Stabilization of Silty-Sand with Nontraditional Additives (TPD1211002)

Non-Traditional Stabilizers

• Acids
• Enzymes
• Lignofulfonates
• Polymers
• Petroleum Emulsions
• Tree Resin

Non-Traditional Stabilizers

• Cement
• Asphalt
• Lime

Table – Worldwide Soil Types

Graph – Particle Distribution Silty Sand (SM)

Chart – Experiment Design

Photographs – Specimen Preparation (Including SM Soil Preparation, Additive Preparation, Soil-Additive Mixing, Sample Molding, Sample Compaction and Sample Curing)

Photographs – Laboratory Test (Including Dry Test, Wet Test, UC Test)

Graph – Effect of Stabilizer Type on Unconfined Compressive Stress – 1

Graph – Effect of Stabilizer Type on Unconfined Compressive Stress – 2

Graph – Effect of Stabilizer Type on Unconfined Compressive Stress – 3

Effect of Wet and Dry Conditions

Disintegration

• Loss UC strength
• Alter cross section area

Waterproofing

• Prevent loss of fines
• Potential for dust control

Poor Performers

• Enzymes
• Acid 1
• Lignosulfonate 2

Excellent Performers

• Polymers
• Cement

Photographs – Effect of Wet and Dry Conditions

Graph – Effect of Additive Quantities on Unconfined Compressive Stress – 1

Graph – Effect of Additive Quantities on Unconfined Compressive Stress – 2

Graph – Effect of Curing Time on Unconfined Compressive Stress

Repeatability of tests

Samples

• Wet Condition – 3 samples
• Dry Condition – 3 samples

Variability

• Height – 2.54 to 5.08 mm
• Water Content – 0 to 0.5 %
• Dry Density – 0-19 kg/m3
• UC Strength – 0-110.3 kPa

CONCLUSIONS

• Polymers and cement excellent stabilizers
• Waterproofing potential
  • Petroleum Emulsion 1
  • Tree Resin 1
  • Lignosulfonate 1
  • Optimum additive quantity
    • Enzymes < 1
    • Lignosulfonates – 5%
    • Petroleum Emulsion – 2%
    • Polymers – 2.5 to 5%
    • Tree Resin – 9%
    • Nontraditional stabilizers gain strength quicker

Recommendations

• Evaluate long-term performance
• Conduct field condition and traffic loading
• Establish stabilization mechanisms