Road Construction Technical Notes

Ministry of Higher Education & Highways
Road Development Authority

Integrated Road Investment Program
Technical Notes - Volume 1

April 2018
Lime stabilisation practice

Cement stabilisation practice
Mechanical stabilisation – Blending method
Material specifications for low volume roads
Use of bottom ash for road construction
Contents
1. Lime stabilisation…………………………………………….………………............……..1
1.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………..1
1.2 The procedure of treatment …………………………………………..……………2
1.3 Soil suitability ………………............……………………………………………..…2
1.4 Lime reactivity …………………………………………………………….….3
1.5 Properties of lime stabilized soil ………………………………………………..3
1.5.1 Soil drying ………………………………………………………………………..3
1.5.2 Lime stabilisation ………………………………………………………………..3
1.6 Four major steps for mixture design and testing for lime stabilisation ………..3
1.7 Lime demand (LD) of soil and testing procedure ………………………………..4
1.7.1 Testing procedure ………………………………………………………………..4
1.7.2 Moisture content and percentage swell…………………………………………..6
1.7.3 CBR and percentage swell ………………………………………………..6
1.8 Construction ………………………………………………………………………..6
1.8.1 Spreading of lime ………………………………………………………..6
1.8.2 Mixing ………………………………………………………………………..7
1.8.3 Mellowing period ………………………………………………………..7
1.8.4 Time limitations ………………………………………………………..7
1.8.5 Compaction ………………………………………………………………..7
1.9 Field control testing ………………………………………………………………..8
1.10 Opening to traffic ……………………………………………………………..…8
1.11 References ………………………………………………………………………..9
2. Cement stabilisation practice ………………………………………………………10

2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………10
2.2 Background ………………………………………………………………………10
2.3 Pozzolans ………………………………………………………………………11
2.4 Sampling ………………………………………………………………………11
2.5 Laboratory Testing ………………………………………………………………11
2.6 Classification ………………………………………………………………………11
2.7 UCS test analysis ……………………………………………………………....12
Technical Notes, Integrated Road Investment Program, April 2018

2.8 Property limit for cement stabilization ……………………………………....13
2.9 Plant for spreading ………………………………………………………………14
2.10 Stabilisation (Mixing) …………………………………………………………..…..14
2.11 Addition of water ……………………………………………………..………..14
2.12 Time limitations ………………………………………………………………14
2.13 Compaction ……………………………………………………………..………..14
2.14 Curing condition ………………………………………………………………15
2.15 Application ………………………………………………………………………15
2.15.1 Sub grade …………………………………………………..……....…..15
2.15.2 Selected Subgrade/ Capping layer ………..……………………………..15
2.15.3 Base course ………………………………………………………………15
2.16 Protection and maintenance before sealing ………………………………………16
2.17 Quality control measures ………………………………………………..……..16
2.18 References ………………………………………………………………………16
3. Mechanical Stabilisation – Blending Method ………………………………..……..17

3.1 Back ground …………….…………………………………………………...……17
3.2 Mission ………………………………………………………………...…….17
3.3 Approach …………………………………………………………...………….18
3.4 Determination of mixing proportions for samples A,B …………………..…..18
3.5 The procedure for determination of mix proportion for three samples …...….20
3.6 Field mixing ………………………………………………………………………21
3.7 Concluding remarks ……………………………………………...……………….22
4. Material specifications for low volume roads …………………………………..…..24

4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………...….24
4.2 Purpose …………………………………………………………………..…..24
4.3 Typical cross section ………………………………………………………………24
4.4 Sub grade ……………………………………………………...……………….24
4.4.1 Capping layer or selected subgrade ………………………………..……..25
4.4.2 Poor subgrade ………………………………………………………...…….25
4.4.3 Stabilised subgrade ………………………………………………………25

4.5 Subbase ………………………………………………………………………26
4.5.1 Use of sand ………………………………………………..……………..27
4.5.2 Subgrade ……………………………………………..………………..27
4.5.3 Subbase ……………………………………………...……………….27
4.6 Embankment material …………………………………………………………...….28
4.6.1 Zoned embankment …………………………………………………..…..28
4.6.2 Homogeneous embankment ………………………………..……………..29
4.6.3 Sub grade in cuttings ………………………………………………………29
4.7 Shoulder material ………………………………………………………………29
4.7.1. Emmerson class ………………………………………………………30
4.7.2 Shoulder protection …………………………………………..…………..30
4.8 Quality control/ quality assurance testing ………………………………………30
4.8.1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test ……………………………....30
4.8.2 Light weight falling deflectometer (LWFD) test …………………..…..31
4.8.3 Field density test – Sand cone method (ASTM D-1556) ……………....31
4.8.4 Non – nuclear density test …………………………………...………….31
4.9 References …………………………………………………………....…………31
4.10 Annexures ………………………………………………………………...…….31
5. Use of bottom ash for road construction ……………………………………...……….32

5.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………32
5.2 Properties of bottom ash ………………………………………………………32
5.2.1 Specific gravity ………………………………………………...…….32
5.2.2 Piratical size distribution …............…………………………...……….33
5.2.3 Chemical composition …………………………………………...….34
5.2.4 Environmental considerations………………………………………………35
5.2.5 California bearing ratio ……………………………...……………….35
5.2.6 Compaction characteristics …………………………………………...….35
5.3 Use Bottom ash in the construction road embankment ……………...……….36
5.3.1 Zoned embankment configuration using bottom ash ………………………37
5.3.2 Embankment construction …………………………………………..…..38
5.3.3 Material property …………………………………………………...….38

5.3.4 Synthetic geomembrane ………………………………………………39
5.3.5 Placement of bottom ash ……………………………………...……….39
5.3.6 Compaction ………………………………………………………………39
5.3.7 Light weight falling deflectometer (LWFD) tests ………………...…….39
5.3.8 Dynamic cone penetrometer tests ………………………………………39
5.3.9 Stability assessment ………………………………………………………39
5.3.9.1 Method of Analysis ……………………………...……………….39
5.3.9.2 Parameters …………………………………………………...….40
5.3.9.3 Results of the stability analysis ………………………………40
5.3.10 Bottom ash stabilised marginal material for embankment construction 41
5.3.11 Embankment in low lying areas ………………………………..……..42
6. Use of bottom ash soil mixture for selected sub grade (capping layers) ..……………..42
6.1 Properties of stabilised bottom ash ………………………………………………42
6.1.1 Strength gain ………………………………………………………..……..42
6.1.2 Plasticity ………………………………………………...…………….44
7. Quality control ………………………………………………………………………45
8. References ………………………………………………………………...…………….45

Technical Note TN01
April 2018
Lime stabilization practice

1. Lime stabilisation
1.1 Introduction
Lime stabilization of clay subgrade to form a capping layer (prepared sub base / base) was first
introduced into a General Specification of Road Development Authority (RDA) in 1989. It has
been used as trials on many road projects since this date and is particularly beneficial in road
construction on weak ground. It enables full use all materials from within the site and minimises
tipping and material source from far distance.
The stabilisation of clay subgrades using lime has a long and successful history in many urban
and rural regions of other countries, and is cost effective and a necessary requirement for local
councils State Road Authorities seeking long-life roads to minimise future maintenance costs.
In situ stabilisation is normally adopted to improve the strength and durability of pavements
and reduce the moisture sensitivity of poor quality materials.
Cohesive soils are generally treated successfully with quick/hydrated lime to produce capping
layer that complies with the Standard Specification for roads with clay sub graded. This results
in:
• improve stiffness of sub grade or the rehabilitation of existing roads,

• reduce the PI of in subgrade material,
• improve stability for the upper ,
• modify subbase layers to improve stiffness of the pavement, and
• form a temporary construction platform for earth works
Capping/sub base or improved sub grade is a high strength and stiffness material used on weak
fills and poor subgrades. It acts as a working platform during the construction of the pavement
and as a structural layer in the long term.
The minimum strength requirement for capping (lower sub base/improved sub grade) is a
laboratory soaked California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 15% after 4 days soaking at 95% MDD
(modified). For road pavements the thickness of capping is detailed in ICTAD Publication No:
SCA/5 and is directly related to the subgrade CBR. This specification allows for separate
capping and subbase layers composed entirely of subbase material.
The material type and condition of the existing material for treatment will govern the
application rate and construction practices. In order to understand the properties of lime and
its reaction with materials, this technical note aims to highlight:
• reaction of lime,
• types of lime,
1
Lime Stabilisation Practice – TN 01, Integrated Road Investment Program, April 2018
• Lime demand (saturation pint)
• determination of rate of application,
• mixing operations
1.2 The procedure of treatment

The addition of quicklime (Calcium Oxide) to any soil causes a reduction in moisture content
as water is used in the hydration of the lime. This will be enough to produce an improvement
in the engineering properties of the soil.
Hydrated lime in the presence of water sets up an alkaline environment (pH>7) in which the
lime will react with any Pozzolans, materials containing reactive silica and alumina.
The reactions occur immediately the quicklime is dispersed into the soil. Stiff clays will lose
plasticity and become more friable due to the change in soil properties. The treated soil may
need mixing more than once to achieve the better results. This reaction alters the material
enhancing geotechnical properties. Compaction characteristics, moisture condition value,
plastic limit and bearing capacity are all changed significantly in this reaction.
The calcium oxide component of quicklime reacts with water to produce hydrated lime
(calcium hydroxide) as well as liberating heat.
The equation below shows the hydration process of lime and it requires 320 liters of water to
hydrate one tonne of CaO.
CaO + H20 Ca(OH)2 + heat
Hydrated lime and quicklime are used directly in soil stabilisation works. Quicklime is used
extensively for subgrade stabilisation in heavy clays.
Quicklime is chemically change to hydrated lime by the addition of water at site. In this process
the quicklime causes an exothermic reaction generating heat and steam.
1.3 Soil suitability

The properties of the soil will govern the properties of the lime stabilised layer. As quicklime
combines with the clay minerals in the clay it is essential to ensure that sufficient of these are
present to develop the required strength. Generally, the greater the plasticity of the clay, the
more clay minerals are present and a minimum Plasticity Index of 10 is specified for
stabilization requirement. If insufficient clay (PI <10) is present to develop the required
strength then cement may be added.
Organic materials have an unfavorable effect on the stabilisation process and require higher
additions of lime for satisfactory results. An upper limit of 2% is a general acceptable guide
but the type is more important than the amount present.
Generally material that are not suitable for lime stabilisation are likely to be non-reactive such
as:
2
• material with high silt content (ML, MH, OH)
• material with plasticity Index (PI) < 10
1.4 Lime reactivity

Factors which can affect the hydration of quicklime are there particle density, particle size
distribution and amount of impurities.
Concentrations of sulphate ions and organic impurities may prevent the reaction of lime with
the clay minerals. The current limit for the application of lime stabilisation of soils with
sulphate ions is < 0.3%.
1.5 Properties of lime stabilized soil

The following are three major effects when lime added into soil for stabilisation.
1.5.1 Soil drying

Soil drying is a rapid decrease in soil moisture content due to the chemical reaction between
water and quicklime and the addition of dry material into a moist soil.
1.5.2 Lime stabilisation

Lime stabilization occurs in soils containing a suitable amount of clay and the proper
mineralogy to produce long-term strength, reduction in soil plasticity significantly, increase in
optimum moisture content, decrease in maximum dry density, improved compactability and
reduction of the soil’s capacity to swell and shrink after compaction. Significant increase of
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) with the
addition of lime. Potential increases of CBR from 3 to 20 with lime and further increase to
CBR 50 with a following treatment of cement.
Lime stabilised layer forms an impermeable barrier by hindering penetration of moisture from
above and below. The layer becomes a working platform allowing construction to proceed
unaffected by weather. An additional treatment with cement for long-term waterproofing
barrier unless the stabilised layer is protected by another pavement layer as quickly as possible.
These effects generally take place within a short time period after the lime is introduced –
typically 1 to 72 hours – and are more pronounced in soils with sizable clay content.
In general, lime stabilization occurs over a longer time period of “curing”. The effects of lime
stabilization are typically measured after 28 days.
1.6 Four major steps for mixture design and testing for lime stabilisation
• General understanding of its suitability for lime stabilization.
• Determine minimum amount of lime required for stabilization (Lime demand).
• Evaluate lime-stabilised soil strength for long term durability within its
exposure environment, with special attention to periods of extended soaking.
• If soils to be stabilized are expansive, evaluate using capillary soaking and
expansion measurements.
• Farm Tractors attached with harrow or similar machine.
3
1.7 Lime demand (LD) of soil and testing procedure
The following procedure describes the minimum lime requirements for soil stabilisation. The
soil react with lime (Calcium Hydroxide) through cationic exchange and pozzolanic reaction
with reactive clay minerals.
The aim of the lime demand test is to identify the quantity of lime to satisfy cation exchange
by reaching a specific pH level (ie alkaline level of 12.4) to produce long-term reaction.
When lime mix with soil the reaction is two-fold. Initially, soil pulverization takes place
braking fine clay particle into coarse, friable particles. Secondly, the lime increase the pH of
soil mix above 12, where pozzolanic reaction initiate with clay minerals forming calcium
silicates and aluminates.
1.7.1 Testing procedure
Step 1 - Initial evaluation

1. Asses soil characteristics to determine the suitability of lime stabilization.
2. Determine the amount of soil passing the 75 micron (75-μm) screen and wet method to
determine the soil plasticity index (PI) - ASTM C 316.
Generally, soil with at least 25% passing a .075 mm sieve and having a PI > 10 or equal are
suitable for lime stabilization.
Generally, lime is not an effective stabiliser for all soils. Some soil components such as sulfates,
phosphates, organics, and so forth can adversely affect soil-lime reactions and may produce
erroneous results using this test method.
Allowable limits of mineral content of soil are given below.
• Sulfate content (water soluble) < 0.3%

• Organic content < 1%  
• Ferric oxide < 2%.
Step 2 - Lime demand – minimum lime content

1. Determine the optimum soil-lime proportion for soil stabilization (ASTM D 627).
2. Soil lime mix that produces a laboratory pH of 12.4 (flat section of the pH vs. lime
percentage curve) is the minimum lime percentage required to satisfy cation exchange
to produce long-term reaction.
3. Plot the average pH against its hydrated lime content and join each point. Next, draw a
line parallel to the X axis corresponding to the pH for hydrated lime. Record the lowest
hydrated lime content (HLC) where the pH just reaches a stable peak value, that is, a
plateau where the pH values do not vary by more than 0.05 pH units over three
successive soil-lime mixtures (Figure 1).
4
13
12
11
pH
10
8
LD
7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Lime percentage
Figure 1: Lime demand curve.
Step 3 - Determine optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry

density (MDD) of the lime-treated soil
1. Make a mixture of soil, lime, and water at the minimum percentage of lime as
determined from Step 2, using a water content of OMC + 2-3%. Seal the mixture in an
airtight, moisture proof bag stored at room temperature for 18-24 hours to mellow. This
is necessary because adding lime will change the soil’s OMC and MDD.
2. Determine the optimum moisture content (OMC) and Maximum dry density (MDD)
(ICTAD Publication SCA/5) - heavy compaction effort).
Step 4 – Preparation of california bearing ratio (CBR) specimens

1. Prepare specimens for CBR testing (Step 6).
2. Prepare a minimum of two test specimens of lime, soil and water using the amount
(percentage) of lime determined from Step 2 at the OMC (± 1%) as determined from
Step 3.
3. Suggested lime content for CBR testing shall be commenced from the following mix
design range based on Lime Demand (LD) test.
• Sample 1 : with 0% lime

• Sample 2 : LD - 2%
• Sample 3 : LD
• Sample 4 : LD + 2%
• Sample 5 : LD +4%
4. The soil lime-water mixture should be stored in an airtight, waterproof bag for 18-24
hours prior to making the test specimens.
5
Step 5 - Cure and condition the california bearing ratio (CBR)
specimens
1. Moist cure the specimens for 24 days in mould and 4 days immersed water curing in
mould. Take the initial reading for swell marking the reference point on top of the
sample.
2. Take the final reading for swell from the gauge after completion of 4 days soaked.
3. Remove the mould from the water bath and tilt to remove excess water, then keep it
vertical position for at least for 15minutes for further draining.
Step 6 - Determine the california bearing ratio (CBR)

Purpose: To determine the CBR for lime-stabilized soil to ensure adequate field performance
an extended soaking environment.
Procedure: Use BS 1337 Part 4 -1990 or ASTM –D 1883 to determine the CBR of the cured
and moisture conditioned specimens.
Criteria: The minimum desired CBR depends on the intended use of the soil, the amount of
cover material over the stabilised soil, exposure to soaking conditions.
1.7.2 Moisture content and percentage swell

After completion of CBR testing, extrude the sample from the mould and determine the
moisture content of each sample.
1.7.3 CBR and percentage swell

CBR and percent swell for each sample for 4 days soaked in water after completion of 24 days
air curing shall be required. Swell of each sample to the nearest 0.1% shall be recorded.
1.8 Construction
The subgrade shall be scarified to the specified depth and width and then partially pulverized.
Remove all non-soil materials larger than 3 inches, such as stumps, roots, turf, and aggregates.
A scarified or pulverized subgrade provides more soil surface contact area for the lime at the
time of lime application.
1.8.1 Spreading of lime

Hydrated lime shall be spread uniformly over the prepared surface to enable proper mixing
and distribution within depth of layer to be treated. Uniform spreading can be done manually
by placing lime bags at predetermined spacing and raking them over the entire area of
treatment.
At the time of spreading, hydrated lime shall comply with the grading requirements specified
below.
6
Sieve Size (mm) Test Value (% passing)
4.75 100
0.600 95 -100
0.075 85 -100
The Contractor shall visually observe uniformity of spreading of lime over area to be treated.
1.8.2 Mixing
Adequate pulverisation and mixing are required to achieve satisfactory results. Generally it
requires only one-pass mixing but high plastic soils require mixing with multiple pass. All lime
spread shall be mixed into the soil to a depth equal to the specified thickness of the stabilised
layer within 6 hours of spreading. The amount of lime content in the soil can be measured
either using Neutralisation of waste acid (ASTM C400-98) or Ethylenediaminetetra acid
(EDTA) titration method.
The moisture content shall be adjusted as necessary during the mixing process to maintain the
moisture ratio (before and after compaction) greater than 85% as determined by test using
modified compaction effort. The moisture content of the material can be varied significantly
during sampling and testing.
1.8.3 Mellowing period

The lime-soil mixture should mellow sufficiently to allow the chemical reaction to change
(break down clay particles) the material. Mellowing period is typically 72 hours to allow
sufficient time for clay lumps to react with lime. After mellowing, the soil should be remixed
before compaction.
1.8.4 Time limitations

Compaction shall commence within 2 hours and shall complete within 8 hours after completion
of mixing.
1.8.5 Compaction
Final mixing and pulverization shall be carried out until large particles breaks until at least 60
percent of non-stone material passes the 4.76mm sieve. Compaction should begin immediately
after final mixing.
The lime-soil mixture should be compacted to the density required by specification, typically
at least 95 percent of the maximum density (modified Proctor – BS 1377 Part 4 1990 or
AASHTO T 99-01). The density value should be based on the Proctor curve from a
representative field sample of the lime-soil mixture. Density testing shall be carried out within
12 hours after completion compaction.
Additional water may be required during final mixing (prior to compaction) to increase the
moisture content up to 3 percent above optimum moisture content (OMC) of the treated
material.
Before placing the next layer of subbase (or capping), the compacted subgrade (or subbase)
should be allowed to harden until loaded dump trucks can operate without rutting the surface.
During this time, the surface of the lime treated soil should be kept moist to gain strength.
7
Compaction requirements of different layer of lime-soil mixture are listed below.
• Lower layers of embankment - 93 % percent, modified proctor compaction

• Upper layers of embankment - 95 % percent, modified proctor compaction
• Sub base layer – 98 % percent, modified proctor compaction
• Shoulder – 95 % percent, modified proctor compaction
• Capping layer (selected sub grade) - 95 % percent, modified proctor compaction
1.8.6 Curing
Compacted surface should be allowed for hardening until loaded dump trucks can operate
without rutting the surface. During this time, the surface of the lime treated soil should be kept
moist for strength gain. Generally, 14 days curing period in the field is sufficient to achieve
required strength gain based on past research studies.
Curing can be done in two ways:

(a) moist curing - maintaining the surface in a moist condition by light sprinkling and light
rolling when necessary, and
(b) membrane curing - compacted layer with a bituminous prime coat emulsion, either in one
or multiple applications .
1.9 Field control testing

Field control testing shall be carried out for quality control measures to ensure that particular
design parameters such as lime content, CBR and degree of compaction are achieved.
Test Method
EDTA titration method
Sand replacement method
ASTM D 5102
Table 1: Test methods used for quality control measures
1.10 Opening to traffic:
There is not much research work has been carried out to determine the precise effects of opening a road
to traffic before completion of curing period. Early trafficking can cause pre cracking of the stabilised
layer. Layers which are pre cracked or trafficked early shall be allowed to gain an adequate strength at
the edges of each crack before open for construction traffic.
8
1.11 References
1. BS1924: Part 2: 1990. Stabilised materials for civil engineering purposes. Part 2.
Methods of test for cement-stabilised and lime-stabilised materials. BSI Chiswick,
London.
2. British Lime Association. Earthworks Improvement using Lime. BLA Technical Data
Sheet No 1. Quarry Products Association, London
3. Australian Standard (AS 4489.6.1, 1997) - Test methods for limes and limestones
4. Shahriar Shahrokh Abadi, Armin Yekkalam, Mohammad Bagher,i Kaffash Rafsanjani

- Determining Compaction and Water Content Ratio of Compacted Soil Using Hilf
Rapid Method, The 4th International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering and Soil
Mechanics, November 2-3, 2010, Tehran, Iran.
5. National Lime Association – Lime – Treated Soil Construction Manua, Lime

Stabilization & Lime Modificatio, January 2004.
6. DTMR - Testing of Materials for Lime Stabilisation, January 2017.
7. AustStab - Lime stabilisation practice, January 2008.
8. VicRoads –Section 290 – Lime Stabilisation of Earthworks Materials, December 2008.
9
Technical Note TN02
April 2018
Cement stabilisation practice

2. Cement stabilisation practice
2.1 Introduction
Cement stabilization has been used in Sri Lanka for many years. This practice was introduced
into Road Development Authority Standard specification in 1989. It has been used on many
road projects since then on trial basis.
Cement stabilization is primarily used to increase the bearing capacity of soil while the
moisture content will reduce due to hydration of the cement.
The stabilisation of weak granular subgrades and sub base material using cement has a long
and successful history in some areas of Sri Lanka, and is cost effective and a necessary
requirement for i Road program seeking long-life roads to minimize future maintenance costs.
Granular soils can be treated successfully with cement to produce sub base or capping layer
that complies with the Standard Specification for roads improving following properties.
• Strengthening of existing pavements.

• Improving low quality pavement material to make suitable for subbase or base.
• Reduce thickness of base to achieve required design strength.
• Drying out wet pavements.
This technical note is prepared to address a mix design procedure for the design of optimum
cement blend content for soil stabilisation. This note also provide guidelines, design criteria
and test procedures for characterizing the host soil and measuring the properties of the cement
treated material.
2.2 Background
Generally, cement is added road pavement materials or mix with weak sub grade to change its
properties. Generally the aim is to provide a modified material with a target unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) or California Bearing Ratio CBR) depending on payment layer
and to avoid making the material too stiff and susceptible to fatigue cracking.
The required strength of a layer stabilised in the pavement depends on the traffic volume. The
stabilised layer should be adequately strong enough to withstand the stresses induce from the
traffic load to avoid cracking. The strength required for each stabilised layer as per AustStab
technical note 5 is shown in Table 1.
16
Cement Stabilisation Practice – TN 02, Integrated Road Investment Program, April 2018
Material Type Layer Thickness (mm) Design UCS (MPa) Modulus (MPa)
Heavily bound > 250 >2 2000-20000
Lightly Bound < 250 1–2* 1500-2000
Modified - <1 < 1500
* 7 day strength Table 1: Properties of cement stabilised layer (Road note 31)
• Modified materials: Flexible layer. Small amounts of cement are used. Materials may
be classified as an unbound granular material for pavement design.
• Lightly bound materials: Improved stiffness and tensile strength. Negligible cracking.
• Heavily bound materials: Enhanced stiffness and tensile strength. Fatigue and
shrinkage cracking.
2.3 Pozzolans
Portland cement is manufactured as a homogeneous product by grinding together Portland
cement clinker and calcium sulphate, and which, at the choice of the manufacturer, may contain
up to 7.5% of mineral additions.
The cement hydrates in the presence of water to form hydrated silicates and aluminates and
calcium hydroxide. A pozzolan is a siliceous or alumino siliceous material in finely divided
form. Chemical reaction will take place in ordinary room temperature with calcium hydroxide
released by the hydration of cement to form cementitious product.
2.4 Sampling
In order to identify material types and changes within any material, bulk samples of 10 – 50 kg
will be required, depending on the maximum particle size of the material.
Unified Soils Classification System (USCS) system shall be used to identify the soil types.
2.5 Laboratory testing

Laboratory testing carried out on materials to be stabilised should include:
• Particle Size Distribution (PSD) and Plasticity Index (PI) of the material to be
stabilised; and
• Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Testing.
As an alternative, the strength of stabilized material shall be measured by CBR test after 7 days
of moisture curing and 7 days of soaking. Material with poor PSD or is susceptible to break
down during mixing and compaction, require prior stabilisation mixing with suitable material
to improve the PSD and achieve the required strength. Improving the PSD usually results in a
reduced amount of cementitious additive to achieve the required strength hence there is less
potential for subsequent shrinkage cracking.
2.6 Classification
Initially, classification tests including particle size distribution and Atterberg limits should be
carried out for material to be stabilised.
16
Generally, materials that are not suitable for stabilisation are:
• poorly graded materials.
• materials with a plasticity index (PI) > 10.0 where more than 25% passing the 0.075
mm sieve.
• materials where less than 25% passing the 0.075 mm sieve may be suitable with a
plasticity index higher (PI) than 10.0.
The following limits may be applied for material to be stabilised:
Chemical Limit
Sulfate Content (water soluble) < 0.3%
Organic Content* < 1.0%
Ferrous Oxide (FeO)* < 2.0%
Note*: The limit shown is a guide
Table 2: Deleterious materials limits.
2.7 UCS test analysis

The UCS test is required to determine the optimum cement content for stabilisation.
Three specimen are to be undertaken at a range of cement contents usually commencing with
1% cement. Suggested cement contents (%) for a target strength of 1.5 MPa are: 0.5, 1.0, 1.5
and 2.0. The strength of all compacted soil is greatly influenced by compacted density.
The cement/soil mixture is allowed to condition in an air-tight container for 45 minutes before
further mixing and compaction. A standard curing regime comprising moist curing for 7 days
and soaked for 7 days in accordance with BS 1924. All specimens are to be tested using the
standard UCS test, long term immersion testing is not usually undertaken for cement stabilised
specimens.
Plot the UCS data versus cement content and determine the cement content corresponding to a
target strength (MPa). As an example, in Figure 1 the cement content corresponding with the
target strength of 1.5 MPa would be the optimum cement content of 1.65%.
Cement percentage Vs UCS

2
1.75
1.5
1.25
UCS (MPa)
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Cement content %
Figure 1: Cement content vs UCS
16
2.8 Property limit for cement stabilization
Materials, which have a low volume of voids when compacted, will usually require the addition
of relatively small amounts of cement compared to poorly-graded high void content material.
The selection of the stabilizer, either lime or cement is based on the plasticity and particle size
distribution of the material to be treated. The appropriate stabiliser can be selected according
to the criteria shown in Table 3 adapted from NAASRA (1986).
Type of More than 25% passing 0.075 sieve Less than 25% passing 0.075 sieve
stabiliser PI < 10 10< PI <20 PI > 20 PI < 6 PI < 10 PI > 10
Cement Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes
Lime Yes Yes No Yes
Table 3: Guide to cement stabilisation
Material to be stabilised should be within the gradation envelope given in Figure 2. Stabilised
layers constructed using material within this range are more likely to perform satisfactory
results. Materials which do not comply with Figure 2 can sometimes be stabilised but more
additive will be required and the cost and the risk from cracking and carbonation will increase.
Desireble boundary of material before stabilisation

100
90
80
Percentage passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size (mm)
Figure 2: Gradation envelope for material to be stabilized
Sugars and reactive organic compounds can retard the hydration process and prevent the
hardening of the binder. In some circumstances, soluble sulphates can also destruct the
stabilisation process.
16
Material Property Limit
Liquid Limit (%) < 40
Plasticity Index (%) < 20
Table 4: Material property limit for cement stabilization.
2.9 Plant for spreading

The equipment shall be capable of spreading cement efficiently for different road widths.
Where the cement is applied directly to the surface of the road before stabilising, the spreader
unit shall be a purpose-built calibrated belt or pneumatic rotor spreader incorporating
adjustable spreader curtains.
2.10 Stabilisation (Mixing)

It is important to distribute cement throughout the full design depth of the material. It is usual
to increase the laboratory determined cement content (usually by 0.5%) to allow for waste or
mixing inefficiently.
For field mixing, two passes of the cement stabiliser are required to produce optimum mixing
results. Additional passes of the stabiliser may produce excess fines and be deleterious to the
stabilisation process.
Pre-conditioning with small amounts of hydrated lime or quicklime often benefits the break-
down of plastic clay soils.
2.11 Addition of water

Sufficient water shall be added during the stabilising process. Special care shall be taken to
prevent any portion of the work from excessive wetting.
The water content during compaction shall be in the range of 90% to 100% of the material’s
optimum water content.
2.12 Time limitations

Allowable time period (maximum), from mixing of the materials with cement to primary
compaction of the stabilised layer shall be less than 2 hours.
2.13 Compaction
Adequate compaction is required to obtain the targeted strength. Target optimum moisture
content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) shall be determined for each layer to be
stabilised.
The cement-soil mixture should be compacted to density requirement listed below.
• Lower layers of embankment - 93 % percent, modified proctor compaction.

• Upper layers of embankment - 95 % percent, modified proctor compaction.
• Sub base layer – 98 % percent, modified proctor compaction.
• Shoulder – 95 % percent, modified proctor compaction.
• Capping layer (selected sub grade) - 95 % percent, modified proctor compaction.
16
Delays in compaction, after the addition of cement and water will result in reduced densities
and subsequent reduced strengths.
2.14 Curing condition

It is recommend to cover the areas treated to prevent the stabilised materials from drying out
before completion of the hydration reactions.
If this is not practical, then the surface must be kept damp for up to seven days by frequent
surface wetting. It is important not to over water the stabilised layers to avoid leaching.
There are two principal forms of cracking in cement stabilised materials:

• shrinkage cracking from hydration and drying, and
• fatigue cracking.
Cracking of stabilised surface can be controlled by:

• the use of slow setting binders
• reducing the amount of cementitious material
• proper compaction, and
• a proper curing regime.
2.15 Application
2.15.1 Sub grade

Subgrade stabilisation is usually carried out to:
• Improve subgrade strength - possible reduction of the overlying pavement thickness.

• Provide a working platform for construction equipment.
• Provide a water-resistant subbase for permeable or jointed pavements.
For more plastic clay subgrades, hydrated lime or quicklime will be more suitable than cement
stabilisation.
2.15.2 Selected sub grade / capping layer

Subbase and Capping are a high strength and stiffness material used on weak fills or poor
subgrades. It acts as a working platform during the construction of the pavement and as a
structural layer in the long term. It can be created by treating low cost imported material, if the
pavement levels are low, and from in situ soils if the levels are high.
The minimum strength requirement for capping is a laboratory soaked California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) of 15% after 7 days curing. For road pavements the thickness of capping is detailed in
ICTAD Publication No: SCA/5 and is directly related to the subgrade CBR. This specification
allows for separate capping and selected subgrade layers composed entirely of subbase
material.
2.15.3 Base course

Cement stabilised base course can be recognized as a potentially cost effective solution for
rural road construction.
16
Cement treatment base course can be used to:
• upgrade a marginal base course material to comply with the specification
• improve low cohesion base materials that deform., and
• reduce moisture sensitivity lowering Plasticity Index (PI) and Linear Shrinkage (LS).
• Flood ways and other moisture sensitive structures
2.16 Protection and maintenance before sealing

The Contractor shall protect and maintain the completed stabilised layer until the next layer or
surfacing is applied. In addition to the curing of the stabilised layer by frequent light watering,
maintenance shall include the immediate repair of any damage to or defects in the layer, and
shall be repeated as often as it is necessary.
2.17 Quality control measures

Full time quality control measures are required during the stabilisation process. This include
the verification of cement content, adequate moisture and density testing and minimal sand
cones, proper compaction and mixing techniques, and timely mixing and placement of soils.
After a period of 7 days, coring of the stabilised soil layer shall be tried for laboratory testing.
If quality specimens is difficult, acceptance should be based on density results and other
observed stability of the roadway.
2.18 References:
1. Y.S. Yeo and H. Nikraz – Cement Stabilisation of Road Base Course: A Chronological
Development in Western Australia.
2. Issmge – TC 211, Soil Cement Stabilization - Mix Design, Control and Results during
Construction - International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31
May & 1 June 2012.
3. DTMR - Testing of Materials for Cement or Cementitious Blend Stabilisation, January

2017.
4. Auststab - Cement Stabilisation Practice, March 2012.
16
Technical Note TN
January 2018
03
Mechanical stabilisation – blending method
3. Mechanical stabilisation – blending method

3.1 Back ground
The I Road Project, commenced in 2015 envisage improvement, rehabilitation and
maintenance of approx. 8000 km Island wide, mainly Rural Roads. Work on 3000 Km of Rural
Roads has already commenced covering Southern, Sabaragamuwa,Central,North Central,
North Western Provinces and Kalutara district in Western Province.
This is only one major project among other ongoing projects of the RDA such as Southern
Highway extension from Matara to Hambantota(96km) and Central Expressway project
(approx 100Km), other donor funded Projects amounting to many hundred Billion Rupees. One
of the major obstacles in implementation is the difficulty in sourcing earth material satisfying
specification requirement. Sometimes it is required to haul these materials over very long
distances making it very uneconomical while causing other adverse environmental and social
effects.
Since 2005 many major road improvement programmes have been implemented, covering the
whole Island, mainly A and B class Roads but an equal length of minor roads too have been
improved simultaneously. This programme required mining of millions of cubic meters of
naturally occurring soil material satisfying specification requirements. During the course of
time prevalent laws and procedures have been tightened aiming protection of environment.
Present Road work projects and some other Engineering Projects such as water and sewer
laying projects find it is almost impossible to source naturally occurring earth materials which
satisfy specification requirement for Roads, subbases and embankment construction.
This has caused inevitable delay in completion of Projects and also cost overrun. The Road
Development Authority and the funding agencies are equally concerned about this situation
and to find suitable solutions.
This Technical Note is to provide a solution to the problem which considered most appropriate
as the next step towards effective, environmentally friendly within shortest possible time for
implementation which is blending two or three easily available soils in predetermined
proportions to satisfy specification requirement like gradation, PI,LL,CBR.
3.2 Mission :
To make use of all excavated materials of embankment cutting, drains, culverts and bridge
foundation excavations as construction materials, which are usually disposed of without any
investigation, blending those materials with soils closely available for mining is necessary. This
will help to improve exiting subbase quality and meet specification requirement which
Mechanical Stabilisation – Belding Method – TN 03, Integrated Road Investment Program, April 2018 23
• Economizes the use of soil material
• Minimizes harm to the environment
• Minimizes transport cost
3.3 Approach
a) We have been fortunate to mine naturally occurring soils satisfying Engineering
specifications but it is no more practicable. Hence investigation of available soil
characteristics and blending them in a predetermined proportion to achieve
resultant mix satisfying the specifications is a way forward.
b) It has been found when soil gradation is complying with specification requirement
generally PL,PI and CBR requirement follow the specifications. Hence it is
recommended to conduct sieve analysis of available material, giving priority to
cut/excavated material from the site or vicinity of the site. This will enable
Materials Engineer to decide which particle size range is deficient for satisfying
the specification requirement. This is best achieved by plotting the specification
grading band and particular soil sample (A) side by side.
c) The next exercise is to find a suitable soil source from fresh material surveys or
available material data bases (Including sand or crushed rock material) which
dominate the missing particle size range (B). This is not trial and error altogether.
The Materials Engineer knowing the deficient particle size range in the main soil
source, aim in finding a soil source rich in the missing particle size range (Sandy,
Silty, clayey Etc.) After finding such soil source its soil gradation is also plotted in
the same sheet as desirable gradation, and the sample A.
d) Next task is to find the mix proportion to achieve the desired gradation satisfying
the specification requirement, followed by other tests like LL, PI, CBR as
appropriate for the resultant soil mix. We would be lucky if we can get the right
blend with two soil samples suitably selected. If not a third soil source
supplementing the sample A and B to satisfy specification requirement is to be
found (C).
e) The procedure for determining the mix proportions for two sources (A, B) and three
sources(A,B,C) are described separately. Both graphical and numerical methods
are explained
3.4 Determination of mixing proportions for samples A, B;

The method of determining mix proportion is directly abstracted from the following reference
and appended below.
Military Soil Engineering Field Manual

Department of Army
Washington DC-1997
Chapter -9 Soil Stabilization for Roads and Air fields
3.5 The procedure for determination of mix proportion for three samples.
Graphical Method
The method is directly abstracted from the book –Soil Mechanics for Road Engineers, Road
Research Laboratory, DSIR London- 1952 reprinted 1961 Chapter 11 , Page 220-231. And
appended below.
Figure II
(l) The required size distribution is represented by the diagonal 00' of a rectangle (Fig.
II). The vertical ordinates of the rectangle are graduated for percentages from O to
100 on a linear scale. The horizontal scale for sieve aperture size is graduated by
drawing for each sieve size a vertical line that cuts the diagonal at a point where
the ordinate equals the percentage passing that sieve, i.e. 100 per cent for I in., 92
per cent for in., 82 per cent for in. and so on.
(2) The size distribution of the aggregates to be mixed (Table Il , columns 4, 5 and 6
are plotted on this scale of sieve size (Fig. Il ), giving the lines BAO' (crusher-run),
BFE (sand) and OG (silty clay).
(3) The nearest straight lines to these size distributions are drawn with the aid of a
transparent straight-edge, by the " minimum balanced areas " method described
above. They are the dotted lines CO', BD and OG (the last being coincident with
the actual size distribution).
(4) The opposite ends of these lines are joined, giving the chain lines CD and BG (in
this case, the latter coincides with the No. 200 B.S. sieve ordinate). The points
where these lines cross the required size-distribution line are marked by the circles
L and M. The proportions in which the three aggregates should be mixed are
obtained from the differences between the ordinates of these
The particle-size distribution that will result from mixing the aggregates in these proportions
is given in column 7 of Table Il . Although not identical with the required size distribution
(column 3), it is within the specified limits (column 2).
EXAMPLE OF ROTHFUCHS' METHOD FOR PROPORTIONING

MIXTURES OF AGGREGATE
MIXTURE FOR SURFACINGS
Table II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Percentage passing Mixture
Required size
37%A
distribution Aggregates available 45% B
(A) (B) (C) 18 % C
Crusher- Sand Silty
B.S. Limits Average clay
sieve
size
1 in. 100 100 95 98
3/4 in. 85 — 100 92 70 89
3/8in. 65 — 100 82 21
67
3/16in. 55 — 85 70 11
58
No. 7 40 — 70 55 100 43
No. 36 25 — 45 35 Trace 85 18
No. 10 — 25 18 55
200 Nil 100
Note: This reference should be considered as guidance only, in practice the correct sieve
sizes as per specification should be used.
3.6 Field mixing

In the field proportioning of different materials could be done using a plant or on a suitably flat
area with the use of an excavator or wheel loader.
In the field, if mix in - situ is adopted, the materials used in a mechanically stabilized soil
mixture probably will be proportioned by loose volume. Assume that a mixture incorporates
75 percent of the existing subgrade soil, while 25 percent will be brought in from a nearby
burrow source. The goal is to construct a layer that has a compacted thickness of 150mm. It is
estimated that a loose thickness of 200mm will be required to form the 150mm compacted
layer. A more exact relationship can be established in the field as construction proceeds, of the
200mm loose thickness, 75 percent (or 0.75(200) = 10mm) will be the existing soil, The
remainder of the mix will be mixed thoroughly to a depth of 8 inches using an agricultural
machines.
3.7 Concluding remarks.

Both the graphical and arithmetical methods have advantages and disadvantages. The
graphical method eliminates the need for precise blending under field conditions and the
methodology requires less effort to use, Its drawback becomes very complex when blending
more than two soils. The arithmetical method allows for more precise blending, such as mixing
at a batch plant, and it can be readily expanded to accommodate the blending of three or more
soils. It has the drawback that the precise blending is often unattainable under field conditions.
This reduces the quality assurance of the performance of the blended soil material.
1. It is required to carry out other complying tests to decide the conformity with the
specifications. However, an approximate value could be worked out as follows
taking the values in the sample A, and B used in the blending of two soil samples,
2. It is required to ensure thorough mixing before loading to trucks for

transportation.
3. Also it is required to ensure those soils are free of roots and foreign matter.
4. This re transportation could be beneficial in taking soil material in small tippers

or tractors on rural roads leading to the roads under improvement without
violating load restrictions.
Date of Issue : 1/11/2017
Authority to amend : Chairman/DG- RDA
Circulation : Internal
Initiated by : PD iRoad Project RDA
Version : V. 0.0
Technical Note
April 2018
TN04
Material specifications for low volume roads

4. Material specifications for low volume roads
4.1 Introduction
Rural farm-to-market access roads, roads connecting communities, and roads for are significant
parts of any transportation system in Sri Lanka. They are necessary to serve the public in rural
areas, to improve the flow of goods and services, to help promote development, public health
and education. Scarcity of material not meeting current speciation and refusal of material due
to slight deviation from the specs are severer issues in road construction industry.
The basic objective of this note is to revise the existing material specification maximising the
use of locally available material for road construction.
A low volume road is commonly defined as a road that has an average daily traffic <1000
4.2 Purpose
The aim of this technical note is to provide a basic set of quality requirements for the use of
locally available material sources for the road industry.
4.3 Typical cross section

Typical cross sections of current i Road program are given in Annexure 1. These sections are
taken from the standard drawing of i Road program.
4.4 Sub grade

It is usually necessary to add subgrade structural support or to improve the road bed native soil
surface with materials such as gravel, coarse rocky soil, crushed aggregate.
The subgrade for the full width of the roadbed shall be scarified to a depth of at least 150 mm,
and the scarified material brought to uniform moisture content either by drying or by adding
water.
The upper 150 mm of soil may be removed and replaced with suitable material, or removed
and manipulated with suitable equipment before replacing. The material shall be compacted to
produce a subgrade having a density not less than the density required and within the moisture
content specified.
A range of options can be considered to improve the structural capacity of the subgrade in areas
of soft soils or poor subgrades (CBR < 2).
These commonly include:
• Remove and replace with quality granular material or rock
• Stabilising with cementitious material such as lime, cement or bottom ash.
Material specification for low volume Roads – TN 04, Integrated Road Investment Program, April 2018 31
• Bridging with layer/s with geotextile.
• Placing and compaction of layers of gravel or crushed aggregates.
4.4.1 Capping layer or selected subgrade

When the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of subgrade is found below a 2 %, a capping layer
is normally provided to reduce the effect of weak subgrade on the structural performance of
the road.
It also provides a working platform for sub-base to be constructed on top in wet weather
condition because the compaction of wet subgrade is difficult on site.
Material specification for selected subgrade or capping layer shall be comply with the
following Table. Material selected for selected subgrade shall be naturally occurring material
or blended gravel and sand with no high plastic clays.
Property Value required

Liquid limit (LL) % < 40
Plasticity Index(PI) % < 15
Soaked CBR (4 days) % > 15
CBR at 95% MDD (Modified Compaction
Table 1: Plasticity and CBR requirement for capping layer or selected subgrade.
Plasticity Product (PP) is defined as the product of plasticity index (PI) and percentage of fines
less than BS No 200 sieves (i.e., % < 0.075mm).
PP = PI× (% < 0.075mm)
If Capping layer or selected sub grade material exhibits the plasticity product (PP) less than
300, soils up to PI, 20% can be used.
4.4.2 Poor subgrade

Sub grade with CBR less than 2 % require treatment with granular fill typically comprises a
well-graded coarse gravel, crushed rock or material comply with capping layer as specified
above. Materials with CBR less than 2% are unlikely to behave elastically under vehicle
loading.
The minimum thickness of treatment layer typically 400mm for sub grade CBR less than 1.5
and 300mm for CBR between 1.5 and 2 or to suit site condition.
In areas where rock fill is used for soft subgrade, a minimum 150mm cementitious stabilised
granular material shall be used to provide a stable platform for construction of the pavement.
Clay subgrade with water sensitivity and volume changes during wet and dry condition shall
be cement or lime treated to a maximum depth of 300mm or as required where the material to
be stabilised are suitable (iRoad /TN01 &02).
4.4.3 Stabilised subgrade

Subgrade material can stabilised when required. In situ or plant mix stabilisation should be
carried out using either lime or cement in accordance with the i Road Technical Note 1 and 2.
Lime and cement stabilsed subgrade shall achieve unconfined compressive strength (UCS) not
less than 1MPa and not greater than 2MPa at 28 days soaked. Parent material requirement for
stabilisation is given in Table 3.
Property Lime Cement

Plasticity Index (PI) >10 < 10
Percentage passing 0.075mm - < 25
Maximum aggregate size 75mm 75mm
Ferric oxide < 2% --
Soluble sulfate < 0.3% --
Table 2: Material requirement for stabilisation
4.5 Subbase
Sub base is a secondary load spreading layer in the pavement structure and also acts as a
working platform. This layer required an adequate bearing capacity to avoid excessive
movements and cracks on the road surface.
The material selected for subbase shall be naturally occurring material or stabilised soil with
cementitious binder such as lime, cement or bottom/fly ash. Method of stabilisation of marginal
subbase material with these ingredients are given in RDA Technical Notes 1, 2 and 3.
Required grading, plasticity characteristic, CBR strength and plasticity product (PP) of material
for subbase is given in Table 3 & 4.
Sieve Size Percentage Passing

(mm) (%)
50 100
37.5 80-100
20 60-100
5 30-100
1.18 17-75
0.3 9-50
0.075 5-25
Table 3: Grading requirement
Value
Property
required
Liquid limit (LL) % < 40
Plasticity Index(PI) % < 15
Soaked CBR* (4 days) % > 30
Plasticity Product (PP) < 300
Table 4: Material Characteristics for Sub base
* CBR at 98% MDD (modified compaction)
Plasticity Product (PP) is defined as the product of plasticity index (PI) and percentage of fines
less than BS No 200 sieve (i.e., % < 0.075mm).
PP = PI× (% < 0.075mm)
If sub base material exhibits the plasticity product (PP) less than 300, soils up to PI, 20% can
be used.
Partical Size Distribution Curve
PercentGE Passing (%) 100
80
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size(mm)
Figure 1: Gradation envelop of sub base material
4.5.1 Use of sand

In general, sandy soils do not comply with the specification for road material mainly due to the
inadequacy of the gradation especially for structural pavement layers.
The plasticity and strength characteristics are fulfil the specified requirements and with
appropriate design, and construction procedures, sand can be used as subbase, subgrade and as
an embankment material.
4.5.2 Subgrade
Due to poor compaction and excessive volumetric movements, sand subgrade layer usually fail
due to poor support to withstand the traffic loads. Sand subgrade with adequate compaction
has relatively low chances of failure. A control compaction trial are necessary before
construction to achieve required CBR value.
4.5.3 Subbase
There are types of sand provide required CBR value when compacted to an appropriate density.
This particular sand can be used as a sub base layer and only apply to low traffic volume single
lane. Grading requirement for sand subbase layer is presented in Table 5
Sieve Size Passing %

2.36 100
1.18 70-90
0.425 35-65
0.150 18-38
0.075 8-25
Plasticity Index (PI) <6
Plasticity Product (PP) < 150
CBR % (soaked) >30
Table 5: Subbase material property
4.6 Embankment material
The embankment consists of a series of compacted layers or lifts of suitable material placed on
top of each other until the level of the subgrade surface is reached. The subgrade surface is the
top of the embankment (above upper zone) and the surface upon which the subbase is placed.
Material for embankment shall comply with the propertied given in Table 6 & 7. The
requirement of percentage passing 0.075mm shall apply for the material in compacted state.
Weighted plasticity index (WPI = PI x percentage passing 0.425mm) shall also apply to the
compacted material.
Material WPI % Passing Liquid Plasticity Emersion CBR

Type 0.075mm Limits (LL) Index (PI) Class %
Type 1 < 1200 < 35 < 50 > 6 >3 >7
Type 2 1200 -2200 - < 55 > 6 >3 >5
Table 6: Embankment fill material property
4.6.1 Zoned embankment

Subgrade level
Upper Zone (Type 1)
Embankment fill
Lower Zone (Type 2)
Figure 2: Embankment zone

Note: it is prefer to construct outer zone and core layers simultaneously.
Material type for zoned embankment in different rainfall zones are
Embankment Embankment Structural Lower Upper Rain fall

Type height (m) fill zone zone
Homogeneous < 10 Type 1 -- -- Low/High
Type Type 1
-- Low
2 (1m)
Zoned <3
Type Type 1
-- High
2 (0.8)
Type Type 1
-- Low
2 (1.2m)
Zoned 3-10
Type Type 1
-- High
2 (1m)
Table 7: Embankment fill properties
4.6.2 Homogeneous embankment
Subgrade level
Homogeneous Embankment
(Type 1)
Figure 3: Homogeneous embankment

Type 1 material shall be used for homogenous embankment construction in and around the
structures such as bridge abutment, culverts and pipes.
4.6.3 Sub grade in cuttings
Shoulder Road Pavement (surfacing, sub base, improved layer)
Subgrade (stabilised if required)

Figure 4: Road section in cuttings ))
The subgrade shall be built and tested as per requirements of this Technical Note before
pavement structure is constructed. If subgrade material is not comply with the specification,
shall be replace with fill material or in situ stabilised as per section 4.
4.7 Shoulder material
Shoulders are an important part of the road system, providing space for emergency stops,
structural support for the pavement, and increased roadway width to accommodate passing
vehicle for single lane road. Natural soils or blended soils for shoulder construction shall
conform to the following grading requirement and other material properties as shown in Table
8 and 9.
Sieve Size % Passing

(mm)
37.5 100
20 77-100
5 41-100
2.36 30-80
600 18-50
0.075 5-25
Table 8: Gradation for shoulder material
Property Wet Zone Dry Zone
CBR > 15 >15
Liquid Limit (LL) < 50 < 55
Plasticity Index (PI) 4 - 25 6 -25
Emersion Class >3 >3
WPI <1200 <1200
Table 9: Material property for shoulder construction
4.7.1 Emerson class

Soil dispersion potential is the likelihood that soils will release a cloud of fine clay particles
when brought into contact with water. Soil dispersion potential is measured as the Emerson
Class number (AS 1289.3.8.1-2006 - a simple semi-quantitative dispersion test), or by
Emersion Crumb test (ASTM D6572-06) which considers soil consistency and depth. Soils
which are less than emersion class 3 are highly likely for erosion.
Method of testing for determination of emersion class is described in Annexure 2.
4.7.2 Shoulder protection

Earthen shoulders usually have a problem with finer material washing away and leaving stones
in the surface which gives a rough and rutting undesirable shoulder surface. Grassing can be
used to maintain road shoulders from erosion. There is a danger in this as the vegetation may
keep water from draining off the pavement. Therefore, proper maintenance of shoulders are
required.
Turf can be grown on stabilized soil-aggregate materials where moisture is adequate. Under
occasional traffic the turf will serve as an economical wearing surface having shear resistance
against wing and rain erosion.
Topsoil is not essential for turf. The slope of the shoulder should be adequate to permit surface
water to drain properly and to assist in delaying as long as possible the necessity of blading.
Appropriate maintenance procedures are essential to maintain a vegetative cover under the
imposed conditions of growth.
4.8 Quality control/ quality assurance testing

In-situ Measurement of Stability of Aggregate Subbase:
4.8.1 Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test:

DCP is an instrument designed for rapid in-situ measurement of sub surface material
strength. The cone penetration is inversely related to the strength of the material. DCP
test is conducted according to ASTM D 6951 (Standard Test Method for Use of
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications). This test involves
measurement of penetration rate per each blow of a standard 17.6pound hammer,
through undisturbed and/or compacted materials. Penetration to be commenced from
the top of subbase layer to a required depth. Primary advantages of this test are its
availability at lower costs and ease to collect and analyze the data rapidly.
4.8.2 Light weight falling deflectometer (LWFD) test:
The LWFD test is a simple and rapid non-destructive test that does not entail removal
of pavement materials, and hence is often preferred over other destructive methods. In
addition, the testing apparatus is easily transported. Layer moduli can be back-
calculated from the observed dynamic response of the subbase surface to an impulse
load.
4.8.3 Field density test - sand cone method (ASTM D-1556)
4.8.4 Non – nuclear density test
Non-Nuclear Soil Density Gauge is used for detecting density of Soil specimens with non-
nuclear type. It displays a GPS position and completely nondestructive test with fast, reliable
and accurate readings.
4.9 References
1. NCHRP – Recommended Practice for Stabilization of Subgrade Soils and Base
Materials, National Academy of Sciences and Medicine.
2. Gordon Keller, PE, James Sherar, PE – Low Volume Road Engineering – Best
Management Practices Field Guide , July 2003.
3. NZ Transport Agency B/6:2012 – Specification for In-situ Stabilisation of bound sub –

Layers, 2012.
4. Mircea Radulescu - Technical Specifications for Low Cost Rural Roads, PMU, Rural
Development Project, Ministry of Administration and the Interior, March 2005.
ICTAD.
Annexure 1: Typical Section of iRoad Program
Annexure 2: Emersion class test procedure
OCEDUR E FOR EMERSION CLASS TEST
kykyhkhjhh
Technical Note
April 2018
TN05
Use of bottom ash for road construction

5. Use of bottom ash for road construction
5.1 Introduction
Bottom Power Station at Norochcholai, is producing about 290,000 Mt of fly ash and bottom
ash (Bottom ash) annually. Only small percentage of the total production of fly ash was
recycled. Due to increasing disposal costs, reduction of landfill space and need for conservation
of natural resources, it is essential to find beneficial ways of reusing fly and bottom ash in
secondary applications.
Laboratory trail on engineering properties of bottom ash exhibit relatively high bearing
capacity, friction angle (φp ranges from 25 deg to 30 deg) and relatively low dry unit weight
(12 kN/m3). In addition, the hydraulic conductivity of bottom-ash mixtures is similar to that of
a fine sandy silt or silt.
These engineering properties make the use of bottom-ash mixtures suitable as, subbase,
capping layers, fill materials for embankments and retaining structures. Bottom ash has been
utilized successfully as a fill material in several projects in many other countries. However,
there is limited information in the literature on the performance of highway embankments
constructed with Bottom ash mixtures. This Technical Note presents the use of Bottom ash in
road industry.
This specification does not address the environmental issues that may be associated with the
permitting and regulation of the use bottom ash by the Environment Authority.
5.2 Properties of bottom ash

5.2.1 Specific gravity
The specific gravity of bottom ash varies with the chemical composition of the Bottom used in
power plants. Higher iron contents in the ash may result in higher specific gravity values (Kim
2003). Typical values of Gs range from 2.1 to 2.9.
The specific gravity of bottom ash mixture used for the construction of the demonstration
embankment, as determined by method A (ASTM D 854-00), is equal to 2.5.
45
Use of bottom ash for road construction – TN 05, Integrated Road Investment Program, April 2018
5.2.2 Piratical size distribution
Analyses were performed during the course of the bottom ash evaluation to gauge whether the
material is consistent throughout different samples. The method used is detailed in (ASTM D
422).
Calculations show the Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu) and the Coefficient of Gradation, Cc,
and the criteria needed to classify as “well-graded.” The bottom ash material meets the criteria
for well-graded, which is an indicator of a good representation of all particle sizes, and can aid
in compaction potential.
Cu = D60 /D10
Cu = 22
Cc = (D30)2 / (D60) (D10)
Cc = 1
The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is a standardized system used to group and
identify similar soil types, and identify them with a unique standardized identification system,
published as ASTM D 2487. According to the USCS, the bottom ash falls into the classification
of a SW-SM, sand with silt.
120
100
80
% Passing
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Seive Size (mm)
Figure 1: Particle Size distribution curve – Bottom ash
45
5.2.3 Chemical composition
The chemical composition of ash depends on the characteristics and composition of the Bottom
burned in power plants. Figure 2 shows heavy metal composition of the bottom ash from
Norochcholai power plant. The presence of silica and alumina indicate good ingredients for
pozzolanic reaction when mix with hydrated lime. This improves mechanical properties of soil
mix with bottom ash
However, it is strongly recommended to get a consent from Central Environmental Authority

(CEA) to use bottom ash for any road construction activity in advance. Road construction using
bottom in residential areas, a test report including detail chemical analysis should be submitted
for CEA approval.
Chemical Fly Ash Bottom Ash
Silica (SiO2) 48.09% 47.98%
Phosphorus (P2O5) 2.29% 2.03%
Sulphur (SO3) 0.31% 0.08%
Iron Oxide (Fe3+) 3.61% 4.86%
Aluminium (AL) 16.48% 15.59%
Titanium (Ti) 0.98% 0.98%
Calcium (Ca) 6.68% 7.22%
Potassium (K) 0.45% 0.40%
Magnesium (Mg) 0.94% 1.01%
Manganese ( Mn) 0.04% 0.04%
Sodium (Na) 0.02% 0.20%
Nickel (Ni) <0.010% <0.010%
Arsenic (As) 77.67 ppm 70.90 ppm
Cadmium ( Cd) ND ND
Lead (Pb) 5.31 ppm ND
Antimony (Sb) ND ND
Figure 2: Chemical composition of Bottom ask
45
5.2.4 Environmental considerations
Leaching of trace metals from bottom/fly ash is the main environmental concern in
embankment construction using these materials. Migration of metals from ash into ground
water shall be studied collecting ground water sample at regular intervals.
5.2.5 California bearing ratio

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is defined as the ratio of the force required to cause a circular
plunger of 1932 mm2 area to penetrate the material for a specified distance expressed as a
percentage of a standard load. This particular test is being carried to assess the strength of
pavement layers. The test procedure is published in ASTMD 1883.
Table 1 presents the results of 4 days soaked CBR tests of bottom ash. The data in Table 1
indicates that in a confined condition the bottom ash performance is close to that of sand with
high CBR value.
Description OMC MDD Plasticity *CBR %

(%) (kN/m3)
Bottom Ash 30 12 NP 52
Table 1: CBR value of Bottom ash
* 4 days soaked (moist), compacted at 98% MDD
5.2.6 Compaction characteristics

Modified compaction tests of bottom (ASTM D698) below Figure 3 indicates the maximum
dry of 12 kN/m3, and the optimum moisture content 30 %.
1.20
Dry Density (g/cm3)
1.16
1.12
1.08
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Moisture Content %
Figure 3: Modified proctor compaction results
45
5.3 Use bottom ash in the construction road embankment
The use of bottom ash for highway embankment construction in other countries are extremely
promising and large quantities of ash have been used successfully and economically. The
proposed embankment configuration in this section of the report is not recommended for flood
prone areas and bridge approaches.
However, an appropriate embankment slope protection against erosion is essential for

embankment in in law lying areas where embankment toe is submerded. A typical section of
embankment with batter protection is shown in figure 9.
Mechanical characteristic Bottom ash mix are important when using this material for
embankment construction.
Material use for embankment construction for satisfactory performance, the following two
major criteria should be satisfied.
a) It must have adequate strength to support safely its self-weight and that of the traffic
loads, and
b) It must be sufficiently stiff to prevent excessive settlement during the service life of the
pavement. Slope stability and settlement analyses were carried to determine the best
way to meet these requirements at the embankment design stage.
Dry Bottom ash can sustain particle degradation during compaction (Kim et al 2005). Crushing
of the bottom ash particles during compaction contributes to an increase in the maximum dry
unit weight. Compaction characteristics of mixtures of fly ash and bottom ash have well graded
size distributions, which allows the Bottom ash particles to pack more closely, resulting in an
increase in the maximum dry unit weight of the mixture (Kim et al. 2005). Some engineering
properties of bottom ash is shown in Table 2.
Bottom ash is non plastic material with particles size ranging from fine gravel to fine sand.
With very low percentages of silt-clay sized particles. Bottom ash is predominantly sand-sized,
usually with 90 to 100 percent passing the No. 4 sieve (4.75 mm) and 0 to 5 percent passing
the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm). Top particle size for bottom ash is typically less than 10m.
Granular materials with angular particles are typically more compressible than those with well-
rounded particles because the sharp edges of the angular particles tend to be break during
compression as well as shear. Compressibility of bottom ash is very similar to sand placed at
the same relative density (Seals et al. 1972) and consolidates rapidly and therefore
compressibility is not a design concern.
Property Value range

Maximum dry density (kN/m3) 11-12
Optimum Moisture Content, % 30
Internal Friction Angle (drained) 25-35
Hydraulic Conductivity cm/sec 1E-3
Table 2: Engineering properties of Bottom ash
45
5.3.1 Zoned embankment configuration using bottom ash
Low embankment less than 4m

Typical cross sections of low embankment using Bottom ash is shown in Figure 3. Outer layer
(cladding) for both embankments are necessary to control erosion. Material for outer layer can
be either Type I or II embankment material of thickness not less than 1m. Core material, bottom
Bottom ash fill is a compacted zone of layers not exceeding a height of 3m. Geosynthetic
membrane or compacted layer of clayey soil (k < 1E-08 m/s) is required to prevent any potential
for heavy metal leaching. Properties of geo synthetic membrane is given in section 5.3.3
Figure 3: Typical embankment < 4m high
High embankment over 4m
For embankment over 4m shall be constructed using multiple layers of bottom ash and general
fill layers (Type I or II) in between (not less than 500 mm) as shown in Figure 4. The thickness
of outer zone shall be not less than 1 m. The thickness of compacted bottom ash layer shall not
exceeds more than 2m.
Figure 4: Typical embankment section H > 4
45
5.3.2 Embankment construction
Water shall be added or other suitable means shall be taken to prevent dust results from the
transporting and placing of dry material.
Before the fill material is placed the subgrade should be levelled to produce a plane surface
having a 1:30 cross fall. Some filling maybe necessary to achieve the required levels. Bottom
ash fill for the embankment deliver from Norochcholai power plant shall be spread over
prepared subgrade of proposed embankment in layers of each maximum 300 mm loose
thickness. A synthetic geomembrane shall be place over the prepared subgrade before
commandment of embankment filling. Each layer of fill shall be wetted up to the optimum
moisture content. The average moisture content of each layer to be determined from samples
taken immediately prior to the placing of the next layer of fill.
Compaction of loose layer shall be carried out immediately after placing the loose layer to a
degree of compaction not less than 95% of modified proctor to achieve the required density.
The material selected for outer zone shall be constructed along with the progress of core
material (Bottom ash) as shown in Figure 4.
Quality control programs for bottom ash embankments is similar to such programs for
conventional earthwork projects as per ICTAD – SCA/5. These programs typically include
visual observations of lift thickness, number of compactor passes per lift, and behavior of the
ash under the weight of the compaction equipment , supplemented by laboratory and field
testing to confirm that the compacted material has been constructed in accordance with design
specifications.
5.3.3 Material property

Outer zone:
The material for outer zone shall conform to the following gradation limits or as directed:
Property Standard Value
% passing 100
BS 1377-2
100 mm
% passing 10 - 35
BS 1377-2
0.075 mm
Earth Fill WPI PI (%) Liquid % Passing 0.075 Emerson Class

Material Limits (%) mm AS sieve Number
Outer Zone
< 1200 >6 < 50 < 35 >3
(Type1)
Table 3: Required material properties of outer zone
45
5.3.4 Synthetic geomembrane
Synthetic geotextile use as a membrane within embankments shall be non-woven type shall
meet the following specifications (Table 4).
Test Properties Unit Value

Thickness mm 1.5
Density g/cc 0.94
Yield strength kN/m >22
Break strength kN/m >16
Tear resistance N >187
Puncture resistance N > 400
Yield elongation % 12
Break elongation % 100
Table 4: specification for HDPE geomembrane
5.3.5 Placement of bottom ash
Initially the stockpiled materials were moved into position on the test area by front end-loader,
and then spread with a dozer to the designated 225 mm thickness (ICTAD Publication - SCA/5
section 304.3). As the stockpiles were depleted, more material was hauled in, stockpiled, or
dumped directly on the area designated. As the dozer spread the bottom ash material across the
test area, a survey level or other measurement method is required to check each lift thickness.
5.3.6 Compaction
10T vibratory roller is required to compact the bottom ash lifts. A series of tests shall be
performed between passes of the roller followed by additional tests after completion of each
lift.
5.3.7 Light Weight Falling Deflectometer (LWFD) tests

The Light Weight Falling Deflectometer (LWFD) equipment can be used to measures
composite in-situ modulus value of near-surface materials.
5.3.8 Dynamic cone penetrometer tests

The DCP testing is required to carry out along the crest of finished embankment at 20 m interval
in a zig zag pattern. The results should be compared with the LWFD results.
5.3.9 Stability assessment

5.3.9.1 Method of analysis
Stability analyses were undertaken for the bottom ash embankment design using a computer
based modelling program. The computer models analysed the stability of potential circular
45
slip planes within the mass of the embankment by Morgenstern method. The computer
program, SLOPE/W, was used in the analyses. A probability assessment of seismic loading
has not been considered for these analyses
Two cases were examined in the stability analyses for the design embankment less than 4m
and above.
Case 1: Embankment to final height with traffic load of 20 kPa – low water level
Case 2: Embankment to final height with traffic load of 20 kPa – water level 1m above
ground level
5.3.9.2 Parameters
Parameters adopted for the embankment and foundation materials in the analyses were
assumed and are believed to be conservative.
Parameters adopted for the bottom ash embankment, outer zone and foundation materials are
shown in Table 5.
Material Density Cohesion Angle of friction

(kN/m3) (kN/m2) (Deg)
Bottom Ash 12 0 29*

Outer Zone 18 20 34
Foundation 20 18 35
* as per direct shear test
Table 5: Material Property
5.3.9.3 Results of the stability analyses

The results of the stability analyses for the two cases examined for embankment sections are
summarised in Tables 6 and 7, with the Slope W computer printouts presented on Figures 5, 6,
7 and 8.
Figure 5 & 6: 4m and 6m embankments with low ground water level (Case 1)
45
Figure 7 & 8: High ground water level (Case 2)
Low embankment
Case Factor of Recommended
Safety Minimum Factors of Safety*
1 1.81 1.5
2 1.68 1.5
Table 6: Results of stability analysis, Embankment height < 4m
High embankment
Case Factor of Recommended
Safety Minimum Factors of Safety*
1 1.56 1.5
2 1.52 1.5
Table 7: Results of stability analysis, Embankment height > 4m
The stability analyses indicate that for the cases examined the embankment has an adequate
factor of safety against failure for all the cases.
5.3.10 Bottom ash stablised marginal material for embankment construction
Marginal soil can be modified to fulfill the requirements for embankments construction by
adding 30% - 40% of bottom ash to obtain required CBR other propertied. Below Table 8
shows the improved propertied of marginal material to qualify for embankment construction.
% Passing Liquid Limits Plasticity

Soil/ Mix *CBR %
0.075mm (LL) Index(PI)
Marginal Material (1) 26 59 24 29
Soil 70% + Bottom ash 30% 26 36 8 42
Marginal Material (2) 40 40 20 26

Soil 70% + Bottom ash 30% 21 36 9 39
*: 4 days soaked, modified compaction 98 % MDD
Table 8: Stabilized marginal material for embankment
45
5.3.11 Embankment in low lying areas
Bottom ash embankment construction in flood prone areas is not recommended. However,
embankment batter protection is essential in marshy, low lying areas to prevent erosion. A
typical section of embankment with batter protection is shown in Figure 9.
Placing geosynthetic filter membrane for erosion control for embankment in flood prone areas
is not a long term solution due to clogging of pores in the membrane.
Figure 9: Typical embankment protection in flood prone area (H < 4m)
6 Use of bottom ash soil mixture for selected subgrade (capping layers)
Laboratory trial carried out for four different marginal soils mix with different percentage of
bottom ash varies from 20% to 40% of the soil weight as shown in Table 9. Additional tests
were carried out for bottom as soil mix with 1% cement and 1% lime as shown in Table 9.
The properties of original soil before mixing is shown in Table 9.
Soil LL PI Type OMC MDD CBR

Type (%) (%) (%) (kN/m3) (%)
A 52 24 SC 15.2 1.78 17
B 22 8 SC 12.3 1.92 11
C 59 24 SM 15.3 1.87 29
D 40 20 SC 16.8 1.81 26
6.1 Properties of stabilised bottom ash
6.1.1 Strength gain

Addition of bottom ash to the sub grade soil resulted in the mixture having significant
improvement to CBR values. Variation of CBR with different proportion of bottom ash is
illustrated in Figure 10 where 30% bottom ash mix by weight generally represent as a proper
45
mix design for soil stabilisation. Soil mixture become non plastic with the addition of 40%
bottom ash to soil type C. This indicates bottom ash and soil particles get more closed packed
together comparatively with this mix ratio causing increase in the mechanical strength. During
compaction the bottom ash particle subject to crushing in to fine particle thus further filling up
remaining voids increasing shear strength. Further increase in bottom ash content will decrease
the CBR values due to predomination of bottom ash particle
.Stabilised mix Percentage Percentage Soil Percentage Percentage

Bottom ash Cement Lime
Bottom ash +
20% 30% 40% 80% 70% 60% Nil Nil
soil mix
Bottom ash +
soil + Cement 30% 70% 1% Nil
mix
Bottom ash +
30% 70% Nil 1%
soil + Lime mix
Table 9: Results of Soil Bottom Ash Mixture
50 46
42
38 39
40
29
30 26
CBR %
20 17
11
10
0
Soil A Soil B Soil C Soil D
Natural Soil + 20% Ash Soil + 30% Ash Soil + 40% Ash
Figure 10: Variation CBR with Bottom ash mix
A significant increase of CBR value can be noticed an addition of 1% cement to 30% bottom
ash mix as shown in Figure 11. The cement particles further improve binding properties of
bottom ash mix and may control the leachate.
72
CBR %
38
26
11
NATURAL SOIL + 1% SOIL + 30% SOIL + 1%

SOIL CEMENT ASH CEMENT +
30% ASH
Figure 11: Variation of CBR value with 1% cement
45
A significant increase in CBR value of 30% bottom ash mix can be obtained by addition of 3%
lime as shown in Figure 12. The results CBR value exceeds well over 120 indicating an ideal
mix for either road base .and sub base.
160
142
140
120 110
100
CBR %
80
60
40 26
20
0
Natural Soil Soil + 3% Lime Soil + 3% Lime + 30% Ash
Figure 12: Variation CBR with addition of 3% lime
Material Properties
LL PI CBR Remarks
Original Soil 22 8 11 Not Comply
Improved Material
23 6 38 Comply
(30% bottom ash )
Improved Material (30%
25 9 72 Comply
Bottom ash + 1% cement)
Improved Material (30%
36 7 142 Comply
Bottom ash + 3% lime)
Table 10: Properties of marginal material mix with 30% bottom ash with lime and cement
6.1.2 Plasticity
Plasticity of original soil mix decreases with the addition of bottom ash and become non plastic
generally in excess of 40% bottom ash. The reduction in plasticity index to comply with
standard is important particularly for road subbase and subgrade.
Specification limits
Below limits are given in RDA specification for road pavement layers and embankment.
Sub Base (upper layer)

Specification Limit <40 < 15 >30
Sub Base (lower layer/capping)
Specification Limit <40 <15 >30
Embankment
Specification Limit <50 <25 >7
45
7. Quality control
Sand cone tests are accurate but, cumbersome and time-consuming. The field density test shall
be carried out in accordance with test 15A of BS 1337 – part 9 -1990 or ASTM D1556 -90.
A test pad using bottom ash shall be constructed with a combination of roller passes. On the
basis of the results of dynamic cone penetration and LWD tests conducted in the test pad, in
conjunction with a combination of roller passes, the criteria for compaction control of bottom
ash shall be established. The subsequent construction monitoring and post construction
evaluation of the bottom ash embankment will be very effective using this criteria.
8. References
1. Syakirah Afiza Mohammed and Mohamed Rehan Karim - Application of coal

bottom ash as aggregate replacement in highway embankment, acoustic absorbing wall
and asphalt mixture, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
2. Esteban López López, Ángel Vega-Zamanillo, Miguel A. Calzada PérezAlberto

Hernández-Sanz - Bearing capacity of bottom ash and its mixture with soils, May2015.
3. Wei-Hsing Huang – The use of bottom ash in highway embankments, subgrades and
sub base joint highway research project, Feb 1990.
4. John K.W. Chan, Roger P.K. Lee – The use of furnace bottom ash as road sub-base
material in Hong Kong, 1996.
5. Syakirah Afiza Mohammed and Mohamed Rehan Kari - Application of coal bottom ash
as aggregate replacement in highway embankment, acoustic absorbing wall and asphalt
mixtures, International Technical Postgraduate Conference, 2017.
6. AbdusSalaamCadersa,1 AkshayKumarSeeborun,2 and Andre Chan Chim Yuk – Use

Of Coal Bottom Ash as Mechanical Stabiliser in Subgrade Soil, Hindawi Publishing
Corporation Journal of Engineering me, July 2014
45

Road Construction Technical Notes

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Road Construction Technical Notes

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ministry of Higher Education & Highways

Road Development Authority

Technical Notes - Volume 1

Lime stabilisation practice

2. Cement stabilisation practice ………………………………………………………10

Technical Notes, Integrated Road Investment Program, April 2018

3. Mechanical Stabilisation – Blending Method ………………………………..……..17

4. Material specifications for low volume roads …………………………………..…..24

Technical Notes, Integrated Road Investment Program, April 2018

5. Use of bottom ash for road construction ……………………………………...……….32

Technical Notes, Integrated Road Investment Program, April 2018

Technical Notes, Integrated Road Investment Program, April 2018

Lime stabilization practice

• improve stiffness of sub grade or the rehabilitation of existing roads,

1.2 The procedure of treatment

CaO + H20 Ca(OH)2 + heat

1.3 Soil suitability

1.4 Lime reactivity

1.5 Properties of lime stabilized soil

1.5.1 Soil drying

1.5.2 Lime stabilisation

1.7.1 Testing procedure

Step 1 - Initial evaluation

Allowable limits of mineral content of soil are given below.

• Sulfate content (water soluble) < 0.3%

Step 2 - Lime demand – minimum lime content

Figure 1: Lime demand curve.

Step 3 - Determine optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry

Step 4 – Preparation of california bearing ratio (CBR) specimens

• Sample 1 : with 0% lime

Step 6 - Determine the california bearing ratio (CBR)

1.7.2 Moisture content and percentage swell

1.7.3 CBR and percentage swell

1.8.1 Spreading of lime

1.8.3 Mellowing period

1.8.4 Time limitations

• Lower layers of embankment - 93 % percent, modified proctor compaction

Curing can be done in two ways:

1.9 Field control testing

1.10 Opening to traffic:

4. Shahriar Shahrokh Abadi, Armin Yekkalam, Mohammad Bagher,i Kaffash Rafsanjani

5. National Lime Association – Lime – Treated Soil Construction Manua, Lime

6. DTMR - Testing of Materials for Lime Stabilisation, January 2017.

7. AustStab - Lime stabilisation practice, January 2008.

8. VicRoads –Section 290 – Lime Stabilisation of Earthworks Materials, December 2008.

Cement stabilisation practice

• Strengthening of existing pavements.

2.5 Laboratory testing

2.7 UCS test analysis

Cement percentage Vs UCS

Figure 1: Cement content vs UCS

Desireble boundary of material before stabilisation

Figure 2: Gradation envelope for material to be stabilized

2.9 Plant for spreading

2.10 Stabilisation (Mixing)

2.11 Addition of water

2.12 Time limitations

The cement-soil mixture should be compacted to density requirement listed below.

• Lower layers of embankment - 93 % percent, modified proctor compaction.

2.14 Curing condition

There are two principal forms of cracking in cement stabilised materials:

Cracking of stabilised surface can be controlled by:

2.15.1 Sub grade