Constitutive Analyses of Nontraditional Stabilization Additives

Tingle, Jeb S.; Larson, Steve L.; Weiss, Charles; Newman, Jennifer F.; Peters, John F.

doi:10.21236/ada429182

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many of the products the report evaluated no longer exist, making modern day comparisons to the research problematic. Tingle et al (2004) evaluated seven chemicals to stabilize both clay-rich and sandy soils. The researchers saw strengths approaching 700 psi for samples cured for 28 days.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory evaluation of next-generation backfill materials and methods for airfield damage repair

Johnson¹,

Weiss²,

Edwards³

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the period March through October 2016, research was conducted at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center in Vicksburg, MS, to develop alternative backfill materials for rapid airfield damage repairs using a variety of commercially available products. The performance of a variety of additives, including 15 traditional and nontraditional materials, and a control comprised the test matrix of stabilization additives. The types of additives included cement, polymer, polyurethane, petroleum emulsion, and silicates. This report presents the technical evaluation of the laboratory and field performance of alternative backfill materials used in the subgrade of concrete repairs using Rapid Set Concrete Mix ® . The additive performance criteria focused on bearing capacity, unconfined compressive strength at 2 hr and at 7 days, and durability of the specimen when partially submerged in water. Laboratory testing included mixing silty, clayey sand soil with each of the additives at specified application rates; compacting; curing; and conducting unconfined compressive strength and California Bearing Ratio testing. For the field evaluation, a repair consisted of preparing the subgrade with a selected additive and overlaying it with Rapid Set Concrete Mix ® . Passesto-failure rates for each repair were determined by using an F-15E load cart at a maximum of 3,500 passes.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory evaluation of next-generation backfill materials and methods for airfield damage repair

Johnson¹,

Weiss²,

Edwards³

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A series of laboratory experiments were conducted in an attempt to verify the proposed reinforcement mechanisms for selected nontraditional soil stabilization additives. Tingle et al (13) provide a detailed description of the test methods used and the characterization of the individual additives. Additional research was conducted to characterize the behavior of soils stabilized with nontraditional additives using the same experimentation techniques.…”

Section: Laboratory Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stabilization Mechanisms of Nontraditional Additives

Tingle

Newman

Larson

et al. 2007

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

Self Cite

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of the high cost of quality construction materials, transportation engineers are often forced to seek alternative designs using substandard materials, commercial construction aids, alternative pavement materials, and innovative design practices. Nontraditional soil stabilization additives are being marketed as viable solutions for stabilizing marginal materials as a low-cost alternative to traditional construction materials. Nontraditional additives are diverse in their composition and the way they interact with soil. Unfortunately, little is known about their interaction with geotechnical materials and their fundamental stabilization mechanisms. The objective of this research was to advance current understanding of the chemical and physical bonding mechanisms associated with selected non-traditional stabilizers. The research consisted of conducting qualitative analyses of hypothesized stabilization mechanisms, examining historical literature for supporting documentation, and performing laboratory experiments to improve the understanding of how these nontraditional additives stabilize soils. Laboratory experiments included image analyses, physical characterization, and chemical analyses to determine the primary constituents of the mineral, soil, stabilizer, and stabilized soil composite. The focus of this effort was to provide insight into the proposed mechanisms by using the laboratory data to examine proposed mechanisms from the historical literature and to provide additional hypotheses for the interaction between nontraditional additives and different soil types.

show abstract

“…Depending on type, dust stabilizers work in one of three ways, all of which basically transform smaller dust particles into bigger particles (Bolander and Yamada 1999;Lohnes and Coree 2002;Tingle et al 2004;USEPA 2004). Salts, brines, and clay additives attract moisture to soil particles.…”

Section: Comparative Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the research concerning dust stabilizers has focused on the effectiveness with which these stabilizers bind and sequester soil particles (Sanders and Addo 1993;Epps and Ehsan 2002;Tingle et al 2004;USEPA 2004). Little is known regarding the fate and potential human and environmental effects associated with application and use of these products for dust control.…”

Section: Comparative Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory (GSL), is exploring the application of stabilizers to control dusts associated with military activities. Several of these stabilizers have shown efficacy in dust control in field trials (Rushing et al 2005(Rushing et al , 2006Tingle et al 2004;Gebhart et al 1996) and are candidates for many DoD applications. These stabilizer additives are EnviroKleen ® , Durasoil ® , Soil-Sement ® , Soiltac ® , Envirotac II ® , and Surtac ® .…”

Section: Comparative Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation