# Modeling Wicking Fabric Inhibition Effect on Frost Heave
## 5 Results and Discussions
### Parametric Analysis
#### 5.2.1 Effect of Soil Types  
This section investigates the frost heave inhibition effectiveness of WF in different soils using three types of frost-susceptible soils. The calculated frost heave strain of different soils in the WWF and NWF models is shown in Figure 10. The overall frost heave strain in the WWF model of different soils was lower than that in the corresponding NWF model. Comparing the frost heave inhibition efficiency of WF in different soils, it can be found that by installing WF, the frost heave strain decreased dramatically in the Touryo soil, followed by the Tomakomai soil and, lastly, the Fujinomori soil. Although WF was effective in both the Touryo soil and Tomakomai soil, it did not perform well in the Fujinomori soil. One possible explanation is that the Touryo soil has the most excellent permeability. In the NWF model, moisture can easily migrate upward to the freezing front due to the high permeability. Similarly, in the WWF model, soil with a high permeability would allow the moisture to be readily absorbed by the WWF compared to soils with lower permeability. Accordingly, the WF effect is more apparent in soils with high permeability.  
Figure 9: Comparison of saturation distribution for Tomakomai soil between NWF model and WWF model in the freezing process.  
Figure 11 shows the saturation (\(S\)) distribution at the end of the freezing process with different types of soils in the WWF and NWF models. By comparing the saturation distributions in the WWF and NWF models for different soils, it is apparent that the saturation distributions for each of the soils in the WWF model were lower than those in the corresponding NWF model. There was a substantial decrease in saturation in the Touryo soil and Tomakomai soil by installing WF, while the reduction in soil saturation in the Fujinomori soil was relatively insignificant. The changes in the soil saturation after the installation of the WF are consistent with the observed results of frost heave inhibition. The above phenomenon indicates that WF can inhibit frost heave by reducing the water content in the soil, and the inhibition effect of WF is dependent on the permeability of the soil.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number** & **Soil Type** & **GWL** & **U** (\({}^{\circ}\)**C/h) & **WF** \\  & & \(I\) **(m)** & & **Installation** \\ \hline
1 & Touryo soil & 0 & \(-0.1\) & WWF \\
2 & Fujinomori soil & 0 & \(-0.1\) & WWF \\
3 & Tomakomai soil & 0 & \(-0.1\) & WWF \\
4 & Touryo soil & 0 & \(-0.1\) & NWF \\
5 & Fujinomori soil & 0 & \(-0.1\) & NWF \\
6 & Tomakomai soil & 0 & \(-0.1\) & NWF \\
7 & Tomakomai soil & 0.02 & \(-0.1\) & WWF \\
8 & Tomakomai soil & 0.04 & \(-0.1\) & WWF \\
9 & Tomakomai soil & 0.06 & \(-0.1\) & WWF \\
10 & Tomakomai soil & 0.02 & \(-0.1\) & NWF \\
11 & Tomakomai soil & 0.04 & \(-0.1\) & NWF \\
12 & Tomakomai soil & 0.06 & \(-0.1\) & NWF \\
13 & Tomakomai soil & 0 & \(-0.05\) & WWF \\
14 & Tomakomai soil & 0 & \(-0.2\) & WWF \\
15 & Tomakomai soil & 0 & \(-0.05\) & NWF \\
16 & Tomakomai soil & 0 & \(-0.2\) & NWF \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Numerical simulation conditions.  
Figure 10: Effect of soil types on frost heave and WF inhibiting effect.