106 - Literature Review Stabilised Sub-Bases

Literature Review Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads
PROJECT REPORT ORIGIN PR/INT/202/00 LITERATURE REVIEW STABILISED SUB-BASES FOR HEAVILY TRAFFICKED ROADS
DFID Project Source References Subsector: Theme: Project Title: Project Reference: Transport T2 Design of stabilised sub-bases for heavily trafficked roads R6027, R8010
Copyright Transport Research Laboratory, UK and the Bureau of Research and Standards, Department of Public Works and Highways, Philippines. This document is an output from a co-operative research programme between the Department for International Development (DFID), of the UK and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Philippines. The project was funded from both the DFID Knowledge and Research Programme which is carried out for the benefit of developing countries, and from the resources of the Bureau of Research and Standards of DPWH. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID or DPWH.
The Transport Research Laboratory and TRL are trading names of TRL Limited, a member of the Transport Research Foundation Group of Companies. TRL Limited. Registered in England, Number 3142272. Registered Office: Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire, RG45 6AU, United Kingdom.
The information contained herein is the property of the Transport Research Laboratory and the Department of Public Works and Highways, and does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of DFID or DPWH. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the matter presented in this report is relevant, accurate and up-to-date at the time of publication, neither the Transport Research Laboratory nor the Department of Works and Highways accept liability for any error or omission.
Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads
CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 2 STABILISATION IN ROAD PAVEMENTS............................................... 2 2.1 The role of the sub-base ................................................................... 3 2.1.1 The role of a stabilised sub-base in a flexible pavement....................... 3 2.1.2 The role of a stabilised sub-base in a concrete pavement...................... 4 3 TYPES OF STABILISATION................................................................. 5 3.1 Mechanical Stabilisation................................................................... 5 3.2 Cement Stabilisation ....................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Soil Cement............................................................................ 6 3.2.2 Cement Bound granular Material (CBM) ........................................ 6 3.2.3 Lean concrete ......................................................................... 6 3.3 Lime Stabilisation .......................................................................... 7 3.4 Bitumen or Tar stabilisation .............................................................. 8 3.5 Other types of stabilisation................................................................ 8 3.5.1 Blastfurnace slag...................................................................... 8 3.5.2 Pozzolanas ............................................................................. 9 3.5.3 Non-pozzolanic chemical soil stabilisers ......................................... 9 4 ELASTIC MODULUS.......................................................................... 9 5 TESTING AND MIX DESIGN ..............................................................10 5.1 Suitability of materials for stabilisation ................................................10 5.2 Mix design ..................................................................................12 5.2.1 Post Construction - Strength.......................................................13 5.2.2 Durability .............................................................................14 5.2.3 Construction equipment ............................................................14 5.2.4 Pre-construction trials ..............................................................15 6 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH STABILISATION .................................15 6.1 Construction ................................................................................15 6.1.1 Quantity of stabiliser ................................................................15 6.1.2 Mixing.................................................................................16 6.1.3 Compaction and limited time ......................................................16 6.1.4 Rapid setting..........................................................................16 6.1.5 Curing time ...........................................................................16 6.1.6 Variability.............................................................................16
6.1.7 Testing.................................................................................16 6.2 Durability ...................................................................................16 6.2.1 Carbonation...........................................................................16 6.2.2 Sulphate and salt damage...........................................................17 6.2.3 Cracking ..............................................................................17 6.2.4 Break-up ..............................................................................17 7 CURRENT STABILISATION PRACTICE AROUND THE WORLD...............17 7.1 UK Practice.................................................................................17 7.1.1 Concrete pavements .................................................................17 7.1.2 Bituminous pavements ..............................................................18 7.2 TRL ORN31 Practice .....................................................................18 7.3 USA Practice ...............................................................................19 7.3.1 Designs for concrete pavements ..................................................19 7.3.2 Designs for flexible pavements....................................................20 7.4 Australia.....................................................................................20 7.4.1 Austroads Pavement Design Guide...............................................20 7.5 South Africa ................................................................................21 7.6 The Philippines.............................................................................21 8 PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR HEAVILY TRAFFICKED ROADS ....................22 9 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................24 10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PILOT TRIALS IN THE PHILIPPINES. ...........25 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.....................................................................26 12 REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................27
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stabilisation is the process of mixing a stabiliser, for example cement, with a soil or imported aggregate to produce a material whose strength is greater than that of the original unbound material. The use of stabilisation to improve the properties of a material is becoming more widespread due to the increased strength and load spreading ability that these materials can offer. Stabilisation technology is extremely relevant for heavily trafficked pavements where its' benefits are beginning to be appreciated. This report describes the basic types of stabilisation, indicates when it should be used, and discusses the main advantages and disadvantages of its use. The role of the subbase and other pavement layers are also discussed for both flexible and rigid pavements. An extensive literature review of international publications was carried out and this report describes some of the latest research and design methodology associated with stabilised materials used for sub-bases on heavily trafficked roads. As well as references to the literature it also contains an extensive bibliography of work on this subject. Many of the pavement design manuals from other countries were examined. These include manuals from the UK, USA, Australia and South Africa; many of which include in their specifications the design of asphalt pavements with stabilised sub-bases. In these design manuals, stabilised sub-bases are used with either stabilised or granular roadbases. This report discusses advantages and disadvantages of these designs. The various pavement design manuals also showed that stabilised sub-bases are often used under concrete pavements, which is presently not the case in the Philippines where a granular sub-base is still specified. The benefits of this form of construction are also discussed. The report notes that few of these design manuals produce savings in pavement thickness from the use of stabilised sub-bases even though they are frequently recognised to have higher strengths than unbound granular materials. They are merely substitutes. Their use also permits the use of lower-grade, marginal materials after suitable stabilisation, which may reduce haulage of high quality unbound materials and depletion of resources. The report concludes that there is a role for stabilised sub-bases in the Philippines, especially for heavily trafficked pavements where they could improve performance and hence reduce maintenance costs. Finally, the report outlines technical recommendations for pilot trials of stabilised subbases in the Philippines. These trials would be constructed under the auspices of the Bureau of Research and Standards of the DPWH and monitored under a DPWH/DFID jointly funded research project being undertaken by staff from BRS and TRL.
STABILISED SUB-BASES FOR HEAVILY TRAFFICKED ROADS

1
INTRODUCTION
The main objective of stabilisation is to improve the performance of a material by increasing its strength, stiffness and durability. The performance should be at least equal to, if not better than that of a good quality natural material. This report describes the basic types of stabilisation, the main advantages and disadvantages of the technique and the latest research and design methodology for such materials. The term heavily trafficked roads varies between design standards and countries. In this report, as an approximate guide, the term is applied to roads with a design life of more than 10 million equivalent standard axles (ESA). The term stabilisation is the process whereby the natural strength and durability of a soil or granular material is increased by the addition of a stabilising agent. . In addition, it may provide a greater resistance to the ingress of water. There are many types of stabiliser that can be used, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. The type and quantity of stabiliser added depends mainly on the strength and performance that needs to be achieved. The addition of even small amounts of stabiliser, for example up to 2 per cent cement, can modify the properties of a material. Larger amounts of stabiliser will cause a large change in the properties of that material, for example 5 to 10 per cent of cement added to a clean gravel will cause it to behave more like a concrete. The strength of a stabilised material will often continue to increase for a period of several years from the time it is constructed, as shown in Figure 1 (Croney, 1998).
Figure 1 Rate of increase of strength with age for cemented material (After Croney, 1998)
The strength of a stabilised material will depend on many factors. These include: the chemical composition of the material to be stabilised; the stabiliser content; the degree of compaction achieved; the moisture content; the success of mixing the material with the stabiliser; subsequent external environmental effects.
When small quantities of stabiliser are added, the material is often described as modified rather than bound. There are no fixed criteria for these definitions, but a limit of 80kPa (indirect tension) or 800kPa (Unconfined Compressive Strength after 7 days moist curing) for a reasonably graded material is suggested by NAASRA (1986). 2 STABILISATION IN ROAD PAVEMENTS
There are many different reasons for using stabilisation, ranging from lack of good quality materials to a desire to reduce aggregate usage for environmental reasons. Ultimately the main reason for using stabilisation will usually be cost savings. The engineer is trying to build a problem-free pavement that will last for its intended design life for the most economic price. The cost savings associated with stabilisation can take many forms including reduced construction costs, reduced maintenance costs throughout the life of the pavement or an extension of the normal pavement life. The location of suitable materials for road construction will become increasingly difficult as conventional high-quality materials are depleted in many areas. The costs of hauling materials from further away may also increase, thus compounding the problem. One solution is to stabilise locally available materials that presently may not conform to existing specifications. From the point of view of bearing capacity, the best materials are those which derive their shear strength partly from friction and partly from cohesion. For stabilisation to be successful, the material should attain the desired strength (i.e. be capable of sustaining the applied loads without deformation) and should retain its strength and stability indefinitely. Not all materials can be successfully stabilised, for example if cement is used as the stabiliser then a sandy soil is much more likely to yield satisfactory results than a soft clay (Watson, 1994). The material to be stabilised must be tested to ensure that it is compatible with the intended stabiliser the subject of testing will be discussed later in this report. It is also recommended from experience that layers which are less than 150mm thick should not be stabilised (Lay, 1986/88). Netterberg (1987) reports that unless proven by experience or durability testing, a material should not be improved too much. For example a material for use as a base layer should only be stabilised if it could be used unstabilised for a sub-base layer. Another recommendation from the same report is to discount any increase in strength of more than 100 per cent.
Capping and sub-base layers can usually be stabilised without significant problems. One of the main problems with stabilised layers is that they crack to a greater or lesser degree. This cracking is caused by changes in moisture content and temperature and cannot be avoided. The amount of cracking will depend on many factors, but generally a stronger material will produce wider cracks at a greater crack spacing than a weaker material. A cement stabilised granular base directly under an asphalt surfacing will frequently result in reflection cracking as shrinkage cracks in the base propagate through the asphalt surfacing. If cracks are left unsealed, then water penetration can lead to further deterioration, particularly if the underlying sub-base is not stabilised. Stabilisation of the sub-base under a granular base, however, can have many benefits without causing reflection cracking in the surface of an asphalt pavement. It is reported that a thickness of 125-150mm of granular cover over a stabilised sub-base is generally sufficient to substantially delay or stop reflection cracking (NAASRA, 1987). 2.1 The role of the sub-base
The sub-base is an important layer in both flexible and rigid pavements. It mainly acts as a structural layer helping to spread the wheel loads so that the subgrade is not overstressed. It also plays a useful role as a separation layer between the base and the subgrade and provides a good working platform on which the other paving materials can be transported, laid and compacted. It can also act as a drainage layer. The selection of material and the design of the sub-base will depend upon the particular design function of the layer and also the expected in-situ moisture conditions (TRL, 1993). Stabilised sub-bases can be used for both flexible and rigid road pavements, although the reasons for doing this can vary. In order to identify the benefits of stabilising subbases, it is necessary to examine the role of the sub-base for each pavement type. 2.1.1 The role of a stabilised sub-base in a flexible pavement A stabilised, and therefore stiffer, sub-base provides greater load spreading ability and hence reduces stresses imposed on the subgrade. When stabilised the sub-base provides much of the structural rigidity in the pavement, and also assists during the compaction of the upper granular layers and hence increases their ability to withstand deformation. If the sub-base is stabilised, reflection cracking in an asphalt surface layer can be minimised by having an unbound granular roadbase. This unbound roadbase provides not only a large proportion of the structural load spreading but also assists in delaying or preventing reflection cracking from the shrinkage and movement of the stabilised layer. The granular roadbase is subjected to relatively high traffic stresses and crushed aggregate is often used to withstand attrition and to assist in achieving a high value of elastic modulus, limiting the horizontal tensile strains at the bottom of the bituminous surfacing. The use of a stabilised sub-base with a granular base is often referred to as an upsidedown pavement (Lay 1986). It is reported (LCPC, 1997) that a typical mode of deterioration for this type of pavement, based on experience from France, is slight rutting attributed to the unbound granular layer and eventually fine transverse cracking which occurs after much trafficking.
3
2.1.2 The role of a stabilised sub-base in a concrete pavement For a concrete pavement, the term sub-base refers to the layer immediately below the concrete slab. In a concrete road, the high elastic modulus of the concrete layer causes most of the traffic-induced stresses to be taken in the concrete layer in the form of bending stresses. According to OFlaherty (1994), there is a common misunderstanding about the main function of the sub-base beneath a concrete slab. He states that the main function of the sub-base is to ensure uniform support to the concrete, counteracting the effect of unsatisfactory subgrade support, rather than increasing the structural stability (i.e. strength) of the pavement. If the subgrade could be relied upon to provide uniform support throughout the life of the pavement then a sub-base may not be required and the slab could be cast directly on the prepared in-situ soil, providing it is good quality and naturally uniform. This uniform support appears to be crucial, especially where the subgrade is either weak or expansive because the non-uniform support will eventually lead to the fatigue failure of the pavement. It has been found that substitution of the top layer of a weak subgrade by a stronger unbound granular layer has little influence on the stresses at the bottom of the slab (TRRL, 1978). For example, a gravel sub-base 150mm thick on a weak subgrade will only reduce the tensile stress by about 10 per cent in a thin slab and less in a thicker slab. For a concrete pavement with a granular sub-base, the two major modes of damage are: 1. tensile stresses at the base of the concrete layer due to inadequate strength and/or thickness of the concrete and 2. lack of bearing capacity mainly at joints or cracks where pumping and erosion of the support can aggravate the problem. Use of a stabilised sub-base, provided it has adequate strength and durability, can help to alleviate this second mode of damage. The problem of pumping mainly occurs on roads built on subgrades with a high fines content. With a granular sub-base, fines in the subgrade or sub-base can go into suspension if water is present and this fine material can be pumped out of a joint or crack under the passage of heavy wheel loads. This eventually leads to a void under the slab, resulting in slab cracking, rocking or faulting. Use of a stabilised sub-base can frequently prevent pumping by a) stopping or reducing water penetration to underlying layers and b) ensuring that there are no free fines available immediately beneath the concrete slab. Stabilised sub-bases provide a uniform, stable and permanent support for concrete slabs throughout their design life. They can also aid construction of the concrete slabs by providing a low permeability surface, which minimises water loss from the fresh concrete and also provide a hard layer beneath the slabs to aid compaction. The stress generated in a concrete slab partly depends on the stiffness ratio between the slab and the underlying support. In many countries, including the UK, the national design standards specify that all rigid pavements must be constructed with a cemented
sub-base of adequate stiffness. This type of sub-base erodes less than an unbound material and is less water-susceptible should join sealants fail (UK DOT, 1995). 3 TYPES OF STABILISATION
There are a number of different types of stabilisation, each having its own benefits and potential problems. The types described below are those most frequently used, however, it must be noted that not all of them are appropriate for all situations. 3.1 Mechanical Stabilisation
The most basic form of mechanical stabilisation is compaction, which increases the performance of a natural material. The benefits of compaction, however, are well understood and so they will not be discussed further in this report. Mechanical stabilisation of a material is usually achieved by adding a different material in order to improve the grading or decrease the plasticity of the original material. The physical properties of the original material will be changed, but no chemical reaction is involved. For example, a material rich in fines could be added to a material deficient in fines in order to produce a material nearer to an ideal particle size distribution curve. This will allow the level of density achieved by compaction to be increased and hence improve the stability of the material under traffic. The proportion of material added is usually from 10 to 50 per cent. Providing suitable materials are found in the vicinity, mechanical stabilisation is usually the most cost-effective process for improving poorly-graded materials. This process is usually used to increase the strength of a poorly-graded granular material up to that of a well-graded granular material. The stiffness and strength will generally be lower than that achieved by chemical stabilisation and would often be insufficient for heavily trafficked pavements. It may also be necessary to add a stabilising agent to improve the final properties of the mixed material. 3.2 Cement Stabilisation
Any cement can be used for stabilisation, but Ordinary Portland cement is the most widely used throughout the world. The addition of cement to a material, in the presence of moisture, produces hydrated calcium aluminate and silicate gels, which crystallise and bond the material particles together. Most of the strength of a cement-stabilised material comes from the physical strength of the matrix of hydrated cement. A chemical reaction also takes place between the material and lime, which is released as the cement hydrates, leading to a further increase in strength. Granular materials can be improved by the addition of a small proportion of Portland cement, generally less that 10 per cent. The addition of more than 15 per cent cement usually results in conventional concrete. In general, the strength of the material will steadily increase with a rise in the cement content. This strength increase is approximately 500 to 1000 kPa (UCS strength) for each 1 per cent of cement added (Lay 1986/88). The elastic modulus of an unbound natural gravel or crushed rock will be in the range 200-400 MPa. When stabilised, this will increase to a range of approximately 2,000 to 20,000 MPa.
5
Cement stabilised materials can be mixed in-situ or mixed at a plant and transported to site. To achieve stronger cement bound materials, i.e. greater than about 10 MPa cube strength at 7 days, the materials should generally be plant mixed (DETR, 1998). One of the main problems with stabilising a material is mixing in the cement. The particle size of ordinary Portland cement is quite well defined with a range of 0.5-100 microns and a mean of 20 microns (Ingles & Metcalf, 1972). The larger particles of cement never completely hydrate, and it has been found that the same amount of a more finely ground cement will produce higher strengths. Finely ground cements are, however, expensive to produce and it has been suggested (Ingles & Metcalf, 1972) that the larger particles of cement could be replaced with smaller particles of an inert filler. The greater bulk would aid the distribution process so that the same amount of active cement would be available throughout the material. Thus producing an equally effective binder, which could be cheaper than ordinary cement. The use of cement as a stabiliser is more widespread than lime. This is due to many reasons, but the main factors are likely to be the cost and the higher strengths that are attainable using cement. Other factors include availability, past experience and the more hazardous nature of lime. The price of cement is often similar to that of quicklime or hydrated lime, however cement can be used on a wider range of materials and the strengthening effect of cement is much more than that of an equal amount of lime. Hence either higher strengths are possible using an equal amount of cement instead of lime or the same specified strength can be achieved using a lower quantity of cement than lime. The effects of lime and cement on the 7-day strength of various soil types was presented graphically by Sherwood (1993) and Dumbleton (1962), as shown in Figure 2. There are three main types of cement-stabilised materials: 3.2.1 Soil Cement Soil cement usually contains less than 5 per cent cement. (Lay, 1986). It can be either mixed in-situ (usually up to 300mm layer at a time) or mixed in plant. The technique involves breaking up the soil, adding and mixing in the cement, then adding water and compacting in the usual way. Croney (1998) recommends that a minimum strength should be 2.5 MPa (7 day cube crushing strength) or, if this material is used to replace sub-base then the strength requirement should be increased to 4 MPa. 3.2.2 Cement Bound granular Material (CBM) This can be regarded as a stronger form of soil-cement but uses a granular aggregate (crushed rock or natural gravel) rather than a soil. The process works best if the natural granular material has a limited fines content. This is almost always mixed in plant and the strength requirement is 5-7 MPa (7 day cube crushing strength), (Croney, 1998). 3.2.3 Lean concrete This material has a higher cement content than CBM and hence looks and behaves more like a concrete than a CBM. It is usually made from batched coarse and fine crushed aggregate, but natural washed aggregate (e.g. river gravels) can also be used. The UK specification for this material gives a normal strength of 6-10 MPa or a higher strength of 10-15 MPa (7 day cube crushing strength).
Figure 2 Effect of lime & cement on 7-day strength of various soil types. After Sherwood (1993) and Dumbleton (1962). 3.3 Lime Stabilisation
The stabilisation of pavement materials is not new; with examples of lime stabilisation being recorded in the construction of early Roman roads. However, the invention of Portland cement in the 19th Century resulted in cement replacing lime as the main type of stabiliser. The use of lime is still widespread particularly in certain parts of Africa and North America. Lime stabilisation will only be effective with materials which contain enough clay for a positive reaction to take place. Attempts to use lime as a general binder in the same way as cement will not be successful (Watson, 1994). Lime is produced from chalk or limestone by heating and combining with water. The term lime is broad and covers the following three main types: a) quicklime b) slaked or hydrated lime, c) carbonate of lime, i.e. calcium oxide (CaO), i.e. calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and i.e. calcium carbonate (CaCO3).
Only quicklime and hydrated lime are used as stabilisers in road construction. They are usually added in solid form but can also be mixed with water and applied as a slurry. It must be noted that there is a violent reaction between quicklime and water and consequently operatives exposed to quicklime can experience severe external and internal burns, as well as blinding. Careful handling and protective clothing are, therefore, essential.
7
Hydrated lime is used extensively for the stabilisation of soil, especially soil with a high clay content where its main advantage is in raising the plastic limit of the clayey soil. Very rapid stabilisation of water-logged sites has been achieved with the use of quicklime. There is little experience with lime stabilisation for road pavements in the UK where the process is intended primarily for treating wet, heavy clays. Small quantities (typically 1-3 %) are used to reduce the plasticity of the clay. It is reported that such small quantities usually result in a small increase in CBR strength although no significant increase in compressive or tensile strength should be expected (Paige-Green, 1998). Paige-Green reports that typically, a minimum of 3 to 5 per cent stabiliser is necessary to gain a significant increase in the compressive and tensile strength. Although the use of lime stabilisation is widespread, the reported performance of the technique is often variable. In fact, many parts of Australia stopped using lime stabilisation in the 1970s due to some major problems. More recently the technique has regained favour and is being used in on-going road trials; e.g. Killarney Road Trials and Freestone Creek to Eight Mile Intersection (Evans 1998). However, Evans concluded that it may be prudent to continue to assume that lime stabilised subgrades do not contribute greatly to pavement strengths. The strengthening effect of cement is significantly greater than the equivalent quantity of lime unless the host material contains a significant quantity of clay, and so, generally, to achieve the higher strengths necessary for heavily trafficked roads, cement appears to be a more practical stabiliser. 3.4 Bitumen or Tar stabilisation
Bitumen and tar are too viscous to use at ambient temperatures and must be made into either a cut-back bitumen (a solution of bitumen in kerosene or diesel), or a bitumen emulsion (bitumen particles suspended in water). When the solvent evaporates or the emulsion breaks, the bitumen is deposited on the material. The bitumen merely acts as a glue to stick the material particles together and prevent the ingress of water. In many cases, the bituminous material acts as an impervious layer in the pavement, preventing the rise of capillary moisture. In a country where bitumen is relatively expensive compared to cement and where most expertise is in cement construction, it appears more reasonable to use a cement stabiliser rather than a bitumen/tar based product. 3.5 Other types of stabilisation
Materials in this group do not, on their own, produce a significant cementing action and may need to be used in conjunction with cement or lime (OFlaherty, 1985). 3.5.1 Blastfurnace slag This is a by-product of the iron industry. It cannot be used on its own as a stabiliser but when it is ground into finer particles the product, known as ground granulated blastfurnace slag (ggbfs), can be used as a cement replacement, with up to 85 per cent of the cement replaced with the slag.
3.5.2 Pozzolanas Pozzolanas possess little or no cementitious properties in themselves but will in certain circumstances chemically react with lime to form compounds possessing cementitious properties. Natural pozzolanas are mainly of volcanic origin; artificial pozzolanas are products obtained from heating natural products. Examples of artificial pozzolanas are pulverised fuel ash (pfa) which is obtained from the burning of coal in power stations and rice husk ash (Sherwood, 19930, (Montgomery, 1991). 3.5.3 Non-pozzolanic chemical soil stabilisers These chemical stabilisers mostly take the form of strongly acidic, ionic, sulphonated, oil-based products. A cementitious reaction does not usually occur, but due to many factors including ionic exchange, the absorbed water can be reduced leading to better compaction and increased strength. The material must have an appropriate clay content for the stabiliser to have a beneficial effect. When correctly utilised, these products can be very cost effective (Paige-Green, 1998). Products containing chemicals such as sodium chloride and ligno-sulphonates purely stick the material or soil particles together, while other products such as those containing enzymes act biologically to achieve the same effect. Although non-pozzolanic stabilisers are usually cheaper, they are usually not as effective as traditional stabilisers such as cement or lime, which produce significantly greater strengths. 4 ELASTIC MODULUS
In a pavement engineering context, one of the most fundamental engineering properties of any material is the elastic modulus. The term elastic modulus is defined as the ratio of stress to strain and is a measure of the materials stiffness properties. In addition to the modulus of a material, it is also important to know its strength because a material may be very stiff, but not very strong and could crack or break under heavy traffic. The modulus of elasticity of a cemented material can be measured by several different methods including: dynamically (Ed) using electrodynamic excitation of long beams of 150mm section or statically (Es) by loading 150mm diameter cylinders fitted with extensiometers. Croney (1998) reports that comparative studies have consistently shown the dynamic modulus to be higher than the static value. An approximate conversion is given below (for values of Ed >5): Ed = 10 + 0.8Es (in GPa).. (Croney, 1998) There is also much discussion about whether to use dynamic or static modulus values in pavement calculations and often the average of both values is used. A relationship between dynamic modulus and compressive strength at 28 days is shown below in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Relationship between dynamic modulus and compressive strength (at 28 days) for some cement treated materials (Croney, 1998) Materials cemented with pozzolanic stabilisers such as lime and cement, perform in a more elastic, semi-brittle manner under traffic than unbound materials. Ideally, knowledge of a materials stiffness modulus and shear strength are required to determine an appropriate thickness for the overlying pavement layers. The number of factors involved in knowing these variables are high, for example the shear strength will depend on factors including the effective stress which is dependant on the stress history, etc. To simplify matters, index tests are often used. Historically, the CBR has been used but it is now often thought to be useful only for modified materials where the strength of the materials measured in the CBR test would not exceed 100 per cent. The Unconfined Compressive Strength test is considered a more useful guide to the elastic modulus and many correlations exist, for example TRH13 (CSRA, 1986) and Austroads (1992). In the move towards mechanistic design there is a driving force to use more direct measurements. Such testing however may be beyond the resources of many laboratories. 5 5.1 TESTING AND MIX DESIGN Suitability of materials for stabilisation
Before stabilising a material, especially a soil, it must be tested to ensure the compatibility and the effectiveness of the intended stabiliser. These initial tests will vary between countries, but often take the form of determining the particle size distribution, liquid and plastic limits, soil acidity and sulphate content. One such chemical test is for the Initial Consumption of Lime (ICL). The test is used when lime or cement is added to a clayey soil. For strength gains to occur, the chemical reactions
10
require a high pH (>12.4) to be maintained, which is the ICL value. This will vary considerably for different soils. After sufficient lime has been added to satisfy the ICL of the soil, additional lime will be required for the formation of cementitious compounds. Hence, further testing is still required to establish the optimum stabiliser content for the required strength. The test for soil acidity and sulphate content is carried out to indicate any potential problems with the hydration of the cement or possible chemical attack of the hydrated cement. Typical specifications are given in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 Typical specifications for cement stabilisation of a granular material to form capping in UK (Watson, 1994).
Test specifications Maximum liquid limit (LL) Maximum Plasticity Index (PI) Maximum organic matter content Maximum total sulphate content Saturation moisture content (chalk) Grading sieve size 125 mm 90 mm 10 mm 600 um 63 um 45 20 2% 1% 20 % % passing (by mass) 100 85-100 25-100 10-100 0-10
Table 2 Guide to the type of stabilisation likely to be effective (From TRL ORN 31, 1993 adapted from NAASRA, 1986)
Soil properties More than 25% passing the 0.075mm sieve PI <10 10< PI <20 PI >20 Yes * Yes Yes Yes * * Yes No Less than 25% passing the 0.075mm sieve PI <6, PP <60 PI <10 PI >10 Yes No Yes Yes * Yes Yes Yes *
Type of Stabilisation Cement Lime Lime-pozzolan Notes
*indicates that the stabiliser will have marginal effectiveness PI = Plasticity Index, PP = Plasticity Product = PI x per cent passing the 0.075 mm sieve
It should be noted that in the USA, grading limits are not strictly defined for sub-base materials. Instead, an initial cement value e.g. 7-10 per cent is assigned according to the material category (according to ASTM M145-82). If these tests indicate that stabilisation of the material is likely to be successful, then further testing is required to determine the required moisture and cement contents.
11
5.2
Mix design
Before stabilisation is used in road construction, a laboratory testing programme must be carried out on the material in order to determine a) the amount of water and b) the amount of stabiliser to be added to achieve the specified strength. Care must be taken to avoid excess quantities of stabiliser because this can cause wide shrinkage cracks during curing which can lead to extensive reflection cracking through overlying asphalt. One test method suggested, (Croney 1998) is to first calculate the amount of water to be added, by determining the optimum moisture content (OMC) that will give the maximum density, and then adding approximately one per cent to this value. This addition is necessary because the OMC of the cement and material will differ from that of the material alone because the fine grained cement will demand proportionately more water than the unbound material. The amount of stabiliser needed to achieve the specified strength can then be determined using cubes made up with various cement contents which are cured for a fixed perod; usually 7 or 14 days before testing, usually by crushing. For example, a suggested Unconfined Compressive Strength requirement for a stabilised sub-base is 4 MPa at 7 days (Croney, 1998). This value is further qualified as the average strength of five cubes with a minimum value of 2.5MPa for any individual cube (MCHW 1000, 1998). In general, the strength of the material will steadily increase with a rise in the cement content. This strength increase is approximately 500-1000 kPa (UCS strength) for each 1 per cent of cement added (Lay 1986/88). Some additional stabiliser may be necessary to take account of the variability in mixing that will occur on site. For example, an extra 1 per cent of cement is proposed in TRL ORN31 (1993). It should be noted that in the UCS test the results can be affected by both the size and shape of the sample tested, e.g. a cube or cylinder specimen. The results are often converted to those for a 150mm cube by multiplying the result with a correction factor. Some correction factors are given in Table 3. Table 3 Conversion Factors for UCS Test (after Sherwood, 1993).
Specimen shape and size Cube - 150mm Cube - 100mm Cylinder - 200 Cylinder - 142 Cylinder - 127 mm x 100 mm diameter mm x 71 mm diameter Correction factor (to 150mm cube) 1.00 0.96 1.25 1.25 1.04 0.96
Cylinder - 115.5 mm x 105 mm diameter mm x 152 mm diameter
The effect of cement content on strength will vary depending on the type of material to be stabilised. This can be seen in Figure 4 (NAASRA 1986).
12
Figure 4 Effect of cement content on strength of various soils stabilised with Ordinary Portland cement and cured for 7 days at 25oC . (NAASRA, 1986 and Metcalf, 1977) 5.2.1 Post Construction - Strength To ensure adequate strength during construction, the quality of a cement stabilised material is usually determined by strength tests on the material after it has been allowed enough time to sufficiently harden (usually 7 days). The strength can be tested in many ways, but some of the most popular tests are the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) test, sometimes known as cube crushing, and the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test. As mentioned above, many practitioners now prefer to use the UCS test. For strength and performance testing, NAASRA (1986) reports that: It should be noted that the CBR test is not relevant to cement-bound materials and it cannot be used for design purposes. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test has been extensively used to determine the relative response of materials to cement stabilisation. However, the UCS has little direct application to pavement design and it is better to use some form of tensile strength testing as this will have a bearing on pavement design. Cemented materials are relatively brittle, and fail in tension under relatively low strain. The critical strain usually decreases with increasing modulus. Hence modulus is more relevant to performance than UCS. South Africa has recently introduced tests to determine the tensile strength of stabilised materials, particularly for stabilised sub-bases beneath concrete pavements (PaigeGreen, 1998). In the test, a load is applied to the curved surface of a cylindrical specimen until failure occurs. A flexural test (3 point beam test) can also be carried out. Minimum limits for the Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) of cemented materials have been set in the latest of the South African series of Technical Recommendations for Highways (COLTO, 1996).
13
5.2.2 Durability As well as ensuring that an adequate strength and stiffness has been achieved by the stabilisation process, it is also necessary to ensure that this strength is maintained over the design life of the pavement. It should be noted that the UCS and CBR tests do not actually measure the durability of the stabilised material. This can be determined by durability testing which could take the form of either a soaked CBR test or a wet/dry brushing test (South Africa). In more temperate climates a freezing/thawing test may also be appropriate. A recent revision to the South African wet/dry brush test has been recommended by Paige-Green (1998), who proposed that the mechanical wet/dry brush test should be used as it removes some of the operator variability that was apparently present with the previous test. After this testing has been carried out, if any doubt remains about the durability of the material then a further carbonated UCS test could be carried out (de Wet & Taute, 1985). 5.2.3 Construction equipment Stabilisation may take the form of mix-in-plant or mix-in-situ. Mix-in-plant is most appropriate where imported granular materials are being used and mix-in-situ is more appropriate for the stabilisation of native soils. In-plant mixing may take place on or off site, but an important requirement for stabilised materials such as cement-bound material, CBM, (ie where the water content is much lower than for concrete) is that the plant must have a positive mixing action to thoroughly mix the constituents a simple tumbling action is not sufficient (Watson, 1994). In-situ mixing plant consists of a rotovator which uses rotating tines to break and mix the soil. Machines in highway construction are generally much more powerful than agricultural machinery and hence are capable of stabilising clay and granular materials up to 350mm thick. Some are also capable of breaking bound material. Agricultural rotovators may be used for thinner layers up to 150mm in conjunction with suitable soil types (Watson, 1994). In the United States, the process of in-situ stabilisation of soils is used far more than in Europe. A wide range of multiple and single pass plant have been developed which has led to a cost saving which often cannot be realised in smaller countries. Lay (1986/88) reports on equipment called stabilisers that are capable of cutting into in-situ material up to depths of 500mm, extracting the material which is then mixed with stabiliser from a hopper and then replaced. The amount of additive placed is a function of the mechanical operation and the speed of travel. Lay quotes (Grahame and Goldsborough, 1980) as containing further information. Stabilisation of deep lifts, up to 400mm thick, are now possible due to the recent development of;
14
Large mixing and pulverising machinery, such as the CMI RS500 (Australia) Large capacity purpose-built binder spreaders with automated spread control, High performance compaction equipment; and Slow setting binders.
Useful information about equipment can be found in NAASRA (1986, 1998) Chapter 9: Construction. If a thick layer e.g. 300mm is to be stabilised, then problems in achieving adequate compaction could require that the material is placed in two lifts. An Australian design manual (Queensland, 1990) recommends use of a cement slurry to bond the two layers together. This publication also reports that the second layer must never be stabilised using in-situ stabilisation methods even if the first layer was stabilised in-situ, since this method will usually cause damage to the first layer. The manual also recommends that the first layer of a two part layer process is never less than 150mm thick, so that it can support the plant that will lay the second layer. 5.2.4 Pre-construction trials A field trial should be carried out ahead of the main work in order to determine the actual strength and density that can be achieved using the same plant that will be involved in the main contract. Paige-Green (1998) recommends the use of proof rolling on trial sections that incorporate density or strength testing after each roller pass. These trials can identify the optimum number of roller passes that are necessary and also provides an indication of the target density or strength that is required for quality control testing after rolling. 6 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH STABILISATION
Previous sections of this review have identified the advantages of using stabilised pavement layers. However, the use of stabilisers can result in an increase in the cost of construction and will only be cost effective if the increased cost can be traded off against the improved performance of the road. Also before selecting stabilisation techniques, the engineer must be aware of the potential problems of stabilisation as well as its advantages. This section discusses some of the more common problems in relation to cement and lime, the most used stabilisers. Most of the problems can be avoided or reduced with careful material selection and testing. The problems listed below are in approximate order of occurrence, rather than seriousness. 6.1 Construction
6.1.1 Quantity of stabiliser It is important that the correct amount of stabiliser is added to the material. If too much of the stabiliser is added, it can cause excessive shrinkage cracks. Too little stabiliser will produce a material with insufficient strength or durability.
15
6.1.2 Mixing The stabiliser and material must be thoroughly and evenly mixed throughout the full depth of the layer. For in-situ stabilisation, this is best achieved with a pulvimixer, rotavator or a disc harrow, however an experienced grader operator can also obtain good results. A common problem is that an incorrect depth of material is mixed, thus altering the rate of application of stabiliser. Paige-Green (1998) recommends that specialist equipment is used for mixing rather than agricultural equipment. 6.1.3 Compaction and limited time It is essential that the correct degree of compaction is achieved if the material is to reach the required strength. Compaction must be completed within the limited time periods set in the specifications, which is often only a few hours for cement. 6.1.4 Rapid setting A number of problems have been reported where a lime stabiliser has reacted very quickly with certain materials (typically calcretes and tillites containing amorphous silica, aluminium and/or high clay contents), causing a rapid set to occur and thus preventing satisfactory compaction. 6.1.5 Curing time It is essential to cure the material under correct conditions so that an adequate initial strength is achieved before trafficking. For curing to occur a moist environment must be provided by light water spraying, the application of curing membranes or the placement of the next layer of material. If the periodic water-spraying method is used, then care must be taken to ensure that the surface does not dry out between sprayings as carbonation can occur (Netterberg and Paige-Green, 1984), (Netterberg 1987). The curing period, usually 7 days before use by construction traffic, can cause delays which should be planned for. 6.1.6 Variability Small changes in the chemical composition of the material to be stabilised, or exposure to harmful compounds after hardening can have large influences on the strength of cement or lime stabilised materials. These compounds include organic matter, sulphates, sulphides and carbon dioxide. Sulphate attack can cause volume changes (swell) of the material. Work in the USA (Mitchell, 1986) and the UK (Dept. of Transport, 1976) have placed limits on the total water-soluble sulphate content of the material to be stabilised at 0.5 per cent and 1.0 per cent, respectively. 6.1.7 Testing The amount of quality control testing that is required for stabilised materials is much greater than for granular materials and this will add extra time, effort and cost to the construction process. 6.2 Durability
6.2.1 Carbonation Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can attack the stabilised layer resulting in large strength reductions over time. The influence of carbonation can be minimised by ensuring that the stabiliser content of the material exceeds the initial consumption of
16
lime (ICL) value by at least 1 per cent and that curing is carried out carefully and fully (Paige-Green et al, 1990). 6.2.2 Sulphate and salt damage If the material to be stabilised shows high contents of soluble salt or sulphates or sulphides, then poor cementation can occur. The South African technical specifications recommend that stabilised materials should be at least 500mm away from materials with a pH of less than 6 (CSRA, 1997) and the water-soluble sulphate (SO3) content should be less than 2.0 grams/Litre (CSRA, 1986). 6.2.3 Cracking Cracking in stabilised layers due to changes in moisture content (drying shrinkage) and thermal stresses cannot be avoided. Cracking can also occur due to excessive traffic loading. The cracks are mostly transverse, and the number will increase with age resulting in a typical block cracking pattern (Chandler, 1985). If a stabilised granular material is used directly beneath an asphalt surfacing, shrinkage cracks in the stabilised layer can rapidly reflect through the asphalt surfacing. 6.2.4 Break-up If the stabilised layer is directly under a thin asphalt layer or bituminous seal, crushing of the stabilised layer can occur due to the low abrasion resistance of the material. Research has shown that the contact stress pattern of a tyre are concentrated at the edge of the tyre (De Beer, 1997). 7 CURRENT STABILISATION PRACTICE AROUND THE WORLD
The following information is a summary of the most relevant points. If required, further information should be obtained from the guides. 7.1 UK Practice
The authority that issues pavement specifications in the UK is the Department of the Environment and Transport (DETR). There are two main series of publications: 1. Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW) particularly useful is Volume 1: Specification for Highway Works (e.g. Series 1000 (1998): Road Pavements Concrete and Cement Bound Materials) and 2. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges - particularly useful is Volume 7: Pavement Design and Maintenance (eg HD 25/94: Foundations, and HD26/94: Pavement Design). 7.1.1 Concrete pavements In the UK, a cement bound sub-base is required under a concrete pavement to minimise the risk of erosion and weakening of the sub-base caused by water that has penetrated through joints or cracks. Cement bound sub-bases also aid compaction of the overlying concrete layer. For jointed concrete, an impermeable separation membrane (plastic sheet) is also required over the sub-base to prevent loss of moisture from the concrete to underlying layers and to act as a slip layer. For reinforced concrete, a waterproof membrane consisting of a sprayed bituminous material is required.
17
Sub-base material specifications: For pavements with a design life up to 12 million standard axles (msa), a cement bound material (CBM2) or wet lean concrete (C10) is specified whereas for designs greater than 12 msa, a cement bound material (CBM3) or wet lean concrete (C15) is specified. The range of material categories and strength requirements are given in Table 4. Cement stabilisation of the subgrade can be used instead of importing a granular capping material, as long as this stabilised layer has a minimum equivalent CBR of 15 per cent. It is also specified that compaction must take place within 2 hours of the addition of cement. Table 4 Strengths of UK cemented materials and moduli used for calculations (DETR, 1998 & Croney, 1998)
Minimum 7 day Cube Compressive strength (MPa) (= N/mm2) *(Ref 1) Average of 5 CBM 1 Soil-cement (granular) (silty PI 10) (clay PI 10) CBM 2 CBM 3 CBM 4 C7.5 C10 C15 Cement-bound material Normal lean concrete Stronger lean concrete Wet lean concrete Wet lean concrete Wet lean concrete 7 10 15 5.5 8 13 **Ref. 2: Croney and Croney, 1998. 4.5 6.5 10 4.5 Individual 2.5 Modulus of elasticity for use in structural analysis (GPa) **(Ref 2) Dynamic (Ed) 18 7 1 23 27 30 Static (Es) 10 4 0 13 19 23 Mean 14 5 0.5 18 23 27
Material category (in UK)
* Ref. 1: DETR, 1998: MCWH Series 1000,
7.1.2 Bituminous pavements For flexible construction, weak cemented sub-bases may be used: CBM1, CBM2, or C7.5, see Table 4, but, as reported by (Chaddock, 1997), current specifications require these materials to be constructed with the same thickness as unbound granular sub-base materials. 7.2 TRL ORN31 Practice
This design guide is for bituminous-surfaced roads in tropical and sub-tropical countries. The design of concrete pavements is not included. The design catalogues for various pavement types allow for stabilisation of the roadbase, sub-base and capping layers using cement or lime. The materials recommended in the guide are roadbase (CB1 and CB2) and sub-base (CS), with unconfined compressive strength (UCS) values as shown in Table 5.
18
Table 5 Properties of cement (or lime) stabilised materials

Material code CB1 CB2 CS Description Stabilised roadbase Stabilised roadbase Stabilised sub-base Unconfined Compressive Strength - UCS (MPa) 3 6 1.5 3 0.75 1.5
Specifications for these materials (CB1, CB2, CS) also include grading envelopes, maximum values for Liquid Limit (LL), Plasticity Index (PI), and Linear Shrinkage (LS) as well as recommended values for the coefficient of uniformity (i.e. the ratio of: sieve size that 60 per cent material passes to sieve size that 10 per cent of material passes). For cement-stabilised materials, the amount of cement to add is determined by laboratory trials according to BS 1924, using initial values of 2, 4, 6 and 8 per cent cement. Cubes or cylinders are then made and cured for set times before a strength test is carried out. The UCS test is usually used to determine the optimum cement content. The procedure for lime stabilised materials is similar, but a longer curing time is allowed. For stabilised sub-base material, the CBR test can be used as an alternative to the UCS requirement. A minimum value of CBR 70 per cent after seven days moist curing is recommended. In the design charts given in ORN31 the traffic loading is given in several categories up to 30 million standard axles. It is important to note that where a stabilised roadbase is shown, the surfacing is a thin surface dressing and not asphaltic concrete (Chart 8). This is mainly to reduce the effects of reflection cracking. In Charts 1 to 6, a stabilised sub-base is allowed but there is always an overlying granular roadbase, again to reduce the possibility of reflection cracking. 7.3 USA Practice
The main design manuals used in the USA are the AASHTO Design of Pavement Structures (AASHTO, 1993) and part II rigid pavement Design (1998). Initial cement contents are recommended for the various soil types (classified under AASHTO designation M145-82) as follows: A1-A3 soils (granular materials): A4-A7 soils (silt clay materials): 3.5 7.0 % (by weight) 7.0 10.0 % (by weight)
These are expected to give 7-day strengths of at least 2 MPa. The cement contents given above only form a start point from which laboratory testing is required to achieve the required strength. 7.3.1 Designs for concrete pavements Extensive research on base support for concrete roads has been carried out in the USA (Darter et al, 1995). This showed that the support provided to the concrete slab by the underlying layer (called the base or sub-base) was found to have a very significant effect on the performance of the pavement. Amongst the findings it was reported that:
19
On a soft subgrade (27 kPa/mm) changing from an aggregate base to a treated base produces a large increase in the load carrying capacity (in this case 13 to 26 million ESALs). For an untreated granular base, increasing its thickness does not affect traffic life. This is supported by earlier findings from the AASHO road test (1962) which concluded that the effect on performance of varying the thickness of the sub-base between 3 and 9 inches was not significant. For a treated base, however, with a modulus of approximately 6900 MPa, the thickness has a very significant effect.
7.3.2 Designs for flexible pavements The AASHTO (1993) pavement design manual has adopted the use of elastic modulus as the standard materials quantification measure. However instead of using a wholly mechanistic approach, the elastic modulus of each layer is correlated with a strength coefficient to develop designs using the Structural Number approach. For the sub-base, the manual also offers correlations between elastic modulus and CBR, R-value and Texas triaxial test results. To utilise benefits in terms of utilising a higher structural number coefficient for a stabilised sub-base compared with a granular sub-base their elastic modulus would be required. It may still not be possible to interpolate a structural number coefficient because of the range of elastic moduli given in the manual. 7.4 Australia
State Road Authorities have been stabilising heavily trafficked roads to about 400mm in depth for many years and Local Government Authorities are typically stabilising at depths in the order of 150-200mm (Pike 1998). The design method for a stabilised pavement typically greater than 200mm is documented in the comprehensive Austroads Pavement Design Guide (1992). 7.4.1 Austroads Pavement Design Guide. The Australian guide to pavement design (Austroads, 1992) uses the mechanistic approach to road design, which it emphasises has been developed for Australian conditions. Pavement materials are characterised by the modulus of elasticity either directly or through correlation with other tests. Eight test methods are given for characterising stabilised pavement materials. These are ranked in order of preference from flexural testing to presumptive values, being the most and least preferred , respectively. Stabilised sub-bases, below either a stabilised or crushed stone base material, are utilised extensively in the manual as optional pavement materials. There is a substantial saving in sub-base thickness when cemented instead of granular materials are used. Should the cemented sub-base layer fail through fatigue, the manual permits a continuance of the service life of the sub-base as a granular layer when estimating the total traffic loading that the pavement will survive. Although a number of example designs are given in the manual, it is necessary to compute the suitability of alternative designs and select on their relative merit. To do this, a computer program is required to calculate the various stresses and strains in the trial pavement.
20
7.5
South Africa
The stabilisation of different pavement layers is widely used in South Africa. The standards include the Technical Recommendations for Highways series especially TRH13: Cementitious Stabilisers in Road Construction (1986) and TRH 14 Guidelines for Road Construction Materials (1985). As shown in Table 6, there are four classes of stabilised material C1-C4, where C1 is the strongest. The specification limits become less strict as the material is used further below the road surface. C1 materials are seldom used because of their tendency to form wide shrinkage cracks (Paige-Green, 1998). Material Class C2 (usually cemented crushed stone) is used for a high quality sub-base. The lower strength materials C3 and C4 (cemented natural gravels) are used for lower layers or for bases on low volume roads. Table 6 Strength requirements for stabilised materials (TRH 14, 1985)
Stabilised Material Classification C1 C2 C3 C4 Laboratory soaked UCS (MPa) after 7 days 100% mod AASHTO 97 % Mod AASHTO Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum 6 3 1.5 0.75 12 6 3 1.5 4 2 1 0.5 8 4 2 1 Minimum ITS* (kPa) 400 250 200
Note *ITS = Indirect Tensile Strength (COLTO, 1996)
7.6
The Philippines
The Philippines has a materials and construction manual: Standard Specifications for Public Works and Highways, Volume 2 (DPWH, 1995). Most of the materials tests are based on the American AASHTO methods. It should be noted that the manual does not contain pavement design information. Included in the manual are several specifications for the use of stabilisers in the roadbase. These are: 1. Lime stabilised - Road Mix Base course (Item 203) (Item 204) (Item 206) 2. Cement stabilised - Road Mix Base course 3. Cement stabilised - Plant Mix Base course
Included in the specifications is a strength requirement. The appropriate strength test is dependent upon the type of material, which is either: a) For gravelly soils: CBR test. Material passing the 19mm sieve shall have a minimum soaked CBR of 100 per cent (AASHTO T193), obtained at maximum dry density (AASHTO T180). b) For fine textured soils: UCS test. Seven day compressive strength = Minimum of 2.1 MPa (ASTM 1633). In the 1995 specifications the use of stabilised materials for sub-bases is not specified for either flexible or concrete pavements. However, the new Interim Pavement Design Guide (DPWH, 1998) allows stabilised materials to be used for the base or sub-base in asphalt pavements. In the pavement design catalogue, assumptions are made for the layer coefficients of the materials, their elastic modulus and equivalent CBR values. For stabilised sub-bases, an elastic modulus of 700,000 psi is assumed, although this
21
seems high. Existing specifications for these materials are used, as given in DPWH, 1995. The new Interim Pavement Design Guide does not include the use of stabilised sub-bases under concrete pavements. 8 PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR HEAVILY TRAFFICKED ROADS
The definition of heavily trafficked roads varies between different design standards. For example in South Africa heavily trafficked roads are those which carry in excess of 12 million standard axles (Freeme et al, 1987). In this report, as an approximate guide, it has been assumed that heavily trafficked roads are those with a design life of more than 10 million equivalent standard axles. For any pavement, it may be desirable to stabilise the base or sub-base in order to protect the subgrade such that it can withstand the vertical loads imposed by traffic. This is particularly true for heavily trafficked pavements, where high traffic loads or volumes inevitably mean that stronger and thicker pavement layers are required. Examination of the major pavement design guides from around the world has shown that the use of stabilisation is widespread. All of the design guides studied allowed stabilisation of at least one pavement layer and most of the guides reported that the use of stabilisation became more beneficial for higher traffic levels. Most pavement design manuals for heavily trafficked roads are based on a mechanistic approach which models the pavement as a multi-layered elastic structure. The stresses/strains at various points in the structure that result from the applied loads are compared to establish stress/strain criteria. It is then necessary to calibrate these models with observed performance data, i.e. empirical correlations, hence the procedure is commonly referred to as mechanistic-empirical design. The use of stabilised sub-bases in several design manuals is compared in Table 7. It can be seen that pavements with granular sub-bases and stabilised sub-bases can be specified in almost all of the design manuals listed for traffic levels up to 100 million ESA.
22
Table 7 Comparison of Pavements with Stabilised Sub-bases.

Country: Design Guide Source: USA AASHTO UK (a) TRL ORN31 UK (b) DETR HD26/94 Australia Austroads South Africa CSRA TRH4, TRH13 1985 / 86 Philippines DPWH Interim design guide 1998
Year ASPHALT Does the specification include: Granular base with stabilised sub-base? Maximum traffic for above pavement design (million ESA) CONCRETE Design guide includes concrete? Sub-base type allowed: i) Granular material ii) Stabilised material Maximum traffic for above pavement design (million ESA)
1993 / 98
1993
1994-98
1992
50
30
n/a
100
50
30
Y Y Y >500
Y N Y 400
Y N Y 300
Y N Y 50
Y Y N 30
As previously discussed, the stabilisation of the sub-base layer beneath a concrete pavement can minimise problems caused by poor materials, difficult construction conditions and, in some cases, low standards of construction quality control where inadequate slab support can lead to premature cracking. The Philippines design manual does not specify the use of stabilised sub-bases beneath concrete pavements (Table 7). Although it may not be possible to justify them at low levels of traffic, further study could determine whether stabilised sub-bases would be economically beneficial at higher levels of trafficking. Apart from the pavement design manuals and specifications described earlier, there are relatively few published reports concerning the use of stabilised materials for heavily trafficked pavements. One of the few reports on this subject (Freeme et al, 1987) gives details of accelerated loading trials in South Africa using the Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) on pavements with stabilised bases and sub-bases. One of the major results of this study was the confirmation of the in-situ moduli (i.e. layer stiffnesses) for cemented materials of different strengths and in different states of deterioration. It was found that weakly cemented materials, having UCS strengths of less than 3 MPa, can break down quite rapidly into small blocks under trafficking. The report includes tables of the moduli of strongly cemented and weakly cemented materials in their new (i.e. uncracked) state and then at varying stages of their life. These values may be useful for general mechanistic design of road pavements with stabilised layers. It was also reported that many of the weakly cemented materials cracked and some of them appeared to break down into a near-granular state. The report estimates that the uncracked state for weakly cemented materials lasts for only approximately 10 per cent of the life of the pavement. A new form of erosion was also reported whereby the top of the stabilised base was eroded by mechanical interaction with the asphalt surfacing. This loose material was
23
being broken down into fines and pumped out from cracks in the asphalt. It must be noted that most of the pavements in this study had a cemented base and cemented subbase. It is likely that a stabilised sub-base with a strong unbound granular base would not suffer from this type of deterioration and that the break-down of a stabilised material could be avoided by using a higher cement content. It was also reported that the thickness of the cemented layers must be sufficient to cope with overloaded axles as well as cumulative repetitions of legal axle loads. In the Philippines the amount of traffic will continue to increase, as will the demands for high strength pavements that are able to carry even greater traffic. It can be argued that no particular form of pavement construction is necessarily the best. The choice in any situation will depend on factors such as the funding that is available for the project, the local cost of the different forms of construction, the likely future maintenance levels, the volume and composition of traffic, subgrade conditions, climate, and the design life of the road pavement. Before a new road is built, a detailed cost benefit analysis should be carried out to determine the most appropriate form of construction. The use of a stabilised material can help with whole-life cost reduction, but care should be taken to ensure that the material, its construction and the environment are suitable. For the sub-base layer, the decision whether to use unbound granular materials or cement-bound materials will depend principally on the availability of good quality aggregates. If they are readily available, their use will usually be cheaper than the alternative of stabilising a lower quality material. 9 CONCLUSIONS
Stabilised sub-bases are now used by many road authorities for the design of heavily trafficked roads. The primary benefits include the materials increased load spreading ability, which is highly relevant to the Philippines with its increasing traffic levels, and the materials increased ability to resist water penetration and hence to be more durable in areas with less effective drainage. The use of stabilised sub-bases in the Philippines is now included in the recent publication of the Interim Pavement Design Guide (DPWH, 1998) which allows the use of stabilised sub-bases under asphalt surfaced roads for design traffic levels up to 30 million ESA. The stabilisation of pavement materials is a fairly straightforward operation and with good construction techniques the properties of poor materials can often be significantly improved. It is essential that the amount of stabiliser to be used with a material is first established in the laboratory and that there is an appropriate level of construction supervision and quality control to ensure that similar strengths are achieved in the road. Cement stabilised materials, in particular, offer the possibility of both increasing pavement performance whilst utilising materials that may not generally meet accepted sub-base specifications. However, increasing the cement content to achieve a higher strength or to improve the material will also increase the possibility of reflection cracking and hence the pavement designer must seek a balance between these two conflicting factors. The performance of both rigid and flexible road pavements in the Philippines would almost certainly be improved by the use of stabilised sub-bases. What is not presently
24
established, however, is whether this improvement in performance would be cost effective after taking into account all factors, including some often missed costs such as the additional quality control measures that are required. It is therefore recommended that laboratory and pilot scale trials should be carried out to: 1. establish how indigenous marginal materials can be effectively stabilised to produce good quality sub-base materials; 2. establish the improved road performance that can be achieved by using stabilised materials rather that granular sub-base materials; and 3. quantify the cost effectiveness of this type of road construction in the Philippines. 10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PILOT TRIALS IN THE PHILIPPINES. In the review few guidelines or specifications take advantage of the potential increased strength and stiffness of stabilised sub-bases. This section summarises an approach for carrying out pilot scale pavement design trials, using stabilised sub-bases, in the Philippines. 1. Locate trial sites and identify materials for the various pavement layers and, in particular, those for possible use as the sub-base. The roadbase layer should be a high quality crushed stone and the surfacing should be asphaltic concrete. 2. Carry out laboratory tests of sub-base materials to be stabilised to establish whether they are appropriate for stabilisation and establish the relationship between strength and cement content. 3. Define the strength requirement and select the cement content accordingly. Note: This strength can be determined using a computer program such as ELMOD, GENSTRESS, BISAR or ELSYM to get stresses and strains below the accepted asphalt and subgrade criteria. 4. Design the pavement trials. The design of the trials will depend on what opportunities exist to incorporate pilot studies into ongoing construction. There are primarily three options. a) Maintaining pavement thickness. A trial to quantify the benefit of stabilised subbases over that of granular materials can be designed by having similar pavement thickness to the control section and varying only the strength of the stabilised materials. In this case the construction costs may be higher but the benefits would accrue from an expected improvement in pavement performance. b) Varying pavement thickness. A trial to establish suitable pavement thicknesses can be designed by comparing the performance of thinner pavements, incorporating stabilised sub-bases, to that of normal practice. The design of these experimental pavements will be based on analytical methods. In this case, construction costs may be comparable and performance is likely to be enhanced. c) Improving marginal materials. A trial to quantify the benefit of stabilised sub-bases can be designed by comparing the performance of marginal materials, modified with cement/lime, to that of a more costly imported sub-base material that meets
25
normally accepted material specifications. In this case construction costs should be reduced and performance may well be enhanced. 5. Carry out FWD testing after construction to determine in-situ moduli. Other tests, including DCP tests, coring and testing of cored samples may also be required. All tests should be repeated periodically to establish the change in strength with time. 6. Compare results and performance with control section. From these results it should be possible to determine the theoretical future load carrying capacity of the pavement by comparing the stresses and strains or Structural Number of the experimental pavement to existing criteria (LR 1132 and AASHTO). These estimates would then be compared to actual performance measured during the monitoring period. It should be noted that this analysis can only be done on a site specific basis where traffic volumes and load are carefully monitored. 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The work described in this report forms part of the Knowledge and Research (KAR) programme of TRL (Director Mr S W Colwill), and part of the Research and Development Division programme of Bureau of Research and Standards (Director Raul C. Asis) of DPWH, Philippines. Any views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID or DPWH.
26
12 REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY
AASHTO. (1993) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, USA, 1993. AASHTO (1998) Design of Pavement Structures, Part 2- Rigid Pavements. . American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, USA, 1998. AKOTO, BKA. (1988) Influence of Flyash on the Strength Characteristics of LimeLaterite Soil Mixtures. Australian Road Research Journal, 18(4), p224-231, December 1988. AUFF, AA. (1988). Statistical Specification for Cement Treated Pavements. Proceedings 14th ARRB Conference, Canberra. Part 5, p186-206. September 1988. AUSTROADS. (1998) Guide to Stabilisation in Roadworks. Sydney, 1998. This replaced the 1986 NAASRA edition. AP-60/98 Austroads,
AUSTROADS. (1992) Pavement Design: A Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements. Section 6.3: Cemented Materials. Austroads, July 1992. BAGONZA, S, J.M. PEETE, R FREER-HEWISH & D NEWILL. (1987) Carbonation of Stabilised Mixtures. p29-48, Seminar H. Proceedings, PTRC Summer Meeting, Bath, UK September 1987. BELL F.G. (1993) The Engineering Treatment of Soils. Chapter 10: Stabilization. Published by E&FN Spon, 1993. BOFINGER, H. (1978) Soil-Cement Recent Research by the Overseas Unit of TRRL. Proceedings: 9th ARRB Conference, 1978. BRITISH LIME ASSOCIATION. (1990) Lime Stabilisation Manual. pp41, 2nd Edition, UK, 1990. BULLEN, F. (1994) The Resilient Modulus of Cement Treated Materials. Roads and Transport Research, Vol. 3, no.2, p95-104, Australia, June 1994. C&CA (KENNEDY, J). (1983) Cement-Bound Materials for Sub-bases and Roadbases. Publication No. 46.027, UK Cement and Concrete Association, 1983. CARPENTER, SH, CROVETTI,MR et al. (1992) Soil and Base Stabilization and Associated Drainage Considerations. Vol 1: Pavement Design and Construction Considerations; and Vol. 2: Mixture Design Considerations. (supersedes Terrel, 1979), Eres consultants, Savoy, Illinois, USA. Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, USA. Final report, Dec 1992. CHADDOCK, B & V ATKINSON. (1997) Stabilised Sub-bases in Road Foundations: Structural Assessment and Benefits. TRL Report 248, Transport Research Laboratory, 1997. CHAN, J.W. & R.P.K LEE. (1996) The Use of Furnace Bottom Ash as Road Subbase Material in Hong Kong. 18th ARRB Conference, Christchurch, NZ. Part 3, p213-221. September 1996.
27
CLAUSS,KA & PA LOUDEN. (1971) The Influence of Initial Consumption of Lime on the Stabilisation of South African Road Materials. Proc: 5th Int. Conf, for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Luanda, p5-61 to 68, 1971. COLTO. (1996) Structural Design of Pavements for Inter-urban and Rural Roads. TRH 4, Technical Recommendations for Highways (TRH), Committee of Land Transport Officials (COLTO), Pretoria, South Africa, 1996. CRONEY, D AND CRONEY, P. (1998) The Design and Performance of Road Pavements. 3rd Edition, Published by McGraw-Hill, UK, 1998. CSRA. (1985) Guide Lines For Road Construction Materials. TRH 14. Committee of State Road Authorities (CSRA), Pretoria, South Africa, 1985. CSRA. (1986) Cementitious Stabilisers in Road Construction. Draft TRH13, pp64. Committee of State Road Authorities (CSRA), Pretoria, South Africa, 1986. CSRA. (1997) Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Works. Committee of State Road Authorities (CSRA), Department of Transport, Pretoria, South Africa, 1997. DARTER, MI, KT HALL & C KUO. (1995) Support under Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. NCHRP Report 372, Transport Research Board, Washington, USA, 1995. DE BEER, M, C. FISHER & FJ JOOSTE. (1997) Determination of tyre/pavement interface contact stresses under moving loads and some effects on pavements with thin asphalt surfacings. Technical Report No. TR-96/050, CSIR, South Africa, 1997 DE WET, LF AND A TAUTE, 1985. Durability of Stabilised Materials. Proceedings: Annual Transportation Convention, Pretoria, Volume FB, Paper 1. 1985. DEPT OF TRANSPORT, UK. (1994) HD 25/94: Capping and Sub-base. UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 7, Section 3, Chapter 3. UK, January 1994. DEPT OF TRANSPORT, UK. (1995) HA 74/95: Design and Construction of Lime Stabilised Capping. UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 4, Section 1, Part 6. UK, May 1995. DEPT OF TRANSPORT, UK. (1995) HD 26/94: Roadbase Materials. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 7, Section 2, Chapter 3. UK, March 1995. DETR. Series 1000: (1998) Road Pavements Concrete and Cement Bound Materials. Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW) Volume 1: Specification for Highway Works, UK Dept of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, March 1998. DOSHI, SN AND MS MESDARY. (1985) Estimations of Dynamic Modulus of SoilCement. Australian Road Research Journal, 15(2), p90-96, June 1985. DPWH. (1995) Standard Specifications for Public Works and Highways. Vol 2: Highways, Bridge and Airports. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Philippines, 1995. DPWH. (1998) Interim Pavement Design Guide. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Philippines, 1998.
28
DUMBLETON, MJ. (1962) Investigations to Assess the Potentials of Lime for Soil Stabilisation in the UK. Road Research Technical Paper No.64, HMSO, London, 1962. DUNLOP, RJ. (1977) Lime Stabilisation for New Zealand Roads. Road Research Unit Technical Recommendation TR/2. pp91. National Roads Board, New Zealand, 1977. DUNLOP, RJ. (1980) A Review of the Design and Performance of Roads Incorporating Lime and Cement Stabilised Pavement Layers. Australian Road Research, Vol. 10 no.3, September 1980. EVANS, P, W SMITH et al. (1998) Rethink of the Design Philosophy of Lime Stabilisation. p105-120. Proceedings:19th ARRB Conference, Sydney, Australia, Dec 1998. FLY ASH, (1986) Silica Fume, Slag & Natural Pozzolans in Concrete. Proceedings: 2nd International Conference on the above, Madrid, Spain, 1986. FLY ASH, (1989) Silica Fume, Slag & Natural Pozzolans in Concrete. Vols. 1 & 2. Proceedings: 3rd International Conference on the above, Trondheim, Norway, 1989. FOSTER, C.R. (1972) Strength of Bases and Subbases. 3rd International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, London. p226-232. Sept 1972. FREEME, CR M DE BEER, AND AW VILJOEN. (1987) The Behavior and Mechanistic Design of Asphalt Pavements. 6th International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Michigan University, USA, July 1987. GRIFFIN, J. (1978) Guide to Stabilisation in Roadworks. NAASRA/ARRB Workshop on Stabilisation, held at Dept of Main Roads, New South Wales, April 1978. HAMMOND, AA. (1984) A Study of Factors Influencing Autogenous Healing in Lime and Cement Stabilised Road Bases. p371-380. Proceedings: Vol. 1: 8th Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1984. HEATON, BS. (1989) Steelworks Slag Road Pavement Test Sections. Australian Road Research Journal, 19(2), p145-154, June 1989. INGLES, O.G & J.B METCALF. (1972) Soil Stabilization: Principles and Practice. Published by Butterworth & Co. Ltd., 1972. JACKSON. JO. (1984) Stabilisation Characteristics of a Problem Sedimentary Laterite. p381-386. Proceedings: Vol. 1: 8th Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1984. JAMESON, G.W, R.YEO et al. (1996) The Development of Design Charts for Cement- Stabilised Flyash Pavements. 18th ARRB Conference, Christchurch, NZ. Part 3, p361-384. September 1996. KEZDI, A. (1979) Stabilized Earth Roads. Published by: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Oxford, UK. 1979. KIEK, S.N. (1974) Economically Important Volcanic Ash Soil Properties. Proceedings 7th ARRB Conference, Adelaide. Volume 7, Part 7, p129-138. 1974.
29
KSAIBATI, K. (1995) Evaluation of Cement Treated Bases with Flyash. Roads and Transport Research, Vol. 4, no.4, p19-34, Australia, December 1995. LAV, A.H. AND P.J. KENNY. (1997) Fly Ash Production and its Utilisation in Road Construction. Roads and Transport Research, Vol. 6, no.3, p4-15, Australia, September 1997. LAWRENCE, WA. (1969) Preliminary Observation of the Behavior of CementStabilised Volcanic Ash in Road Construction in Dominica, Eastern Caribbean. Report No. R3, Dominican Ministry of Communications and Works, June 1969. LAY, MG. (1986) Handbook of Road Technology. Includes Chapter 10: Stabilisation (redrafted 1988). Published by Gordon & Breach, London, 1986. LINN, MD & MG SYMONS. (1988) Lime-Flyash Stabilisation of Fine-Grained Soils. Australian Road Research Journal, 18(3), p153-161, September 1988. LISTER, NW (1972) Design and Performance of Cement-Bound Bases. The Journal of the Institution of Highway Engineers, p21-43, February 1972. LITTLE, DN. (1992) Comparison of In-situ Resilient Moduli of Aggregate Base Courses With & Without Low Percentages of Lime Stabilization. D Walker, TB Hardy et al. p8-22, Innovations and Uses for Lime. ASTM Publication No. STP 1135, 1992. LITTLE, DN. (1995) Handbook for Stabilisation of Pavement Subgrades and Base Courses with Lime. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, Iowa, USA, 1995. LOADWICK, F, A AYSEN AND J.M. JAHNKE. (1997) Cement Stabilised Lagoon Ash as a Subgrade Replacement in Road Construction. Roads and Transport Research, Vol. 6, no.2, p34-45, Australia, June 1997. MCELVANEY, J & IR BUNADIDJATNIKA. (1991) Strength Evaluation of LimeStabilised Pavement Foundation using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Australian Road Research Journal, 21(1), p40-52, March 1991. METCALF, JB. (1977) Principles and Application of Cement and Lime Stabilisation. Report No. ARR49, Australian Road Research Board, August 1977. MISE, T, K NISHIDA, et al (Editors). (1992) Soil Improvement. Current Japanese Materials Research Vol. 9. Published by Elsevier Applied Science, Oxford, UK, 1992. MONTGOMERY, D.G & G. CHMEISSE. (1991) Soil Stabilisation using Rice Husk Ash. Australian Road Research Journal, 21(4), p27-46, December 1991. MURTY A.V.S.R, P.K DHAWAN & N.K BHASIN. (1992) Coal Ash in Road Construction. Proceedings 7th REAAA Conference, Singapore, June 1992. Vol. 2, p573-579, 1992. NAASRA. (1986) Guide to Stabilisation in Roadworks. National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA), Sydney, 1986. Replaced in 1998 by AP-60/98, Austroads. NAASRA. (1987) Pavement Design: A Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements. National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA), Sydney, 1987.
30
NETTERBERG, F & P PAIGE-GREEN. (1984) Carbonation of Lime and Cement Stabilised Layers in Road Construction. Technical Report RS/3/84. NITRR, CSIR, South Africa, April 1984. NETTERBERG, F. (1987) Durability of Lime and Cement Stabilisation. National Institute for Transport and Road Research (NITRR). Unpublished Technical Note TS/9/87. July 1987. NITRR. (1973) Symposium on Cement-Treated Crusher Run Bases. National Institute for Road Research (NITRR), Johannesburg, South Africa, Feb 1973. OFLAHERTY, CA. (1988) Highway Engineering. 3rd Edition Volume 2. Published by Edward Arnold, London, 1988. PAIGE-GREEN, P. (1984) A Laboratory Investigation into the Influence of Carbonation on the Strength of Lime-Stabilised Materials. p403-406. Proceedings: Vol. 1: 8th Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1984. PAIGE-GREEN, P, F. NETTERBERG AND L.R SAMPSON. (1990) The Carbonation of Chemically Stabilised Road Construction Materials: Guide to its Avoidance. CSIR. Report No. PR 89/146/1, Pretoria, South Africa, March 1990. PAIGE-GREEN, P. (1998) Recent Developments in Soil Stabilization. Proceedings: 19th ARRB Conference, Sydney, Australia, Dec 1998. p121-135,
PERENCHIO, WF & P KLIEGER. (1976) Further Laboratory Studies of PortlandPozzolan Cements. Portland Cement Association, Research & Development Bulletin No. RD041.01T, 1976 PIKE, M. (1998) Performance of Local Roads by In-situ Stabilisation. p158-168, Proceedings: 19th ARRB Conference, Sydney, Australia, Dec 1998. QUEENSLAND TRANSPORT. (1990) Pavement Design Manual. Queensland Department of Transport, Australia, 1990. RAMANA MURTHY, V et al. (1995) Soil-Cement Mixes - a Critical Evaluation. Indian Highways Journal, p13-22. June 1995. RAMAWAMY S.D.R, M.A AZIZ, et al. (1984) Cement Stabilization of silty Clay Subgrades for Road Construction in Singapore. p413-420. Proceedings: Vol 1: 8th Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1984. ROGERS, C.D.F, S GLANDINNING & N DIXON. (1996) Lime Stabilisation. Proceedings of a seminar held at Loughborough University on 25 September 1996. Published by Thomas Telford, UK, 1996. SCAZZIGA, I.F. (1982) Dynamic Deflection Measurements: A Practical Tool for the Evaluation of Stabilized Bases after Construction. Int. Symposium on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway. Vol 2, p1050-1059, June 1982. SCHROEDER, R.L. (1994) The Use of Recycled Materials in Highway Construction. Roads and Transport Research, Vol. 3, no.4, p12-24, Australia, December 1994.
31
SHARO, KD (Editor). (1993) Fly Ash for Soil Improvement. Geotechnical Special Publication No.36, 1993. SHERWOOD, PT. (1992) Stabilized capping layers using either lime, or cement, or lime and cement. TRL Contractor Report No.151, Transport Research Laboratory, UK, 1992. SHERWOOD, PT. (1993) Soil Stabilisation with Cement and Lime. Transport Research Laboratory State of the Art Review. Published by HMSO, London, UK, 1993. SYMONS, M.G., D.C. POLI & RJ POTTER. (1996) Properties of Stabilised Soils in Recycled Pavements. 18th ARRB Conference, Christchurch, NZ. Part 2, p61-76. September 1996. TERREL, RL, EPPS,JA, et al. (1992) Soil Stabilisation in Pavement Structures - A User's Manual. Vol. 1: Pavement Design and Construction Considerations; and Vol. 2: Mixture Design. See Carpenter, 1992. TRB. (1987) Lime Stabilization: Reactions, Properties, Design and Construction. Transport Research Board State of the Art Report No.5, Washington DC, USA. 1987. TRL (T TOOLE). (1987) Introduction to Soil Stabilisation. Unpublished Information Note. Transport Research Laboratory, 1987. TRL. (1993) Overseas Road Note 31: A guide to the structural design of bitumensurfaced roads in tropical and sub-tropical countries. Transport Research Laboratory, UK, 1993. TRRL. (1978) A Guide to Concrete Road Construction. 3rd Edition. HMSO, London 1978. VUONG, B. (1992) Improving Specifications of Basecourse Materials Using a Mechanistic Approach. Proceedings 7th REAAA Conference, Singapore, June 1992. Vol. 2, p633-641, 1992. WALKER, M.J & R.P SLEEP. (1972) Specifications for Cement Stabilised Materials. The Journal of the Institution of Highway Engineers, p27-34, March 1972, WATSON, J. (1994) Highway Construction and Maintenance. 2nd Edition. Published by Longman Group, Harlow, Essex, 1994. WILLIAMS, R.I.T. (1972) Properties of Cement Stabilised Materials. The Journal of the Institution of Highway Engineers, p5-19, February 1972. WILMOT, T.D. (1994) Selection of Additives for Stabilisation and Recycling of Road Pavements. 17th ARRB Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland. Part 3, p35-49. August 1994. WOODSTROM, J.H. (1977) Improved Base Design for Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. p337-347, International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design, Purdue University, USA, 1977.
32

106 - Literature Review Stabilised Sub-Bases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

106 - Literature Review Stabilised Sub-Bases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literature Review Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

STABILISED SUB-BASES FOR HEAVILY TRAFFICKED ROADS

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Type of Stabilisation Cement Lime Lime-pozzolan Notes

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Cylinder - 115.5 mm x 105 mm diameter mm x 152 mm diameter

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Material category (in UK)

* Ref. 1: DETR, 1998: MCWH Series 1000,

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Table 5 Properties of cement (or lime) stabilised materials

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Note *ITS = Indirect Tensile Strength (COLTO, 1996)

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Table 7 Comparison of Pavements with Stabilised Sub-bases.

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

Literature Review: Stabilised Sub-Bases for Heavily Trafficked Roads

You might also like