Comparison of Effects of Polymer Material on Physical Properties of Forest Road Soils

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 MS of Forest Engineering, Department of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, I.R. Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, I.R. Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering Department, University of Tehran, Karaj, I.R. Iran

4 ; Professor, Department of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, I.R. Iran

Abstract

Stabilization, alter and improvement of engineering properties of soil are for providing predetermined goals. The most important aim of soil stabilization is increasing long term soil strength, but in very wet and loos lands the other aim of soil stabilization, is to decrease plasticity characteristic of soil, which are tested by Atterberg limits tests. Since the road soils of Namkhane District of Kheyrud forest, have fine grained texture, with high clay content and high plasticity, it's necessary to attempt to improve the mechanical properties and stabilize the soil, before road construction work starts. Nowadays with new technologies, polymer materials have been released. In the present study, compaction and Atterberg limits tests on samples of natural soil and treatment soils with different percentages of 2 types of polymer material CBRPLUS and RPP were studied. Also due to determine the effect of time on performance of  these polymer material, samples treated with 0.05% CBRPLUS  and 0.03% RPP prepared, stored for 7 and 14 days and then Atterberg limits  tests were conducted on these samples. Result showed that with the addition of difference percentage of CBRPLUS to soil, liquid limit was changed between  3.27 and  22.05 and plastic limit was changed between 0.94 and 6.97. The plasticity index decreased between 4.8 and 32.5. Adding RPP decreased the liquid limit between 4.93 and 14.27, plastic limit between 3.14 and 8.57 and plasticity index between 13.22 and 24.03.The results of Atterberg limits indicate that add this material causes improvement of plasticity properties of soil, and treatment time technical has no significant influence on plasticity properties of soils. Also results of compaction test indicate that add CBRPLUS to soil, increase maximum dry density between 1.58 and 9.85 and optimum moisture between 3.57 and 23.21. Adding RPP, somewhat (0.75 and 1.58%) improve the maximum dry density of soil. It has no effect on optimum moisture. Generally according to achieved results, add this material to soil cause relative improvement of soil characteristics.

Keywords

References

 
[1].Santoni, R. L., Tingle, J. S., and Webster, S. L. (2003). Stabilization of Silty Sand with Non-traditional Additives. Transportation Research Record 1787.TRB. National Research Council. Washington. DC, pp. 33-41.
[2]. Sherwood, P. T. )1993(. Soil Stabilisation With Cement and Lime, HMSO. London .UK
[3]. Zhang, J. R. and Cao, X. (2002). Stabilization of Expansive Soil by Lime and Fly Ash. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology Materials, 17(4): 73-77.
[4]. Bell, F. G. (1996). Lime stabilization of clay mineral and soils, Engineering Geology, 42 (4): 223-237.
[5]. Primusz, P., Peterfalvi, J., Koaztka, M., and Marko, G. (2009). Bearing capacity of lime-stabilized soils. Forest constructions in the country and their recreational use. In: Proceedings of the international scientific conference. 1. vyd. Zvolen: Katedra lesníckych stavieb a melioracií, Zvolene, pp. 96-101.
[6]. Miller, G. and Azad, S. (2000). Influence of soil type on stabilization with cement kiln dust. Construction and Building Materials, 14(2): 89-97.
[7]. Tolleson, R., Shatnawi, M., Harman, E., and Mahdavian, E. (2003). An Evaluation of Strength Change on Subgrade Soils Stabilized With an Enzyme Catayst Solution Using CBR and SSG comparisons Final Report to University Transportation Center Grant R-02-UTC-ULTERPAVE-GEO-01.
[8]. Rauch, L. E. and Ligestrand, H. M. (2005). An Analysis of Mechanisms and Efficasy of Three Liquid Chemical Soil Stabilizers, FHWA/TX-03.
[9]. Hu, W. J., Shang, Q. S., Liu, S. T., Zhao, Z. Z., Fan, Z. J., Gao, X. C., Chang, Y., Zhang, Y., and Ou, Q. C. (2007). The Application Technology of Roadpacker Solidified Limestone Soil. In: Proceedings of the The 1th International Conference on Transportation Engineering. July 22-24, Chengdu. China, pp. 692-697.
[10]. Abadjieva, T. (2006). Chemical Stabilization For Low Cost Road in Botswana. 409-414.
[11]. Shirsavkar, S. S. and Koranne, S. (2010). Innovation in Road Construction Using Natural Polymer, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 15: 1614-1624.
[12]. Rauch, A. F., Harmon, J. S., Katz, L. E., and Liljestrand, H. M. (2002). Liquid Soil Stabilizers Measured Effects on Engineering Properties of Clay. In: Proceedings of the 81st Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Jan. 13-17, Washington DC., pp: 1-21.
[13]. Inyang, H. I., Bae, S., Mbamalu, G., and Park, S. W. (2007). Aqueous polymer effects on volumetric swelling of Namontrollonite. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(1): 84-90.
[14]. Tingle, J. S. and Santoni, R. L. (2003). Stabilization of Clay Soils with Nontraditional Additives. In Transportation Research Record 1819. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. pp. 72-84.
[15]. Petry, T. M. and Das, B. (2001). Evaluation of chemical Modifiers/Stabilizers for chemically Active Soils-Clay. Transportation Research Record No.1757. TBR. National Research Council, Jan 15, Washington, DC. pp. 43-49.
[16]. Scholen, D. E. (1995). Stablizer Mechanisms in Nonstandard stabilizers. In: Proceeding of 6th Interational Conference on Low-Volume Roads, National academy Press, June 25-29, Washington, D.C., pp. 252-260.
[17]. Faisal, A. (2012). Stabilization of Residual Soils Using Liquid Chemical. The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 17: 115-126.
Forest and Wood Products
Volume 68, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
August 2015
Pages 395-404

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics