Table 4. Reported measured or estimated values of porosity.
Jam type
Porosity
Reference
Frazil deposit
0.33, 0.51
Beltaos and Dean (1981)
(bulk measurement)
Ice rubble
0.190.50,
Weiss et al. (1981)
p = 0.34
Frazil deposit
0.320.67
Dean (1986)
Frazil deposit
0.240.89
Majewski and Grzes (1986)
Frazil accumulated
0.350.45
Majewski and Grzes (1986)
by shoving
0.38 0.1
Breakup jam
Prowse (1990)
p = 0.59
Frazil deposit
White and Lawson (1992)
(borehole dilution test)
Frazil deposit
0.350.77,
White and Lawson (1992)
p = 0.52
(bulk measurement)
Freezeup jam
0.40
Shen and Wang (1992)
0.67 0.13
Frazil deposits
Andersson and Daly (1992)
(laboratory)
0.70 0.2*
Breakup jam
Lever and Gooch (1998)
(groundwater flow theory)
*May be high due to incomplete grounding or piping through jam.
kg/m3 (0.89 < p < 0.24), while the shoved sections
smaller values of frazil deposit porosity are re-
of the jams were more dense, between 500 and 600
ported by several researchers. Based on data from
kg/m3 (0.45 < p < 0.35).
borehole dilution tests of frazil accumulations in
Although Michel (1984) states that Kivisild's re-
the laboratory, White (1991) estimated mean po-
ported porosity values and his own value of 0.75
rosity to be 0.44, using the Kozeny-Carmen equa-
represented reasonable values for freezeup jams,
tion and an assumed particle diameter of 0.2 mm.
Andersson and Daly (1992)
Beltaos and Dean (1981)
Dean (1986)
Lever and Gooch (1998)
Majewski and Grzes (1986)
(Shoving Frazil)
(Frazil Deposit)
Prowse (1990)
= Range
Shen and Wang (1992)
X
= Mean Value
Weiss et al. (1981)
= Only Value Reported
X
White and Lawson (1992)
(Borehole Dilution Test)
White and Lawson (1992)
(Bulk)
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Porosity
Figure 12. Reported porosity measurements and estimates.
17
Previous Page
