SR 17 01316 PDF

Restricted SR.17.
01316
Soil Stabilisation Solution for Enabling Infrastructure

3rd Party Technology Approval
by
N. Saraswat (PTIN-PTE/PCSO)
K.D. Joshi (PTIN-PTE/PCSO)
This document is classified as Restricted. Access is allowed to Shell personnel, designated Associate Companies and Contractors
working on Shell projects who have signed a confidentiality agreement with a Shell Group Company. 'Shell Personnel' includes all
staff with a personal contract with a Shell Group Company. Issuance of this document is restricted to staff employed by a Shell
Group Company. Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be disclosed to Non-Shell Personnel without the prior
written consent of the copyright owners.
Copyright Shell Global Solutions International, B.V. 2017.
Shell India Markets Private Limited - Shell Projects and Technology

Further electronic copies can be obtained from the Global Information Centre.
SR.17.01316 - II - Restricted
Document history
SR.17.01316 - III - Restricted
Executive summary
This Development Release (DR) captures the description, technical evaluation and deployment
plan of RoadCem for inclusion in the third-party technology initiative as a part of Technology
Replication Thrust (TRT). Approval by the relevant technical authorities within Civil Engineering
(TA-1) and Geotechnical Principle/Subject Matter Experts (PTE/SMEs) is also recorded.
RoadCem is an efficient method of improving native ground using a fine powered cement-based
soil stabiliser for paving and foundation works. It consists of a fine blend of powdered zeolites,
that enables binding with any type of in situ soils, including clay, sand and peat. Use of this
additive provides an environmental friendly alternative to existing methods such as cut and fill or
conventional soil stabilisation methods such as lime and cement stabilisation. It can reduce road
transportation of thousands of trucks of imported soil/disposal of native soils, which is
recognized as a high risk HSSE exposure. The utilisation of insitu soil reduces construction time
and eventually enables early production that can improve the economics of the project.
The RoadCem stabilisation reduces carbon footprint and offers high quality and durable
construction method.
However, RoadCem construction requires superior quality control during execution compared to
traditional methods. Also, it requires procurement of significant quantity of cement and therefore
the cost effectiveness depends upon the relative pricing of cement relative to the locally available
fill material. These risks and mitigations are discussed in this development release. Overall SWOT
analysis is presented in the table below.
SR.17.01316 - IV - Restricted
Overview of actions and mitigations to the potential risks identified from technical and
commercial viability are mentioned below.
“Issue Risk
Mitigating Action/Response
(Threat/Opportunity)” Rating
RoadCem improved soil
Implement QA/QC plan based on the mix design and
does not meet design
Medium specification and identify remediation measures for non-
specifications dur to QC
compliance.
failures.
Limit use of RoadCem to areas where remediation is
possible for long term durability.
Long Term Performance of
Medium Or
RoadCem is not proven Limit design bearing capacity of RoadCem improved
soil.
Logistics issues related to
non-availability of large Early market survey and logistics plan to assure
quantity of cement, Medium sustainable supply of resources.
RoadCem, skilled workers Training for workers by PowerCem.
and equipment at site.
Potentially high cost Detailed cost analysis for various alternatives before
compared to alternatives. Medium selecting option.
SR.17.01316 -V- Restricted
Table of contents
Document History II
Executive summary III
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Description of the new development 1
1.2. Salient Features 1
1.3. Identified business value 2
1.4. Stakeholder identification and Contracting Process 3
1.5. Selected first application 3
2. RoadCem Technical Evaluation 4
2.1. Theory of working 4
2.2. Results of technical validation studies 5
2.3. Construction process 6
2.4. Issues and proposed solutions 9
2.5. Review against existing alternatives 10
2.6. Impact on standards 12
2.7. Potential future developments 12
3. Risk and Mitigations 13
3.1. Asset Integrity, Process safety and HSE implication of RoadCem 13
3.2. Risk Assessment 13
4. Deployment Plan 21
4.1. Stakeholders and DR Review process 21
5. References 22
Appendix 1. Cost benefit analysis – A case study by UNESCO 23
Appendix 2. Quality Control program 26
A2.1. Stage 1: In-situ material characterisation 26
A2.2. Laboratory Testing for Mix Design 26
A2.3. Stage 3: Field trials 27
A2.4. Stage 4: Production testing 29
Appendix 3. Case study examples of project executed in extreme environmental conditions 31
Appendix 4. RoadCem presence in the world 32
Appendix 5. Cost Estimation for a typical Iraq Project 33
Bibliographic information 36
Report distribution 37
SR.17.01316 - VI - Restricted
List of figures
Figure 1.1: Photo of RoadCem additive (Marjanovic et. al., 2009) 1
Figure 2.1: Microscopic image: A. Hydration reaction of cement and water. B.
Hydration reaction of RoadCem, cement and water (Marjanovic et. al.,
2009). 4
Figure 2.2: Simulated expressions of the hydration reactions and associated “wrapping”
crystallization effect (Marjanovic et. al., 2009). Evolution in hydration
product starting from top left corner to bottom right corner. 5
Figure 2.3 : Type of soil stabilisation methods for road and paving works 10
Figure 3.1: Risk Assessment Matrix used for technology Development Release process 13
List of tables
Table 2.1: Construction step for RoadCem stabilization (Marjanovic et. al., 2009) 7
Table 2.2: Relative comparison of various stabilisation methods for road and
earthworks. 11
Table 2.3: Applicability of various stabilisation methods for various ground 12
Table 3.1: Risk Assessment for RoadCem deployment 14
SR.17.01316 -1- Restricted
1. Introduction
1.1. Description of the new development
RoadCem is an additive for cement based soil stabilisation, which is used for paving and
foundation base construction. The native soil is ploughed and mixed with RoadCem, cement and
water to form a solidified base. Hence it eliminates the requirement of disposing poor native soil
or importing structural fill material for paving. This can significantly reduce cut-fill earthwork
volumes and therefore reduces CAPEX and HSSE exposure. Also, it enables faster construction
compared to traditional cut/fill solutions. Moreover, RoadCem has wider application to all types
of soil including contaminated soil compared to traditional soil stabilisation binders such as lime,
cement or bitumen.
It has been used for over 20 years in highway construction, but with limited application in oil and
gas industry. It can be deployed for general purpose paving and road works within assets and
projects. Although there are limited past cases, the RoadCem can also be utilised for earthworks
bearing foundation area. Use of RoadCem stabilised soil as structural and general fill will be
gamechanger for large site preparation works, where the localised soil is used to balance the
cut-fill volume.
RoadCem is a fine powder containing alkali metals and synthetic zeolites as shown in Figure 1.1.
These constituents are complemented with a complex activator based on nanotechnology. The
chemical reaction between the RoadCem, cement and soil particles modifies the binding and
hardening process. This process provides a stabilised soil with higher compressive strength and
stiffness, whilst maintaining a high flexibility and breaking strain, with more durability against
cracks and deformation compared to cement stabilised soils (Marjanovic et. al., 2009).
Figure 1.1: Photo of RoadCem additive (Marjanovic et. al., 2009)
1.2. Salient Features

The key salient features of RoadCem stabilisation are as following:
1. RoadCem additive acts as ion exchanger, neutralizer, molecular sieve, catalyst and absorber
which enables stabilisation of all kinds of in-situ soils including sand, clay, peat and even
contaminated soils, low-strength soils, expansive clays (“black cotton” soil), collapsible sands,
dispersive soils, organic soils, saline soils, weathered materials, etc.
2. It is also possible to use salt water for mixing, which is not feasible for conventional
stabilisation or earthworks relying on clean water.
3. RoadCem immobilises contaminants in soil (sulphur, chloride, heavy metals, pH, etc.) and
prevent leaching of those contaminants.
4. Reduces HSSE road exposure due to reduction in vehicle transport for importing gravels for
paving construction or structural fill.
5. Durable and cost effective solution with shorter construction time.
6. Versatile applications in earthworks, road, paving, laydown area, construction facilities,
industrial floors and hydraulic engineering projects.
7. Increase in strength, stiffness and flexibility as compared to cement stabilised soil.
8. Reduction in shrinkage compared with the traditional cement stabilised road base.
9. Freeze-thaw resistance allows it to be used in extreme climates.
10. Reduction of CO2 footprint in construction.
1.3. Identified business value

The business values for RoadCem deployment in Shell projects and assets are as following:
• Use of in-situ materials

The in-situ soil can be transformed through stabilisation into a suitable material for base of
road or foundation. It can be used on all type of soils with high concentration of salts or
sulphates. This is an advantage over cut and fill technique as it eliminates importing of
material from quarry sites and logistics associated with it. RoadCem aims at reducing the
dependence on the imported materials, while providing the quality and durability in the road
construction and site preparation using the native soil (Faux, 2015).
• Lower HSSE exposures
The total storage, transportation and disposal as compared to conventional enabling
infrastructure work (e.g. cut and fill) is significantly smaller. This aids to lower HSSE
exposure for the construction workers as the transportation and construction time is
significantly reduced. This serves as an extra advantage to remote area, locations with limited
storage capacity or sites with high logistic risks.
• Speed of construction
The speed of hydration of cement is increased hence reducing the construction time.
In comparison to the traditional construction the RoadCem construction is six times faster to
traditional curing of cement (Marjanovic et. al., 2009).
• Higher durability and drainage
RoadCem reacts with the native soil and changes the mineralogical structure leading to a
strong, durable crystalline structure which is fibrous in nature. RoadCem causes a “wrapping
effect “on the fibres rather than “glue effect” observed in traditional stabilisation. The change
in the binding mechanism leads to the formation of a dense matrix. Experimental studies and
field application examples have indicated better thermal resistance, flexural strengths,
porosity, permeability, drainage and fatigue properties (Wu, 2015).
• Reduced thickness of the pavement

RoadCem can achieve the same performance requirements such as resistance to deformation
and cracking at thicknesses lower than the layer thicknesses needed with traditional materials.
The net effect is that road construction with RoadCem often results in reduced thickness of
the pavement. Typically, the base layer thickness lies in the 200-400 mm range (Marjanovic et.
al., 2009).
• Reduced carbon footprint
Reduction in the logistics subsequently leads to lower fuel emissions thereby reducing the
carbon footprint in comparison with cut and fill method.
• Cost benefit
The cost benefit of RoadCem depends upon the local condition and availability of
construction material. RoadCem cost is more expensive when compared to conventional
techniques, this can be offset by faster construction, use of native soil and reduced
transportation for the system resulting in lower cost and schedule costs. Reduction in project
cost and schedule is 10-30% of traditional costs (Marjanovic et. al., 2009).
Appendix 1 provides a more detailed insight for the cost breakdown.
1.4. Stakeholder identification and Contracting Process

In order to utilise RoadCem in Shell Projects the following process is recommended:
• RoadCem is identified as a possible solution for earthworks/road construction during FEED.
• Shell Contracting and Procurement will be involved with early market survey for sourcing of
structural fill and cement.
• Preliminary lab trials should be carried out to assess design mix for RoadCem to allow
detailed cost benefit analysis.
• FEED contractor develops detailed specifications for execution of works.
• EPC contractor responsible for subcontracting RoadCem (if chosen design solution) and
overall design and construction.
1.5. Selected first application

From past decade RoadCem product has been successfully used worldwide for the stabilisation
of earthworks, road building and hydraulic engineering projects outside Shell. RoadCem is once
applied in a Shell project at Canada on a small scale, but details could not be traced. The first
large scale application in Shell can be expected for Iraq Majnoon Enabling Infrastructure Works
(EIW). It can also be used in brownfield site during turnaround or rejuvenation programmes,
which requires road building/earthworks.
2. RoadCem Technical Evaluation

2.1. Theory of working
The constituents of RoadCem are as following:
• Alkali metal.
• Alkaline earth metal (NaCl, KCl, CaCl2 and MgCl2).
• Oxides.
• Synthetic zeolites.
• Activator.
The mixture of RoadCem, cement, water and native soil undergoes hydration process that leads
to hardening. The hydration process is similar to conventional cement reaction in soil
stabilisation but the hydration will have different end product due to RoadCem. The addition of
RoadCem alters the rate at which hydration reaction occurs and the relative distribution of
hydration products.
Upon the addition of water, cement rapidly reacts to release calcium ions, hydroxide ions and a
large amount of heat. The pH quickly raises to over 12 because of the release of alkaline
hydroxide ions. The reaction slowly continues producing calcium hydroxide and calcium silicate
hydrate, as shown in Figure 2.1. The hydration will continue as long as water is present and there
are still anhydrate compounds in the cement paste. The calcium silicate hydrate crystals grow
thicker which makes it more difficult for water molecules to reach the anhydrate cement
constituents. This coating thickens over time causing the production of calcium silicate hydrate to
become slower and slower. This crystallised gel hardens and gains strength with time.
The strength of the product increases when less water is used to make a product.
Figure 2.1: Microscopic image: A. Hydration reaction of cement and water. B. Hydration
reaction of RoadCem, cement and water (Marjanovic et. al., 2009).
Marjanovic et. al. (2009) explained that RoadCem addition to the cement-water mix reduces the
amount of water trapped as free water and the crystals grow into the empty void space.
This makes the product less permeable to water and more resistant to all types of attack that are
either water dependant or water influenced. The empty space (porosity) is still determined by the
water to cement ratio but is affected to a lesser extent because of the increased rate and extent of
the crystallization process. A bigger fraction of the water is converted to crystalline water than is
the case with the reactions in the absence of RoadCem. The reduced porosity and increased
crystalline structural matrix increases compressive, flexural and breaking strength of the product
and change the relative ratio between these strengths. RoadCem is also used for stabilising the
contaminated soil as the enhanced crystalline structure of the cement binds and hardens in such a
way that during the process contamination is fixed in the crystalline matrix.
The RoadCem mixed cement extends the growth of calcium crystals into hexagonal shaped long
needles forming a crystal lattice. The extended crystallization process changes significantly when
using RoadCem. The binding mechanism changes from “glue” to “wrapping” as shown in
Figure 2.2. The “wrapping” effect allows RoadCem modified cement to bind even heavy clay and
previously non-bondable materials such as sludge or acidic material, which is not feasible with
pure cement or lime. Moreover, the reaction also enables cat ion exchange, anion exchange,
replacement and charge neutralization especially with clays and similar materials.
Figure 2.2: Simulated expressions of the hydration reactions and associated “wrapping”
crystallization effect (Marjanovic et. al., 2009). Evolution in hydration product
starting from top left corner to bottom right corner.
2.2. Results of technical validation studies

Several external studies have been performed to validate the performance of RoadCem.
The conclusions of few selected studies are presented below. These studies are not sponsored by
Shell and they are commissioned by universities with support from PowerCem.
"Stabilising the future of working platforms" (Faux, 2015)

The design of working platform using cement and RoadCem stabilised soils was evaluated for a
project site in Severn Trent located in Burton on Trent, Staffordshire. The researcher concluded
that the thickness of the platform reduced by 400 mm as compared to the original platform.
Schedule savings was reported as 3 weeks for 6000 m2 site area. Additionally, the study indicates
that the main economic benefits provided by the elimination of landfill costs for excavated earth
and ease of logistics. Where these benefits are not applicable, the perceived economic saving may
not be so significant because the cost of RoadCem stabilisation is likely to be higher than
traditional construction on smaller projects.
"Structural Properties of Concrete Materials Containing RoadCem" (Holmes, 2015)

Structural properties of two mixes with and without RoadCem were compared by laboratory
experiments such as compressive strength, flexural strength, Young’s modulus, thermal analysis
and falling head permeability tests. The compressive strength increased with the addition of
RoadCem compared with the plain cement mix. Flexural strength of concrete is typically 10% of
the compressive strength whereas the flexural strength of concrete mixed with RoadCem 1% by
weight is 20% and 26% of the compressive strength at 28 days. The rate of flexural strain
increase in the plain concrete samples appears to be more rapid and sharp. However, the material
appears to yield first with a small increase in load until ultimate failure. The rate of strain increase
during loading for the RoadCem is linear up to the point of failure with no obvious yield point.
The results indicate that the plain mix is more flexible with yielding occurring before ultimate
failure where the RoadCem samples sustain the load until breaking. In addition, the thermal
performance of the RoadCem mix is much improved, particularly at low temperatures compared
with the plain mix.
"Cement Stabilised Materials with Use of RoadCem Additive" (Wu, 2015)

The research evaluated properties of cement stabilised sand and clay with and without use of
RoadCem additive. The typical dosage of RoadCem was in range of 1.5-2.2 kg/m3 and cement
was in range of 150-220 kg/m3. The strength improvement by using RoadCem was generally in a
range of 10% to 30% compared to cement stabilisation. The RoadCem additive reduces the total
shrinkage of clay‐cement material by 50% at 28 days and the higher the RoadCem additive
content, the less the drying shrinkage. Also, it reduces the total tensile stress, width of the
transverse cracks and the number of cracks approximately by 50% in cement stabilised materials.
However, the compressive and indirect tensile strength of the field cores reach 30% to 70% of
the strength obtained from the laboratory‐prepared specimens.
2.3. Construction process

Step by step construction process for the RoadCem application is presented in Table 2.1.
The quality control process is elaborated in Appendix 2.
Table 2.1: Construction step for RoadCem stabilization (Marjanovic et. al., 2009)
Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5:

Site Preparation Applying RoadCem Applying cement Finishing RoadCem layer Curing and finishing
Prepare the site for Apply RoadCem mix as per Apply cement using a suitable Finish the RoadCem layer Cure with water to reduce
construction. the design mix specifications. cement spreader in using a grader. shrinkage cracks after the
accordance with the dosage stabilization.
specifications.
• Remove underground • The RoadCem needs to • Mix in the cement to the • After levelling and • Keep the stabilization
utilities, objects, be mixed 2/3 of the design thickness. profiling, the RoadCem wet/moist during 7 days, or
vegetation etc. design thickness, using a • Deviation in layer layer needs to be close the surface after 3
• Gradient and levelling of suitable soil stabilizer. thickness will affect the compacted with a steel days by an impermeable
the ground as per the If necessary, apply dosage and could reduce drum compactor for a wearing course.
design. sufficient water before the quality of the smooth surface.
• Marking of survey, levels applying RoadCem or stabilization. • Depending of the
and direction of the road, during mixing. • Add sufficient water moisture content and the
pavement, etc. Adding excessive water during mixing to reach the type of soil the
• Application of water to could penetrate to the required moisture content. compaction must be done
reach Optimum Moisture sublayer and rinse the • Once the cement is mixed dynamically or statically.
Content (OMC). RoadCem. in, the hydration process • Always finish with static
• Compaction of native • After mixing, reshape of the cement starts. compaction.
soil to proctor Maximum and compact the mixed • The entire process of • Time between mixing
Dry Density (MDD). soil. The RoadCem can mixing, compacting and cement and final
• Remove big stones etc. be spread with a suitable levelling must be finished compaction shall be
(> 32 mm) (which spreader or manually. within the working maximum 2-3 hours.
cannot be used with window of the cement
RoadCem). type.
• Check after the cement is
mixed if there is necessary
water in the soil.
Levelling of the natural Spreading RoadCem using Spreading and mixing cement Shaping of the RoadCem Curing of RoadCem layer
ground spreader
layer
Add water to reach OMC Mixing RoadCem Adding water during mixing Compaction of RoadCem Applying asphalt layer
layer
2.4. Issues and proposed solutions

Some of the key design requirements and issues of the RoadCem are as following:
• Quality Control
The performance of the RoadCem stabilisation depends upon the field quality control.
Similar to conventional earthworks, the execution requires adherence to the design
recommendations, mix proportion, equipment meeting the specification and thorough
supervision. A detailed inspection and test plan will be required to manage the field quality.
Else the properties of the stabilised soil at field would be inferior than the laboratory trials
considered during design.
• Variables in mix design
The stabilisation for each project needs to be specifically designed for native soil condition,
expected load, design life and properties of locally available cement and water. There is
limited margin for error if these parameters differ than the original design case. Such
sensitivities should be accounted during mix design.
• Long term performance
The RoadCem stabilised soil is more durable compared to cement stabilised soil due to
enhanced chemical reaction. However, limited field studies and data are available to establish
long term performance in variety of degrading environment such as carbonation. The long-
term performance should be monitored as the field data from old site are published.
• Cost benefit
The cost of the RoadCem stabilisation can be higher than the conventional earthworks if
good quality construction material is locally available. Similarly, the cost of alternative
stabilisation could be cheaper if it is locally popular. A thorough cost analysis is necessary for
deployment of RoadCem.
• Failure of stabilised structural fill
The residual strength of RoadCem stabilised soil is smaller compared to peak strength. There
will be crushing on the RoadCem improved soil when the cemented bond breaks. Therefore,
the foundation supported by stabilised structural fill can experience higher settlement once
the material is crushed. The foundation design should account for the stress-strain behaviour
to assure serviceability of the structure.
• Cement quantity
The stabilisation requires cement mixing up to 10% of total mass. A large-scale earthwork
will require local supply of such huge quantity. Therefore, a dedicated market survey will be
required to assure uninterrupted supply of cement before selecting stabilisation with
RoadCem.
• Front-end work
The RoadCem design requires laboratory trials on soil samples derived from site. These tests
are conducted by RoadCem to recommend appropriate mix design. Such study is required to
be done at early phase of project before such concept is selected.
• Contractor Onboarding
The RoadCem technology is not yet matured and therefore EPC companies and local
construction contractors will require onboarding. Construction crew may require training if
they are unfamiliar with the stabilisation process.
SR.17.01316 - 10 - Restricted
• Logistics
RoadCem needs to be imported to execution site from its manufacturing base. The execution
plan should account for Cement as well as RoadCem procurement, transport, handling and
storage.
• Repair and Maintenance
Localised repair or long term maintenance will require mobilisation of materials, equipment
and construction crew as in case of initial construction. Therefore, the repair process will not
be as easy as conventional earthworks or cement stabilised soils.
• Limiting Application
The technology is mainly used in pavement constructions, i.e. roads and highways. But
technology is not much used in foundation base or concrete applications due to a small
amount of past projects.
2.5. Review against existing alternatives

Figure 2.3 shows main type of soil stabilisation methods commonly adopted for road and paving
construction. These methods are compared against various parameter in Table 2.2. Also, the
suitability of existing stabilisation techniques for different type of ground is represented in
Table 2.3.
Figure 2.3 : Type of soil stabilisation methods for road and paving works
Table 2.2: Relative comparison of various stabilisation methods for road and earthworks.
Chemical Mechanical Geosynthetics
Type Cement based Nano based

Cement Lime Polymer/Enzy Bitumen additives- Geogrid or
additives- Cut and Fill
stabilisation stabilisation mes additives stabilisation Geotextile
Mammoet RoadCem
All types of Possible with Replacement Reinforcement to

Binding with Sand and Fine grained Coarse sands Possible with all
soils, but limited all types of of poor native reduce quantity
soil type gravels. soils. and gravels types of soils
use with clay. soils soil of imported fill.
Compressive High Medium Low High

Medium (1MPa) Very high N/A N/A
strength (>5 MPa) (0.8 MPa) (<0.8 MPa) (>5 MPa)
Typical
Pavement
0.35 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.80 0.50
Thickness
(m)
Use of in-situ Yes, where Yes, where Yes, where Yes, where Yes, where Yes, where
No No
Materials feasible feasible feasible feasible feasible feasible
HSSE
Exposure –
+ + + + ++ ++ -- -
Road
Transport
Durability of
the material /
+ + ++ - + ++ - +
Erosion
Resistance
Depends on
Cost (per m2) - - - + -- - -
source
Speed of
construction ++ ++ ++ - ++ ++ -- +
(per m2)
Table 2.3: Applicability of various stabilisation methods for various ground
Type Clay Silt Sand Gravel or Stone

Cement stabilisation
Lime stabilisation
Polymer/Enzymes
additives
Bitumen stabilisation
Cement based additives
(RoadCem)
Nano based additives
(Mammoet)
Cut and Fill
Geogrid
2.6. Impact on standards

The current DEP 34.11.00.11-Gen. and DEP 34.11.00.12-Gen. does not have a specific guideline
or requirement on soil stabilisation using cement additives. The civil engineering industry
standard for earthwork and soil stabilisation will be still applicable for RoadCem mixed product.
Modification of DEP or industry standard is not expected.
2.7. Potential future developments

RoadCem has potential application for stabilisation of structural fill and general fill. However,
RoadCem has limited case study for large scale site preparation works compared to road and
working platform construction. Additional study for foundation bearing structural fill will
increase confidence for wider applications.
Currently this DR is applicable for uncontaminated soils, but RoadCem has a potential
application in treating the contaminated soils and preventing leaching of chemicals from the
stabilised soil.
The long-term performance should be assessed from field performance to retain the confidence
in design life.
3. Risk and Mitigations

3.1. Asset Integrity, Process safety and HSE implication of RoadCem
There is no explicit asset integrity, process safety or HSE risk of RoadCem deployment, as long
as the design and field quality control meets specification. Foundation can experience collapse
settlement for stabilised structural fill in case of design or construction error. Such settlement can
lead to asset integrity problem. Therefore, the design and QA/QC during field construction
requires stringent review. In general, the RoadCem stabilised soil is more resistant to ageing and
environmental degradation than traditional soil stabilisation methods. The integrity of the final
product remains intact and therefore overall life cycle costs are expected to be lower.
3.2. Risk Assessment

Table 3.1 shows risk and mitigation plan for the RoadCem deployment. Figure 3.1 shows the
Risk Assessment Matrix used for technology Development Release process.
Figure 3.1: Risk Assessment Matrix used for technology Development Release process
Table 3.1: Risk Assessment for RoadCem deployment
Risk Rating Risk Rating after

(use Risk Matrix for definition) mitigation
TECOP
To be
Issue Issue Potential Category (x)
Conseq- Prob- Owner closed Conseq- Prob-
No. (Threat/Opportunity) Description Consequence Rating Response Mitigating Rating
uence ability during uence ability
Type Action/Response
0-5 A-E
T E C O P 0-5 A-E 0-5 A-E
Quality Control
Mix specification
and method
statements
Excessive confirmed by
deformation laboratory testing
The field QC
affecting and field trials.
identifies
structural Work performance
inferior
integrity. demonstrated by
quality of
Stabilised Soil does not Reduction in detailed QA/QC
1 stabilised soil, x x 3 C Material Mitigate EPC Execute 1 B Small
meet specifications the durability plan.
which require
and Repair strategy
re-work to
performance. Corrective actions
meet the
Rework will based on the repair
specification.
impact cost strategy developed
and schedule. by RoadCem so that
the final quality
meets the
specification.
The field QC
Reliable field
does not Unknown and
inspection and test
identify uncontrolled
plans meeting the
inferior deformation
QA/QC targets.
quality of affecting
Intermediate checks
stabilised soil. structural
Poor field quality to audit the field
2 The integrity. x x 3 C Material Mitigate EPC Execute 1 B Small
inspection inspector’s
unnoticed Excessive cost
observation.
poor quality of repair once
Training and
can lead to the
empowerment of
surprise foundations are
field inspector to
problem built.
notice anomalies.
much after

TECOP
To be
0-5 A-E
T E C O P 0-5 A-E 0-5 A-E
the
construction
of final
pavement or
foundation.
Limited data
to assurance
long term
performance
of RoadCem
stabilised soil.
Carbonation Limit use of
of the Long term RoadCem to areas
stabilised soil durability where remediation
Unknown Long term due to the affects the is possible for long
performance affected by reaction of lifespan of the term durability EPC
3 x x 3 B Material Analyse Execute 1 B Small
environmental calcium pavement. or Designer
degradation hydroxide Increases Limit design bearing
with the maintenance capacity of
carbon cost. RoadCem improved
dioxide soil.
present in the
air leads to
the
degradation
of the
structure.

TECOP
To be
0-5 A-E
T E C O P 0-5 A-E 0-5 A-E
The field
investigation
Extensive site
could not
testing and lab trials
capture
to cover all possible
water/soil Unknown site
field cases.
conditions conditions will
Report the
that are produce poor
unknown field
varying across quality
conditions and
the site. stabilised soil
amend the mix
Therefore, the that cannot
design to meet the
Incorrect mix design to lab trial for meet the EPC/
4 x x 3 C Material Analyse target design Define 1 B Small
represent field condition the performance CSO
requirements.
preparation of requirements.
Repair strategy
mix design Cost, schedule,
Corrective actions
and durability and
based on the repair
specification asset integrity
strategy developed
could not will be
by RoadCem so that
cover the affected.
the final quality
possible
meets the
water/soil
specification
conditions at
site.
Maintenance
and repair of
Difficult to
the pavement
repair,
later in the Recommend
depending on
project will conservative design
Damage to RoadCem the nature of
5 require x x 2 C Material Analyse where damage to Asset Operate 2 B Small
Pavement during lifetime defect and
mobilisation road surface may be
resources
of the expected.
availability at
specialised
the site.
equipment
and material.

TECOP
To be
0-5 A-E
T E C O P 0-5 A-E 0-5 A-E
Logistics
Handling
large
quantities of
cement needs Proper material
large silo or Schedule delay logistics plan and
warehouses due to implementation of
with required improper the handling and
optimum logistics. storage instructions.
Logistic problem for storage Cement can Use manufacturer’s
6 x 2 B Small Mitigate EPC Execute 2 A Small
cement handling conditions. cause health proposed storage
Secondly, the hazards by skin and PPE. Limited
cement usage contact and exposure for
causes dust inhalation of labourers working
generation, dust. with cement
which can handling.
expose field
crew to health
hazards.
Lack of
skilled
labourer will Rework will Competence
impact the affect cost and development plan
Unavailability of skilled application of schedule. for RoadCem
7 x x 2 B Small Mitigate EPC Execute 2 A Small
labourer RoadCem. Additional cost application
Schedule, for training the contractors by
quality and labourers. PowerCem.
cost will be
impacted.

TECOP
To be
0-5 A-E
T E C O P 0-5 A-E 0-5 A-E
Non-
availability of
specialised
equipment, Cost and Proper logistics
Logistics for equipment
which is Schedule of the planning at very
8 such as cement and x x 2 B Small Mitigate EPC Define 1 A Small
subject to project gets early stage of the
RoadCem spreader
country's affected. project.
practise and
Contractor's
capability.
As RoadCem
is a single
sourced
vendor
specific
material, it
should be
shipped to
Non-sustained
project site.
supply of
Non- Proper logistics
Non-availability of RoadCem can
availability of planning at very EPC/
9 RoadCem in few have x 3 C Material Mitigate Define 2 B Small
local partners early stage of the C&P
countries implications in
for project.
cost and
distribution of
schedule.
RoadCem
(e.g. US).
Delayed
supply of
RoadCem can
cause
schedule
delay.

TECOP
To be
0-5 A-E
T E C O P 0-5 A-E 0-5 A-E
RoadCem mix
design
requires large
quantity of
cement. In Non-sustained Market survey for
Local non -availability of case of local supply of raw material’s
EPC/
10 large quantity of cement unavailability, cement will x 3 C Material Mitigate availability to be Define 2 B Small
C&P
at project site. it should be cause delay in checked at a very
shipped. This schedule. early stage.
may cause
delay and add
additional
logistics cost.

TECOP
To be
0-5 A-E
T E C O P 0-5 A-E 0-5 A-E
Cost
Cost of
equipment,
cement and
execution
varies as per Cost of
High cost of stabilisation the site RoadCem can Cost benefits
Project
11 relative to native fill conditions. be higher x 3 B Material Analyse calculation to be Define 2 B Small
Services
material Hence the compared to done at early stage.
cost benefit alternatives.
realization of
RoadCem
cannot be
generalized.
4. Deployment Plan
The Development Release did not identify any risks, which would withhold the further
application of RoadCem in Shell projects. The product can be used for road, paving/working
platform and large scale cut-fill balance for site preparation.
Following the experience of large scale application of RoadCem in the earthworks industry, the
material is matured and ready for application.
In terms of cost, RoadCem is an effective solution where the cost of import of fill material is
high and schedule or HSSE road transport exposure are driving parameters.
The design and method statement shall be based on specification from manufacturer.
4.1. Stakeholders and DR Review process

This Development Release is prepared by following members of Shell team along with
contribution from RoadCem specialists. The overall funding has been provided through TRT
initiatives:
• Nishtha Saraswat – Civil and Structural Engineer.
• Kaushal Joshi – Geotechnical Engineer.
The Development Release will be approved by Keith Mash as TA-1 and Ruth Fearon as TA 2
and SME onshore geotechnical engineering.
A challenge session was planned on 8th August 2017 and it was attended by the following
members:
Name Reference indicator Role

PTIN-PTE/PCSO General Manager and RDH Civil Structural
Keith Mash
Offshore East. TA-1 CSO.
Ruth Fearon PTIN-PTE/PCSO PTE - Offshore Geotechnical Engineering.
TA-2 Geotechnical Engineering.
Jason Newlin GSNL-PTE/ECSO PTE - Onshore Geotechnical Engineering.
TA-2 Geotechnical Engineering.
DongDong Chang GSUSI-PTE/ACSO Regional Team Lead Geotech and Metocean,
ACSO. TA-2 Geotechnical Engineering.
Ewoud van Haaften GSNL-PTE/ECSO CSO Technology and Capability lead. TA2
Offshore engineering.
Kaushal Joshi PTIN-PTE/PCSO Proposer of this DR
Nishtha Saraswat PTIN-PTE/PCSO Proposer of this DR
References
[1] Faux, D (2015), “Stabilising the Future of Working Platforms” Master thesis dissertation,
University of Birmingham.
[2] Holmes, Niall (2015),” Structural Properties of Concrete Materials Containing RoadCem”,
Journal of Construction Engineering, Volume 2015.
[3] P. Marjanovic, C.E.G. Egyed, P. de La Roij, R. de La Roij (2009) “The Road to the Future”
Manual for working with RoadCem., ISBN 978-90-79835-01-0 – Edition 2.
[4] UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education (2012), “Macro-economic Effects of Using
the PowerCem Technology on Road Infrastructure in flood risk Areas”, Ref No:
RC.INT.17.24052012.
[5] Wu, P (2015)” Cement Stabilised Materials with Use of RoadCem Additive”, PhD
dissertation, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.
Appendix 1. Cost benefit analysis – A case study by UNESCO

A case study of the benefits of using RoadCem was carried out by UNESCO in 2012. The study
analysed the cost benefit of RoadCem over traditional method of road construction.
Tabasco in Mexico suffers from repeated large scale flooding and as a result infrastructure plays a
crucial role for managing the disaster relief. Hence, the integrity of roads and pavements after the
flood is of high importance. Traditionally, the pavement structure on top of the dikes was mainly
built using conventional foundation materials but these are vulnerable to erosion. The case study
considered using RoadCem for road infrastructure.
The length and vehicular traffic density for the various types of roads in Tabasco state is
documented in Table A1.1.
Table A1.1: Details of road types in Tabasco state
Road Type Highways Primary roads Secondary roads Rural roads Access roads
Truck traffic 750 per day, 500 per day, 250 per day, each 125 per day, 50 per day,
intensity each each direction direction each each direction
direction direction
Width of 24 m 12 m 9m 7m 6m
highway
Total 191 km 1082 km 1171 km 8683 km 604 km
Length
Typical cross section of a traditional road is represented in Figure A1.1. The traditional pavement
construction in case of Tabasco consists of the following different layers:
• Wearing course layer consists of asphalt at the surface. The thickness of this layer depends on
the soil type and the expected traffic intensity.
• Base-course consists of a granular material. The thickness of this layer was 0.25 m and the
dynamic stiffness of this layer was 600 MPa.
• Sub-base consists of a well graded and well compacted layer of sand. The thickness of this
layer was 0.25 m and the dynamic stiffness was 150 MPa.
• Sub-grade is made up of native ground including stone, shell, sand-shell, crushed slag, and
recycled concrete.
Figure A1.1: Traditional method of road construction (UNESCO, 2012)

The traditional road cross section changes significantly once the RoadCem is mixed.
RoadCem-cement binds the subgrade, sub-base and base-course layers in to a single base course
with a surface layer on top as shown in Figure A1.2. The amount of RoadCem and cement
depends on the soil type which should be bound. Typically, the dosage of RoadCem was in the
range 1.5-2.2 kg/m3. The amount of cement varied as 150-220 kg/m3 as reported by UNESCO
(2012).
Figure A1.2: RoadCem method of construction (UNESCO, 2012)

The cost of the construction of roads by traditional and RoadCem method for different types of
roads and soil condition as reported by UNESCO (2012) is elaborated in Table A1.2. For all the
cases, the RoadCem construction cost was cheaper than the traditional method by significant
margin.
Table A1.2: Total cost in Mexican Peso per m2 for different road type in variety of ground
conditions as reported by UNESCO (2012).
Organic Clay Clay Sandy clay Sand

Type of Road Tradi- Road- Tradi- Road- Tradi- Road- Tradi- Road-
tional Cem tional Cem tional Cem tional Cem
Highways 1801 989 1716 897 1609 827 1609 777
Primary Road 1631 972 1631 880 1524 812 1524 764
Secondary Road 1461 724 1461 628 1354 556 1354 503
Rural 1206 688 1206 595 1099 526 1099 476
Access 1036 652 1036 526 930 496 930 448
In addition, UNESCO (2012) studied the maintenance cost for road for this case study. The road
gets damaged directly due to road-erosion of dikes or embankments and indirectly because of
water penetration into pavement construction during flooding. After a flood, the reconstruction
of the damaged roads will involve similar conventional processes for the road construction as
before. However, reconstruction of roads using RoadCem involves using the debris of old
construction in the new construction. Therefore, the overall maintenance cost of RoadCem road
were found by UNESCO (2012) to be lower than the traditional methods. Figure A1.3 shows
relative comparison for the maintenance cost between traditional method and RoadCem.
The results obtained in this study are based on the extent of floods in the year 2011-2012.
This study takes into consideration that not all the roads located in the flooded area will be
damaged. The maintenance costs are indicated based on the judgement.
Figure A1.3: Incremental maintenance costs for tradition method and RoadCem
UNESCO (2012) studies indicate that RoadCem offers an economic advantage over a longer
term. As the difference in the maintenance costs increases from 25% in first year to over 75%
over a decade. So, the potential of this technology can be realized fully over a longer term.
However, the extent of economic benefits realization depends on the local parameters of the
project such as site conditions, nature of soil, type of roads, availability of the construction
infrastructure, cost of raw materials, maintenance practices, etc. Hence, a site specific cost benefit
analysis is recommended during the concept selection of road design to check whether RoadCem
is economical compared to other alternatives.
Appendix 2. Quality Control program

A quality control program for RoadCem is developed based on GFS Requirements for
Controlled Low-Strength Material (CLSM) and the procedures detailed in the “Manual for quality
control RoadCem”. This is divided into the following four stages:
1. In-situ material characterisation.
2. Laboratory Testing for Mix Design,
3. Field trials,
4. Production testing.
A2.1. Stage 1: In-situ material characterisation

The first stage of the quality control shall start with characterisation of the in-situ soil.
The geotechnical properties of untreated soil shall be determined as discussed in Table A2.1.
Additionally, the samples of the cement and mixing water shall be collected for the development
of mix design. Test and reporting requirements shall be as per relevant ASTM standard and as
directed by Principal. In some cases and as directed by Principal, only visual inspection will be
required.
Table A2.1: Quality control program for Stage 1: In-situ material characterization
Frequency (per
Test Location Test method and amount m of Road Criteria
length)
Plate test,
Min. design
Bearing capacity Clegg hammer, Every 100 m
Field bearing
of native ground Falling Weight Deflectometer
capacity
testing
Every 250 m As per
Field and Taking soil samples and do soil
Soil type (Extra tests in case USCS
Laboratory Classification USCS
of deviations) classification
A2.2. Laboratory Testing for Mix Design

The mix design shall be developed in laboratory prior to the construction works in field.
RoadCem shall propose a trial mix design based on the paving design requirement and properties
of the in-situ material. The required value of compressive strength of stabilised soil shall be
determined for the project-specific application. The soil samples taken from the site shall be
analysed in the laboratory by RoadCem by varying the proportions of the cement, RoadCem,
water and native soil. Principal shall be invited to attend the mix design trials. All information
shall be submitted to the Principal for review and comment before use on the project. Table A2.2
provides the detail of the quality control program for stage 2.
Table A2.2: Quality control program for Stage 2: Laboratory Testing for Mix Design
Frequency (per m
Test Location Test method and amount Criteria
of Road length)
Cement, Material/ chemical tests for Every lot of material
As per
water, mix design. E.g. strength of (Extra tests in case of
Laboratory manufacturer’s
admixtures cement, chloride and sulphate change in source or
certificates
quality content in water, etc. deviations)
Validation mix design as
recommended, including
Every change in the
Cube/cylinder compressive
in-situ property OR
strength* 7, 14, 28 and 56 Min. design
Mix design Laboratory 500 m
days; values
(Extra tests in case of
Density at 2, 7, and 14 days;
deviations)
Moisture content at 2, 7 and
14 days.
A2.3. Stage 3: Field trials

The execution contractor shall conduct successful field trials on the proposed mix design using
the procedure recommended by RoadCem. The general requirements for field trials are as
following and discussed in Table A2.3:
1. The objective of trials shall be to demonstrate that by using the proposed plant and
equipment on the proposed mix design will produce paving work whose engineering
properties meets the specification, as determined by the laboratory tests and design
calculations.
2. The field trial shall commence after the mix design and the paving works field execution
procedure is provided by RoadCem.
3. The trial area shall not be incorporated into permanent fill/road until the work complies with
the target requirements.
4. The trial shall meet the following requirements for the construction step 1: Site preparation
for sub-grade, as discussed in Table 2.1:
a. Three test areas of 20 m (65 ft.) length by 6 m (20 ft.) wide, or three roller widths,
whichever is wider shall be prepared on the actual site of construction from which the
topsoil has been removed and the formation level prepared as described in project
drawings.
b. The fill material under trial shall then be spread over each of these three areas.
c. The moisture content of the proposed fill material shall be determined at three locations
in each of the three trial areas to confirm it is in compliance with Table A2.3.
d. Rapid determination of moisture content may be made to avoid delay in using the oven
drying method, however, this shall be supported by additional samples being taken and
tested using the oven drying method. If it fails to comply, then Contractor shall take
actions to bring the moisture content within specification.
e. Contractor shall determine the elevation at six locations of both the top surface of the fill
material and the surrounding formation level.
5. The field trial shall record the dosage of the RoadCem, cement and water as well as thickness
of treated soil layer during the second and third step of construction, as discussed in
Table 2.1. The time required for spreading and mixing shall be recorded. The homogeneity
of the mixing shall be assured during the trial.
6. The time required for compacting and levelling shall be recorded for the construction step 4:
Finishing RoadCem layer, as discussed in Table 2.1. The quality control checks for
compacting and levelling shall be as following:
a. RoadCem shall propose the number of passes ‘n’ that are expected to be required to
achieve the specified minimum dry density for the proposed fill material. The test areas
shall then be compacted with the plant using ‘n-2’ number of passes. Samples shall be
taken and tests performed at a minimum of five locations (a minimum of two number
from mid-height and two number from the base of the layer) on each test area to
determine the moisture content and dry density as well as the Moisture Condition Value
(MCV) and any other properties of the material over the full thickness of the layer of fill
material.
b. The densities of the soil shall be determined from the mean of five determinations for
each soil condition using one of the following methods:
i. Core-cutter (ASTM D1556).
ii. Sand replacement (ASTM D4914).
iii. Water replacement (ASTM D5030).
c. The alternative method (e.g. a nuclear density gauge or gamma radiation test) shall not
replace test methods specified above until such time successful results of the calibration
exercise have been submitted to and approved by Principal. This calibration exercise shall
be carried out during the compaction trial.
d. The three areas shall be compacted with another two passes, followed by another suite of
sampling and testing as described above at different locations to the previous points.
A final two passes shall be carried out followed by a final suite of sampling and testing at
different points.
e. Should the Contractor consider the compactive effort from the equipment be adversely
affected by being carried out directly on the formation level, he may repeat the
compaction trial described above on an additional layer placed on top of the first
compacted layer.
f. On completion of compaction of each layer, the surface elevation of the fill shall be
determined at the same locations as the pre-compaction survey.
g. The dry density and moisture content test results shall be compared against the
requirements of the specification to ensure compliance.
7. The curing timing shall be recorded for the construction step 5: Curing and finishing.
8. Core samples shall be extracted from the test site and cube/cylinder compressive strength
shall be determined at 7 and 28 days of curing. Deviation in the compressive strength shall be
reported to RoadCem and Principal in order to revise the mix design or field execution
procedure.
9. The trials shall be completed before the main construction starts.
Table A2.3: Quality control program for Stage 3: Field trials
Test Test method Frequency Criteria

Material/chemical tests and
Cement, water, certificates. Every lot of material As per
admixtures and E.g. strength of cement, (Extra tests in case of change manufacturer’s
mix design chloride and sulphate content in source or deviations) certificates
in water, etc.
Field mix For every field trial
Visual inspection
observation
Field mix batch For every field trial
Batch record
record
RoadCem At 7 and 28 days for every
Cube/cylinder compressive Minimum
compressive field trial
strength design values
strength
RoadCem Insitu At time of mixing, 2 and 7 Minimum
Insitu field density
field density days for every field trial design values
RoadCem Insitu At time of mixing, 2 and 7 Minimum
Moisture content
field density days for every field trial design values
QA/QC
Graphical representation of all
Monitoring and For every field trial
QA/QC testing on date basis
reporting
A2.4. Stage 4: Production testing

The quality control procedure shall ensure that the field trial works is replicated during the
large-scale construction. Table A2.4 provide details of the quality control requirement in order to
achieve engineering properties as per the project specification.
The following test shall be performed to check the quality after the construction of work to
assure long term performance:
• Visual inspection on the RoadCem layer.
• Drill cores and test on:
- Compressive strength that shall be determined by the laboratory tests after 7 days of
curing. The test shall be conducted after 28 days, if the test sample of 7 days curing fail.
- Dynamic elastic modulus that shall be determined by the laboratory tests after 7 days of
curing.
- Layer thickness.
The drill cores shall be a minimal diameter of 150 mm. Cores shall be drilled 5 days and 3 weeks
after finishing the RoadCem layer. The thickness of the RoadCem layer shall be measured in the
boreholes during drilling. The samples shall be prepared for the compressive strength tests in the
laboratory. Samples shall be cut to a height of 150 mm (equal to the diameter of the cylinder).
Table A2.5 lists the quality control program after the construction work to assure long term
performance.
Table A2.4: Quality control program for Stage 4: Production testing during construction work
Test Test method Frequency Criteria

Inspection for spots, incomplete
General works At all times
compaction, etc.
Visual inspection of mixing of
Design Mix RoadCem and cement in the native At all times
application soil
Optimum
Moisture Digital/manual moisture For each mixing
-2% < OMC < 2%
Content measurement stretch
(OMC)
Layer Dig or measure the mixed Material For each mixing -2 cm < thickness
Thickness thickness stretch < 2 cm
Measure the density of the material, Min. 98%
Degree of determine the degree of For each mixing Mean 100% of
Compaction compaction as defined in Standard stretch Maximum Dry
Proctor Test Density (MDD)#
Measure and check the applied For each mixing
Design mix Per m2 = +/- 5%
amount of RoadCem and Cement stretch and total day
specification Per day = +/- 2%
per m2 production
# Traditional Cut-fill method requires 95% of MDD for General fill and 98% of MDD for Structural
fill.
Table A2.5: Quality control program for Stage 4: Production testing after construction work
Parameter Test Test method and amount Frequency

Visual inspection
Inspection of cracks or After 7 and 28
Damages on the RoadCem
deformations. days
layer.
Compressive strength and Dynamic After 7 Days (and
Material
Drilling cores elastic modulus on drilled 28 days if the 7
properties
cores. (1 sample per 800m2) days test fail)
Determination of the layer

Layer
Drilling cores thickness. After 7 days
thickness
(use drilling cores of layer thickness)
Appendix 3. Case study examples of project executed in extreme

environmental conditions
Two case studies for reference for the performance of RoadCem in extreme environmental
conditions are as follows:
• Saudi Arabia – extreme hot conditions.
• Canada – extreme cold conditions.
RoadCem use in
Canada.pdf
a)
RoadCem use in
Saudi Arabia.pdf
b)
Appendix 4. RoadCem presence in the world

A list of more than 40 countries where RoadCem has been used extensively is detailed below:
Armenia Curacao Mauritania Russia
Australia Czech Republic Mexico Saudi Arabia
Belgium Dominican Republic Mozambique Singapore
Brazil Ecuador Netherlands South Africa
Bulgaria Egypt New Zealand South Sudan
Cameroon Germany Pakistan Suriname
Canada Greece Panama Turkey
Colombia Guatemala Paraguay United Kingdom
Congo Iraq Peru USA
Croatia Ireland Qatar Vietnam

Appendix 5. Cost Estimation for a typical Iraq Project

A case study to compare cost benefit for road construction in a typical Shell Iraq project is detailed
below. The costs of a temporary unsurfaced road constructed using the conventional construction
method for EIW is compared with a RoadCem stabilised road.
The expected site condition and functional requirements for the temporary road design as following:
• Climate condition: desert environment with temperature range from 0 to +55 degree C.
• Soil type (USCS): expected to be silty clay or heavy clay soil;
• Ground Bearing capacity at the wheel contact level: 40 MPa (assumed);
• Groundwater level: > 1 m below surface level.
• Settlements: Not expected (assumed).
• Function of the pavement: Construction roads;
• Required surface layer of the construction: No surface layer required (criteria as dirt road);
• Normative type of vehicle: construction trucks;
• Expected traffic: 12 trucks a day during 5 years;
• Standard axle load: 100 kN;
• Standard axle load configuration: dual tire;
• Maximum loads on construction: construction truck – max. axle load 120 kN;
• Other loads having influence on the design: None;
• Desired structural lifespan of the construction: > 5 years;
• Expected traffic grow during the lifetime: no growth expected.
Based on this functional requirement, a conventional temporary access road is designed as shown in
Figure A5.1. The design vehicle load per axle is 100 kN is based on a requirement to transport heavy
bulk items through temporary roads. The design considers two layers of geogrids to reinforce the base
course and distribute the axle load on the subgrade. The top surface course of bituminous layer is not
included considering the temporary nature of the road.
Figure A5.1: Typical cross-section for 5 m wide temporary road (unsurfaced) using traditional
method
In order to meet the same functional requirements, RoadCem proposed the stabilised temporary road
as shown in Figure A5.2. The thickness of RoadCem stabilized layer is designed as 250 mm, whereas
conventional road required 400 mm if sub-base and 150 mm of finished surface. The expected
mechanical characteristics of the RoadCem stabilised road at 28 days is as following:
• Compressive strength: > 3.0 MPa.

• Dynamic modulus of elasticity: > 3500 MPa.
• Viscosity: 0.25.
• Breaking Strain: > 180 µm/m.
• Fatigue properties Neq=10(21.37-7.72*log(ε).
Figure A5.2: Typical cross section of temporary road (unsurfaced) using RoadCem
Many of the sites in Iraq require clearance for the Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) from the native
ground. Such ERW clearance will result in the existing ground level reduction by 300 mm.
Therefore, the subgrade layer is prepared by importing local Class C material to fill the excavated
surface to the existing ground level. The cost of building the subgrade layer is included in the
comparison.
Indicative unit rate of raw materials required as per the various roads components are detailed in
Table A5.6. The description of the material type are referenced from the Manual of Contract
Documents for Highway Works, Volume 1 by Highway Agency, UK. The costs are indicated per the
specified section thickness in US$ per m2 for a typical construction in Iraq as in year 2017.
Table A5.6: Indicative cost of paving materials for comparison of temporary road (unsurfaced)
using traditional method and RoadCem
Road Cost ($)/m2

Layer Material Type
type
Subgrade Compensate the ERW ground reduction and preparation
of Subgrade using Type 3 unbound mixture (Class C). 9
Depth: 300 mm
Traditional
Geogrid 2
method
Sub Base Type 2 unbound mixture (Class B). Depth: 400 mm 13.9
Geogrid 2
Finish Surface Type 3 unbound mixture (Class C). Depth: 150 mm 4.5
Total cost of Temporary Road (Unsurfaced) using traditional method 31.4
Subgrade Compensate the ERW ground reduction and preparation
of Subgrade using Type 3 unbound mixture (Class C). 9
Depth: 300 mm
RoadCem Sub Base RoadCem - Hydraulic road binder bound granular
25
mixture. Depth: 250 mm
Total cost of Temporary Road (Unsurfaced) using RoadCem
34
stabilisation
The costs for various layers as per the section thickness and final cost per m2 for two different road
system are calculated in Table A5.6. The cost of road construction using RoadCem is marginally higher
than the traditional method for this application. This difference is mainly because of the high unit rate
of the RoadCem sub base layer. For example, the standard unit rate for a typical RoadCem layer based
on the vendor’s experience is between US$ 8 to 12, however the cost of the layer for Iraq is considered
as US$ 25. The cost of RoadCem can be further reduced if thorough contract and procurement
exercise is conducted.
Bibliographic information
Classification Restricted
Report Number SR.17.01316
Title Soil Stabilisation Solution for Enabling Infrastructure
Sub title 3rd Party Technology Approval
Author(s) N. Saraswat (PTIN-PTE/PCSO)
K.D. Joshi (PTIN-PTE/PCSO)
Keywords RoadCem, Soil Stabilisation
Date of Issue November 2017
Period of Work May -June 2017
US Export Control Non US - No disclosure of Technology
WBSE Code ZZPT/015243/010901
Reviewed by R. Fearon (PTIN-PTE/PCSO)
J.A. Newlin (GSNL-PTE/ECSO)
D. Chang (GSUSI-PTE/ACSO)
Approved R. Fearon (PTIN-PTE/PCSO)
by/Content owner K.A. Mash (PTIN-PTE/PCSO)
Sponsoring Shell India Markets Private Limited - Shell Projects and Technology
Company /
Customer
Issuing Company Shell India Markets Private Limited - Shell Projects and Technology
Plot No - 7, Bangalore Hardware Park,
Devanahalli Industrial Park, Mahadeva Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru - 562 149
India
Report distribution
Electronic distribution (PDF)
Name, Company, Ref. Ind.
PT Information Services, PTT/TIKE, PT-Information-Services@Shell.com Word.+.PDF
Saraswat, Nishtha PTIN-PTE/PCSO PDF
Joshi, Kaushal D PTIN-PTE/PCSO PDF
Fearon, Ruth PTIN-PTE/PCSO PDF
Newlin, Jason A GSNL-PTE/ECSO PDF
Mash, Keith A PTIN-PTE/PCSO PDF
Chang, DongDong GSUSI-PTE/ACSO PDF
van Haaften, Ewoud E GSNL-PTE/ECSO PDF
Wee, Chelsia H GSMY-PTU/O/U PDF
The copyright of this document is vested in Shell Global Solutions International, B.V. The Hague, The Netherlands. All rights
reserved.
Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the copyright
owner. Shell Global Solutions is a trading style used by a network of technology companies of the Shell Group.

SR 17 01316 PDF

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

SR 17 01316 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Restricted SR.17.

Soil Stabilisation Solution for Enabling Infrastructure

Shell India Markets Private Limited - Shell Projects and Technology

Figure 1.1: Photo of RoadCem additive (Marjanovic et. al., 2009)

1.2. Salient Features

1.3. Identified business value

• Use of in-situ materials

• Reduced thickness of the pavement

1.4. Stakeholder identification and Contracting Process

1.5. Selected first application

2. RoadCem Technical Evaluation

2.2. Results of technical validation studies

"Stabilising the future of working platforms" (Faux, 2015)

"Structural Properties of Concrete Materials Containing RoadCem" (Holmes, 2015)

"Cement Stabilised Materials with Use of RoadCem Additive" (Wu, 2015)

2.3. Construction process

Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5:

2.4. Issues and proposed solutions

2.5. Review against existing alternatives

Chemical Mechanical Geosynthetics

Type Cement based Nano based

All types of Possible with Replacement Reinforcement to

Compressive High Medium Low High

Table 2.3: Applicability of various stabilisation methods for various ground

Type Clay Silt Sand Gravel or Stone

2.6. Impact on standards

2.7. Potential future developments

3. Risk and Mitigations

3.2. Risk Assessment

Table 3.1: Risk Assessment for RoadCem deployment

Risk Rating Risk Rating after

Risk Rating Risk Rating after

Risk Rating Risk Rating after

Risk Rating Risk Rating after

Risk Rating Risk Rating after

Risk Rating Risk Rating after

Risk Rating Risk Rating after

4.1. Stakeholders and DR Review process

Name Reference indicator Role

Appendix 1. Cost benefit analysis – A case study by UNESCO

Figure A1.1: Traditional method of road construction (UNESCO, 2012)

Figure A1.2: RoadCem method of construction (UNESCO, 2012)

Organic Clay Clay Sandy clay Sand

Appendix 2. Quality Control program

A2.1. Stage 1: In-situ material characterisation

A2.2. Laboratory Testing for Mix Design

A2.3. Stage 3: Field trials

Table A2.3: Quality control program for Stage 3: Field trials

Test Test method Frequency Criteria

A2.4. Stage 4: Production testing

Test Test method Frequency Criteria

Parameter Test Test method and amount Frequency

Determination of the layer

Appendix 3. Case study examples of project executed in extreme

Appendix 4. RoadCem presence in the world

Australia Czech Republic Mexico Saudi Arabia

Belgium Dominican Republic Mozambique Singapore

Brazil Ecuador Netherlands South Africa

Bulgaria Egypt New Zealand South Sudan

Cameroon Germany Pakistan Suriname

Canada Greece Panama Turkey

Colombia Guatemala Paraguay United Kingdom

Congo Iraq Peru USA