 

Figure 207. Graph. Percent weight change as a function of freeze-thaw exposure cycles 

for SHA-approved SRW blocks exposed to NaCl solution—from 

manufacturer A. ..................................................................................................... 180 

Figure 208. Graph. Percent weight change as a function of freeze-thaw exposure cycles 

for SHA-approved SRW blocks exposed to water—from manufacturer A. ......... 180 

Figure 209. Graph. Percent weight change versus freeze-thaw exposures for non-SHAapproved SRW blocks from manufacturer A exposed to NaCl solution 

(positive values indicate weight loss). ................................................................... 180 

Figure 210. Photo. SHA-approved block from manufacturer B (NaCl Solution). ..................... 181 

Figure 211. Graph. Percent weight change for manufacturer B SRW blocks exposed to 

NaCl solution resulting from freeze-thaw cycling for SHA-approved blocks. ..... 181 

Figure 212. Graph. Percent weight change for manufacturer B SRW blocks exposed to 

NaCl solution resulting from freeze-thaw cycling for non-SHA-approved 

blocks. .................................................................................................................... 181 

Figure 213. Photo. SHA-approved C block exposed to fresh water........................................... 182 

Figure 214. Photo. SHA-approved C block exposed to 3 percent NaCl solution....................... 182 
xvii 

Figure 215. Graph. Percent weight change resulting from freeze-thaw cycling of SRW 

blocks exposed to NaCl solution for SHA-approved blocks—from 

manufacturer C....................................................................................................... 182 

Figure 216. Graph. Percent weight change resulting from freeze-thaw cycling of SRW 

blocks exposed to NaCl solution for non-SHA-approved blocks—from 

manufacturer C....................................................................................................... 182 

Figure 217.Graph. Percent weight change resulting from freeze-thaw cycling of SRW 

blocks from manufacturer C. Blocks exposed to water for SHA-approved 

blocks. .................................................................................................................... 183 

Figure 218. Graph. Percent weight change resulting from freeze-thaw cycling of SRW 

blocks from manufacturer C. Blocks exposed to water for non-SHAapproved blocks. .................................................................................................... 183 

Figure 219. Graph. Compaction void content versus paste content for all SRW mixes 

evaluated. ............................................................................................................... 189 

Figure 220. Graph. Mass loss versus cycles. .............................................................................. 190 

Figure 221. Photo. Comparison of water versus saline tests on wall unit after 100 cycles 

in water. Specimens were from a single manufacturer.......................................... 191 

Figure 222. Photo. Comparison of water versus saline test on wall unit after 60 cycles 

in saline. Specimens were from a single manufacturer.......................................... 191 

Figure 223. Graph. Dependence of mass loss prediction constant “a” on paste content 

(Hance, 2005)......................................................................................................... 192 

Figure 224. Graph. Relationship between mass loss after 100 cycles in water and 

paste-to-total air and compaction void ratio. ......................................................... 193 
xviii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Blocks from in situ SRWs obtained for laboratory evaluation....................................... 36 

Table 2. Characteristics of the various freezers investigated (from Hance, 2005)....................... 76 

Table 3. Temperature variations inside a chest freezer................................................................. 79 

Table 4. Temperature variations inside the walk-in freezer loaded with 60 specimens. .............. 82 

Table 5. Temperature variations inside the walk-in freezer loaded with varying specimen 

quantities........................................................................................................................ 84 

Table 6. Temperature variations inside the cabinet freezer loaded with 28 specimens................ 87 

Table 7. Temperature variations inside the cabinet freezer loaded with varying specimen 

quantities........................................................................................................................ 91 

Table 8. Comparison of cycle parameters between cabinet and walk-in freezers...................... 101 

Table 9. Measured differences for conditions of varying volumes of surrounding water.......... 117 

Table 10. Measured differences for conditions of varying container sizes. ............................... 118 

Table 11. Measured differences for conditions of varying specimen quantities. ....................... 121 

Table 12. Comparison of cooling curve characteristics for half-full vials in different 

 freezers........................................................................................................................ 133 

Table 13. Comparison of specimen cooling rates for cooling curves of section 4.4.2.3 ............ 133 

Table 14. Scope of ASTM C 1262 (2003) test program............................................................. 141 

Table 15. Standard test methods and material properties evaluated for SRW units................... 142 

Table 16. Ranking of material properties using different types of analyses............................... 161 

Table 17. Threshold values of material properties determined from figures 159 to 184........... 162 

Table 18. Phase I experimental program. ................................................................................... 169 

Table 19. Experimental plan showing number of blocks tested in Phase II............................... 175 

Table 20. Chloride diffusion coefficients for larger SRW block samples.................................. 183 

Table 21. Comparison of cold soak requirement in freeze-thaw test methods........................... 196 

Table A.1 R values for ttrial.......................................................................................................... 237 
1 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE 

1.1 OVERVIEW 

Segmental retaining wall (SRW) systems are commonly and successfully used in a range of 

applications, including highway projects. Their popularity can be attributed to a combination of 

reduced construction costs, versatility, aesthetic appearance, ease of installation, and an 

increasing number of proprietary designs available in the market. Despite these inherent 

advantages, there have been some reported problems with durability of SRW blocks in cold 

climates. The deterioration of some SRW installations in State highway agency (SHA) 

applications has resulted in concern over the long-term performance of SRW systems and has led 

to stricter specifications and, in some cases, restrictions on future use of SRW systems. 

In response to these concerns, an FHWA-funded research project was initiated to determine the 

cause and extent of SRW block distress, to identify and recommend test methods for improving 

durability of SRW systems, and to recommend specifications for SHAs to ensure long-term 

durability and performance of SRW systems in highway applications. This report summarizes 

the key findings of this project and provides guidance on producing durable SRW blocks to 

ensure long-term performance of SRW systems in highway applications. 

The remainder of this chapter provides a brief overview of SRW systems, highlights some of the 

key technical aspects associated with SRW blocks, and describes broadly the scope of the SRW 

block deterioration problem at the time that this research project was launched. Lastly, this 

chapter provides a brief summary of the organization of the remaining chapters in this report. 

1.2 SRW SYSTEMS 

SRW systems have become increasingly popular in the past decade for earth retention and 

landscaping applications. These systems, consisting of dry-stacked (mortarless) concrete 

masonry units, can be used either as conventional gravity structures or as part of a reinforced soil 

system in conjunction with horizontal layers of soil reinforcement (figures 1, 2, and 3). Wall 

heights can range anywhere from 200 mm (millimeters) (8 inches) to 6 (meters) m (20 feet (ft)) 

depending on the specific application as shown in figure 4. 

SRW units are manufactured in concrete block plants at typically dry consistencies using low 

water contents and/or low overall paste contents to achieve a stiff consistency for compaction 

into molds and to allow almost immediate demolding (figures 5 and 6). 
2 

Figure 1. Drawing. Conventional forms of SRW construction (NCMA, 2005a). 

Figure 2. Drawing. Soil reinforced forms of SRW construction (NCMA, 2005a). 

Figure 3. Drawings. Sample sizes and shapes of SRW units for SRW systems 

(Bathurst, 1993). 

a. Single depth. b. Multiple depth. 

reinforced 

soil zone 

retained soil 

soil 

reinforcement 

SRW units 

drainage fill 

leveling pad 
3 

a. Highway. b. Parking lots. 

c. Commercial centers. d. Parks. 

e. Landscaping. f. Residential. 

Figure 4. Photos. Example applications of SRW systems. 

cap units

wall units 
4 

Figure 5. Photo. View of mix during 

production of SRW units at block plant. 

Figure 6. Photo. SRW unit immediately 

after compaction and demolding. 

Due to the low paste contents of SRW units, a material characterized by a network of irregularly 

shaped voids is produced, as depicted in figure 7, in which the internal structures of ordinary and 

SRW concretes are contrasted. These voids are termed “compaction voids” since they are formed 

during the compaction process, and their role in the durability of SRW units is still not fully 

understood (Pigeon and Pleau, 1995). From the data obtained under this FSRW project, the 

volume fraction of compaction voids can account for up to 25 percent of the total volume of 

concrete. As comparison, the air void content of air-entrained concretes is approximately in the 

range of 4–8 percent by volume (Kosmatka and Panarese, 1994). 

a. SRW mix (note compaction voids). b. Ordinary concrete. 

Figure 7. Photos. Comparison of internal structures between SRW and ordinary concretes. 

Presently, in the United States, the material performance of SRW units is evaluated based on the 

following standards (NCMA, 2002): 

• ASTM C 1372, Standard Specification for Segmental Retaining Wall Units (ASTM C 

1372, 2003). 

• ASTM C 140, Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units 

and Related Units (ASTM C 140, 2000). 
5 

• ASTM C 1262, Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Freeze-Thaw Durability of 

Manufactured Concrete Masonry Units and Related Concrete Units (ASTM C 1262, 

2003). 

ASTM C 1372 specifies dimensional tolerances, compressive strength, absorption, and density of 

the material, as well as freeze-thaw durability. ASTM C 140 is actually a masonry standard 

covering test procedures for dimension measurement, compressive strength, absorption, and 

density, while ASTM C 1262 covers procedures for freeze-thaw durability testing of SRW units. 

1.3 RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND SCOPE 

Although SRW manufacturing technology has improved in recent years and durable units can be 

produced, there have been reported cases of deterioration of SRW units in the field. This is 

particularly the case in cold regions where frost exposure in combination with deicing salts can 

severely damage the units (Thomas, 2003). An example of a damaged SRW is shown in figure 8. 

Figure 8. Photo. Condition of SRW in Ithaca, NY. 

In May 2000 a survey of SRW performance was released to selected cold weather States and 

responses were obtained from Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming. All States have minimum strength and maximum absorption 

regulations, and Iowa, , Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin all require freeze/thaw 

testing according to ASTM C 1262 (ASTM 2003) (described in detail throughout this report). 

Illinois requires 100 cycles conducted according to ASTM C 666 “Standard Test Method for 

Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing” (2004) a requirement that producers 

have had difficulty meeting due to the severity of the test. Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, 
6 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming all have regulated wall sizes and/or design requirements based on 

durability concerns with SRWs. Minnesota and Wisconsin have set the most rigorous 

requirements based on the severity of the problem and the volume of walls that have been 

constructed. 

In recent years, both Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation (Mn/DOT and 

WisDOT respectively) have conducted extensive field surveys to assess the level of damage to in 

service SRWs. In July of 2001 a report was released by Mn/DOT detailing the condition of 104 

SRWs (Embacher et al., 2001). Only walls built before 1994 were examined, with an emphasis 

on walls located at the same intersection facing different directions and constructed during the 

same year. Privately owned walls identified by industry representatives were also investigated. 

Each wall was assigned a distress rating between 0 and 5, with 0 indicating the worst distress, 

and 5 indicating no visible distress. Only 7 percent of the walls examined were classified as poor 

to very poor, but it was found that over 50 percent of the walls exhibited freeze-thaw damage. 

Walls located at parking lots or close to the roadway exhibited the most damage, due to 

increased amounts of snow accumulation and water runoff, therefore allowing for greater 

saturation, and exposure to deicing salts. Walls exposed to fertilizer also exhibited more damage, 

due to phosphates in the fertilizers behaving in a manner similar to that of deicing salts. 

In the summer of 2000 WisDOT randomly surveyed 87 walls throughout the State. Walls were 

between 1 and 15 years old with the majority of walls being between 5and 10 years old. A 

database was created with photographs of each wall and specific rating and wall details for each 

wall. Walls were rated based on the distress manual developed in the Mn/DOT wall survey. A 

total of 18 walls (roughly 20 percent of those surveyed) displayed freeze-thaw distress, with 8 

showing low severity, 6 showing medium severity, and 4 showing high severity. It was 

concluded that even though a lower percentage of Wisconsin walls displayed damage than in 

Minnesota, freeze-thaw durability is still a major issue and should be examined in more detail. 

The distress shown by existing walls has resulted in more rigorous requirements for the 

construction of walls in many States as can be seen in figure 6. Minnesota and Wisconsin have 

been the most aggressive in setting guidelines for freeze-thaw requirements of SRWs. After 

March 1, 2001, Mn/DOT required all walls to conform to a strict list of requirements (Mn/DOT, 

2001), as follows. No walls are allowed in locations where they will be directly supporting 

roadways or bridge abutments. Walls greater than 1.2 m (4 ft.) in height have no restriction on 

location on roadways with traffic volumes less than 5,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT), 

for roadways with traffic volume between 5,000 and 20,000 AADT, the wall must be greater 

than 6.0 m (20 ft.) beyond the outside shoulder or gutter line, and for roadways with traffic 

volume greater than 20,000 AADT, the walls must be located greater than 9.1 m (30 ft.) beyond 

the outside shoulder or gutter line. The maximum allowed wall height is 3.0 m (10 ft.), and it is 

assumed an additional 0.6 m (2 ft.) will be buried below ground. 

All blocks being placed in Minnesota must conform to ASTM C 1372 (2003), and have a 

minimum compressive strength of 38 megapascals (MPa) (5,500 pounds per square inch (psi)) 

for any individual unit, and 40 MPa (5,800 psi) for an average of three units. Walls must also 

exhibit a weight loss for each of 5 specimens at the conclusion of 90 cycles of not less than 1 

percent, or 4 out of 5 specimens at the conclusion of 100 cycles of not less than 1.5 percent when 
7 

subject to ASTM C 1262 (2003) testing in 3 percent saline solution. The specifications are the 

same for cap units except they need only be subject to 40 and 50 cycles as opposed to 90 and 100 

cycles. One sample of every 5,000 units of continuous production should be tested in accordance 

to ASTM C 140 (2000) with the exception that coupons must be tested, and tests on full size 

units are not allowed. 

WisDOT allows only six block manufacturers to create the facing of SRWs (WisDOT, 2000). 

Blocks shall exhibit a minimum compressive strength of 34 MPa (5,000 psi) and a maximum of 

6 percent absorption when subject to ASTM C 140 (2000) testing. Walls must also exhibit a 

weight loss for each of 5 specimens at the conclusion of 40 cycles of not less than 1 percent, or 4 

out of 5 specimens at the conclusion of 50 cycles of not less than 1.5 percent, when subject to 

ASTM C 1262 (2003) testing in 3 percent saline solution. All tests shall be conducted by a 

WisDOT approved independent testing laboratory for each lot of 5,000 blocks. 

Some measures are also being taken by State departments of transportation (DOTs) to reduce 

further damage to inservice walls that have already shown freeze/thaw distress as shown in 

Figure 9. The most common technique being used is the application of silane or siloxane 

coatings. The purpose of these coatings is to try to keep moisture from penetrating the surface of 

SRWs and therefore, reduce future damage. The long-term effects of sealers are still unknown, 

and in lab settings, these types of coatings have shown mixed results. Sealers have proved to be 

useful in reducing deicer salt scaling on insufficiently air-entrained conventional concrete, but 

the protection is limited over time (Hazrati, 1993). On surfaces with adequate salt-scaling 

resistance, Hazrati (1993) observed that sealers actually increase the amount of salt scaling 

damage. 

In response to the concerns raised above regarding frost resistance of SRW blocks, a pooled fund 

project was initiated in 2003 by the Federal Highway Administration, under which The 

University of Texas at Austin (UT), Cornell University and Texas A&M University engaged in a 

research project on SRW durability. The objectives of this research were to determine the 

mechanisms responsible for the deterioration of SRW units in the field, identify variables that 

contribute to the durability of these units, and provide recommendations for the production of 

durable units and for the protection of existing SRWs. 

 
8 

Figure 9. Map. State highway agency requirements for freeze-thaw durability of SRW 

blocks (Thomas et al., 2003). 

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT 

The remainder of this report presents the key findings from FHWA Project No. DTFH61-02-R00078. This final project report draws from several documents generated under this project, 

including: 

• Chan, C., Freeze-Thaw Durability and ASTM C 1262 Testing of Segmental Retaining 

Wall (SRW) Units, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 2006. 

• Hance, R., Studies of the Frost-Resistance of Segmental Retaining Wall Units, Master 

of Science thesis, Cornell University, 2005. 

• Haisler, J., Freeze-Thaw Durability of Segmental Retaining Wall Blocks, Master of 

Science thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 2004. 

• Chan, C., Hover, K.C. and Folliard, K. J., “Spatial Variations in Material Properties 

of Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units, Part I: Observed Variations,” Journal of 

ASTM International, Civil Engineering and Building Materials, February 2005 

(2005a). 

• Chan, C., Hover, K.C. and Folliard, K. J., “Spatial Variations in Material Properties 

of Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units, Part II: Sampling Considerations for 

Absorption Tests,” Journal of ASTM International, Civil Engineering and Building 

Materials, February 2005 (2005b). 

• Chan, C., Hover, K.C., and Folliard, K.J., “Performance of Segmental Retaining Wall 

(SRW) Units: from Laboratory to Field,” Construction Materials, Proceedings of 

40 cycles in saline 

90 cycles in saline and restricted use 

No freeze-thaw requirement, but restricted use 

Removed from approved product 

No freeze-thaw requirement, but case-by-case evaluation - value engineering 
9 

CONMAT 05 and Mindess Symposium (eds. N. Banthia, T. Uomoto, A. Bentur and 

S.P. Shah), Vancouver, Canada, Aug. 21-24, 2005 (2005c). 

• Chan, C., Hover, K.C., Folliard, K.J. and Trejo, D., “Frost Durability Indices of 

Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units,” manuscript submitted to ACI Materials 

Journal, November 2005 (2005d). 

The remainder of this report is organized into the following chapters: 

Chapter 2 contains a brief literature review on freeze-thaw damage, with a primary emphasis on 

SRW block durability. 

Chapter 3 summarizes field evaluations of SRW systems conducted under this project, with 

emphasis on SRWs used in highway applications in Minnesota and Wisconsin. 

Chapter 4 describes a comprehensive laboratory research program focusing on frost resistance of 

SRW blocks. The work includes detailed studies on sampling issues, freeze-thaw test methods, 

impact of salts on damage, and efforts to develop a more realistic approach to test full SRW 

blocks under simulated exposure conditions. The main focus of the chapter is on refining and 

improving ASTM C 1262 to make it more reliable, reproducible, and user friendly. 

Chapter 5 summarizes the key findings of this research project and provides guidance on how to 

specify and test SRW blocks to ensure long-term durability. 

Appendixes A and B contains newly proposed versions of ASTM C 1262 (freeze-thaw testing of 

SRW blocks) and ASTM C 1372 (standard specifications for SRW blocks), based on the key 

findings from this research project. These appendixes are intended to serve as stand-alone 

products that can readily be considered for adoption by SHAs and the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

11 

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides a brief summary of literature to date related to frost resistance of SRW 

blocks. For conciseness, only an abridged version of a much more comprehensive review by 

Chan (2006) is presented herein, and readers are directed towards Chan’s review (in his 2006 

Ph.D. dissertation) for more detailed coverage of freeze-thaw mechanisms (for both conventional 

concrete and SRWs), including issues related to salt scaling and associated damage. The next 

section of this chapter briefly discusses some of the more recent literature related to frost damage 

and salt scaling for conventional concrete, followed by a more thorough summary of published 

literature on the frost (and salt) resistance of SRW blocks and other dry-cast cementitious 

materials. Through these discussions, it should be quite clear that the mechanisms of frost 

damage and salt scaling in conventional concrete are quite complex and not fully understood, 

and furthermore, that very little is known about freezing and thawing of SRW blocks. This 

review of available literature confirms the importance and need for research on the frost 

resistance of SRW blocks, the results of which are discussed in chapter 4. 

2.2 FROST DAMAGE IN CONCRETE 

2.2.1 Mechanisms of Frost Damage in Concrete 

Powers (1949) was one of the first researchers to focus in detail on the mechanisms of frost 

action and damage in concrete. Powers proposed that the expansion of water during freezing (9 

percent volume expansion on freezing) in critically saturated capillary pores forces unfrozen 

water away from the freezing sites. This displaced water must travel under pressure through the 

cement paste, and as a result, destructive stresses can occur depending on the amount of 

resistance to this flow. The role of air voids is to provide “escape” boundaries where the flowing 

water can escape and freeze without causing damage. Because this theory was based on the flow 

of water through a permeable cement paste, Darcy’s law was employed to model the process. 

Powers considered a single air bubble and the part of the paste within the bubble’s “sphere of 

influence,” shown as a shell in figure 10. This portion of paste contains capillary pores which 

expel unfrozen water into the air bubble during freezing. Hence, the shell thickness (L) would 

represent the maximum distance that water must travel before reaching the air void boundary. 

From Powers’ analysis, it was determined that the maximum shell thickness (Lmax) above which 

hydraulic pressures generated by the flow of water is enough to cause cracking of the paste was 

given by: 

 Equation 1 

where rb = radius of bubble 

η = coefficient of viscosity 

K = coefficient of permeability of the paste 

T = tensile strength of the paste 

b

3

max

r

L

 + 

2

3L 3

max = 

0.03 η

1

UR

KT
12 

U = quantity of water that freezes per degree drop in 

temperature 

R = freezing rate 

It is seen here that increasing the viscosity of the liquid, increasing the freezing rate, decreasing 

the permeability of the paste or decreasing the strength of paste are more critical as any of these 

conditions require smaller Lmax values (i.e., shorter path lengths). 

Figure 10. Diagram. Powers’ rendition of an air bubble and its “sphere of influence” 

(Powers, 1949). 

The above theory was, however, developed for a single bubble with its own sphere of influence. 

To extend this analysis to real paste systems comprised of an assortment of bubble sizes, Powers 

developed a hypothetical model consisting of equal sized spherical bubbles and derived an 

expression to estimate the average value of L for all air voids in the paste. This average value 

was termed the Spacing Factor ( ), which represents the approximate half-distance between two 

adjacent air voids. Two expressions of the Spacing Factor were derived based on the relative 

proportion of paste to air voids. The equations for hence determined were eventually adopted 

by ASTM C 457 (2004) as a standard method to characterize the air void system in hardened 

concrete. The full set of equations can be found either in Powers (1949) or ASTM C 457 (ASTM 

2004). 

Moreover, Powers used experimental data available at the time for a variety of concretes with the 

intention of estimating the maximum permissible spacing factors for freeze-thaw durable 

concretes. These concrete mixes had air concretes of about 3 percent, specific surfaces (α) of 

about 600 square inches/cubic inches and were subjected to freezing rates of [Tf = 9/5 * Tc + 32] 

degrees Celsius per hour (°C/hr)] (20 degrees Fahrenheit per hour (°F/hr)). Powers determined 

that the Spacing Factors among the mixes capable of withstanding the imposed freezing 

conditions were about 0.254 mm (0.010 inch) or less. This value of the spacing factor was in 

general agreement with the values of Lmax computed for the various cement pastes mentioned 

earlier. 

L

L 

rb rm

r 

∆r 

flow of water 

L 
13 

The main advantage of this theory is that it demonstrates the importance of the spacing of air 

voids in the paste’s resistance to freezing and thawing. This theory is also the only one that 

establishes mathematical relationships between the paste properties, the freezing rate and the 

spacing of air voids, and how these relate to internal pressures (Pigeon and Pleau, 1995). As will 

be seen in the next parts however, subsequent to the development of the Hydraulic Pressure 

Theory, there has been growing experimental evidence that water actually travels towards 

freezing sites rather than away from them. As a result, doubts have been cast on the actual 

mechanisms and assumptions entailed by the 1949 Powers’ paper. The concepts and equations 

developed in it are nevertheless still widely used today to evaluate and compare different air void 

systems. 

In the years following the development of the Hydraulic Pressure Theory, Powers, in conjunction 

with Helmuth, made several important realizations regarding the possible mechanisms taking 

place during freezing of pastes (Powers and Helmuth, 1953). These new insights, which 

advanced the understanding of frost damage, were also supported by experimental evidence. The 

two main aspects suggested by these authors concerned the following: 

1. Not all evaporable water in the pores of the paste is freezable. Powers explained that the 

quantity of ice formed is generally much smaller than the quantity that is 

thermodynamically freezable at the given temperature. For instance, he quoted other 

references where it was shown that at −15 °C (5 °F), approximately one-half of the water 

in pores large enough to be frozen at this temperature remained unfrozen. He attributed 

this to various reasons. One suggested cause was that due to surface tension, water in the 

capillary pores would tend to supercool unless it is seeded by an ice crystal on which it 

can nucleate. At the same time, water in gel pores cannot freeze above –78 °C (108 °F) 

because it is adsorbed to the surfaces of the calcium-silicate-hydrate (CSH). In fact, at 

each given temperature below the normal freezing point of water, there are certain pore 

sizes below which freezing of its water cannot occur. As a result, in a saturated paste, 

there would always be a fraction of water that is unfrozen, and most of this is likely 

contained in the smaller pores (including gel pores). 

2. Pore water is not pure and contains dissolved chemicals such as alkalis. Ice formation in 

this solution is accompanied by an increase in the concentration of dissolved chemicals in 

the unfrozen water. Consequently, concentration differences exist throughout the paste 

between regions where ice has formed and regions with no ice. 

As a result of the above phenomena, a new hypothesis for frost mechanisms and frost damage of 

pastes was developed as follows. As temperature drops below the normal freezing point of water, 

ice starts forming in a number of capillary pores while water in gel pores remains unfrozen. The 

lower free energy (or chemical potential) of ice in the larger pores compared to liquid water in 

the smaller pores creates a thermodynamically imbalanced condition. This can only be brought 

back to equilibrium by the flow of liquid water to the ice formation sites. The growth of ice in 

these larger pores can create enough pressures to damage the paste. Powers referred to these 

pressures as crystal pressures (Powers, 1975). In addition, the growing chemical concentration of 

the unfrozen water in the larger pores compared to that in the smaller pores produces a 

concentration gradient between these two regions. This can also only be balanced by the osmotic 

flow of liquid water from gel to capillary pores (osmotic pressures). As a consequence, large 

internal stresses can be generated in the paste due to osmotic pressures from this flow of water. 
14 

Powers, however, indicated that there is no fundamental difference between the two cases, and 

they could be simply refereed to as osmotic pressures (Powers, 1975). 

It is also noted from these processes that dilution of the unfrozen solution in the capillary pores is 

possible due to the continued flow of water into the pores. The lower concentration of this 

solution hence elevates its melting point, thereby promoting more ice formation. Thus, the above 

described mechanisms become amplified. Furthermore, if the temperature continues to decrease, 

smaller and smaller pores become prone to freezing and the above phenomena become more 

pronounced over the entire paste volume. 

Powers described experimental observations which agreed with the above mechanisms. It was 

noted that non-air-entrained pastes would undergo continued dilation while the temperature 

remained constant. Air-entrained pastes, however, exhibited shrinkage during freezing. 

Moreover, in other experiments, it was shown that a slightly desiccated non-air-entrained paste 

would shrink during cooling shortly after the start of freezing, but it would then expand sharply 

after some low temperature had been passed. These phenomena were explainable considering the 

mechanisms just described: the paste tends to shrink as water is drawn from the smaller to the 

larger pores, but would then tend to expand after the capillary voids are filled with water which 

freezes and expands (Cordon, 1966). These observations could, however, not have been 

explained using concepts from the Hydraulic Pressure Theory. It is further noted that these 

length-change observations of freezing concrete specimens have also become the basis for the 

standard test method, ASTM C 671 “Critical Dilation Test” (ASTM, 2002), which uses length 

change measurements to compare the frost durability of different concrete mixtures. 

As far as air voids are concerned, their role here is to compete with the capillary pores for the 

flowing water. These air bubbles have more room to allow ice formation, and if spaced 

sufficiently close together, the air bubbles provide escape routes for the flowing water and 

alleviate pressure buildup. 

Following the early works of Powers (1949) and Powers and Helmuth (1953), a substantial 

amount of work has been undertaken to advance the understanding of freezing mechanisms and 

frost damage in porous materials, especially concrete. While hydraulic pressure and osmotic 

pressure mechanisms are still brought up in various references to explain frost damage, it is 

evident that other processes may be significant. The application of thermodynamic principles has 

been vital to elucidate many of these processes. For instance, the expressions relating freezepoint depression to pore size and the Kelvin equation describing capillary condensation in pores 

have shed light on freezing behavior in various pore sizes (Penttala, 1998). These concepts have 

set the groundwork for much of the subsequent research on frost processes. Also, the use of low 

temperature calorimetry has provided a useful way to track ice formation and ice melting. This 

technique has allowed observing changes in ice formation with changes in the paste 

microstructure. For instance, it was shown that increasing water-cement ratios and repeated 

freeze-thaw cycles raise the temperatures at first-freeze (i.e., ice first forms at a warmer 

temperature). However, more mature pastes and higher cooling rates lower the temperatures at 

first-freeze. Ice formation was also detected at temperatures down to about −20°C (68 °F) 

corresponding to freezing of smaller pores. From such tests, the hysteretic nature of freezing and 

thawing was also elucidated. 
15 

As far as frost mechanisms in the paste microstructure are concerned, there is a range of 

hypotheses proposed in the reviewed literature to explain the various stages occurring during 

freezing and thawing of pastes and concretes. Kaufmann (2002) provided a qualitative sequential 

description of these mechanisms. As temperatures drop below the freezing point of bulk water, 

ice first forms in the larger pores or on the exterior surfaces of concrete. Most of the water in 

large pores does not interact with the pore walls and is thus held like bulk water. Rapid cooling 

rates may also induce large hydraulic pressures. Then, as the temperature is further reduced, it is 

generally agreed that water in smaller pores migrates to larger pores due to the thermodynamic 

imbalance existing between the unfrozen water in smaller pores compared to the ice in larger 

pores. This was the basis of the findings in Powers and Helmuth (1953) in which differing 

length-change trends were also observed in non-air-entrained and air-entrained pastes. While 

non-air-entrained pastes dilated on freezing, air-entrained pastes shrank on freezing. These 

results were also confirmed by Penttala (1998). The driving pressures causing this migration of 

water were determined to be around 1.22 MPa/°C (34.2 MPa/°F) in gel pores (Setzer, 1999) and 

1.3 MPa/°C (34.3 MPa/°F) (Scherer and Valenza, 2005). As seen, a few degrees Celsius of 

undercooling can cause sufficient driving pressures for the redistribution of water in the pore 

system. 

Scherer and Valenza (2005) then pointed out that as the ice in larger pores grow (by “draining” 

water in smaller pores), this ice eventually exerts crystallization pressures on the pore walls. This 

pressure is a function of the shape and curvatures in the pores in question as well as the contact 

angle between ice and pore wall. Scherer attributed this crystallization pressure as being 

responsible for damage in the material. The amount of pressure generated in the pores has been 

determined theoretically by Scherer and Valenza (2005) and experimentally by Penttala (1998) 

who calculated pore pressures based on test chamber relative humidity. In both cases, pore 

pressures can reach several MPas at several degrees Centigrade below normal freezing point 

(e.g., at around −5 °C (23 °F)). However, as Scherer pointed out, the calculated pressure applies 

to one pore only and high stress in a single pore is not likely to crack or fail a material because 

the volume affected by the stress is too small. Gross material damage is not expected until the 

crystals propagate through the pore space. 

The concept of crusting (Scherer, 1993) and entrapped water (Chatterji, 1999a and 1999b) has 

not been mentioned frequently in the literature. It deserves attention due to the magnitude of 

stresses that can be developed under these circumstances. This situation can arise when rapid 

cooling rates prevail, when a wide range of pore sizes are present (Scherer, 1993), or when 

dissolved substances continually depress the freezing point of the solution (Scherer, 2005). High 

pressures in trapped capillary water due to rapid cooling rates was also mentioned in Harnik et 

al. (1980). The pressures generated in these conditions can reach up to 13.5 MPa/°C (56.3 

MPa/°F). 

The closed-model container by Fagerlund (1995) which is related to the entrapped water concept 

revealed that very little freezable water is required to cause damage. As a reminder, the 

maximum tolerable contents of freezable water values were estimated to be 5 percent of the 

cement volume at −5 °C (23 °F), 2 percent at −10 °C (50 °F) and 0.7 percent at −20 °C (68 °F). 

As mentioned before, this model is highly conservative due to the assumption that all water is 

contained inside the sphere. However, in separate calculations, Fagerlund also demonstrated that 
16 

substantial amounts of freezable water can potentially exist in pastes, even those that are 

considered dense such as those with low water-cement ratio. As such, there is always a potential 

for freeze-thaw damage as long as water is available. It should also be noted that pastes subjected 

to freeze-thaw cycles have the potential to acquire more water with each cycle due to the 

micropump effect (Setzer, 1999). This water uptake has been observed experimentally by various 

researchers who concluded that the uptake caused by freezing and thawing can be even higher 

than the uptake from capillary absorption alone. Thus, the degree of saturation in the paste 

gradually increases. It would therefore not be surprising to observe durable behavior in cement 

pastes during early freeze-thaw cycles but then observe increasingly higher vulnerability with 

increased number of cycles. 

2.2.2 The Role of Deicing Salts in Frost Damage 

The above discussions have focused on classical and modern theories on frost damage in 

concrete; however, these discussions have not yet delved into the role and importance of deicing 

salts on deterioration in cold climates. It is well established that the presence of deicing salts in 

concrete can greatly affect its freeze-thaw durability. Harnik et al. (1980) pointed out that 

concretes generally exhibit lower resistance to the combined effects of frost and salts compared 

to frost alone. The reasons for the poorer performance in the presence of salts are not fully 

understood. It is nevertheless recognized that the presence of salts in solution has three 

fundamental effects: it lowers the vapor pressure of the solution, it depresses the freezing point 

of the solution (Pigeon and Pleau, 1995), and it increases the viscosity of the solution. These 

effects are likely responsible, at least in part, for the more severe damage to concrete. Moreover, 

from a phenomenological standpoint, it has been shown that salts are most damaging to concrete 

surfaces at concentrations of about 3 to 4 percent depending on the particular deicer (Verbeck 

and Klieger, 1957). 

Various theories have been proposed to explain the deleterious effects of salts. These have been 

presented in Harnik et al. (1980) and in Pigeon and Pleau (1995) and are summarized here. 

Amplification of Osmotic Pressures 

The presence of deicing salts can give rise to local concentration gradients causing an 

osmotic imbalance. The resulting osmotic pressures would amplify those already existing 

due to ice-water thermodynamic imbalance (according to Powers and Helmuth’s osmotic 

pressure theory). Salts on the surface of concrete would also enhance the vapor pressure 

differential between surface ice and supercooled pore water. Based on Litvan’s 

desorption theory, the pore water would thus have a greater tendency to migrate out of 

the concrete. In both cases, osmotic pressures are most likely increased. 

 Degree of Saturation 

The presence of salts in solution lowers the equilibrium vapor pressure of the solution. As 

a result, water molecules in the vicinity of the solution have a greater tendency to migrate 

towards the solution compared to pure water. This is the basis for the hygroscopicity of 

saline solutions. The degree of saturation in the concrete is thus increased. 
17 

 Supercooling 

Due to the depression of freezing point, ice crystals do not form on the surface of 

concrete at temperatures near 0 °C thereby causing supercooling of the pore water. When 

this water eventually freezes, the phase transition effects are more destructive than in 

normal freezing. Harnik et al. (1980) experimentally demonstrated that large 

supercoolings lead to faster propagation of the ice front and thus greater hydraulic 

pressures. 

 Thermal Shock 

When salts melt ice on the surface of concrete, the endothermic phase transition can draw 

up large amounts of heat, primarily from the concrete itself. The sudden extraction of 

heat can cause shock-like cooling with consequent high tensile stresses at the concrete 

surface. These tensile stresses may be large enough to rupture the outer layers of the 

concrete. 

 Layer-by-Layer Effect 

The presence of salts lowers the freezing point of the solution. If the salt concentration is 

non-uniform in concrete, there would also be non-uniform freezing throughout the 

concrete. These various regions would thus have different dilation properties from which 

stresses can develop. Variations in dilation could arise from differences in ice formation 

or from contraction of the paste (if protected by air voids). 

 Salt Crystallization 

Salt crystal growth in large pores in concrete can occur if the salt solution becomes 

supersaturated. Supersaturation can arise due to evaporation of water from the solution, 

transport of salt ions from smaller pores toward salt crystals in larger pores, freeze 

concentration of the salt solution, or solution reaching eutectic conditions. The continued 

growth of salt crystals in pores can exert sufficient pressures on the pore walls to cause 

damage. 

The above-described mechanisms can account at least in part for the severity of damage caused 

by salt solutions (i.e., any of the above or combination of the above may be responsible for the 

damage). It is also noted that due to the depressed freezing point of solutions, salts are beneficial 

to concrete by delaying ice formation. The countering of positive effects (i.e., delayed ice 

formation) and negative effects (described above) may be the reason behind the pessimum salt 

concentrations observed by Verbeck and Klieger (1957) (about 3 to 4 percent). At high 

concentrations, the positive effects could outweigh the damage potential of the salts, while at low 

concentrations, the effect of the salts may not be significant. Regardless of the damage 

mechanisms, it has been demonstrated that air entrainment can significantly improve the deicing 

scaling resistance of concrete (Pigeon and Pleau, 1995). 
18 

2.3 FREEZE-THAW DURABILITY OF DRY-MIXED CONCRETE PRODUCTS 

2.3.1 Introduction 

SRW units are generally considered a type of dry-mixed concrete product. Other types of drymixed concrete products may include concrete masonry units, concrete pavers, and roller 

compacted concretes. Pigeon and Pleau (1995, p. 206) define dry concretes as “[concretes] in 

which the amount of water or cement paste in the mix is significantly lower than that in normal 

concretes.” In these mixtures, the amount of water is carefully controlled because the stiffness of 

the mix plays an important role in the placement process. For instance, SRW units are demolded 

immediately after they are compacted, and thus a high stiffness is required for the unit to retain 

its shape after demolding (figure 11). 

Figure 11. Photo. Demolding of SRW units during production. 

Due to the low paste content of dry concretes, the void spaces between aggregate particles cannot 

be filled completely. Consequently, a network of irregularly shaped voids is created as was 

previously shown in figure 7, which compares the internal structures of ordinary and SRW 

concretes. These voids are termed “compaction voids” since they are formed during the 

compaction process (Pigeon and Pleau, 1995). The role of these voids in frost durability of dry 

concretes is still uncertain as will be described in the following sections. It is interesting to note 

that dry-mix shotcrete which also contains low water-cement ratios and is compacted 

pneumatically, has a very low volume of compaction voids. The cement content in shotcretes is 

in the range of 400 to 500 kilograms per cubed meter (kg/m3

) (674 to 843 lbs/yd3), as batched 

(Morgan, 1995), which is higher than the 250 to 380 kg/m3

 (421 to 641 lbs/yd3)for frost resistant 

dry-mixed concretes (see following sections). Pigeon and Pleau (1995) also explain that due to 

the low water-cement ratio in dry concretes, there is less mixing and dispersion of cement grains. 
19 

The presence of unhydrated cement particles may influence the frost durability of dry concretes 

(MacDonald et al., 1999). 

The literature on SRW frost durability is fairly limited to date, because SRW construction has 

only become popular in recent years, and frost-related problems have only surfaced recently 

(SEM, 2001). There is a larger body of literature for other more established dry concrete 

products such as the ones mentioned earlier. Hence, this section of the literature survey examines 

frost-related research work performed on various types of dry-mixed concrete products. 

2.3.2 Mechanisms of Freeze-Thaw Damage in Dry-Mixed Concretes 

The theories of ice formation mechanisms and frost-induced damage presented in sections 2.2.1 

and 2.2.2 were developed primarily for conventional structural concretes. For these concretes, ice 

was generally presumed to form in capillary voids, and the role of the larger air voids was to 

provide escape boundaries where ice could freely grow. Whether these mechanisms apply 

similarly to dry-mixed concretes is unresolved, largely because of the different microstructure 

exhibited by dry-mixed concretes compared to conventional concretes. 

Detailed surveys of existing literature on frost durability of dry-mixed concretes are covered in 

Haisler (2004), Hance (2005) and SEM (2001). Since the body of literature on this subject is not 

extensive compared to ordinary concretes, there is a fair amount of overlap in these reviews 

comprising approximately 25 separate investigations on various types of dry-mixed concrete 

products. A summary of the findings is presented here. 

The reviewed literature covered a wide range of dry-mixed concrete products, focusing primarily 

on the influence of mix composition and material properties on the frost durability of these 

materials. Among the various types of concrete products investigated were roller-compacted 

concretes (RCC), concrete masonry units, concrete paving units and SRW units that were 

evaluated using a variety of freeze-thaw test methods. For instance, in some studies, RCC 

specimens were evaluated using ASTM C 666 (2004), Procedure A methods (2004). This 

method involves rapid freezing and thawing of specimens fully submerged in water. In other 

investigations, SRW units were evaluated using ASTM C 1262 methods (2003), which involves 

freezing and thawing of specimens partially immersed in water. Other investigations may have 

involved testing concrete masonry units using ASTM C 672 methods (2004), which also 

involves freezing partially immersed specimens. The freezing times are, however, much longer 

(20 ± 1 hour), compared to that required in ASTM C 1262 (2004). As a result, it is not surprising 

that a fairly large range of results, observations, and performance criteria have been garnered 

from these investigations. 

 

Although the reviewed literature does not point to a single frost damage mechanism in dry 

concretes or to a single frost durability predicting parameter, there is some general agreement 

with respect to certain factors affecting frost resistance. Higher compressive strengths, lower 

water-cement ratios, and lower absorptions have generally been observed to decrease freezethaw vulnerability. Specific values of these parameters depended largely on the specific material 

tested and the freeze-thaw method employed. For example, a minimum compressive strength of 

21 MPa (3,040 psi) was suggested for concrete masonry units under “severe” exposure, while 

minimum compressive strengths of 50 MPa (7,250 psi) had been suggested for “durable” 
20 

concrete paving blocks. For these same paving blocks, a water-cement ratio below approximately 

0.30 was required for frost durability. In a separate study on concrete pavers, minimum 

compressive strengths in the range of 55 to 67 MPa (8,000 to 9,700 psi), with accompanying 

absorption of less than 4 percent by mass, were recommended for frost durable material. In other 

studies on SRW units, it was shown that units displaying water absorption lower than 176 kg/m3

had better likelihood of meeting the ASTM C 1372 (2001) freeze-thaw criterion of 1 percent 

maximum mass loss. In this same study, units with compressive strength higher than 62 MPa 

(9,000 psi) were also more likely to meet this 1 percent maximum mass loss criterion. Despite 

observing general trends in the durability of dry concrete products with respect to the abovedescribed material properties, both Haisler (2004) and Hance (2005) concurred that these 

properties were weakly correlated to frost durability. As such, the adequacy of any of these 

properties as a reliable predictor of freeze-thaw performance is questionable. From their 

reviewed literature, these authors did find, however, that cement content was an important 

parameter for frost durability. Recommended minimum values ranged from 252 to 395 kg/m3

. 

In the literature reviewed by SEM (2001), other factors were also investigated for their relevance 

to frost durability. As far as mix composition is concerned, conflicting results have been 

reported. While binder type and water-binder ratio were reported to be of little influence on the 

frost resistance of concrete pavers, the use of mineral admixtures (e.g., silica fume) was found to 

improve frost durability of concrete masonry units. Aggregate selection and proper curing were 

also mentioned as being important for the frost resistance of dry concretes. In particular, it has 

been reported that for SRW units, larger quantities of unhydrated cement particles existed in 

frost susceptible units compared to more durable units. As a result, the degree of hydration (as 

influenced by curing methods) was reported to be critical for SRW units. 

2.3.3 The Role of Salts in Frost Damage in Dry-Mixed Concretes 

In their survey of literature on frost durability of dry concretes, SEM (2001) also covered several 

studies related to the deicing salt scaling resistance of these concretes. This compilation by SEM 

comprised five separate investigations covering concrete pavers, concrete masonry units and 

SRW units. One of the key points identified in this survey was the fact that manufacturing 

processes can strongly affect the scaling resistance of paving blocks. In one study, it was noted 

that “it was extremely difficult to accurately evaluate the durability of the paving blocks since all 

productions were plagued by large variations in the properties of the paving blocks.” In a similar 

study, it was noted that special care should be taken to “adequately consolidate” all pavers since 

their performance could be “strongly affected by the casting operations.” 

Regarding correlations to other properties, it was noted from one study that the scaling resistance 

of paving blocks correlated well with capillary water absorption, but less so with compressive 

and flexural strengths. However, in another study, no useful correlations were found to exist 

between the durability of the specimens and parameters such as compressive strength, dynamic 

modulus of elasticity, and water absorption. Other investigations also pointed toward the 

importance of specifying minimum cement contents that were determined to be in the range of 

320 to 380 kg/m3

 to ensure durable paving units. For these same units, an average compressive 

strength of 65 MPa (9,400 psi), an average tensile strength of 6 MPa (870 psi), a mean unit 

weight of about 2275 kg/m3

 and a mean water absorption of 4 percent were typical of durable 

units. This same study indicated that the cement-aggregate ratio strongly influenced the frost 
21 

durability, although no values of this parameter were provided. Moreover, a maximum watercement ratio of 0.35 was demonstrated to be a common quality among durable units. 

2.3.4 Role of Air and Compaction Voids 

In ordinary concretes, it is well-established that the presence of microscopic, discrete, and welldispersed air voids helps reduce the damage caused by repeated cycles of freezing and thawing. 

In the case of dry-mixed concrete products however, the use of mixture designs differing from 

those of ordinary concretes, and the batching, casting, and curing methods produce a material 

that exhibits a fairly dissimilar microstructure compared to that in ordinary concretes. As a result 

of this, two issues arise: 

• Difficulty in developing an air void system in dry-mixed concrete products. 

• The role of air and compaction voids with respect to frost protection. 

This section briefly reviews several recent studies and investigations which address these two 

issues. It will be shown that conflicting results arise and that there are no simple answers to the 

above issues. 

2.3.4.1 Air Void Characteristics in Low-Slump Concretes (Whiting, 1985) 

Whiting investigated the air void characteristics in fresh and hardened low-slump dense 

concretes (LSDC) which were used as overlays for highway bridge decks. This type of concrete 

nominally incorporates cement contents of approximately 490 kg/m3

, water-cement ratios of 0.30 

to 0.32 by weight and air contents of 6.5 ± 1.0 percent. These mixes require vigorous vibration 

either by vibration or rodding for its consolidation. Although the cement content at about 250 to 

400 kg/m3

 is higher than that in dry-concrete products, it is difficult to entrain air voids into the 

stiff LSDC mixture. Hence, Whiting’s study focused on two objectives: establishing dosages of 

various air-entraining admixtures required to achieve specified air contents in the freshly mixed 

LSDC, and investigating the air void system of LSDC mixes meeting the specified air content. 

With respect to entraining air voids, Whiting found that using neutralized vinsol resin and alkylbenzyl sulfonate-type air entraining agents, large dosages were required to achieve the specified 

air contents (6 ± 1⁄2 percent) in LSDC. The required dosages of these admixtures were up to 10 

times higher than that required in ordinary concretes. Once reaching its target value, the air 

content became less sensitive to changes in the admixture dosage. On the other hand, attempts to 

use other types of air entraining admixtures (alkali-stabilized, saponified natural wood resin and 

an organic acid salt consisting of tall-oil derivatives) were not successful in achieving the target 

air content, regardless of dosage. 

Hardened concrete air void parameters were examined for mixes meeting the specified 6 ± 1⁄2 

percent in the fresh state. For these mixes, void frequencies larger than 10 per inch, specific 

surfaces exceeding 39 mm2

/mm3 (1,000 square inch/cubed inch) and spacing factors, below 125 

microns (μm) (0.005 inch) were consistently obtained. The specific type of air entraining 

admixture used did not appear to affect these results (for mixes achieving 6 ± 1⁄2 percent air 

content). Whiting also reported that these mixes exhibited hardened air contents that were 
22 

approximately 1 to 2 percent lower than those measured in the fresh state. The size distribution 

of these air voids was also found to be finer compared to that in ordinary concretes. 

2.3.4.2 Frost and Salt Scaling Resistance of RCC (Marchand et al., 1990) 

Marchand et al. (1990) conducted an investigation of the frost durability and characteristics of 

the air void system of RCC. A total of 20 RCC loads were produced in a field test site 

encompassing the following variables in mix composition: 

• Binder type including ASTM Type I, ASTM Type III and silica fume addition. 

• Water-cement ratios of 0.27, 0.33 and 0.35. 

• Cement contents in the range of 12 to 16 percent. 

For the air-entrained mixes, an aqueous solution of neutralized sulfonated hydrocarbon was used 

as air-entraining admixture. This was added at twice the manufacturer recommended dosage, and 

a total mixing time of 5 minutes was maintained. For all mixes, ASTM C 666 (Procedure A, 

ASTM 2004) rapid freeze-thaw tests, ASTM C 672 (2004) salt scaling tests and ASTM C 457 

(2004) hardened concrete air void analyses were conducted. 

Marchand et al. found that the addition of an air-entraining admixture did not assist in the 

entrainment of air bubbles, even with higher than normal dosages. Most of the voids found were 

of the compaction type. It is not clear from this paper, however, how air voids and compaction 

voids are distinguished from one another. Large variations in total air content were determined, 

from as low as 2 to 3 percent to as high as 10 percent. Values of the specific surface for most 

mixes were lower than 25 mm-1, while spacing factors were generally found to be less than 

250 μm (0.010 inch). Marchand questioned the validity of applying ASTM C 457 (2004) 

parameters to this type of concrete, in light of the irregular shape of compaction voids observed. 

As far as frost resistance is concerned, all RCC samples tested withstood 300 cycles of freezing 

and thawing in water without any significant deterioration. Consequently, Marchand suggested 

that some compaction voids may act as air voids, but that this positive influence of compaction 

voids should not be relied upon too heavily. The deicing salt scaling resistance of the RCC mixes 

was found to be poor. Reasons provided for this include interconnected compaction voids which 

favor saturation of the concrete, nonhomogeneity of the paste, and lack of air bubbles. From 

these results, Marchand also suggested that it is possible that the well-established relationship 

between spacing factor and freeze-thaw durability in conventional concretes does not apply to 

RCC. 

2.3.4.3 Air Entrainment in No-Slump Mixes (Marchand et al., 1998) 

In a separate laboratory study, Marchand et al. examined 21 different zero-slump concrete 

mixtures for their air-entrainment characteristics and hardened air void parameters. In all mixes, 

the cement content was fixed at 13 percent of the total mass of dry materials and the watercement ratio maintained at 0.37. Two types of mixers were used: a counter-current pan mixer 

and a revolving drum mixer. Four types of air-entraining agents were used: synthetic detergent, 

neutralized sulfonated hydrocarbon salt, vinsol resin, and vegetable oil extract. These were added 

at dosages of 1 to 4 milliliters per kilogram (ml/kg) (1.5 to 6.1 fl oz/100 lbs of cement, which in 
23 

some cases represented more than 10 times the manufacturer recommended dosage. These mixes 

were evaluated by ASTM C 457 Modified Point Count method (ASTM 2004), pressure 

saturation tests (to measure the volume of capillary voids and the amount of non-connected 

voids) and scanning electron microscopy. 

With respect to ASTM C 457 (2004) air void analysis, distinction was made between spherical 

air voids and compaction voids. It was determined that the spherical air void content was 

generally low (less than about 1.5 percent). Mixes exhibiting higher spherical air void content 

corresponded to those mixed in the pan mixer and employing synthetic detergent or vegetable oil 

extract at 4 ml/kg of cement. The total air content of the mixes was quite variable, ranging from 

5.4 to 10.8 percent (by volume). The authors concluded that entraining air bubbles in no-slump 

mixes is difficult due to low water content in the mix. Even so, air entrainment is not impossible, 

depending on the type of mixer and air-entraining agent used. Scanning electron microscopy 

observations revealed the presence of microscopic bubbles (less than 50 μm (0.002 inch)) in the 

air-entrained mixes. The role of these microscopic bubbles in providing frost resistance to the 

concrete remained uncertain. As far as absorption was concerned, the capillary absorption was 

found to be generally below 5 percent despite the presence of compaction voids. Pressure 

saturation test results revealed that a certain percentage (3 to 4 percent) of voids were 

nonconnected. Hence, the authors suggested that part of the nonconnected voids could act as air 

bubbles during freezing. 

2.3.4.4 Air Entrainment in Dry Masonry Concrete (Hazrati and Kerkar, 2000) 

Hazrati and Kerkar studied the freeze-thaw durability of concrete masonry units containing an 

integral water repellent admixture and a “novel freeze-thaw admixture.” Several mixes were 

produced in which the cement-aggregate ratio ranged between 11 to 18 percent, and the dosage 

of the above-mentioned admixtures was varied. These mixes were evaluated using the following 

test methods: ASTM C 1262 (2003) freeze-thaw durability in water and in 3 percent sodium 

chloride (NaCl) solution, ASTM C 140 (2000) compressive strength, water absorption and unit 

weight and ASTM C 457 (2004) Modified Point Count method. 

From the freeze-thaw tests, it was generally observed that mixes containing only the integral 

water repellent admixture exhibited early deterioration, regardless of the cement content. 

Samples tested in water surpassed a 1 percent mass loss after about 30 cycles, while samples 

tested in saline solution showed substantial mass loss (>5 percent) after only 10 or less cycles. 

However, when the “novel freeze-thaw admixture” was added, the mixes showed much 

improved durability. The samples tested in water exhibited mass loss less than 1 percent even 

after 120 cycles, while samples tested in saline solution displayed less than 1 percent mass loss 

even after 80 cycles. With respect to air void systems, Hazrati and Kerkar reported spacing 

factors of 450 to 550 μm (0.018 to 0.022 inch) for non-air-entrained mixes and 200 to 300 μm 

(0.008 to 0.011 inch) for air-entrained mixes. From this the authors suggested maximum spacing 

factors of 300 μm (0.011 inch) for frost resistance in water and 200 μm (0.008 inch) for frost 

resistance in saline solution. Image analysis on fluorescent impregnated thin sections revealed 

that the degree of hydration in mixes containing only a water repellent admixture was below 50 

percent. On the other hand, mixes containing the “novel freeze-thaw admixture” displayed 

degrees of hydration of about 70 percent. Specimen age or curing methods were not provided in 

this reference. 
24 

From their results and observations, the authors concluded that the “novel freeze-thaw 

admixture” significantly improved frost resistance in water and in saline. The beneficial effect of 

using this admixture was even greater than that of increasing cement content alone. This benefit 

was likely a result of entraining air voids into the concrete and dispersing cement grains to allow 

further hydration. With respect to the lower durability found in mixes with water repellent 

admixture, Hazrati and Kerkar (2000) suggested that “conditions that reduce permeability 

without drastically decreasing the porosity could be detrimental to the freeze-thaw durability of 

cement based materials.” 

2.3.4.5 Other Studies (Pigeon and Pleau, 1995 and SEM, 2001) 

Pigeon and Pleau (1995) provided a brief compilation on the work done by several other 

researchers on the issue of air entrainment in dry concretes. They cited three separate studies in 

which it has been possible to introduce air bubbles to such concretes. In one study on RCC, the 

batching sequence had to be altered by first mixing the cement, water, air entraining agent and a 

portion of the aggregate. Once mixing had been carried out long enough to allow air voids to 

form, the rest of the aggregates were added. In the other two studies, high-energy mixers 

consisting of rotating blades were employed to obtain air entrainment in the mix. 

SEM (2001) also covered several other investigations related to frost protection in dry concrete 

mixtures. With respect to RCC tested according to ASTM C 666 (Procedure A, Rapid Freezing 

and Thawing in Water, ASTM 2004), one study showed that the addition of air-entraining agents 

had a positive effect on frost durability, although there was no significant influence from the 

particular type of agent used. In another study, it was concluded that the frost durability of RCC 

was directly related to the air void spacing factor, with a maximum suggested value of 250 μm 

(0.010 inch). This same study also suggested showed that non air-entrained RCC could be to a 

certain degree resistant to frost. Hence, it was concluded that compaction voids could offer 

similar frost protection to concrete as entrained air voids. 

2.3.4.6 Summary of Studies on Air Entrainment and Compaction Voids 

In general, it is apparent that issues relating to air entrainment and frost protection are distinct for 

dry-mixed concretes compared to ordinary concretes. In ordinary concretes, the use of air 

entrainment has been shown to improve frost resistance and deicing-salt scaling resistance. The 

necessity of air voids for frost protection in dry concretes is still contested, however. The issue of 

air entrainment itself has led to conflicting views. While some studies showed that air 

entrainment is extremely difficult to achieve regardless of the dosage of admixture used, other 

studies showed that air entrainment was possible under certain conditions. It appears that the 

specific type of air-entraining agent used, the mix composition, the type of mixer used and 

perhaps even the batching and mixing procedures employed played important roles in 

determining the success in entraining air voids. At the other end of the spectrum, Hazrati and 

Kerkar (2000) showed that with nominal amounts of a “novel freeze-thaw admixture,” good air 

void systems could be achieved and frost durable masonry units were obtained. 

The roles of air and compaction voids in providing frost protection to dry concretes still remain 

unexplained. Marchand et al. (1998) reported that while some field and laboratory investigations 
25 

tended to indicate that some compaction voids can act as air voids and offer frost protection, 

other reports have demonstrated that non-air-entrained, no-slump concretes are vulnerable to 

frost damage. The connectivity of these compaction voids has been cited as being a critical 

parameter, since some researchers suggested that isolated compaction voids may act as air voids. 

On the other hand, connected voids can increase saturation and exacerbate frost damage. 

The validity of ASTM C 457 (ASTM 2004)parameters in characterizing the void system of dry 

concretes has also been questioned by several authors. This is because the equations in ASTM C 

457 (ASTM 2004) were developed assuming spherical voids uniformly dispersed in the cement 

paste. This hypothetical void shape and spatial distribution is even less valid in dry-mixed 

concrete than in conventional concrete. In dry-mixed concretes, interconnected compaction voids 

may dominate. Consequently, the relationships developed between spacing factor and freezethaw durability for conventional concretes may not be valid for dry concretes. Hence, it has been 

suggested that the actual role of compaction voids during freeze-thaw conditions must be first 

understood before establishing any relationships between ASTM C 457 (ASTM 2004) 

parameters and frost durability in dry concretes. 

2.4 SUMMARY 

This chapter summarized some of the main published works to date on the frost durability of 

conventional concrete, SRW blocks, and other dry-mixed concrete products. Through this 

discussion, it is quite evident that the mechanisms of frost damage and salt scaling are not 

completely understood for conventional concrete, and this understanding is even less when 

considering SRW blocks and other dry-cast products. Lack of understanding with regard to SRW 

block durability can be attributed to several factors, including the relative newness of the SRW 

market (compared to conventional concrete), the unique nature of SRW block microstructure, 

and the general lack of scientific publications on the topic. Based on this review, the need for 

comprehensive research on the frost resistance of SRW blocks is quite evident, and the efforts 

detailed in the rest of this report aim at addressing these needs. 

27 

CHAPTER 3: FIELD EVALUATION OF SRW BLOCKS 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

As described in section 1.3, the discovery of various deteriorated SRW blocks (from freeze-thaw 

damage) in highway applications led to concerns within the SHA community, resulting in tighter 

specifications, and in some cases, restrictions on new SRW construction. These concerns also 

resulted in the initiation of the FHWA-funded research described in this report. As part of the 

current project, the research team discussed this durability issue with various SHAs and also 

visited SRW installations throughout North America to inspect for frost/salt damage. The 

overwhelming majority of SRWs visited during the course of this project are performing very 

well, even in cold climates. However, there are some SRWs that are performing very poorly in 

cold climates, and the observed deterioration can be quite severe. The observed damage, without 

exception, was found in SRW blocks that were exposed to deicing salts (or fertilizer runoff) and 

numerous freeze-thaw cycles. 

This chapter highlights the key findings from the most comprehensive field survey initiated 

under the project, which was conducted in cooperation with SHA engineers from Wisconsin and 

Minnesota in August 2003. The remainder of this chapter describes this field evaluation, 

provides a summary of the conditions of the SRWs that were inspected, and describes testing 

performed on SRW blocks procured from selected SRW installations. 

3.2 FIELD EVALUATIONS OF SRWS IN WISCONSIN AND MINNESOTA 

Overall, seven different in service walls were examined in Wisconsin, and seven were examined 

in Minnesota. These walls were all located near Madison, WI or St. Paul, MN, and the walls to 

be viewed were selected based on feedback from members of the SHAs in Wisconsin and 

Minnesota. Walls were selected based on location, exposure conditions, and distress levels. Of 

the walls visited, five in Wisconsin and seven in Minnesota showed significant freeze-thaw 

damage. This is not an indicator of the condition of the walls in general for either State, as most 

of these walls were chosen because the presence of damage had been previously recognized. 

This does, however, give insight as to how damage is occurring and at what locations. 

The research team was able to locate and photograph existing walls and document their level of 

damage, as well as identify walls from which to obtain samples for future laboratory testing. The 

research team was also able to obtain feedback from DOT members regarding the state of 

existing walls and construction and repair methods currently being used. In addition, various 

other SRWs (e.g., county or city installations, commercial properties, etc.) were informally 

inspected during this field study, with the same general trend in behavior—that is, most of the 

SRWs are performing as expected, but a minority of the walls show the same type of distress as 

seen in highway applications for SRWs located where deicing salts or fertilizers are applied. 

3.2.1 Types of Distress Observed in SRW blocks 

For the blocks showing significant deterioration, the most common distress manifested itself in 

scaling of the exposed surface (front and/or top). Figure 12 shows a typical example of this 
28 

deterioration, which tended to be most prevalent closest to the roadway or where exposed to 

direct/indirect runoff of deicing salts from above (e.g., from bridge or pavement at higher 

elevation). Distress was also typically most pronounced for cap units (i.e., top block on SRW), as 

illustrated in figures 12 and 13. Discussions on the key role that exposure to deicing salts plays in 

SRW block deterioration are presented next, along with further discussion on the unique nature 

and behavior of cap blocks. 

Figure 12. Photo. Typical deterioration of SRW blocks with 

scaling most pronounced for cap units. 

Figure 13. Photo. Severely damaged cap units on otherwise healthy wall. 

For a given SRW installation, the blocks with the most direct exposure to moisture, and 

especially salts, tended to exhibit the most distress. Walls located below, or at the edge of 

parking lots consistently showed the same pattern of heavily deteriorated blocks located directly 

in the path of drainage, while other blocks located not in the drainage path showed little or no 
29 

freeze-thaw damage. The moisture draining over these particular walls would likely be very 

strong in salt content due to the application of salt on the parking lot being pushed to the edge of 

the lot and accumulating in snow piles that eventually will melt, creating saline solution draining 

over the wall. Blocks exposed to saline solution have shown consistently worse freeze-thaw 

durability when compared to those exposed to pure water in a laboratory setting, as discussed in 

chapter 4. Figure 14 shows that the damage at areas of water and salt runoff from a parking lot 

can be so severe that whole portions of the wall can lose their serviceability. Interestingly, 

portions of the wall not directly in the path of drainage showed little sign of freeze-thaw damage. 

Another example of microclimate or exposure-related distress can be seen in figure 15 in which a 

large multiwall SRW installation adjacent to a freeway exhibited excellent performance away 

from and above the roadway, but the blocks closest to the roadway (and hence salt spray) 

showed significant distress. This is an interesting case where the both wall sections (upper and 

lower) were constructed from the same SRW blocks, but only the lower wall section (lower 

portion of figure 15), which was about 2.5 m (8 ft) from the roadway, exhibited distress. There 

was heavy cracking in the cap block units of this wall and moderate damage to the body of the 

wall. One last example of the vivid effects of microclimate or exposure conditions can be seen in 

figure 16, in which a wall located beneath a bridge overpass shows very severe damage only in 

the section of wall that receives direct runoff from the overpass. Sections either sheltered from 

the elements by the overpass or located a “safe” distance from the direct runoff were in good 

shape. 
30 

Figure 14. Photo. Effects of drainage and 

salt exposure from parking lot above SRW.

Figure 15. Photo. Deteriorated SRW blocks 

closest to roadway (bottom of photo) and 

undamaged SRW blocks farthest 

from roadway. 

Figure 16. Photo. Severe damage of SRW blocks in direct 

path of drainage from bridge overpass above. 
31 

The idea of salt spray action leading to further deterioration of the walls has been thought of as 

the main issue in freeze-thaw durability for some time. Although the exposure to saline solution 

from road salts being sprayed against the wall is a more severe exposure condition than pure 

water, the effects of salt spray were not as noticeable as other exposure conditions such as 

drainage, which can lead to a higher degree of saturation of the blocks. This is especially the case 

when the poor drainage allows saltwater (from deicing salts) to penetrate into the blocks. The 

reason salt spray may not be of as much concern as poor drainage could be due to walls salt 

sprayed not actually being exposed to as much moisture and salt as walls receiving exposure due 

to poor drainage. Although some salt will reach the wall through snow plowed adjacent to the 

wall, this snow could actually protect the wall from any additional road salt being sprayed onto 

the wall. There is also the possibility that the areas which are located in the spray zone are 

protected from going through as many freeze-thaw cycles as other sections of the wall because 

the areas in the spray zone are subjected to large piles of snow during freezing months. These 

piles of snow next to the wall may actually provide insulation for the wall, causing it to go 

through fewer freeze-thaw cycles than the portion of the wall where snow piles are not present. 

The role of salt spray and the exact amount of moisture and salt it imparts upon a given wall is 

still unclear. However, what is evident is that the presence of salt, whether from salt spray or 

runoff, is required for serious deterioration to occur. This observation also validates the need for 

laboratory-based testing using saline solutions. 

The examples in figures 12 through 16 clearly show that exposure to deicing salts (typically 

NaCl or lately magnesium chloride (MgCl2) for highways), coupled with freezing and thawing 

cycles, can lead to distress for certain SRW blocks. An interesting observation made during this 

field survey was that other chemicals, particularly fertilizers, can have a similar detrimental 

effect on SRW blocks. Walls exposed to drainage from areas such as golf courses also showed 

severe damage when compared to walls exposed only to water. The blocks that were directly 

exposed to the runoff of water containing large amounts of chemicals (phosphates or nitrates) 

from fertilizer were heavily distressed when compared to blocks on the same wall not exposed to 

fertilizer. As is the case with saltwater, water with significant amounts of these chemicals has 

proven to be highly detrimental to the freeze-thaw durability of SRW blocks when compared to 

those exposed only to water in a laboratory environment. Figure 17 shows a wall severely 

damaged due to exposure to runoff high in phosphates from an adjacent golf course. It is obvious 

that a large number of the blocks show complete deterioration, and adjacent blocks show severe 

cracking on the top face. 
32 

Figure 17. Photo. Deterioration of SRW blocks due to exposure to 

fertilizers from adjacent golf course. 

As stated previously, the most common form of distress observed in SRW blocks was the 

progressive and sometimes severe loss of mass, which was worst for cap units and when blocks 

suffered from poor drainage or direct exposure to salts. However, in a smaller number of cases, 

macrocracking was observed. For example, in the wall shown in figure 18, large cracks were 

located near the back, formed-face of the wall, perhaps indicating heavy internal damage, which 

leads to microcracking and finally large cracks that reach the surface of the block. Although this 

type of cracking was most evident in cap blocks, there were some cases where relatively large 

cracks appeared in noncap blocks, with this type of distress typically accompanying the more 

common scaling and significant mass loss shown in figures 12 through 16. This may indicate 

that, like conventional concrete, damage to SRW blocks due to freezing and thawing in the 

presence of deicing salts can lead to both surface scaling and internal damage caused by freezing 

water. 

 
33 

Figure 18. Photo. Cap block experiencing scaling of front 

face and macrocracking towards the back of the blocks. 

In reviewing the various types of distress in SRW blocks and the influencing parameters, it is 

evident that the cap blocks consistently displayed more freeze-thaw damage than the blocks from 

the body of the wall. It is not clear whether this is solely a result of the top course of blocks being 

exposed to much worse conditions or if the cap blocks themselves are that much more 

susceptible to freeze-thaw damage. It is likely that both of these factors play into the cap blocks 

receiving more damage, but more research on why cap blocks behave differently than the wall 

blocks is needed. Once the cap units are significantly damaged, it is much easier for the damage 

to progress below to the next row of blocks as there is now a direct path for water and saline 

solutions. Cap blocks are typically cast separately from the blocks used for the main body of the 

wall. Cap units may contain a different mix design than the wall blocks, have a different 

geometry, and receive different levels of compaction (mainly due to size and shape of block). 

Many of the cap blocks are rectangular and much shorter than the blocks used for the body of the 

wall. The cap units typically have less stringent freeze-thaw requirements when compared to the 

wall block, which is mainly a function of ease of replacement of damaged cap blocks when 

compared to wall blocks. 

Although cap blocks tend to show the most distress, freeze-thaw durability problems are not 

limited to these top blocks. There are cases where the main blocks also suffer from deterioration, 

especially when exposure conditions are severe. This is especially the case when walls are 

constructed at an angle (as opposed to vertical), with blocks staggered in a stair step fashion. 
34 

This can lead to exposure to excessive moisture (and salts) due to ponding of water or snow and 

an increase in the ingress of water into the block. The added amount of moisture can cause 

blocks with exposed surfaces to have an area of weakness near the exposed horizontal surface 

and/or have overall worse freeze-thaw performance throughout the block. Although the presence 

of staggered blocks can lead to more frost damage for those blocks with inherent poor frost 

resistance, blocks that are durable with regard to frost resistance are generally not impacted by 

this block configuration. 

Figure 19 shows a wall that is staggered much like a set of stairs. On this particular wall, 

approximately 25 mm (0.98 inch) of the top face of each block was exposed, and this exposed 

area showed considerably more damage than the other sections of the block. The exposed 

horizontal section of the blocks exhibited major cracking and some signs of scaling. On many of 

the lips of the wall in Figure 19, the top layer (approximately 6–13 mm (0.24–051 inch)) had 

been degraded or could be physically removed using little force, due to horizontal cracks 

reaching the vertical surface of the block. The front, vertically aligned faces of the blocks on this 

wall did not show significant freeze-thaw damage, reaffirming the idea that the exposed 

horizontal surface can be harmful from a freeze-thaw durability standpoint for those blocks that 

are not inherently resistance to freezing and thawing damage. 

Figure 19. Photo. Deterioration of exposed vertical surfaces of SRW blocks. 

Other walls, like the one shown in figure 20, make use of block geometries that tend to result in 

part of the horizontal top surface being exposed. The exposed portion of the block, where water 

or snow would be allowed to accumulate shows much worse damage on the exposed surface 

compared to the front facing of the block. The wall in figure 20 had cracks on the top layer that 

reached the top surface and front face of the block, causing portions of the block to chip. Scaling 

was also present, mainly at the corner of the block where the exposed horizontal face meets the 

exposed vertical face of the block. This pattern of much worse damage on an exposed horizontal 

face can also be seen in cap units, as mentioned previously. It should be noted that the block 

geometry and wall design shown in figure 20 perform well in the vast majority of applications. It 
35 

is only when using nondurable SRW blocks in particularly aggressive environments (exposure to 

salts) that the exposed horizontal surface can exacerbate distress. 

Figure 20. Photo. Another example of deterioration of exposed 

horizontal surfaces of SRW blocks. 

Inspecting inservice walls exhibiting freeze-thaw damage allowed the research team to look at a 

wide range of the factors involved in the issue. Although the performance of a wall is influenced 

primarily by the properties of the blocks (e.g., frost and salt resistance) being used, other issues 

can affect the freeze-thaw performance of walls. The exposure conditions, block geometry, and 

wall configuration can play key roles in the performance of SRWs, and these issues should not 

be overlooked when designing new SRW installations. These issues are beyond the scope of this 

project, which focuses exclusively on the inherent frost and salt scaling resistance of SRW 

blocks, but discussions were provided on the relevance of each of the above issues for 

completeness. In addition to visually inspecting the various SRWs in Wisconsin and Minnesota, 

the research team also procured SRW blocks from selected walls for subsequent evaluation in the 

laboratory, as described next. 

3.2.2 Laboratory Evaluation of SRW Blocks Procured From Inservice Walls 

SRW blocks were obtained from three SRWs for laboratory evaluation. These walls were chosen 

for sampling because of ease of access to the walls and differing distress levels. Blocks were 

obtained and tested from one wall in Minnesota and two walls in Wisconsin, as shown in table 1. 

The Wisconsin samples obtained included two blocks from a wall (WI-2) where the distress 

levels within the wall varied between very poor and very good (figure 21). One of these blocks 

was exhibiting severe distress and was part of the original wall construction; the other was a 

block that had replaced a block that had deteriorated to the point that replacement was necessary. 

Another Wisconsin wall (WI-4, shown in figure 22), which was in quite poor overall conditions, 

was selected for sampling, and a block exhibiting severe distress from this wall was obtained for 

testing. One block exhibiting severe distress was taken from the Minnesota SRW, which could 

be classified as being in very poor condition as a whole (figure 23). 
36 

Table 1. Blocks from in situ SRWs obtained for laboratory evaluation. 

Wall 

ID Block Location Within Wall Block Condition

ASTM C 1262 

Samples 

WI-2-2 Second row, edge of wall under drainage Good 3 saline, 3 water 

WI-2-3 Third row, edge of wall under drainage Poor 3 saline, 3 water 

WI-4 Top row, edge of wall at drainage path Poor 3 saline 

MN-4 Top row, edge of wall at drainage path Poor 4 saline 

\

Figure 21. Photo. Blocks obtained from SRW in Wisconsin (WI-2). 
37 

Figure 22. Photo. Blocks obtained from SRW in Wisconsin (WI-4). 

Figure 23. Photo. Blocks obtained from SRW in Minnesota (MN-4). 

3.2.2.1 Test Methods for SRW Blocks Procured From Inservice Walls 

Upon receipt of the SRW blocks, they were saw-cut for freeze-thaw testing (ASTM C 1262, 

(2003) tested in water/and or 3 percent NaCl solution) microstructural analysis. Two of the 

samples were also profile grinded to determine the concentration of chlorides as a function of 

distance from the front block surface. For the ASTM C 1262 (2003) tests, after 24 hours of 

testing, additional water or saline solution was added to containers if the fluid level had dropped 

(due to absorption) below a depth of 12.7 mm (5 inches). Mass loss of specimens was recorded 
38 

at regular intervals during the test (note that tests were conducted until either significant mass 

loss was measured (greater than 20 percent) or 100 cycles were reached. Much more detailed 

information on the specifics of ASTM C 1262 (2003) is provided in chapter 4. 

Microscopic air-void analysis was conducted on the SRW units described previously according 

to the procedures of ASTM C 457, “Standard Test Method for Microscopical Determination of 

Parameters of the Air-Void System in Hardened Concrete, Procedure B—Modified Point-Count 

Method” (2004). One of the challenges in conducting air-void analysis of SRW concrete was 

caused by the presence of the irregularly shaped and possibly interconnected compaction voids. 

As a first approximation, a compaction void is simply defined as a void in which less than threefourths of its boundary is a paste-void interface, while an air void is defined as a void in which 

more than three-fourths of its boundary is a paste-void interface. As such, it is not necessary for a 

void to be completely surrounded by paste to be classified an air-void. This arbitrary definition 

was based on the fact that in ordinary concretes, certain air bubbles (entrapped or entrained) are 

not entirely surrounded by paste and may be partly bounded by an aggregate particle or by 

another air bubble. However, when using this definition in the examination of SRW units, any 

spherical shaped bubble completely surrounded by paste would be considered an air-void (as in 

the classical model for entrained air bubbles) and largely connected voids would be considered 

compaction voids. More discussion on SRW microstructure and air-void characteristics is 

provided in chapter 4. 

Chloride penetration analysis was conducted on field samples WI-4 and WI-5. A strip from the 

middle of the test unit spanning from the front face to the rear was examined and powder mortar 

samples were retrieved at various depths from the front face of the sample using a profile 

grinder. The mortar dust was collected using a vacuum pump and an aerosol filter system. The 

standard test method for measuring the total chloride content in mortar or concrete using the 

specific ion probe was used to identify the chloride thresholds at various depths from the face of 

the samples. This test method is based on a chloride test method developed by the Strategic 

Highway Research Program 1992 (SHRP-S/FR-92-110 1992). The specific ion electrode was 

calibrated using a set of predetermined concentrations of NaCl solutions prior to testing the SRW 

dust samples. Readings were taken for each calibration solution and a linear regression was 

performed. 

 

3.2.2.2 Test Results for SRW Blocks Procured From Inservice Walls 

All of the block samples obtained from in situ SRWs performed poorly in ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

when tested in 3 percent NaCl solution, with each sample exhibiting complete deterioration (e.g., 

100 percent mass loss) before reaching 10 freeze-thaw cycles. This behavior is not surprising, 

given the generally poor field performance of the SRWs from which the blocks were taken. The 

durability of selected blocks tested under ASTM C 1262 (2003) using water (instead of saline) 

was also not good, as shown in figure 24. All of the WI-2 samples suffered at least 1 percent 

mass loss by about 75 cycles, and mass loss was severe soon after passing this typical threshold 

value for mass loss. 
39 

Figure 24. Graph. ASTM C 1262 test results for blocks obtained from 

Wisconsin SRW (WI-2), with samples tested in water. 

Microscopic analyses of all of the field units indicated internal characteristics similar to those of 

other nondurable blocks studied in detail in chapter 4. All the blocks displayed regions with large 

compaction voids and low paste contents, which contributed to the poor performance under 

ASTM C 1262 (2003) testing (in saline and for some, in water). Examples of the typical 

microstructure of these poorly performing SRW blocks is shown in figure 25. 

Figure 25. Photo. Internal structure of block from Wisconsin SRW (WI-4), showing large 

compaction voids and low cement paste content. 

The results of chloride profiling on SRW blocks exhibiting distress in highway applications 

clearly show that chloride contents are extremely high (compared to conventional concrete), and 
40 

based on the literature review (chapter 2) and laboratory program (chapter 4), it is not surprising 

that blocks with this type of microstructure performed poorly when exposed to freeze-thaw 

cycles. Typical results of chloride profiling are shown in figure 26, in which it can be seen that 

the chloride levels are extremely high, especially in the outer 10–15 mm (0.39–0.59 inch) of the 

blocks (that is, the first 10–15 mm (0.39–0.59 inch) from the front face of the blocks). Such high 

salt concentrations are expected to adversely affect block performance based on the various 

mechanisms described in chapter 2 (e.g., freezing point depression, increased osmotic pressure, 

salt crystallization, etc.). 

1 mm = 0.039 inch 

Figure 26. Photo. Typical chloride concentrations for SRW blocks exhibiting 

poor field performance (data for WI-2 and WI-4, SRWs from Wisconsin). 

3.3 SUMMARY 

This chapter summarized some of the key findings from field evaluations of SRWs in Minnesota 

and Wisconsin. The overall findings are consistent with other visual observations from SRW 

installations in other cold weather regions—that is, most SRWs have performed very well, with 

very little sign of frost damage or salt distress. However, this chapter clearly shows that there are 

some cases where durability-related problems with SRWs are quite severe, confirming the need 

for research to address the problem. These field evaluations clearly show that exposure to both 

moisture (e.g., rain or snow) and salts is a prerequisite to damage, strongly suggesting that any 

attempt to assess durability in the laboratory should include saline solutions as part of the testing 

regime. Although the type and amount of distress observed in some SRW installations is quite 

troublesome, it is reassuring that SRW blocks can and are currently being produced that seem to 

be quite resistant to both freezing and thawing cycles and salt exposure. Thus, the challenge is 

identifying which types of SRW blocks will be most durable, based on accelerated laboratory 

testing, and being able to specify test methods that will discern good from poorly performing 

blocks. The laboratory program described in the next chapter focused on this challenge and 

provides guidance on how best to assure long-term durability of SRWs, even in severe 

environments. 
41 

CHAPTER 4: LABORATORY EVALUATIONS 

4.1 OVERVIEW 

This chapter summarizes a comprehensive laboratory evaluation focusing on the frost resistance 

(with and without salts) of SRW blocks. The chapter is based upon the research described in 

Chan (2006), Hance (2005), and Haisler (2004), as well as the other technical documents 

produced under this FHWA project (see section 1.4). Because of the extensive amount of 

laboratory work performed in this project, efforts have been made to synthesize the key research 

and to present only the most important and relevant results with an eye toward which ones can or 

should be implemented into accelerated test methods and specifications to ensure long-term 

durability of SRW blocks in aggressive, cold environments. 

Much of the research described in this chapter is related to ASTM C 1262 (2003), which was the 

most commonly used test method for assessing freeze-thaw durability of SRW blocks when this 

project was initiated. Because this method was being used and/or specified by a number of 

SHAs, including those States that reported durability problems associated with SRWs, the 

decision was made from the onset of this project to focus on refining and improving reliability 

and reproducibility of the test. To elaborate on this point, it should be noted that ASTM C 1262 

(2003) test had received significant criticism from end users due to concerns over the 

repeatability of test results, even within one set of samples from the same lot of SRW blocks. 

There were also questions as to the actual relation between the test results and field exposure 

conditions and performance. Given the shortage of previous published research on this general 

topic (frost resistance of SRW blocks) and on this specific issue (test methods to predict field 

performance), fundamental research was initiated to improve the understanding of the distress 

mechanisms associated with SRW blocks and in properly testing potential SRW blocks for use in 

aggressive environments. Figure 27 shows the overall scope of research that was performed on 

the various aspects of ASTM C 1262 (2003), with the basic information on each of the areas of 

concentration. It is not feasible to discuss in detail all of these aspects of the research program; 

figure 27 provides the reader with the overall scope of the efforts launched under this project. It 

should also be noted that some of the research focusing on damage assessment methods was 

performed in a separate research project funded by National Concrete Masonry Association 

(NCMA), but this work was performed by essentially the same research team as the FHWA 

project, and the work was done parallel to the research described in this project report. Only a 

brief synopsis of these NCMA-funded efforts is presented herein. 
42 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cycles

Mass loss (%)

1% maximum

SRW Freeze-Thaw Test 

ASTM C 1262-05 

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT 

METHODS 

• significance of mass loss 

• other forms of damage 

evaluations 

• acceptance criteria 

SAMPLING AND SPECIMEN 

PREPARATION 

• sampling SRW units 

• specimen extraction from 

SRW units 

• specimen size and geometry

FREEZE-THAW APPARATUS AND 

OTHER EQUIPMENT 

• freezer characteristics: 

- internal temperature distribution 

- cooling (and warming) capacity 

• freezer reliability 

• temperature measuring devices 

CHARACTERISTICS OF 

FREEZE-THAW CYCLE 

• cooling (and warming) rates 

• cooling curves 

• water vs. saline 

• specimen condition: 

- ice formation 

- point of damage 

Figure 27. Diagram. Concentration groups for the evaluation of ASTM C 1262 test method. 

The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows: 

• Sampling of SRW blocks for laboratory evaluation, including studies on spatial 

variations of properties within SRW units. Goal was to provide better guidance on 

prudent sampling and testing of SRW units. 

• Issues related to ASTM C 1262 (2003), including variability in exposure conditions 

within chamber, temperature control and monitoring, and relation between testing 

regime and damage mechanisms. Goal was to provide better guidance on testing 

methodology to improve repeatability and to better capture mechanisms that relate to 

field performance. 

• Evaluation of SRW properties that best relate to frost resistance in the laboratory and 

field. Goal was to develop frost indices that can be used to predict durability, based 

in part on key SRW block properties. 

• Role of various deicing salts (and other compounds) on durability of SRW blocks. 

Goal was to compare damage observed in SRW blocks when exposed to common 

deicing salts, other salts found in nature (e.g., sodium sulfate), or fertilizers. 

• Evaluation of full-scale approach to testing full SRW blocks in simulated exposure 

conditions. Goal was to determine if more realistic testing conditions in the 

laboratory would better relate to actual distress mechanisms and manifestations in 

the field. 

4.2 SAMPLING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SRW BLOCKS 

One of the initial steps in the freeze-thaw testing of SRW units involves extracting test 

specimens from representative units. These steps are covered in sections 6 and 7 of the ASTM C 

1262 (2003) standard. The specific manner in which a laboratory technician selects the units and 
43 

extracts test specimens from them may influence the outcome of test results, as will be described 

in this section. 

Before proceeding further, a brief overview of the manufacturing process is provided. SRW units 

are manufactured in block plants typically by compacting (while simultaneously vibrating) 

concrete mixes into steel molds, followed by immediate removal of the molds. The shaped units 

are subsequently conveyed to curing chambers maintained at elevated temperatures and humidity 

where the units are kept for a certain time period (which may be variable) before being 

withdrawn. In one plant visited in early 2004, residence time of SRW units in the curing chamber 

was understood to last anywhere from 1 to 3 days, depending on production schedule. In many 

cases, units are cast as sets of conjoined pairs, which are then split in the middle to produce a 

natural-looking or “split face” fractured surface. Following splitting, the units are stacked on 

pallets and stored in a nonstandard manner. These steps are illustrated in figures 28 through 31. 

From this description and in reference to figure 32, the following locations on the units are 

identified for the solid and hollow units shown in the figure: 

• Front face (split face): natural-looking fractured surface that is used as the exterior face of 

the wall. 

• Back face: surface opposite and parallel to split face. 

Figure 28. Photo. Units immediately 

after demolding. 

Figure 29. Photo. Units prior to 

entering curing chamber. 

Figure 30. Photo. Splitting of 

conjoined units. 

Figure 31. Photo. Split face of units. 

curing chamber

split face 

set of 

conjoined units 

splitting knives 
44 

Also shown is the height, H, of the units for which 200 mm (8 inches) and 150 mm (6 inches) are 

common dimensions. For the rest of this report, the term unit will be used to refer to a whole 

block as produced in manufacturing plants, as shown in figures 32 and 33. Specimens or coupons 

are typically cut from the units for testing such as ASTM C 140 (2000) tests for compressive 

strength, absorption and density and ASTM C 1262 (2003) freeze-thaw tests. ASTM C 1262 

(2003) uses the words specimens and coupons interchangeably, as does this report. 

Figure 32. Photos. Definition of terms: SRW units (or blocks). 

Figure 33. Drawing and photo. Definition of terms: test specimens (or coupons). 

front (split) 

face

back face 

direction 

of casting 

H 

front (split) 

face 

back face 

direction 

of casting 

H 

split face

back face 

H
45 

4.2.1 Current Sampling Guidelines 

In the procurement of test specimens from SRW units, there are two levels of sampling. The first 

is sampling of SRW units from lots (defined below) and the second is extraction of test 

specimens from individual units. This research project did not investigate the first level of 

sampling in detail; however, some general comments are provided. As for sampling units from 

lots, section 6 of ASTM C 1262 (2003) states the following: 

Clause 6.1: 

“Select whole units representative of the lot from which they are selected. The units shall 

be free from visible cracks or structural defects.” 

Clause 6.2 

“Select five units for freezing and thawing tests.” 

Meanwhile, ASTM C 140 (2000) defines “lot” as follows (Clause 4.1.2): 

Any number of concrete masonry units of any configuration or dimension 

manufactured by the producer using the same materials, concrete mix design, 

manufacturing process, and curing method 

While this clause provides a generalized statement of what a “lot” encompasses, various details 

of this definition still remain unclear. The length of production time (1 year, 1 month, one project 

or one batch) during which “the same materials, concrete mix design, manufacturing process, 

and curing method” were used is not clear. The manner in which units are to be selected from the 

lot also remains vague. For example, are units to be randomly sampled as they come out of the 

production line, or are units to be sampled from pallets during storage at the block plant or at a 

jobsite? ASTM C 140 (2000) includes curing method as one characteristic of a lot, but it does not 

necessarily imply curing time or duration. Production plant logistics play a role in determining 

how long SRW units are kept in the curing chamber. This is critical because the overall quality 

of concrete varies with early-age curing; and whether units are cured for 1 day or 3 days plus 

curing conditions (temperature and relative humidity) impact the quality of the material. 

Furthermore, depending on ambient weather conditions, the storage condition of the SRW units 

is critical, as illustrated by the picture in figure 34. Units sampled from within a pallet that is 

shrink-wrapped may be of different quality than ones from unprotected pallets, as shown in this 

figure. 

When extracting test specimens from SRW units, ASTM C 1262 (2003) requires “saw-cutting 

solid coupons (test specimens) from full sized units” (Clause 7.1), and for units with exposed 

nonplanar surface which could be split, fluted or ribbed, the coupon should be cut “from another 

flat molded surface” (Clause 7.1.1). Aside from these statements, there is no further indication of 

where or how these specimens should be sampled within parent units. As will be discussed in the 

next sections, material properties within SRW units vary systematically with location, and thus a 

simple random scheme for specimen extraction (whereby specimens are extracted from random 

locations over a unit) may not work. An alternate method known as stratified random sampling is 

shown to reduce variability. The challenge in sampling equally applies to ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

specimens extracted for freeze-thaw testing or ASTM C 140 (2000) specimens extracted for 

material property determination. 
46 

Figure 34. Photo. Possible exposure condition of units in winter weather. 

Two different philosophies with respect to sampling are possible depending on the intended 

purpose of the tests. These are: 

• Tests to evaluate the performance of as-manufactured units for comparison of mixture 

designs, manufacturing methods or quality of raw materials. 

• Tests to evaluate the performance of units to be installed in projects. 

In the first case, it may be desired to sample whole units and extract specimens from these units 

in such manner that variability between test specimens is reduced. Ways in which this can be 

achieved are described in this chapter. For site acceptance of units, however, it is more sensible 

to sample units that are most vulnerable (i.e., of lowest quality among the population of units) 

and to extract specimens from the most vulnerable locations within the unit. The following 

sections describe how quality varies over a unit and how knowledge of this variation helps with 

the decision on choosing samples from units. 

4.2.2 Spatial Variability of Material Properties 

4.2.2.1 Within-Manufacturer Variability 

Studies were conducted to investigate spatial variation in selected material properties in SRW 

units obtained from a single block manufacturer (Chan et al., 2005a and b). These units are 

depicted in figures 35 through 38. Figures 35 and 36 were referred to as large wall unit, and 

figures 37 and 38 were referred to as small wall unit. Specimens from each of these types of 

SRW units were extracted in the manner shown in the figures and tested for flexural strength to 

ASTM C 78 (ASTM 2002), flexural elastic modulus, 24-hour absorption to ASTM C 140 

shrink-wrapped 

pallet unprotected units
47 

(2000), and boiled absorption to ASTM C 642 (ASTM 2002). An example of the spatial 

distribution in the 24-hour water absorption observed in these units is shown in figures 35 

through 38. The values shown in this figure are average values across each of the rows of 

specimens shown (i.e., four specimens per row in the front face of large wall units, two to three 

specimens per row in the back face of large wall units, and two to three specimens per row in the 

small wall units). Three units were tested for each type of wall unit (large or small), and each of 

these units showed similar patterns in the measured properties, as follows: 

• Along the casting direction, material at the bottom layer of a block (i.e., material first 

deposited during casting) displayed the lowest absorptions out of all sampling locations 

on that particular face (front or back face). On the other hand, material in the middle layer 

displayed the highest absorptions of all sampling locations on that particular face. 

Material in the top layer exhibited absorption values that were intermediate to those of 

the bottom and middle layers. 

• Along a direction from the front (split) face towards the back face, values of water 

absorption exhibited a decreasing trend away from the front face. This trend was evident 

in small wall units where specimens taken from nearest to the front face exhibited the 

highest absorption values, specimens on the back face exhibited the lowest values, and 

specimens in between exhibited intermediate values. In the case of large wall units, this 

trend was also evident from the lower overall absorption of back face specimens 

compared to front face specimens. 

Figure 35. Photo. Percentages in spatial 

distribution of absorption in 

large wall unit. 

Figure 36. Drawing. Distribution of 

absorption in large wall unit. 

4.4% 

4.7% 

3.8% 

4.0%

3.9%

2.4%

back face 

split face

direction 

of casting casting 

direction distribution 

of absorption 

x

y
48 

Figure 37. Photo. Percentages in spatial 

distribution of absorption in 

small wall unit. 

Figure 38. Drawing. Distribution of 

absorption in small wall unit. 

Flexural strength and flexural elastic modulus, followed the same trend, although inverse of 

absorption (i.e., locations exhibiting lower absorptions displayed higher flexural strength and 

flexural elastic modulus, while locations exhibiting higher absorptions displayed lower flexural 

strength and flexural elastic modulus). These patterns altogether suggested that the material in 

the middle layer on the front face was likely of lowest quality (highest absorption and lowest 

flexural strengths and moduli) in the unit, while material in the back face was likely of higher 

quality (Chan et al., 2005a). A general linear model (GLM) analysis(Ott 1993) was also 

performed on the absorption data to verify the statistical significance of trends at the 95 percent 

confidence level (Chan et al., 2005b). This model confirmed a parabolic distribution of 

absorption along the casting direction (along the y-axis shown in the figure with maximum 

absorption in the middle layer), and a linear distribution of absorption in a direction from front to 

back face (with maximum absorption at the front face and minimum at the back face). These 

distributions are depicted in figures 35 through 38. No statistically significant distributions were 

detected along the x-axis. 

Systematic spatial variations of properties in the SRW units tested suggest that the specific 

method of sampling alone can lead to disparate test results. For instance, on the front face of the 

large wall unit shown in figures 35 and 36, water absorption values of specimens in the middle 

layer were 24 percent higher than those in the bottom layer; while on the back face, water 

absorption values of specimens in the middle layer were up to 60 percent higher than those in the 

bottom layer. This indicates that extraction of test specimens from random locations without 

consideration of the forms of distribution augments test variability. To reduce apparent 

variability due to the spatial distributions of properties, an alternate sampling scheme known as 

stratified random sampling (as opposed to simple random sampling) can be employed (Chan et 

al., 2005b). The difference between these two methods is shown in figure 39 for sampling from 

12 possible locations on the face of an SRW unit. In simple random sampling, replicate 

specimens in a test set are randomly extracted from the various locations, tested for a particular 

material property and their results averaged. On the other hand, in stratified random sampling, 

specimen sampling is carried out in a more systematic manner reflecting the expected 

distribution of properties (Lohr, 1999). For the types of distribution observed here, an equal 

back face 

split face

5.4% 

5.1% 

4.8% 

distribution 

of absorption 

split 

face 

back face 
49 

number of specimens is extracted from each of the rows or strata (three shown in Figure 39) to 

form the test set. Other size test sets consisting two or five specimens can also be selected under 

stratified random sampling, but the computation of average value of the measured property for 

the test set needs to be adjusted accordingly. Details on this calculation are covered in Chan et al. 

(2005b). This technique yields results that are more representative of the overall unit and is 

shown to reduce the apparent variability in test results. For the population of front face 

specimens, it is demonstrated that test variability (as measured by coefficients of variation) is 

reduced by approximately one-third when using stratified random sampling as opposed to Simple 

Random. 

Figure 39. Drawings. Simple random versus stratified random sampling from 

the face of an SRW unit. 

It should be emphasized that stratified random sampling yields results that are more 

representative of the entire SRW unit and with lower variability. This approach may not be 

applicable in cases where the quality of the entire SRW unit (i.e., at every location on the unit) 

needs to comply with minimum quality standards, such as ASTM C 1372 (2003) for compressive 

strength, absorption, and density. In these cases, sampling from the middle layers is preferred 

because material in this layer is typically of lowest quality in a given face of the unit. 

Compliance with specifications of this middle layer thus increases the likelihood that the unit 

overall is satisfactory. 

4.2.2.2 Between-Manufacturer Variability 

The studies described in the previous section focused on systematic spatial variations in material 

properties in SRW units from a single, residential-grade manufacturer. Further investigations 

were conducted to determine whether similar trends also existed in SRW units from other 

manufacturers producing commercial grade units. SRW units from four major block 

manufacturers (identified as Manufacturers A, B, C and D) were also evaluated for systematic 

spatial distributions of properties. Complete details and results of this investigation on spatial 

variability are provided in Chan et al. (2006c). A brief discussion is presented here. 

Each of the four participating manufacturers were asked to provide two grades of SRW units: 

Top layer 

Middle layer 

Bottom layer 

casting 

direction set of 3 replicate specimens 

a. Simple random sampling 

set of 3 replicate specimens 

b. Stratified random sampling 
50 

• Units that complied with local DOT specifications. 

• Units that did not necessarily satisfy DOT specifications but considered satisfactory for 

typical commercial use (non-DOT). 

DOT units generally possessed denser internal structure with higher paste volume and lower 

compaction void volume, and freeze-thaw durability compliant with ASTM C 1372 (2003) or 

State specifications. On the other hand, most non-DOT units had a leaner internal structure and 

contained larger volume of compaction voids. The various types of SRW units were then labeled 

as follows: A-D (for Manufacturer A, DOT unit), A-N (for Manufacturer A, non-DOT unit), BD, B-N, C-D, C-N, D-D and D-N. Mixture designs, production methods or curing, and storage 

details of these units were not available. Similar block samples from each manufacturer were 

also tested using ASTM C 1262 (2003) (in water and saline), and these results will be discussed 

later in this chapter. 

For these units, only the front (split) faces were evaluated, and specimens were extracted at 

approximately 25 to 50 mm (0.98 inch to 1.96 inch) from the split surface, as shown in figure 

40a. As in the previous studies, three layers along the casting direction were also considered. 

Figure 40b shows the features on the side faces of the SRW units that were used as position 

references to identify the exact locations of specimen extraction. These side faces were referred 

to as either lipped/grooved (containing intentional indentations, ledges, or both), and flush side 

(consisting of a smooth surface with no features). 

Material properties evaluated in these SRW units included the following: 

ASTM C 140 tests ASTM C 642 tests ASTM C 457 tests

• 24-hour 

absorption. 

• Oven-dry density. 

• Boiled absorption. 

• Volume of permeable 

voids. 

• Specific gravity after 

immersion and boiling 

24-hour absorption. 

• Air void content. 

• Compaction void 

content. 

• Paste content. 

• Specific surface. 

• Spacing factor. 
51 

1 mm = 0.39 inch 

a. Location of test specimens. 

b. Lipped/grooved side of SRW units evaluated. c. Flush side of SRW units evaluated. 

Figure 40. Drawing and photos. Sampling of test specimens from SRW units from 

different manufacturers. 

Examples of the spatial distribution exhibited by some of these properties are shown in figure 41 

for ASTM C 642 (2002) boiled absorption, figure 42 for volumetric paste content, and figure 43 

for volumetric compaction void content. The values shown in these figures represent the average 

absorption value of specimens in each of the layers shown (typically three to four specimens per 

layer). As with the SRW units described in section 4.2.2.1, variations in the measured values of 

these properties could arise depending on where samples were extracted from. For example, for 

unit C-D, samples taken from the middle layer showed 23 percent higher boiled absorption, 3 

percent lower paste contents, and 63 percent higher compaction void contents compared to 

samples extracted near the lipped/grooved side. Also, as with the SRW units described in the 

previous section, the middle layer showed highest absorption of all sampled locations on this 

particular face. 

A perhaps more significant observation was the consistency in the locations where maximum or 

minimum values occurred for various properties. As demonstrated in figures 41, 42, and 43, 

boiled absorption was generally highest in the middle layer of the units, which is also where 

paste volume was generally lowest and compaction void volume highest. Oven-dried density was 

also lowest in this layer (Chan et al., 2006c). Although these observed relationships in the 

properties were as expected, the consistency in the locations where maximum values occurred 

lipped/grooved side flush side

lip

groove

25 to 50 mm split face 

specimens extracted 

from this plane 3 layers along 

casting direction

x 

y 
52 

indicated that the above distributions were not random, but systematic in nature. These trends 

occurred similarly for all manufacturers and SRW unit grades evaluated, suggesting that these 

distributions in properties were likely tied to the manufacture of SRW units. As before, stratified 

random sampling methods would be more applicable for these units compared to simple random 

sampling. 

From the preceding sections, it is evident that spatial distributions of material properties in SRW 

units were systematic in nature, and their statistical significance was demonstrated for units from 

a single manufacturer. While it is suspected that these distributions are related to manufacturing 

processes such as compaction and curing (Chan et al. 2005a), the existence of these patterns lead 

to several consequences. First, from a mix qualification standpoint, there may be units of lower 

quality compared to the ones tested here where sampling location could make the difference 

between compliance and noncompliance. For example, if the overall average water absorption of 

a given unit was hypothetically right on the specification limit for this property, specimens 

extracted from the middle layers would be found noncompliant, while specimens extracted from 

the outer layers would be found compliant. Second, due to spatial distributions of properties, the 

interpretation of material variability, operator variability or test method variability will be 

affected by sampling location. For the units described here, a laboratory technician who 

consistently chose to sample from the middle layers would obtain different results from a 

technician who consistently chose to sample from the outer (top and bottom) layers. Finally, the 

observed spatial patterns in various material properties such as absorption, flexural strength, 

compaction void content, and density imply that other properties such as permeability and 

freeze-thaw durability will vary from location to location within an SRW unit. 
53 

A-D

5.6

5.9

5.3

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

a. A-D Blocks 

A-N

7.1

7.6

6.8

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

b. A-N Blocks 

B-D

5.2

4.4

4.5

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

c. B-D Blocks 

B-N

9.6

9.4

9.3

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

d. B-N Blocks 

C-D

8.5

8.7

7.1

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

e. C-D Blocks 

C-N

9.0

9.3

8.1

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

f. C-N Blocks 

D-D

7.1

7.3

6.7

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

g. D-D Blocks 

D-N

9.0

9.2

8.5

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

h. D-N Blocks 

Figure 41. Graphs. Spatial distributions of ASTM C 642 boiled absorption on split face of 

SRW units (values shown represent mass of absorbed water as percent of 

mass of oven-dried specimen). 
54 

A-D

22.0

20.6

22.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

a. A-D Blocks 

A-N

14.9

16.4

18.6

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

b. A-N Blocks 

B-D

24.5

25.0

23.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

c. B-D Blocks 

B-N

13.3

11.7

12.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

d. B-N Blocks 

C-D

19.6

18.4

18.8

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

e. C-D Blocks 

C-N

15.2

14.8

14.5

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

f. C-N Blocks 

D-D

15.3

14.6

17.4

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

g. D-D Blocks 

D-N

13.4

12.1

12.4

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

h. D-N Blocks 

Figure 42. Graphs. Spatial distributions of volumetric paste content. 
55 

A-D

10.9

8.9

8.8

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

a. A-D Blocks 

A-N

16.8

18.7

12.2

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

b. A-N Blocks 

B-D

5.2

4.7

4.9

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

c. B-D Blocks 

B-N

20.6

19.9

19.4

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

d. B-N Blocks 

C-D

13.0

15.6

9.6

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

e. C-D Blocks 

C-N

16.0

18.2

15.4

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

f. C-N Blocks 

D-D

11.4

11.8

10.9

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

g. D-D Blocks 

D-N

19.0

20.0

18.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

(%) Flush face

Lipped/grooved face

h. D-N Blocks 

Figure 43. Graphs. Spatial distributions of volumetric compaction void content. 
56 

4.2.3 Split Face Delamination 

One advantage of SRW systems rests on the aesthetic appearance offered by the front split 

surface of the SRW units. A closer look at this surface, however, often reveals thin delaminations 

or cracked sections of varying sizes, as shown in figures 44 and 45. These cracked sections are 

referred to here as split face delaminations. Chan et al. (2006a) discuss the possible origins of 

these delaminations, as well as the significance these may have on the evaluation of SRW unit 

condition both in the field and in the laboratory. As for their cause, it is suspected that split face 

delaminations are created in the manufacturing of SRW units during the splitting process. As 

shown earlier in figures 28 through 31, splitting of conjoined units is accomplished by pressing 

steel knife edges at the preformed notch location to be split and forcing the units to crack at this 

plane. Cracks emanating from the edges of the units may merge as they approach one another, as 

shown in figure 46a, leaving behind fractured sections in the split plane. This interaction between 

approaching cracks was simulated using a linear elastic fracture mechanics model (using the 

software FRANC2D, Cornell University, 2002) shown in figure 46b. The fractured sections left 

behind after crack merging are believed to constitute split face delaminations. Further support to 

this suggested mechanism was obtained from visual observations at a local manufacturing plant. 

Figure 46c shows a view of the split face of one unit immediately after being split, where a 

detached split face delamination is seen. 

Figure 44. Photo. Sample A of split face 

delaminations on SRW units. 

Figure 45. Photo. Sample B of split face 

delaminations on SRW units. 

During field inspection, split face delaminations can mislead an inspector to attribute this feature 

as environmental damage or deterioration of the SRW unit. This confusion is enhanced by the 

fact that such features occur at the split surface of SRW units, which is also the surface in direct 

contact with the environment. During actual freezing conditions, water can seep into the space 

between the delamination and the SRW unit and expand upon freezing, thereby “jacking” the 

delaminated piece out of position (figure 47). Figure 48 shows a detached delamination under 

frost conditions. This mechanism may thus be interpreted as being frost-related damage during 

routine field inspection. One way that split face delaminations can be distinguished from other 

forms of damage is by the nature of the cracked and/or broken off residues. As shown in the 

previous sections, delaminated pieces tend to be thin and slender sections on the SRW split 

surface. On the other hand, frost degradation typically consists of crumbly material which 

appears in addition to cracking in the units, as shown in figure 49. Another point of distinction 
57 

involves the quantity of fractured material. While split face delaminations tend to occur as single 

and isolated pieces, frost damaged material usually appears as more than one broken piece. 

Figure 46. Drawings and photo. Suspected cause of split face delaminations. 

Cracks meander 

on their path. 

If the cracks are close 

enough, they merge into 

one another. 

Fractured section 

left behind 

Original path 

of cracks 

conjoined units 

splitting knife 

a. Splitting process. 

Initially offset 

cracks 

Propagated 

cracks 

Fractured 

section left 

behind

b. Fracture mechanicsbased simulation. 

c. Observations at block plant. 
58 

Figure 47. Photo. Breaking off of split face delamination due 

to ice “jacking” action in field SRW units. 

Figure 48. Photo. Detached split face delamination under 

frost conditions in field SRW units. 

ice crystal
59 

Figure 49. Photo. Freeze-thaw damage on SRW unit in field. 

As for testing SRW units in the laboratory, perhaps the most critical issue with split face 

delaminations concerns the inclusion of these loose pieces in test specimens. While these 

delaminations are commonly observed on the surface of units as thin shallow pieces, it is not 

improbable that the cracks penetrate deeper into the units. Figure 50 shows a section through the 

split face of an SRW unit that was shipped directly from a manufacturer to Cornell without 

previous exposure in the field. The size of the cracked section is approximately 130 mm long 

(5.12 inches) and up to 20 mm deep (0.79 inch), and it is also possible that microcracks exist in 

the vicinity of the main crack shown. The concern is that, if a laboratory technician extracted 

specimens from the split face region of a unit containing these delaminations, results from tests 

(e.g., strength, absorption, freeze-thaw resistance) conducted on these specimens will be 

misleading. To prevent this, the technician must thoroughly inspect test specimens for cracks or 

loose pieces prior to testing them. If loose pieces are only prevalent on the specimen surface, 

these pieces can pried off; however, if the specimen is cracked, the cracked portions must be 

trimmed off from the specimen by saw-cutting; otherwise the test specimen should be discarded 

and another one extracted from the parent unit. An alternate and more reliable solution is to 

entirely avoid extracting samples from the split face region and sample from a different surface 

such as those shown by the dashed lines in figure 50a. Avoiding the extraction of specimens 

from the split face is currently a requirement in ASTM C 1262 (2003) as mentioned in section 

4.2.1 of this chapter. 

Crumbs of damaged 

material 

Cracks in the 

SRW unit 
60 

 a. 

 b. 

 c. 

Figure 50. Photos. Section through region containing split face delamination. 

4.2.4 Recommendations for Sampling 

As mentioned in 4.2.1, two different approaches to sampling could be taken depending on the 

intended purpose of the tests (to evaluate production methods and/or mix designs or to qualify 

A 

B

A B

A 

B 

Saw-cut lines 

alternate surfaces for 

specimen extraction 
61 

units for projects). In either approach, the overall goal is to select units representative of the “lot” 

from which they are sampled and extract specimens representative of these units. 

Recommendations are offered in this section for specimen sampling. While these 

recommendations are intended for ASTM C 1262 (2003) freeze-thaw test specimens, they also 

apply to sampling for ASTM C 140 (2000) tests. 

4.2.4.1 Sampling of SRW Units 

• Units intended to evaluate the performance of as-manufactured products (for 

comparison of mixture designs, manufacturing methods, or quality of raw materials) 

shall be sampled at the manufacturing plant. These units shall be randomly sampled 

from a given production run for each scheduled production run. ASTM C 1262 

(2003) requires that five units be sampled for freeze-thaw testing. For example, if 

SRW units are produced over 1 full day (8 hours), one unit could be sampled every 1 

to 2 hours. These units shall be sampled near the end of the production line (i.e., after 

splitting and before stacking on pallets). Sampled units shall have been exposed to 

similar curing time and conditions (temperature and relative humidity) during 

manufacture and similar storage conditions after manufacture. These conditions shall 

be recorded. 

• Units intended to evaluate the performance of products for use in projects shall be 

sampled either at the manufacturing plant or from pallets at jobsites. When sampling 

from pallets, the location on the pallet of the sampled units shall be recorded (interior 

of stack, exterior of stack, top units, middle units, bottom units, see figure 51). Pallet 

storage conditions (i.e., indoors at room condition until installation in project, 

outdoors and shrink-wrapped, or outdoors and unprotected) and ambient conditions 

(temperatures and precipitation) shall also be recorded. 

It is understood that many laboratories in the industry employ this sampling technique 

for freeze-thaw test specimens (personal communications, NCMA, May 2005). 
62 

Figure 51. Drawing. Sampling of SRW units from pallet. 

4.2.4.2 Extracting Specimens From SRW Units 

• Specimens intended to evaluate the performance of as-manufactured products (for 

comparison of mixture designs, manufacturing methods, or quality of raw materials) 

shall be extracted from SRW units in such manner that the specimens cover the entire 

height of the unit, as shown in figure 52a. These specimens are more representative of 

the overall unit since each specimen covers all variations in properties along the 

casting direction. This method of specimen extraction is preferred over that shown in 

figure 52b, which covers only part of the variations along the casting direction. For 

specimens covering the full unit height, possible specimen sizes are therefore as 

follows: 

o For 200-mm (8-inch) tall unit: 200 mm (8inches) by 80 to 113 mm (3.1 to 

4.4 inches) by 32 mm (1.25 inch). 

o For 150-mm (6-inch) tall unit: 150 mm (6 inches) by 107 to 150 mm (4.2 to 

5.8 inches) by 32 mm (1.25 inches). 

O = exterior of stack

I = interior of stack

O 

O 

O 

O 

I 

I 

O 

O 

O 

top layer 

middle layer 

bottom layer 
63 

Figure 52. Drawings. Extraction of freeze-thaw specimens from SRW unit. 

There are occasions when specimens shorter than the actual height of the SRW unit 

may be required. For instance, 150-mm-(6-inch-) long specimens need to be extracted 

from 200–mm- (8-inch-) tall units. Such situations could arise where available 

container sizes pose a constraint, or if the performance of 200 mm (8 inches) units 

were to be compared to that of 150-mm (6-inch) units using specimens of similar 

dimensions. Since the specimen is now shorter than the unit height, material along the 

full height of the unit will no longer be represented within each specimen. 

Representation thus needs to be done over several specimens. A recommended 

approach to attain full height representation of the unit is shown in figure 53 where 

three specimens of required length X are extracted from a unit of height H at different 

positions so that their combined result reflects all layers equally. It is noted that the 

rightmost specimen shown in this figure actually comprises two halves, which is 

permitted under ASTM C 1262 (the two halves are “tested as and considered as a 

single specimen,” Clause 7.1.4). When tested as a single specimen, these two halves 

must be tested using the same container size as the other full specimens (i.e., those 

shown on the left and middle in figure 53). The goal is to maintain the same (mass of 

test solution) relative to (mass of specimen) in each test container. 

It is noted that if shorter specimens are sampled in the manner shown in figure 53, it 

must be ensured that the total test area of all specimens in a set be within the range of 

total test area of all specimens as per ASTM C 1262 (2003). ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

requires five replicate test specimens with test area of 161 to 225 squared centimeters 

(cm2

) (25 to 35 squared inches (inch2)) each. This adds up to 805 to 1125 cm2 (125 to 

175 inch2

) of test area per set. If specimens with an area of 150 by 75 mm (6 by 3 

inches) are needed (test area of 113 cm2

 (18 inch2)), nine specimens shall be sampled 

and tested (for a total area of 1013 cm2

 (162 inch2). The reason for using nine 

specimens is because, as shown in figure 53, a set of three specimens is required to 

represent the face uniformly, and hence, only multiples of three-specimen sets can 

split face 

cast 

direction 

back face 

test specimen 

x 

H 

32 mm (11⁄4 inch) edge face 

split face 

test specimen 

a. Preferred sampling method. b. Not recommended. 
64 

preserve this uniform representation. In the same manner that ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

requires five specimens extracted from five separate units, smaller specimens (1, 2 or 

3 shown in figure 54) should also be extracted from separate units. 

Another important consideration regarding specimen extraction is that the actual size 

and shape of specimens cut from SRW units dictates the size and shape of container 

to be used (subject to the required clearance of surrounding test solution in ASTM C 

1262 (2003)). The size and shape of container in turn influences the total number of 

containers that can be fit in a given shelf in freezer, which then influences the freezer 

air cooling pattern as discussed later in this chapter. 

Figure 53. Drawing. Extraction of specimens shorter than the unit height 

(view into back face). 

• Specimens intended to evaluate the performance of products for use in projects shall 

be sampled such that the specimens predominantly contain material from the middle 

layer (typically the lowest quality layer in a face) for the unit (figure 54). All 

specimens in a test set (e.g., five for ASTM C 1262 (2003)) shall be sampled in this 

same manner. 

Figure 54. Drawing. Extraction of specimens from middle layer. 

casting 

direction 

Layer A 

Layer B 

Layer C 

H 

X 

X 

0.5 X 

0.5 X 

specimen 1

specimen 2

specimen 3

split face 

test specimens 

H 
65 

• Whenever it is necessary to sample specimens from near the split face of a unit, the 

laboratory technician shall thoroughly inspect test specimens for cracks or loose 

pieces prior to testing them. If present, cracked portions shall be trimmed off from the 

specimen by saw-cutting, or else the test specimen shall be discarded and another one 

extracted from the parent unit. Situations where sampling near the split face may 

occur include the following ones: 

o ASTM C 1262 (2003) Clause 7.1.1 states the following: 

...cut the coupon from the exposed surface of the 

unit as the unit is used in service unless the exposed 

surface is a split, fluted (ribbed), or other nonplanar 

surface. In the case of a unit with an exposed 

nonplanar surface, cut the coupon from another flat 

molded surface. 

Compliance with this clause precludes the possibility of sampling material 

from the split face region. This would certainly be the case for a solid unit 

such as the one shown in figures 55 through 57. On the other hand, for a 

hollow unit (figures 58 through 60), the shaded section of the unit in figure 58 

also fits the above requirement (“flat molded surface”), and as such, sampling 

from this region is allowed under ASTM C 1262 (2003). Figure 50, however, 

shows an example of a crack extending almost halfway into the portion of the 

unit circled in figure 58 

o Where it may be of interest to determine material properties in this region 

given that it is the outer exposed surface of the unit. 

• Generally, it is recommended that sampling from the split face region be entirely 

avoided and that specimens be extracted from the back face as shown by the dashed 

lines in figures 55 and 58. 
66 

Figure 55. Drawing. Solid unit showing recommended 

sampling locations (red dashed lines). 

 

Figure 56. Photo. Sample 

of solid unit. 

Figure 57. Photo. Second 

sample of solid unit. 

split face 

specimens 
67 

Figure 58. Drawing. Hollow unit showing 

recommended sampling locations (red dashed lines). 

 

Figure 59. Photo. Sample 

of hollow unit. 

Figure 60. Photo. Second 

sample of hollow unit. 

4.2.4.3 General Laboratory Practice 

• SRW units shall be carefully inspected for flaws such as cracks and chips (figure 61) 

particularly along the edges, and sampling from these regions shall be avoided. At 

times, the surface of the units may be scratched or damaged (figure 62), and these 

areas shall be avoided as well, particularly since this surface will be immersed in 

water or saline solution during testing. An example of a surface that is sound and free 

of defects is shown in figure 63. 

split face 

specimens 

flat molded surfaces 

region vulnerable to split 

face delamination cracking 
68 

Figure 61. Photo. Defects along edges of SRW units. 

Figure 62. Photo. Scratched surface. 

Figure 63. Photo. Example of sound surface. 

chipped material

crack 
69 

• During saw-cutting, sufficient water shall be provided such that saw-cutting grime 

and loose particles are continuously flushed away and prevented from building up on 

the specimens. The specimens shall also be stable and not move during saw-cutting. 

Specimens shall also be cut at least 25 mm (1 inch) from the corners of the unit as 

shown in figure 64. This is to ensure that both specimen edges parallel to the height 

of the unit are saw-cut to match those of specimens taken near the middle of the unit. 

Figure 64. Drawing. Recommended clearance from edges. 

• Clause 7.1.1 of ASTM C 1262 (2003) states that “immediately following saw-cutting, 

remove loose particles and residue from the coupon by rinsing in tap water and 

brushing with a soft bristle brush.” The importance of this washing is illustrated in 

figures 65 and 66 showing a specimen before and after being washed immediately 

after saw-cutting. The wash water was collected, oven-dried and weighed to 

determine the mass of solid particles removed. This turned out to be approximately 

0.2 percent of the dry mass of the specimen. While 0.2 percent of the specimen mass 

may not seem to be a large value, its significance is apparent when one considers that 

the commonly specified freeze-thaw mass loss limit is 1 percent of the specimen 

mass. 

• Detailed records shall be kept of the following items: 

o Curing conditions (method, length, temperature and relative humidity). 

o Sampling method of units (from the production line in block plants or from 

pallets on jobsites, location of units in the pallet; and storage condition of 

units before arriving to test laboratory). 

o Specimen extraction locations in the units (face of unit, full height or not, 

together with a sketch). 

split face 

leave > 25 mm (1 inch) 

all saw-cut edges 
70 

Figure 65. Photo. Specimen before washing, 

following saw-cutting. 

Figure 66. Photo. Specimen after washing, 

following saw-cutting. 

4.2.4.4 Other Research 

• This research primarily focused on 200-mm- (8-inch-) tall SRW units. There are 150-

mm- (6-inch-) and 100-mm- (4-inch-) tall units also available in the market. 

Variations along the casting direction in these shorter units shall also be examined by 

evaluating properties at three layers along the casting direction, as shown in this 

chapter and in Chan et al. (2005a and b). If spatial distribution of properties such as 

the ones observed for 200-mm (8-inch) units are also observed in the shorter units, it 

implies that spatial variations may be related to manufacturing methods. 

• A more detailed investigation on the relevance of manufacturing methods on 

distribution of properties in SRW units entail examining factors such as compaction 

(surcharge) load and energy, frequency and amplitude of vibration, duration of 

compaction, mix composition (stiff mix versus a wetter one), unit geometry, and 

curing conditions (method, chamber conditions, and duration). 

4.3 VARIABILITY IN FREEZE-THAW EQUIPMENT USED IN ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

The previous section (section 4.2) discussed sources of test variability that could arise from 

specimen sampling, and a set of recommendations was provided to reduce this risk. Now, given 

that a population of similar specimens (similar geometry, mass, and properties) has been 

procured for freeze-thaw testing, the next question that arises is: how certain can a laboratory be 

that each and every specimen in this population is exposed to the ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

temperature-time (T-t) requirements during freezing? This section briefly addresses this issue by 

first exploring the extent of spatial variability in temperature that can exist within freezers, the 

significance of this variability, and recommended solutions to manage this variability. More 

thorough coverage of this technical issue can be found in Chan (2006) and Hance (2005). 

The clauses in ASTM C 1262 (2003) relevant to freezer equipment and to the freeze-thaw cycle 

follow: 
71 

• Clause 5.1.1: 

... the chamber or chambers shall be capable of maintaining the air 

temperature throughout the chamber within the specified test 

ranges when measured at any given time. 

• Clause 8.2.1: 

During the freezing cycle, maintain the air temperature in the 

chamber at 0 ± 10°F (-18 ± 5°C) for a period of not less than 4.0 h 

and not more than 5.0 h. The cycle time does not include the time 

required for the air temperature in the chamber to reach the 

prescribed temperature. 

• Clause 8.2.2: 

During the thawing cycle, maintain the air temperature around the 

containers at 75 ± 10°F (24 ± 5°C) for a period of not less than 2.5 

h and not more than 96 h. The cycle time does not include the time 

required for the air temperature around the specimens to reach the 

prescribed temperatures. 

These requirements are illustrated in the freezer-air cooling curve (T-t response) shown in 

figure 67 where various terms are defined. Cold soak is the time period during which the air 

temperature is between −18 °C ± 5 °C (0° ± 10 °F), and Clause 8.2.1 requires that cold soak be 

maintained for 4 to 5 hours. The cooling ramp is the portion of the cooling curve between the 

point at which the temperature starts falling until it reaches –18 °C ± 5 °C (0° ± 10 °F). ASTM C 

1262 (2003) has no requirements for this cooling ramp. Together, the cooling ramp and cold 

soak comprise what is shown as the cooling branch of the curve. Similarly, on the warming side, 

the warm soak is the time period during which the air temperature is between 24 °C ± 5 °C (75 

°F ± 10 °F); the warming ramp is the portion of the curve between the end of cold soak and the 

start of warm soak. While ASTM C 1262 (2003) requires the warm soak to be between 2.5 and 

96 hours, it states no requirement on the warming ramp. Together, the warming ramp and warm 

soak comprise what is shown as the warming branch of the curve. 
72 

Figure 67. Graph. ASTM C 1262 (2003) freeze-thaw cycle—definitions. 

Strict interpretation of the ASTM C 1262 (2003) clauses shown above suggests that the T-t 

conditions stated in Clause 8.2.1 must prevail throughout the chamber during freezing and the 

conditions in Clause 8.2.2 must exist around the specimens during thawing. This is reasonable if 

uniformity in exposure conditions is to be maintained among all specimens. However, as 

discussed in detail in Chan (2006) and Hance (2005) and briefly in the remainder of this section, 

freezer air cooling curves can vary from location to location inside a freezer, which affects 

specimen exposure. Such variation is influenced by, and can be partially controlled by the 

manner in which freezers are operated. 

4.3.1 Comparison Between Different Freezers 

Three different types of freezers were evaluated for internal temperature characteristics as briefly 

described in this section. The first was a chest freezer (figures 68 and 69) that can typically be 

purchased from appliance stores. This type of freezer cools the air within the freezer through its 

walls, and there is minimal air movement within the enclosed air space. Thus, high temperature 

gradients are likely inside this type of freezer. Since there are no automated temperature controls 

in these freezers, freeze-thaw cycling needs to be done manually (i.e., freezing by placing 

specimens into freezers and thawing by removing specimens from freezer and placing in 

laboratory air). Four such freezers were available for this study. 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (hours)

Temp. (oC)

-22

-13

-4

5

14

23

32

41

50

59

68

77

86

Temp. (°F)

cold soak 

cooling branch 

warm soak 

warming branch 

warming 

ramp 

-13°C (10°F)

cooling 

ramp 

-23°C (-10°F)

29°C (85°F)

19°C (65°F)
73 

Figure 68. Photo. Closed chest freezer 

used in study. 

Figure 69. Photo. Open chest freezer. 

The second type of freezer was a walk-in environmental chamber (figures 70 through 72). Unlike 

the chest freezers, the walk-in freezer has ceiling mounted, fan-driven cooling and heating units 

that circulate conditioned air throughout the chamber, thereby promoting more uniform air 

temperature distribution. It operates at 2400 watts and has a cooling capacity of 0.13 watts per 

liter (watts/L) of freezer volume. This freezer has a programmable control device into which 

specified cooling and warming T-t profiles can be input and thus, continuous freeze-thaw cycles 

can be run without human intervention. 

The third type of freezer was a cabinet freezer commonly used in testing laboratories. This 

freezer, shown in figure 73, is also equipped with cooling and heating units which are 

programmable to allow uninterrupted freeze-thaw cycling. Fans are also built into the unit to 

move air through the cabin for better air temperature distribution. This freezer operates at 5200 

watts with a cooling capacity of 9.8 watts/L of freezer volume. 
74 

Figure 70. Photo. Walk-in freezer used in 

the study. 

Figure 71. Photo. View of inside of 

walk-in freezer. 

Figure 72. Drawing. Environmental chamber of walk-in freezer. 

entrance 

specimens 

cooling unit heating unit 

insulating 

walls 
75 

Figure 73. Photo. Cabinet freezer, closed. 

Figure 74. Photo and drawing. Inside of cabinet freezer. 

For each freezer shown in figures 68–74, the temperature distributions throughout the chamber 

were accurately recorded while conducting test trials following ASTM C 1262 (2003). For each 

freezer, different tests were performed with varying numbers of test samples, up to the maximum 

sample number shown in table 2, which provides additional information on the freezers used in 

the study as documented by Hance (2005). 

fan

air intake

1 m (391⁄2 inches) deep by 0.76 m (30 inches) 

wide × 0.91 m (36 inches) high 
76 

Table 2. Characteristics of the various freezers investigated (from Hance, 2005). 

Chest 

Freeze

r 1 

Chest 

Freezer 

2 

Chest 

Freezer 

3 

Chest 

Freezer 

4 

Walk-in 

Chamber 

Cabinet 

Chamber 

Volume 

(liter (ft3)) 

630 

(22.2) 

435 

(15.4) 

350 

(12.4) 

350 

(12.4) 

18000 

(630) 

530 

(18.8) 

Power 

(Watts) 130 170 120 120 2400 5200 

Volume Cooling 

Capacity 

(Watts/L) 

0.21 0.39 0.34 0.34 0.13 9.8 

Maximum 

Number of 

Specimens 

14 6 6 6 80 24 

Specimen Cooling 

Capacity 

(Watts/Specimen) 

9 28 20 20 30 220 

4.3.1.1 Chest Freezer 

In his thesis, Hance (2005) showed results of experiments carried out to determine the internal 

temperature variation in a chest freezer containing six ASTM C 1262 (2003) specimens. A 

wooden frame was built onto which 18 calibrated thermocouples were mounted to measure 

temperature inside the freezer at various locations (figure 75). These thermocouples were placed 

at a distance of about 25 to 50 mm (1 to 2 inches) from the interior wall surface. 

Figure 75. Photo. View of chest freezer with wooden frame and six specimens. 
77 

Figure 76 shows the T-t response in which the large spread in internal temperatures is shown. 

Hance’s analysis of these temperatures was based on the ASTM C 1262-98 version which 

specifies a target cold soak temperature range of −17 °C ± 5 °C (−12 to −22 °C). A similar 

analysis is shown here but using the ASTM C 1262-98ε1

 version which specifies a target cold 

soak temperature range of −18 °C ± 5 °C (−13 to −23°C) (this is also the version used throughout 

this FHWA project.) 

Based on the average temperature Tavg, cold soak started at 0.9 hours when Tavg reached −13 °C 

(8.6 °F) and ended at 4.9 hours for a 4-hour cold soak period (the minimum recommended in 

ASTM C 1262, (2003)) at Tavg of −16.6 °C (12.2 °F). At the start of cold soak, the range between 

minimum and maximum measured temperatures was 6 °C (42.8 °F), and this range gradually 

decreased to 4.2 °C (39.6 °F) after 4 hours of cold soak. Figure 77 shows the standard deviation 

(σ) of the temperature measurements as a function of time, where it is seen that standard 

deviation gradually decreased with increasing soak time (hovering in the vicinity of 1.5 °C (34.7 

°F)). The temperature variations for this chest freezer are summarized in table 3. 

At the start of cold soak, approximately half of the temperature measurements are warmer than 

–13 °C (8.6 °F), while the other half are colder than –13 °C (8.6 °F). To increase the proportion 

of locations below –13 °C (8.6 °F), the temperature recorded at a single, random location 

(Trandom) must therefore be colder than –13 °C (8.6 °F). Assuming that the temperature inside the 

freezer follows a normal distribution (with mean Tavg and standard deviation σ), the value of 

Trandom must be such that: 

Equation 2 

Equation 3 

[The above expressions are based on the standard normal distribution in which 95 percent of 

measurements is below a value of T95 percent = Tavg + 1.645σ while 99 percent of measurements is 

below a value of T99 percent = Tavg + 2.326σ (Miller and Freund, 1985). The aim here is to 

determine Tavg such that T95 percent and T99 percent are equal to −13 °C (8.6 °F). An average value of 

σ = 1.5°C (4.2 °F) over the cold soak duration was used in these calculations]. 

The values of Trandom calculated above indicate that due to variability in freezer internal 

temperature, the spot location must record an increasingly cooler temperature than –13 °C 

(8.6 °F) to ensure that most measured locations (95 and 99 percent considered) meet the –13 °C 

(8.6 °F) requirement. 

–13 °C = Trandom + 1.645σ, to ensure that 95 percent of the temperature 

measurements are below –13 °C. Thus, Trandom = –15.5 °C (4.2 °F) 

–13 °C = Trandom + 2.326σ, to ensure that 99 percent of the temperature 

measurements are below –13 °C. Thus, Trandom = –16.5 °C (2.3 °F) 
78 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 76. Graph. Internal temperature variations in chest freezer loaded 

with six specimens—T-t response. 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 77. Graph. Internal temperature variations in chest freezer loaded 

with six specimens—standard deviation-time response. 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

012345678

Time (hr)

Standard Deviation (°C)

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

012345678

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

start of 

cold soak

4-hr cold 

soak

-18.8°C

Range: 4.2°C 

-14.6°C

-16.2°C

Range: 6.0°C 

-10.3°C
79 

Table 3. Temperature variations inside a chest freezer. 

Part of Cycle Avg T 

°C (°F) 

Min T / Max T 

°C (°F) 

Range 

°C (°F) 

95 Percent C.I. 

About Avg* 

95 

Percent 

C.R.** 

Start of cold 

soak 

–13.0 

(8.6) 

–16.2 / –10.3 

(2.8 / 13.5)

6.0 

(10.8) 

–16.0 / –10.0 

(3.2 / 14.0) 

6.0 

(10.8) 

End of 4-hour 

cold soak 

–16.6 

(2.1) 

–18.8 / –14.6 

(–1.8 / 5.7)

4.2 

(7.6) 

–19.6 / –13.6 

(–3.3 / 7.5) 

6.0 

(10.8) 

* Based on Avg. ± 2σ, where σ is about 1.5oC over the duration of the cold soak period. 

 C.I. = confidence interval. 

** C.R. = confidence range = estimated range within which 95 percent of the population exists. 

4.3.1.2 Walk-in Environmental Chamber 

Spatial temperature variability in the 18-m3 (630-ft3) walk-in chamber was evaluated by Hance 

(2005) using a similar approach. Eighteen calibrated thermocouples were located throughout the 

interior of this chamber as shown in figure 78. Evaluations were carried out at specimen 

quantities of 2, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 specimens. (Hance pointed out, however, that from a 

cooling capacity standpoint, 80 specimens appeared to be a reasonable upper limit for testing in 

this chamber). To illustrate the temperature variations in this chamber, results from the 60 

specimen tests are shown in figures 79 and 80. Figure 79 shows the T-t response from the 

various thermocouples where it is observed that the band of curves was tighter than that obtained 

in the chest freezer. Again, based on average temperature, a 4-hour cold soak started at 4.3 hours 

with Tavg at –13 °C (8.6 °F) and ended at 8.3 hours with Tavg at –14.6 °C (5.7 °F). The range 

between minimum and maximum measured temperatures was 2.6 °C (4.7 °F) at start of cold 

soak and 1.6 °C (2.9 °F) at the end of the 4-hour cold soak. These parameters are summarized in 

table 4. The σ-t response is shown in figure 80. During cold soak, this parameter remained at 

about 0.4 oC (compared to 1.5 °C for the chest freezer). During the warming ramp, values of the 

standard deviation were higher likely due to nonuniform temperature conditions resulting from 

the introduction of warm air (from the heaters) to an already cold environment. 
80 

Figure 78. Photo. View of walk-in chamber with thermocouples on shelving 

units and suspended from ceiling. 
81 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 79. Graph. Internal temperature variations in walk-in chamber loaded 

with 60 specimens—T-t response. 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 80. Graph. Internal temperature variations in walk-in chamber loaded with 60 

specimens—standard deviation-time response 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Time (hr)

Standard Deviation (°C)

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

start of 

cold soak

4-hr cold 

soak 

-15.4°C

Range: 1.6°C 

-13.8°C

-13.8°C

Range: 2.6°C 

-11.2°C
82 

Table 4. Temperature variations inside the walk-in freezer loaded with 60 specimens. 

Part of Cycle Avg T 

°C (°F) 

Min T / Max T 

°C (°F) 

Range 

°C (°F) 

95 Percent C.I. 

about Avg* 

95 

Percent 

C.R.** 

Start of cold 

soak 

–13.0 

(8.6) 

–13.8 / –11.2 

(7.2 / 11.8)

2.6 

(4.7) 

–13.8 / –12.2 

(7.2 / 10.0) 

1.6 

(2.9) 

End of 4-hour 

cold soak 

–14.6 

(5.7) 

–15.4 / –13.8 

(4.3 / 7.2)

1.6 

(2.9) 

–15.4 / –13.8 

(4.3 / 7.2) 

1.6 

(2.9) 

* Based on Avg. ± 2σ, where σ is about 0.4oC over the duration of the cold soak period. 

 C.I. = confidence interval. 

** C.R. = confidence range 

Compared to the chest freezer, the walk-in freezer exhibited more uniform temperature 

distribution, as indicated by the smaller standard deviation over the duration of the cold soak 

period (0.4 °C (32.7 °F) in walk-in freezer versus 1.5 °C (34.7 °F) in the chest freezer). This 

reduced temperature variation in the walk-in chamber was probably related to better air 

circulation imparted by the fans. As with the chest freezer however, due to variability in freezer 

internal temperature, the temperature recorded at a single, random location (Trandom) must be 

colder than –13 °C (8.6 °F) to increase the proportion of measurements below –13 °C (8.6 °F). 

Assuming a normal distribution for the freezer internal temperature, the value of Trandom must be 

such that: 

Equation 4 

Equation 5 

 

[The rational behind these expressions is similar to the ones shown previously for the chest 

freezer. An average value of σ = 0.4 °C over the cold soak duration was used in these 

calculations]. 

As seen, due to the lower variability, the walk-in chamber required less “overshooting” (that is 

targeting of a spot temperature measurement lower than –13 °C (8.6 °F) to ensure that most 

locations are below –13 °C (8.6 °F)) than the chest freezer. 

Figure 81 shows the average T-t plots for the freezer air with various numbers of specimens, 

where it is clearly seen that the performance of the freezer depends on the number of specimens. 

While the initial rate of temperature change was similar regardless of specimen quantity (at about 

56 °C/hr or 100 °F/hr), the curves diverged by the end of the test. Further, with increasing 

quantities of specimens, the time to reach start of cold soak was substantially delayed. For 

instance, with 20 specimens, Tavg reached –13 °C (8.6 °F) at 2.0 hours, whereas with 40 

specimens, Tavg reached –13 °C (8.6 °F) at 2.8 hours and with 80 specimens, Tavg reached –13 °C 

(8.6 °F) at 7.0 hours. This means that as the number of specimens is increased, total testing time 

is expected to increase, and the rates of freezing will decrease. 

–13 °C (8.6 °F) = Trandom + 1.645σ, to ensure that 95 percent of the temperature 

measurements are below –13 °C (8.6 °F). Thus, Trandom = –13.7 °C (7.4 °F) 

–13 °C = Trandom + 2.326σ, to ensure that 99 percent of the temperature

measurements are below –13 °C. Thus, Trandom = –16.5 °C (2.3 °F) 
83 

The temperature variations for each of these tests are summarized in table 5, in which the 

following trends were observed: 

• As the specimen quantities increased, the average temperature at the end of cold soak 

(after 4 hours) was warmer. In comparing 2 and 60 specimens, the temperatures at the 

end of cold soak differed by about 2.0 °C (3.6 °F). 

• As the specimen quantities increased, the range of measured temperatures at any given 

time also increased. This increase was particularly pronounced at the start of cold soak, 

where for two specimens, the range of temperatures was 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), while for 80 

specimens the range was 2.5 °C (4.5 °F). Internal temperature variability in the freezer 

therefore increased with increasing number of specimens. 

The overall significance of these results is that, as expected, freezer performance is dependent on 

specimen quantity in an interactive manner. As the number of specimens change, freezer 

performance is affected, which modifies the exposure condition of the specimens themselves. 

This freezer-specimen interaction must be taken into consideration in testing and will be 

discussed further. 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 81. Graph. Average temperatures in walk-in chamber with varying 

quantities of specimens (values shown are number of specimens). 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

2

20

80

60

40

100
84 

Table 5. Temperature variations inside the walk-in freezer loaded with varying 

specimen quantities. 

Part of Cycle Avg T 

°C (°F) 

Min T / Max 

T 

°C (°F) 

Range 

°C (°F) 

95 Percent C.I. 

About Avg* 

95 

Percent 

C.R.** 

Start of Cold Soak 

2 specimens –13.0 

(8.6) 

–13.7 / –12.2 

(7.3 / 10.0)

1.5 

(2.7) 

–13.6 / –12.4 

(7.5 / 9.7) 

1.2 

(2.2) 

20 specimens –13.0 

(8.6) 

–13.7 / –12.4 

(7.3 / 9.7)

1.3 

(2.3) 

–13.6 / –12.4 

(7.5 / 9.7) 

1.2 

(2.2) 

40 specimens –13.0 

(8.6) 

–13.8 / –11.8 

(7.2 / 10.8)

2.0 

(3.6) 

–13.6 / –12.4 

(7.5 / 9.7) 

1.2 

(2.2) 

60 specimens –13.0 

(8.6) 

–13.8 / –11.2 

(7.2 / 11.8)

2.6 

(4.7) 

–13.8 / –12.2 

(7.2 / 10.0) 

1.6 

(2.9) 

80 specimens –13.0 

(8.6) 

–14.2 / –11.7 

(6.4 / 10.9)

2.5 

(4.5) 

–14.0 / –12.0 

(6.8 / 10.4) 

2.0 

(3.6) 

100 specimens –13.0 

(8.6) 

–14.2 / –11.6 

(6.4 / 11.1)

2.6 

(4.7) 

–14.0 / –12.0 

(6.8 / 10.4) 

2.0 

(3.6) 

End of 4-Hour Cold Soak 

2 specimens −16.8 

(1.8) 

−17.4 / −16.3 

(0.7 / 2.7)

1.1 

(2.0) 

–17.4 / –16.2 

(0.7 / 2.8) 

1.2 

(2.2) 

20 specimens −15.9 

(3.4) 

−16.4 / −15.5 

(2.5 / 4.1)

0.9 

(1.6) 

–16.5 / –15.3 

(2.3 / 4.5) 

1.2 

(2.2) 

40 specimens −14.6 

(5.7) 

−15.3 / −14.2 

(4.5 / 6.4)

1.1 

(2.0) 

–15.2 / –14.0 

(4.6 / 6.8) 

1.2 

(2.2) 

60 specimens –14.6 

(5.7) 

–15.4 / –13.8 

(4.3 / 7.2)

1.6 

(2.9) 

–15.4 / –13.8 

(4.3 / 7.2) 

1.6 

(2.9) 

80 specimens n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

100 specimens n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

n.a. = data not available 

4.3.1.3 Cabinet Freezer 

Spatial temperature variability in the 0.53 m3 (18.8 ft3) cabinet freezer was assessed by placing 

23 calibrated thermocouples throughout the freezer cabin. Evaluation of this freezer was carried 

out as part of the NCMA Foundation Study. At the time the freezer was received, four shelves 

were available, as shown in figure 74. Thermocouples were placed at each corner and the center 

of each shelf, as shown in figure 82. These thermocouples were typically located at about 25 mm 

(1 inch) above the shelf level. In addition, thermocouples were placed near the ceiling and the 

floor of the cabin, as well as adjacent to the freezer internal sensors. In total, 23 thermocouples 

were employed, and their locations are illustrated in figures 82 and 83. 
85 

Figure 82. Photos and drawings. View of thermocouple (TC) placement in 

cabinet freezer instrument to tests. 

Figure 83. Photo. View of thermocouple (TC) placement with 

specimens in cabinet. 

grate on 

grate removed

b. TC by sensors 

×

×

×

×

×

c. Five TCs on each shelf 

(four at corners, one at center)

a. TCs inside unit

TC on ceiling 

TC on floor 

TC at about 25 mm 

(1 inch) above shelf 
86 

Evaluations were carried out using 0, 18 and 28 specimens. To illustrate the internal temperature 

variations, results from the 28 specimen tests are shown here. This was also the number of 

specimens tested in the NCMA study. Figure 84 shows the T-t response from the thermocouples 

where it is observed that the band of curves was tighter than that obtained in the chest freezer but 

not as tight as the one obtained with the walk-in chamber, especially at the onset of cold soak. 

Based on average temperature, a 4-hour cold soak started at 1.9 hours with Tavg at –13 °C 

(8.6 °F) and ended at 4.9 hours with Tavg at –18.3 °C (–0.9 °F). The range between minimum and 

maximum measured temperatures were 3.2 °C (5.8 °F) at start of cold soak and 1.4 °C (2.5 °F) at 

end of the 4-hour cold soak. These parameters are summarized in table 6. The standard 

deviation-t response is shown in figure 85 where the standard deviation is seen to gradually 

decrease from approximately 0.8 °C to 0.3 °C (33.4 °F to 32.5 °F) from start to end of cold soak 

(compared to almost constant values of about 0.4 °C (32.7 °F) in the walk-in freezer and 1.5 °C 

(34.7 °F) in the chest freezer). As with the walk-in freezer, values of standard deviation increased 

during warming ramp. As with the chest and walk-in freezers, due to variability in freezer 

internal temperature, the temperature recorded at a single, random location (Trandom) must be 

colder than –13 °C (8.6 °F) to increase the proportion of measurements below –13 °C (8.6 °F). 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} for °F here. 

Figure 84. Graph. Internal temperature variations in cabinet freezer loaded 

with 28 specimens—T-t response. 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Time (hr)

Temperature (oC)

-18.9°C

Range: 1.4°C 

-17.5°C

start of 

cold soak 

4-hr cold 

soak 

-14.7°C 

-11.5°C

Range: 3.2°C 

by freezer’s internal 

control sensor
87 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 85. Graph. Internal temperature variations in cabinet freezer loaded 

with 28 specimens—standard deviation-time response. 

Table 6. Temperature variations inside the cabinet freezer loaded with 28 specimens. 

Part of Cycle Avg T 

°C (°F) 

Min T / Max T 

°C (°F) 

Range 

°C (°F) 

95 Percent C.I. 

About Avg* 

95 

Percent 

C.R.** 

Start of cold 

soak 

–13.0 

(8.6) 

–14.7 / –11.5 

(5.5 / 11.3)

3.2 

(5.8) 

–14.2 / –11.8 

(6.4 / 10.8) 

2.4 

(4.3) 

End of 4-hour 

cold soak 

–18.3 

(–0.9) 

–18.9 / –17.5 

(–2.0 / 0.5)

1.4 

(2.5) 

–19.5 / –17.1 

(–3.1 / 1.2) 

2.4 

(4.3) 

* Based on Avg. ± 2σ, where σ averages about 0.6oC over the duration of the cold soak period. 

 C.I. = confidence interval. 

** C.R. = confidence range 

Assuming a normal distribution for the freezer internal temperature, the value of Trandom must be 

such that: 

Equation 6 

Equation 7 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Time (hr)

Standard deviation (oC)

–13 °C (8.6 °F ) = Trandom + 2.326σ, to ensure that 99 percent of the temperature 

measurements are below –13°C (8.6 °F ). Thus, Trandom = –14.4 °C (6.1 °F) 

–13 °C (8.6 °F )= Trandom + 1.645σ, to ensure that 95 percent of the temperature 

measurements are below –13 °C (8.6 °F ). Thus, Trandom = –14.0 °C (6.8 °F) 
88 

As seen, the “overshooting” (that is the targeting of a spot temperature measurement lower than 

–13 °C (8.6 °F) to ensure that most locations are below –13 °C (8.6 °F)) is intermediate between 

that of the chest and walk-in freezers. 

Knowing the locations of these thermocouples allowed mapping of the temperature inside the 

cabinet freezer to detect patterns within the freezer. This was done by selecting a time from the 

T-t record (3.5 hours arbitrarily selected), ranking the available temperatures at this time in order 

from coldest to warmest and splitting all the locations into six groups of three or four locations 

per group. These groups were then labeled from 1 at the coldest spots to 6 at the warmest spots. 

The result of this mapping is shown in figure 86 in which the overall coldest and warmest spots 

are also identified. The coldest locations generally were in the front part of the freezer (i.e., near 

the door) and on the higher shelves (including the ceiling), while the warmest locations were 

toward the back of the freezer in the lowest shelves (including the floor). The coldest overall 

location was right at the location of the freezer’s built-in temperature sensor that is used to 

control the freezer cycles. This sensor is located near the fan. The warmest overall location was 

at the back of the bottommost shelf. This pattern of temperature distribution generally coincided 

with the flow of air within the chamber, illustrated in figure 87. As shown, the air coming out 

from the fan is the coldest air and reaches the top shelf and freezer front locations first. On the 

other hand, the back locations in the lower shelves are more or less sheltered, and as such, 

experience the warmest temperatures. The freezer’s internal control sensors, positioned at the fan 

exit, were exposed to the coldest temperatures within the chamber. The T-t trace for this location 

is shown by the dark line in figure 84. This has important implications for test control as will be 

discussed later. 
89 

Figure 86. Drawing. Individual temperature locations (front view of freezer, 

plan view of each shelf). 

Figure 87. Drawing. Temperature mapping in cabinet freezer 

(side view of the freezer cabin). 

air flow 

fan

air intake

door 

FRONT BACK 

warmest spots 

coldest spots 

4

2

3 

1 

3

Temp. ranges:

1: –18.5 to –18.2°C 

2: –17.7 to –18.0°C 

3: –17.6 to –17.7°C 

4: –17.1 to –17.5°C 

5: –16.6 to –17.1°C 

6: –16.0 to –16.4°C 

4

3

5 

2 

3

5

4

6 

4 

6

6

2

5 

2 

6

fan

air intake

1 

ceiling 

1 

sensor 

5 

floor BACK 

FRONT
90 

The effect of the number of specimens is seen in figure 88 showing the average T-t plots for the 

freezer air for 0, 18 and 28 specimens. Unlike the walk-in chamber, the initial rate of temperature 

change depended on specimen quantity from 61 °C/hr (110 °F/hr) with no specimens, to 27 °C/hr 

(49 °F/hr) with 28 specimens. The times required for Tavg to reach –13 °C (8.6 °F) were 0.7, 1.5 

and 1.9 hours for 0, 18 and 28 specimens, respectively. The temperature variations for each of 

these tests are summarized in table 7. It is interesting that temperature variability at the start of 

cold soak in the cabinet freezer, even without specimens in it, was larger than that observed in 

the walk-in chamber. The 95 percent confidence range was 3.4 °C (38.1 °F) for the cabinet 

freezer with 0 specimens and 1.6 °C for the walk-in freezer with 60 specimens. Although the 

reason for the larger variability observed in the cabinet freezer at start of cold soak is unclear, it 

is suspected that at this time (start of cold soak when Tavg reaches –13 °C (8.6 °F)), the cabinet 

freezer was still experiencing rapid temperature drops (see figure 89) and a stable, more uniform 

air distribution throughout the freezer had not yet been reached. Once in the cold soak zone at 

more stable temperatures, variability decreased. Overall, increasing the number of specimens 

increased variability. 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 88. Graph. Average temperatures in cabinet freezer with varying 

quantities of specimens (values shown are number of specimens). 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0123456

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

28 18

0
91 

Table 7. Temperature variations inside the cabinet freezer loaded with 

varying specimen quantities. 

Part of Cycle Avg T 

°C (°F) 

Min T / Max T 

°C (°F) 

Range 

°C (°F) 

95 Percent C.I. 

About Avg* 

95 

Percent 

C.R.** 

Start of Cold Soak 

0 spec. –13.0 

(8.6) 

–14.9 / –11.5 

(5.2 / 11.3)

3.4 

(6.1) 

–14.6 / –11.4 

(5.7 / 11.5) 

3.4 

(6.1) 

18 spec. –13.0 

(8.6) 

–15.4 / –11.3 

(4.3 / 11.7)

4.1 

(7.4) 

–14.6 / –11.4 

(5.7 / 11.4) 

3.2 

(5.8) 

28 spec. –13.0 

(8.6) 

–14.7 / –11.5 

(5.5 / 11.3)

3.2 

(5.8) 

–14.2 / –11.8 

(6.4 / 10.8) 

2.4 

(4.3) 

End of 4-Hour Cold Soak 

0 spec. –18.3 

(–0.9) 

–18.8 / –17.7 

(–1.8 / 0.1)

1.1 

(2.0) 

–18.9 / –17.7 

(–2.0 / 0.1) 

1.2 

(2.2) 

18 spec. –18.2 

(–0.8) 

–18.5 / –17.7 

(1.3 / 0.1)

0.8 

(1.4) 

–18.8 / –17.6 

(–1.8 / 0.3) 

1.2 

(2.2) 

28 spec. –18.3 

(–0.9) 

–18.9 / –17.5 

(–2.0 / 0.5)

1.4 

(2.5) 

–19.5 / –17.1 

(–3.1 / 1.2) 

2.4 

(4.3) 

 n.a. = data not available 

4.3.1.4 Recommendations To Reduce Freezer Internal Variability 

As seen from the previous sections, each of the freezers evaluated was capable of complying 

with ASTM C 1262 (2003) requirements, although the shapes of the T-t responses were quite 

distinct from freezer to freezer. Results of ASTM C 1262 (2003) tests conducted on specimens in 

different freezers (Haisler, 2004) showed that these kinds of shifts in T-t response (shown in 

figure 88) can have a very significant influence on specimen performance. The focus in this 

section is on how internal variability within a freezer can affect compliance with the test 

standard, and more importantly, how one can modify the freezer, specimen storage, or freezer 

controls to meet compliance with ASTM C 1262 (2003) and to provide consistent exposure 

conditions for all the samples contained in the freezer. Below are some recommendations for 

modifying ASTM C 1262 (2003) to meet these objectives. 

It is evident that cold and warm spots exist within each freezer. Specimens that remain in these 

cold and warm spots can conceivably be subjected to different numbers (and types) of freezethaw cycles and exhibit different durabilities. One way to minimize discrepancies in exposure 

conditions is to move samples periodically during the course, which is currently specified in 

ASTM C 1262 (2003): 

• Clause 8.2.4: 

At 25 ± 5 cycle intervals, remove containers from the test chamber. 

Open containers to visually inspect the condition of the specimens 
92 

and to adjust the water level to comply with 8.1.1 (13 mm or 1⁄2 

inch depth). 

• Clause 8.2.5: 

Every time a container is replaced into a multi-level freezing test 

chamber, the container shall be placed on the level immediately 

above the level on which it was previously located. If the container 

was previously located on the top level of a multi-level freezing 

chamber, replace it onto the bottom level. 

Based on these clauses, specimens tested to 100 cycles would only be rotated four times through 

the entire duration of the test. Moreover, Clause 8.2.5 only mentions sample rotation in the 

vertical direction of the freezer. Hence, if a specimen is placed on the back side of the freezer, it 

is possible for it to remain on the back side through 100 cycles with the only difference being the 

shelf level. Similarly, there could also be specimens near the front of the freezer through the 

entire test. It is thus recommended that specimen rotation occur at intervals shorter than 25 

cycles (say every 10 cycles), and that rotation be not only carried out in the vertical direction, but 

also within a shelf (e.g., front and back). This approach would allow for more uniform exposure 

of all specimens over 100 cycles. 

As demonstrated earlier for the walk-in and cabinet freezers, the T-t characteristics in these 

freezers varied when loaded with different quantities of specimens. This variation is as expected 

due to the different thermal mass associated with different specimen quantities and due to the 

way that specimen loading may influence interval air flow and convective heat transfer to or 

from any given specimen. Variations in specimen quantities, however, could arise due to a 

number of possible reasons, which include (but are not limited to) laboratory testing demand and 

schedules, specimen or container size constraints, or the gradual removal of specimens that are 

considered failed. 

On the issue of specimen and container size constraints, various possibilities exist which could 

ultimately result in different specimen quantities, with associated changes in T-t characteristics 

within the freezer. A simple but effective recommendation to address this issue is to standardize 

the container size to be used for ASTM C 1262 (2003) testing. 

Removal of failed specimens (e.g., mass loss exceeded specification limit) during the course of a 

test also changes the total number of specimens in the freezer and thus changes the exposure for 

the balance of the specimens. While such situations are clearly dealt with in ASTM C 666 (2004) 

for rapid freeze-thaw of ordinary concretes, ASTM C 1262 (2003) has no provision for this. 

ASTM C 666 (2004) covers this situation as follows: “Whenever a specimen is removed because 

of failure, replace it for the remainder of the test by a dummy specimen,” (Clause 8.3, ASTM C 

666, 2004). It is recommended that ASTM C 1262 (2003) adopt a similar provision and require 

that a failed specimen, upon removal from the chamber, be replaced by a “dummy” specimen to 

prevent fluctuations in the total mass inside the freezer during the course of a test. 

Overall, it is seen that total specimen quantity in the freezer can vary for a number of reasons, 

which alters the temperature environment inside the freezer. This in turn changes the exposure 
93 

conditions of the specimen themselves. As such, it is important that laboratories conducting 

freeze-thaw tests survey their freezers before conducting tests, to identify these variations and the 

extent to which temperatures may be distributed in the freezer. Knowledge of this temperature 

variability should then be employed to plan tests cycles, the results of which can be used to 

optimize the testing regime for that given freezer. Complete details on this approach are provided 

in Chan (2006). This approach requires a test cycle to be run on a given freezer (with a given 

number of test specimens) with temperature monitored throughout the chamber, from which T-t 

and standard deviation-t curves can be generated. A reliability-based approach is then taken to 

optimize the control of the freezer to minimize locations within the freezer that are undercooled 

or overcooled, in other words to minimize the proportion of noncompliant locations within the 

freezer. This approach, which makes use of graphical reliability (R) curves, is described in 

appendix A, where it appears as an annex to a new proposed version of ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

based on the findings of this project. Additional information, including sample calculations, can 

be found in chapter 4 of Chan (2006). 

It should be noted that this approach of performing trial tests and statistically optimizing actual 

tests based on these results has already been applied to the NCMA-funded study and other 

ongoing projects. It must also be emphasized that R-curves portray a specific interaction between 

the freezer and specimens. A given freezer loaded with a certain quantity of specimens of a 

particular size, mass and arrangement inside the freezer will possess a uniquely characteristic Rcurve. Changing any of these variables will alter the form of the curve. Finally, R-curves cannot 

be determined a priori but must be determined individually for each freezer and specimen 

configuration. 

4.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FREEZE-THAW CYCLE 

Section 4.3 focused on evaluating temperature variability inside a freezer during a typical freezethaw cycle. The objective of this evaluation was to enable maximizing the number of locations in 

the freezer that were compliant with ASTM C 1262 (2003) cold soak requirements, which 

consists of maintaining the freezer air temperature at –18 °C ± 5 °C (0° ± 10 °F) for 4 to 5 hours 

(note that this is irrespective of how fast the freezer cooled to this condition). However, as shown 

in figure 89, the T-t response of the SRW specimen itself (as measured from sensors embedded 

in the specimen, figure 90) follows a path that is distinct from that of the freezer air. This section 

discusses the ice formation process and damage mechanisms as the specimen undergoes the 

various stages in a freeze-thaw cycle. 
94 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 89. Graph. T-t curves for freezer air, water surrounding 

specimen and specimen. 

Figure 90. Photo. Water surrounding specimen and specimen (as graphed in figure 89). 

The work described in this section involved calorimetric methods to trace ice formation during 

freezing of plain water and 3 percent NaCl solution (salt as percentage of solution mass). The 

concept of freeze progress (or percent ice formed) was introduced to describe and quantify ice 

formation rates. Concentration changes in the salt solution during freezing were also examined. 

The work also includes the use of glass vials such as those shown in figures 91 through 94 to 

simulate freezing of solutions in saturated, confined spaces. Events taking place during freezing 

such as supercooling and expansion damage were traced along the T-t response of the solution. 

Other relevant aspects investigated included varying concentrations of salt solution, varying 

saturation levels, effect of cooling environment and estimation of ice pressures. 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (hrs)

Temperature (°C)

freezer air

water surrounding 

specimen 

specimen
95 

O.D. 

hn hv

1D 4D 8D 

Figure 91. Photo. Temperature-monitored glass 

vials used to characterize freeze-thaw cycles 

and impact on water and saline solutions. 

Figure 92. Drawing. Location of 

thermocouples. 

Figure 93. Photo. Vials in freezer. Figure 94. Photo. Broken vials. 

4.4.1 Significance of Freeze-Thaw Cycle 

Differences in the nature of the freeze-thaw environment can have an impact on specimen 

performance as evidenced from results obtained under this FHWA project and in the NCMAfunded project. In summary, for the NCMA study (described in detail in chapter 6 of Chan 

(2006)), specimens extracted from SRW units from a single production run were tested in two 

separate freezers: the walk-in chamber and the cabinet freezer, which were described earlier in 

this chapter. When tested according to ASTM C 140 (ASTM C 140, 2000), properties of the 

specimens evaluated in the two freezers differed by no more than 8 percent in their compressive 

strength (average 37 MPa (5,370 psi)) for specimens in walk-in chamber versus average 34 MPa 

(4,930 psi) for specimens in cabinet freezer), 2 percent in water absorption (127 versus 129 

kg/m3

) and 2 percent in oven-dry density (2230 versus 2210 kg/m3). Of the various test sets 

(labeled A to G) evaluated in the cabinet freezer, test set A specimens were similar to specimens 

tested in the walk-in freezer, which comprised nominal 200- by 100- by 32-mm-(8- by 4- by 11⁄4- 

inches-) size SRW coupons placed in 13 mm-(1⁄2 inch-) deep saline solution inside plastic 

containers of size 310 by 210 by 108 mm (12.3 by 8.3 by 4.3 inches), as shown in figures 95 

and 96. 

top 

thermocouple 

bottom 

thermocouple 
96 

Figure 95. Photo. View of typical specimen 

in test set A in cabinet freezer and walk-in 

freezer (NCMA study). 

Figure 96. Photo. View of open 

container with specimen. 

Figure 97 shows the percent mass loss (i.e., residues as percentage of initial specimen mass) 

through 200 cycles for 16 specimens in the walk-in freezer (lighter lines) and 4 specimens in test 

set A in the cabinet freezer (darker lines). The average mass loss of all specimens in the walk-in 

freezer, including the two specimens exhibiting sudden jumps in mass loss at about 80 and 100 

cycles, was 0.2 percent after 100 cycles and 0.8 percent after 200 cycles. By contrast, the average 

mass loss of test set A specimens in the cabinet freezer was 0.4 percent after 100 cycles and 4.4 

percent after 200 cycles. Thus, mass loss between specimens in the two freezers differed by up to 

a factor of 2 after 100 cycles and a factor of 5.5 times after 200 cycles. Structural integrity of 

specimens was monitored by changes in the relative dynamic modulus (RDM) of the specimens 

using resonant frequency methods (ASTM C 215, 1997). Figure 98 shows RDM through 200 

cycles for these same specimens. The average RDM for specimens in the walk-in freezer was 

about 100 percent after 100 cycles and 79 percent after 200 cycles. By contrast, the average 

RDM of test set A specimens in the cabinet freezer was about 93 percent after 100 cycles and 4 

percent after 200 cycles. 
97 

Figure 97 Graph. Comparative performance of specimens in test set A in cabinet freezer 

(darker lines) and specimens in walk-in freezer (lighter lines)—percent mass loss. 

Figure 98. Graph. Comparative performance of specimens in test set A in cabinet freezer 

(darker lines) and specimens in walk-in freezer (lighter lines)—relative dynamic modulus. 

As for the test environments in these two freezers, figure 99 shows freezer air T-t curves for 

typical cycles in the two freezers. Also shown are T-t curves for the solution surrounding 

instrumented specimens in the two freezers. Both freezer air cycles were fully compliant with 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Cycles

Mass loss, %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Cycles

RDM, %
98 

ASTM C 1262 (2003) test method requirements. Specimens in the walk-in freezer were 

subjected to a cold soak period of 4.8 hours, whereas specimens in the cabinet freezer were 

subjected to a cold soak period of 4.5 hours. Each freezer reached a different minimum air 

temperature at the end of cold soak (–16.9 °C (1.6 °F) in walk-in and –18.5 °C (–1.3 °F) in 

cabinet). The curves in figure 99 are reproduced again in figures 100 to 102 together with rates 

of change of freezer air temperature and solution temperature. Differences can be discerned in 

the following areas: 

• Between 1.5 and 2 hours, the freezer air cooled at a rate of approximately –9 to –10 °C/hr 

(–16 to –18 °F/hr) in the cabinet freezer, compared to approximately –3 to –4 °C/hr (–5 to 

–7 °F/hr) in the walk-in freezer, which was almost a three-fold difference. This was also 

the time period during which the solution surrounding specimens in both freezers entered 

their freezing plateaus. 

• Between 6 and 7 hours, the peak freezer air warming rate was 135 °C/hr (245 °F/hr) in 

the cabinet freezer, compared to about 88 °C/hr (160 °F/hr) in the walk-in freezer, which 

was a 50 percent difference. These peaks occurred immediately after the end of cold soak 

as the warming branch started. 

• Before 2 hours, the cooling rate of the salt solution surrounding specimens was –18 °C/hr 

(–32 °F/hr) for the specimen in the walk-in freezer and –19 °C/hr (–34 °F/hr) for the 

specimen in the cabinet freezer. However, between 3 and 6 hours, after their respective 

freezing plateaus, the solutions cooled at –8 °C/hr (–14 °F/hr) in the cabinet freezer 

compared to about –4 °C/hr (–7 °F/hr) in the walk-in freezer, which was a two-fold 

difference. 

• Between 6 and 7 hours, the peak solution warming rate was 33 °C/hr (59 °F/hr) in the 

cabinet freezer, compared to 14 °C/hr (25 °F/hr) in the walk-in freezer, which was almost 

a 2.5 times difference. These peaks also occurred immediately after the end of cold soak 

as the warming branch started. 

• Moreover, the lengths of solution freezing plateaus were different in the two freezers. For 

the walk-in freezer, the freezing plateau was estimated to be approximately 1.9 hours 

long, while for the cabinet freezer, this was about 1.2 hours long. If it is assumed that the 

same volume of solution is frozen during this freezing plateau (which is a reasonable 

assumption, as will be shown in section 5.2.1), the solution froze 50 percent faster in the 

cabinet freezer compared to in the walk-in freezer. 

A summary of the measured differences between the two freezers is provided in table 8. How 

these specific differences in freezer air and solution temperature translated to specimen 

performance is yet to be explored, although it is evident from the mass loss and RDM curves that 

disparities in the performance were obtained from specimens tested in these two environments. 

The following sections describe experimental work carried out with the objective of elucidating 

ice formation in specimens and how these link to their cooling curves and to the overall 

requirements of ASTM C 1262 (2003). 
99 

 Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 99. Graph. Cooling curves comparison for typical cycles in the two freezers. 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 100. Graph. Rates of temperature change for curves in figure 99—temperature. 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Time (hrs)

Temperature (°C)

Fzr air – cabinet

Fzr air – walk-in

Solution – walk-in

Solution – cabinet

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

01234567

Time (hrs)

Temperature (°C)

Fzr air–walk-in

Fzr air–cabinet

Solution–cabinet

Solution–walk-in
100 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 101. Graph. Rates of temperature change for curves in figure 99—freezer 

air. 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 102. Graph. Rates of temperature change for curves in figure 99—solution. 

-100

-70

-40

-10

20

50

80

110

140

01234567

Time (hrs)

Freezer air dT/dt (°C/hr)

Walk-in

Cabinet

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

01234567

Time (hrs)

Solution dT/dt (°C/hr)

Cabinet

Walk-in
101 

Table 8. Comparison of cycle parameters between cabinet and walk-in freezers. 

Parameter Walk-in Cabinet 

Time To Reach: 

0°C (32°F) 0.5 hour 0.8 hour 

Start of cold soak 1.7 1.6 

Rate of air cooling at start 

of solution freezing 

plateau a

3 to 4 °C/hr (5 to 7 °F/hr) 11 °C/hr (20 °F/hr) 

Minimum Attained Temperatures 

Freezer air –16.9 °C (1.6 °F) –18.5 °C (–1.3 °F) 

Solution –13.7 (7.3) –18.0 (–0.4) 

Rate of solution freeze b 160 g/hr (5.6 oz/hr) 250 g/hr (8.8 oz/hr) 

Peak Warming Rates: 

Freezer air c 88 °C/hr (160 °F/hr) 135 °C/hr (245 °F/hr) 

Solution c 14 (25) 33 (59) 

a obtained from the tangent to the curves at T = –13 °C 

b obtained by dividing (mass of solution) / (length of freeze plateau) c immediately after end of cold soak 

4.4.2 The Cooling Curve 

Chan (2006) in chapter 2 of his dissertation, presented the cooling curve for water and salt 

solutions in general and discussed in a qualitative manner the various steps taking place during 

their freezing. This section describes attempts to establish a more quantitative and mechanistic 

perspective of the cooling curve used in ASTM C 1262 (2003). Findings from this investigation 

are first highlighted, followed by their application to the understanding of the response of freezethaw test specimens. 

4.4.2.1 Ice Formation and Rates 

Ice formation in plain water and in 3 percent NaCl solution was measured using a calorimetric 

approach. A so-called “coffee cup calorimeter” was used to determine ice formation in freezing 

liquids, namely plain water and 3 percent NaCl solution. In this simple test, ice formation is 

measured by measuring heat changes inside the calorimeter which can in turn be related to ice 

quantities. Here, ice formation was traced by the parameter freeze progress (FP) which was 

defined as FP = mass of ice/mass of initial liquid × 100 percent. FP was traced as a function of 

temperature and time, which enabled plotting this parameter along the cooling (T-t) curves of 

these liquids. These results are shown in figure 103 for plain water and figure 104 for 3 percent 

NaCl solution. Note that in the cooling curve for 3 percent NaCl solution, the freezing plateau 

was not as well-defined as it was for plain water. This is due to the freeze concentration process, 
102 

whereby the yet unfrozen portion in a saline solution becomes increasingly concentrated in salts 

as ice crystallizes out of solution during freezing (Sahagian and Goff, 1996). This process leads 

to the continuously decreasing freezing point of the solution which contrasts with the constant 

freezing point of water (at T of about 0 °C (32 °F)). As such, for the saline solution, a 

quasi-freezing plateau was defined as the region between supercooling and the region of 

maximum curvature (between t = 250 to 300 min). Figures 103 and 104 show FP-t curves; while 

figures 105 and 106 show the rates of ice formation (i.e., d(FP)/dt). The main conclusions drawn 

from this work follow: 

• During the freezing plateau, about 90 percent of water crystallizes (i.e., FP is about 90 

percent near the end of the plateau when maximum curvature is observed in the cooling 

curve). 

• In 3 percent NaCl solution, FP was about 75 to 80 percent at the point of maximum 

curvature in the cooling curve. At a temperature of –18 °C (0.4 °F), the maximum FP is 

about 85–88 percent. 

• At any given time during freezing, FP in the saline solution was less than in plain water. 

• The rate of ice formation in saline was about 7/8th that in water over the duration of the 

freezing plateau. Hence, ice formed from the saline solution almost as fast as it did from 

plain water. In both plain water and saline, this ice formation rate was maximum during 

the freezing plateau (“quasi freezing plateau” in saline) and decreased substantially near 

the end of the plateau. It is noted that actual observation of ice growth in glass vials 

(using the Direct Observation method described later in this chapter) shows that ice 

growth immediately following supercooling is up to 10 times slower in saline solution 

compared to plain water. 

• Volumetric expansion, εV, could be related to FP as follows: 

Equation 8 

Hence, most of the volume expansion is expected to occur and to occur fastest during the 

freezing plateau. 

εV ( percent) = 0.09 × FP( percent) 
103 

Figure 103. Graph. Cooling curves and FP-t curves for plain water. 

Figure 104. Graph. Cooling curves and FP-t curves for 3 percent NaCl solution. 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Freeze progress (%)

point at which FP = 92 

freezing 

plateau 

cooling curve 

FP curve 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Freeze progress (%)

region of maximum curvature 

quasifreezing 

plateau

supercooling 

cooling curve 

FP curve
104 

Figure 105. Graph. Cooling curves and rate of ice formation curves for water. 

Figure 106. Graph. Cooling curves and rate of ice formation curves for 

3 percent NaCl solution 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Rate of ice formation (% / min)

cooling curve d(FP)/dt curve

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Rate of ice formation (% / min)

cooling curve d(FP)/dt curve
105 

Another result from this work was plots of FP versus T which are shown in figure 107 for water 

and 3 percent NaCl solution. Here, it is seen that for water most of the ice formed at about 0 °C 

(32 °F) while for the saline solution, ice formation was accompanied by reductions in 

temperature. At –18 °C (0.4 °F) which is the target cold soak temperature in ASTM C 1262 

(2003), there was still about 15 percent unfrozen solution. The significance of this on ASTM C 

1262 (2003) testing will be discussed later in this chapter. 

Figure 107. Graph. Plots of FP as function of temperature. 

4.4.2.2 Changes in Concentration for Saline Solution 

In addition to ice formation, changes in the concentration of the unfrozen solution were also 

measured and traced along the cooling curve for the 3 percent NaCl solution, as shown in figure 

108. It is noted that beyond about 165 minutes cooling, measuring this concentration 

experimentally was difficult due to increased ice formation. Also plotted in figure 108 are 

concentration versus time values based on tabulated data in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and 

Physics (CRC, 1988). It is seen here that at approximately halfway through the quasi-freezing 

plateau, the concentration of the unfrozen portion of the solution had risen up to about 5 percent 

from the initial 3 percent. Near the end of this quasi-plateau, this concentration was about four 

times the initial value. By the time the temperature of the solution was at the ASTM C 1262 

(2003) cold soak target of –18°C (0°F), this concentration was at about six times the initial value. 

Figure 109 shows the rate of concentration change plotted together with the rate of ice formation 

(from figures 105 and 106). It is evident that ice formed most rapidly during the quasi-freezing 

plateau, whereas the concentration of the unfrozen solution increased most rapidly near the end 

of this plateau. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

Freeze progress (% frozen)

-13 - 4 5 14 23 32 

-25 -20 -15 -10 - 5 0 

T (°F) 

T (°C) 

plain water 

3 percent NaCl 
106 

Figure 108. Graph. Changes in NaCl concentration in unfrozen solution. 

Figure 109. Graph. Rates of ice formation and concentration changes for 

initial 3 percent NaCl solution. 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

[NaCl] in unfrozen protion (%)

cooling curve 

[NaCl] exp. 

[NaCl] from 

tabulated data 

in CRC (1988)

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Rates (% / min)

cooling curve 

rate of NaCl 

conc. change

rate of ice 

formation 
107 

4.4.2.3 Damage Point 

Various experiments were conducted in which water or saline solution-filled vials were utilized 

to model saturated, confined spaces. Expansion damage, as manifested by fracture of the vials, 

was detected using three different methods: 

• Circuit resistance method, whereby an electric circuit was looped around the vial, and the 

resistance through this circuit was measured during freezing (figure 110). Rupture of the 

vial caused a break in the circuit and thus a spike in the measured resistance. The point at 

which this spike occurred was traced on the cooling curve of the freezing solution. 

• Strain gage method, whereby strain gages were attached on the vial surface and 

monitored during freezing of the vials (figure 111). 

• Direct observation method, whereby tests were carried out in a freezer with a see-through 

door opening which enabled direct visual observations of the events taking place during 

freezing (figure 112). 

Figure 110. Photo and drawing. Circuit resistance for detecting 

expansion damage in freezing vials. 

Figure 111. Photo. Strain gage for detecting expansion damage in freezing vials. 

Data acquisition unit: 

Measure R 

contact point 

of the 2 wires

2 wire ends are 

held in contact 

with one another 

to form circuit 

circumferential 

strains

longitudinal 

strains 
108 

Figure 112. Drawing and photo. Direct observation for detecting 

expansion damage in freezing vials. 

For circuit resistance tests, typical results are shown in figures 113 through 118 for different 

setups of the vials (water-filled unconfined vial, water half-filled unconfined vial, and 

water-filled mortar confined vial). In each case, thermocouples at two locations (top and bottom, 

see figure 92) were used to register the T-t response, and two wire loops were also setup at the 

approximate heights of the thermocouples. Figures 113 through118 show results for T-t response 

from the thermocouples as well as the resistance versus time response from the circuit. In all 

cases shown, at least one of the circuits broke near the end of the freezing plateau on the cooling 

curve. These points of rupture are also shown in the figures. These observations suggested that 

expansion damage in the vials occurred near the end of the freezing plateau, just before the 

temperature dropped further. 

video camera

TV / VCR 

halogen 

lamp

thermocouples 

connected to computer

test vial

glass window

stage
109 

Figure 113. Graph. Results of water-filled 

unconfined vial in circular resistance test. 

Figure 114. Photo. Water-filled 

unconfined vial. 

Figure 115. Graph. Results of water half-filled 

unconfined vial in circular resistance test. 

Figure 116. Photo. Water halffilled unconfined vial. 

Figure 117. Graph. Results from water-filled, 

mortar-confined vial in circular resistance test. 

Figure 118. Photo. Waterfilled, mortar-confined vial. 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

TC top TC bottom Air R top R bottom

rupture

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

TC top TC bottom Air R top R bottom

rupture

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

TC top TC bottom Air R top R bottom

rupture
110 

For strain gage tests, results for vials filled with water and 3 percent NaCl solution are shown in 

figures 119 through 122. The T-t curves from thermocouples in the liquid are shown as well as 

the strain gage response along the circumferential direction at vial midheight. In both cases, there 

was substantial activity recorded along the freezing plateau. For water, the strain peaked sharply 

at the start of the plateau and reached another peak again just before the end of the plateau. This 

agrees with the result obtained using the circuit resistance method in which rupture was also 

detected near the end of the plateau. Figure 120 shows the multiple failure locations on the vial 

(cracking along the vial body and breakage of the cap). For 3 percent NaCl solution, the strain 

reached two consecutive peaks also at the start of the plateau and gradually subsided. Multiple 

fracturing along the vial was also observed (figure 122). 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 119. Graph. Results of strain gage method—

plain water. 

Figure 120. Photo. Vial 

after test. 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 121. Graph. Results of strain gage method— 

3 percent NaCl solution. 

Figure 122. Photo. Vial 

after test. 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200 250

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Circ. strain (10-6) 

TC top TC bottom Air Net strain

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200 250

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Circ. strain (10-6)

TC top TC bottom Air Net strain
111 

For the direct observation tests, results for vials filed with water and 3 percent NaCl solution are 

shown in figures 123 and 124, respectively, where the cooling curves are shown along with 

photos of the vial condition at various points on the curves. In these tests, it was observed that 

immediately after supercooling (at 50 mins in both figures 123 and 124), a cloudy phase 

propagated from the top to the bottom of the vial, filling the vial entirely with a crystalline 

network, as shown by figures 123b and 124b. This propagation event lasted anywhere from 5 to 

10 seconds and marked the start of the freezing plateau. The plain water vial burst at around the 

60-minute mark from start of cooling, and as shown in figure 123c, the bottom thermocouple 

was left exposed to freezer air, while the top thermocouple was still surrounded with ice. This is 

likely why the bottom thermocouple recorded a sudden drop in temperature, while the top 

thermocouple continued recording a full freezing plateau. As for timing, the “explosion” 

occurred at approximately one-quarter of the way into the freezing plateau as recorded by the top 

thermocouple. Similarly, the saline solution vial burst at around the 65-minute mark which 

corresponded to approximately one-third of the way into the quasi-freezing plateau as recorded 

by the bottom thermocouple (figure 124). 

 

a. Test start b. Immediately 

after supercooling 

c. Vial breakage 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 123. Graph and photos. Results for direct observation 

method of damage detection (for water). 

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

Top Bottom Air
112 

 

a. Test start b. Immediately 

after supercooling 

c. Vial breakage 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 124. Graph and photos. Results for direct observation method of 

damage detection (for 3 percent NaCl). 

In summary, these vial tests, despite being performed via different approaches, all pointed 

toward the fact that expansion damage of the vials could occur at any point in the freezing 

plateau of the cooling curve. While the circuit resistance method indicated that rupture occurred 

at the end of the plateau, the other two methods suggested there were volume changes including 

the possibility of damage at any point during the plateau. Nevertheless, it appeared that in all 

cases, as long as a complete freezing plateau was observed in these tests, expansion damage 

would have occurred in the vials. Damage was not observed after the freezing plateau. 

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

Top Bottom Air
113 

4.4.2.4 Connection to Freeze-Thaw Test Specimens 

Cooling curves of ASTM C 1262 (2003) test specimens were monitored using thermocouples 

embedded in the specimens themselves. For each specimen of size 76 by 229 by 33 mm (3 by 9 

by 1.3 inches), three thermocouples were grouted into predrilled holes in the specimens as shown 

in figures 125 and 126. The specimens were then placed in plastic containers that were 152 by 

305 by 90 mm (6 by 12 by 3.5 inches), and the containers were subsequently filled with water to 

the 13-mm (1⁄2 inch-) level (figures 127 and 128). These instrumented specimens were subjected 

to ASTM C 1262 (2003) freeze-thaw cycles while their internal temperatures were monitored. 

An example of the response measured by one of these specimens was shown earlier in figure 89. 

 = thermocouple 

Figure 125. Drawing. Location of 

thermocouples (S1, S2, S3) 

embedded in SRW specimen 

Figure 126. Drawing. Location of 

thermocouples (Af, Am) and in water (Wu, 

Wa). 

 

Figure 127. Photo. Container 

used to hold SRW blocks 

Figure 128. Photo. Varying 

container sizes. 

Figure 129 shows cooling curves for two instrumented SRW specimens that differed in 

their internal structure and material properties. SRW mix A was characterized by higher 

volume fraction of paste and lower volume fraction of total voids (air and compaction) 

compared to SRW mix B, as shown on the photos in figures 130 and 131. 

S3 S1

S2

Af AM

Wu Wa
114 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 129. Graph. Cooling curves for SRW mix A and B. 

Figure 130. Photo. SRW mix A. Figure 131. Photo. SRW mix B. 

From the cooling curves of these specimens, it is seen that while pore water in mix B specimen 

froze at approximately the same temperature as the bulk water surrounding the specimen, pore 

water in mix A specimen had a slightly lower freezing point. In both cases, however, the cooling 

curve of the pore liquid in the specimens followed similar overall pattern as the cooling curve of 

the surrounding water as well as the liquids shown in preceding sections, which were 

characterized by a freezing plateau followed by a rapid descent in temperature. Based on our 

understanding of the processes occurring during freezing of liquids as presented earlier in this 

chapter, it is thus evident that various physical and chemical changes are taking place during 

freezing of solutions in the specimens. With this consideration, it also becomes apparent that 

specimens over a range of test conditions (e.g., specimens in different container sizes, in 

different locations in a freezer, in different freezers, and even from cycle to cycle) can exhibit 

0 1 2 mm 0 1 2 mm 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

012345678

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

surrounding 

water

SRW mix B

SRW mix A

freezer air 

4.2 hrs 
115 

different cooling curves and possibly different extent of damage. The following parts show how 

specimen cooling curves may, however, vary under different conditions. 

I. Varying volume of surrounding water 

Specimen cooling curves were obtained by Hance (2005) in the walk-in freezer using the 

same instrumented specimens as those described above, but with varying volumes of 

surrounding water. These tests were conducted with the freezer loaded with a total of 40 

specimens, and the results are reproduced in figure 132. The curve corresponding to a 

specimen immersed in water at the standard ASTM C 1262 (2003) depth of 13 mm (1⁄2 

inch) is shown by the curve labeled “As spec.” Variations to this condition involved 

changing the water volume by adding or removing 50 or 100 mL (1.7 to 3.4 fl oz) from 

the container, resulting in the other curves shown in the figure. It is interesting to note 

that while the initial cooling portions of the curves (prior to the freezing plateau) were 

similar in all cases, the lengths of freezing plateau and the shapes of the curve following 

the freezing plateau were dissimilar in each case. Increasing the volume of surrounding 

water had the primary effect of prolonging the freezing plateau. For the various curves in 

figure 132, the length of the freezing plateau was estimated using the method shown in 

figure 133, and these results together with other key parameters are summarized in 

table 9. It appears that in general, for every 50 mL (1.7 fl oz) increase in water, the 

freezing plateau was lengthened by about 1⁄2 hour. Another observation from these results 

is a difference in the final specimen temperature at the end of the cold soak periods. For 

every 50 mL (1.7 fl oz) increase in water, the specimen temperature increased by 0.7 to 

2.2 °C (1.3 to 4.0 °F) after a 4-hour cold soak and by 0.1 to 0.7 °C (0.2 to 1.3 °F) after a 

5-hour cold soak. 
116 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 132. Graph. Specimen cooling curves for different volumes of 

surrounding water (reproduced from Hance, 2005). 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 133. Graph. Simple approach to estimate length of freezing plateau. 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

start of 

cold soak

4-hr cold 

soak

5-hr cold 

soak

freezer air

+100 mL +50 mL As spec. 

–100 mL –50 mL

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

tangent to flat 

freezing plateau

tangent to region of 

maximum slope after 

freezing plateau 

2.3 hrs
117 

Table 9. Measured differences for conditions of varying volumes of surrounding water. 

Parameter Surrounding Water Volume 

–100 mL 

(3.4 fl oz) 

–50 mL 

(1.7 fl oz) 

As spec. +50 mL 

(1.7 fl oz) 

+100 mL 

(3.4 fl oz) 

Specimen initial cooling rate, 

°C/hr (°F/hr) 

14 

(25) 

14 

(25) 

14 

(25) 

14 

(25) 

13 

(24) 

Length of freezing plateau 

hours 2.3 2.7 3.0 3.4 3.6 

Specimen temp. at 4-hour 

cold soak, °C (°F) 

–13.1 

(8.4) 

–12.4 

(9.6) 

–10.9 

(12.3) 

–8.7 

(16.3) 

–7.6 

(18.3) 

Specimen temp. at 5-hour 

cold soak, °C (°F) 

–14.5 

(5.9) 

–14.3 

(6.2) 

–13.6 

(7.5) 

–13.2 

(8.2) 

–13.1 

(8.4) 

This suggests that the specimen temperature is less sensitive to variations in surrounding 

water volume at a 5-hour cold soak (i.e., more time is required to remove the additional 

latent heat of fusion from the extra water.) However, at a given water volume, the 

difference in specimen temperature between 4 and 5 hours of cold soak ranged from 

1.4 °C (2.5 °F) for the –100 mL (-3.4 fl oz) case to 5.5 °C (9.9 °F) for the +100 mL 

(3.4 fl oz) case. The slopes of the post freezing plateau part of the cooling curve were 

similar in all cases. 

 II. Varying container size 

In a separate test, Hance varied the container size which correspondingly led to variations 

in water volume. Two container sizes were used: the same one as above (152 by 305 by 

90 mm (6 by 12 by 3.5 inches)) and a smaller one (135 by 241 by 76 mm (51⁄4 by 91⁄2 by 

3 inches)). Both container sizes yielded clearances (specimen-to-edge of container 

distance) that were compliant with ASTM C 1262 (2003). The specimen cooling curves 

are shown in figure 134 where it is also seen that variations in this curve resulted from 

changes in container size. Key parameters for this comparison are shown in table 10. 
118 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 134. Graph Specimen cooling curves for different container sizes 

(reproduced from Hance, 2005). 

Table 10. Measured differences for conditions of varying container sizes. 

Parameter Container Size 

Small Large 

Specimen initial cooling 

rate, °C/hr (°F/hr) 

13 

(23) 

13 

(23) 

Length of freezing plateau 

hours 2.8 3.2 

Specimen temp. at 4-hour 

cold soak, °C (°F) 

–13.0 

(8.6) 

–11.6 

(11.1) 

Specimen temp. at 5-hour 

cold soak, °C (°F) 

–14.9 

(5.2) 

–13.9 

(7.0) 

 III. Varying specimen quantities in a freezer 

Section 4.3.1.2 demonstrated that the freezer air temperature in the walk-in chamber 

varied with increasing specimen quantities ranging from 2 to 100 specimens. In those 

tests, instrumented specimens were also placed in the freezer to obtain the specimen 

cooling curves under these conditions. The results are shown in figure 135 in which the 

freezer air temperature curves are reproduced. It is seen that substantial variations in 

actual specimen cooling response ensued by varying the number of specimens in the 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

w

start of 

cold soak

4-hr cold 

soak

5-hr cold 

soak

freezer air

Lg cont.

Sm cont.
119 

chamber. Differences were seen in various parts of the cooling curve as summarized in 

table 11. Overall, specimen initial cooling rates were lower and final specimen 

temperatures were higher as the total specimen quantity increased. It is also noted that 

while freezer air temperatures did not drop significantly lower in going from a 4-hour 

cold soak to a 5-hour cold soak, specimen temperatures dropped an additional 1 °C (2 °F) 

during this extra hour. 

Whether this additional 1 °C (2 °F) has any impact on the damage process in the 

specimens is not clear. The freezer air temperature curves shown in figure 136 for 2, 20, 

40 and 60 specimens were compliant with ASTM C 1262 (2003) requirements. For 80 

and 100 specimens, data collection was discontinued before the 4-hour cold soak was 

reached, but in these cases, the freezer air response could have been “made compliant” to 

ASTM C 1262 (2003) by simply extending the cooling time to the necessary time to 

achieve 4-hour cold soak (as long as it is below –13°C (8.6 °F). 
120 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 135. Graph. Cooling curves for varying specimen quantities in the 

walk-in chamber—freezer air. 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 136. Graph. Cooling curves for varying specimen quantities in the 

walk-in chamber—specimen cooling curves. 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

increasing number 

of specimens 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

increasing number 

of specimens 
121 

Table 11. Measured differences for conditions of varying specimen quantities. 

Parameter Number of Specimens 

2 20 40 60 80 100 

Specimen initial cooling rate, 

°C/hr (°F/hr) 

19 

(34) 

18 

(33) 

17 

(30) 

14 

(26) 

14 

(25) 

12 

(21) 

Length of freezing plateau 

hours 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.9 4.0 

Freezer air temperature at 

4-hour cold soak, °C (°F) 

–16.8 

(1.8) 

–15.8 

(3.5) 

–14.6 

(5.7) 

–14.6 

(5.8) – – 

Specimen temperature at 

4-hour cold soak, °C (°F) 

–15.5 

(4.1) 

–14.8 

(5.4) 

–12.9 

(8.8) 

–12.9 

(8.7) – – 

Freezer air temperature at 

5-hour cold soak, °C (°F) 

–16.9 

(1.6) 

–16.1 

(3.0) 

–15.1 

(4.8) 

–15.3 

(4.5) – – 

Specimen temperature at 

5-hour cold soak, °C (°F) 

–16.4 

(2.4) 

–15.5 

(4.1) 

–14.0 

(6.8) 

–14.0 

(6.9) – – 

IV. Single location repeatability 

The instrumented specimen was also used for tests inside the chest freezer presented in 

section 4.3.1.1. In one particular set of tests, the specimen was subjected to repeated 

freeze-thaw cycles in a single location of the freezer to determine the single-location 

repeatability of this particular freezer (note that for the chest freezer, cycling had to be 

performed manually). The specimen was placed in the lower back corner of the freezer as 

illustrated in Figure 138. The resulting freezer air and specimen cooling curves for seven 

cycles are shown in Figure 139. The overall range of freezer air temperatures among all 

seven cycles was about 1 °C (2 °F) during the time period of 2 to 4 hours. In general, the 

specimen cooling curves were more or less similar, particularly during initial cool down 

and over the freezing plateau. The main difference was in the cooling region beyond the 

freezing plateaus. Of all seven cycles, the shortest one had a freezer air cooling branch 

that was 6.4 hours long while the longest one had a cooling branch that was 6.9 hours 

long. The specimen temperature reached –9.2 °C (15.4 °F) in the shortest cycle and –10.2 

°C (13.6 °F) in the longest cycle. As mentioned before, it is not certain whether this extra 

1 °C (1.8 °F) drop in specimen temperature is significant as far as specimen damage is 

concerned. 
122 

Figure 137. Photo. View of chest freezer 

used for single-location repeatability tests. 

Figure 138. Photo. View of chest freezer 

interior. The circled portion indicates 

the location of the instrumented specimen. 
123 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 139. Graph. Freezer air and specimen cooling curves for seven cycles. 

 V. Different freezers 

With data from instrumented specimen tests in the walk-in and chest freezers, it is also 

possible to compare responses in two different freezers. Figure 140 shows the specimen 

cooling curves under these two freezers. While both freezers were capable of complying 

with ASTM C 1262 (2003), some differences were observed in the overall shape of the 

air and specimen cooling curves. The specimen cooling curves, however, showed similar 

initial cool down rates (about 14 °C/hr (25 °F/hr)) and lengths of freezing plateaus (2.9 

hours in chest freezer and 3.1 hours in walk-in freezer). The specimen temperatures at the 

end of a 4-hour cold soak were also similar (–11.4 °C (11.5 °F) in the chest freezer and –

10.9 °C (12.4 °F) in the walk-in freezer). 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)
124 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 140. Graph. Comparison of specimen cooling curve in 2 different freezers 

(chest freezer with 6 specimens, walk-in freezer with 40 specimens). 

In general, it is seen that variations in the exposure conditions of specimens can influence the 

actual cooling curve of the specimens themselves. One key finding from these studies is the fact 

that complying with ASTM C 1262 (2003) freezer air T-t requirements does not necessarily 

guarantee similar cooling responses in specimens. It appears that variations in the surrounding 

water volume and in the number of specimens inside the freezer caused the largest discrepancy 

among cooling curves. Variations in container size also caused differences in the cooling curve, 

but this is probably due to the variation in surrounding water volume. Specimens in the chest 

freezer loaded with 6 specimen’s portrayed similar response to specimens in the walk-in freezer 

loaded with 40 specimens. This shows it is possible to attain similar specimen cooling responses 

even between separate freezers. Similarly, repeatability within a single location in the chest 

freezer was reasonable. 

Note that in all specimen cooling curves considered above, the freezing plateau was completely 

traversed by the end of a 4-hour cold soak. Accordingly, from the standpoint of inducing 

expansion damage, it appears that the current 4-hour minimum cold soak in the ASTM C 1262 

(2003) is adequate to fulfill this purpose. It is interesting to note that the cold soak requirement in 

an earlier version of this test method (ASTM C 1262-94) consisted of maintaining the chamber 

air temperature at –17.8 to –9.4 °C (0 to 15 °F) for 3.5 to 4.5 hours (for similar size specimens 

and containers). Using the curves in figure 129 as example, cold soak would start after 1 hour 

from start of test (based on the 1994 version of ASTM C 1262) and end after 4.5 hours cooling 

time at the earliest. However, after 4.5 hours, this specimen was still undergoing its freezing 

plateau and thus, full expansion damage potential is likely not realized. Hence, the cold soak 

requirement of 3.5 hours starting at –9.4 °C (15 °F) as required in the previous version of ASTM 

C 1262 (2003) is not adequate. 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

walk-in air

chest air 

walk-in 

specimen 

chest 

specimen 
125 

This discussion has applied observations from the vial tests to pore liquid in the specimens. 

While this approach may be valid for large pores where water exists in bulk state, it may not be 

valid in smaller pores where the surface effects become critical. One result of such effects is the 

depression of freezing point when water freezes in increasingly smaller pores. Figures 140 and 

142 show various relationships from the literature between pore size and temperature at which 

ice formation is possible. Figure 141 shows that for pore radii above 50 nm (2×10-6 inches), 

freezing temperature of fresh water is close to 0 °C (32 °F). Figure 142 shows theoretical 

freezing points above –5 °C (23 °F) for pore sizes greater than 10 nm (2.5 X 10-7 in.) or 25 nm (1 

X 10-6 inches), depending on the assumption regarding the controlling interface in the pores 

(solid-liquid or liquid-vapor) (Marchand et al., 1995). For SRW mixes, compaction voids can 

account for up to 25 percent of the volume fraction of the material and the sizes of these voids 

can range from fractions of a millimeter to several millimeters (see figures 130 and 131 for 

example). Freezing of water in these pores is therefore probably close to freezing in the bulk 

state. For smaller capillary and gel pores in the paste fraction of SRW mixes, the freezing point 

is likely to be depressed and to follow relationships similar to those shown in figures 141 and 

142. 

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

0 10 20 30

Pore radius (nm)

Freezing point (°C)

Figure 141. Graph. Relationship between 

size of pores and freezing point from Pigeon 

and Pleau (1995). 

Figure 142. Graph. Relationship between 

size of pores and freezing point from 

Marchand et al. (1995). 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

In saline solution, aside from ice formation, a concentration change in the unfrozen portion of the 

solution was also measured that increased most rapidly near the end of the freezing plateau. 

Concentration gradients lead to osmotic pressures, which have been cited in the literature as a 

primary mechanism for deicing salt scaling (Harnik et al., 1980). Even without the presence of 

salts, Powers has pointed out that concentration differences due to freeze concentration of the 

pore solution can induce osmotic pressures large enough to damage the concrete (Powers, 1975). 

If osmotic effects due to concentration changes were significant, these effects are likely to 

become increasingly important after ice has started forming (once the freezing plateau has 

started) and throughout the duration of cold soak. For testing purposes, to minimize differences 

that may be incurred by different laboratories due to different cold soak durations, an upper limit 

on the cold soak period of the test is therefore required. The currently specified 5 hours in ASTM 

C 1262 (2003) may thus fulfill this purpose. 

liquid-vapor interface

solid-liquid interface 
126 

4.4.2.5 Rates of Temperature Change 

In the same manner in which rates of temperature change were determined for freezer air and 

solution temperatures in section 4.4.1, rates of temperature change were also determined for an 

SRW specimen from its cooling curve. Temperature data from a specimen tested in the walk-in 

freezer loaded with 40 specimens (labeled “As spec.” in figure 132) were used to calculate these 

rates. Figure 143 shows the T-t curve for freezer air, water surrounding specimen and specimen 

itself for one cycle (top graph). Directly below this graph are the rates of temperature change for 

the solution and specimen temperature, followed by a graph showing the difference in 

temperature between center of specimen and freezer air (ΔT = Tfreezer air – Tspecimen). 

From the dT/dt graphs, it is seen that the specimen and its surrounding water underwent similar 

patterns in terms in their temperature change rates, although the specimen dT/dt response 

appeared to lag that of the water. Despite the lag, peak dT/dt values for the specimen were not far 

from the peak dT/dt values for the water at the following times: 

• During initial cooling (0 to 2 hours) in which dT/dt for water peaked at –21 °C/hr 

(–38 °F/hr), while dT/dt for the specimen peaked at –16 °C/hr (–29 °F/hr). 

• Immediately following cold soak (at around 11 hours) in which dT/dt for the surrounding 

water peaked at 24 °C/hr (43 °F/hr), while for the specimen, this was 22 °C/hr (40 °F/hr). 

Larger differences in peak rates of temperature change were observed at these times: 

• After the respective freezing plateaus in which dT/dt for the surrounding water peaked 

also at –21 °C/hr (–38 °F/hr), while dT/dt for the specimen exhibited a peak at –7 °C/hr 

(–13 °F/hr). 

• After the respective thawing plateaus in which dT/dt for water peaked at 31 °C/hr (56 

°F/hr), while dT/dt for the specimen peaked at 11 °C/hr (20 °F/hr). 
127 

Tf = (9/5) * Tc + 32 {Tf = Fahrenheit, Tc = Celsius} 

Figure 143. Graph. Rates of temperature change for specimen and surrounding water. 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Time (hrs)

Temperature (°C)

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Time (hrs)

dT/dt (°C/hr)

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Time (hrs)

ΔT (°C)

specimen

solution

freezer air

solution

specimen
128 

Thus, overall, it appears that peak rates in either cooling or warming of the specimen were 

similar to the corresponding rates in the surrounding water. This similarity in rates only 

happened when both specimen and surrounding water were at similar initial temperatures (24 °C 

(75 °F) during initial cooling and –16 °C (3 °F) during warming after cold soak). The peak rates 

of cooling in the specimen also occurred at approximately the same time as for water. However, 

when being cooled or warmed from different starting temperatures such as at the end of freezing 

plateaus or during thaw plateaus, the peak rates in temperature change differed for both specimen 

and surrounding water. Figure 143 shows the temperature difference between center of specimen 

and freezer air, ΔT. This graph shows that the largest temperature gradients occurred during 

initial cool down (from 0 to 1 hour) and for about 2–3 hours after end of cold soak. 

4.4.3 Other Aspects Relevant to the ASTM C 1262 (2003) Test Method 

While the 4 to 5 hour cold soak requirement in ASTM C 1262 (2003) may be adequate to induce 

damage in specimens as shown previously, there are other aspects of the freeze-thaw cycle that 

must also be considered. These are discussed here. 

4.4.3.1 Concept of Frozen Solid 

Despite setting a 5 hour maximum limit on cold soak, ASTM C 1262 (2003) permits extending 

the cold soak if the water (or solution) surrounding the specimens does not appear to be frozen 

solid. This is stated in Clause 8.2.1: 

Periodically, at the end of a freezing cycle, open the containers and 

visually inspect the specimens to determine if all the water 

surrounding the specimen is frozen solid. If not, extend the length 

of the freezing cycle to ensure that all water is frozen solid. 

From this statement, it appears that the interpretation of what constitutes “frozen solid” is left up 

to the discretion of the test operator. Figures 144 and 145 show pictures of two specimens tested 

in 3 percent NaCl solution and removed from the freezer after a 4.5-hour cold soak. While the 

solution around figure 144 appeared to be completely frozen, the solution around the specimen 

figure 145 exhibited wet spots over it. Thus, while the specimen in figure 144 may be considered 

to have reached frozen solid conditions, the one in figure 145 may not be and consequently kept 

in the freezer for additional cold soak time. This decision thus affects the actual exposure 

condition of specimens. 

This issue is better understood by examining the FP versus T curves shown earlier in figure 107. 

A solution with initial 3 percent NaCl concentration attains an FP of about 85 percent by the time 

its temperature reaches the target cold soak temperature of –18°C (0°F). This means there is still 

approximately 15 percent unfrozen solution that could either become entrapped within the ice or 

reside on the surface of the solution giving the impression that the solution is not yet frozen 

solid. Given that complete freezing of an NaCl solution is not possible until eutectic temperature 

is reached (–21°C (–6°F)), it is recommended that cold soak be limited to the current 5 hour 

maximum and that the condition of frozen solid be removed from the test standard. 
129 

Figure 144. Photo. Specimen after 4.5-hour 

cold soak in walk-in freezer appears 

frozen solid. 

Figure 145. Photo. Second specimen, also 

after 4.5-hour cold soak in walk-in freezer, 

shows wet spots as indicated in 

the circled areas. 

4.4.3.2 Temperature Tolerance 

The current allowable cold soak temperature in ASTM C 1262 (2003) is –18 ± 5 °C (0° ± 10 °F). 

An inspection of the NaCl–H2O phase diagram reveals that the eutectic point for this system 

exists at temperature of –21°C (–6 °F) which is the lowest temperature at which a solution will 

remain completely liquid. Below this point, solid ice and NaCl·2H2O crystals are the 

thermodynamically stable phases which means that salts will crystallize from the remaining 

solution (Van Vlack, 1967). Although the extent to which NaCl crystallization may damage the 

concrete under these conditions was not investigated here, damaging pressures caused by salt 

crystallization from supersaturated conditions are well documented in the literature (Charola, 

2000; Scherer, 2004; and Pigeon and Pleau, 1995). It is therefore recommended that unless 

otherwise demonstrated, the minimum allowable temperature during cold soak shall remain 

above –21 °C (–6 °F). 

Recall that earlier in this chapter, it was mentioned that at cold soak temperatures above 

approximately –14 °C (7 °F), reliabilities of 100 percent were unattainable in the walk-in freezer. 

This issue in conjunction with the eutectic point issue mentioned above provide compelling 

reasons to tighten the allowable cold soak range from –18 ± 5 °C (0° ± 10 °F) to –18 ± 3 °C (0° ± 

5 °F). This is in fact the allowable temperature range specified in ASTM C 672 (2004) for 

deicing salt scaling resistance of concrete. 

4.4.3.3 Cooling Rates and Target Cold Soak Temperatures 

While a target cold soak temperature range and duration are specified in ASTM C 1262 (2003), 

cooling rates are currently not specified (i.e., how fast the temperature drops from warm to cold 

soak). Cooling rates have been cited in the literature as being significant, especially for large 

pore systems (Petersson, 1999 and Scherer, 1993). Cooling rate is also a parameter in Powers’ 

classical hydraulic pressure theory to estimate pressures in concretes (Powers, 1949). 
130 

One important outcome from the vial tests described earlier was the comparison of vial 

performance under two freezers with different cooling environments. Vials similar to those 

described in section 4.4.2.3 were prepared but instead of being filled to capacity, were only filled 

halfway. Figures 146 through 149 show the T-t response for these two vials, as well as pictures 

of them. While the vial tested in the chest freezer fractured (figure 147), the vial tested in the 

walk-in chamber did not exhibit signs of damage (figure 149). Table 12 shows a summary of 

relevant temperature parameters to compare the exposure conditions of these two vials. 

Generally, water in the chest freezer cooled about 1.2 to 1.6 times faster, and ice formed about 

1.5 times faster than in the walk-in freezer. 

Distinct modes of ice formation were also observed in these two vials. Figure 150 and 151 show 

views of a half-full vial after 30 and 40 minutes in the chest freezer. The growth of ice at the airwater interface is clearly seen. After 40 minutes (figure 151), the surface was hard enough to 

resist the weight of the screwdriver shown. In essence, an “ice plug” appears to have formed at 

the top of the liquid column and the yet unfrozen liquid below this plug was thus “enclosed.” 

These vials were damaged as shown by the cracks in figure 147. On the other hand, as shown in 

figure 149, ice formed from within the liquid column in the walk-in freezer, and a rise in the 

column was observed. No damage was observed in this vial. Cooling rates may have played a 

role in determining whether or not damage occurred in these vials. 

Given that cooling rates may play a role in inducing damage, actual specimen cooling rates are 

now presented and compared to cooling rates in other freeze-thaw test methods. For the 

specimen cooling curves presented in section 4.4.2.4, cooling rates were calculated by taking the 

difference between the specimen temperature after 4-hour cold soak and 20 °C (reference initial 

value) and dividing this difference by the time taken for the specimen to drop from 20 °C to the 

4-hour cold soak point. This is expressed in equation 9: 

Equation 9 

Note that this cooling rate is different from those shown in section 4.4.2.4 that corresponded to 

initial cooling rates from 20 °C to 0 °C. The reason for calculating cooling rates in the manner 

shown in equation 9 is to enable comparison of this parameter with other existing freeze-thaw 

test methods. Specimen cooling rates obtained using equation 9 is summarized in table 13. 

Cooling rate (°C/hr) = (20°C - Temp. of specimen after 4-hr cold soak)

time at 4-hr cold soak - time at T=20°C
131 

Figure 146. Graph. Results of cooling in 

chest freezer. 

Figure 147. Photo. 

Half-filled vial after 

cooling in chest freezer.

Figure 148. Graph. Results of cooling 

in walk-in freezer. 

Figure 149. Photo. 

Half-filled vial after 

cooling in walk-in 

freezer. 

cracks

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

TC top TC bottom Air

78 min 

rise in 

column

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (min)

Temperature (oC)

TC top TC bottom Air

110 min 
132 

Figure 150. Photo. Half-full vial after 30 minutes of exposure in the chest freezer. 

Figure 151. Photo. Half-full vial after 40 minutes of exposure in the chest freezer. 
133 

Table 12. Comparison of cooling curve characteristics for half-full vials 

in different freezers. 

Walk-in Freezer Chest Freezer 

Water cooling rate (°C/min) a 0.7 to 0.9 1.1 

Length of freezing plateau (min) b 110 78 

Approx. ice formation rate (g/min) c 0.14 0.20 

Range of freezer air temperature 

during water freezing plateau (°C) −10 to −12 −21 to −25 

a Evaluated as the slope of water T-t curve between about 20 and 0°C for the bottom thermocouple. 

b Evaluated in the manner shown in figures 146 through 149. 

c Rate = volume of water / length of freezing plateau, assuming 90 percent of the total water freezes 

during the plateau. 

Table 13. Comparison of specimen cooling rates for cooling curves of section 4.4.2.3 

Variation of Condition (Figure) Condition Specimen Cooling Rate* 

°C/hr (°F/hr) 

SRW mix A 4.9 (8.8) 

Different SRW mixes (figures 129–131) 

SRW mix B 4.4 (8.0) 

–100mL 5.2 (9.4) 

−50mL 5.2 (9.4) 

As spec. 5.0 (9.0) 

+ 50mL 4.6 (8.3) 

Varying volume of surrounding water 

(figure 132) 

+100mL 4.4 (8.0) 

Small 5.0 (9.0) 

Varying container size (figure 134) 

Large 5.0 (8.9) 

Two specimens 6.4 (11.5) 

20 5.8 (10.5) 

40 5.1 (9.1) 

Varying specimen quantity (figures 135 

and 136)) 

60 4.1 (7.5) 

Chest 5.0 (9.0) 

Different freezers (figure 140) 

Walk-in 5.0 (9.0) 

*From initial 20 °C (68 °F) to temperature at end of 4-hour cold soak. 
134 

As a point of reference, ASTM C 666 (2004) for rapid freeze-thaw testing of ordinary concretes 

specifies the specimen T-t regime shown in figure 152. The graph shown is for ASTM C 666 

(2004), Procedure A which consists of freezing and thawing in water. For the target values 

shown in figure 152, average cooling rates of 5.9 to 14.8 °C/hr (11 to 27 °F/hr). It is seen that in 

general, the cooling rate of the ASTM C 1262 (2003) specimens presented in section 4.4.2.3 was 

near the lower end of the ASTM C 666 (2004) range. 

Figure 152. Diagram. ASTM C 666 (ASTM 2004), Procedure A specified 

T-t exposure of control specimen. 

Another example of a specified specimen cooling curve is given by the European cube test for 

surface scaling and beam test for internal damage (Siebel, 1995). The specified cooling curve 

envelopes for these tests are shown in figure 153. Cooling curves for the specimens tested in the 

chest and walk-in freezers (specifically those shown in figure 140) are also plotted for 

comparison. It generally appears that the cooling curves obtained for the ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

test specimens followed more closely those of the cube test designed for surface scaling tests, 

except for the specimen temperature at end of cold soak. 

40°F 

(4.4°C) 

0°F 

(-17.8°C) 

1.5 hrs 

3.75 hrs 

0.5 hrs 

1.25 hrs 

2 hrs 

5 hrs 

theating > 0.25 tTEST

 0.25×(2 to 5 hrs) 

Cooling rate, dTC/dt > 27°F/hr (14.8°C/hr) 

 11°F/hr ( 5.9°C/hr) 

Heating rate, dTH/dt < 80°F/hr (44.4°C/hr) 

 32°F/hr (17.8°C/hr) 

T 

t 
135 

Figure 153. Graph. Comparison between cooling curves specified in 

European test methods and ASTM C 1262 (2003) specimens. 

4.4.3.4 Degree of Saturation 

The above observations on half-full vial tests also suggested that partially saturated systems may 

be damaged during freezing. For cementitious systems, it has been traditionally reported in the 

literature that damage can occur if the capillary pores are filled with water above a critical 

saturation of 91.7 percent (Cordon, 1966). The observations from these tests, however, suggest 

that damage can occur at saturation levels well below the critical value depending on the cooling 

environment. This has important implications for ASTM C 1262 (2003) that involves freezing 

and thawing of partially immersed specimens (figure 154). Local moisture content profiles could 

vary among specimens due to variations in capillary rise caused by sample microstructural 

differences, changes in ambient conditions, or even specimen geometry. It is recommended that 

further research be carried out to compare the performance between fully saturated and partially 

saturated specimens and to determine the extent that saturation effects may have on test 

variability. 

Figure 154. Drawing. ASTM C 1262 (2003) partially immersed specimen. 

specimen immersed depth = 

10 mm

zone of varying moisture 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

envelopes for 

European Beam Test 

envelopes for 

European Cube Test 

ASTM C 1262 

specimen in chest 

freezer (Figure 5.23) 

ASTM C 1262 specimen in 

walk-in freezer (Figure 5.23)

5-hr cold soak in 

walk-in freezer 

4-hr cold soak in 

walk-in freezer 
136 

4.4.3.5 Warming Rate 

Warming rates also are not currently specified in ASTM C 1262 (2003). Warming rates, 

especially while the ice is still solid (i.e., from the minimum test temperature to the point before 

ice melts), may contribute to damage in the cementitious material. This is because ice has a 

coefficient of thermal expansion of about 50 × 10–6 /°C (25 × 10–6 /°F) (Michel, 1978) which is 

approximately five times the value of about 10 × 10–6 /°C (5 × 10–6 /°F) for concrete (Neville, 

1996). As such, during rapid temperature rise, the differential expansion between the ice and 

concrete can generate internal stresses. This potential damage mechanism has also been 

discussed in other references (Kaufmann, 2002; Kukko, 1992; Venečanin, 1984). 

4.4.4 Summary—Implications for ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

From the results and observations of the experimental work described in this chapter, it is 

apparent that a number of damage-inducing processes can take place during the freezing and 

thawing of specimens. It is key that specimens tested under different conditions such as different 

containers, container sizes, locations within a freezer or freezers undergo similar exposure if they 

are to experience similar forms and levels of damage. It has been demonstrated that variations in 

surrounding water volume and total quantity of specimens in the freezer can have an impact on 

the specimen cooling curves. The issue of surrounding water volume suggests that this parameter 

should be fixed to prevent variations arising from fluctuations in this parameter. The impact of 

specimen quantity was reflected by markedly different freezer air and specimen cooling curves 

for varying loads of specimens. For each load of specimens, however, ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

freezer air T-t requirements were still met which indicates that these requirements must be 

revised and tightened to avoid variations such as the ones presented here. 

The current cold soak requirement of 4 to 5 hours at –18 ± 5 °C (0° ± 10 °F) appears adequate 

for inducing expansion damage due to ice formation in specimens. Extensions beyond the 5 hour 

maximum based on operator interpretations of frozen solid conditions (as is currently the case in 

Clause 8.2.1) are not recommended. As far as the cold soak length is concerned, as shown in 

tables 9, 10, and 11, one consequence of allowing a 1-hour window in cold soak times is that the 

minimum specimen temperature will reach different values. This discrepancy was particularly 

pronounced in the comparison of specimens with different volumes of surrounding water. 

Tightening the allowable cold soak time to 4.5 to 5 hours may thus be justified on this basis, 

although further investigation would be required to determine the effect of cold soak length on 

specimen performance and whether variations in cold soak length contribute to variability of test 

results. Moreover, modifying the length of cold soak may influence the manner in which freezers 

are operated. As far as temperature tolerance is concerned, it is also recommended that this be 

tightened for the reasons discussed in section 4.4.3.2. 

Specifying target cold soak temperature ranges and durations still does not address the rate at 

which the freezer air temperature must cool down. For the freezers and thermal loads evaluated 

at Cornell, rates during initial cooling of freezer air have ranged as follows (based on the time 

taken for this temperature to drop from about 24 to –13 °C (75.2 to 8.6 °F): 
137 

• Chest freezer with 6 specimens: 15 °C/hr (28 °F/hr) 

• Walk-in freezer with 2 specimens: 22 °C/hr (39 °F/hr) 

20 specimens: 19 °C/hr (33 °F/hr) 

40 specimens: 13 °C/hr (24 °F/hr) 

60 specimens: 9 °C/hr (15 °F/hr) 

80 specimens: 5 °C/hr (10 °F/hr) 

• Cabinet freezer with 18 specimens: 25 °C/hr (44 °F/hr) 

28 specimens: 19 °C/hr (35 °F/hr) 

Similarly, warming rates are not specified in ASTM C 1262 (2003). For tests at Cornell, freezer 

air warming rates have ranged as follows (based on the time taken for this temperature to rise 

from its value at end of cold soak to 19 °C (66 °F): 

• Chest freezer with 6 specimens: 370 °C/hr (666 °F/hr) 

(specimens were physically removed from freezer and placed in laboratory air 

environment) 

• Walk-in freezer with 2 specimens: 41 °C/hr (74 °F/hr) 

20 specimens: 37 °C/hr (67 °F/hr) 

40 specimens: 37 °C/hr (67 °F/hr) 

60 specimens: 34 °C/hr (61 °F/hr) 

80 specimens: 34 °C/hr (61 °F/hr) 

• Cabinet freezer with 18 specimens: 53 °C/hr (95 °F/hr) 

28 specimens: 53 °C/hr (95 °F/hr) 

As was shown in section 4.4.1 (describing selected results from the NCMA study), test 

specimens exhibited discrepancies in performance despite being tested in two freezer 

environments whose air temperatures complied with ASTM C 1262 (2003). Differences in the 

actual rates of cooling and warming were observed between the two freezers. Further research is 

vital to investigate the impact of cooling and warming rates on specimen performance. There are 

two parts to this issue. One is the cooling and warming rates of freezer air which is the control 

medium currently used in ASTM C 1262 (2003) and is easiest to measure in a testing laboratory. 

The other is cooling and warming rates of specimens themselves, which reflect actual 

mechanisms taking place in the material. Whether specifying a complete freezer air T-t curve—

which would include cooling rate and duration, cold soak temperature and duration, warming 

rate and duration, and warm soak temperature and duration—necessarily yields consistent 

specimen cooling curves remains to be explored. It was noted from figure 140 that specimens 

placed in the chest and walk-in freezers exhibited similar cooling curves despite differences in 

the freezer air response, which shows promise in the attainment of similar specimen cooling 

curves. It is also noted that the specification of complete freezer air T-t characteristics may entail 

specification of particular types and performance of freezers, as well as the total number of 

specimens (actual test specimens and dummy specimens) in the freezer at any given time, as is 

currently done in ASTM C 666 (2004). 
138 

4.5 SYNOPSIS OF NCMA STUDY 

As described in section 4.1, toward the end of this FHWA-funded project, the research team for 

this project performed additional, focused research funded by NCMA. Although this work was 

not formally linked to this FHWA project, it did build on the key findings of this project, and 

given the synergy between the two studies, it is logical and efficient to consider the findings 

from both projects when making recommendations and giving guidance to SHAs on freeze-thaw 

durability of SRW blocks. This section provides a brief summary of the main objectives and 

findings of the NCMA project that were performed at Cornell University. For more complete 

details of the NCMA-funded efforts, refer to chapter 6 of Chan’s 2006 dissertation. 

Overall, the NCMA funded project addressed the following general issues: 

• ASTM C 1262 (2003) inherent test variability (significance of variations within the 

test method). 

• Performance criteria assessment (i.e., what does a 1 percent mass loss represent.

The NCMA research project was divided into two main parts: variability test series and 

performance criteria (PC) test series. The scope of each of these parts is only briefly described in 

this section; the reader is directed to Chan (2006) for full details on the study. The specific 

findings from the NCMA study are not presented in this section (for conciseness), but the key 

findings were taken into account when compiling the main conclusions for this report (chapter 5) 

and for providing guidance to SHAs on how to ensure long-term durability of SRW blocks 

through prudent and scientifically-based testing (see appendix A for new version of ASTM C 

1262 (2003) based on the findings of both the FHWA and NCMA studies). 

4.5.1 Variability Test Series 

Following up on potential sources of variability in ASTM C 1262 (2003) already discussed in 

this chapter, the NCMA study focused on the following issues: 

• Varying solution levels. 

• Different specimen sizes for the same container size. 

• Different container sizes for the same specimen. 

• Different specimen geometries (aspect ratios). 

This series was intended to evaluate the effect of variations within the ASTM C 1262 (2003) by 

varying specimen and container sizes to the extremes of ASTM C 1262 (2003) tolerances. The 

tests in this series used 3 percent NaCl, and after every tenth cycle, the condition of the 

specimens was assessed by the following methods: 

• Mass loss percentage (from the collected residues). 

• Mass loss per unit test face area. 

• Resonant frequency (ASTM C 215). 

• Ultrasonic pulse velocity (ASTM C 597). 

• Visual scaling rating (ASTM C 672). 
139 

The above tests assess different forms of specimen damage (note that ASTM C 1262 (2003) only 

relies on mass loss for damage assessment). While mass loss and scaling rating are sensitive to 

external forms of damage (i.e., loss of material from specimen surfaces), resonant frequency and 

pulse velocity are more sensitive to changes in specimen integrity (such as internal cracking). 

The evaluation of specimens using these various techniques allows observing how different 

forms of damage evolve with increasing freeze-thaw cycles and more importantly, enables 

comparing what certain forms of damage such as mass loss mean in terms of other forms of 

damage, such as specimen integrity, as measured from resonant frequency changes. 

4.5.2 Performance Criteria (PC) Test Series 

In addition to assessing specimen condition using mass loss, resonant frequency, ultrasonic pulse 

velocity and visual scaling rating, PC specimens were also tested for their modulus of rupture 

(MoR). The MoR is a useful mechanical property which characterizes the tensile capacity of the 

material. The primary objective of the PC Series was to correlate MoR to the other measured 

properties listed earlier. For these specimens, all measurements except for MoR were conducted 

after every 10th freeze-thaw cycle. MoR tests were conducted on selected specimens at different 

mass loss levels so as to obtain a spread of MoR values over the mass loss range of 0 to 2 

percent. 

4.5.3 Significance of NCMA Project Findings 

This NCMA study was quite comprehensive in the breadth of testing that was performed and the 

range of issues that were investigated. It is beyond the scope of this report to synthesize and 

present the conclusions and recommendations that emanated from this work. However, in 

chapter 4, some of the key findings of the NCMA study are presented, primarily those that are 

most relevant and have been integrated into guidance for SHAs currently testing, specifying, and 

using SRWs. 

 

4.6 FROST DURABILITY INDICES FOR SRW UNITS 

This section describes comprehensive testing of a range of SRW units obtained from commercial 

sources in North America. The main goal of this part of the project was to assess the durability of 

the units, using ASTM C 1262 (2003) (in water and 3 percent NaCl), and to identify which 

material characteristics, such as paste content, absorption, and microstructure, most relate to frost 

resistance. A main goal was to determine if one could measure select SRW block properties 

(other than frost resistance) and then predict frost resistance (as per ASTM C 1262 (2003)), 

based on these material properties. Briefly , the objective was to attempt to identify a frost 

durability index or frost durability indices that can be used as surrogate predictors for durability. 

It should be noted that this work was based on the standard ASTM C 1262 (2003) test method 

that existed at the time that this project was initiated, and as such, the testing described herein did 

not incorporate the various suggestions for improvements that were described throughout this 

chapter. The work presented herein was based entirely on research conducted under this FHWA 

project, and this summary draws from the following publications, especially the first one listed, 

developed under this project: 
140 

• Chan, C., Hover, K.C., Folliard, K.J. and Trejo, D., “Frost Durability Indices of 

Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units,” manuscript submitted to ACI Materials 

Journal, November 2005 (2005d). 

• Haisler, J., Freeze-Thaw Durability of Segmental Retaining Wall Blocks, Master of 

Science thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 2004. 

• Chan, C., Hover, K.C., and Folliard, K.J., “Performance of Segmental Retaining Wall 

(SRW) Units: from Laboratory to Field,” Construction Materials, Proceedings of 

CONMAT 05 and Mindess Symposium (eds. N. Banthia, T. Uomoto, A. Bentur and 

S.P. Shah), Vancouver, Canada, Aug. 21–24, 2005 (2005c). 

4.6.1 Background 

The frost durability of SRW blocks is most commonly assessed by using ASTM C 1262 (2003), 

which involves freeze-thaw cycling of specimens in either water or 3 percent NaCl solution up to 

a prescribed number of cycles (typically 100). At this point, the condition of the specimens is 

evaluated, and their mass loss is determined and compared to specifications such as ASTM C 

1372 (2003). The overall test may require up to 2 to 3 months before completion due to the time 

required for carrying out each full cycle, periodic specimen inspection, and logistical factors. As 

a result, quicker assessments of freeze-thaw durability, such as the use of frost durability indices, 

may gain wider popularity in this industry. 

In ordinary concretes, the spacing factor as determined by the methods of ASTM C 457 (2004) 

has been commonly used as an indicator of frost resistance, with a transition between durable 

and nondurable concretes existing somewhere between a spacing factor of 200 to 250 μm (0.008 

to 0.010 inch) (Hover, 1994). Although ASTM C 457 (2004) tests can be performed on SRW 

concretes, the applicability of the spacing factor to SRW concretes has been questioned. This is 

in part due to the different nature of voids comprising SRW concretes compared to those in 

ordinary concretes (Marchand et al., 1998). The NCMA has suggested an index to assess frost 

resistance of SRW concretes based on simple parameters such as compressive strength, 24-hour 

absorption and unit weight of SRW units (Thomas, 2003). These parameters, obtained from 

ASTM C 140 (2000) testing, are combined in the following manner: 

Equation 10 

Units possessing larger values of I were generally shown to have better likelihood of meeting test 

specifications (typically, maximum 1 percent mass loss after 100 cycles). For instance, for 

freeze-thaw tests in water, only about 10 percent of specimens with I < 58 MPa1/2 (700 psi1/2) 

met specifications. However, 43 percent of specimens with I of about 133 MPa1/2 (1,600 psi1/2) 

and 71 percent of specimens with I > 208 MPa1/2 (2,500 psi1/2) met specifications (Thomas, 

2003). In a review of previous research work, Hance determined that frost durability of dry 

concrete products correlated well with cement content (Hance, 2005). Minimum cement contents 

of 252 to 395 kg/m3

 (425 to 665 lbs/yd3) were generally required for frost resistance in water and 

320 to 380 kg/m3

 (540 to 640 lbs/yd3) for frost resistance in the presence of deicing salts. 

I = 

(water absorption, kg/m or pcf)

(unit weight, kg/m or pcf) (compressive strength, MPa or psi)

3

3 1/2 ×
141 

This section describes analyses of common SRW material characteristics as frost durability 

indices. Properties considered included those obtained from common tests such as ASTM C 140 

(compressive strength, absorption and unit weight) and ASTM C 642 (2002) (boiled absorption 

and volume of permeable voids). In addition, characteristics obtained from microscopy analyses 

(ASTM C 457 (2004)) were also evaluated. The utility of the NCMA index as a frost durability 

index was also assessed. 

4.6.2 Databases of SRW Block Freeze-Thaw Performance and Material Properties 

As part of this project, databases of ASTM C 1262 (2003) freeze-thaw mass loss and material 

characteristics properties from ASTM C 140, C 642 and C 457 tests were obtained for SRW 

units from 5 different manufacturers (labeled A to E). For manufacturers A to D, two different 

types of SRW units were evaluated: units that satisfied DOT specifications in the State of the 

project (henceforth called DOT units), and units that did not necessarily satisfy DOT 

specifications (called nDOT units). DOT units tended to be denser with lower amounts of 

compaction voids compared to nDOT unit. For manufacturer E, nDOT SRW wall and cap units 

were evaluated. Hence, a total of 10 different types of SRW units were evaluated. 

Table 14 shows the scope of ASTM C 1262 (2003) freeze-thaw tests conducted on these SRW 

units. For DOT and nDOT units from manufacturers A to D, tests were conducted in water and 3 

percent NaCl solution inside two different types of temperature-controlled freezers: large walk-in 

freezer and Tenney freezer (a cabinet style freezer). For the units from manufacturer E, the tests 

were carried out inside a commercial chest freezer. These various types of freezers were all 

capable of meeting T-t requirements of ASTM C 1262 (2003). For manufacturers A to D units, 

five replicate specimens were tested per set, while for manufacturer E units, three replicate 

specimens were tested per set. The data available from these tests consisted of the percent mass 

loss after 100 cycles. 

Table 14. Scope of ASTM C 1262 (2003) test program. 

Large Walk-in Freezer Tenney Freezer Chest Freezer 

Plain Water 3 Percent 

NaCl Plain Water 3 Percent NaCl Plain Water 3 Percent NaCl 

A-DOT A-DOT A-DOT A-DOT E-wall E-wall 

A-nDOT A-nDOT A-nDOT A-nDOT E-cap E-cap 

B-DOT B-DOT B-DOT B-DOT 

B-nDOT B-nDOT B-nDOT B-nDOT 

C-DOT C-DOT C-DOT C-DOT 

C-nDOT C-nDOT C-nDOT C-nDOT 

D-DOT D-DOT D-DOT D-DOT 

D-nDOT D-nDOT D-nDOT D-nDOT 

Table 15 shows a summary of the standard material property tests performed on the SRW units. 

The number of replicate specimens tested varied for each type of SRW unit and generally ranged 

from 3 to 12 specimens. With respect to the ASTM C 457 (ASTM, 2004) compositional 

parameters, the total (air and compaction) void and paste contents refer to the volumetric fraction 

of these phases as determined from microscopy examinations. Air and compaction voids were 

distinguished during the microscopy tests using the following decision rule: a compaction void 
142 

was defined as a void in which less than three-fourths of its boundary was a paste-void interface, 

while an air void was defined as a void in which more than three-fourths of its boundary was a 

paste-void interface irrespective of shape of void as shown in figure 155. With respect to the 

ASTM C 457 (2004) air void parameters, the specific surface is defined as the boundary surface 

area of air voids divided by the volume of the voids; the spacing factor is the average 

half-distance between two voids. It is noted that these air void parameters were developed for 

ordinary concretes in which spherical bubbles are assumed to exist. One of the aims of this study 

was to assess the applicability of these parameters (determined in the usual way for concretes) 

for SRW concretes. 

paste 

Void-paste boundary less than 3⁄4 

of the total void perimeter 

compaction void 

aggregate 

Fi 16 D fi iti f ti id Figure 155. Drawing. Definition of compaction void in ASTM C 457 (2004) testing. 

Table 15. Standard test methods and material properties evaluated for SRW units. 

ASTM C 140 ASTM C 642 ASTM C 457 

• 24-hour absorption • Boiled absorption Compositional Parameters: 

• Oven-dry density • Volume of permeable voids • Total void content a

• Compressive strength • Specific gravity after 

 immersion and boiling 

 • Paste content 

 Air void parameters: b

 • Specific surface 

 • Spacing factor a

 Total air and compaction void content. 

b

 Calculated using total air and compaction void content. 

In addition to the above characteristics, other parameters were also determined using the 

characteristics shown in table 15. These are as follows: 

Equation 11 

Equation 12 

Equation 13 

Also, NCMA index (I) as in equation 10 

Average surface area per void = total air and compaction void content

specific surface

Paste-Total voids ratio = 

total air and compaction void content

paste content

Saturation coefficient = 

boiled absorption

24 - hour absorption
143 

Several other relationships were also explored without much success. This section only focuses 

on results obtained with the parameters shown above. 

4.6.3 Synthesis of Data 

The overall experimental program involved shared testing responsibilities between two 

laboratories. While the majority of freeze-thaw tests were conducted in one laboratory, the 

majority of material property testing was conducted in another laboratory. It was therefore 

deemed inadequate to directly correspond mass-loss values to material characteristics as single 

(x, y) data points for each of the various SRW mixes evaluated, given the fact that specimens for 

each of these tests were extracted from separate parent SRW units. Consequently, an alternate 

method of reducing the data was employed as shown in figure 156. Here, it is shown that for 

each type of SRW unit (e.g., manufacturer X DOT), there was a range of freeze-thaw mass-loss 

values from the three or five specimens tested in the set. Similarly, there was a range of values 

for a given material property from the various replicate specimens tested in the set (3 to 12 

specimens). Hence, for this particular SRW unit, the mass loss versus property relationship could 

be represented by any point in the shaded box bound by the minimum and maximum mass-loss 

values in the ordinate and the minimum and maximum values of the material property in the 

abscissa. This set of data points bound by the shaded box was then reduced in one of two ways 

explained below. 

Figure 156. Graph. Relating mass loss to material property for a given SRW unit type. 

As a first approach, the shaded box in figure 156 could be reduced to a single data point 

representing the geometrical centroid of the box for a particular manufacturer (figure 157). The 

use of centroids for this purpose was deemed reasonable for several reasons. First, various data 

sets consisted of only three to four data points which was not sufficient to fully describe a 

Mass loss after 

100 cycles, % 

100 

Range of values in material property 

(for the 3 to 12 specimens in test) 

Material property 

 0 

Range of mass loss values 

(for the 3 or 5 specimens in test) 

min. value max. value

max. mass loss 

min. mass loss 
144 

statistical distribution. For these particular sets, the centroid was used as an approximate 

representation of the region bound by the maximum and minimum values in each axes. For 

larger data sets (five or more data points), the data points appeared to be normally distributed as 

confirmed using the statistical test of normality, and the centroid was thus taken as a 

representation of the shaded box. This process could then be repeated for all other SRW unit 

types to produce a data series as shown in figure 157. Each data point in this series represented 

results for one type of SRW unit. The disadvantage of this method is that by using single data 

points, the significant scatter in the data is ignored. 

Figure 157. Graph. Mass loss versus material property for each of the SRW 

units evaluated using centroids. 

A different approach to represent the shaded box of figure 156 was to focus on its boundary 

points. This method would take into account the range in test results and perhaps be more 

representative of the actual nature of the data. Hence, for a given SRW type, its mass loss versus 

property relationship would be represented by four points (figure 158). When repeated for all 

other SRW unit types, a series of data points representing the corners of all boxes would be 

produced as shown in figure 158. 

A data series constructed by either one of the methods shown in figure 157 or 158 provided a 

qualitative representation of the behavior of the variables considered. In addition, a relationship 

was fitted through the data points to obtain a quantitative interpretation of the dependence 

between variables. Curve fitting was performed using the software Table Curve 2D®, Version 4, 

from AISN Software Inc (copyright 1989–1996). In this program, the user has the option of 

choosing the types of equations to be fitted through the data points. The option Curve-Fit Simple 

Equations was selected for this study. The result of the analysis consisted of a listing of 

Mass loss after 

100 cycles, % 

100 

Material property 

 0 

centroid of the data cluster for a 

particular SRW unit 

1 percent 

(or other 

l )

threshold 

value
145 

expressions ranked in order from highest to lowest correlation coefficient (R2

). Typically, the 

equation with the highest R2

 value was selected as being representative of the relationship 

between variables. These R2

 values were also used to compare the correlation strength between 

the various material characteristics considered and mass loss from freeze-thaw testing. In 

addition to R2

 values, standard errors were also obtained for each curve fit. Furthermore, from 

the above plots, it was possible to determine approximate threshold values of the material 

property above or below which the mass loss would exceed a mass-loss limit (e.g., 1 percent in 

ASTM C 1372(2003)). This concept is illustrated in figures 157 and 158. 

Figure 158. Graph. Mass loss versus material property for each of the SRW 

units evaluated using boundary points. 

4.6.4 Discussion of ASTM C 1262 (2003) (in Water) Results 

Results of the above analyses are shown in figures 159 to 184 for ASTM C 1262 (2003) freezethaw mass loss in water and the following material characteristics: figures 159 and 160, 

compressive strength; figures 161 and 162, 24-hour absorption; figures 163 and 164, unit weight; 

figures 165 and 166, NCMA index; figures 167 and 168, boiled absorption; figures 169 and 170, 

volume of permeable voids; figures 171 and 172, saturation coefficient; figures 173 and 174, 

total air and compaction voids content; figures 175 and 176, paste content; figures 177 and 178, 

paste-to-total-voids ratio; figures 179 and 180, specific surface; figures 181 and 182, spacing 

factor; and figures 183 and 184 spec surf/total voids content. In each pair of figures, one 

corresponds to data representation by boundary points while the other corresponds to data 

representation by centroids. With respect to the number of data points in each graph, it is noted 

that for units from manufacturers A to D, tests were carried out in two types of freezers, and as 

Mass loss after 

100 cycles, % 

100 

Material property 

 0 

boundary points of the data cluster 

for a particular SRW unit 

1 percent 

(or other 

l )

threshold 

value
146 

such, two sets of data per SRW unit type from these manufacturers were available. Hence, the 

total number of “boxes” in the upper graphs or “centroid” points in the lower graphs was equal to 

18 (4 manufacturers (A to D) × 2 unit types (DOT and nDOT) × 2 freezers + manufacturer E × 2 

unit types (wall and cap) × 1 freezer). 

From figures 159 to 184, the scatter in test results was evident by the size of the constructed 

boxes. This scatter was particularly evident for freeze-thaw mass-loss as reflected by the height 

of the boxes. Despite this scatter, trends in the data were generally discernable and as expected. 

For example, mass loss increased with increasing total voids content and absorption (24-hour and 

boiled) and with decreasing paste content and unit weight. Lower mass loss also corresponded to 

higher values of the NCMA index, which was in agreement with the trends reported by Thomas 

(2003). The decreasing mass loss with increasing specific surface was comparable to the trend 

expected for conventional concretes. As for spacing factor, the observed trend was actually 

opposite to that expected for ordinary concretes, where lower spacing factors are characteristic of 

systems with more closely spaced air voids and hence better frost durability. It is possible that 

this parameter cannot be applied to SRW concretes in the same manner as applied to ordinary 

concretes perhaps due to differences in the air void structure. Mass loss also decreased with 

increasing value in the parameter (spec. surf.) / (total voids volume). This parameter could be 

envisioned as the amount of surface area afforded per unit volume of voids. 

To supplement observations of trends in the data in these plots, curves were fit into the data 

series to provide a quantitative sense of these trends. The inset boxes in figures 159 to 184 show 

the expressions for the best-fit curves, along with their corresponding R2

 and standard error 

values for each material property considered. (That these equations are only valid within the 

range of values of SRW unit characteristics covered by the test data sets.) It is apparent that these 

equations were generally of power or exponential form which suggested that the mass loss was 

fairly sensitive to the characteristics considered. This sensitivity can also be visually detected 

from the shape of the curves where the mass loss exhibited steep changes relative to most of the 

material characteristics. 

With respect to the R2

 values, it is noted that these were generally fairly low (up to 0.33 for 

analysis with boundary points and up to 0.69 for analysis with centroids), which was likely due 

to the scatter in test data. These R2

 values were nevertheless used as a comparative basis of the 

correlation strength among the various material characteristics evaluated. In addition to the 

above analysis that was conducted for all available mass-loss results, an additional set of 

analyses was carried out on subsets of the previous databases that had a maximum mass loss of 5 

percent. This separate analysis was carried out because, in practice, for SRW mixture 

qualification, freeze-thaw tests may be discontinued as soon as test specimens exhibit a 

substantial amount of mass loss (several times greater than the maximum allowed by project 

specifications). This concept is illustrated in figure 185. Table 16 shows a summary of various 

characteristics evaluated ranked in order from highest to lowest R2

 value for both analysis 

covering mass loss up to 100 percent and maximum 5 percent (ranking of these characteristics 

based on standard error yielded similar results). Here, it is seen that the paste-to-total-voids ratio 

consistently ranked among the top three in each form of analyses. Its components, paste content 

ranked in the top three in two of the four analysis, and total voids content ranked at the top in 

one of the analysis. These results demonstrate the significance of material compositional 
147 

parameters on the durability of the SRW unit. The NCMA index ranked reasonably high (top 

three in two analysis cases and top five in another case), which was likely due to the correlation 

strength of the 24-hour absorption and to some extent, the unit weight. ASTM C 642 (2002) 

parameters were modest in their ranking, while ASTM C 457 (2004) air void parameters ranked 

in the lower third of all parameters considered. The observation that mass loss correlated better 

with paste content rather than strength was in agreement with the results from Ghafoori and 

Mathis (1998), where cement content showed highest correlation to mass loss and with the 

literature review findings of Hance (2005). The saturation coefficient, which is commonly used 

as frost criterion for clay or shale bricks (ASTM C 672), was not suitable for the SRW units 

evaluated in this study. Hence, it is evident that typical frost performance criteria for other types 

of porous materials (spacing factor for ordinary concretes and saturation coefficient for bricks) 

may not be equally applicable to SRW concretes. 
148 

Figure 159. Graph. ASTM C 140 compressive strength. 

Data representation by boundary points. 

Figure 160. Graph. ASTM C 140 compressive strength. 

Data representation by centroids. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Compressive strength (MPa)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = 18.7 – 0.024 X1.5 

R2 = 0.02 St Err = 23.2 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Compressive strength (MPa)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = 16.0 – 4.4(10-5) X3 

R2 = 0.05 St Err = 18.6 
149 

Figure 161. Graph. ASTM C 140 24-hour water absorption. 

Data representation by boundary points. 

Figure 162. Graph. ASTM C 140 24-hour water absorption. 

Data representation by centroids. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

24-hr absorption (kg/m3

)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –3.2 + 1.4(10-5) X3

R2 = 0.33 St Err = 19.2 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

24-hr absorption (kg/m3

)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –1.6 + 2.1(10-7) X3.9

R2 = 0.61 St Err = 12.4 
150 

Figure 163.Graph. ASTM C 140 Unit weight. Data 

representation by boundary points. 

Figure 164. Graph. ASTM C 140 Unit weight. Data 

representation by centroids.

0

20

40

60

80

100

2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500

Unit weight (kg/m3

)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –19.0 + 1.6(105) exp (–X / 261) 

R2 = 0.28 St Err = 20.1 

0

20

40

60

80

100

2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500

Unit weight (kg/m3

)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –131 + 7.2(108) / X2

R2 = 0.46 St Err = 14.0 
151 

Figure 165. Graph. NCMA index. Data representation 

by boundary points. 

Figure 166. Graph. NCMA index. Data representation 

by centroids.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

NCMA index (MPa1/2)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –1.4 + 7.8(105) / X2.3

R2 = 0.26 St Err = 20.3 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

NCMA index (MPa1/2)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = 1.0 + 2350 exp(–X / 23) 

R2 = 0.67 St Err = 11.4 
152 

Figure 167. Graph. ASTM C 642 Boiled absorption. Data 

representation by boundary points. 

Figure 168. Graph. ASTM C 642. Bottom graph. Data 

representation by centroids. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Boiled absorption (%)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –3.2 + 0.015 X3.3

R2 = 0.18 St Err = 21.5 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Boiled absorption (%)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = 0.3 + 2.3(10-3) exp(X) 

R2 = 0.51 St Err = 13.4 
153 

Figure 169. Graph. ASTM C 642. Volume of permeable 

voids. Data representation by boundary points. 

Figure 170. Graph. ASTM C 642 Volume of permeable 

voids. Data representation by centroids. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Volume of permeable voids (%)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –5.5 + 0.003 X3

R2 = 0.15 St Err = 21.8 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Volume of permeable voids (%)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = 1.7 + 6.2(10-8) exp(X) 

R2 = 0.55 St Err = 12.9 
154 

Figure 171. Graph. Saturation coefficient. Data 

representation by boundary points. 

Figure 172. Graph. Saturation coefficient. Data 

representation by centroids.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Saturation coefficient

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = 23 – 3.6 / X2

R2 = 0.02 St Err = 19.0 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Saturation coefficient

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = 18 – 2.0 / X2

R2 = 0.02 St Err = 23.3 
155 

Figure 173. Graph. Total air and compaction voids content. 

Data representation by boundary points. 

Figure 174. Graph. Total air and compaction voids content. 

Data representation by centroids.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Total air and compaction void content (%)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –3.1 + 1.9 exp (X / 8.1)

R2 = 0.21 St Err = 21.0 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Total air and compaction void content (%)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –7.9 + 4.8(10-3) X3

R2 = 0.68 St Err = 10.9 
156 

Figure 175. Graph. Paste content. Data representation 

by boundary points. 

Figure 176. Graph. Paste content. Data representation 

by centroids.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Paste content (%)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –3.0 + 409 exp (–X / 4.6)

R2 = 0.28 St Err = 20.2 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Paste content (%)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = 2.7 + 6.9(106) exp (–X) 

R2 = 0.69 St Err = 10.7 
157 

Figure 177. Graph. Paste-to-total-void ratio. Data 

representation by boundary points. 

Figure 178. Graph. Paste-to-total-voids ratio. Data 

representation by centroids.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Paste - Total void ratio

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –0.8 + 10.7 / X2 

R2 = 0.30 St Err = 19.6 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Paste - Total void ratio

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –2.6 + 14 / X2

R2 = 0.69 St Err = 10.7 
158 

Figure 179. Graph. ASTM C 457 Specific surface. Data 

representation by boundary points.

Figure 180. Graph. ASTM C 457 Specific surface. Data 

representation by centroids.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Specific surface (mm2

/mm3)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –23.5 + 126 / X0.5

R2 = 0.10 St Err = 22.5 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Specific surface (mm2

/mm3)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = 32.8 – 0.12 X2 

R2 = 0.29 St Err = 16.1 
159 

Figure 181. Graph. ASTM C 457 spacing factor. Data 

representation by boundary points. 

Figure 182. Graph. ASTM C 457 Spacing factor. Data 

representation by centroids.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Spacing factor (μm)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –2.6 + 1.3(104) / X1.5 

R2 = 0.17 St Err = 21.4 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Spacing factor (μm)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –2.8 + 1.2(105) / X2 

R2 = 0.39 St Err = 15.0 
160 

Figure 183. Graph. Specific surface/total void content. Data 

representation by boundary points.

Figure 184. Graph. Specific surface/total void content. Data 

representation by centroids.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Spec. surf. / Total void content (mm2

/mm3)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = 4.3 + 8.1(104) / X2.3 

R2 = 0.21 St Err = 21.0 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Spec. surf. / Total void content (mm2

/mm3)

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –1.1 + 74 exp(–X / 46) 

R2 = 0.43 St Err = 14.9 
161 

Figure 185. Graph. Evaluation of data points for mass loss less than 5 percent only. 

Table 16. Ranking of material properties using different types of analyses. 

Rank Mass Loss Up to 100 percent Mass Loss Up to 5 percent 

Boundary Points Centroids Boundary Points Centroids 

 R2 StErr R2 StErr R2 StErr R2 StErr 

1 24A* 0.33 19.2 P/V 0.69 10.7 24A 0.40 0.93 TV 0.86 0.55 

2 P/V 0.30 19.6 P 0.69 10.7 P/V 0.38 0.95 α/TV 0.60 0.95 

3 P 0.28 20.2 NCMA 0.68 11.4 NCMA 0.37 0.95 P/V 0.54 1.06 

4 OD 0.28 20.1 TV 0.68 10.9 OD 0.36 0.95 α 0.41 1.14 

5 NCMA 0.26 20.3 24A 0.61 12.4 P 0.36 0.95 24A 0.36 1.19 

6 TV 0.21 21.0 VPV 0.55 12.9 α/TV 0.35 0.97 P 0.32 1.29 

7 α/TV 0.21 21.0 BA 0.51 13.4 TV 0.34 0.98 L 0.30 1.31 

8 BA 0.18 21.5 OD 0.46 14.0 BA 0.29 1.01 NCMA 0.25 1.36 

9 L 0.17 21.4 α/TV 0.43 14.9 VPV 0.26 1.03 OD 0.18 1.34 

10 VPV 0.15 21.8 L 0.39 15.0 L 0.20 1.07 BA 0.15 1.37 

11 α 0.10 22.5 α 0.29 16.1 α 0.12 1.12 VPV 0.15 1.37 

12 fm 0.03 23.2 fm 0.05 18.6 fm 0.07 1.15 fm 0.01 1.47 

13 SC 0.02 23.3 SC 0.02 19.0 SC 0.02 1.18 SC 0.01 1.46 

* Notation: fm = compressive strength; 24A = 24-hour absorption; OD = oven-dry density; NCMA = NCMA 

index; BA = boiled absorption; VPV = volume of permeable voids; TV = total air and compaction void 

content; P = paste content; P/V = paste to total voids ratio; α = specific surface; L = spacing factor; α/TV= 

specific surface / total voids; SC = saturation coefficient 

Mass loss after 

100 cycles, % 

100 

Material property 

 0 

 5

previous analysis 

new analysis 
162 

It is noted that, despite the helpfulness of curve fits in providing a quantitative interpretation of 

these data series, the actual behavior of mass loss relative to material characteristics is probably 

best discerned from the nature of the data itself. For instance, from figures 159 to 184, it is 

evident that the constructed boxes resembled some form of step function, whereby mass loss 

could range from being negligible to almost 100 percent in the region to one side of a certain 

critical value of the material property, but be low (less than about 1.5 percent) on the other side 

of this critical value. As such, it is possible that threshold values in most of the material 

characteristics exist beyond which there is a greater likelihood of larger mass loss. For the 

particular SRW units evaluated, the threshold values are summarized in table 17. With respect to 

ASTM C 140 (2000) parameters, these threshold values would have satisfied the specification 

values of ASTM C 1372 (2003) (Comp. strength: 57 MPa (8,270 psi) threshold versus minimum 

21 MPa (3,050 psi) spec., 24-hour absorption: 85 kg/m3

 (5.3 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)) 

threshold versus maximum 208 kg/m3

 (13 pcf) spec. for normal weight SRW units). With respect 

to ASTM C 457 air void parameters, the threshold value for specific surface (15 mm2

/mm3 or 

375 inch2

/inch3) was found to be similar to those found for concretes of satisfactory frost 

resistance (16 mm2

/mm3 or 400 inch2/inch3 in Neville (1996)). The threshold value for spacing 

factor (120 μm or 0.005 inch) differed from the maximum 200 to 250 μm (0.008 to 0.010 inch) 

values of frost durable concretes. In fact, these threshold values would not be comparable since 

the trend in mass loss relative to spacing factor appeared to be different for SRW concretes than 

for normal concretes. 

Table 17. Threshold values of material properties determined from figures 159 to 184. 

Property Threshold Value 

ASTM C 140 

Comp. strength 57 MPa (8,270 psi) 

24-hour absorption 85 kg/m3 (5.3 pcf) 

Oven-dry density 2260 kg/m3 (141 pcf) 

NCMA index 170 MPa1/2 (2,050 psi1/2) 

ASTM C 642 

Boiled absorption 6.5 percent 

Volume of perm. voids 15 percent 

ASTM C 457 Compositional Parameters 

Total air and comp. voids 12 percent 

Paste content 19 percent 

Paste / Total voids ratio 1.5 

ASTM C 457 Air Void Parameters 

Specific surface 15 mm2/mm3 (375 inch2/inch3) 

Spacing factor 120 μm (0.005 inch) 

Spec. surf. / Total voids 106 mm2/mm3 (2,650 inch2/inch3) 
163 

4.6.5 Discussion of ASTM C 1262 (2003) (in 3 percent NaCl solution) Results 

Figures 186 and 187 show the mass loss versus paste-to-total-voids ratio plots for tests in 3 

percent NaCl solution. Greater data scatter was observed in these tests, as evidenced by the 

longer boxes in the vertical direction. This implied it was possible for some specimens to 

significantly outperform other specimens obtained from the same SRW unit (same composition 

and manufacturer). Although the mass loss generally decreased with increasing paste-to-totalvoids ratio similar to the trend observed in water, there were instances of units with relatively 

high paste-to-total-voids ratio that also showed significant mass loss. This observation occurred 

similarly for other material characteristics and indicates that units considered of high quality 

when in tested water may still display a substantial mass loss when tested in saline. 

Figure 186. Graph. Mass loss in 3 percent NaCl solution versus 

paste-to-total-voids ratio. Data representation by boundary points. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Paste - Total void ratio

Mass loss (%)

units with relatively 

higher Paste-Total 

Voids Ratio 
164 

Figure 187. Graph. Mass loss in 3 percent NaCl solution versus 

paste-to-total-voids ratio. Data representation by centroids. 

4.6.6 Summary 

Various common SRW concrete material characteristics were assessed for their potential as frost 

durability indices by evaluating their correlation to ASTM C 1262 (2003) freeze-thaw mass loss. 

Of all parameters considered, the paste-to-total-voids ratio exhibited the strongest correlation to 

freeze-thaw mass-loss in water. Its components, paste content and total voids content, also 

exhibited strong correlations demonstrating the importance of unit composition on frost 

durability. The NCMA index showed fair correlation to mass loss, which was likely attributed to 

the correlation strength of the 24-hour water absorption. The spacing factor and saturation 

coefficient displayed low correlation to mass loss implying that these parameters may not be 

applicable to SRW concretes in the same way that they apply to ordinary concretes and clay 

bricks respectively. The threshold compressive strength value was determined to be well above 

the minimum specification value, while the 24-hour water absorption was well below the 

maximum specification value. This implied that SRW units that barely meet standard 

specification for these material characteristics may not necessarily be guaranteed frost durability. 

Finally, it was demonstrated that trends and observations drawn from water tests may not be 

entirely applicable to saline solution tests due to the higher data scatter in saline tests. Units 

considered of high quality when tested in water may display substantial mass loss when tested in 

saline. 

4.7 SYNOPSIS OF STUDY ON EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE DEICING SALTS ON 

SRW BLOCK DURABILITY 

As described in chapter 3, significant damage has only been observed for SRW blocks in the 

field when the blocks are exposed to high levels of both moisture and deicing salts (or fertilizer). 

The key role that deicing salts play in field damage seems to justify the need to include salts in 

freeze-thaw testing in the laboratory. A significant amount of laboratory work has already been 

described in this report that included the use of salt solution, and in each case, the salt used was 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Paste - Total void ratio

Mass loss (%)
165 

3 percent NaCl solution. However, in highway applications, it is becoming more common for 

alternative deicing salts to be used, especially MgCl2. To address this point, a comprehensive 

study was initiated under this FHWA project in which the durability of SRW blocks was 

assessed while exposed to four different deicing salts and one commercially available fertilizer. 

For conciseness, only a brief synopsis of this study is presented herein. Full details can be found 

in: 

• Chan, C, Hover, K., and Folliard, K., “Durability of Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) 

Concretes to Different Deicing Salt Types,” manuscript submitted to Transportation 

Research Board, August 2006 (2006b). 

In this study, two different SRW concretes were subjected to freeze-thaw cycles (following 

ASTM C 1262 (2003)) and continuous warm immersion tests to determine possible chemical 

effects from the salts. The salts used in these tests included: 

• Sodium chloride (NaCl), i.e., rock salt. 

• Calcium chloride (CaCl2) (often marketed as a “nonsalt deicer”). 

• Magnesium chloride (MgCl2) (magnesium chloride heptahydrate flakes). 

• Calcium magnesium acetate, ([CaMg2 (CH3COO)2]6), CMA. 

• Fertilizer consisting of 32 percent nitrogen, 3 percent phosphorus, 5 percent potassium. 

The results of the freeze-thaw testing are summarized in figure 188. At 3 percent concentration 

(by mass of solution), NaCl solution was the most detrimental of all salts evaluated under freezethaw conditions. Freeze-thaw mass loss of specimens tested in NaCl solution (about 85 percent 

after 100 cycles) was approximately twice that of specimens tested in all other salt solutions (30 

to 50 percent) (compared to about 1 to 2 percent in plain water). It generally appeared that as the 

solution freeze-point depression (ΔTfr) increased, the number of cycles taken before reaching 

1 percent mass loss decreased. It is worth noting the fertilizer solution used in the tests was 

capable of causing as much freeze-thaw damage as most other deicing salt solutions, which has 

important implications for SRWs in areas frequently exposed to fertilizing compounds. It is 

recommended that freeze-thaw tests also be performed with similar salts but at varying 

concentrations to achieve similar ΔTfr for all test solutions. 
166 

Figure 188. Graph. Average ASTM C 1262 (2003) mass loss for all salt solutions evaluated. 

In tests involving continuous immersion in warm solutions, particles of mix A and B were 

damaged by solutions of both CMA and MgCl2, while no damage was detected in other salt 

solutions even after 15 months of immersion. 

4.8 RESEARCH ON DEVELOPMENT OF MORE REALISTIC FREEZE-THAW 

TEST FOR SRW BLOCKS 

This section describes research aimed at developing a new, more realistic approach to testing 

SRW blocks. It is intended to address some of the shortcomings of ASTM C 1262 (2003), such 

as issues with sampling (and inherent variability for specimens extracted from a given block), 

repeatability (or lack thereof), and applicability to real-world exposure conditions (due to overly 

severe conditions induced in ASTM C 1262 (2003)). With this in mind, research was initiated 

under this FHWA project to develop and assess a testing regime that would allow for the testing 

of full SRW units or multiple SRW units stacked in a given formation (including cap units on 

top) under simulated field conditions. By grouping the SRW blocks in a simulated wall setup, 

deterioration that replicates field conditions is more likely to occur because stresses or restraint 

caused by adjacent blocks and drainage typical of that found in the field can be simulated. Thus, 

a new test method that represents field conditions would be useful so that SHAs and 

manufacturers can better assess the freeze-thaw durability performance of SRW blocks. The 

research herein consisted of two testing phases: the first phase consisted of performing trial tests 

on smaller-scale SRW blocks and the second phase used the information from the first phase 

testing to develop a standard test to evaluate the freeze-thaw performance of larger-scale SRW 

blocks typically used in transportation infrastructure systems. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Cycles

Mass loss (%)

NaCl 

Fert. 

CMA 

MgCl2

CaCl2

Plain water
167 

4.8.1 Phase I Investigation 

A preliminary freeze-thaw test procedure was developed and testing performed to assess the 

freeze-thaw performance of smaller, commercially available SRW blocks. It was anticipated that 

these results would provide preliminary information for the Phase II test procedure. The Phase I 

tests were performed to identify and resolve issues with the initial setup design, identify key 

parameters of the experiment, and set standards for the Phase II procedure. The focus of 

developing this new test method was to replicate field environmental conditions as closely as 

practical by implementing slower temperature changing rates, longer temperature hold times, and 

spray exposure conditions instead of ponding. 

Equipment necessary for constructing the test setup included a programmable temperaturecontrolled environment, a spray system with cyclic capabilities, and a test chamber large enough 

to hold six to nine SRW blocks. The programmable, temperature-controlled chamber was able to 

control the temperature from −20 °C to 24 °C (−4 °F to 75 °F) and was able to ramp at least 

0.55 °C (1 °F) per minute on the freezing cycle. The environmental chamber also incorporated a 

spray system for applying salt or fresh water solutions. A drawing of the exposure chamber used 

in this study is shown in figure 189. 

The overall dimensions of the chamber were 0.9 m wide by 1.8 m long by 1.5 m tall (3 ft by 6 ft 

by 5ft). The chamber support structure was built with a 51 mm (2 inch) angle iron frame to 

support the weight of the SRW blocks. The top and sides of the chamber were fixed with sheets 

of Plexiglas® to retain the spray solution during testing. The chamber was equipped with a drain 

system that recycled the solution. 

The spray system consisted of eight 6 mm (0.25 inch) stainless steel spray nozzles with 2 mm 

(0.081 inch) maximum free passage orifices and a 19 L (5 gal) per minute maximum flow rate to 

ensure complete coverage of the SRW block samples. The spray nozzles were attached to 9.5 

mm (0.375 inch) stainless steel tubing that was fixed in the chamber. Four nozzles were 

positioned in front of the wall and four above the wall to ensure complete exposure to the test 

solution. A ball valve was placed before each set of nozzles to regulate the flow. A 3⁄4 HP 316 

stainless steel centrifugal pump was used to pump the solutions. This pump was controlled by 

electrical timers (mechanical timers can also be used) that enabled the pumps to turn on for 

15-minute intervals during the thaw cycle. A 49 L (13 gal) polypropylene reservoir was used to 

store the spray solution. A return line from the pump discharge was installed to prevent damage 

to the pump if the spray nozzles became blocked. 
168 

Figure 189. Drawing. Exposure chamber. 

Four experiments were completed during the Phase I testing. The Phase I plan consisted of 

evaluating sets of 13 SRW blocks in each test. The temperature ramp rate, the temperature hold 

times, and the solution type were investigated in this phase. Table 18 provides an overview of the 

parameters investigated for each of the tests conducted. 
169 

Table 18. Phase I experimental program. 

Percent NaCl 

Smaller SRW Blocks 

Temperature 

Hold Time 

(Hours) 0 3 

0.18 (0.3) 1 NT Test 2 

0.33 (0.6) 1 Test 1 Test 3 

Temperature Ramp 

Rate °C/min 

(°F/min) 

0.55 (1.0) 2 NT Test 4 

 NT = not tested 

To prepare the blocks for testing, the blocks were oven dried at 113 °C (235 °F) for 24 hours, 

labeled, and then weighed. These values were recorded as oven dry weights. After the weights 

were recorded the blocks were submerged in water until they reached saturation (typically after 

48 hours). The blocks were then removed from the solution, surface dried, and these weights 

were recoded as original saturated weight. After these data were obtained, the blocks were 

stacked in the freeze-thaw chamber. The first three rows of blocks as shown in figure 190 

(labeled A through L) were used for mass loss measurements. The top block, identified as Block 

M, was used for temperature measurements. 

The chamber temperature varied from −18 °C to 16 °C (0 °F to 60 °F). The temperature ramp 

rates were adjusted to achieve specified temperature changes in the blocks. The cycles consisted 

of the hold times shown in table 18. 

Figure 190. Photo. Freeze-thaw test setup showing SRW blocks. 

To evaluate the internal temperature of the SRW blocks a 6.35-mm (0.25-inch) hole was drilled 

in the back of Block M to the center of the block. A Type J thermocouple was inserted into this 

hole and the hole was backfilled with approximately 25.4 mm (1 inch) of mortar made from a 

mixture of water, cement, and the block drill dust. The remaining hole was then filled with an 

insulating foam spray. The block temperature ramp rates and hold times were monitored to 

define the appropriate parameters for the actual test. 
170 

The blocks were sprayed with solution (either NaCl solution or water) for 15 minutes prior to the 

start of the freeze cycle. The samples were exposed to 10 freeze-thaw cycles and then evaluated 

for freeze-thaw damage by visual inspection. These blocks were then saturated for at least 12 

hours to restore any evaporated moisture during the testing. As already noted, the surface of the 

blocks was dried and the blocks were weighed after every 10 cycles. After weighing, the blocks 

were restacked in the chamber in the same order as the original stacking. Photographs of the 

blocks were obtained for a visual record, and the test cycle was repeated. 

Small commercial landscaping SRW blocks were procured for the Phase I testing. The typical 

dry weight of these blocks was 12 kg (26.5 lbs), and the dimensions of these blocks are shown in 

figure 191. All of the surfaces were relatively smooth except the front surface. The front surface 

consisted of a split face. 

Figure 191. Photo. Smaller SRW block testing in Phase I. 

The freeze-thaw performance of the smaller SRW blocks was assessed by measuring the mass 

loss of the blocks (based on saturated weights) after the blocks were subjected to 10 freeze-thaw 

cycles. Figure 192 shows the weight loss for block samples from test 1 (ramp rate of 0.33 o

C/min 

(0.6 o

F/min) with 1 hour hold time sprayed with water). Figures 193 through 195 show the 

weight loss values for samples from test 2 (ramp rate of 0.18 o

C/min (0.3 oF/min) with 1-hour 

hold time sprayed with 3 percent NaCl solution), test 3 (ramp rate of 0.33 o

C/min (0.6 oF/min) 

with 1-hour hold time sprayed with 3 percent NaCl solution), and test 4 (ramp rate of 0.55 o

C/min (1.0 oF/min) with 2-hour hold time sprayed with 3 percent NaCl solution), respectively. 
171 

0

5

10

15

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Block A

Block B

Block D

Block D

Block E-L

Block E-R

Block F

Block G

Block H

Block I

Block J

Block K

Block L

Percent Cummulative Weight Change

Freeze-Thaw Cycles

Figure 192. Graph. Percent weight change for samples from test 1 (ramp rate 

of 0.33 °C/min (0.6 °F/min) with 1-hour hold time, sprayed with water). 

0

5

10

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Block A

Block B

Block C

Block D

Block E-R

Block E-L

Block F

Block G

Block H

Block I

Block J

Block K

Block L

Percent Cummulative Weight Change

Freeze-Thaw Cycles

Figure 193. Graph. Percent weight change for samples from test 2 (ramp rate 

of 0.18 °C/min (0.3 °F/min) with 1-hour hold time, sprayed with 3 percent NaCl). 
172 

0

5

10

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Block A

Block B

Block C

Block D

Block E-L

Block E-R

Block F

Block G

Block H

Block I

Block J

Block K

Block L

Percent Cummulative Weight Change

Freeze-Thaw Cycles

Figure 194. Graph. Percent weight change for samples from test 3 (ramp rate 

of 0.33 °C/min (0.6 °F/min) with 1-hour hold time, sprayed with 3 percent NaCl). 

0

5

10

15

0 10 20 30 40 50

Block A

Block B

Block C

Block D

Block E-L

Block E-R

Block F

Block G

Block H

Block I

Block J

Block K

Block L

Block M

Block N

Percent Cummulative Weight Change

Freeze-thaw Cycles

Figure 195. Graph. Percent weight change for samples from test 4 (ramp rate 

of 0.55 °C/min (1.0 °F/min) with 2 hour hold time, sprayed 3 percent NaCl). 

It can be seen from figure 192 that samples exposed to water-spray exhibited limited weight loss 

after 100 freeze-thaw cycles, whereas several blocks exposed to the same ramp rates and hold 

times, but exposed to the 3 percent NaCl solution (figure 193) exhibited significant mass loss 

after 80 cycles. Three of the blocks in test 2 suffered severe deterioration and were considered to 

fail the test based on an arbitrary 5 percent mass loss criteria, and two other blocks showed 

significant distress as shown in figure 193. This clearly shows that the presence of salt increases 

the potential for damage, just as in the field and in ASTM C 1262 (2003), but it should be noted 

that not all the blocks showed significant damage in this test. 
173 

Figures 193 through 195 show the influence of temperature ramp rates and temperature hold time 

on the freeze-thaw performance of small SRW blocks. Three samples exposed to Test 2 

conditions (ramp rate of 0.18 °C/min (0.3 °F/min) failed before 100 freeze-thaw cycles. Four of 

the samples exposed to the Test 3 conditions (ramp rate of 0.33 °C/min (0.6 °F/min) failed 

before 100 freeze-thaw cycles. Although this tends to indicate that faster rates lead to more 

failures, because of the limited number of tests performed, only limited conclusions can be made. 

However, when evaluating the samples that were exposed to the Test 4 conditions (ramp rate of 

0.55 °C/min (1.0 °F/min) with 2 hour hold time sprayed with 3 percent NaCl solution, seven 

small SRW blocks failed, indicating that the faster ramp rates and/or the longer hold time 

accelerated the freeze-thaw deterioration. The time for the cycling of the environment is 

approximately 1 hour. This time and the hold time are approximately 3 hours. As noted earlier, 2 

to 3 hours are typically required to reach freezing conditions in the field. Although the test likely 

does freeze the sample in less time than that typical of field conditions, it is slower than the 

standard test procedure and likely better represents field conditions. Figures 196 and 197 show 

typical damage triggered by this test, with the manifestation of damage mimicking typical 

freeze-thaw distress observed in field situations. 

Figure 196. Photo. Typical cracking and spalling from 

freeze-thaw damage from test 1. 
174 

Figure 197. Photos. Freeze-thaw deterioration over 40 cycles from Test 4: 

a. after 10 cycles, b. after 20 cycles, c. after 30 cycles, and d. after 40 cycles.

Test 4, which included a ramp rate of 0.55 °C/min (1 °F/min), a 2-hour temperature hold time, 

and exposure to 3 percent NaCl yielded the most deterioration and also provided representative 

deterioration failures found in the field. The other test conditions produced some freeze-thaw 

deterioration of the SRW blocks, but these deterioration rates were slower and would likely add a 

significant time to the tests. Based on the findings from Phase I, these test conditions (Phase I, 

Test 4) were selected for Phase II testing described next. 

4.8.2 Phase II Investigation 

After the Phase I testing was complete and the parameters for testing SRW blocks were 

identified, several larger SRW blocks were procured for testing. These larger SRW blocks 

consisted of blocks from three manufacturers and included SHA-approved (based on ASTM C 

1262 (2003) testing in water and/or saline) and non-SHA-approved SRW blocks. The test 

parameters included the parameters identified in the Phase I work. 

The samples tested in the Phase II program were procured from three different manufacturers 

identified herein as manufacturers A, B, and C. The number of blocks received from the 

manufacturers limited the amount of testing. However, it was anticipated that a good indication 

of the applicability of this test method could be determined from testing the blocks provided. 

Unlike the smaller SRW blocks tested in Phase I, this testing included the evaluation of SRW 

caps. Manufacturers provided only a limited number of these caps and as such, testing was 

 a. b. 

c. d. 
175 

limited. The experiment plan for the Phase II testing is shown in table 19. These blocks are 

shown in figures 198 through 200. 

Table 19. Experimental plan showing number of blocks tested in Phase II. 

Solution Type SRW Block 

Manufacturer 

SRW Block 

Certification 

Water 3 Percent NaCl 

SHA-approved 6 Blocks 6 Blocks 

Block A 

Non-SHA-approved 0 Blocks 6 Blocks 

SHA-Approved 0 Blocks 3 Blocks 

Block B 

Non-SHA-approved 0 Blocks 3 Blocks 

SHA-approved 3 Blocks 3 Blocks 

Block C 

Non-SHA-approved 3 Blocks 3 Blocks 

Figure 198. Photo. SRW block from manufacturer A. 
176 

Figure 199. Photo. SRW block from manufacturer B. 

Figure 200. Photo. SRW block from manufacturer C. 

Because the presence of deicing salts in field-damaged SRW blocks appears to be the most 

critical parameter when considering field exposure conditions and because block characteristics 

affect the ingress of salt, chloride profiles were determine for several blocks in this Phase II 

study. Samples for determining diffusion coefficients were cored from three sides of the blocks, 

exposed to a chloride solution, and then evaluated following the method developed by the 

Strategic Highway Research Program (1992). 

Unlike Phase I, where a large number of samples could be placed in the test chamber, the larger 

SRW blocks used in Phase II limited the amount of blocks that could be tested at one time. 

Figure 201 shows a typical block stacking for the Phase II testing. 
177 

Figure 201. Photo. Typical stacking for larger SRW 

blocks tested in Phase II. 

As with the smaller blocks, the larger blocks were saturated, surface dried, and weighed prior to 

and during testing. Blocks were re-placed in their designated test locations after each weight loss 

measurement. Blocks on the bottom row were identified as 1 through 3 (left to right) and 4 

through 6 on the upper row (left to right). Only, 2 non-SHA-approved cap blocks were available 

from manufacturer A for testing. To protect the block interiors from direct solution spray when 

caps were not available, an acrylic sheet was placed on the top of the blocks. 

The larger SRW blocks were also equipped with thermocouples to monitor the temperature at the 

center of the block. One thermocouple was placed at the center of the SRW block, and another 

was used to monitor the environmental room temperature. The thermocouple was placed in the 

block by first drilling a 6.35-mm-(0.25-inch-) diameter hole approximately 102 mm (4.0 inches) 

to the center of the block at the specified location. The thermocouple was placed in the hole and 

backfilled with a mortar mixture paste made from the SRW bock drill dust, cement, and water. 

Temperatures were recorded at 10-minute intervals during the test. As the freeze-thaw 

experiments were conducted, the temperature was monitored in order to make necessary changes 

such that freezing and thawing conditions could occur at the center of the SRW blocks. A typical 

graph of temperature readings from 20, 12-hour-long, freeze-thaw cycles are shown in figure 

202. 
178 

Figure 202. Graph. Typical block temperature data from Phase II investigation.

The larger SRW blocks exposed to the freeze-thaw testing regime were assessed visually and 

used weight loss. Because of the longer times between assessing the weight loss, an additional 

visual inspection was performed. After every 10th freeze-thaw cycle the larger SRW blocks were 

visually inspected for damage resulting from the freeze-thaw cycles. When damage was 

observed, photographs were obtained. The damaged areas were then monitored for progression 

of the degradation. The results of the chronological degradation of the SRW blocks was then 

compiled and compared with the distress identification rating (DIR) developed by Embacher et 

al. (2001). The basic qualitative damage ranking established by Embacher et al. is as follows: 

Severity Levels 

Low: Deterioration is localized and minor, exhibiting some local 

discoloration but no significant loss of material. 

Medium: Deterioration is present in most areas that might be saturated 

during freezing and thawing. Discoloration is easily observed 

and affected areas are exhibiting tight cracks. 

High: Deterioration is extreme and affected areas are exhibiting 

open cracks. 

Each of the larger SRW block sets was assigned a ranking based on this criteria. The SHAapproved larger blocks from manufacturer A that were blocks exposed to water exhibited a DIR 

rating of low for most of the blocks. However, a few blocks were near the medium deterioration 

ranking. A typical block from this set is shown in figure 203. SHA-approved SRW blocks from 

manufacturer A that were exposed to the 3 percent NaCl solution exhibited very little visible 

freeze-thaw degradation. These blocks had some localized discoloration and minor deterioration 

that accumulated at the bottom of the test chamber. As such, the DIR rating assigned to this 

group of larger blocks was low. Figure 204 shows the typical condition of this group of blocks 

after the freeze-thaw testing. The non-SHA-approved blocks exposed to water (figure 205) or 

NaCl solution (figure 206) were also visually assessed, but damage was generally quite minimal 

with the exception of the non-SHA-approved cap block shown in figure 205, which was given a 

DIR rating of high. 
179 

 

Figure 203. Photo. SHA-approved block 

from manufacturer A (water exposure). 

Figure 204. Photo. SHA-approved block 

from manufacturer A (3 percent NaCl 

solution exposure). 

 

Figure 205. Photo. Non-SHA-approved 

cap from manufacturer A (water 

exposure). 

Figure 206. Photo. Surface of non-SHAapproved block from manufacturer A (3 

percent NaCl solution). 

In general, the larger SRW blocks from manufacturer A exhibited low DIR ratings. For these 

blocks, the performance difference between the SHA-approved and non-SHA-approved blocks 

could not be distinguished. The test did indicate that some caps did exhibit damage when 

subjected to the test procedure. Differences in performance between the water and NaCl 

exposure conditions were insignificant. 

Figures 207 and 208 shows the weight changes for the SHA-approved blocks from manufacturer 

A exposed to the NaCl and water solutions. Figure 209 shows the results from the non-SHAapproved blocks exposed to the NaCl solution. All sets exhibited weight gains and losses 

throughout the testing period. It is believed that the weight gains were a result of increased 

microcracking of the blocks and/or a continuous increase in the degree of saturation of the 

blocks. When the blocks were saturated after 20 cycles it is believed that the microcracks (or 

cracks) were filled with water, increasing the weight of the surface dried, saturated block. 

However, it is interesting to note that only one block from the SHA-approved SRW blocks from 

manufacturer A exceeded 5 percent weight loss, indicating that the weight change testing 

provides similar results as the DIR rating system presented earlier. From figures 207 and 208 it 

can be seen that the weight loss of several blocks either exceeded or were very close to 5 percent. 

However, a clear distinction between the SHA-approved and non-SHA-approved blocks cannot 

be determined from this testing. 
180 

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

0 40 80 120 160 200

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Block 4

Block 5

Block 6

Cap

Cummulative Weight Change (%)

Number of Freeze-thaw Exposures 

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

0 40 80 120 160 200

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Block 4

Block 5

Cap

Cummulative Weight Change (%)

Number of Freeze-thaw Exposures

Positive values indicate weight loss 

Figure 207. Graph. Percent weight change as a 

function of freeze-thaw exposure cycles for 

SHA-approved SRW blocks exposed to NaCl 

solution—from manufacturer A. 

Figure 208. Graph. Percent weight change as a 

function of freeze-thaw exposure cycles for 

SHA-approved SRW blocks exposed to water—

from manufacturer A. 

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

0 40 80 120 160 200

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Block 4

Block 5

Block 6

Cummulative Weight Change (%)

Number of Freeze-thaw Exposures

Figure 209. Graph. Percent weight change versus freeze-thaw 

exposures for non-SHA-approved SRW blocks from 

manufacturer A exposed to NaCl solution 

(positive values indicate weight loss). 

Three SHA-approved and three non-SHA-approved blocks from manufacturer B were also 

visually assessed for freeze-thaw performance. Because only a limited number of blocks were 

available for testing, these blocks were subjected to salt solution only. Figure 210 shows the 

typical SHA-approved block after exposure to 200 freeze-thaw cycles. The blocks from 

manufacturer B exposed to the NaCl solution exhibited a DIR rating of low to medium. The 

medium ranking was assessed because some blocks exhibited tight cracks after the freeze-thaw 

exposure. The non-SHA-approved blocks from manufacturer B exhibited very similar 

performance as the SHA-approved blocks. 
181 

Figure 210. Photo. SHA-approved block from manufacturer B (NaCl Solution). 

Figures 211 and 212 show the weight change of the SHA-approved and non-SHA-approved 

SRW blocks from manufacturer B. Only one block, a non-SHA-approved block, exhibited 

weight losses of greater than 5 percent. The difference in performance between the 

SHA-approved versus non-SHA-approved blocks was minimal, and if a difference does exist, 

this testing could not distinguish this difference. 

-5%

0%

5%

10%

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Cummulative Weight Change (%)

Number of Freeze-thaw Exposures

-5%

0%

5%

10%

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Cummulative Weight Change (%)

Number of Freeze-thaw Exposures

Positive values indicate weight loss. 

Figure 211. Graph. Percent weight change for 

manufacturer B SRW blocks exposed to NaCl 

solution resulting from freeze-thaw cycling for 

SHA-approved blocks. 

Figure 212. Graph. Percent weight change for 

manufacturer B SRW blocks exposed to NaCl 

solution resulting from freeze-thaw cycling for 

non-SHA-approved blocks. 

The SRW blocks from manufacturer C also fared quite well, in both water and NaCl solution. 

Figures 213 and 214 show typical SHA-approved blocks from this set, exposed to water and 

NaCl solution. Some blocks exhibited corner cracking, but these cracks were generally present 

before the freeze-thaw testing began (the damage likely occurred during transportation). Only 

minor discoloration was observed on this set of blocks. The non-SHA-approved blocks exhibited 

similar results from the visual assessment and all larger SRW blocks from manufacturer C 

exhibited a DIR ranking of low. 
182 

 

Figure 213. Photo. SHA-approved C block 

exposed to fresh water. 

Figure 214. Photo. SHA-approved C 

block exposed to 3 percent NaCl solution. 

Figures 215 and 216 show the weight change of the blocks as a function of the number of freezethaw cycles for the larger SRW blocks from manufacturer C exposed to the NaCl spray. With the 

exception of one block from each of the SHA and non-SHA-approved blocks, the blocks 

exhibited some early weight loss. This was likely due to material loss from the surface. However, 

after about 200 cycles most of the blocks exhibited significant weight gains. This could indicate 

that the blocks began cracking and absorbing more solution; however, the cracking was not 

significant to result in spalling of the block material. 

 

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Cummulative Weight Change (%)

Number of Freeze-thaw Exposures

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Cummulative Weight Change (%)

Number of Freeze-thaw Exposures

Positive values indicate weight loss 

Figure 215. Graph. Percent weight change 

resulting from freeze-thaw cycling of SRW 

blocks exposed to NaCl solution for SHAapproved blocks—from manufacturer C. 

Figure 216. Graph. Percent weight change 

resulting from freeze-thaw cycling of SRW 

blocks exposed to NaCl solution for non-SHAapproved blocks—from manufacturer C. 

Figures 217 and 218 show the freeze-thaw performance versus exposure cycles for SRW blocks 

from manufacturer C exposed to water spray. Prior to approximately 160 cycles, the majority of 

the blocks exhibited a relatively steady increase in weight loss. After approximately 160 cycles 

several of the blocks exhibited weight gain. This is similar to what was observed for the samples 

exposed to the NaCl solution. Comparisons between the performance of blocks exposed to NaCl 

solution and water is inconclusive as the scatter of the results are significant. 
183 

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Cummulative Weight Change (%)

Number of Freeze-thaw Exposures 

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Cummulative Weight Change (%)

Number of Freeze-thaw Exposures

Positive values indicate weight loss 

Figure 217.Graph. Percent weight change 

resulting from freeze-thaw cycling of SRW 

blocks from manufacturer C. Blocks exposed to 

water for SHA-approved blocks. 

Figure 218. Graph. Percent weight change 

resulting from freeze-thaw cycling of SRW 

blocks from manufacturer C. Blocks exposed to 

water for non-SHA-approved blocks. 

The chloride diffusion coefficients for the larger SRW block samples tested in Phase II are 

shown in table 20. The chloride diffusion coefficients of the non-SHA-approved blocks were 

higher than those of the SHA-approved SRW blocks. The mean chloride diffusion coefficients 

determined for the larger SRW blocks exhibit diffusion coefficients similar to that of concrete 

with high water-cement ratios (typically greater than 0.7). 

Table 20. Chloride diffusion coefficients for larger SRW block samples. 

Exposure Time 

3-Week Exposure 6-Week Exposure SRW Block 

Designation Sample 

Diffusion Coefficients (m2/s) 

1 3.05E-11 NT 

2 NT 6.88E-11 

3 9.50E-11 NT Non-SHA-approved 

4 NT 2.06E-11 

Mean 6.28E-11 4.47E-11 

Std. Dev. 4.56E-11 3.41E-11 

1 NT 2.15E-11 

2 3.48E-11 NT

3 NT 2.47E-11 

SHA-approved 

4 2.56E-11 NT

Mean 3.02E-11 2.31E-11 

Std. Dev. 6.51E-12 2.26E-12 
184 

4.8.3 Summary 

The intent of this work presented in this section was to attempt to develop a test procedure that 

could better mimic the freeze-thaw performance of SRW blocks under field conditions while at 

the same time maintaining reasonable test duration. A test procedure was developed, modified, 

and evaluated using several different block types and exposure conditions. A summary of the 

findings of this research is presented below. 

In general, this test provided a useful assessment of the freeze-thaw performance of small SRW 

blocks (Phase I) exposed to both water and NaCl solutions. The deterioration of smaller SRW 

blocks tested in the laboratory under the conditions defined is similar to deterioration of SRW 

blocks exposed to freeze-thaw conditions in the field. It should be noted, however, that the 

blocks used in Phase I were not of the same quality as those typically used in highway 

applications, and the blocks were not necessarily produced with frost resistance as a priority. 

Whereas the SRW blocks tested in Phase I showed significant damage in a reasonable number of 

freeze-thaw cycles, the blocks tested in Phase II (using the most severe conditions from Phase I) 

performed much better, showing relatively little distress. It is certainly possible that these units 

eventually would have shown significant distress, but increasing the duration of the test was not 

feasible within the constraints of this project, nor would it have been feasible if this test were 

considered as a standard test. The higher quality of all the blocks used in Phase II, compared to 

Phase I, was evident in the improved durability, even when exposed to NaCl solution. Some of 

the cap units did show some distress in Phase II, but damage was not severe. 

The assessment of saturated block weight as a damage index may not be a good measure for 

assessing the freeze-thaw performance of larger SRW blocks. As the blocks undergo freeze-thaw 

cycles, microcracking and cracking of the material likely occurs. When the SRW blocks are 

saturated after being subjected to freeze-thaw cycles, the blocks absorb water in these 

microcracks and cracks, offsetting the reduction in weight from the material loss resulting from 

the freeze-thaw test. Thus, two mechanisms that are changing the weight of the sample are likely 

taking place: scaling is likely reducing the weight of the blocks and higher solution absorption is 

likely increasing the weight of the blocks. The overall weight change represents the sum of these 

weight changes. 

The diffusion coefficient of the larger SRW blocks (SHA- and non-SHA-approved) was found to 

be similar to that of high water-cement ratio concrete. This indicates that chloride ions can be 

transported at a relatively high rate into the blocks. This is also consistent with chloride profiling 

from actual SRW blocks from the field as previously described in chapter 3. 

Although this newly developed testing method was not able to significantly damage typical SRW 

blocks used in highway applications, it does show promise as a conceptual approach. It allows 

for the testing of full SRW units (or several units stacked as a wall) under more realistic field 

conditions. However, the test did not appear to be severe enough to trigger damage in a 

reasonable period of time. It is recommended that future research be conducted using a similar 

method, with modifications to the exposure cycles to increase the potential for damage. This 

could involve the use of more rapid freezing rates or longer hold times. This approach, if 

successfully modified, could also be used as an ideal method for assessing mitigation techniques 
185 

for in-service SRWs. For example, the benefits of applying silanes or other surface coatings 

could be assessed under more realistic field conditions. This is especially important given the 

possibility that nondurable SRW blocks already in service could benefit from any treatment that 

would extend their service lives. 

4.9 OTHER RESEARCH 

There was a significant amount of research conducted under this FHWA project that, for 

conciseness, was not included in this final project report. In particular, the research described in 

Hance (2005) on the effects of compaction voids on frost resistance for laboratory-prepared 

SRW mixtures was quite extensive, and readers are directed towards this Master of Science 

thesis for complete details. Some of the key findings of this compaction void study are 

highlighted in chapter 5 and tied to other findings from this project. 

4.10 SUMMARY 

This chapter summarized the key findings from a comprehensive laboratory program focused on 

SRW block durability. Significant progress was made in several key areas, including gaining a 

better understanding of the variability of SRW units and spatial variations of key properties, the 

mechanisms of frost damage and salt distress, the underlying reasons for high variability in 

ASTM C 1262 (2003) test results, the impact of SRW material properties and microstructure on 

durability. A more detailed summary of the key findings from this laboratory program is 

presented in chapter 5, and recommendations and guidelines based on these findings are 

presented. 

187 

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents overall conclusions from this FHWA-funded research project. It also 

draws, in a much more limited fashion, from some of the key findings from parallel research 

conducted on a NCMA-funded project. The key findings are presented and grouped in the 

following categories: 

• Field Performance and Durability of SRW Blocks. 

• SRW Material Characterization and Sampling. 

• Frost Durability of SRW Units. 

• General Freeze-Thaw Testing and Processes. 

• ASTM C 1262 (2003) Test Method. 

After presenting the main conclusions under each of the above categories, recommendations are 

presented for future research on the topic of frost resistance of SRW blocks. Lastly, to assist in 

the implementation of the key project findings into practice, a newly annotated version of the 

ASTM C 1262 (2003) test method is included (as appendix A), which captures the findings from 

this research work into recommended amendments to the standard. 

5.2 CONCLUSIONS—FIELD PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY OF SRW 

BLOCKS 

The following conclusions can be drawn from the field evaluations of SRW blocks with regard 

to resistance to freeze-thaw cycles and deicing salts: 

• Based on general evaluations of SRWs in various cold-weather regions in the United 

States and based on detailed evaluations of SRWs in Minnesota and Wisconsin, most 

SRWs have performed well, with little signs of frost damage or salt distress. 

• However, there are some cases where durability-related problems with SRWs are quite 

severe. These field evaluations clearly show that exposure to both moisture (e.g., rain or 

snow) and salts is a prerequisite to damage, strongly suggesting that any attempt to assess 

durability in the laboratory should include saline solutions as part of the testing regime. 

5.3 CONCLUSIONS—SRW MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION AND SAMPLING 

The following conclusions can be offered with respect to material properties of SRW mixes 

evaluated: 

• Material properties follow systematic spatial variations over an SRW unit. The existence 

of these spatial variations was evident for different grades of SRW units manufactured at 

different block plants. While standard properties such as compressive strength, absorption 

and density measured for these units complied with ASTM C 1372 (2003) standard 

specifications for SRW units, the choice of sampling location within a unit can lead to 
188 

misinterpretations on material uniformity (or variability). This type of spatial variability 

of properties in an SRW unit comprises within-unit variability, and chapter 3 discussed in 

detail the implications of this form of variability, and recommendations were provided on 

how to sample specimens from a unit. Between-unit variation should be a topic for future 

research, and this will be discussed in more detail in the Recommendations section. 

• A stratified random sampling approach for extracting specimens from SRW units yields 

lower variability than simple random sampling approach. In stratified random sampling, 

specimen sampling is carried out in a more systematic manner reflecting the expected 

distribution of properties over an SRW unit. For the units investigated in this study, 

variations in properties were observed along the casting direction of the units. The 

simplest form of stratified random sampling for a three-specimen test set thus consists of 

sampling a specimen from each of the three layers along the height of the unit and 

averaging the test results. Other size test sets consisting of two or five specimens can also 

be selected under stratified random sampling, but the computation of average value of the 

measured property for the test set needs to be adjusted accordingly (Chan et al., 2005b). 

• Split face delaminations are not likely related to durability of SRW units but can affect 

assessment of SRW units. 

• SRW unit paste content (volume fraction) and compaction void content (volume fraction) 

are inversely related to one another. For all SRW mixes investigated in this research, their 

paste and compaction void contents as determined based on ASTM C 457 (2004) 

microscopy methods exhibited an inverse relationship. Mixes with higher paste content 

displayed lower compaction void contents and vice versa, as shown in figure 219. In 

almost all these mixes, total aggregate content was less than 70 percent. It is interesting to 

tie this observation with reported literature on dry-mixed concrete performance and 

durability (chapter 2). While on the one hand, there are conflicting reports on the role of 

compaction voids on freeze-thaw durability of dry concretes, there is consistency and 

agreement on the necessity of minimum paste contents to achieve frost durable mixes. As 

will be shown below, above minimum paste content, frost-durable mixes can be achieved 

despite the presence of compaction voids. 
189 

Figure 219. Graph. Compaction void content versus paste content for all SRW 

mixes evaluated. 

5.4 CONCLUSIONS—FROST DURABILITY OF SRW UNITS 

The conclusions in this section pertain specifically to the durability of SRW units, as determined 

from test results and observations gathered in the course of the FHWA project. 

• Saline conditions exacerbate freeze-thaw damage. ASTM C 1262 (2003) tests 

conducted on SRW units in both water and 3 percent NaCl solution conclusively prove 

the increased damage induced by the presence of salts in solution. The only exception to 

this trend was a particular SRW mix whose performance was best among all mixes 

evaluated (mass loss less < 0.2 percent after 100 cycles in water and < 0.3 percent after 

100 cycles in saline). Aside from this particular mix, saline accelerated damage by 

reducing the number of cycles to reach a certain mass loss (e.g., 1 percent) by up to eight 

times compared to water. This is shown by an example in figures 220, 221, and 222 

where it is seen that wall units in water required about 90 cycles to reach 0.5 percent 

mass loss compared to about 13 cycles in saline solution, while cap units in water 

required about 20 to 40 cycles to reach 1 percent mass loss compared to less than 10 

cycles in saline solution. Moreover, while damage in water consisted primarily of surface 

scaling, damage in saline solution comprises internal cracking and complete degradation 

of the specimens (figures 221 and 222). In a separate study evaluating the relative frost 

damage caused by different types of deicing salts (Chan et al., 2006b), it was concluded 

that the number of cycles required to reach 1 percent mass loss decreased with increasing 

freeze point depression of the solution. As expected then, specimens tested in plain water 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

ASTM C 457 paste content (%)

Compaction void content (%)

DOT 

Non-DOT, 

field units and 

masonry
190 

(zero freeze-point depression) exhibited the least damage and those tested in 3 percent 

NaCl solution which had the highest freeze point depression (1.8 °C (3.2 °F)) of all salts 

investigated exhibited fastest damage. This research did not have the opportunity to 

explore in detail mechanisms causative of accelerated damage under saline conditions. 

Chapters 2 and 4 discuss possible mechanisms including osmotic pressures due to 

concentration changes as well as “brine entrapment.” These suspected mechanisms are 

based on studies performed at Cornell on ice formation quantities and rates and changes 

in concentration of salt in solution together with data from the literature. 

Figure 220. Graph. Mass loss versus cycles. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Cycles

Mass loss (%)

wall units - 

water 

wall units -

saline 

cap units - 

water 

cap units - 

saline 
191 

Figure 221. Photo. Comparison of water 

versus saline tests on wall unit after 100 

cycles in water. Specimens were from a 

single manufacturer. 

Figure 222. Photo. Comparison of water 

versus saline test on wall unit after 60 cycles 

in saline. Specimens were from a single 

manufacturer. 

• Paste volume fraction (paste content) in the mix is critical for frost durability. While 

this conclusion has been reached by several other researchers (see chapter 2), 

independent studies carried out under the FHWA project also point toward this same 

result. Using laboratory-made mixes, Hance (2005) deduced that critical paste content 

existed in the range of 16 to 18 percent. As pointed out in chapter 4, ASTM C 1262 

(2003) freeze-thaw mass loss follows a 2nd order behavior of the following form: 

Mass loss, percent = a × cycles2 Equation 14 

where a = mass loss prediction constant which depends on material 

and test conditions (specimen size, container size, and 

freezer) 

For the mixes tested by Hance (2005), the dependence of “a” on paste content is shown in 

figure 223. The increased sensitivity of “a” to paste content at paste contents below about 

16 percent is evident from this figure. 
192 

(MPC = modified point count) 

Figure 223. Graph. Dependence of mass loss prediction constant “a” on 

paste content (Hance, 2005). 

Using data from freeze-thaw tests and material property measurements on SRW units 

from various manufacturers, Chan et al. (2005d) determined that paste content (of all 

material characteristics evaluated) correlated best to freeze-thaw durability. Paste content 

of at least 19 percent characterized mixtures whose mass loss did not exceed about 1.5 

percent after 100 cycles in water. The concept of critical paste content can be further 

discerned from figure 219 which shows the region of DOT units (i.e., units compliant 

with DOT freeze-thaw specifications) as well as the region of non-DOT units (i.e., units 

that do not necessarily meet DOT specifications). An overlap between these two zones at 

paste contents of about 16 to 18 percent is shown. Thus, mixes with excellent freeze-thaw 

durability (DOT mixes in this case) required at least this amount of paste (16 to 18 

percent). The graph in figure 219 also indicates that the presence of 10 to 15 percent 

compaction voids is not entirely detrimental to the frost durability of SRW mixes. 

• One aim of the FHWA study was to evaluate a number of material characteristics for 

their potential as frost durability indices. This was accomplished by assessing the 

correlation between various material characteristics and freeze-thaw mass loss. Of all 

parameters considered, paste content, total air and compaction void content and paste-tototal air and compaction void ratio were found to correlate best to frost resistance. 

Threshold values were identified as values of the material characteristics above or below 

which the probability of mass loss exceeding about 1.3 percent after 100 cycles in water 

increased. An example is shown in figure 224 for paste-to-total air and compaction void 

ratio. For the parameters listed above, threshold values for the mixes investigated in this 

study were as follows: paste content (19 percent minimum), total air and compaction void 

content (12 percent maximum) and paste-to-total air and compaction void ratio (1.5 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

MPC paste content (%)

Value of mass loss contant

Mix A

Mix G

Mix F

Mix E

Mix D

Mix C Mix B

y = 9.89 E+06x-6.1

R2 = 0.89

More Durable
193 

minimum). One other significant outcome of this study was the fact that ASTM C 457 

(2004) spacing factor, used to assess frost durability of ordinary concretes, is not equally 

applicable to SRW mixes. This is because spacing factors were developed assuming a 

uniform spatial distribution of spherical air bubbles in concrete. This type of internal 

structure and air void distribution are not applicable to SRW mixes. Similarly, it was 

determined that saturation coefficient, as used to assess frost durability of clay bricks, 

also is not applicable to SRW mixes. 

Figure 224. Graph. Relationship between mass loss after 100 cycles 

in water and paste-to-total air and compaction void ratio. 

In a separate study by SEM (2004), a neural network based analysis was conducted to 

determine parameters most influential to freeze-thaw durability. For tests in water, it was 

determined that density, water absorption, percent non-connected voids, and whether airentraining or freeze-thaw enhancing admixtures were added to the mix were most 

influential to freeze-thaw durability. For tests in saline, compressive strength, percent 

nonconnected voids, use of high water content, and whether air-entraining or freeze-thaw 

enhancing admixtures were added to the mix were found to be most influential. The 

importance of high water content (which accordingly yields greater paste volume) agreed 

with the findings from this project. Both the SEM study and this FHWA-funded project 

also concluded that relationships between freeze-thaw durability and material properties 

are difficult to determine due to variability in test results. 

• On the issue of ASTM C 457 (2004) air void parameters, as already mentioned above, 

studies at Cornell University determined that spacing factor cannot be applied to SRW 

mixes in the same way that they apply to ordinary concretes. Scanning electron 

microscope tests conducted on the two best performing DOT mixes revealed the presence 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Paste - Total void ratio

Mass loss (%)

Mass loss = –0.8 + 10.7 / X2 

R2 = 0.30 St Err = 19.6 

Threshold value = 1.5 
194 

of small spherical air voids (about 10 μm (0.0004 inch) in size) in both mixes. In ordinary 

concretes, finer air voids are related to greater air void specific surface areas and lower 

spacing factors which improve the frost durability of the concrete (Pigeon and Pleau, 

1995). The role of the observed small air voids in SRW units on frost durability of these 

units is not certain at this time and needs to be further researched. 

• At 3 percent salt concentration, NaCl is the most detrimental of all deicing salts 

evaluated, while the specific fertilizer evaluated was capable of inducing a similar level 

of frost damage to SRW specimens as other types of deicers. This conclusion relates to 

ASTM C 1262 (2003) tests involving 3 percent salt solutions made using different types 

of deicing chemicals, including a high-nitrogen fertilizer. At this 3 percent concentration, 

specimens tested in NaCl solution suffered the most damage out of all salts evaluated. 

Another significant conclusion from this study was the fact that specimens tested in a 

fertilizer solution displayed as much damage as those tested in solutions of MaCl2, 

calcium chloride (CaCl2) and CMA. This result has important implications for SRWs 

near fertilized areas. Moreover, it was concluded that the number of cycles required to 

reach 1 percent mass loss appeared to decrease with increasing freeze point depression of 

the solution. This result also has practical implications since deicing applications are 

typically keyed to freeze point depression of the salts used, with salts and concentrations 

selected for ambient temperatures. While MaCl2 and CMA solutions were found to cause 

damage to SRW units under freeze-thaw conditions, samples continuously immersed in 

these solutions at 60 °C (140 °F) also exhibited damage after about 6 months immersion. 

Mass loss (mass of residues expressed as percentage of original sample mass) of 

specimens in these solutions was estimated to be about 5 to 7 percent after 20 months 

immersion in MaCl2 solution and 10 to 15 percent after 20 months immersion in CMA 

solution. Samples immersed in other warm salt solutions did not exhibit damage after this 

same period of time.
195 

5.5 CONCLUSIONS—GENERAL FREEZE-THAW TESTING AND PROCESSES 

These conclusions pertain to general freeze-thaw testing of cementitious materials and are not 

limited to the ASTM C 1262 (2003) testing of SRW mixes only. 

• Each freezer has a unique internal T-t characteristic (shape of T-t response) and level of 

variability, both of which vary with heat extraction capacity and operating efficiency of 

the freezer, and the number and mass of specimens inside the freezer. 

• Variations in T-t characteristics and temperature variability inside each freezer mean that: 

o Specimens located in different parts of the freezer will receive different 

exposures. 

o A single point measure of temperature in the freezer not only is not representative 

of the overall conditions inside the freezer, but its use as the controlling 

temperature for cycle length can lead to a large proportion of internal freezer 

locations falling out of compliance with test method requirements. 

Chapter 4 demonstrated that in the case of the Tenney freezer, the location of the freezer 

internal sensor also coincided with the coldest measured location in the freezer. Taking 

the ASTM C 1262 (2003) test method for example, the minimum required length of cold 

soak is 4 hours. It was shown that if the freezer were programmed for a cold soak of 4 

hours based on this internal sensor temperature, the result would be that all other 

locations in the freezer would fall short of the required cold soak time (undercooling). A 

review of other freeze-thaw test methods reveals similar provisions for cold soak 

requirement (i.e., cold soak duration based on specified freezer air or specimen 

temperatures) as shown in table 21. 

While ASTM C 666 (2004) attempts to maintain temperature uniformity throughout the 

freezing chamber by specifying that the temperature “at any point on the surface of any 

specimen container shall be within 3 °C (6 °F) at any given time,” the other methods do 

not appear to address the issue of temperature variability inside the freezers. Thus, in the 

same manner as described in section 4.3.1 for ASTM C 1262 (2003), in these other 

freeze-thaw test methods, the actual location of the control temperature (whether 

specimen or freezer air) may experience differing frost exposures due to the spatial 

variability of freezer air temperature. How temperature variability in the other freezers 

affects compliance of specimens to their respective test method is an issue to be further 

explored and a topic for future research. This research, however, demonstrated the 

importance of surveying a freezing environment to gather information of the range of 

temperature distribution which can in turn be used to optimize the freezing cycle. 
196 

Table 21. Comparison of cold soak requirement in freeze-thaw test methods 

Test Method 

Specified 

Temperature 

°C (°F) 

(Record Location) 

Required Cooling Condition 

ASTM C 666 a

Rapid freeze-thaw 

testing of concretes 

–18 ± 2 (0 ± 3) 

(specimen temp.) 

Specimen temperature to be 

lowered to specified range 

within 11⁄2 to 33⁄4 hours 

ASTM C 672 b

Deicing salt surface 

scaling test 

–18 ± 3 (0 ± 5) 

(specimen temp.) 

Specimen temperature to be 

lowered to specified range 

within 16 to 18 hours 

ASTM C 67 c

Freeze-thaw testing 

of clay tiles 

< –9 (< 16) 

(freezer air temp.) 

Specimens to be placed in 

freezing chamber for 19 to 21 

hours. Air temperature in 

chamber must stay below the 

specified value after 1st hour. 

CSA A231.1 d

Surface scaling of 

precast concrete 

paving slabs 

–15 ± 3 (5 ± 5) for 

last 2 hours of 

freezing 

(specimen temp.) 

Specimens to be placed in 

freezing chamber for 15 to 17 

hours. Specimen temperature 

must be within specified range 

in last 2 hours of freezing 

ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

Freeze-thaw testing 

of SRW units 

–18 ± 5 (0 ± 10) 

(freezer air temp.) 

Freezer air temperature to be 

maintained within specified 

range for 4 to 5 hours. 

 a ASTM C 666 (2004), b ASTM C 672 (2004), c ASTM C 67 (2003), d CSA A231.1 (1999) 

• Freezer reliability curves (R-curves) are a convenient representation of the conditions 

prevalent in a freezer under a particular set of factors, including type of freezer, cooling 

capacity, and number of specimens, and are a useful tool for the planning of test cycles. 

Detailed discussions on R-curves and an example of its application in the NCMA study 

can be found in chapter 6 of Chan’s dissertation (2006). This R-curve approach is 

described as an annex to the modified version of ASTM C 1262 (2003) (appendix A). 

• Water and 3 percent NaCl solution undergo a series of physical and chemical changes 

during freezing as the freezing plateau is traversed (FHWA report and section 5.1). 

Experimental work confirmed that it is also during the freezing plateau that expansion 

takes place in either liquid. By the end of this freezing plateau, 90 percent of plain water 

has crystallized, and 75–80 percent of a 3 percent NaCl solution has crystallized. 

• Using calorimetric methods, the rate of ice formation in 3 percent NaCl solution was 

measured to be 7/8th as fast as in plain water during the freezing plateau. The main 

difference from an ice-formation standpoint between saline and water is in the total 

amount of ice formed at the final test temperature, e.g., at –18 °C (0 °F). At this 

temperature, more than 95 percent of plain water has crystallized and about 85 percent of 

a 3 percent NaCl solution has crystallized. 
197 

• From vial freezing tests, it was confirmed that 3 percent NaCl solution, like plain water, 

causes expansion damage in vials completely filled with the liquid. This damage can 

occur violently as observed in direct observation of freezing vials filled with 3 percent 

NaCl solution, which exhibited an explosive rupture similar to that observed with plain 

water. 

• Experiments measured and confirmed changes in salt concentration in the unfrozen 

solution during freezing of a 3 percent NaCl solution (process known in the literature as 

freeze concentration, (chapter 2). The rate of change of this concentration occurs most 

rapidly near the end of the freezing plateau (FHWA). At this point, the concentration of 

salt in the unfrozen portion is about 4 times the initial 3 percent concentration. 

5.6 CONCLUSIONS—ASTM C 1262 (2003) TESTING AND SPECIMEN 

PERFORMANCE 

The conclusions in this section relate directly to the ASTM C 1262 (2003) test method, based on 

results and observations obtained throughout this FHWA project, as well as the NCMA study. 

For conciseness, the NCMA study was only briefly highlighted in this report, but the key 

findings are included herein as the synergistic efforts of the FHWA and NCMA projects have 

combined to address issues that neither study could have done on its own. For conclusions based 

solely on the NCMA study, readers are directed to chapter 6 of Chan (2006) for background 

information and testing details. 

• The ASTM C 1262 (2003) is a flexible freeze-thaw test method that can be readily 

employed by different testing laboratories. 

• A result of this flexibility is variability in test results. This variability manifests itself in 

various forms whether within-replicate specimens in a test set, between-specimens tested 

in different freezers in the same laboratory or between-specimens tested in different 

laboratories. The practical significance of this variability rests in the following areas:

o SRW mixes cannot be optimized if test results are not repeatable, demonstrated by the 

low correlation between freeze-thaw mass loss and various material characteristics. 

o Variability in test results may lead to conflicts during mix qualification for projects if 

disparities exist in test results obtained by a manufacturing plant and a project owner. 

At a given number of cycles (e.g., 100 cycles), variability is more pronounced in mixes of 

intermediate quality, as exemplified by the results in figure 220. Mixes of either excellent 

quality (mass loss of less 1 percent after 100 cycles) or poor quality (with rapid 

deterioration such as the cap units in saline in figure 220) display more repeatable mass 

loss results among replicate specimens. 

• Different freezers containing varying quantities of specimens need to be programmed 

differently to obtain maximize compliance with ASTM C 1262 (2003) T-t requirements. 

The decision on cycle length is aided by R-curves, which can only be obtained through 

prior survey of the freezer (chapter 4). 
198 

• Analyses of hypothetical freezer T-t curves (section 4.4.2) demonstrated that a walk-in 

freezer could no longer achieve 100 percent compliance with ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

requirements if its average air temperature were warmer than about –14 °C (7 °F) or if 

the temperature standard deviation were greater than 3 percent of the average 

temperature. 

• Variations in surrounding water volume and total quantity of specimens in the freezer 

have pronounced impact on specimen cooling curves. 

• Despite variations in specimen quantity, volume of surrounding water, size of container 

or freezer type, the current 4- to 5-hour cold soak appears sufficient to ensure that the 

freezing plateaus of specimens are fully traversed. 

• Similarities in specimen cooling curves between chest and walk-in freezer and singlelocation repeatability in chest freezer show promise that consistent specimen cooling 

curves are attainable. 

• Interpretation of the term “frozen solid” as per ASTM C 1262 (2003), Clause 8.2.1 can 

cause confusion and unintended variations in the cycle length. It is recommended that this 

statement be removed from the test standard and that cold soak length is restricted to the 

current 4- to 5-hour period. 

• Specimen and container size and shape dictate the maximum number of specimens that 

can be accommodated within a given freezer. The number of specimens in the freezer in 

turn influences the overall freezer-specimen system as follows: 

o As the quantity of specimens increases, the maximum attainable reliability (R) in the 

freezer decreases. 

o As the quantity of specimens increases, the cooling response (cooling curve) of 

specimens themselves is affected as displayed by slower initial cooling rates and 

longer freezing plateaus. The shape of the R-curves accordingly changed with varying 

specimen quantities. This effect was particularly pronounced in the walk-in freezer 

where increases in the number of specimens resulted in shrinking R-curves with 

correspondingly lower proportion of locations meeting the cold soak requirements. 

Thus, in any given freezer, increasing the number of specimens makes it more 

difficult to comply with ASTM C 1262 (2003). In addition to this, the cooling curve 

of instrumented specimens varied with varying specimen quantities in the walk-in 

freezer. The decreased compliance with ASTM C 1262 (2003) and the altered 

specimen cooling curves are thus related to total specimen quantity. 

o Compliance with ASTM C 1262 (2003) freezer air T-t requirements does not 

guarantee similar specimen cooling responses. As shown in chapter 4, the average 

freezer air temperature in the walk-in freezer loaded with 20, 40, 60, and 80 

specimens complied with ASTM C 1262 (2003) requirements (although at a much 

longer cycle time for larger specimen quantities). However, different specimen 

cooling responses ensued from each of these thermal loads. 
199 

• Compliance with ASTM C 1262 (2003) freezer air T-t requirements does not guarantee 

similar specimen performance. For example, for the NCMA study, significant differences 

in performance were measured for specimens tested in two different freezers. Average 

mass loss in similar size and geometry specimens tested in similar containers were as 

follows: 

o After 100 cycles: 0.4 percent (Tenney) and 0.2 percent (walk-in). 

o After 200 cycles: 4.4 percent (Tenney) and 0.8 percent (walk-in). 

• From the NCMA study, it appears that mass loss increases with an increase in the 

following parameters: 

o Ratio of mass of solution to mass of specimens. 

o Specimen surface area (total or wetted) to volume ratio. 

o Increased ratio of immersed specimen volume to total specimen volume. 

• With respect to mass loss, variations in test parameters lead to the following results: 

o For similar specimens and containers, under filling of solution in the containers 

appears to increase mass loss. 

o For the same container size, smaller specimens exhibit larger mass loss. 

o For the same specimen size, specimens in smaller containers display greater mass 

loss. 

o There appears to be little effect from specimen geometry, although increasingly 

square specimens exhibited lower mass loss compared to rectangular specimens 

(after 150 cycles, average mass loss was 0.9 percent for square specimens and 1.0 

percent for rectangular specimens) 

• The performance ranking among test sets in the short-term (after 50 cycles) is not 

representative of their rankings in the longer term (after 100 cycles). 

• Mass loss appears to follow a 2nd order polynomial form from start of the freeze-thaw 

tests until a certain number of cycles (mass loss threshold point) which varies from 

specimen to specimen but was generally between 130 and 160 cycles (except for test set 

B whose threshold point was at 80 cycles). For reference, a 1 percent mass loss was 

reached between 110 and 160 cycles. 

• Resonant frequency testing (based on ASTM C 215 (1997)) can be conveniently 

performed on SRW specimens, and the sensitivity of resonant frequencies to changes in 

specimen structural integrity makes this test a valuable one for the evaluation of freezethaw deterioration of SRW specimens. Close attention must be paid to procedural details 

to ensure consistency in measured frequencies. 

• The performance ranking among of SRW specimens as measured using resonant 

frequency testing differs from the performance ranking based on mass loss 

measurements. 

• The relative dynamic modulus (RDM)* linear threshold point (number of cycles at which 

rate of resonant frequency ceases to be linear) occurs prior to the mass loss linear 
200 

threshold point (number of cycles at which rate of mass loss ceases to be linear) in all 

specimens evaluated indicating that loss of integrity of specimens may accelerate prior to 

being detected by mass loss alone. 

Equation 15 

where fc = resonant frequency after c freeze-thaw cycles 

fo = initial resonant frequency (at 0 freeze-thaw cycles) 

• Below mass loss of about 0.5 percent, mass loss (of all test methods) appeared to be most 

sensitive to changing specimen condition (primarily due to loss of material from the sides 

of specimens). Beyond about 0.5 percent mass loss, however, once cracks started forming 

in specimens, resonant frequency methods were more appropriate for detecting changes 

in specimen integrity. 

• Risky specimens are defined as those with mass loss in the vicinity of 1 percent (0.8 to 

1.2 percent) but with RDM less than 60 percent. Approximately one-third of all 

variability series specimens fell in this category. For these specimens, a 1 percent mass 

loss was not indicative of actual internal conditions or pending damage in them. At 1 

percent mass loss, these specimens exhibited RDM of 3 to 76 percent. 

• For the specimens in this study, below mass loss of about 0.5 percent, mass loss (of all 

test methods) appeared to be most sensitive to changing specimen condition (primarily 

due to loss of material from the sides of specimens). Attention must be paid to isolated 

events such as popouts whose significance to overall specimen condition can be better 

discerned by observing rates of mass loss. At larger mass loss, resonant frequency 

methods appear to be most sensitive to changes in specimen integrity and thus a more 

suitable test. 

• Specimens in this study exhibited a critical moisture content of about 5.6 to 5.8 percent 

and a critical moisture gain of about 0.8 to 1.1 percent below which RDM values changed 

little and above which RDM values dropped considerably, in most cases, to RDM of 0 

percent. This observed behavior concurred with the theory of critical degree of saturation 

(SCR) proposed by Fagerlund (1975). Degree of saturation is defined as the ratio of actual 

moisture content to the total moisture content required to fill the open porosity in the 

material. This theory states that each particular material (with a certain combination of 

material properties such as strength and pore properties) possesses a unique value of SCR, 

and significant frost damage does not occur until the actual degree of saturation (SACT) in 

the material exceeds SCR. For ordinary concretes, SCR is in the range of 0.75 to 0.90 

(Fagerlund, 1977). For the SRW specimens tested in this study, SCR (calculated as the 

ratio of moisture content to ASTM C 642 (2002) boiled absorption) was in the range of 

0.76 to 0.83.

* RDM = 

2

o

c

f

f

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ × 100 
201 

• The values of critical moisture gain are similar (0.8 to 1.1 percent) for specimens in the 

two freezer environments which had previously exhibited markedly different 

performance in mass loss, resonant frequency, pulse velocity, and visual scaling rating. 

Above a moisture gain of about 1.0 to 1.2 percent, mass loss also increases dramatically 

in these specimens. 

• Moisture gain values for specimens in a given set of replicate specimens exhibits lower 

coefficient of variation compared to mass loss values. This makes the measurement of 

moisture gain an attractive supplement to the ASTM C 1262 (2003) method. 

• As far as specification values for mass loss are concerned, the current ASTM C 1372 

(2003) limits of 1 percent maximum mass loss after 100 cycles (for all five specimens in 

a set) and 1.5 percent maximum mass loss after 150 cycles (for four out of five specimens 

in a set) pertain to tests in water. For reference, the Mn/DOT has criteria based on tests 

conducted in saline as follows (Mn/DOT, 2001): 

The freeze/thaw durability of wall units tested in accordance with ASTM 

C 1262 (2003) in a 3 percent saline solution shall be the minimum of the 

following: 

1) The weight loss of each of five test specimens at the conclusion of 

90 cycles shall not exceed 1 percent of its initial weight; or 

2) The weight loss of 4 out of 5 specimens at the conclusion of 100 

cycles shall not exceed 1.5 percent of its initial weight, with the 

maximum allowable weight loss for the 5th specimen to not exceed 

10 percent. 

In this respect, all specimens tested in this study complied with such specifications. 

However, it was just pointed out that there exists risky specimens which comprised 

approximately one-third of the specimen population in the variability series (of the 

NCMA study). For these specimens, a 1 percent mass loss was not indicative of 

actual integrity or pending internal damage in specimens. For these specimens, a mass 

loss of 0.7 percent is more sensible as a limit before substantial loss of specimen 

integrity. In most cases, it was evident that specimens had reached their critical 

moisture gains and past their RDM threshold points (beyond which RDM decreases at 

an accelerated rate) beyond mass loss of 0.7 percent. 
202 

5.7 RECOMMENDATIONS—ASTM C 1262 (2003) TESTING FOR SRW UNITS 

Based on the findings from this study, recommendations for the freeze-thaw testing of SRW 

units have been developed and can be found in appendix A as a set of suggested revisions in a 

newly annotated version of the ASTM C 1262 (2003) test method. Based primarily on the 

FHWA project findings, but also on the NCMA results, revisions are made to SRW unit 

sampling and specimen extraction, freezer evaluation and survey, details of the freeze-thaw 

cycle, and other procedural items. Changes to the test standard are carried out in the following 

form: 

• Current text to be removed is crossed out. 

• New text is in bold face and underlined. 

• New figures are identified by their bold face and underlined caption. 

Commentaries are also provided to explain the nature of changes. In addition, a version of 

ASTM C 1372 (2003) is included in which comments on specifications for SRW units have been 

provided. These two documents are included in appendixes A and B as a stand-alone product to 

assist SHAs in rapidly implementing the main findings from this study. 

5.8 RECOMMENDATIONS—FUTURE RESEARCH 

5.8.1 SRW Material Characterization—Between-Unit Variability 

Although within-unit variability was examined in detail in this study, limited data on unit-to-unit 

variability was obtained. In the NCMA study, variations in test results among specimens in the 

same test set suggest variable quality within a production run. This notion had also been alluded 

to in this report in the discussion of sampling SRW units from a block plant. A study to evaluate 

this would involve sampling units at various stages in a production run (e.g., five units at every 

10 or 20 percent of the total run) and conducting ASTM C 140 (2000) standard properties, 

ASTM C 457 (2004) air void analysis, and ASTM C 1262 (2003) freeze-thaw tests on specimens 

from these units to determine if systematic variations in material properties exist over the course 

of a production (within a run, within a pallet, within a day, or within a week). 

5.8.2 Frost Durability of SRW Units—Frost Index 

As mentioned in chapter 4, the spacing factor as currently defined in ASTM C 457 (2004) for 

ordinary concretes cannot be applied to SRW mixes in the same way it is applied to ordinary 

concretes. Future studies could target developing a parameter, similar in concept to the spacing 

factor, but for dry concrete mixes which possess a network of interconnected compaction voids. 

Such studies should employ a more mechanistic approach in the development of this parameter 

which takes into consideration the degree of saturation of these compaction voids, their 

interconnectivity, and their shapes, among other factors. 
203 

5.8.3 Dilation Tests for SRW Specimens 

Accelerated freeze-thaw damage in the presence of salts was the topic of much research in this 

project. It was found in chapter 4 that 3 percent NaCl solutions were capable of inducing 

expansion damage similar to plain water. In addition to expansion potential, the larger proportion 

of unfrozen brine in saline solutions leads to greater probability of damage due to crusting (i.e., 

entrapment of unfrozen brine within a frozen shell, see chapter 2) (Personal communication, 

Scherer). Both these effects suggest that substantial expansion should accompany damage in 

specimens tested in saline solution. Future investigations could evaluate length change of SRW 

specimens tested in saline solution and compare these to specimens tested in water. Length 

change measurements also provide insight as to whether compaction voids are beneficial or not 

for frost durability (in the same way as air-entrained concretes are evaluated through the critical 

dilation test, ASTM C 671(2002)). 

5.8.4 Acoustic Emission Testing 

The methods of damage detection described in chapter 4 were focused on damage of a liquid 

filled vial which simulated a water-filled SRW pore. Actual damage in an SRW specimen may 

be detected using acoustic methods. Further research is needed to assess the applicability of this 

method and to relate findings on where damage takes place during a freeze-thaw cycle to the 

current ASTM C 1262 (2003) cycle. 

5.8.5 Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycle on Specimen Performance 

One significant outcome from the NCMA study was the confirmation that compliance with 

ASTM C 1262 (2003) T-t requirements did not necessarily guarantee similar specimen 

performance. As described earlier, even with 100 specimens in the walk-in chamber, the freezer 

air could still meet ASTM C 1262 (2003) requirements provided that sufficient cooling time was 

allowed for the freezer air to reach the required ranges. The resulting specimen cooling curves 

were, however, quite distinct from those obtained in a freezer with less specimens. The effect of 

freeze-thaw cycle on specimen performance thus deserves further attention and investigation. 

Future research should consider the effects of varying each parameter of the freezer air cooling 

curve—cooling rate, cold soak length (4 hours versus 5 hours), cold soak temperature, warming 

rate, and warm soak length (2.5 hours versus say 6 hours)—on ensuing specimen performance. 

This information will be valuable for future revisions of the ASTM C 1262 (2003) test standard. 

On the length of cold soak, it was pointed out in chapter 4 that despite variations in test 

parameters (container size, surrounding water volume, and number of specimens in freezer), a 4-

hour cold soak appeared enough to traverse the freezing plateau of specimens. As such, 

expansion damage from water freezing in SRW pores is likely to have occurred by this 4-hour 

cold soak. Future research is therefore needed to confirm whether the most damage in the 

specimen is realized within a 4-hour cold soak or whether additional damage is induced by 

extending to 5-hour cold soak. Results from this investigation carry practical implications on 

total cycle length and total test time. 
204 

5.8.6 Effect of Specimen Preconditioning 

There are two recommended future research topics on the effect of specimen preconditioning on 

SRW performance. Both recommendations are based on the confirmation from this research that 

a critical saturation exists in SRW specimens. 

5.8.6.1 Effect of Pretest Exposure 

ASTM C 1262 (2003) currently allows specimens to “dry for not less than 48 hours in laboratory 

air at a temperature of 24 ± 8 °C (75 ± 15 °F) and a relative humidity of less than 80 percent” 

immediately after saw-cutting. Thereafter, the specimens are partially immersed in 13 mm (1⁄2 

inch) of test solution before start of freezing and thawing. The effect of the drying period should 

be examined further by evaluating the effect of different drying conditions such as varying 

drying times (e.g., 48, 72, or 96 hours) or tighter temperature and relative humidity ranges on 

specimen performance. As a starting point, the mass of specimens should be measured as 

function of drying time to determine the extent of changes in moisture content. Recall from the 

NCMA study that at “moisture gains” of about 0.8–1.1 percent, specimens suffered rapid 

reduction in RDM. 

5.8.6.2 Effect of Saturating Specimens Prior to Freeze-Thaw Testing 

SRW specimens evaluated in this research exhibited critical saturation in the range of 0.76–0.83, 

which was obtained by dividing critical moisture content by boiled absorption. According to 

Fagerlund (1975), concretes whose degree of saturation is above critical are rapidly deteriorated 

within several freeze-thaw cycles. This suggests that specimens that have been saturated by 

boiling ought to deteriorate more rapidly compared to ones which have been preconditioned as 

required in ASTM C 1262 (2003) (e.g., absorption by capillarity). The use of boiled absorption 

to precondition specimens should be investigated as an alternative method to accelerate freezethaw testing. 

5.8.7 Significance of Mass Loss and 1 Percent Limit on Different Grades of SRW Mixes 

One of the main objectives of the NCMA study was to determine the significance of mass loss 

with respect to other material parameters (such as resonant frequency, pulse velocity, scaling 

rating, and modulus of rupture) and to determine the adequacy of the 1 percent mass loss limit. 

The findings from this study are covered in chapter 6 of Chan (2006). For the particular SRW 

mix evaluated, it was generally found that at 1 percent mass loss, one-third of specimens tested 

exhibited RDM less than 60 percent. Above 1 percent mass loss, MoR values were less than half 

of the initial undamaged value. It is not certain whether other grades of SRW mixes would 

display similar trends. It is thus highly recommended that similar studies be conducted on a 

range of SRW mixes, specifically those that are intended for use in projects where acceptance 

criteria such as 1 percent maximum mass loss apply. Building this database of actual specimen 

structural integrity as function of mass loss will provide further insight as to whether the current 

1 percent limit is indeed reasonable or whether it needs to be modified. 
205 

5.8.8 Partial Versus Full Immersion of Specimens 

The issue of whether ASTM C 1262 (2003) test specimens should be partially or fully immersed 

in water or 3 percent NaCl solution remains open. Further experiments should be conducted to 

evaluate modes of damage and variability in fully immersed specimens compared to partially 

immersed ones. 

5.8.9 Database of Mass Loss Prediction Constants

Independent studies (Hance, 2005 and NCMA Study, chapter 6 of Chan (2006)) have confirmed 

the existence of a second order trend in mass loss relative to cycles for very different SRW 

mixes. One study could involve compiling ASTM C 1262 (2003) data for SRW mixes of 

different grades, from different manufacturers, tested in different laboratories, tested in different 

freezers and tested in water and in saline solution to confirm the existence of this second order 

behavior and evaluate the mass loss prediction constant for each of these sets of results. From 

this collection of mass loss prediction constants, conditions which influence this parameter the 

most may be identified which may in turn be utilized to develop prediction tools for freeze-thaw 

durability for SRW mixes. 

5.8.10 Efficacy of Silane or Other Coatings/Sealants in Mitigating Damage for Inservice 

SRW Blocks. 

Early attempts to evaluate silanes under conditions similar to ASTM C 1262 (2003) were 

inconclusive. It is possible that evaluating silanes in tests that involve full or partial immersion in 

water or solution is not appropriate or does not accurately assess the actual mode of action that 

silanes would impart in SRW blocks in the field. It is recommended that this topic be 

investigated in further detail in the laboratory, especially in tests that allow for testing of full 

blocks or walls in simulated field conditions (see section 4.8). It is also strongly recommended 

that the performance of SRW blocks already treated with silanes or other coatings/sealants be 

monitored to determine the long-term field performance of SRW blocks treated with such 

compounds. It would be especially useful to treat blocks with varying degrees of distress (at the 

time of treatment) to determine if there is an optimal time to treat existing walls to realize the 

best long-term improvement in SRW block durability. 

5.8.11 Freeze-Thaw Performance—Field and Laboratory Correlation Based on Critical 

Moisture. 

The NCMA studies demonstrated that for the particular specimens tested, there appeared to be a 

critical moisture content (or moisture gain) above which specimens deteriorated at an 

increasingly faster rate. This observation concurred with Fagerlund’s critical degree of saturation 

(SCR) theory, which states that every material has a unique level of saturation above which the 

material degrades rapidly within a few freeze-thaw cycles. In this theory, a material is considered 

safe provided that its degree of saturation (SACT) is less than the critical value, and the period of 

frost immunity in field concretes is the time required for SACT to reach SCR (Pigeon and Pleau, 

1995). In a similar manner, it is worth investigating these concepts for SRW mixes, where 

moisture contents of in-service SRWs may be determined directly from the field or from SRWs 

tested in the laboratory under simulated field conditions. This information, coupled with critical 
206 

moisture contents for a particular SRW mix may provide information on frost immunity of field 

units. This type of investigation may help bridge the currently existing gap between field and 

laboratory results. 
207 

APPENDIX A: 

NEWLY PROPOSED VERSIONS OFASTM C 1262 (2003)—FREEZE-THAW TEST 

FOR SRW BLOCKS) 

Standard Test Method for 

Evaluating the Freeze-Thaw Durability of Manufactured

Concrete Masonry Units and Related Concrete Units1

Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units

(modeled after ASTM C 1262 – 05a)

ASTM C 1262 CLAUSES COMMENTARY 

1. Scope* 

1.1 This test method covers the 

resistance to freezing and thawing 

manufactured concrete masonry and 

related concrete units of Segmental 

Retaining Wall (SRW) units. Units are 

tested in a test solution that is either water 

or 3 percent saline solution (3 percent salt 

by weight of solution) depending on the 

intended use of the units in actual service. 

NOTE 1—Concrete masonry and related concrete 

units include units such as hollow and solid concrete 

masonry units, concrete brick, segmental retaining wall 

units, concrete pavers, and concrete roof pavers.

1.2 This standard does not purport to 

address all of the safety concerns, if any, 

associated with its use. It is the 

responsibility of the user of this standard 

to establish appropriate safety and health 

practices and determine the applicability 

of regulatory limitations prior to use.

 

2. Referenced Documents 

2.1 ASTM Standards:

C 140 Test Methods of Sampling and 

Testing Concrete Masonry Units and 

Related Units 

C 215 Test Method for Fundamental 

Transverse, Longitudinal, and 

Torsional Resonant Frequencies of 

C 2.1—This revised version of ASTM C 

1262 provides the option of conducting 

resonant frequency testing on SRW 

coupons to determine their relative 

dynamic modulus (RDM). 
208 

Concrete Specimens

C 1093 Practice for the Accreditation 

of Testing Agencies for Unit Masonry 

C 1209 Terminology of Concrete 

Masonry Units and Related Units

 

3. Terminology 

3.1 Terminology defined in 

Terminology C 1209 shall apply for this 

test method.

4. Significance and Use 

4.1 The procedure described in this 

test method is intended to determine the 

effects of freezing and thawing on 

concrete SRW units in the presence of 

water or saline solution

4.2 The procedure is not intended to 

provide a quantitative measure to 

determine an expected length of service 

for a specific type of concrete unit. 

NOTE 2—The testing laboratory performing this 

test method should be evaluated in accordance with 

Practice C 1093. 

NOTE 3—Compressive strength and absorption 

tests should be performed on different but representative 

specimens. While compressive strength and absorption 

values by themselves have been shown by research to 

not be reliable indicators of durability, they have been 

shown to be good reference values for units 

manufactured from a given set of materials. 

 

5. Apparatus 

5.1 Freezing-and-Thawing Apparatus:

5.1.1 In the event that a chamber or 

chambers are used to subject the 

specimens to the specified freezing or 

thawing cycles, or both, the chamber or 

chambers shall be capable of maintaining 

the air temperature throughout the 

chamber at all specimen locations within 

the specified test ranges when measured at 

any given time cycle. If the apparatus 

operates automatically, it must be able to 

provide reproducible cycles within the 

specified temperature requirements.

(See commentary C 8.3.1 below) 

5.1.2 The apparatus includes a non- (See commentary C 7.1.4 below) 
209 

rigid plastic container for each test 

specimen and test specimen supports as 

illustrated in Fig. 1. The containers shall 

be of sufficient size to provide a minimum 

of 1/8 in. (3 mm) and a maximum of 1-1/2 

in. (38 mm) 1-3/16 ± 1/24 in. (30 ± 1 mm)

test solution surrounding the specimen. 

Test specimen supports to hold the 

specimen above the container bottom shall 

be two 1/8 ± 1/24 in. (3 ± 1 mm) rods of a 

solid noncorrosive, nonabsorptive material 

(brass, plastic, etc.). Supports in the 

specimen longitudinal and transverse 

directions shall be provided (see Note 

5). The container shall be flat enough that 

when the specimen coupon is set on the 

support rods the specimen shall not 

deviate from level by more than 1/16 in. 

(2 mm) from one end of the specimen to 

the opposite end. 

NOTE 4—An example of a container that fulfills 

this requirement for a 4 in. × 8 in. (100 mm × 200 

mm) coupon cut from 8 in. (200 mm) tall units is the 

Rubbermaid® “Servin’ Saver Plus” 1.1 Gal / 4.0 L 

container.

NOTE 5—A recommended setup for 

longitudinal and transverse support of the specimen 

consists of an I-shaped support formed by attaching 

pieces of 1/8 ± 1/24 in. (3 ± 1 mm) rod to form the I.

5.2 Temperature-Measuring 

Equipment—Thermometers, resistance 

thermometers, or thermocouples, capable 

of measuring the temperature at various 

points within the test chamber to within 

2°F (1°C) of the temperature measured 

by a sensor that has been calibrated to a 

standard reference temperature.

5.3 Scales—Scales for weighing fullsize specimens shall have a capacity of at 

least 50 percent greater than the weight of 

the largest specimen tested and shall be 

accurate to at least 1 g (0.002 lb). Scales 

for weighing the filter paper and specimen 

residue (spall), as required in 8.2.3, shall 

be accurate to at least 0.2 g (0.0005 lb).

5.4 Dynamic Testing Apparatus 
210 

shall conform to the requirements of 

Test Method C 215.

FIG. 1 Test Specimen in Freezing–and–Thawing Container

 

6. Sampling 

6.1 Selection of Test Specimens—

Select whole units representative of the lot 

from which they are selected. The units 

shall be free from visible cracks or 

structural defects and shall not have been 

previously exposed to below-freezing 

temperatures.

6.2 Number of Specimens—From the 

whole units selected in 6.1, randomly 

Select five units for freezing and thawing 

tests. If compression and absorption tests 

are to be performed on the same set of 

units in accordance with Test Methods C 

140, select additional units as required. 

Specimens (coupons) used for Test 

Methods C 140 tests shall not be used as 

specimens for freezing–and–thawing tests.

C 6.2—Variability in properties and 

freeze-thaw performance among SRW 

units within a “lot,” as defined in 6.1, 

needs to be further investigated. If the lot 

consists of 1 day’s production, then units 

shall be sampled at various different 

times in the day and tested. If the lot 

consists of several days’ production, then 

units shall be sampled on a daily basis 

for testing. Knowledge of between-unit 

variability will enable developing more 

specific requirements in 6.1 and 6.2. For 

example, a sampling frequency of “1 unit 

per X units” or “1 unit per Y hours 

production” can be specified depending 

on the observed level of variability. 

6.3 Identification—Mark each 

freezing–and–thawing specimen so that it 

is identifiable at any time.

7. Preparation of Test Specimens 

7.1 Freezing–and–Thawing Test 

Specimens—Test specimens shall consist 

TEST SPECIMEN COVER TO PREVENT EVAPORATION 

NON-RIGID 

CONTAINER 

1/2 in. (13 mm) 

DEPTH OF WATER 

(OR SALINE 

SOLUTION) IN 

CONTAINER 

1/8 in. (3 mm) BETWEEN 

TEST SPECIMEN AND 

BOTTOM OF CONTAINER 

3/8 in. (10 mm) OF 

TEST SPECIMEN 

THICKNESS IS 

SUBMERGED 

TEST SPECIMEN 

SUPPORTS, 1/8 in. 

(3 mm) RODS 

1/8 in. (3 mm) TO 

1-1/2 in. (39 mm) 

WATER 

SURROUNDING 

SPECIMEN 

1-3/16 ± 1/24 in. 

(30 ± 1 mm) 

SOLUTION 

SURROUNDING 

SPECIMEN
211 

of solid coupons saw-cut from full sized 

units. Do not saw-cut test specimens from 

units that have been previously ovendried. Do not subject test specimens to 

oven-drying prior to completion of 

freezing–and–thawing testing.

7.1.1 One coupon shall be cut from 

each of the five sampled units. Using a 

water-cooled saw, cut the coupon from the 

exposed surface of the unit as the unit is 

used in service unless the exposed surface 

is a split, fluted (ribbed), or other 

nonplanar surface. In the case of a unit 

with an exposed nonplanar surface, cut the 

coupon from another a flat molded 

surface, on the surface of the unit that is 

opposite to the split surface as 

illustrated in Fig. 2. Cut the coupons at 

least 1 in. (25 mm) away from the 

corners of the unit and in such manner 

that the coupon is centered at midheight of the unit (Fig. 2). Immediately 

following saw-cutting, thoroughly

remove loose particles and residue from 

the coupon by rinsing in tap water and 

brushing with a soft bristle brush until the 

coupon surfaces are clean (saw-cut 

aggregates clearly visible). Do not fully 

immerse coupons in water.

C 7.1.1—Sampling from the back face 

has two advantages: it avoids sampling 

near the split face where cracks and 

delaminations have been frequently 

observed, and it ensures consistency in 

properties (there is evidence that 

properties over an SRW unit vary from 

split to back face). Sampling from the 

back face has the disadvantage that it is 

not the exposed surface of the unit, the 

one of interest. Moreover, there is data to 

prove that properties of specimens 

sampled from the back face have lower 

water absorption and higher flexural 

strength than those sampled from the 

split face. One approach that can be 

taken is to tighten freeze-thaw 

specifications for specimens sampled 

from the back face, recognizing that 

these specimens are of likely higher 

quality than those sampled from the split 

face. 

7.1.2 Place the coupons on edge on a 

3/8 in. (10 mm) or coarser mesh such that 

there is an air space of not less than 1 in. 

(25 mm) between coupons. Allow the 

coupons to dry for not less than 48 h in 

laboratory air at a temperature of 75 ± 

15°F (24 ± 8°C) and a relative humidity of 

less than 80 percent 45 to 55 percent.

C 7.1.2—The 45 to 55 percent relative 

humidity is adapted from ASTM C 672 

which also requires a drying period for 

specimens prior to start of freeze-thaw 

testing. 

7.1.3 The thickness of each coupon 

shall be 1-1/4 in. (32 mm) ± 1/16 in. (2 

mm), unless the unit does not permit this 

minimum thickness, in which case the 

thickness shall be the maximum thickness 

that can be obtained from the unit. The 

thickness of the coupon shall not be less 

than 3/4 in. (19 mm).

C 7.1.3—It is not clear at this time 

whether variations in coupon thickness 

affect test results. Thickness variations 

do, however, affect total mass of 

specimen (for specimens with the same 

face test area), and as concluded in the 

NCMA study, variations in specimen 

mass relative to solution mass affect 

mass loss measurements. The issue of 
212 

specimen thickness must be evaluated 

and consideration should be made as to 

whether or not a constant thickness 

should be specified. 

FIG. 2 Extraction of Test Coupon from SRW Unit (figure not to scale)

FIG. 2 for C 7.1.1 Alternate Extraction Method of Test Coupons from SRW Unit (figure 

not to scale)

7.1.4 The area of the submerged 

bottom surface of the test specimen shall 

be at least 25 in.2

 (161 cm2) and shall not 

exceed 35 in.2 (225 cm2), between 31 in2

(200 cm2

) and 33 in2 (210 cm2) unless the 

unit does not permit a coupon meeting the 

minimum area, in which case the test 

specimen shall consist of two coupons. 

The combined area of the two coupons 

shall be at least 25 in.2

 (161 cm2) and shall 

not exceed 35 in.2 (225 cm2) between 31 

in2 (200 cm2) and 33 in2 (210 cm2). These 

two coupons shall be tested as and 

considered to be a single specimen. 

NOTE 6—For combinations of specified 

container (5.1.2) and coupon sizes (7.1.4), 

approximately 300 g of test solution is required to 

obtain a depth of 1/2 ± 1/16 in. (13 ± 2 mm) (8.3.1). 

C 7.1.4—It is understood that the current 

allowable range of container and coupon 

sizes is intended to provide flexibility to 

different laboratories testing a variety of 

different manufactured products 

including concrete masonry units, 

segmental retaining wall units, concrete 

pavers, and roof pavers. It can be 

demonstrated that for the current 

tolerances, specifically in the amount of 

surrounding solution, the energy 

required to cool a coupon surrounded by 

1 1/2 inches (3.8 cm) of water is up to 5 

times larger than the energy required to 

cool a similar size coupon surrounded by 

1/8 inch (0.32 cm) of water. In addition, 

the combination of permissible container 

and coupon sizes can result in ratios of 

split face 

test coupon 

H 

leave at least 

1 in. (25 mm)

test coupons

leave at least 1 in. 

(25 mm)

split face 

H 
213 

mass of surrounding water (or solution) 

to mass of specimen (i.e,. mwater/mspecimen) 

as high as 0.40 for a 35 inch2 (226 cm2) 

coupon surrounded by 1-1/2 inches (3.8 

cm) of water to as low as 0.06 for a 25 

inch2

 (161 cm2) coupon surrounded by 

1/8 inch (0.32 cm) of water. In the 

studies conducted at Cornell for NCMA, 

mass loss approximately doubled in 

going from msolution/mspecimen of 0.15 to 

0.30. 

Based on these data, the range 

msolution/mspecimen has been narrowed by 

specifying coupon size as well as the 

clearance between specimen and 

container. Thus, 4 inch by 8 inch (10 cm 

by 20 cm) (coupons are tested in 

containers of about 6.4 inches by 10.4 

inches in size (16 cm by 26 cm) 

(Rubbermaid® “Servin’ Saver Plus” 1.1 

Gal / 4.0 L). Coupons cut from 6-inch 

(15 cm-)tall units are then required to be 

5-1/3 inches by 6 inches (14 cm by 15 

cm) and be tested in containers of about 

7.7 inches by 8.4 inches (20 cm by 21 

cm) in size. Coupons cut from 4-inch-

(10-cm-)tall units are then 4 inches by 8 

inches (10 cm by 20 cm) provided there 

is sufficient space in the SRW unit or two 

4 inch by 4 inch (10 cm by 10 cm) 

coupons tested as one coupon. These 

coupons (4 inch(10 cm)) are tested in the 

same containers as those used for 

coupons cut from 8-inch (20-cm-)tall 

units. 

One likely problem is the long-term 

availability of said containers in the 

market. For test results to be repeatable 

and comparable, test containers 

(material and dimensions) must be 

standardized. Another option is to specify 

custom-made containers with exacting 

dimensions meeting the above 

specifications.
214 

8. Procedure 

8.1 Survey of Freezing-and-Thawing 

Test Chamber:

8.1.1 The chamber shall be surveyed 

for its internal temperature distribution 

prior to actual freeze-thaw testing of 

specimens. This survey shall be 

performed according to the procedures 

outlined in the Annex. The survey shall 

be performed on a chamber loaded with 

the same number and type of 

containers, coupons, and solution in the 

same arrangement as will be used in 

actual freeze-thaw testing of specimens.

8.1.2 Determine Freezer Reliability 

Curves from the survey (see Annex). If 

Reliabilities less than 95 percent are 

measured, remove 10 percent of the 

containers from the chamber and 

repeat the survey. Continue this process 

until Reliabilities greater than 95

percent are consistently attained. The 

remaining amount of containers in the 

chamber shall then be the maximum 

amount of containers that may be used 

in actual freeze-thaw tests.

NOTE 7—Dummy coupons of the same mass as 

actual test coupons are acceptable for the survey. The 

test solution used during the survey shall be similar 

to that used for actual freeze-thaw testing.

C 8.1.2—The current ASTM C 1262 

requires that the freezer air T-t 

conditions be maintained “throughout 

the chamber.” Although the meaning of 

“throughout” is not clear (i.e., “at all 

points in the freezer” or “at all specimen 

locations”), it may imply “everywhere” 

in the chamber (note: the word 

“throughout” is defined in MerriamWebster’s dictionary as “in or to every 

part; EVERYWHERE”). As such, 

complying with ASTM C 1262 (2003) 

may entail attaining R = 100 percent at 

all cycles. For the Tenney freezer with 28 

specimens and the walk-in freezer with 

20 specimens, R = 100 percent was 

consistently attained. However, as noted 

in section 4.4.5, somewhere between 20 

and 40 specimens, R is no longer 100 

percent for the walk-in freezer. Similarly, 

the chest freezer with six specimens 

exhibited R less than 100 percent. The 

issue of whether R needs to consistently 

be 100 percent at all cycles, or whether 

lower R values such as R = 95 percent 

are acceptable remains open. Note that 

when R = 0.95, the probability that any 

given specimen will experience 100 

consecutive fully compliant cycles is 

about 60 percent. For other R values, 

this probability is: 

 R = 0.96 – 66 percent 
215 

 R = 0.97 – 74 percent 

 R = 0.98 – 85 percent 

 R = 0.99 – 90 percent 

8.1.3 During actual freeze-thaw 

testing, the length of Cooling Branch

(see Annex) shall be such that 

Reliabilities greater than 95 percent are 

attained. The internal temperature 

distribution of the chamber shall be

monitored during actual freeze-thaw 

testing to monitor the chamber 

performance and the reproducibility of 

cycles. If fluctuations in the 

performance of the chamber are 

detected, the length of Cooling Branch 

shall be adjusted accordingly to 

maintain Reliabilities greater than 95

percent.

NOTE 8—It is recommended that at least 5 

cycles in every 25 freeze-thaw cycles be monitored.

8.1 8.2 Specimen Conditioning:

8.1.1 8.2.1 After preparation of the 

freezing–and–thawing test specimens in 

accordance with Section 7, place the 

specimen in the container face down on 

the specimen supports such that the nonsaw-cut surface of the specimen is in 

contact with the specimen supports. Add a 

sufficient amount of test solution at a 

temperature of 60 to 80°F (16 to 27°C) to 

the container to achieve a test solution 

depth of 1/2 ± 1/16 in. (13 ± 2 mm). Do 

not pour test solution directly onto the 

specimen. The test solution shall be either 

potable tap water or a 3 ± 0.1 percent (by 

weight) sodium chloride saline solution 

(0.03 lbs of salt to 0.97 lbs of water). 

Seal the container and store Close 

container lids tightly and store 

containers on a level surface in laboratory 

air as defined in 7.1.2. 

NOTE 4 9—The submerged portion of the 

specimen is 3/8 in. (10 mm) of its thickness. There is 1/8 

in. (3 mm) of test solution between the bottom of the 

container and the face of the specimen. 

C 8.2.1—The effect of partial immersion 

should be re-evaluated. Scherer and 

Valenza (2005) have conducted 

experiments in which concrete slabs are 

ponded with saline solution on one face. 

Swelling of the slabs is observed and this 

swelling increased with increasing salt 

concentration. Under freezing 

conditions, swelling is further enhanced. 

This may be related to the observation of 

transverse cracks in specimens. 
216 

8.1.2 8.2.2 After 1 h ± 15 min, open 

the container and add test solution as 

necessary to maintain the water level 

required in 8.1.1. Reseal the container. 

After another 23 h ± 1 h, remove the 

specimen from the test solution and allow 

to drain for 1 min ± 15 sec. by placing it 

on a 3/8-in. (10-mm) or coarser sieve, 

removing visible surface test solution with 

a damp cloth. Immediately weigh the 

specimen to the nearest 1 g (0.002 lb) and 

record as Wp. Immediately test for 

fundamental frequency (optional). If 

fundamental frequency is measured, the 

total time period from removal of 

specimen from container to resonant 

frequency measurement shall not 

exceed 15 mins. nor should specimen 

surfaces become visibly dry before 

frequencies are measured.

NOTE 5 10—The weight Wp as determined in 8.1.2

8.2.2 is not required to be reported at the conclusion of 

the test, nor is it used to calculate the reported weight 

loss of the specimen throughout the test. However, 

because the initial dry-weight of the specimen is not 

determined until the completion of freezing–and–

thawing testing by adding the dry-weight of the collected 

residue to the dry-weight of the remains of the specimen 

(see 8.3.5 8.4.5), this Wp weight is needed as a reference 

weight to be used during the testing to estimate 

percentage weight loss and to predict relative 

performance between test specimens. 

NOTE 11—Testing of fundamental frequency of 

SRW coupons requires close attention to test 

technique to avoid confusing frequencies for different 

modes of vibrations. Carefully aligning the location 

of impact and accelerometer (in the impact resonance 

method) as shown in Fig. 3a usually results in the 

transverse vibration mode being the dominant form 

of vibration for a specimen with 2:1 aspect ratio. To 

verify that the observed frequency peaks correspond 

to the transverse vibration mode, the location of 

impact and accelerometer may be offset as shown in 

Fig. 3b, in which case the torsional vibration mode 

becomes dominant. The frequency corresponding to 

this torsional may thus be distinguished from the 

transverse mode.
217 

FIG. 3 Possible vibration modes for SRW specimen

8.1.3 8.2.3 Return the specimens to the 

container and adjust test solution level as 

required in 8.1.1 8.2.1.

8.1.4 8.2.4 Test solution added to the 

containers shall be at a temperature of 60 

to 80°F (16 to 27°C).

8.2 8.3 Cyclical Testing:

8.2.1 8.3.1 Begin the test with a 

freezing cycle. Place the containers into 

the freezing test chamber such that each 

container is surrounded by a minimum air 

space of 1/2 in. (13 mm) on all sides. 

During testing the container shall be level 

within 1/16 in. (2 mm). The air 

temperature in the chamber shall be 

maintained within the limits shown in 

Fig. 4. During the freezing cycle, maintain 

the air temperature in the chamber at 0 ± 

10°F (-18 ± 5°C) 0 ± 5°F (-18 ± 3°C) for a 

period of not less than 4.0 h and not more 

than 5.0 h (cold soak). Hence, the time at 

which the warming ramp (shown by the 

dashed lines) starts may vary depending 

on the length of cold soak, as 

determined from the Chamber Survey 

(8.1). The rates of freezer air warming 

shall conform with the limits shown in 

Fig. 4. The cycle time does not include the 

time required for the air temperature in the 

chamber to reach the prescribed 

temperature. Periodically, at the end of a 

freezing cycle, open the containers and 

visually inspect the specimens to 

determine if all the test solution 

surrounding the specimen is frozen solid. 

C 8.3.1a—Spacing between specimens 

may influence the flow of air between 

specimens and affect cooling rates. It has 

been observed that cooling rates in the 

Tenney freezer increased slightly when 

the spacing between containers was 

increased and this is suspected to be 

caused by enhanced air flow between 

containers. Spacing between test 

containers may be more significant for a 

freezer such as the Tenney freezer in 

which air flow is essentially from top to 

bottom of freezer, and the passage of air 

from one shelf level to the next occurs in 

the space between containers and 

between containers and freezer wall. 

C 8.3.1b—A complete freezer air T-t 

requirement (Fig. 4) is specified in this 

annotated version of C 1262 (2003). This 

is because findings from the FHWA and 

NCMA studies confirmed two important 

results: 

• Meeting the current ASTM C 1262-05 

freezer air T-t requirements does not 

lead to similar specimen cooling 

curves. 

• Meeting the current ASTM C 1262-05 

accelerometer impactor

×

accelerometer impactor

×

supports

specimen (a) 

(b)
218 

If not, extend the length of the freezing 

cycle to ensure that all test solution is 

frozen solid.

NOTE 12—An example of a chamber that meets 

the temperature-time requirement in Fig. 4 is the 

Tenney Environmental (A Lunaire Company) 

chamber, Model No. T20S-2.0 shown in Fig. 5.

NOTE 6 13—Temperature probes should be used to 

monitor the air temperature throughout the chamber. If 

warm units are placed into a freezing chamber, the air 

temperature within the chamber rises. The start of the 

freezing cycle time period begins only after the 

temperature of the air within the chamber is within the 

permissible range. Typically, constant temperature 

monitoring is not necessary, but it should be preformed 

through the first several cycles to ensure that the 

specimens remain in the freezing chamber for the 

appropriate length of time to comply with the cycle 

requirements. The same procedures should also be used 

to verify compliance with thawing cycle requirements in 

8.2.6. 

freezer air T-t requirements does not 

lead to similar specimen 

performance. 

Thus, in addition to specifying cold and 

soak lengths and durations as is done in 

the current C 1262, the cooling and 

warming rates must also be specified. 

The freezer air T-t envelopes shown in 

Fig. 4 are based on the data obtained at 

Cornell University for a freezer loaded 

with 28 specimens (also refer to section 

8.3.3). It is recognized that variations in 

specimen load may produce freezer air 

curves outside the bounds from those 

shown in Fig. 4. The curves shown in 

Fig. 4 are intended for a testing 

laboratory wishing to reproduce the test 

conditions of the NCMA freezer at 

Cornell. 

Furthermore, an open question is the 

issue of how the T-t envelopes in Fig. 4 

reflect actual field exposure of SRWs. 

This is a topic that must be investigated 

further by comparing actual cooling 

rates and performance of SRW units in 

field and laboratory conditions and 

revising the freezer-air requirements in 

the test method accordingly. 

Another issue is the total number of 

specimens in the freezer. Chapter 4 

showed that different coupon and 

container sizes can lead to variations in 

the total specimen quantity in the freezer 

and how variations in total specimen 

quantity lead to fluctuations in freezer 

performance. If a standardized container 

is used, it is then possible for the test 

method to specify total specimen quantity 

in the freezer and maintain this total 

quantity fixed (see section 8.3.3). This 

means that anytime during the course of 

a test that a specimen is considered 

“failed” and removed from the 
219 

population in the freezer, it should be 

replaced by a similar dummy specimen. 

This practice is in use in ASTM C 666 for 

ordinary concrete testing. 

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

012345678

Time (hrs)

Temperature (°F)

FIG. 4 Chamber Air Temperature Limits

Points from which the envelope 

curves in the adjacent graph 

were produced 

Lower Limit Upper Limit 

t (hrs) T (°F) t (hrs) T (°F) 

0.0 65 0.0 80 

0.5 35 0.9 33 

1.8 - 5 2.0 5 

6.4 - 5 6.0 5 

6.7 65 6.2 80 

8.0 65 8.0 80 

FIG. 5 Example of Freezing-and-Thawing Apparatus

8.2.2 8.3.2 After the freezing cycle, 

immediately begin the thawing cycle. 

During the thawing cycle, maintain the air 

temperature around the containers at 75 ± 

Internal dimensions: 

1 m (391⁄2 in.) deep ×

0.76 m (30 in.) wide ×

0.91 m (36 in.) high 

Operating capacity: 

5200 watts 

actual time of warming ramp may vary 

depending on results of Freezer Survey 
220 

10°F (24 ± 5°C) for a period of not less 

than 2.5 h and not more than 96 h. The 

cycle time does not include the time 

required for the air temperature around the 

specimens to reach the prescribed 

temperatures. Each container shall be 

surrounded by a minimum air space of 1/2 

in. on all sides. If the air surrounding the 

containers is not continuously circulated 

during the thawing cycle, the containers 

shall be laid out in a single layer without 

stacking in the vertical direction. 

Periodically, at the end of a thawing cycle, 

open the containers and visually inspect 

the specimens to determine if no ice 

remains. If ice is still present, extend the 

length of the thawing cycle to ensure that 

all ice has thawed. 

NOTE 14—There is evidence that the length of 

thawing cycle may affect overall freezer 

performance. Freezers programmed for thawing 

cycles shorter than 6 h have been observed to lose 

cooling efficiency in subsequent cycles. It is therefore 

recommended that freezer performance be 

monitored during tests, as indicated in 8.1.3 and Note 

8, and the lengths of Cooling and Warming Branches 

be adjusted accordingly if fluctuations in freezer 

performance are detected.

8.3.3 The total number of specimens 

in the freezer shall be maintained at 28. 

Whenever a specimen is removed 

because of failure, replace it for the 

remainder of the test by a dummy 

specimen (see Note 7 for definition of 

dummy specimen).

C 8.3.3—Note again that the 28 

specimens specified in section 8.3.3 are 

intended to reflect the test conditions at 

Cornell in the NCMA study for which the 

freezer air envelopes in Fig. 4 were 

produced. Other specimen quantities are 

expected to alert the freezer air response 

and thus different specification envelopes 

are required.

8.2.3 8.3.4 One freezing–and–thawing 

cycle is defined as a completed freezing 

cycle followed by a completed thawing 

cycle.

8.2.4 8.3.5 At 20-cycle intervals for 

those specimens tested in water and at 10-

cycle intervals for those specimens tested 

in saline solution, remove containers from 

the test chamber and collect residue in 

accordance with 8.3 8.4. Open containers 
221 

to visually inspect the condition of the 

specimens and to adjust the test solution 

level to comply with 8.1.1 8.2.1. 

NOTE 7 15—There is some evidence that 

frequency of sampling influences results. Therefore, 

variations from cycle intervals for residue sampling are 

only appropriate when this method is used for research 

purposes rather than compliance purposes. Collecting 

and reporting residue at regular intervals provides 

information about the performance of the specimens 

throughout the duration of the test and also permits 

plotting results of weight loss relative to number of 

cycles of exposure. 

8.2.5 8.3.6 Every time a container is 

replaced into a multi-level freezing test 

chamber, the container shall be placed on 

the level immediately above the level on 

which it was previously located. If the 

container was previously located on the 

top level of a multi-level freezing 

chamber, replace it onto the bottom level. 

Containers in the front and back 

locations of the freezer shall be switched 

around, and containers in the left and 

right locations in the freezer shall also 

be switched around.

8.2.6 8.3.7 If the test method is being 

used to document compliance of a set of 

specimens with specific freezing–and–

thawing durability criteria, repeat the 

freezing–and–thawing cycle to reach the 

specified number of cycles. After the 

specified number of cycles have been 

completed, collect residue in accordance 

with 8.3 8.4. 

8.3 8.4 Collection of Residue:

8.3.1 8.4.1 Weigh to the nearest 0.2 g 

(0.0005 lb) and record as Wf a filter paper 

of high wet strength and smooth surface 

that has come to equilibrium temperature 

with the lab environment. Remove a 

single specimen from its container. 

Immediately rinse the specimen with 

water (if the specimen is tested in saline 

solution, use saline solution to rinse the 

specimen) using a squeeze bottle, being 

careful to collect in the specimen 

C 8.4.1—While the current ASTM C 

1262 requires that the top surface of 

coupons not be immersed in water at any 

time, it has been consistently observed 

that moisture condenses and freezes on 

the underside of container lids. Upon 

thawing, this water drips back on the 

coupon surface where it either sits or 

gets absorbed into the coupon. The 

amount of such moisture falling back on 

the coupon appears to vary randomly 
222 

container the rinse water (or saline 

solution) and all loose particles from the 

specimen. Consider any pieces that 

separated from the specimen as part of the 

residue. Pour the test solution from the 

specimen container through the filter 

paper to collect the residue (spall) from 

the test specimen. Replace the specimen in 

the container. Using fingertips and a 

squeeze bottle, remove loose particles 

from all surfaces of the specimen, again 

being careful to collect all rinse water (or 

saline solution) and loose particles in the 

specimen container. The top surface of the 

specimen shall not be immersed in test 

solution at anytime and the collected rinse 

water (or saline solution) shall not exceed 

a depth of 1/2 in. (13 mm) in the 

container. Remove the specimen from the 

container, pour the rinse water (or saline 

solution) through the filter paper, and 

rinse the specimen container until all 

residue (spall) in the specimen container is 

collected on the filter paper. Rinse the 

residue from specimens tested in saline 

solution three times with water to remove 

any soluble salt. 

NOTE 8 16—The filtering may be expedited by 

using filter paper rated at a faster speed or vacuum 

filtration, or both. This is acceptable as long as the test 

solution that passes through the filter paper (filtrate) is 

clear to the naked eye. If it is cloudy, then filter papers 

of increasingly slower speeds should be used until the 

filtrate is clear. 

from coupon to coupon. While the effects 

of variable moisture content on specimen 

performance is not certain at this time, 

the effect discussed under this 

commentary may be overcome as 

follows: 

• If fully immersed specimens are 

specified in future ASTM C 1262 

(2003) versions, this condensed 

moisture will no longer be an issue. 

• By providing lids with an incline so 

the condensed moisture can run down 

to the side of the container rather 

than dripping on the coupon. 

8.4.2 Use a damp cloth to remove 

moisture films from all specimen 

surfaces, immediately weigh the 

specimen to the nearest 1g (0.002 lb) 

and record as Ws (optional) and right 

away test for fundamental frequency 

(optional). If Ws and fundamental 

frequency are measured, the total time 

period from removal of specimen from 

container to resonant frequency 

measurement shall not exceed 15 mins 

and specimen surfaces shall not become 

C 8.4.2—Experiments conducted in the 

NCMA study demonstrated the influence 

of varying specimen moisture conditions 

(in this case due to drying) on resonant 

frequency. Resonant frequencies of 

specimens were found to not vary by 

more than 1 percent in the first 15 

minutes from removal of specimen from 

container. 
223 

visibly dry before frequencies are 

measured.

8.3.2 8.4.3 If testing is to be continued, 

return the specimen to the container 

positioned on its supports. Check that the 

specimen container still meets the flatness 

requirement of 5.1.2. If it fails to meet the 

flatness requirement, use a different 

container. Add fresh test solution to the 

container in accordance with 8.3.1 8.2.1, 

and seal the container.

8.3.3 8.4.4 Repeat the procedures 

described in 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 8.4.1, 8.4.2 

and 8.4.3 with each remaining specimen.

8.3.4 8.4.5 Dry all the filter paper and 

residue (spall) collected from each 

specimen at 212 to 239°F (100 to 115°C) 

for not less than 4 h and until two 

successive weighings at intervals of 2 h ± 

15 min show an increment of loss not 

greater than 0.2 percent of the last 

previously determined weight. Place the 

filter paper and residue in a draft-free 

location within the laboratory for a period 

of 2 h ± 15 min to allow the filter paper 

and residue to come to equilibrium 

temperature with the laboratory 

environment. Weigh the filter paper and 

residue to the nearest 0.2 g (0.0005 lb) and 

record as Wf+r. Calculate the residue 

weight, Wr, as follows: 

 Wr = Wf+r + Wf (1) 

 where: 

 Wr = weight of residue (spall), g (lb), 

 Wf+r = weight of the dried residue and 

filter 

 paper, g (lb), and 

 Wf = initial weight of the filter paper, g 

(lb).
224 

8.4.6 At each residue collection 

interval (after n cycles), calculate the 

following parameters (optional):

 Wrn = total accumulated residue 

weight from start of test to current 

cycle (2)

 Wsn = Ws + Wrn (3) 

 where:

 Wsn = total surface dried weight of

 specimen at current cycle, g (lb),

 Ws = surface dried weight of 

specimens at current cycle (8.4.2), 

g (lb), and

 Wrn = accumulated residue weight 

from start of test to current cycle 

(Eq. 2), g (lb)

8.3.5 8.4.7 At the completion of the 

freezing–and–thawing testing, dry each 

specimen at 212 to 239°F (100 to 115°C) 

for 24 ± 1 h. Weigh to the nearest 1 g 

(0.002 lb) the final oven-dried specimen 

and record as Wfinal. Calculate the initial 

weight of the specimen, Winitial, as follows: 

 Winitial = Wfinal + Wresidue (2)(4)

 where: 

 Winitial = calculated initial weight of the 

 specimen, g (lb), 

 Wfinal = final weight of the specimen, g 

(lb), 

 and 

 Wresidue = total accumulated residue 

weight (equal to the sum of the residue 

weight, Wr, from each evaluation period, 

g (lb). 

9. Calculation and Report 

9.1 Percent Weight Loss – Determine 

and report the cumulative weight loss of 

each residue collection interval expressed 

in terms of g (lb) and as a percent of the 
225 

calculated initial weight of the specimen, 

Winitial, determined in accordance with 

8.3.5 8.4.7. Where the coupon thickness is 

less than 1.25 in. (32 mm), the percentage 

and cumulative weight loss shall be 

multiplied by a value equal to the actual 

thickness in inches (mm) divided by 1.25 

in. (32 mm). Report these values for each 

specimen as well as the average of the 

specimens tested. 

9.2 Moisture Parameters (optional) 

– Determine the moisture content of the 

specimens at each residue collection 

interval as follows:

 MCn =

initial

sn initial

W

(W −W )

× 100 percent

(5)

 where:

 MCn = moisture content at each 

residue collection interval, 

percent,

 Wsn = total surface dried weight of 

 specimen at each residue collection

 interval (Eq. 3), g (lb), and

 Winitial = calculated initial weight of 

the specimen, g (lb).

Determine the moisture gain of the 

specimens at each residue collection 

interval as follows:

 MGn =

initial

sn p

W

(W −W )

× 100 percent

(6)

 where:

 MGn = moisture gain at each residue 

 collection interval, percent,

 Wsn = total surface dried weight of 

 specimen at each residue collection 

 interval (Eq. 3), g (lb),

 Wp = initial pre-freeze surface dried 

 weight of specimen (8.2.2), g (lb), 

and

 Winitial = calculated initial weight of 

C 9.2—The equations used to calculate 

moisture parameters are based on the 

following reasoning. At each residue 

collection interval (after n cycles), the 

surface-dried mass (Ws) of each 

specimen is measured (this is equivalent 

to measuring Wp in section 8.2.2, i.e., Wp

= Ws at 0 cycles). However, because of 

continued mass loss with increasing 

cycles, Ws represents the surface-dried 

mass of only the remaining portion of the 

specimen. Hence, to estimate the total 

surface-dried mass of the specimen, the 

cumulative residue mass up to n cycles 

needs to be added to Ws (equation 3). 

This calculation is similar to equation 4 

to determine the initial oven-dried mass 

of the specimen. The only difference here 

is that the surface-dried mass is obtained 

rather than the oven-dried mass. Once 

the total surface-dried mass Wsn of the 

specimen is obtained at n cycles, the 

moisture content is determined from 

equation 5 and the moisture gain from 

equation 6. 

Findings from the NCMA study 

confirmed the existence of a critical 

moisture content above much specimen 

resonant frequencies dropped at an 

increasingly rapid rate. This observed 

behavior concurred with the theory of 

critical degree of saturation (SCR) 

proposed by Fagerlund (1975). Degree 

of saturation is defined as the ratio of 

actual moisture content to the total 
226 

the specimen, g (lb). moisture content required to fill the open 

porosity in the material. This theory 

states that each particular material (with 

a certain combination of material 

properties such as strength and pore 

properties) possesses a unique value of 

SCR, and significant frost damage does 

not occur until the actual degree of 

saturation (SACT ) in the material exceeds 

SCR. For ordinary concretes, SCR is in the 

range of 0.75 to 0.90 (Fagerlund, 1977). 

For the SRW specimens tested in the 

NCMA study, SCR (calculated as the ratio 

of moisture content to ASTM C 642 

(2002) boiled absorption) was in the 

range of 0.76 to 0.83. 

9.3 Relative Dynamic Modulus 

(RDM) of Elasticity (optional) –

Calculate the value of RDM as follows:

 RDMn= (fc/fo)

2 × 100 percent (7)

 where:

 RDMn = relative dynamic modulus 

of elasticity after n cycles of 

freezing and thawing, percent

 fn = fundamental frequency after n 

cycles of freezing and thawing

 fo = fundamental frequency after 0 

cycles of freezing and thawing

9.4 The report shall also include the 

following information:

a) Date and location of SRW unit 

sampling

b) Age and storage condition of 

SRW units, if known

c) Location of coupon extraction 

from units (provide sketch)

d) Types of specimen damage 

during testing (cracking, scaling, 

aggregate popouts, etc)

e) Percent weight loss at each 

residue collection interval, n

f) Moisture content and percent 
227 

moisture gain at each residue 

collection interval, n (optional)

NOTE 9 17—If compressive strength and 

absorption test results (determined in accordance with 

Test Methods C 140) from representative specimens are 

available, it is recommended that these values be 

reported for reference purposes. 

 

10. Precision and Bias 

10.1 Precision and bias data for 

freezing–and–thawing durability is not 

available.

 

11. Keywords 

11.1 absorption; compressive strength; 

freezing–and–thawing durability; 

manufactured concrete units

 
228 

ANNEX: RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE FOR SURVEY OF INTERNAL 

TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION OF FREEZE-THAW CHAMBER 

This section covers procedures for conducting a thermal survey of the freezer. The purpose is to 

characterize the internal temperature distribution of the freezing environment (consisting of the 

freezer and the specimens inside it) in terms of Temperature vs Time (T-t) and Standard 

Deviation vs Time (σ-t) functions. This survey can be treated as a pre-test mock up, and the 

information drawn from this survey (such as Reliability curves or R-curves) assist the planning 

and execution of eventual tests. As such, this survey must be conducted in an environment that 

reproduces the environment that will exist in actual tests. 

Definitions 

In reference to the freezer air cooling curve shown in Figure A.1, the following terms are 

defined: 

- Cold soak is the time period during which the air temperature is between –18 ± 5°C 

(0° ± 10°F), and ASTM C 1262 Clause 8.2.1 requires that cold soak be maintained 

for 4 to 5 hours. 

- Cooling ramp is the portion of the curve between the points at which the temperature 

starts falling until it reaches –13°C (0°F). Together, the cooling ramp and cold soak 

comprise what is shown as the Cooling branch of the curve. 

- Warm soak is the time period during which the air temperature is between 24 ± 5°C 

(75 ± 10°F); and ASTM C 1262 Clause 8.2.2 requires that warm soak be maintained 

for 2.5 to 96 hours. 

- Warming ramp is the portion of the curve between the end of cold soak and 19°C 

(65°F). Together, the warming ramp and warm soak comprise what is shown as the 

Warming Branch of the curve. 
229 

Figure A.1 Freezer air cooling curve definitions. 

Initial planning 

The overall goal of this initial planning is to identify as many variables as possible that 

will affect test conditions in actual tests and ensure that these conditions are reproduced 

during survey of the freezer. Variables that must be first identified include: 

• Freezer to be used 

• Size and shape of test containers. These may in turn depend on geometry of 

specimens to be tested. 

• Number of specimens to be tested. 

• Proposed arrangement of specimens in the freezer, which depends on various 

factors such as total number of specimens, shape of containers and available 

space or shelving units in the freezer. Also, the arrangement of specimens 

must also consider the ASTM C 1262 requirements that a minimum 13 mm 

(1⁄2 in) space separate specimens in the freezers. 

Dummy specimens 

Dummy specimens to be used for the freezer survey shall be of the same shape and mass 

as the actual test specimens that will be tested. Although specimens of the same SRW 

mix may not be necessary for the survey, it is important however that similar geometries 

be used. These specimens are to be placed in the same containers that will be used in the 

actual tests. Following this, the dummy specimens shall be placed in the freezer in the 

exact same arrangement as will be used in actual tests (specimen arrangement as 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (hours)

Temp. (oC)

-22

-13

-4

5

14

23

32

41

50

59

68

77

86

Temp. (°F)

cold soak 

cooling branch 

warm soak 

warming branch 

warming 

ramp 

-13°C (10°F)

cooling 

ramp 

-23°C (-10°F)

29°C (85°F)

19°C (65°F)
230 

determined from initial planning) and filled with the same volume of test solution (water 

or saline) as will be used in actual tests. 

Temperature sensors 

The temperature sensors to be used such as thermometers or thermocouples must be 

calibrated to improve the precision as well as accuracy of temperature measurements. 

Hance (2005) investigated thermocouple calibration in detail and determined that when 

uncalibrated type T thermocouples were used, any given measurement could be within 

±1.3°C (2.3°F) of a reference thermometer at the 95 percent confidence level and within 

±2.0°C (3.6°F) at the 99 percent confidence level. Calibration decreases the spread of 

values registered by the sensors and thus allows for more precise measurements of 

variations of temperatures within a freezer. 

On a separate issue, since the T-t and σ-t characteristics are of interest, these temperature 

sensors must be connected to a data acquisition system capable of recording and storing 

multiple measurements over a specified time period (at 5-minute intervals or less). For 

this purpose, thermocouples connected to data acquisition computer are preferred, 

although other data logging alternatives may be used. 

Placement of temperature sensors 

As a general guide, temperature sensors shall be strategically placed in such manner that 

the recorded temperatures are representative of the conditions surrounding the specimens 

(note that it is this surrounding condition that needs to be as uniform as possible to 

reduce variability arising from freezer internal variation). Sensors shall therefore be 

placed on each shelf where specimens are located to capture variations at each of the 

different levels. Within each shelf, sensors shall also be placed around the perimeter of 

the specimen group, say at the corners of the shelf. In this manner, the sensors placed at 

each shelf level capture overall temperature variations in the vertical direction, while 

sensors placed within each shelf capture front-back and left-right variations. In addition, 

sensors shall also be placed in between specimens on each shelf to capture the conditions 

in this region. Examples of container and external temperature sensor placement on a 

given shelf of a freezer are shown in Figure A.2. Other considerations for external 

temperature sensor placement include: 

a) Ensuring that the sensors are not in contact with any other part of the freezer 

(e.g. wall or shelf) as it is the freezer air temperature that is sought. Thus, 

sensors shall be placed about 25 mm (1 in) off the shelf level, and 

b) Ensuring that the sensors are not in contact with the specimens, especially the 

bottom part of the container where the solution is, since the latent heat 

liberated by the solution during freezing can lead to misleading sensor 

measurements. Again, sensors shall be kept at least 25 mm (1 in) away from 

container surfaces. 

In addition to these sensors, it is recommended that external temperature sensors be 

placed in the vicinity of the freezer internal (built-in) temperature sensors (specifically, 

the freezer sensor whose temperature is used by the freezer controller to run the cycle). 

This enables verifying the validity of the freezer’s own sensors. 
231 

Figure A.2 Examples of container and sensor placement on freezer shelf. 

Cycles 

It is recommended that at least 3 full freeze-thaw cycles be run to ensure consistency 

between cycles. For the survey, the duration of cooling ramp may be kept the same as 

that used in actual tests. However, the total length of the cooling branch in each cycle 

shall be at least equal to (length of cooling ramp + 5 hours), to ensure that data is 

collected for the entire cold soak period. From studies at Cornell University, the length of 

cooling ramp was about 1 hour for a chest freezer, < 2 hours for a Tenney freezer and up 

to 2.5 hours for a walk-in chamber loaded with 40 specimens. As such, the cooling 

branch for these freezers under the conditions tested would then need to be at least 6, 7 

and 7.5 hours respectively. A trial run shall be carried out to determine this cooling ramp 

length. Temperature data shall be continuously collected either using a dedicated 

computer with data acquisition system or through other data loggers. Data shall be 

collected at intervals of not more than 5 minutes. The graphs shown throughout this 

annex were based on data collected at 1 minute intervals. 

Data processing 

The results for the various cycles collected shall be treated separately and independently. 

The cycles shall not be averaged together (i.e. Tlocation X = average (Tlocation X, cycle 1 + ...+ 

Tlocation X, cycle n), as this may mask any cycle-to-cycle variations. The various cycles shall 

be examined for cycle-to-cycle consistency, which is a requirement in ASTM C 1262 

(Clause 5.1.1). For each cycle, the following steps shall then be performed: 

a) Plot graphs of the T-t, Tavg-t and σ-t. 

The T-t graph is simply the collection of Temperature vs. Time data for all 

available sensors. 

The Tavg-t graph is a plot of Average Temperature vs. Time where Tavg is the 

average temperature of all sensors at any given time. 

The σ-t graph is a plot of Standard Deviation vs. Time where σ is the 

temperature standard deviation of all sensors at any given time. 

Examples of these plots for measurements in a Tenney freezer are shown in 

Figure A.3. 

 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 

= temperature sensor 

1.0 m 

(39 in)

0.75 m 

(30 in) 

containers 

with coupons
232 

b) The T-t plots for all locations shall be scrutinized for any particular pattern in 

the spatial variation (i.e. Are locations near the fan colder? Are there any 

locations which did not get cold enough (i.e. stagnant locations)? How big is 

the temperature spread from front-back, left-right or top-down?) Knowledge 

of these types of variations may help decide the frequency and pattern of 

specimen rotation. For example, if front-back variations are observed to be 

more pronounced than left-right variations, it will then be necessary to rotate 

specimens more frequently in which front and back specimens are switched 

around every 10 cycles. 

Figure A.3 Sample T-t, Tavg-t and σ-t graphs for Tenney freezer. 

c) The Tavg-t and σ-t responses for the cooling branch shall then be modeled 

using best fit relationships. For the work conducted here, the software 

TableCurve 2D, version 4, from AISN Software Inc., copyright 1989-1996 

was employed, and in general, it was determined that the exponential function 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

01234567

Time (hr)

Temperature (oC)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

01234567

Time (hr)

Standard deviation (oC)

Tavg

cooling branch

also the range of interest 

for Tavg-t model 

range of interest 

for σ-t model 
233 

best described the measured data for both T and σ. This relationship was of 

the form: 

Tavg = a1 + b1 exp (–t / c1) (Equation A.1) 

and 

σ = a2 + b2 exp (–t / c2) (Equation A.2) 

Examples of curve fits for the graphs in Figure A.3 are shown in Figure A.4. 

For the Tavg-t graph, two separate fits were actually performed for the data 

before 2.9 hrs and for the data after 2.9 hrs. This is because the Tavg-t 

measurements performed in the Tenney freezer typically displayed a “kink” 

(in this particular case at 2.9 hrs) which prompted the use of two curves for 

the model. This bilinear response may not occur in other freezers as shown by 

the Tavg-t response for a walk-in freezer in Figure A.5 where a single curve fit 

was sufficient to model the entire range of interest (i.e. the cooling branch). In 

the σ-t response of the Tenney freezer (Figure A.4), data before about 0.3 hrs 

was truncated for the curve fit. 

d) Using these relationships, R-curves can then be constructed as follows1

: 

i. Select a trial length for the cooling branch, ttrial

ii. Compute t4 hr = ttrial – 4 

iii. Compute t5 hr = ttrial – 5 

iv. At t4 hr, compute Tavg (t4 hr) and σ (t4 hr) using Equations A.1 and A.2 

respectively. 

v. At t5 hr, compute Tavg (t5 hr) and σ (t5 hr) using Equations A.1 and A.2 

respectively. 

vi. From the values at t4 hr, compute Proportion of under cooled locations 

(PU) as follows: 

x = 

σ(t )

(T ) T (t )

4 hr

cold soak start − avg 4 hr

 (Equation A.3) 

where Tcold soak start is –13°C (10°F) 

 

PU = 

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧

+

+

+ − + − 2 3

2

(1 0.333x)

0.937

(1 0.333x)

0.120

(1 0.333x)

0.436 exp( x /2) 2π1

(Equation A.4) 

 

1

 The concepts of reliability and methods of analysis were developed with the assistance of Prof. Mark Turnquist, 

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, to whom the authors are grateful. 
234 

Figure A.4 Curve fits to Tavg-t and σ-t graphs of Figure A.3 for Tenney freezer. 

vii. From the values at t5 hr, compute Proportion of overcooled locations (PO)

as follows: 

z = 

σ(t )

T (t ) (T )

5 hr

avg 5 hr − cold soak start

(Equation A.5) 

where Tcold soak start is –13°C (10°F) 

PO =

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧

+

+

+ − + − 2 3

2

(1 0.333z)

0.937

(1 0.333z)

0.120

(1 0.333z)

0.436 exp( /2) 2π1

z

 (Equation A.6) 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

01234567

Time (hr)

Temperature (°C)

Tavg = –20.8 + 41.4 exp (– t / 1.16) 

T = –19.3 + 5.56 exp (– t / 3.34) 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

01234567

Time (hr)

Std. Dev. (°C)

σ = –146000 + 146000 exp (– t / 1230000) 
235 

Figure A.5 Curve fit to Tavg-t response of walk-in freezer (single curve). 

viii. The total Proportion of non-compliant locations (PNC) is thus: 

PNC = PU + PO (Equation A.7) 

ix. The Reliability (R) is then given by: 

R = (1 – PNC) × 100 percent (Equation A.8) 

x. Repeat steps i to ix for various values of ttrial, and plot R versus ttrial. This 

curve is the R-curve which for the Tavg-t and σ-t graphs in Figures A.3 and 

A.4 is shown in Figure A.5. 

EXAMPLE R-CURVE CALCULATIONS 

The Tavg-t and σ-t response from the Tenney freezer shown in Figure A.3 will 

be used to illustrate the calculations of Reliability following the steps outlined 

above. The curves in Figure A.3 are modeled by exponential equations shown 

in Figure A.4. 

i. Select ttrial = 6.0 hrs 

ii. t4 hr = 6 – 4 = 2 

iii. t5 hr = 6 – 5 = 1 

iv. Using the curve fits equations, 

Tavg(t4 hr) = Tavg(2) = –20.8 + 41.4 exp (– 2 / 1.16) = –13.5 [Equation A.9] 

(Note that the curve fit to the region before 2.9 hrs was used in this 

case.) 

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

01234567

Time (hr)

Temperature (oC)

Tavg = –16.2 + 35.5 exp (– t / 0.67) 
236 

σ (t4 hr) = σ (2) = –146000 + 146000 exp (– 2 / 1230000) = 0.79 

 [Equation A. 10] 

v. Using the curve fits equations, 

Tavg(t5 hr) = Tavg(1) = –20.8 + 41.4 exp (– 1 / 1.16) = –3.3 

 [Equation A.11] 

(Note that the curve fit to the region before 2.9 hrs was used in this 

case.) 

σ (t5 hr) = σ (1) = –146000 + 146000 exp (– 1 / 1230000) = 0.92 

 [Equation A.12] 

From the values at t4 hr: 

x = 

(0.79)

(-13) − (-13.5) = 0.63 

 [Equation A.13] 

PU =

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧

+ ×

+

+ × − + × − 2 3

2

(1 0.333 0.63)

0.937

(1 0.333 0.63)

0.120

(1 0.333 0.63)

0.436 exp( 0.63 /2) 2π1 = 0.26 

[Equation A.14] 

vi. From the values at t5 hr: 

z = (0.92)

(-3.3) − (-13) = 10.5 

 [Equation A.15] 

 

PO = 

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧

+ ×

+

+ × − + × − 2 3

2

(1 0.333 10.5)

0.937

(1 0.333 10.5)

0.120

(1 0.333 10.5)

0.436 exp( 10.5 /2) 2π1 = 0 

 [Equation A.16] 

vii. PNC = 0.26 + 0 = 0.26 

viii. R = (1 – 0.26) × 100 percent = 74 percent 

ix. Repeating steps i to ix for various values of ttrial, the values in Table A.1 

are obtained which are then used to plot R curve shown in Figure A.6. 
237 

Table A.1 R values for ttrial

ttrial (hr) R ( Percent) 

5.7 0 

5.8 12 

5.9 42 

6.0 74 

6.1 92 

6.2 99 

6.3 100 

6.4 100 

6.5 100 

6.6 100 

6.7 98 

6.8 86 

6.9 58 

7.0 26 

Figure A.6 Reliability (R) curve for the Tavg-t and σ-t graphs shown in Figure A.3. 

Interpretation of R-curve 

R-curves are guides to understand freezer behavior and to help plan cycle times. Figure 

A.6 shows an R-curve that is “flat topped.” Actual freeze-thaw tests shall be run in the 

region where R is maximum, which for the curve in Figure A.6 would be in the “flat 

topped” region between 6.2 and 6.7 hours. It is generally recommended to operate the 

freezer in the middle of this “flat topped” region, i.e. about 6.4 to 6.5 hrs. Operating near 

the end of this “flat topped” zone, i.e. either at 6.2 or 6.7 hrs, is not advisable since 

fluctuations in freezer performance may cause R to suddenly drop. For example, if the 

freezer were set for 6.2 hrs cooling branch and a fluctuation in freezer performance 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Length of cooling branch (hr)

Reliability (%)

For this particular 

freezer and number 

of specimens, the 

freezer should be 

programmed such 

that the length of 

Cooling Branch is 

between 6.2 and 

6.7 hrs.
238 

resulted in the cooling branch ending prematurely by 10-minutes (0.2 hrs); R would drop 

from 99 to 74 percent. 

When the results of a freezer survey indicate that certain variables need to be changed 

(e.g., reduce number of specimens or change freezer control program) to obtain higher R 

values, these changes must be improvised and be followed by another survey with the 

new set of conditions. The data acquired with the new set of conditions shall be analyzed 

in the manner described above and R-curves be produced to determine optimum cycle 

lengths. 

The R-curve can also be used to determine the proportion of compliant locations had the 

cycle been operated using a different “control temperature.” In the Tenney freezer used 

for the NCMA studies, the freezer internal sensor used to control the cycle length was 

located at the coldest measured location in the freezer. From the T-t graphs in Figure A.3, 

it is seen that the coldest location reached –13oC at 1.7 hrs. If cold soak were set for 4.0 

hrs starting from this point, the cooling branch would only be 5.7 hrs long. In reference to 

Figure A.6, the corresponding R is about 0 percent. This means that all specimen 

locations in the freezer are under cooled (i.e. receive less than the minimum 4-hr cold 

soak required by ASTM C 1262). 

Overall, freezer surveys shall precede actual freeze-thaw testing. While the information obtained 

from the surveys may assist planning actual tests, surveys shall be conducted in any of the 

following situations: 

• Changing specimen conditions including: a) changes in total specimen quantity (either by 

removing “failed” specimens or adding new test specimens), b) change of containers used 

or c) changes in the spatial arrangement of the specimens in the freezer. 

• Changing freezer conditions such as for maintenance or if the freezer is moved to a 

different environment (e.g. temperature controlled room or room with variable 

temperature conditions) 

Even if none of the above changes occurred, there is no guarantee that cycles will be identical 

over say 100 cycles, and thus surveys shall also be periodically conducted. Preferably 5 cycles of 

every 25 cycles shall be surveyed to ensure that the performance is as expected or if not, that 

modifications in the programmed cycle length can be improvised. If possible, it is strongly 

recommended that dedicated temperature logging equipment be maintained for the duration of 

the actual freeze-thaw tests. In this manner, the actual cycles can be compared to the R-curves 

determined from the cycle data, thus ensuring that the actual performance is compliant with test 

standard requirements. 

References 

Hance, R.M., Studies of the Frost Resistance of Segmental Retaining Wall Units, Master’s 

Thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, May 2005. 

Fagerlund, G., “The Significance of Critical Degrees of Saturation at Freezing of Porous and 

Brittle Materials,” ACI Special Publication, SP-47, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 

13-65, 1975. 
239 

Fagerlund, G., “An Introduction to RILEM Methods of Testing Resistance of Concrete to 

Freezing and Thawing and the International Cooperative Tests on the Critical Degree of 

Saturation Method,” Materials and Structures, Vol. 10, No. 58, pp. 217-230, 1977. 

Scherer, G.W. and Valenza II, J.J., “Mechanisms of Frost Damage,” Materials Science of 

Concrete VII (eds. J. Skalny), The American Ceramic Society, 2005. 

241 

APPENDIX B: 

NEWLY PROPOSED VERSION OF ASTM C 1372 (2003)—SPECIFICATIONS FOR 

SRW BLOCKS 

Designation: C 1372 - 01 a 

Standard Specification for Segmental Retaining 

Wall Units1

This standard is issued under the fixed designation C 1372; the number 

immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in 

the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the 

year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change 

since the last revision or reapproval. 

ASTM C 1262 CLAUSES COMMENTARY 

 

1. Scope* 

1.1 This specification covers 

segmental retaining wall units of 

concrete, machine-made from portland 

cement, water, and suitable mineral 

aggregates with or without the inclusion 

of other materials. The units are 

intended for use in the construction of 

mortarless segmental retaining walls. 

NOTE 1-When particular features are desired, such as 

weight classification, higher compressive strength, 

surface texture, finish, color, or other special features, 

such properties should be specified separately by the 

purchaser. Local suppliers should be consulted as to 

availability of units having the desired features. 

1.2 The text of this standard 

references notes and footnotes which 

provide explanatory material. These 

notes and footnotes (excluding those in 

tables and figures) shall not be 

considered as requirements of the 

standard. 

1.3 The values stated in inch-pound 

units are to be regarded as the standard. 

The values given in parentheses are for 

information only. 

 

2. Referenced Documents 

2.1 ASTM Standards: 

C 33 Specification for Concrete 

C 2.1 – A new version of the 

ASTM C 1262 may be on the 
242 

Aggregates2

C 140 Test Methods for Sampling 

and Testing Concrete Masonry Units 

and Related Units 3

C 150 Specification for Portland 

Cement4

C 331 Specification for Lightweight 

Aggregates for Concrete Masonry 

Units2

C 595 Specification for Blended 

Hydraulic Cements4

C 618 Specification for Coal Fly 

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural 

Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral 

Admixture in Concrete2

C 989 Specification for Ground 

Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag for Use 

in Concrete and Mortars2

C 1157 Performance Specification 

for Hydraulic Cement4

C 1209 Terminology of Concrete 

Masonry Units and Related Units3

C 1232 Terminology of Masonry 3 

C 1262 Test Method for Evaluating 

the Freeze-Thaw Durability of 

Manufactured Concrete Masonry Units 

and Related Concrete Units3 

C XXXX Test Method for 

Evaluating the Freeze-Thaw 

Durability of Segmental Retaining 

Wall (SRW) Units3

horizon exclusively for testing 

SRW units. 

 

3. Terminology 

3.1 Terminology defined in 

Terminology C 1209 and Terminology 

C 1232 shall apply for this 

specification. 

 

4. Materials 

4.1 Cementitious Materials–

Materials shall conform to the 

following applicable specifications: 

4.1.1 Portland Cements–

Specification C 150. 
243 

4.1.2 Modified Portland Cement–

Portland cement conforming to 

Specification C 150, modified as 

follows: 

4.1.2.1 Limestone–Limestone, with 

a minimum 85 percent Calcium 

Carbonate (CaC03) content, shall be 

permitted to be added to the cement, 

provided these requirements of Specification C 150 as modified are met: 

(1) Limitation on Insoluble 

Residue–1.5 percent 

(2) Limitation on Air Content of 

Mortar–Volume percent, 22 percent 

max. 

(3) Limitation on Loss of Ignition–7 

percent. 

4.1.3 Blended Hydraulic 

Cements–Specification C 595. 

4.1.4 Hydraulic Cement–

Specification C 1157. 

4.1.5 Pozzolans–Specification C 

618. 

4.1.6 Blast Furnace Slag Cement–

Specification C 989. 

4.2 Aggregates–Aggregates shall 

conform to the following specifications, 

except that grading requirements shall 

not necessarily apply: 

4.2.1 Normal Weight 

Aggregates–Specification C 33. 

4.2.2 Lightweight Aggregates–

Specification C 331. 

4.3 Other Constituents–Airentraining agents, coloring pigments, 

integral water repellents, finely ground 

silica, and other constituents shall be 

previously established as suitable for 

use in segmental retaining wall units 

and shall conform to applicable ASTM 

standards or shall be shown by test or 

experience to be not detrimental to the 

durability of the segmental retaining 

wall units or any material customarily 

used in segmental retaining wall 
244 

construction. 

 

5. Physical Requirements 

5.1 At the time of delivery to the 

work site, the units shall conform to the 

physical requirements of Table 1 when 

tested in accordance with 8.2. 

TABLE 1 Strength and Absorption Requirements 

Minimum Required Net Average 

Compressive Strength, psi (MPa) 

Maximum Water Absorption Requirements lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 

 Weight Classification Oven-Dry Density of Concrete lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 

Average of 3 Units Individual Unit Lightweight: Less 

than 105 (1682) 

Medium Weight: 

105 (1682) to less 

Normal Weight: 125 

(2002) or more 

 than 125 (2002) 

3000 (20.7) 2500 (17.2) 18 (288) 15 (240) 13 (208) 

5.2 Freeze-Thaw Durability–In areas 

where repeated freezing and thawing 

under saturated conditions occur, freeze--

thaw durability shall be demonstrated by 

test or by proven field performance that 

the segmental retaining wall units have 

adequate durability for the intended use. 

When testing is required by the specifier 

to demonstrate freeze-thaw durability, the 

units shall be tested in accordance with 

8.3. 

C 5.2 – All SRW units tested in the 

FHWA study (obtained from major block 

plants and from a local plant) complied 

with compressive strength, water 

absorption and oven-dry density as per 

Table 1 in this standard. A number of 

these units did not, however, meet the 

freeze-thaw durability requirements of 

5.2.1. This confirms that compliance with 

Table 1 requirements does not imply 

adequate freeze-thaw requirements. This 

issue is also pointed out in ASTM C 1262 

(Note 3). 

5.2.1 Specimens shall comply with 

either of the following: (1) the weight loss 

of each of five test specimens at the 

conclusion of 100 cycles shall not exceed 

1 percent of its initial weight; or (2) the 

weight loss of each of four of the five test 

specimens at the conclusion of 150 cycles 

shall not exceed 1.5 percent of its initial 

weight. In either case, RDM shall not be 

less than 60 percent.

C 5.2.1a – While this specification 

standard concerns freeze-thaw durability 

in water, there is substantial evidence 

that saline conditions exacerbate freezethaw damage. In the NCMA study, it was 

also demonstrated that at 1 percent mass 

loss many specimens had already 

suffered loss internal damage as 

indicated by resonant frequency and 

pulse velocity measurements. Further 

field studies are required to determine 

appropriate specification values for mass 

loss and resonant frequency. 

C 5.2.1b –RDM is more sensitive to 

specimen internal damage compared to 

mass loss (ref. NCMA study). The 
245 

reference value of 60 percent employed 

here reflects values typically used for 

testing of ordinary concrete, as found in 

ASTM C 666 and C 260. 

 

6. Permissible Variations in Dimensions 

6.1 Overall dimensions for width, 

height, and length shall differ by not more 

than ± t/8 in. (3.2 mm) from the specified 

standard dimensions. 

NOTE 2-The term "width" refers to the horizontal 

dimension of the unit measured perpendicular to the face 

of the wall from the exposed surface of the unit to the 

back of the unit. The term "height" refers to the vertical 

dimension of the unit as placed in the wall. The term 

"length" refers to the horizontal dimension of the unit 

measured parallel to the running length of the wall. 

6.1.1 Dimensional tolerance 

requirements for width shall be waived for 

architectural surfaces. 

NOTE 3-Split-faced surfaces are the 

most common surfaces used to provide an 

architectural appearance to segmental 

retaining walls. However, other means 

could be used to obtain similar 

architectural effects like tumbling, 

grinding, and slumping. 

 

7. Finish and Appearance 

7.1 All units shall be sound and free of 

cracks or other defects that interfere with 

the proper placement of the unit or 

significantly impair the strength or 

permanence of the construction. Minor 

cracks incidental to the usual method of 

manufacture or minor chipping resulting 

from customary methods of handling in 

shipment and delivery, are not grounds for 

rejection. 

7.2 Where units are to be used in 

exposed wall construction, the face or 

faces that are to be exposed shall not show 

chips or cracks, not otherwise permitted, 

or other imperfections when viewed from 

a distance of not less than 20 ft (6.1 m) 

under diffused lighting. 

7.2.1 Five percent of a shipment 
246 

containing chips not larger than 1 in. (25.4 

mm) in any dimension, or cracks not wider 

than 0.02 in. (0.5 mm) and not longer than 

25 percent of the nominal height of the 

unit is permitted. 

7.3 The color and texture of units shall 

be specified by the purchaser. The finished 

surface that will be exposed in place shall 

conform to an approved sample consisting 

of not less than four units, representing the 

range of texture and color permitted. 

 

8. Sampling and Testing 

8.1 The purchaser or authorized 

representative shall be accorded proper 

facilities to inspect and sample units at the 

place of manufacture from the lots ready 

for delivery. 

8.2 Sample and test units for 

compressive strength, absorption, and 

dimensional tolerances in accordance with 

Test Methods C 140. 

8.3 When required, sample and test 

five specimens for freeze-thaw durability 

in water in accordance with Test Method 

C 1262. Freeze-thaw durability shall be 

based on tests of units made with the same 

materials, concrete mix design, manufacturing process, and curing method, 

conducted not more than 24 months prior 

to delivery. 

 

9. Compliance 

9.1 If a sample fails to conform to the 

specified requirements, the manufacturer 

shall be permitted to remove units from 

the shipment. A new sample shall be 

selected by the purchaser from remaining 

units from the shipment with a similar 

'configuration and dimension and tested at 

the expense of the manufacturer. If the 

second sample meets the specified 

requirements, the remaining portion of the 

shipment represented by the sample meets 

the specified requirements. If the second 

sample fails to meet the specified 
247 

requirements, the remaining portion of the 

shipment represented by the sample fails 

to meet the specified requirements. 

NOTE 4-Unless otherwise specified in 

the purchase order, the cost of tests is 

typically borne as follows: (1) if the 

results of the tests show that the units do 

not conform to the requirements of this 

specification, the cost is typically borne by 

the seller; (2) if the results of the tests 

show that the units conform to the 

specification requirements, the cost is 

typically home by the purchaser. 

 

10. Keywords 

10.1 absorption; aggregates; 

cementitious materials; compressive 

strength; concrete masonry units; 

dimensions; durability; weight 

classification 

249 

REFERENCES 

ASTM C 78-02, “Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam 

with Third-Point Loading),” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2002, Volume 04.02, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 35–37, 2002. 

ASTM C 140-99b, “Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units 

and Related Units,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Volume 04.05, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 99–109, 2000. 

ASTM C 215-97, “Standard Test Method for Fundamental Transverse, Longitudinal, and 

Torsional Frequencies of Concrete Specimens,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2002, 

Volume 04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1997. 

ASTM C 457-98, “Standard Test Method for Microscopical Determination of Parameters of the 

Air-Void System in Hardened Concrete,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2004, Volume 

04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 242–255, 2004. 

ASTM C 597-02, “Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity Through Concrete,” Annual Book of 

ASTM Standards 2004, Volume 04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 

310–313, 2004. 

ASTM C 642-97, “Standard Test Methods for Density, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened 

Concrete,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2002, Volume 04.02, ASTM International, 

West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 334–336, 2002. 

ASTM C 666-03, “Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and 

Thawing,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2004, Volume 04.02, ASTM International, 

West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 337–342, 2004. 

ASTM C 671-94, “Standard Test Method for Critical Dilation of Concrete Specimens Subjected 

to Freezing,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2002, Volume 04.02, ASTM International, 

West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 351–356, 2002. 

ASTM C 672 / C 672 M-03, “Standard Test Method for Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surface 

Exposed to Deicing Chemicals,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2004, Volume 04.02, 

ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 353–355, 2004. 

ASTM C 1262-98, “Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Freeze-Thaw Durability of 

Manufactured Concrete Masonry Units and Related Concrete Units,” Annual Book of 

ASTM Standards 2003, Volume 04.05, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 

829–832, 2003. 

ASTM C 1372-01, “Standard Specification for Segmental Retaining Wall Units,” Annual Book 

of ASTM Standards 2003, Volume 04.05, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 

pp. 898-900, 2003. 

Bathurst, R., Simac, M., and Berg, R., “Review of NCMA Segmental Retaining Wall Design 

Manual for Geosynthetic-Reinforced Structures,” Transportation Research Record, No. 

1414, Washington, DC, pp. 16–25, 1993. 

Chan, C., Hover, K.C., and Folliard, K. J., “Spatial Variations in Material Properties of 

Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units, Part I: Observed Variations,” Journal of ASTM 

International, Civil Engineering and Building Materials, February 2005 (2005a). 

Chan, C., Hover, K.C., and Folliard, K. J., “Spatial Variations in Material Properties of 

Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Units, Part II: Sampling Considerations for Absorption 

Tests,” Journal of ASTM International, Civil Engineering and Building Materials, 

February 2005 (2005b). 
250 

Chan, C., Hover, K.C., and Folliard, K.J., “Performance of Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) 

Units: from Laboratory to Field,” Construction Materials, Proceedings of CONMAT 05 

and Mindess Symposium (eds. N. Banthia, T. Uomoto, A. Bentur and S.P. Shah), 

Vancouver, Canada, Aug. 21–24, 2005 (2005c). 

Chan, C., Hover, K.C., Folliard, K.J. and Trejo, D., “Frost Durability Indices of Segmental 

Retaining Wall (SRW) Units,” manuscript submitted to ACI Materials Journal, November 

2005 (2005d). 

Chan, C., Freeze-Thaw Durability and ASTM C 1262 Testing of Segmental Retaining Wall 

(SRW) Units, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 2006. 

Chan, C., Hover, K.C., and Folliard, K.J., “Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Split Face 

Delaminations and Practical Implications,” submitted to Construction and Building 

Materials Journal, April 2006 (2006a). 

Chan, C, Hover, K.C., and Folliard, K., “Durability of Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) 

Concretes to Different Deicing Salt Types,” manuscript submitted to Transportation 

Research Board, August 2006 (2006b). 

Chan, C., Hover, K.C., and Folliard, K.J., “Comparison of Distribution of Properties in 

Segmental Retaining Wall Units between Manufacturers” (in progress) 2006c. 

Charola, E., “Salts in the Deterioration of Porous Materials: An Overview,” Journal of the 

American Institute for Conservation, JAIC 2000, Vol. 39, No. 3, Article 2, pp. 327–343, 

2000. 

Chatterji, S., “Aspects of the Freezing Process in a Porous Material-Water System. Part 1. 

Freezing and the Properties of Water and Ice,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 29, 

Issue 4, pp. 627–630, 1999 (a). 

Chatterji, S., “Aspects of the Freezing Process in a Porous Material-Water System. Part 2. 

Freezing and Properties of Frozen Porous Materials,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 

29, Issue 5, pp. 781–784, 1999 (b). 

Cordon, W.A., “Freezing and Thawing of Concrete – Mechanisms and Control,” ACI 

Monograph No. 3, American Concrete Institute, 1966. 

Embacher, R. A., Snyder, M. B. and Shultz, A. E., “Condition and Durability of Segmental 

Concrete Block Retaining Walls Along Roadways in Minnesota.” Final Report to 

Minnesota Department of Transportation. University of Minnesota Department of Civil 

Engineering, Minneapolis, MN, 2001. 

Fagerlund, G., “The Significance of Critical Degrees of Saturation at Freezing of Porous and 

Brittle Materials,” ACI Special Publication, SP-47, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 

MI, pp. 13–65, 1975. 

Fagerlund, G., “An Introduction to RILEM Methods of Testing Resistance of Concrete to 

Freezing and Thawing and the International Cooperative Tests on the Critical Degree of 

Saturation Method,” Materials and Structures, Vol. 10, No. 58, pp. 217–230, 1977. 

Fagerlund, G., “Frost Resistance of High Performance Concrete—Some Theoretical 

Considerations,” Durability of High Performance Concrete, Proceedings of the RILEM 

International Workshop (ed. H. Sommer), Vienna, February 12–15, pp. 112–140, 1994. 

Ghafoori, N. and Mathis, R., “Prediction of Freezing and Thawing Durability of Concrete Paving 

Blocks,” ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp. 45–51, 

February 1998. 

Haisler, J., Freeze-Thaw Durability of Segmental Retaining Wall Blocks, Master of Science 

thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 2004. 
251 

Hance, R., Studies of the Frost-Resistance of Segmental Retaining Wall Units, Master of Science 

thesis, Cornell University, 2005. 

Harnik, A.B, Meier, U., and Ŝösli, A.R., “Combined Influence of Freezing and Deicing Salt on 

Concrete—Physical Aspects,” Durability of Building Materials and Components, 

Proceedings of the First International Conference (eds. Sereda and Litvan), ASTM STP 

691, Ottawa, Canada, 21–23 August, 1978, pp. 474–484 (proceedings published 1980). 

Hazrati, K., “Efficacité des scellants face au problème d’écaillage des bétons en presence de sels 

fondants,” Master’s degree thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Laval University, SteFoy, Québec, 110 pp., 1993. 

Hazrati, K. and Kerkar, A.V., “Freeze-Thaw Durability of Dry Masonry Concrete,” 12th

International Brick / Block Masonry Conference, Madrid, Spain, 2000. 

Hover, K.C., “Air Content and Density of Hardened Concrete,” Significance of Tests and 

Properties in Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, (eds. J. Klieger and J.F. Lamond), 

ASTM STP 169C, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1994. 

Kaufmann, J.P., “A Qualitative Sequential Frost Deicing Salt Damage Model Based on 

Experimental Data,” Frost Resistance of Concrete, Proceedings of the International 

RILEM Workshop (eds. M.J. Setzer, R. Auberg and H.-J. Heck), RILEM Publication PRO 

24, Essen, Germany, pp. 197–204, April 18–19, 2002. 

Kosmatka, S. and Panarese, W., Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 13th ed., Portland 

Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1994. 

Kukko, H., Frost effects on the microstructure of high strength concrete, and methods for their 

analysis, VTT Publications 126, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, 1992. 

Lohr, S.L., Sampling: Design and Analysis, Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA, 1999. 

MacDonald, K.A., Lukkarila, M.R., “Freezing and Thawing Resistance of Dry Compacted 

Segmental Retaining Wall Units,” Frost Damage in Concrete, Proceedings of the 

International RILEM Workshop (eds. D.J. Janssen, M.J. Setzer and M.B. Snyder), RILEM 

Publication PRO 25, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 53–64, 28–30 June 1999. 

Marchand, J., Pigeon, M., Isabelle, H.L., and Boisvert, J., “Freeze-Thaw Durability and Deicer 

Salt Scaling Resistance of Roller Compacted Concrete Pavements,” Paul Klieger 

Symposium on Performance of Concrete (ed. D. Whiting), American Concrete Institute, 

SP-122, pp. 217–236, 1990. 

Marchand, J., Boisvert, L., Tremblay, S., Maltais, J., and Pigeon, M., “Air Entrainment in NoSlump Mixes,” Concrete International, Vol. 20, Issue 4, pp. 38–44, April 1998. 

Michel, B., Ice Mechanics, Les Presses de L’Université Laval, Québec, Canada, 1978. 

Mn/DOT, Minnesota Department of Transportation Program Support Group, Technical 

Memorandum No. 01-05-MRR-01, February 8, 2001. 

Morgan, D.R., “Special Sprayed Concretes,” Sprayed Concrete: Properties, Design and 

Application (eds. S. Austin and P. Robins), McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, pp. 229–265, 

1995. 

National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), NCMA “TEK 15-8: Guide to Segmental 

Retaining Walls,” NCMA E-TEK Manual, 2002. 

National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), Internet site: 

http://www.ncma.org/use/srw.html, 2005a. 

National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), Private communication, May 2005b. 

Neville, A.M., Properties of Concrete, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1996. 
252 

Ott, R. L., An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, 4th ed, Duxbury Press, 

Belmont, CA, pp. 564–646, 1993. 

Penttala, V., “Freezing-Induced Strains and Pressures in Wet Porous Materials and Especially in 

Concrete Mortars,” Advanced Cement Based Materials, Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 8–19, January 

1998. 

Personal communication with National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), May 2005 

(2005b). 

Personal communication with Prof. G. Scherer, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 

Princeton University, March 2005. 

Petersson, P.E. and Utgenannt, P., “Parameters Influencing the Results When Testing the Scaling 

Resistance of Concrete,” Frost Damage in Concrete, Proceedings of the International 

RILEM Workshop (eds. D.J. Janssen, M.J. Setzer and M.B. Snyder), RILEM Publication 

PRO 25, Minneapolis, MN, 28–30 June 1999, pp. 233–242. 

Pigeon, M. and Pleau, R., Durability of Concrete in Cold Climates, E&FN SPON (an imprint of 

Chapman & Hall), London, UK, first edition, 1995. 

Powers, T.C., “The Air Requirement of Frost-Resistant Concrete,” Proceedings of the Highway 

Research Board, Vol. 29, pp. 184–211, 1949. 

Powers, T.C., “Freezing Effects in Concrete,” Durability of Concrete, SP-47, American Concrete 

Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 1–11, 1975. 

Powers, T.C. and Helmuth, R.A., “Theory of Volume Changes in Hardened Portland Cement 

Paste During Freezing,” Proceedings of Highway Research Board, 32nd Annual Meeting, 

pp. 285–297, 1953. 

Sahagian, M.E. and Goff, H.D., “Fundamental Aspects of the Freezing Process,” Freezing 

Effects on Food Quality (ed. L.E. Jeremiah), Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1996. 

Scherer, G.W., “Freezing gels,” Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, Elsevier, Vol. 155, Issue 1, 

pp. 1–25, March 1993. 

Scherer, G.W., “Crystallization in Pores,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 29, Issue 8, pp. 

1347–1358, August 1999. 

Scherer, G.W., “Stress from Crystallization of Salt,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 34, 

Issue 9, pp. 1613–1624, September 2004. 

Scherer, G.W. and Valenza II, J.J., “Mechanisms of Frost Damage,” Materials Science of 

Concrete, Vol. VII (eds. J. Skalny and F. Young), The American Ceramic Society, 2005. 

Scherer, G.W., Private communication, March 2005. 

SEM (Service d’Expertise en Matériaux Inc.), Literature Survey, SEM Project 200110, 

submitted to National Concrete Masonry Association, August 2001. 

SEM (Service d’Expertise en Matériaux Inc.), Preliminary Report, Task 3—Frost Durability 

Index, SEM Project 200110, submitted to National Concrete Masonry Association, May 

2004. 

Setzer, M.J., “Micro Ice Lens Formation and Frost Damage,” Frost Damage in Concrete, 

Proceedings of the International RILEM Workshop (eds. D.J. Janssen, M.J. Setzer and 

M.B. Snyder), RILEM Publication PRO 25, Minneapolis, MN, June 28–30, 1999, pp. 

1–15. 

SHRP-S/FR-92-110, Cady, P. and Gannon E., Condition Evaluation of Concrete Bridges 

Relative to Reinforcement Corrosion—Volume 8: Procedure Manual, “Standard Test 

Method for Chloride Content in Concrete Using the Specific Ion Probe,” Strategic 

Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, pp. 85–105, 1992. 
253 

Siebel, E. and Gräf, “Standard Methods for Testing the Resistance of Concrete to Freezing and 

Thawing—Internal Deterioration,” European Research Project No. 3085, Reference 

MAT1-CT9-0055, (Project leader: Eberhard Siebel), Commission of the European 

Communities Directorate General XII, Science, Research and Development Directorate C: 

Industrial and Materials Technologies, Synthesis Report (Be-TB-1489-5/1998), 1995. 

Thomas, R., “Discussion on Freeze-Thaw Durability of SRWs,” presented at FHWA pooled fund 

research meeting and workshop, Minneapolis, MN, March 10, 2003. 

Van Vlack, L. H., Elements of Materials Science, 2nd edition, Addison-Wesley Publishing 

Company, Reading, MA, 1967. 

Venečanin, S.D., “Experimental Study of Thermal Incompatibility of Concrete Components,” 3rd

International Conference on the Durability of Building Materials and Components, Vol. 3, 

VTT Symposium 50, Espoo, Finland, August 12–15 1984, pp. 510–520, 1984. 

Verbeck, G.J. and Klieger, P., “Studies of Salt Scaling of Concrete,” Highway Research Board 

Bulletin No. 150, pp. 1–13, 1956. 

Whiting, D., “Air Contents and Air-Void Characteristics in Low-Slump Dense Concretes,” ACI 

Materials Journal, Vol. 82, No. 5, pp. 716–723, Sept.–Oct. 1985. 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation, “Mechanically Stabilized Earth Modular Block Wall, 

Item 90031,” 2000. 
HRDI-06/04-07(500)E

Recycled

Recyclable