DRAFT FINAL REPORT, TESTS OF SOIL STABILIZATION PRODUCTS, PHASE I UAF PROJECT NO. 331555 CONOCOPHILLIPS PROJECT NO.

8174.0-LOA-AKR ATTENTION: MANDY POGANY AND JAY HERMANSON

DRAFT FINAL REPORT Prepared for ConocoPhillips

Author(s) Lauren Little, Undergraduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks Billy Connor, PE, Director, Alaska University Transportation Center Dr. Robert F. Carlson, Adjunct Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. iii Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 1 Problem Statement and Research Objective ......................................................................... 2 Scope of Study ...................................................................................................................... 2 Research Approach ............................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2 - FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 3 State-of-the-Art Summary .................................................................................................... 3 Literature Review............................................................................................................. 3 Professional Knowledge Review ..................................................................................... 7 Phase 1A Results................................................................................................................... 9 Phase 1B Results ................................................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER 3 - INTERPRETATION, APPRAISAL, AND APPLICATIONS ...................... 20 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 20 General Recommendations ................................................................................................. 20 CHAPTER 4 - CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH .................................... 22 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 22 Suggested Research ............................................................................................................ 22 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX A FREEZE THAW PICTURES ......................Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDIX B FREEZE THAW OBSERVATION TABLES ............................................. B

Acknowledgements The research reported herein was performed by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks Department of Civil Engineering and made possible through funding from ConocoPhillips grant number G00002414. In addition, NANA Pacific monitored all work performed.

Summary of Findings The literature and professional knowledge review indicated that asphalt emulsions and Portland cement have been the most commonly used stabilization agents in Alaska, and are proven to work on silty sand material. However, Portland cement is not cost effective for sand stabilization, and is not as easily transported or placed, requiring special equipment. In addition, asphalt emulsions also require special equipment to place and typically require a higher fines content than that which was found in the material used in this study. There are alternatives, however, as polymer emulsions have shown themselves to be a more effective stabilization agent, and have begun being used in Alaska, in particular the product EK35, which has been used on rural airports in the state (Little, 2005). According to United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) testing, polymer emulsions are the most effective stabilization agents for silty sand material (Santoni, et. al., 2002). Also successful in Alaska was the liquid stabilizer EMC2, which was used on the Elliott and Alaska Highways as a dust control agent (Randolph, 1997). The two materials used, Eolian and Fluvial soils from the NPRA, were classified as poorly graded sands per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Moisture-density relationships indicated an optimum moisture content of 13% for the Fluvial, with a dry density of 104.8 lb/ft3, and 11.5% for the Eolian, with a dry density of 104.1 lb/ft3. Based on the literature and professional knowledge review, the polymer emulsions Enviroseal M10+50, Soil-Sement Engineered Formula (hereafter known as Soil Sement), and Soiltac, as well as the liquid stabilizer EMC2 were tested in the lab for strength using CBR, and for freeze-thaw resistance using freeze-thaw CBR testing. Overall, Soil Sement showed the greatest improvements in the two sands used as base material (Eolian and Fluvial). For the Eolian sand, the Soil Sement showed a 992% improvement over the unmodified soil CBR value when comparing the average dry CBR values, and an 872% improvement over the unmodified soil CBR value when comparing the average freeze-thaw CBR values. For the Fluvial sand, the Soil Sement showed a 497% improvement over the unmodified soil CBR value when comparing the average dry CBR values, and a 3751% improvement over the unmodified soil CBR value when comparing the average freeze-thaw CBR values. For the Eolian sand, all products improved the dry and freeze-thaw CBR values by at least 200%, with the exception of the EMC2, which actually performed worse than the unmodified soil in both dry and freeze-thaw CBR. For the Fluvial sand, all products except EMC2 improved the freeze-thaw CBR values over the unmodified soil by at least 500%, however only the Soil Sement and Soiltac improved the average dry CBR values over the unmodified soil, as the Enviroseal and EMC2 actually performed worse than the unmodified soil. What was interesting was in some cases the average freeze-thaw CBR values were higher than the dry CBR values, which might be attributable to the fact that the samples were oven dried following the freeze-thaw cycles, which could have strengthened bonds in the modified soil samples.

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH APPROACH Problem Statement and Research Objective The University of Alaska Fairbanks was contracted by ConocoPhillips to determine the state of the practice on soil stabilization agents for northern climates, to select stabilization agents to perform lab tests with based on a literature and professional knowledge review, and to perform tests on these agents when mixed with two soils from the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA) region of Alaska. The project was split into two phases, 1A and 1B. Phase 1A covered the literature and professional knowledge review as well as the classification of the soils to be used in the testing. Phase 1B covered the laboratory testing of the selected soil stabilization agents with the two soils from the NPRA. Scope of Study The scope of study included the determination of the state-of-the-practice in northern region soil stabilization, as well as the selection of stabilizing agents to perform laboratory testing on. The laboratory testing scope included the performing of CBR and unconfined compression testing per ASTM standards, as well as freeze-thaw CBR testing. Research Approach Laboratory testing was conducted using ASTM standards. The following ASTM standards were used in this study: ASTM D1557 Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft2 (2,700 kN-m/m3)) ASTM D560 Standard Test Methods for Freezing and Thawing Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures ASTM D2166 Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil ASTM D1883 Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of LaboratoryCompacted Soils All CBR and unconfined compression samples were compacted per ASTM D1557, and moisture-density relationships for the unmodified Eolian and Fluvial soils were determined per ASTM D1557. A mechanical compactor, manufactured by Soiltest, was used for all compaction in phase 1B. Hand compaction was used in phase 1A. Freeze-thaw testing was performed per ASTM D560, however some modifications were made. Because the samples were in their CBR molds, volume change measurements and resistance to abrasion measurements were not performed. In addition, because the molds were on their base plates, the felt pad froze to the base plate and the soil sample, making frozen weight measurements difficult without disturbing the sample, therefore only thaw weight measurements were recorded. Unconfined compression testing has not been performed yet due to difficulties removing samples from their molds. An addendum will follow with results of unconfined compression testing per ASTM D2166.

CHAPTER 2 - FINDINGS State-of-the-Art Summary Literature Review The use of soil stabilization products for the stabilization of fine-grained soils is quite widespread across the United States. The traditional methods of stabilization include the use of cement, lime and coal fly ash, however as technology and the understanding of the soil stabilization mechanisms improve, additional stabilization products have been developed. These products, typically called nontraditional stabilizers, are compiled into five groups after Scholen (1992): electrolytes, enzymes, mineral pitches, clay fillers and acrylic polymers. The State of Alaska Northern Region Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT) has used several traditional and nontraditional stabilizers for airport and highway projects: In 1966, Peyton et al. investigated the use of soil stabilizers for ADOT. They found that tetrasodium polyphosphate decreased the frost susceptibility (likelihood of frost heaving) of the silt and that low concentrations of cement actually increased frost susceptibility. In 1982, Kaminski, et al. performed laboratory tests using Type I and Type III cements for stabilizing Barrow soils. Then in September of 1982 they laid a 100 x 24 foot test section in Barrow, Alaska. In June of 1983 they evaluated the test strip by measuring Benkelman Beam deflections under the design loading condition (a fully loaded "DJB" dump truck). The test section performed satisfactorily. It was evaluated again in October of 1983 and again was found to perform satisfactorily, however there were minor failures at the extreme edges of the shoulders. In 1985, Esch and Gentry performed a study on soil stabilizers on sands and silty sands from the Bethel, Hooper Bay and St. Michael areas of the Yukon-Kuskokwim river delta region of Alaska. They concluded that emulsified asphalt mixed with Type III Portland cement could stabilize the soils enough so that they could be used for wearing course or sub grade material for highway and airport construction. They found that CSS-1 asphalt emulsions worked the best, followed by SS-1 emulsions. Also in 1985, R&M Consultants (Kozisek and Rooney) were commissioned by ADOT to place test strips of soil in Bethel stabilized with asphalt cement (AC) Portland cement (PC) and CTG. The AC was a CSS-1 emulsion and the cement was Type III. They found that both stabilizers worked very well, and the AC-PC stabilizer not only stabilized the soil strength wise, but also provided erosion and water resistance. The CTG was found to provide more strength improvement, however. In 1986, ADOT commissioned Pacific Northwest Laboratories to investigate soil stabilization techniques for remote airfields (Koehmstedt). The soil samples were taken from the Bethel, Alaska airport and were tested in the laboratory with CSS-1 emulsions to determine if they could be sufficiently stabilized to use as a sub base and base course

material for airport and roadway applications. The soils used were a poorly graded sand and a silty sand per the Unified Soil Classification System. The study found that the asphalt emulsions and Type I Portland cement mixtures significantly improved the soils CBR values and cohesive strengths, however it was noted that a thorough testing of the soils properties and zeta potential were crucial in deciding upon the most effective asphalt/cement combination. Also in 1986, the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research Laboratory (CRREL) prepared a report for ADOT regarding stabilization techniques of fine-grained soil for road and airfield construction (Danyluk). The soil used in this study was organic silt intended for use as a sub base or base course material for low-volume roads and airfields in Alaska. The stabilizers used were cement, cement with additives (calcium chloride, hydrogen peroxide, sodium sulfate and lime), lime/fly ash, asphalt emulsion, tetrasodium polyphosphate and calcium acrylate. It was found that lime and lime/fly ash did not provide any improvement for the soil in question, and the tetrasodium polyphosphate did not improve strength but did reduce frost susceptibility and permeability. Cement was also shown to have very little effect on the soil in regards to strength improvements and actually worsened the frost susceptibility. Cement with calcium chloride and cement with sodium sulfate showed slightly better improvement, with significant improvement in the unconfined compressive strength as well as improvements in the permeability, frost-heave ratio and after-thaw CBR values. However, the cement with hydrogen peroxide did not show as much improvement. The asphalt emulsion proved to be the most cost effective method of improving the soil and showed improvement in all categories tested. The calcium acrylate showed the most improvement, but is not readily available and therefore not economical. In 1991, ADOT in cooperation with the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) performed a study on the effectiveness of the concentrated liquid stabilizer EMC2 (Randolph). Two 2 km segments of the Elliott Highway were stabilized with EMC2, one using premixed aggregate, and the second using mixed in place aggregate. The strips were compared with an adjacent segment of road treated with calcium chloride. It was found that both EMC2 treated segments required little maintenance (maintenance was only necessary on the superelevated curves) for the three year study period, whereas the calcium chloride had to be reapplied every year and had pothole damage. Following the three year study period, asphalt was laid down on top of the EMC2 treated segment and also produced excellent results, especially when compared to an adjacent asphalted section that continually potholed. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. performed unconfined compression tests on samples and found a value of 1850 kPa for untreated aggregate and 2900 kPa for the EMC2 treated aggregate. The material used for this entire project was a well-graded maximum aggregate, with the percentage passing the No. 200 sieve averaging 12% and a PI of about 6. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. also found that the untreated material required less compactive effort in the modified Proctor test. In 1996, EMC2 was applied on the Alaska Highway between mileposts 1222 and 1270 (Hicks). After the EMC2 stabilization, 4 inches of an emulsified stabilized base and a highfloat surface treatment was applied over top. This was applied to the control section as well. At the end of the first year, the pavement conditions were reported as being similar for the

control and EMC2 stabilized section, however the deflection analysis indicated lower strength for the EMC2 section. In 2002, professor Gary Hicks prepared a soil stabilization design guide for ADOT. Prior to producing this document extensive research was done on the history of soil stabilizers in Alaska (Hicks). According to Hicks stabilization guide, cement and cementitious blends, bitumens and bitumen/cement blends are most suitable for soils with a PI less than 6 and having less than 25% passing the No. 200 sieve. For bituminous stabilization, bitumen emulsion was deemed most appropriate for clean sandy or gravelly soils with a PI less than 6. The guide also indicated that lime was not an appropriate stabilizing agent in cohesion less or low cohesion soil without the addition of pozzolanic additives. For cementitiously stabilized poorly graded sand (A-3 per AASHTO), 7-11% cement by weight is typically adequate for stabilization. The United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) has performed multiple studies on the stabilization of soils using nontraditional stabilizers. According to Santoni et al. (2005) the goal of many of these stabilizer studies was to find a soil-stabilizer mixture that could cure within 1 to 7 days, weigh approximately 50% less than traditional stabilization mixtures (i.e. Portland cement) and provide strength improvements (a UCS value of 50 psi greater than the unstabilized soil) to marginal soil for use in airstrips. The general conclusions drawn from the USACE studies was that polymers provided the most consistent engineering property improvements for a variety of soil types, especially sands, of the nontraditional stabilizer groups. However, not all polymers were successful at improving UCS strength over the control, stressing that the stabilizers should be tested in the laboratory before being used in the field. Santoni et al. (2005) evaluated the effect of two products designed to accelerate the strength improvement of a silty-sand material previously stabilized by nontraditional stabilizers. The nontraditional stabilizers used were labeled as lignosulfonate 1, polymer 1, polymer 2, polymer 3, polymer 4, polymer 5, polymer 6, silicate 1 and tree resin 1. For comparison, two traditional stabilizers, Type 1 Portland cement and emulsified asphalt, were used. The accelerators used were a Type 1 Portland cement and polymer 4. Wet and dry UCS strength of the soil-stabilizer mixtures was evaluated, with a strength improvement of 50 psi being the minimum increase to be considered significant. It was found that Silicate 1, Polymer 1, Polymer 2 and Polymer 3 stabilized samples provided significant UCS increase as compared to the untreated soil and the soil stabilized with traditional additives. It was also found that Polymers 2, 3 and 4 provided significant UCS improvement relative to control samples and other nontraditional stabilized samples under dry and wet conditions (up to 65% of UCS when compared to control samples). Emulsified asphalt with 3% cement accelerator provided excellent resistance to moisture deterioration. Prior to testing the accelerated strength improvements of silty-sand stabilized with nontraditional additives, Santoni et al. (2002) performed tests on the same silty-sand material with the nontraditional stabilizers. The stabilizers tested were a Type I Portland cement, hydrated lime, cationic asphalt emulsion, 1 acid, 4 enzymes, 2 lignosulfonates, 1 petroleum emulsion, 3 polymers and 1 tree resin. UCS was used for comparison of performance. It was

found that of the traditional stabilizers (cement, lime, asphalt emulsion) only the cement increased the UCS by more than 100% over the control for both wet and dry tests. Polymers 1-3 showed good potential for stabilization as the UCS was increased by an average of 57% over the control in the dry test and 221% in the wet test. The petroleum emulsion, tree resin and lignosulfonate 1 showed good waterproofing potential, but no significant dry UCS improvement. Overall it was determined that the nontraditional stabilizers gained strength quicker than the traditional stabilizers. Newman and Tingle (2004) performed a study on the use of emulsion polymers for soil stabilization of airfields following the earlier USACE studies after determining that polymers showed the most potential to stabilize the most soils. It was noted that polymer emulsions are also very useful as they do not require a solvent carrier, are easily cleaned up using water and detergent and often do not pose an environmental risk when used in bulk. The soil tested for this study was a silty-sand (SM) and 6 polymer emulsions (called P1-6 respectively) and 3 concentrations of Portland cement were tested as stabilizers. They found that all of the polymers used increased the UCS over the unmodified soil after 28 days of cure time for both the wet and dry testing. The P1 polymer modified soil produced significantly higher toughness values after 28 days of cure compared to the other polymer modified soils. The P1, P2 and P4 modified soils had significantly higher toughness values than the 9% cement modified soil. All of the additives improved retained wet strength and toughness, and the polymer additives had slightly higher wet retained toughness than the cement stabilized soil after 28 days of cure. Interestingly enough, the polymers basic chemical makeup did not produce any consistency in results (i.e. both P1 and P5 were both acrylic vinyl acetate copolymers, but P1 significantly outperformed P5). Milburn and Parsons (2004) performed a study on multiple soil types with four stabilizers, cement, lime, fly ash and Permazyme. They tested a CH, CL, ML, SM and SP soil, with the SM being labeled as Stevens, the SP being labeled as Lakin and ML being labeled as Atwood. The cement provided the greatest UCS increase of 1580% and 1310% for the Atwood and Stevens soils used in the test. All of the stabilizers increased the UCS of the unstabilized Atwood and Stevens soil by at least 100%, with the Permazyme being the least effective, followed by the fly ash. During freeze thaw testing, the cement stabilized samples yet again outperformed the others, losing only 3% of the soil mass for the Atwood silty soil, and just 2% for the Stevens silty soil. The cement treated silty soils also maintained the highest strength values compared to the native soils following freeze-thaw cycles. The cement treated silty soils also outperformed the other stabilizers in wet-dry UCS testing, indicating that it was the most effective stabilizer used for the soils tested in the study. In 2003, Lgre and Tremblay performed a study on a clayey-silt soil (CL-ML) stabilized with cement kiln dust (CKD), quicklime, Portland cement and CKD-lime combinations. They found that 6% Portland cement provided the greatest UCS increase at 7 and 28 days of curing, while the 6% CKD-lime at 1:3 stabilizer provided the greatest UCS improvement at 100 days of curing. In field testing, the 3% lime-3% CKD mixture provided significant strength increases in both laboratory testing and in the field as measured by a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP). It was also found that while CKD performed well in the laboratory, it did not perform well in the field.

In 1991, Ajayi-Majebi et al. performed a study on a clayey-silt soil (CL-ML) stabilized with a combination of the epoxy-resin bisephenol A/apichlorohydrin with a polyamide hardener. The intent of their study was to determine if the epoxy-resin based stabilizer would create a suitable sub grade material for small airports (not exceeding 30,000 lbs. load). They found that the stabilizer improved the unsoaked CBR values for all of the clay-silt ratios used to create a suitable sub grade material per the FAA. It was also noted that CBR values for the stabilized soils increased with increasing temperature and that the lower the clay to silt ratio was, the better the CBR value. Das and Singh (1999) performed a study on three different soil mixtures stabilized with sodium chloride. Their mixtures were labeled A, B and C respectively. Mixture A was composed of 20% commercial clay and 80% River Aire soil (River Aire soil is a local soil in the United Kingdom that is largely a silty-sand), Mixture B was composed of 6% commercial clay, 24% River Aire soil and 70% sand, and Mixture C was composed of 4% commercial clay, 16% River Aire soil, 50% sand and 30% gravel. They found that CBR values, UCS values and indirect tensile strength values were greatly improved with the inclusion of sodium chloride as a stabilizing agent and that sodium chloride as a stabilizing agent produces a marked increase in the resilient modulus. They also noted that a higher clay content yielded more substantial strength improvements with the sodium chloride stabilizer. Tolleson et al. (2003) studied the effect of the enzyme stabilizer PZ-22X with several soil types, ranging from poorly graded sand (SP) to cohesive clay (CL). They found that the enzyme stabilizer improved the CBR values and SSG values for all but one type of soil and determined that the effectiveness of this particular enzymatic stabilizer did not depend on the properties of the fines in the soil, but of the quantity, as performance decreased with increasing fines over 30% fines. Professional Knowledge Review In email responses, June 9, 2005, Northern Region ADOTs materials engineer, Leo Woster, said that they have primarily used calcium chloride for soil stabilization, but it is used more as a surface treatment for dust control on the Dalton Highway and likely some other roads. He said that does create a more stable surface, but it typically lasts only 3 years and then must be reapplied (2005). It was also mentioned that several types of stabilizers (tree sap, enzymes, etc) were used about 15 years ago, but did not perform any better than calcium chloride and were significantly more expensive and therefore never caught on. In phone conversations, June, 2005, Northern Region ADOTs aviation engineering manager, Cindie Little, said that soil stabilizing products have been used on rural airports (2005). At the Ft. Yukon airport, the clay filler sodium montmorillonite was used to control dust and erosion. They have also used the dust palliative EK35 on three airports, Kiana, Birch Creek and Russian Mission. At the Kiana airport, the EK35 has produced satisfactory results, but is in need of a reapplication after five years. These products have all been used solely for dust and erosion control, and are not expected to produce any significant structural strength improvements for the soil according to Mrs. Little. At the Shishmaref airport, a 4 inch geoweb was filled with local sand and then covered with an emulsified asphalt/sand wearing

coarse. This project was done in 1985 or 1986. In 1990 or 1991 it was resurfaced with hot mix asphalt and is currently in design to be resurfaced again. The only problem with the geoweb has been that the seam where the grids come together is beginning to separate. In a phone conversation, June 14, 2005, Northern Region ADOTs former geotechnical engineer, Robert McHattie, said that Northern Region has primarily used asphalt to stabilize silty, sandy soils when strength was needed (2005). They have used calcium chloride for dust suppression, but it was not noted to improve trafficability. He said that the calcium chloride adds apparent cohesion to the soil by attracting moisture to the soil. He noted that asphalt stabilized silty sandy soils might be strong enough to withstand traffic, but not necessarily parked vehicles or other stationary loads, especially in warmer temperatures. He said that stabilized sand in a containment grid with a gravel wearing course has worked well on the coastal region of Alaska. He also noted that many of the stabilization techniques found in manuals are largely for a stabilized base course, not for a wearing course. He suggested composite systems, such as the one used in Shishmaref and mentioned a new product called Dura-Base that is essentially a heavy duty polyethylene mat. He suggested that the DuraBase mat might work well for stabilizing parking areas and other areas where heavy stationary loads might exist, and regular stabilization products such as asphalt for the road leading to these Dura-Base stabilized areas. He also noted that many of the stabilizers on the market require some amount of organics or clays to work properly. University of Kansas civil engineering department associate professor Dr. Robert L. Parsons has done many studies on soil stabilizers for the Kansas Department of Transportation. In an email response June 15, 2005, he said that for his region, the rule of thumb was lime for clays, class C fly ash for silts, and cement for sands and that this rule of thumb has successfully guided their research (2005). He recommends class C fly ash if it is available for silty sands, as well as cement. He said that in his work cement worked best in freeze-thaw testing (ASTM D560). He also warns not to place too much emphasis on high CBR values in the lab, as once you get past a respectable CBR value, comparisons between high values for highly stabilized soils don't mean a whole lot. He also recommends finding a suitable way to test for frost heave as he thinks it would likely be a big issue for our region. In a phone conversation and subsequent email communication, Jeb S. Tingle of the United States Army Corp of Engineers said that polymer/cement combinations work very well for stabilizing sandy material as the polymer reduces the shrinkage potential and the cement gives the soil higher early strength (2005). He also sent coding for the products used in his and Santonis testing (Santoni, et. al, 2005, 2002) which has been used to help determine which stabilizers to test for phase 1B of this project. In his and Santonis studies, he used the products EK35, EnviroKleen, Soil-Sement and Soil-Sement Engineered Formula among others. Soil-Sement and Soil-Sement Engineered Formula both performed well (Santoni et. al, 2005). EnviroKleen and EK35, however, did not perform well, showing little or no improvement in UCS values both dry and wet (Santoni, et. al, 2005). Cost Analysis Table 1 - Cost Comparison of Potential Products

Product EK35 EMC2 Emulsified Asphalt EnviroKleen Enviroseal M10+50 Gravel Soil-Sement Engineered Formula Soiltac Type I Portland Cement Type I Portland Cement Type I Portland Cement Phase 1A Results

Unit Cost ($/yd2) Comments $6.24 assumed 6" lift with 1.7% product $0.36 $4.88 assumed 5.5" thick layer with 5% asphalt content $6.77 assumed 6" lift with 1.7% product $1.73 $30.00 $9.53 $1.31 $3.83 $4.93 $6.02 assumed 6" lift with 1.7% product assumed 4" thick layer with 7% cement assumed 4" thick layer with 9% cement assumed 4" thick layer with 11% cement

Eolian Sand Maximum Particle Size: 2.00 mm (No. 10) Chart 1 Gradation Curves
Eolian 1 Gradation Curve
110.0% 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% % Finer 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.000 1.000 Particle size, mm 0.100 0.010 6/15/05 Analysis 6/17/05 Analysis

Table 2 Gradation Values Date 6/15/05 6/17/05

Cu 1.82 1.82

Cz 1.31 1.31

Chart 2 Modified Proctor Compaction Curve

Compaction Curve
103.50 103.00 Dry Unit Weight, lb/ft^3 102.50 102.00 101.50 101.00 100.50 100.00 99.50 0.00%

5.00%

10.00% Moisture Content, %

15.00%

20.00%

Fluvial Sand Maximum Particle Size: 2.00 mm (No. 10) Chart 3 Gradation Curves
Fluvial 1 Gradation Curve
110.0% 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% % Finer 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 6/15/05 Analysis 6/17/05 Analysis

Particle size, mm

Table 3 Gradation Values Date 6/15/05

Cu 2.44

CZ 1.29

6/17/05

2.00

1.19

Chart 4 Modified Proctor Compaction Curve

Compaction Curve
103.50 103.00 Dry Unit Weight, lb/ft^3 102.50 102.00 101.50 101.00 100.50 100.00 99.50 99.00 98.50 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

Moisture Content, %

Table 4 Soil Test Results Summary Fluvial 1 2.72 SG None LL N/A PL Non-plastic PI 2.22 Average Cu 1.24 Average Cz SP USCS Classification 3 103.0 d maximum (lb/ft ) 1 17% wopt (%)
1

Eolian 1 2.72 None N/A Non-plastic 1.82 1.31 SP 103.0 1 17%

Although the compaction curve did not display a definite peak, 17% was used for optimum moisture content as the soil began to bleed (leach water from the base of the mold) at the 19% moisture content. Phase 1B Results Modified Proctor Results Unmodified Soil Chart 5 - Eolian Compaction Curves

Eolian Phase 1B Com paction Curves 106.00 105.50 Dry Density (p 105.00 104.50 104.00 103.50 103.00 102.50 102.00 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% Moisture Content (%) 10/6/2005 10/8/2005 15.00% 20.00%

Chart 6 Fluvial Compaction Curves

Fluvial Phase 1B Compaction Curves 106.00 105.50 105.00 Dry Density (pc 104.50 104.00 103.50 103.00 102.50 102.00 0.00%

5.00%

10.00% M oisture Content (%) 10/1/2005

15.00%

20.00%

10/13/2005

Table 5 Soil Test Results Summary

d maximum (lb/ft ) wopt (%) CBR Results

Fluvial 1 104.8 13%

Eolian 1 104.1 11.5%

Table 6 - Dry CBR Results - Eolian CBR Product ID# Value EEMC7 13.49 2 EEMC8 15.87 EMC EEMC9 EE3 EE4 EE5 ESS3 ESS4 ESS5 EST1 EST2 EST3 UME1 UME2 UME3 13.05 37.53 55.39 81.76 82.21 243.34 302.52 58.67 100.60 77.11 17.25 20.25 20.00

Enviroseal M10+50

Soil Sement

Soiltac

Unmodified

Chart 7 - Dry CBR Results Eolian

Dry CBR values - Eolian

320.00 280.00 240.00 200.00 160.00 120.00 80.00 40.00 0.00 -40.00 High CBR Low CBR Avg CBR 15.87 14.14 13.05 EMC2 15.87 13.05 14.14 58.23 37.53 82.21 81.76 100.60 78.79 20.25 58.67 19.17 17.25 Enviroseal 81.76 37.53 58.23 Soil Sem ent 302.52 82.21 209.36 Soiltac 100.60 58.67 78.79 Unm odified 20.25 17.25 19.17 209.36 302.52

High CBR

Low CBR

Avg CBR

Table 7 - Dry CBR Results Fluvial CBR Product ID# Value FEMC7 14.16 2 FEMC8 12.00 EMC FEMC9 FE3 FE4 FE5 FSS2 FSS4 FSS5 FST1 FST2 FST3 UMF1 UMF2 UMF3 15.80 4.53 16.60 14.05 160.22 74.10 68.67 64.92 51.33 38.98 14.59 18.37 17.81

Enviroseal M10+50

Soil Sement

Soiltac

Unmodified

Chart 8 - Dry CBR Results Fluvial

Dry CBR values - Fluvial

320.00 280.00 240.00 200.00 160.22 160.00 120.00 101.00 80.00 40.00 0.00 -40.00 High CBR Low CBR Avg CBR 15.80 13.99 12.00 EMC2 15.80 12.00 13.99 16.60 11.73 4.53 Enviroseal 16.60 4.53 11.73 High CBR Soil Sem ent 160.22 68.67 101.00 Low CBR Avg CBR Soiltac 64.92 38.98 51.74 68.67 51.74 38.98 18.37 16.92 14.59 Unm odified 18.37 14.59 16.92 64.92

Freeze-Thaw CBR Results Table 8 - Eolian Freeze-Thaw CBR Results Product Name EMC2 Enviroseal M10+50 Soil Sement Soiltac Unmodified ID # EEMC4 EEMC5 EE1 EE2 ESS1 ESS2 EST4 EST6 UME4 UME5 F-T CBR Value N/A* 9.50 111.33 90.00 152.24 110.01 57.00 49.13 N/A* 13.49

*A value of N/A means that the soil sample fell apart before the CBR test could be performed.

Table 9 - Eolian Freeze-Thaw CBR Comparison Product EMC

2

Avg F-TCBR 9.50

Avg Dry CBR 14.14

% Strength Reduction 33%

% Change from UM (Dry) -26%

% Change from UM (F-T) -30%

Enviroseal Soil Sement Soiltac Unmodified

100.67 131.12 53.07 13.49

58.23 209.36 78.79 19.17

-73% 37% 33% 30%

204% 992% 311% 0%

646% 872% 293% 0%

Chart 9 - Eolian Freeze-Thaw CBR Comparison

Average CBR values - Eolian

250.00 209.36 200.00 CBR value (% 150.00 100.67 100.00 58.23 50.00 9.50 14.14 0.00 EMC2 Enviroseal Soil Sem ent Soiltac Unm odified Product Nam e Avg F-TCBR Avg Dry CBR 13.49 53.07 19.17 78.79

131.12

Table 10 - Fluvial Freeze-Thaw CBR Results Product Name EMC2 Enviroseal M10+50 Soil Sement Soiltac Unmodified ID # FEMC4 FEMC5 FE1 FE2 FSS1 FSS3 FST4 FST5 UMF4 UMF5 F-T CBR Value N/A* N/A* 72.00 106.67 156.56 160.22 28.79 24.35 N/A* 4.11

*A value of N/A means that the soil sample fell apart before the CBR test could be performed.

Table 11 - Fluvial Freeze-Thaw CBR Comparison Product EMC2 Enviroseal Soil Sement Soiltac Unmodified Avg F-T CBR 0.00 89.33 158.39 26.57 4.11 Avg Dry CBR 13.99 11.73 101.00 51.74 16.92 % Strength Reduction 100% -662% -57% 49% 76% % Change from UM (Dry) -17% -31% 497% 206% 0% % Change from UM (FT) -100% 2072% 3751% 546% 0%

Chart 10 - Fluvial Freeze-Thaw CBR Comparison

Average CBR values - Fluvial

250.00 200.00 CBR value (% 158.39 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 EMC2 Enviroseal Soil Sem ent Product Nam e Avg F-T CBR Avg Dry CBR Soiltac Unm odified 89.33 101.00 51.74 13.99 11.73 26.57 4.11 16.92

Unconfined Compression Results Unconfined compression results will be reported at a later date due to difficulty removing samples from their molds for testing.

Dry Density Comparison Chart 11 - Eolian Dry Density Comparison

Average Dry Density - Eolian 104.00 Average Dry Density 102.00 100.00 98.00 96.00 94.00 92.00 90.00 Unm odified EMC2 Enviroseal M10+50 Product Nam e Soil-Sem ent Soiltac 101.34 99.64 98.74 100.19 102.97

Chart 12 - Fluvial Dry Density Comparison

Average Dry Density - Fluvial 104.00 102.00 Average Dry Density 100.00 98.00 96.00 94.00 92.00 90.00 Unm odified EMC2 Enviroseal M10+50 Product Nam e Soil-Sem ent Soiltac 95.31 99.72 99.86 103.16 102.67

CHAPTER 3 - INTERPRETATION, APPRAISAL, AND APPLICATIONS Discussion Both soils exhibit typical compaction curves for poorly graded sand material. Looking at charts 5 and 6, there are two humps, the second hump is used for determination of the optimum moisture content. The decrease following the first hump can be attributed to the capillary tension effect, where the capillary tension in the pore water limits the ability of the soil particles to move around and be densely compacted. . The CBR test was used for this project because it has been successfully correlated with strength potential of the subgrade, subbase, and base course material for use in road and airfield construction. In addition, the CBR values were recorded following twelve freeze thaw cycles, to determine strength losses due to extreme temperature and moisture variations. All of the polymer products performed adequately, improving the CBR values over the unmodified soils as shown in charts 7-10, with the exception of the Enviroseal modified dry Fluvial specimens, which interestingly enough performed very poorly. The EMC2 modified specimens did not perform adequately, however, as all samples performed worse than the unmodified soil. It did, however, have a very firm surface layer, indicating promise for dust control. Dry densities were compared in charts 11 & 12, and there appears to be no correlation between dry density and CBR value. Most samples had similar dry densities to the unmodified soil, especially the Eolian samples, however the samples with higher dry densities did not necessarily produce the best CBR results. The Fluvial dry densities vary greater than the Eolian samples largely because of inconsistencies in compacting due to the higher moisture content. General Recommendations Overall, the Soil Sement and Soiltac provided the most consistent and reliable performance, with the Soil Sement greatly outperforming all other products used in the test. The Enviroseal also showed significant improvement over the Eolian sand, however it was less reliable with the Fluvial sand. It should be noted that overall, the Fluvial sand did not perform as well as the Eolian. This can likely be attributed to the higher moisture content required; because of the high moisture content, most of the samples slightly leeched water, and did not compact as smoothly as the Eolian samples, however the Soil Sement and Soiltac both proved that they could provide adequate CBR values with either soil. The EMC2 did not perform sufficiently in any of the tests and it would not be recommended for further use as a stabilization agent based on this research. Based on the results of the lab tests, further testing should be performed on the Soil Sement and Soiltac, with the Enviroseal also to be considered if time and funding permits. In addition, EK35 would be a good candidate for further field testing based on its results in the state of Alaska already. It was not suitable for lab testing, however, because it is compaction activated and therefore requires regular loading to perform adequately. Based on the cost comparison, the Soiltac is the most economical alternative, and it did provide a suitable improvement over the unmodified soil, however the Soil Sement provided the strongest, most moisture resistant material. What was very interesting was during the freeze-thaw testing, the Soil Sement remained dry throughout, as evidenced by a

lack of discoloration except where the base was directly in contact with water, while the other products all darkened in color, indicating moisture was dispersed throughout the sample.

CHAPTER 4 - CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH Conclusions The polymer emulsions appear to be the stabilization agents for the future. All three polymer emulsions used in this testing program performed superbly, creating strong specimens that all provided suitable CBR values for roads. Suggested Research While lab testing provides an indication of the strength of the soil as well as the compatibility of the products with the soils used, it does not provide a true indication of the trafficability (the ability of the materials to hold up to traffic loads and abrasion) of the materials. To be able to truly test how these products will perform in the field requires a field test or an accurate simulation of the field environment. This can be accomplished using a linear test track or by placing and monitoring a section (or sections) in the field. A linear test track would be ideal for follow-up testing because it would allow control of the environmental and loading factors, allowing a direct comparison of performance between soil types, however a full scale field test would likely be required at some point.

REFERENCES Ajayi-Majebi, A., Jones, E.E., Grissom, W.A., and Smith, L.S. Epoxy-Resin Based Chemical Stabilization of a Fine, Poorly Graded Soil System. In Transportation Research Record 1295, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991. Danyluk, L.S. Stabilization of Fine-Grained Soil for Road and Airfield Construction. Report AK-RD-86-30, Alaska Department of Transportation & Facilities, Juneau, AK, April 1986. Das, B.M and Singh, G. Soil Stabilization with Sodium Chloride. In Transportation Research Record 1673, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999. Gentry, C.W., and Esch, D.C. Soil Stabilization for Remote Area Roads. Report FHWA-AKRD-86-08, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., August 1985. Hicks, R.G. Alaska Soil Stabilization Design Guide. Report FHWA-AK-RD-01-06B, Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Research & Technology Transfer, Fairbanks, AK, February 2002. Hicks, R.G. Evaluation of Soil Stabilization Practices in Alaska Phase I. Report FHWAAK-RD-01-06A, Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Research & Technology Transfer, Fairbanks, AK, January 2001. Koehmstedt, P.L. Soil Stabilization for Remote Airfields. Report AK-RD-86-22, Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Juneau, AK, January 1986. Kozisek, L. and Rooney, J.W. Soil Stabilization Test Strips, Bethel, Alaska. Report AK-RD86-27, Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Juneau, AK, January 1986. Lgre, G. and Tremblay, H. Laboratory and Field Evaluation of Cement Kiln Dust and Lime for Stabilizing Clayey Silt on Low-Volume Unpaved Roads. In Transportation Research Record 1819 Vol. 2, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 3-10. Little, C.M. Personal communication June 13, 2005. McHattie, R. Personal communication June 14, 2005. Milburn, J.P. and Parsons, R.L. Performance of Soil Stabilization Agents. Report KU-01-8, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka, KS, May 2004. Newman, K. and Tingle, J.S. Emulsion Polymers for Soil Stabilization. Proceedings, 2004 FAA Worldwide Airport Technology Transfer Conference, FAA, Atlantic City, NJ.

Parsons, R.L. Personal communication June 15, 2005. Peyton, H.R., Kennedy, C.F., and Lund, J.W. Stabilization of Silty Soils in Alaska Phase II. Report Number 3, University of Alaska Arctic Environmental Engineering Laboratory, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, June 1966. Randolph, R.B. Earth Materials Catalyst Stabilization for Road Bases, Road Shoulders, Unpaved Roads, and Transportation Earthworks. In Transportation Research Record 1589, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 58-63. Santoni, R.L., Tingle, J.S., and Nieves, M. Accelerated Strength Improvement of Silty Sand Using Nontraditional Additives. https://transportation.wes.army.mil/triservice/soilstab.aspx. Retrieved 6/3/05. Santoni, R.L., Tingle, J.S., and Webster S.L. Stabilization of Silty-Sand with Nontraditional Additives. In Transportation Research Record 1787, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 33-41. Scholen, D.E. Nonstandard Stabilizers. Report FHWA-FLP-92-011, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., July 1992, 113 pages. Tingle, J.S. Personal communication June 29, 2005. Tolleson, A.R, Shatnawi, F.M., Harman, N.E., and Mahdavian, E. An Evlauation of Strength Change on Subgrade Soils Stabilized with an Enzyme Catalyst Solution Using CBR and SSG Comparison. Report R-03-UTC-ALTERPAVE-GEO-01, James E. Clyburn University Transportation Center, Orangeburg, S.C., September 2003. Vinson, T.S., Mahoney, J.P., and Kaminski, M.J. (1984). Cement Stabilization for Road Construction in Cold Regions. Proceedings, 3rd International Cold Regions Engineering Specialty Conference, ASCE, Edmonton, Canada. Woster, L. Personal communication June 9, 2005.