Soil Stabilisation in Road

Construction
Al McDermid
Managing Director, Beach Soil Stabilisation Ltd and
Chairman of Britpave Soil Stabilisation Task Group

What is Soil Stabilisation?

Quite simply, it is the method used to change an
unsuitable material into one that can be used for a
range of applications, from an engineered fill to a
sub-base replacement.
Most soils in the UK can be used for one form of
stabilisation or another by using dry powders.
Predominantly, Quicklime and Cement are used;
however GGBS and other hydraulic binders are
now being used on an increasing scale.

Binders Used
Lime Quicklime is used to improve moisture
content and modify the host materials properties to
enable greater compaction. It also helps to break
down particle size to allow other binders to coat
more particles.
Cement used to increase material strength to
achieve Type1/CBM equivalent. Used on its own
when stabilising sands and gravel mixes. Usually a
2 hour time limit for working.
GGBS Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag.
Used in materials that contain a risk of sulphate
attack. Similar strength gains to cement, but can be
worked for up to 24hrs before bonding completed.
PFA Pulverised Fuel Ash. Used as a bulking
agent in pure sands. Has some cementitious
properties as it contains lime.

Soil Stabilisation:
The Processes

Improvement - drying by chemical

reaction and heat generation

Modification - change in soil

properties which promotes strength

Stabilisation - long term cementitious

reaction between the binder and the
soil

Why Stabilise?

Lower Landfill Costs

Less Imported Granular material

Less aggregate levy

Reduced construction traffic in, out

and around the site

Faster solution to the construction of

the pavement

Generally 60% of the cost of

conventional, like-for-like pavement
layers
5

Where has it been used?

A66 Temple Sowerby Bypass

Where has it been used?

A429 Barford Bypass

Where has it been used?

A2/M2 Cobham Junction

Where has it been used?

A63 Selby Bypass

Other Projects
A66 Scotch Corner
A46 Newark
A505 Baldock Bypass
A34/M4 Junction, Chieveley
A120 Stansted
Stockport Gateway
A428 Bedford

10

References

DFT Specification For Highways Works

Series 600

Series 800

Britpave Guidelines For Best Practice

11

Roads Task Group

The Return of Concrete as the Pavement
Material of Choice

John Donegan Chartered Engineer

12

Dispel the myths!

1
Blacktop pavements are cheaper

WRONG!

13

Bitumen v Cement

14

The return of concrete

15

Cost Comparison
Further potential options

200mm CRCP with Exposed Aggregate

Concrete Surface (EACS)
200mm CRCP with Grooved & Ground
(G&G) surface
230mm Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC)
with 70mm surfacing

Dispel the myths!

2

Concrete pavements are noisy

WRONG!

17

Noise

New Highways Agency noise classification

system will be performance based

Noise parameters and texture depth only will

be specified

EACS is quieter than hot rolled asphalt

(HRA) and many other thin surface course
systems TRL 576

G&G noise level is significantly quieter than

HRA and in some locations performed as
well as a very quiet surfacing material TRL PPR607

Grooving & Grinding

SCRIM testing
confirms durability
of low speed skid
resistance

Texture depth is
good

High speed friction

has returned to
previous levels

Minimum 10 year
life for treatment

A94 Bavaria, Germany

20

Dispel the myths!

3

Concrete pavements are difficult to

build
WRONG!

21

Buildability
A47 - Placer/Spreader

22

Buildability
A47 - Slipform Paver

23

Buildability
M25 Widening - 2012

24

Buildability
Total Station Level Control on HBM Paver

25

Summarise Findings

Cost saving cementitious options already

exist in design manual - DMRB, HD26.

Further cementitious cost saving options are

available without compromising on noise.

The tipping point whereby rigid and rigid

composite options are competitive on first
cost has been passed.

The cost differential will increase as the

bitumen and cement price diverging trend
continues

Summarise Findings

Clear case for rigid concrete pavements for

heavily trafficked areas
Lane 1 replacement/inlay
Widening & hard shoulder upgrade to create
a new running lane for HGV traffic
Significant cost saving potential with a rigid
composite option using roller compacted
concrete (RCC)
Wider menu of pavement options
Better value for money!

The Return of Concrete

Pavements

John Donegan

Bitumen v Cement

Cost Comparison
Analysis based on following assumptions
Major greenfield site or substantial reconstruction
Heavily trafficked pavement -

> 80msa

Existing options from DMRB, HD26/06

On Class 3 Foundation
Benchmark pavement = DBM/HDM50 Fully Flexible

Flexible composite with HBM Category D base

CRCP with 30mm Thin Surface Course

Cost Comparison
Further potential options

200mm CRCP with Exposed Aggregate

Concrete Surface (EACS)
200mm CRCP with Grooved & Ground
(G&G) surface
250mm Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC)
with 70mm surfacing (ECOPAVE trial on
A30, 1992)

The return of concrete

Obstacles to progress

Noise!!!
Perceived problems with concrete surfaces
are no longer valid with modern low-noise
surface options

Noise

New Highways Agency noise classification

system will be performance based

Noise parameters and texture depth will be

specified

EACS is at least as quiet as hot rolled

asphalt (HRA) and many other thin surface
course systems TRL report 576

G&G noise level is significantly quieter than

HRA and in some locations performed as
well as a very quiet surfacing material TRL PPR607

Obstacles to progress
Durability of new surfaces
EACS already proven in Britain 15
years plus
Grooved & Ground surface in USA at
least 10 years life with limestone
aggregates
TRL report PPR607 Long term friction
performance of longitudinally diamond
ground concrete

BRITPAVE Seminar 2000

M23 Construction Details

BRITPAVE Seminar 2000

M23 Construction Details

BRITPAVE Seminar 2000

M23 Construction Details

Buildability
M25 Widening - 2012

12

Environmental Issues
Fuel Usage

Up to 6% saving
on concrete

pavements!

13

Summarise Findings

Cost saving cementitious options already

exist in DMRB, HD26.

Further cementitious cost saving options are

available without compromising on noise.

The tipping point whereby rigid and rigid

composite options are competitive on first
cost has been passed.

The cost differential will increase as the

bitumen and cement price trend continues

Conclusions

Clear commercial case for rigid concrete

pavement on heavily trafficked carriageways
Lane 1 replacement/inlay and widening to
create a new Lane 1 for HGV traffic
Significant cost saving possible through the
development of a rigid composite option
using roller compacted concrete (RCC)
Concrete will have a role in bespoke
pavement solutions for the future