Soil Cement Roads

Richland County MT
20th Annual NRRA
Pavement Conference
St. Paul, MN
February 18th, 2016

Russell Huotari, Richland Co

Public Works Director
Steve Monlux, USFS Retired
LVR Consultants, LLC
stevemonlux@gmail.com
For Current Report, Google William Vischer, USFS Retired

“soil cement montana”

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 1
 Presentation Topics
• The Problem:
• Structural Design Options
• Performance Measurements
• Life Cycle Cost Comparisons
• Soil Cement Construction & Repair
• Conclusions & Recommendations

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 2

 The Problem
• Heavy Truck Traffic on Weak Soil Roads
– 50,000 ESAL’s per well (development, fracking,
crude and produced water haul)
• Truck ADT & Weight Unknown
• Over 100 miles of oil field arterials
• Limited Budget
• Limited Rock Resources

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 3

 Richland Co Road Network & Resource Impacts
Oil Development, Wheat, Gravel Roads North
Montana
Dakota
Missouri River

Richland
County
Border
56 mi

Population Center, Beet Farms, Gravel Resources

Yellowstone
River
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 4
 Approach to Problem
• Staff a Group to develop options
• Design structural sections
– Subgrade strengths
– Truck traffic
– Available materials
• Build trial sections that have low initial cost
– Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Test (Montana Non‐
Destructive Test Unit)
– Back calculate ESAL life, develop thickness design process
(William Vischer, USFS Retired)
– Develop repair options for problems that develop

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 5

 Weak Soils (CBR of 1 to 3 typical)

5” Asphalt, + 8” Base 3” Scoria, old gravel base

(15 yrs old) (after 3 months)

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 6

 Weak Clay/Silt Subgrade Soils

Thin gravel layers Gravel

mix with subgrade Subgrade

Gravel with Fabric

Gravel & Geogrid
$ Too Fabric Geogrid
High Standard
Hot Mix
Pavement Design
Crushed
Gravel
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 7
 2014 ($3 M/mi +)
Asphalt & Aggregate 7” Hot Mix

Designs ~ 2006 to 2014 8” Crushed

Gravel Base

2006 ($1 M/mi)

Standard Hot
5” Hot Mix 17” Pit Run
Mix Designs Structural Gravel
Layers 8” Crushed
Gravel Base

Subgrade Soil
Thin BST on
Base Designs Double
BST Gravel Base –
8” Thick (2009) Structural
Structural Layer 10” Thick (2010)
Layer
(4” Lift of gravel 2009
stabilized with BASE 1) ~ Subgrade Soil
Fabric
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 8
 2010 Designs
BST over 10” Gravel Base
$400,000/mile
1’
C

Water infiltration to Clay Subgrade is

Clay Subgrade close to structural support area
Critical Structural
Support Area Edge cracking & break off mtc. problems

BST over 8” $250,000 /mile

Soil Cement Harder support from soil cement reduces
damage from large rock punctures
C
12’ 2’
Flatter wider shoulder is less of a hazard
Clay Subgrade
Critical Structural
Support Area Wide impermeable shoulder keeps surface water
further away from critical structure support area.

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 9

 What is Soil Cement?

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 10

 Concerns with Clay Soil Cement
• Life
• Low cost driving surface
• Repair methods for semi‐rigid layer
• Accurate thickness design process
• Clay pulverization
• Deep layer compaction
• Curing in windy climate

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 11

 Soil Cement Designs – Typical Sections
2010 2011 2012-13

Soil Cement, Soil Cement, Soil Cement,

8” to 12” thick 10” thick, 12” thick,
5% to 8% 8% Cement 6% to 7%
Cement Cement

Designs modified
after FWD
testing in spring
and fall

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 12

 Soft Subgrade Designs
2011 2012 & 2013

Soil
Stabilization Soil Stabilization,
12” thick, 12” thick,
10% Cement 6% to 7% Cement

CBR = 1
Soil Modification,18” thick,
3% Cement
CBR = 1
Soft Spot Location
2011: (5%) Proof Rolling & DCP
2012: (15%) Intelligent Compaction Roller & DCP
2013: (15%) Ground Penetrating Radar & DCP

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Huotari 2014 13

 CR129W CR201 CR321
300
Long Term 300
250
300

E p x 1000, psi
E p x 1000, psi

E p x 1000, psi
250 250
200
200 200
Strength of 150
100
150
100
150
100

Soil Cement 50
0 1 2 3 4
50
0 1 2 3 4
50
0 1 2 3 4
CR143E
Soil Cement Age,years CR324
Soil Cement Age,years CR146W
Soil Cement Age,years
300 300 300

E p x 1000, psi
E p x 1000, psi
E p x 1000, psi
250 250 250
200 200 200
Designs should assume 150 150 150
Ep will be reduced by 100 100 100
20% to 40% over time 50 50 50
(Bill Vischer, Nov 2014) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
CR146E
Soil Cement Age,years CR314
Soil Cement Age,years CR143W
Soil Cement Age,years
300 300 300
E p x 1000, psi

E p x 1000, psi

E p x 1000, psi
250 250 250
200 200 200
150 150 150
100 100 100
50 50 50
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Soil Cement Age,years Soil Cement Age,years Soil Cement Age,years

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 14

Soil Cement Thickness Design (Bill Vischer)
Appendix E1 - Thickness Design Curves - Soil Cement with BST Surface (4/2/2014) Page 1
Thickness Design Outline: Page one provides and example solution with a step by step process that uses graphs shown on page two
and three. Page 4 is a blank form of page one that should help keep the process organized.
Thickness Design Steps with an Example Design Data
Step 1: Assume a design traffic ESAL value. ESAL: 1,000,000
Step 2: Determine subgrade modulus. Use either a DCP and charts, or FWD & DCP Subgrade Mr,
3000
(preferred option) for the average deflection directly under a 6,000 lb load (Do) from tests psi:
conducted in the Spring season. Use Graph 1 to determine Subgrade Mr from FWD
maximum deflection, Do FWD Do, mils: 160

Max Subgrade
Step 3: Use Graph 2 to determine allowable subgrade strain for the design ESAL. 480
Microstrain:
Step 4: Use Graph 3 to determine maximum allowable stress ratio limit for the Soil Max Stress
0.60
Cement layer based on design traffic ESAL. Ratio
Sep 5: Use Graph 4 and the Step 7: Use Step 8: Selecting the best option
maximum subgrade strain to Step 6: Use Graph Graph 6 to requires engineering judgment
identify options of soil cement layer 5 and the determine when consideration of the following Step 9:
thicknesses possible for the design maximum stress the criteria Recommendations:
Subgrade Mr. Thicknesses ratio to determine minimum Alternative A: Pretreat all
correlating for Esc between 100 and which options from Cement contentfor known weak areas with 3%
cement Maximum One
Lean Clay Soils cement to 18" depth to
200 are suggested. Step 5 are content for Layer depth
acceptable based each raise the average subgrade
equals 12".
on the design 8% max for Mr, followed by 12 %
Design Thickness, acceptable 6% min Two layers
E , psi Subgrade Mr shrinkage treatment @ 8% Cement.
Option inches sc design for Frost increase cost
cracking Alternative B: Treat 12"
option
depth at 8% Cement and
1 16 >100 OK at any E sc 5.3 6% OK Two Layers Lower Design Traffic ESAL
2 14 >140 OK at any E sc 6.8 6% OK Two Layers value from 1,000,000 to
3 12 >170 OK at any E sc 8.8 OK No Single Layer 750,000
4 <12 wont work 8" won't work No 8" won't work
5

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 15

 Soil Cement Thickness Design (Con’t)
Graph 1. Subgrade Mr vs Max Deflections Graph 2. Subgrade Strain VS ESALS Graph 3. Stress Ratio vs ESALs
( From CR 351 Tests on Subgrade) 1000
1.00
14,000

Subgrade Microstrain
y = 480035x‐0.997 900
12,000 0.90
R² = 0.9999
800
Subgrade Mr psi

10,000 0.80 y = 1.4723x-0.134

Stress Ratio
Load 5.‐6.7kMr 700 R² = 0.9857
8,000 Norm 6k Mr 0.70
6,000 Power (Norm 6k Mr) Calc Values
600
0.60
4,000
500
0.50
2,000
400
0 0.40
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 50 100 150 200 0 500 1000 1500 2000
ESALS X 1000 ( Asphalt InstituteEquation)
Do‐ Max Deflection‐Mils
18 kip ESALs ( x 1000 )

Graph 5. Soil Cement (Esc) VS Soil Cement Stress Ratio

Mr=6 ; 18
Graph 4. Soil Cement (Esc) VS Subgrade Strain 250 22" 18" 12"
Soil Cement Modulus psi
8"
Mr=3 ; 18"
250 Mr=6 ; 18
Mr=3 ;18"
22" 18" 12" 8" Mr=9 ; 18"
Mr=9 ;18" 200
Mr=6 ;12" Mr=6 ; 12"
200
Soil Cement Modulus psi

Mr=3 ;12"
Mr=9 ;12" Mr=3 ; 12"
Mr=9 ;8"
Mr=6 ;8" 150 Mr=9 ; 12"
150 Mr=3 ;8"
Mr=3 ;22"
Mr=6 ;22" Mr=9 ; 8"

100 100 Mr=6 ; 8"

Mr=3 ; 8"

Mr=3 ; 22"
50 50
Mr=6 ; 22"

Mr=9 ; 22"
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Subgrade Microstrain
Stabilized Layer Stress Ratio
Graph 6. Soil Cement (ESC) VS Cement Content
9%
8%
y = 0.0208e0.0086x
Cement %

7% R² = 0.9995
6%
5%
4%

2/29/2013% 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 16

6 ESC of Soil Cement , psi x 1000
 Estimated Annual Cost Comparisons
Average Estimated
Road Design Option Approximate Cost per Mile (a)
Life from FWD Data
Road Support Construc‐ Average
ESAL Life Years (b) Annual Cost
Surface Structure tion Annual Mtc
5" Hot Mix 8" Base 1,150,000 8 $900,000 $16,000 $149,000
Double BST 10" Base 100,000 1 $400,000 $20,000 $606,000(c)
12" Soil
Double BST 500,000 3 $300,000 $18,000 $115,000
Cement
3" Gravel on
Double BST 12" Soil 2,000,000 13 $350,000 $16,000 $48,000
Cement
4" Treated 12" Soil
2,000,000 13 $400,000 $26,000 (d) $63,000
Gravel Cement
(a) Costs are very project specific Consider other issues with
(b) Based on 200 trucks/day, 50,000/yr (150,000 ESAL/yr) the Soil Cement option
(c) Classic case of under designed structural section for the selected ESAL/year traffic
(d) Primarily gravel replacement ‐ WAG
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 17
 Soil Cement Construction
• Road Preparation
• Cement Spreading
• Mixing Cement & Water
• Compaction
• Final Shaping & Compaction
• Curing & Surface Construction

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 18

 Road Prep & Cement Spread

1. Rebuild Crown 4. Spread cement

3. Rip Surface to
control cement flow

2. Blade up shoulder &

center line berm
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Huotari 2014 19
 Mixing, Compaction & Finishing
Reclaimer to pulverize
Water to Hydrate Pad Foot Roller for Blade Rebuilds
soil and mix soil, water
Cement Compaction Crown
& cement

25 Ton Rubber
Roller for Finish
Spread Cement
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 20
 Uneven Moisture/Compaction

Problem solved in 2013 by mix chamber

cleaning after each cement spread

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 21

 Clay
Pulverization
Problems
Pulverization increased by:
slower ground speed,
multiple passes,
higher drum speeds, and
closing mix chamber doors
Good Poor
Pulverization Pulverization

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 22

 Double Chip Seal (2011‐12)
First Seal on
Soil Cement

Second Seal on top of First Seal

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 23

 Surfacing on Soil Cement
Surfacing Type, Miles
Year Double BST on 3” 3” HMA on 4” Treated Gravel
BST Gravel 3” Base (Bentonite & CaCl2)

2010 1.75 0 0 3
2011 24 0.8 0 0
2012 12 0 0.4 12
2013 0 4.8 0 8

Build $ Low Moderate Highest Moderate

Est. Mtc. $ Moderate Low Lowest Moderate

(Blading, Chloride, Rock)

Estimated Moderate
Low? Low? Moderate?
Life Cycle $ ?
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 24
 Treated Gravel Surfacing (1 yr. old)

Close‐up photo of road

surface in wheel track

Treated Gravel (3% Bentonite, 1.5% Calcium Chloride)

Bentonite reduces chloride leaching, chloride reduces Bentonite dusting
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 25
 Soil Cement Quality Assurance
QA Costs depend on Contractor, site conditions, weather, etc

• Cement application rate

• Pulverization
• Depth of mixing
• Moisture content during mixing
• Compaction
• Surface finish crown and profile
• Curing

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 26

Extent of Soil Cement Structural Repairs
2011 (24 2012 & 13 (30
miles) Miles)
Total Surface Area, SY 394,240 SY 492,800 SY
Total Repair Surface Area 9,878 SY 1,418 SY
% of Total work (1) 2.5 % 0.3%

(1) Note that the relative amounts of truck traffic are unknown

Repairs for 2012 & 2013 work is less because

• Better control of cement flow/content
• Better control of pulverization and moisture content
• Increased design thickness – 10” vs. 12”
• Soft Spot Treatment ~ more treated (15% vs 5% of road area),
deeper treatment (12” vs. 18”)
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 27
Problems with 2011 Work
Otta Seal Bleeding
Compression Failures

QA/QC – Soil Pulverization

Soil cement compression
& Cement Uniformity failure due to excessive flexure

Low cement content on 5 ft shoulder

Note: Repair patch of

5” Hot mix & 15” Base
rutted after 6 months

12 inch stabilization depth

inadequate for very soft subgrade
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 28
 BST “Pick‐up” Problems (2011)
(caused by stopping vehicles on bleeding BST)

Problem Area Solution: Spray patch,

UPM or Omega Mix patch

Cold UPM
Patch
Material

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 29

 Road 321 BST Shoving/Tearing (2011)

Repair Methods:
No Depression Area:
Remove BST & fabric, new
BST full width
Depression Area: Re‐soil
cement, 3” Gravel & BST
Full width
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 30
 Damage by 200 Ton Oil
Rig Movement (2011)

Re soil cement or cover

with 3” gravel & BST
full width

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 31

Pot Hole at Soil Cement Transverse Joint (2011)
(Caused by low cement content)

1 yr. Fix? (UPM Type cold mix patch)

Long Term Fix (Re‐mix with Portland
Cement, add 3” Base & BST)

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 32

 Depressed/Rutted Areas (2011)
(Caused by low cement content)

Full Depth Reclamation with Use Pick Axe to

additional Portland Cement determine FDR area
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 33
 Repair Options for Structural Problems
Depressions caused by
low cement content
FDR Soil
Soil Cement
Full Depth & Width Reclamation with Cement Repair
more cement, gravel base and BST

Compression Failures
from Flexure
Soil Cement
Reinforce with 4” Gravel Base & BST
Very Weak Subgrade

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 34

 Proposed Strategy for Improving
Unpaved Arterial Roads
• Year 1: Cement stabilize soft spot areas on gravel
roads
– 18 inch treatment depth
– 3 inch gravel surfacing 50 to 300 ft.

• Year 2: After all soft spots stabilized

– Cement stabilize 12 inch depths,
– Add 3 inch base
– Double chip seal or 3 inch hot mix asphalt
• Re‐stabilize any failed areas with at least 5% more
cement
2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 35
 Conclusions/Recommendations
Costs: Soil Cement cost effective where:
Rock costs are high,
Soils are suitable,
Road widths are marginal

Best
Better Design
Design Marginal
thicknesses
based on truck
traffic, subgrade
strength, etc.

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 36

 Conclusions/Recommendations
• Construction and Maintenance
Google: “Soil Cement – Montana”

• Other Resources
Wirtgen Cold Recycling Technology Manual
TRB – “Recommended Practice for Stabilization of Subgrade
Soils and Base Materials”
Soil Stabilization for Pavements UFC 3‐250‐11 (TM 5‐822)
Transportation Research Board publications
Non‐Standard Stabilizers(FS): “Stabilization Selection Guide for
Aggregate and Native Surfaced Low Volume Roads”

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 37

 Thank You!
Questions or Comments?

2/29/2016 Copyright Monlux/Vischer 2016 38