Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MISCEULNFOUS PAMIR S-77.45
MATRIAS EALUTEDAS POTENTIALSOIL STABILIZERS
0 by
Jessie C. Oldham, Royce C. Eaves, Dewey W. White, Jr.
Soils and Pavements LaboratoryU. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimnt Station
P.O0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
Soptember 1977Final Report
Prepard Inc Office, Chied of Engineers, U. S. ArmyC-1) Washington, D. C. 20314
and.....iU. S. Army Materiel Developmenit &. Readiness Command
LA- 5001 Ehsenhower AvenueAlexandria, Va. 22333
Under Projets 4A762719ATW0 and 1T1621 1A528.
DISCLAIMER NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST
QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY
FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED
A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
PAGES WHICH DO NOT
REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not returnit to the originator.
'UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Vham Date Rnfereoi
.CN ROLLNG OIC NA ME NIN ADGRADINESSTON
Office Chief ofESIO Eng ne rs U. S.IPEN ' CArALOG NasUnBER
and RITE(adSilesCmad)lxnr a 23 7
J!, aI . ECLSFICAION/OOWNMRAD
7S. AIIUTON STTEEN (ofRGa46G" till. epoc
U. S.K AOrmy ECnine ere Waerway Exp~. e imentyb blaton. ARE &WOR UerN)
Soils sabiliaveeton oaoyOE r~c 176,279T
P. is reort 631ocksbuthehistor of18 aAO pr-a intatdi 14 o,evlute6 2
Ovfiement agEniniersites and p.riv, ate irma eeivle ntepoDrun. 2014 addition .mAny hermies sublomt addt aeiloealuRains Appendx Alpesentsia doumatio of33 al2aerasevl4ei4 NudINGAGNYAM caeoy component coseret, appcaiCotllfity) with EaRd toSS oi tyi rpet
~ ~ 03 I1OWor NO65 I OmETEUnclassified
2E~? CL IAI Fl THIO~t N DOWNGRADNGe
UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOI6E(he DOG gered
20. ABSTRAC' (Continued)
- the agencies which conducted the evaluation and appropriate references in whichmore detailed information of the materials can be found T
The most effective soil stabilizers and the compressive strengths produced bythem in four general types of soils are summarized as follows:
Unconfined Compressive Strengths, psiSoil Type Untreated Cement Lime Asphalt Other Best Material
Silt 20 80-280 230-860 225 Sodium silicate - 650
Loess 20 100 160-970 -- Powders A and B - 385
Clay 20 76-300 100-34o 104-289 Calcium oxide - 315
Sand 20 150-425 .... Aropol 7110 - 1170-189C
Unclassified
SECURITV CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(ion Date Enferd)
THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT ARE NOT TO
BE USED FOR ADVERTISING, PUBLICATION,
OR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES. CITATION OF
TRADE NAMES DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OF-
FICIAL ENDORSEMENT OR APPROVAL OF THE
USE OF SUCH COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS.
AV. 6:' A,,: ; a.' I:. ,
1k
• . . ... .. ..1. ..1
PREFACE
Efforts to find a method of solidifying or stabilizing soils for
military operations were initiated in May 1946 by the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers. From its beginning in 1946 to 1975, this program of tests
to evaluate potential stabilization materials was conducted under the
sponsorship of the Office, Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, and the U. S.
Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command. Various private firms
also were involved with the tests as well as the U. S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Laboratories (now the U. S. Army Mobility Equip-
ment Research and Development Command) and the U. S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (WES).
This report was prepared at WES by Messrs. Jessie C. Oldham, Royce C.
Eaves, and Dewey W. White, Jr., of the Materiel Development Division
(MDD), Soils and Pavements Laboratory (S&PL), under the direct supervision
of Messrs. William L. McInnis, Chief, MDD, and James P. Sale, Chief,
S&PL.
Directors of WES during preparation of this report were COL G. H.
Hilt, CE and COL J. L. Cannon, CE. Mr. F. R. Brown was Technical
Director.
2
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE . 2
CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)UNITS OF EASUREMENT..................... 4
BACKGROUND. ............... ............ 5PURPOSE .. ............. ..... .. ......... 5REVIEW OF RESEARCH. ............... ........ 5SUMM4ARY. .. ........................... 10
DISCUSSION .. .......................... 10
REFERENCES .. .......................... 12
TABLES 1-3
APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTATION OF MATERIALS EVALUATED .. ....... Al
CATEGORY: ACID .. ................... A5
CATEGORY: ASPHALT. .. ................. A21
CATEGORY: CEMENT .. .................. A60
CATEGORY: LIME .. .. ................. A130
CATEGORY: RESIN. .. ................. A155
CATEGORY: SALT .. .................. A178
CATEGORY: SILICATE. . ............. ... A81
CATEGORY: OTHER . . . ............. .... A
3
CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
U. S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be con-
verted to metric (SI) units as follows:
Multiply By To Obtain
inches 25.4 millimetres
pounds (mass) 0.4535924 kilograms
pounds (force) 4.448222 newtons
pounds (force) per square inch 6.894757 kilopascals
cubic feet 0.02831685 cubic metres
square yards 0.8361274 square metres
Fahrenheit degrees 5/9 Celsius degrees or Kelvins*
To obtain Celsius (C) temperature readings from Fahrenheit (F) read-ings, use the following formula: C - (5/9) (F-32). To obtain Kelvin(K) readings, use: K = (5/9) (F-32) + 273.15.
. . . , . . . . . .. . .. - , . .. l ii . . . . . . . .. . . ll l . . . . . . . . .. I l' . . .. . .. ,. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[4. .
MATERIALS EVALUATED AS POTENTIAL SOIL STABILIZERS
Background
1. In 1946, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) initiated a
research and development program having the objective of developing
improved materials and methods to expeditiously solidify or stabilize
soils for use in construction of roads and airfields and in support of
military operations over soft ground. During the period 1946-1954, the
U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Laboratories (now the U. S.
Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command (MERADCOM))
was responsible for the stabilization program. In 1954, the program was
assigned to the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES),
where research has continued to the present time.
Purpose
This report is being published to document this study of chemical
soil stabilization. Through both in-house research and contracted ef-
forts, a wide range of materials was tested and this document serves to
record all materials evaluated. This report is not intended to provide
guidance in selection of materials or in construction methods. Addi-
tional information on each material is provided in the listed reference.
Guidance in material selection and construction methods is provided in
WES Miscellaneous Paper S-74-23, "Soil Stabilization for Roads and
Airfields in the Theater of Operations," by W. N. Brabston and G. M.
Hammitt, II, September 1974.
Review of Research
3. From 1946-1955, extensive literature reviews and limited labora-
tory studies were performed, initially under contract with the Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology (MIT), the University of California at
Los Angeles, and Cornell University. Extensive contract work was
5
• I,
performed by MIT on stabi-'izer material development with emphasis on
resin systems including melamines, furfurals, formaldehydes, ureas, sili-
cates, acrylamides, vinyls, styrenes, epoxies, and acrylates. Special
attention was given to calcium acrylate, which had been found unique in
developing high strength in very wet soils. This polymer resin was
studied extensively by MERADCOM both in the laboratory and in the field.
Although unique in its mechanism, calcium acrylate had the disadvantages
of high cost; the need for large quantities for effective use; heavy
dependency on soil type, catalyst, and degree of mixing; and water sensi-
tivity. Much work was devoted to studies of mixing and to development
of a field mixing unit to apply calcium acrylate and of various additives
to aid incorporation.
4. Simultaneously, Cornell University undertook a contract study of
the fundamental properties of clay-water systems and their relation to
engineering behavior of soils. Additional work by Cornell was devoted to
lignin and chrome-lignin systems for stabilization. The concept of
using chrome-lignin to prepare small pillow-shaped briquets of stabilized
soil that could be used as artificial aggregate or fill material to bridge
weak areas was explored. This technique was tested in the field but was
determined to be impractical due to large-scale production requirements
and mixing problems in plant production.
5. During this same period, several miscellaneous studies were
performed including soil compaction by vibration (California Institute
of Technology), low-angle X-ray scattering in soils (Armour Research
Foundation), stabilizing soils by freezing (U. S. Bureau of Mines), and
theoretical analysis of thin flexible surfaces under load over flexible
subgrades (MIT).
6. Following the transfer of responsibility to WES in 1954, a series
of state-of-the-art summary reviews of various soil stabilizing methods
and materials was prepared including lignins (1955), calcium acrylate
(1956), soil-cement (1956), bituminous materials (1956), lime (1957),
mixing principles and equipment (1961), and electrical stabilization
(1961). The stabilization problem was defined objectively in terms of
specific military road and airfield operational needs, and realistic
6
requirements and criteria for various stabilization situations or cate-
gories were established to afford direction to the research program.
These requirements have been revised periodically to conform to changing
military operational concepts and needs.
7. Continued research by MIT from 1955-1961 was directed toward
improving the capabilities of conventional stabilizers (asphalts, cement,
and lime) and developing new stabilizing systems. This research led to
the concept of stabilization with chemicals that attack and react with
ce tain constituents of soil, forming cementitious products in situ.
This approach resulted in extensive studies of acid and acid-forming
systems, notably the phosphoric acid compounds, and led to improved
chemically modified asphalt, cement, and lime systems. Additionally,
research by MIT included new resin systems, soil-modifier systems,
special asphalt emulsions, and sodium silicate formulations. From
1962-1972, MIT research was directed toward the development of a more
fundamental understanding of the structural behavior of stabilized soil
and the elucidation of the basic strength-producing mechanisms, both
chemical and physical, of soil-additive systems. One phase of research
completed by MIT was concerned with the chemical stabilization of selected
tropical soils. The results confirmed the utility of cement and lime for
improving a spectrum of initially weak soils of tropical origin for mili-
tary mobility purposes.
8. A contract research effort was conducted by Cornell during 1964-
1968 to establish the feasibility of electrokinetic processes for stabi-
lization of soils for military mobility purposes. The study included
uses of theoretical concepts of electrokinetics, laboratory investiga-
tions, and a field test program which involved the unique use of metal
mat as one of the electrodes and embedded metal rods as the other elec-
trode. The use of electrical energy to increase soil strength both by
dewatering and by electrochemical injection was determined to be feasible,
but the benefits achieved were highly dependent upon soil type and condi-
tions, and considerable time was required to achieve significant increases.
9. Contract work was conducted during 1965-1974 by the University
of California at Berkeley to investigate the influence of repetitive
7
loading on stabilized soil behavior. The results of this work have
assisted in establishing appropriate de7ign criteria for stabilized
soil layers and procedures for the most efficient use of stabilizing
materials.
10. During the time that this project has been assigned to WES, the
soil stabilization research and development effort has consisted of two
phases, contract research and in-house research. These two phases are
closely linked. Contract research has been monitored closely, and
materials showing potential have been examined in the ;n-house research
program. In-house efforts have consisted of monitoring technical publi-
cations for potential materials or methods and testing and evaluation
of materials submitted from industry or discovered in the literature.
Positive results obtained from contract research have been explored
further in laboratory and field testing. Contract reports do umenting
these results have been published, and in-house research of :A5gnificance
has been reported and made available to other Government agencies and
other interested parties.
11. Materials showing significant potential have been fully evalu-
ated in the laboratory, and field test sections have been constructed at
WES and trafficked. Significant and major investigations are listed in
the following paragraphs.
a. Calcium acrylate was investigated by MIT and a test lanewas constructed at MERADCOM prior to the soil stabilizationprogram being moved to WES. Test lanes were constructed,tested, and evaluated at WES in 1955. Performance of thismaterial was extremely good, but calcium acrylate was laterdropped from consideration since it could not withstandrainfall and was too costly.
b. Quicklime was evaluated as a soil stabilizer in laboratoryand field tests during 1956-1957. Field tests indicatedthis material could stabilize weak, wet soils very rapidly;however, nonuniform strength resulted because proper mixingwas very difficult to obtain.
c. Major research was conducted in 1958 on the use of chemi-cally modified cement in soil stabilization. Laboratoryinvestigations were conducted to determine how variouschemicals in combination with portland cement would performas soil stabilizers. A number of materials were investi-gated in the laboratory, and results indicated sodium
sulfate with cement alone.
8
L ie - _ _ ._ _ -__
d. Another major research project was conducted in 1958 con-sisting of laboratory and field investigations of phosphoruspentoxide as a soil stabilization chemical. Results indi-cated that phosphorus pentoxide had excellent potential forstabilizing some soils; however, traces of calcium carbonatein some soils partially neutralized the effects, and therapid reaction of this material in wet soils left insuffi-cient time for adequate mixing and compaction.
e. Major research in 1959 was directed toward developing addi-tional information on the use of quicklime as a stabilizerof wet, weak soils for use by the military. Laboratory andfield tests indicated the need for additional research toimprove quicklime stabilization by chemical modificationwith supplementary secondary additives to overcome certain
limitations.
f. Additional research was conducted in 1960-1961 on the useof supplementary chemicals to enhance the stabilizationbenefits of quicklime. Laboratory and field tests provedthat a number of chemicals were beneficial in lime stabili-zation; however, the best of these was magnesium sulfate.Laboratory and field tests proved that use of magnesiumsulfate in combination with the quicklime resulted in anagent that was much more effective than quicklime alone.
&. During 1955-1961, seven summary reviews were made and theresults published concerning soil stabilization processes.These reviews covered work at WES and MERADCOM and litera-ture surveys of work by others. The purposes of thesereviews were to outline work by the military and others andto document advantages and disadvantages of variousstabilizers.
h. Laboratory and field studies were conducted during 1961-1962on stabilization of soils using portland cement with sodiumhydroxide. These investigations indicated that appreciablebenefits could be achieved in some soils using sodium hydrox-
ide as a modifier. Excellent tolerance to wetting wasachieved using these materials as stabilizing agents.
i. A program was conducted during 1963-1964 to develop designdata on cement-stabilized soils. Variables included dif-ferent strength subgrades, different thicknesses of stabi-lized layers, varied rates of cement treatment, and fourdifferent wheel loadings. A great amount of data wasdeveloped and used to verify or generate design criteriafor stabilized layers.
. From 1966-1972, research and development fir dust controlwas conducted. The concept used was to develop a surfacestabilizer, a spray-on system versus admix-typestabilization, to achieve strengths.
9
Summar
12. The number of materials and secondary additives tested in this
program were many. The materials have been divided into two groups--
effective and noneffective. Table 1 contains the materials that had
some degree of effectiveness. Table 1 lists the basic materials,
secondary materials or additives, soil type, and the number of the page
in Appendix A of this report on which detailed information is presented.
Table 2 lists materials that had no appreciable effect and did not effect
a significant change in the soil parameters. Table 2 is similar to
Table 1; however, no individual pages of detailed information are
provided. Table 3 lists the best materials for each soil type; effective
unconfined compressive strengths are listed.
Discussion
13. A wide range of materials was evaluated, both in the laboratory
and in the field, during the course of this program. Basically, cement,
lime, and asphalt were proven to be the better materials for strength
stabilization. Research indicated that certain additives used with
these materials in trace amounts either increased the strength developed
or made the materials effective over a wider range of soils.
14. Also, other materials may be considered for use. These mate-
rials are effective in some soils and are economically feasible. Brief
statements about these materials are listed below.
a. Lignin or ligno sulphonate is a waste product from paperpulp manufacture. This material is an effective stabi-lizer and dust control agent for some silt and clay soils.The material is either free or very inexpensive, butlaboratory tests should be conducted to determine itseffectiveness on soils before large-scale field use isplanned.
b. Phosphoric acid and phosphor,'- pentoxide are effectivestabilizers for some clay soils. These materials arehazardous and should be used carefully in the laboratoryand the field.
c. Aniline furfural resin is a highly effective waterproofingagent when admixed into clay soils. Permanent waterproofing
10
can be achieved with 1 to 3 percent of the resin. Anilineis highly toxic and should be used only after reviewingnecessary precautions.
d. A number of materials were investigated for dust control formilitary purposes. This group of materials is listed inWES Miscellaneous Paper S-69-1, "Materials Investigated forDust-Control Program (Southeast Asia)," by D. W. White andJ. L. Decell, January 1969.
15. The documentation of materials tested is a method of providing
guidance for later research. The program has been continued over a
period of years. Many organizations and people have been involved. The
list includes Government agencies, universities, and private firms. Ideas,
concepts, and requirements were changed several times during the dura-
tion of the program, and information presented in the tables and in
Appendix A is of a general nature. The appropriate referenced reports
should be referred to for specific information about materials, test
techniques, soils used, and results.
11
REFERENCES
1. Armour Research Foundation, "Low-Angle X-Ray Scattering Study onSoils," October 1953, prepared for MERDC under Contract No. DA-1!4-009-eng-1849.
2. California Institute of Technology, "An Investigation of theCompaction of Soil by Vibration," March 1950, prepared for MERDCunder Contract No. Wo.44-009-eng-647.
3. Cornell University, "Soil Solidification Research; Summarization,Fundamental and Applied Research," Vol I, September 1951, preparedfor MERDC under Contract No. DA-44-009-eng-223.
4. Cornell University, "Soil Solidification Research; FundamentalProperties, Clay-Water Systems," Vol II, September 1951, preparedfor MERDC under Contract No. DA-44-009-eng-223.
5.* Cornell University, "Soil Solidification Research; Applied Research,
Chrome-Lignin Process and Soil Briquetting," Vol III, September
1951, prepared for MERDC under Contract No. DA-44-009-eng-223.
6. Cornell University, "Production and Field Testing of 500 Tons ofChrome-Lignin Stabilized Soil Briquets," December 1952, preparedfor MERDC under Contract No. DA-44-009-eng-1156.
7. Cornell University, "Studies of Mixing, Crushing, and BriquettingEquipment for Stabilized Soil," December 1953, prepared for MERDCunder Contract No. DA-44-009-eng-1531.
8. Day, D. E., "Thermal Stabilization of Soils: Exploratory Labora-tory Studies," Technical Report No. 6-706, Report No. 1, November1965, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,Vicksburg, Miss.
9.* Eaves, Royce C., and Kozan, G. R., "Soil Stabilization: Investi-
gation of Portland Cement as a Stabilizing Material," TechnicalReport No. 3-455, Report No. 8, November 1969, U. S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
10. Eustis, J. B., "Resinous Water Repellents for Soils," TechnicalMemorandum No. 217-1, May 1946, U. S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
11. Freitag, D. R., and Decker, J. D., "Summary Reviews of SoilStabilization Processes; Hydrated Lime and Quicklime," MiscellaneousPaper No. 3-122, Report No. 5, August 1957, U. S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
NOTE: References marked with an asterisk are actually cited in this
report. The other references, though not actually cited, con-tain pertinent information on the soil stabilization program.
12
12. Kozan, G. R., "Soil Stabilization: Field Evaluation of CalciumAcrylate (WES Test Lanes 1 and 2)," Technical Report No. 3-455,Report No. 1, June 1957, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
13.* Kozan, G. R., "Soil Stabilization: Initial Laboratory and FieldTests of Quicklime as a Soil Stabilizing Material," TechnicalReport No. 3-455, Report No. 2, August 1958, U. S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
14.* Kozan, G. R., "Soil Stabilization: Investigations of a ChemicallyModified Cement as a Stabilizing Material," Technical ReportNo. 3-455, Report No. 3, July 1960, U. S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
15.* Kozan, G. R., "Soil Stabilization: Investigation of PhosphorusPentoxide as a Soil-Stabilizing Material," Technical Report
No. 3-455, Report No. 4, November 1960, U. S. Army Engineer Water-ways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
16.* Kozan, G. R., and Fenwick, W. B., "Soil Stabilization: Investi-gations of Quicklime as a Stabilizing Material," Technical ReportNo. 3-455, Report No. 5, March 1962, U. S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
17.* Kozan, G. R., and Fenwick, W. B., "Soil Stabilization: Investiga-tions of a Chemically Modified Quicklime as a Stabilizing Material,"Technical Report No. 3-455. Report No. 6, June 1963, U. S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
18.* Kozan, G. R., and Fenwick, W. B., "Soil Stabilization: LaboratoryInvestigation of Soil Stabilizing Systems for Military Purposes,"Technical Report No. 3-455, Report No. 7, February 1965, U. S.Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
19. Kozan, 'G. R., "Summary Review of Lignin and Chrome-LigninProcesses for Soil Stabilization," Miscellaneous Paper No. 3-122,
Report No. 1, April 1955, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
20. Kozan, G. R., and Stouffer, J. D., "Summary Reviews of Soil Stabi-lization Processes; Mixing Principles, Techniques, and Equipment,"Miscellaneous Paper No. 3-122, Report No. 6, May 1961, U. S.Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
21. Kozan, G. R., and Fenwick, W. B., "Summary Reviews of Soil Stabi-lization Processes; Electrical Stabilization of Fine-Grained Soils,"Miscellaneous Paper No. 3-122, Report No. 7, October 1961, U. S.Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
22.* Kozan, G. R., "Preliminary Investigation of Chrome-Lignin as aStabilizing Agent in Vicksburg, Loess Soil," Miscellaneous PaperNo. 3-145, September 1955, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-ment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
13
23.* Kozan, G. R., "A Quaternary Ammonium Salt as a Stabilizing Agentin Vicksburg Loess Soil," Miscellaneous Paper No. 3-151, Webruary1956, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,Vicksburg, Miss.
24.* Kozan, G. R., and Stouffer, J. D., "Dustproofing and Waterproofingof Soils: Field and Laboratory Investigations of Selected Mate-rials," Technical Report No. 3-530, Report No. 1, September 1959,U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg,Miss.
25.* Kozan, G. R., and Stouffer, J. D., "Dustproofing and Waterproofingof Soils: Laboratory Studies of Soil Waterproofing Materials,"Technical Report No. 3-530, Report No. 2, July 1963, U. S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
26.* Kozan, G. R., "Investigation of Westco D-1 and D-2 Mud ControlAdditives," Miscellaneous Paper No. h--735, July 1965, U. S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
27.* Kozan, G. R., Ables, J. H., and Stouffer, J. D., "Investigation ofEnzymatic Materials for Soil Stabilization," Miscellaneous PaperNo. S-69-9, February 1969, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-ment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
28.* Kozan, G. R., and Stouffer, J. D., "Investigation of a ProprietaryChemical Agent for Soil Stabilization," Miscellaneous Paper S-70-11,April 1970, T1. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,Vicksburg, Miss.
29.* Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Soil Solidification byChemical Methods; Phase I; Literature Reviews," March 1948,prepared for MERDC under Contract No. W-h4-009-eng-408 .
30.* Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Soil Solidification byChemical Methods; Phase II, Resin Systems," March 1950, preparedfor MERDC under Contract No. W-4-009-eng-408.
31.* Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Soil Solidification byChemical Methods; Phase III, Resin Systems ," November 1951,prepared for MERDC under Contract No. DA-44-009-eng 11.
32.* Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Soil Solidification byChemical Methods; Phase IV, Resin Systems," November 1952,prepared for MERDC under Contract No. DA-44-009-eng-924.
33.* Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Soil Solidification byChemical Methods; Phase V, Resin Systems," November 1953, preparedfor MERDC under Contract No. DA-h4-009-eng-1494.
34.* Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Soil Solidification byChemical Methods; Phase VI, Resin Systems," November 1954, pre-pared for MERDC under Contract No. DA-4-009-eng-2002.
35.* Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Soil Solidification byChemical Methods; Phase VII, Resin Systems," November 1955, pre-pared fbr MERDC under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-171.
14
36.* -4sahi)fs r;it'e T- ChnoJlogy, ""Itabilization by'hec'M Nethouiz; '~e V1"lP Asphalts,. .7hrc *phorusi Compounds,
Cerment, Hons, Tiraee rT.eiials," Plpvembc r ' 16 prepared for theT:. S. Arrmy 1Engi,e. r Wante -vy.; xperjiment 't!tinn under Contract
'117. Mass'.tchinetts Tn.titute -f Technc: nfgY, 'i 'tabiilization by"he"iii Methods; Phase 1X, .3phalts, Phozphiorus Compounds,
~ ~sn~, r"~ ~~It"~iS, '~'ter r",prepared. for theJ. S. Army Engineer WFt~e~ xr'riment Stnt'. ii under Contract.
~~Y. ~ I' of Ln u~ < h'r gy, ,'oia ,-tabili zation byCiii~cl !eth( l d; Phase X,,meL Phospho-rus U'orpounds, Asphalt
thulsions, *Lrqce Chei-Fls," n4ovember 1958, prepared for theUi. S. A-rky Fnginieer Waterways Experiment Station under Contract
1-* Massa..husets ino,;t ttz of Thrvlogy, "clStabilization byChem 71 Methods; Phase XI1, 'ernent, Hiosphorus Compounds, SodiumSi-,at~ Asphalt Emulsions," November 959, prepared for theU. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 'Station under ContractNo. I)A-22-079-eng-l"71.
40.* Massachusetts Institute of Technolo&W, "Soil Stabilization byChemi "U A eth(,(L,; Phase X111, Cement, .Idme, P1hosp'horus Compounds,3,cdiwj 3 ?iasAsphalt J1roulsinns,t N. vember 1060, prepared for'the 'J. .:". Army Engineer Waterw~Vs Experimrent Station underContrac~t Nio. DA-22-079-eng-171.
41. .*Massachusetts institute of Technol)_Logy, "3 1Stabilization byChenvic a) Metho)Is; Phase XITT , Phuspho.rus -:)mpounds, Lime, AsphaltmndlL'.;~ -n Iwnr vla~or fPtrt Systems," November.
i1961, prepared for -the U. S. Army E-Fnetor Waterways ExperimentStatiron u:>ler Corilract N.D-2-)9
~2. MichelJ.K., "Summnary Rev;iews of S", tailization Processes;Calce.urn Acrylatep Treatm-nt,"~iclaeu Papor No. 3-122, ReportNo. 2, J~riuary 1.956, 1J. S. ArrWr Engineer Waterways ExperimentStaqtion, F, Vic~sburg, Miss.
4'. Mitchell, J. K., "SuYwmEry Reviews of Soil Stabilization Processes;Soil-Cementl" Miscellaneous Paper 11o. 3-122, Report NJo. 3,September 1956, U. S. Army Engineer Walt-erways Exp.'riment Station,CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
1414. Mitchell, JT. K., "Summary R~eviews of Soil Stabilization Processes-,Bituminous Treatment," Miscellaneous Paper No. 1-122, Report No'4, No)vember 1956, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
45. ObertLeonart', and ."Lair, Byron, "Solidifyring or Sta', ilizingSoils for Military Operations by Freezing," August lQ48, preparedfor MERDC by the U. S. JPureau of Mines under Project lo. AC-697.
15
46. Reissner, Eric, "Analytical Studies of the Action of Thin Flex-ible Surfaces under Load over Flexible Subgrades," January 1954,prepared for MERDC under Contract No. DA-44-009-eng-1863 with theMassachusetts Institute of Technology.
47. Reynolds, J. H., Jr., "Evaluation of Chrome-Lignin Stabilized SoilBriquets as Traffic-Bearing Media," Report No. 1326, October 1963,MERDC, Ft. Belvoir, Va.
48. Rodes, V. H., "First Interim Report, Solidifying or StabilizingSoils for Military Operations," Report 1095, December 1948, MERDC,Ft. Belvoir, Va.
49. Rodes, V. H., and Reynolds, J. H., Jr., "Second Interim Report:Solidifying or Stabilizing Soils for Military Operations," ReportNo. 1306, December 1954, MERDC, Ft. Belvoir, Va.
50. Sanders, G. S., "Development of Aerial Dispersal System for Rapid-Landing Site Stabilization," Contract Report No. 3-169, September1967, prepared for the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-490.
51.* Stouffer, J. D., "Dustproofing and Waterproofing of Soils:Investigation of Aniline-Furfural Resin as a Dustproofer andWaterproofer for Two Clay Soils," Technical Report No. 3-350,Report No. 3, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE.,Vicksburg, Miss.
52. Tauxe, G. J., O'Brien, P. F., and Young, G. B. W., "Summary ofLiterature Survey on Soil Stabilization with Cement," July 1947,prepared for MERDC under Contract No. W-44-009-eng-438.
53. Tauxe, G. J., O'Brien, P. F., and Young, G. B. W., "Summary ofLiterature Survey of Soil Stabilization with Resinous Materials,"prepared for MERDC under Contract No. W-44-009-eng-438.
54. Tauxe, G. J., O'Brien, P. F., and Young, G. B. W., "EngineeringSoil Solidification Research: Summary of Literature Survey ofSoil Stabilization," February 1948, prepared for MERDC underContract No. W-44-009-eng-438.
55. Tauxe, G. J., O'Brien, P. F., and Young, G. B. W., "Soil Stabili-zation Bibliography," December 1947, prepared under ContractNo. W-44-099-eng-438 for MERDC.
56. Tauxe, G. J., O'Brien, P. F., and Young, G. B. W., "Summary ofLiterature Survey on Soil Stabilization by Thermal Methods,"January 1948, prepared for MERDC under Contract No. W- 44-009-eng-438.
57.* Impola, C. N., and Olsen, D. A., "Research Study on Soil Treat-ment Materials for Dust Palliation, Soil Waterproofing, and SoilStrengthening," Contract Report S-68-5, November 1968, preparedfor the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station underContract No. DA-22-079-eng-437.
16
58. Mitchell, J. K., Shen, Chik-Kang, and Monismith, C. L., "Behaviorof Stabilized Soils under Repeated Loading," Contract ReportNo. 3-i45, Report No. 1, December 1965, "Background, Equipment,Preliminary Investigations, Repeated Compression and Flexure Testson Cement-Treated Silty Clay," prepared for the U. S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-41h.
59. Mitchell,J. K., and Monismith, C. L., "Behavior of StabilizedSoils under Repeated Loading," Contract Report No. 3-145, ReportNo. 2, September 1966, "Behavior in Repeated Flexure; Frequencyand Duration Effects; Fatigue Failure Analyses," prepared for theU. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station under ContractNo. DA-22-079-eng-414.
60. Mitchell, J.K., Fossberg, P. E., and Monismith, C. L., "Behaviorof Stabilized Soils under Repeated Loading," Contract Report No.3-145, Report No. 3, May 1969, "Repeated Compression and FlexureTests on Cement- and Lime-Treated Buckshot Clay Confining PressureEffects in Repeated Compression for Cement-Treated Silty Clay,"prepared for the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Stationunder Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-414.
61. Wang, M. C., Mitchell, J. K., and Monismith, C. L., "Behavior ofStabilized Soils under Repeated Loading," Contract Report No.3-145, Report No. 4, October 1970, "Stresses and Deflections inCement-Stabilized Pavements," prepared for the U. S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-414.
62. Mitchell, J. K., Ueng, T-S, and Monismith, C. L., "Behavior ofStabilized Soils under Repeated Loadings," Contract Report No.3-145, Report No. 5, "Performance Evaluation of Cement-StabilizedSoil Layers and Its Relationship to Pavement Design," preparedfor the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station underContract No. DA-22-079-eng-414.
63. Mitchell, J. K., Dzwilewski, Peter, and Monismith, C. L., "Behaviorof Stabilized Soils under Repeated Loadings," Contract ReportNo. 3-145, Report No. 6, October 1974, "A Summary Report with aSuggested Structural Pavement Design Procedure," prepared for theU. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station under ContractNo. DA-22-079-eng-414.
64. Esrig, M. I., "Feasibility Study of Electrokinetic Processes forStabilization of Soils for Military Mobility Purposes," ContractReport No. 3-73, Report No. 1, May 1964, "A Theoretical Study ofthe Equations Governing Electroosmotic Flow and a LaboratoryInvestigation of the Effects of Electrokinetic Treatment on anIllitic Soil," prepared for the U. S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-346.
17
65. Esrig, M. I., and Majtenyi, S., "A Feasibility Study of Electro-
kinetic Processes for Stabilization of Soils for Military MobilityPurposes," Contract Report No. 3-73, Report No. 2, June 1965,
"An Analysis of the Electroosmotic Phenomenon in Soil Capillary
Systems," prepared for the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-3h6.
66. Esrig, M. I., "A Feasibility Study of Electrokinetic Processes
for Stabilization of Sell; fer Military Mobility Purposes,"Contract Report No. 3-73, !ieport No. 3, August 1966, "Results -fa Preliminary Field Investigation," prepared for the U. S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station under Contract No. DA-22-
079-eng-3 4 6 .
67. Esrig, M. I., "A Feasibility Study of Electrokinetic Processesfor Stabilization of Soils for Military Mobility Purposes,"Contract Report No. 3-73, Report No. 4., July 1967, "Laboratory
Investigation of Electrokinetic Treatment of Consolidated Soils,
prepared for the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Stati-n
under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-346.
68. Esrig, M. I., "A Feasibility Study of Electrokinetic Processes
for Stabilization of Soils fcr Military Mobility Purposes,"Contract No. 3-73, Report No. 5, March 1968, "A Study of P-r
Water Pressures during Electrckineti, Treatment," preparedthe U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station underContract No. DA-22-OT9-eng-346.
69. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Soil Stabilization,"Contract Report No. 3-63, Phase Report T, May 1963, "EngineeringBehavior of Partially Saturated Soils," prepared for the U. S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station under Contract No.DA-22-079-eng-288.
70. Massachusetts Institute -f TechnoLor, "Soil Stabilization,"Contract Report No,. 3-63, ho e Peport No. 2, September 1963,"Triaxial Equipment ari 2omputer 1'rogran for Measuring the StrengthBehavior of Stabiiizei Soil.-," prepared for the U. S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station under Contract No. DA-22-
079-eng-288.
71. Wissa, A. E. Z., and Ladd, .. C., "Soil Stabilization," ContractReport No. 3, Phase Report No. 3, July 1964, "Effective Stress-
Strength Behavior of 'ompacted Stabilized Soils," prepared for
the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station underContract No. DA-22-079-eng-288.
72. Wissa, A. E. Z., and Halaby, Rurik, "Soil Stabilization," Contract
Report No. 3-63, Phase Report No. 4, October 1964, "ChemicalStabilization of Selected Tropical Soils from Puerto Rico and
Panama," prepared for the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-288.
18
73. Wissa, A. E. Z., and Ladd, C. C., "Soil Stabilization," ContractReport No. 3-63, Phase Report No. 5, June 1965, "Shear StrengthGeneration in Stabilized Soils," prepared fcr the U. S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-288.
7 . Wiisa, E.. Z., and Monti, R. F., "Soil Stabilization," ContractReport 3-63, Phase Report No. 6, ",cmpressibility-PermeabilityBehavior )f Untreated ani *ement-Stabilized Clayey Silt," preparedfor the U. S. Army Engineer Waterway. Experiment Station underCrntract No. DA-22-079-eng-4 65.
75. Wiz;i, A. E. Z., and Paniagua, J. G., "Soil Stabilization,"Contract No. 3-63, Phase Report No. 7, June 1969, "A DurabilityTest for Stabilized Soils," prepared for the U. S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-465.
76. Wissa, A. E. Z., Ferferbaum-Zyto, S., and Paniagua, J. G., "SoilStabilization," Contract Report No. 3-63, Phase Report No. 8,January 1970, "Effect of Molding Conditions on the Effective
Stress-Strength Behavior of a Stabilized Clayey Silt," preparedfor the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station underContract No. DA-22-079-eng-465.
77. Wissa, A. E. Z., McGillivray, R. T., and I'aniagua, J. G., "SoilStabilization," Contract Report No. 3-63, Phase Report No. 9,August 1971, "The Effects of Mixing Conditions, Method of Compac-tion, and Curing Conditions on the Effective Stress-StrengthBehavior of a Stabilized Soil," prepared for the U. S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-46 5.
78. Wissa, A. E. Z., and Paniagua, J. G., "Soil Stabilization,"Contract Report No. 3-63, Phase Report No. 10, June 1972, "Equip-ment for Studying the Effect of Repeated Loading on the Stress-Strength Behavior of Stabilized Soils," prepared for the U. S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station under Contract No. DA-22-079-eng-465.
19
tr) Ln r
z 00 -4-4
4-)
V)
C))
CD 00~ LA 00 CD0CU -4 C11 0) CUW)t
4-)Cd
-:
0'44
F- 4J4 44)4-4 -4
F- 4.)
d) U H, (A~ 4.) 4- C) 4V) 4.) 4.)
.0~ 0 > 4 -u r-4CU -0 >S u .0
>1 c >. >,,u CC~ ed C cd CdC cd co CIS cd c wc 9w & 4 4) )4) C)' 1-4 -4 -q -4 Cd -4 0>C UJ .4= . )L) u 4) u C U) L)
E-. a) CdU) C4- 4
4- 4) n -N 4)41 Cd P. 041 CU CS r. 4 LA 4J J1c = VU)Ia;LU ..oC u CU 0 -40*. 4 00.0
W, U' MU -4 (D~-4 'CO 0, -4 -H 0 U) 0Q
M*~ ..4 4 1 .- 4 -4 C0 0.=C) -4 tA b4C) co w Cu 0 -4- .. .0'
0 w ~ C J ~ ~ ~ ~ *'4.4)C: 0 -44 -H C).'C -. 0 U 0 0 *r$u4)
v-) r-C4-4SZCU4 FE -P0 4 Q 0 ,4)0 104 C'CU 0044 0 C 0'4 00 9:U. -4004 -4'C - U-
GLA Ci0.'U ~ -44-
'v-1 0) C. -4 C 0 44 4 -4 0 . -"4 J-4 u 0 1-
0 -4 " 4) 0~U (U -'t >,. M- =N- - r0.C U . 0 CU0~ ~~~L 00 0 n00.4 -u M0 "4 dZ nC
-4 -
4) CU o41 CC
u 4)
go
C.
-- I
MI -- 4 -it
.,. ')$4 00 r.. I -0- x 4-)a 0 I x + 4
V, C
0 -- 4 0 0 0' a) 44 -' - c
LoC ) ow C) C)CL
d) u '- 4 -' -' -4i~CO. P-4 r- "0
u 4-
r'd u- mu u A.C 4 C) CD 4 X 0) .0 ,*.-4
C) n '4, .. Z -. to
-t -IT
-4~
-4 14 -4
V C)
4-) "C CC
"o $-. -1 -lU.
o -4 C) Co a) CIUa C13 (D -r W 3In. (L) 4.4 a) 4--)44 a 44t -
a) 00 4 1 U X
CA < 1 0) (n 1 (1 V
4. - .C 4 -,I>0 - M> + - 4 4-) 4>-T 41 U 4J
0 jt 1< ( 0 + Q)0 4J W 0 JiME$04 V>*CU - 0 >t f 4c -H >~ V) --' CU 0"a C > 0
V 4 f V V V 4 )
co co ,. C~ C*C U
W1- = -4 X - 0 I
4-1 V0--) n V0,'. V04- $04- IA V0- -. )C-V>In-14 M ' >Uo. m lC).4z .r' -4 ~
(1)I_ Ln LA LA LAol:c<< 1!
Cd
u
t.4n
0. -4-4-
o-4 ~ ~ 4) "-4
Ud -4- -44 ) )U
Ln CDU ) no u a0) M r4-) rj CU -4 4A - 4 - 4 j - :-
Cd 4 -4 0- U- -4V C4 :1. z u 4r 0 9 4
U1 U) rd -40 a U0 4 ) Cd- , d 4$
4- t 0 - C 4.) 0H* C: E -44 0 1- P4.. 0- H- 0 , _0-.H - 0)O 9 ) H -4 d) -0) I C O )U 0) .,j -4 0) *4 -40) I U . "-4
li 1-44 1 . "0 >, C: = 4).- r)o s 0- Uo 0 OOr-= 0 U'00) XP d 4 4) cU 4J> 4 ( CUU~U -- H4 4- CU 4J >-4 44 CU 4J >-4 CU
sa 1- nr -4)4 nr; 4.) 0 .-e CA 50 I-0 CU) 4J 00 M CaUU )4 1
Uf) r"Iqr -4 0,1 ~.,1-4 -4 0 "0-H -4 j. 4 1-4 010 >"-H -4 0 q 0-0 ~*-1-4 0 m'
0 Q..) 41 9 '4~~ zJ~Cc eR>-r 03 0gr 3 >, o4= : 2>-
,-4 LA
.r4 0D 01 C' 0(
+jI 4* CD C CDJ CD
4. 0 4b 0 0 lC 0 0D
wU .4 cd =0 rq=-4C-q=
1 $. 4 ( 4 .~4 M ) ,-n4)1-0 44U 4J OCd U4 0Cd jcsQ 4jC 0CU k
V3 U U ~ C Q U
calI LA n
o)]Ln Ln Ln C' 0 0 '
Ln
COi
C) C)- n D a
1-4.0 rn444 to z
4)4-
4 0
-4 A4 P co A44
-4 d)-4
4) cc Cd d)idu0 0 Cd
0) CA "0 4) u. i
r. CU -4 0 r 4) Cu )4) 0d -4 u4 4) r4U d d4$ 0T
C: E- 0 P. 90U.w 9E 0-
-4 1 in -14 r4)I tn t in r-4I )4 .4~ o 4 >' 0 4r .9 VO 1 0.) 4 4
10 L 4 U"-1 4 4-1 +j= 44 u*-4. > -H. =) a) M41)h.44) 0 V. P r4 'U 4 : -) Cug.-4 $-' 4 $a. ., M E
in 0 >0. 0 >O H-4 010 -,4- -4 0 0 U-4 -H -4 .4 Cd -H0 -
:3 >-0 14 9 OO u :E-. 0 q9u 4 = m *004 :3 " ' :
0 = 40 0 coc r . 0Cd'J0 ld u04 0 m)~ IA 0~4 0 .0. )
-4 C-4)O4 CD 4~- .4 4".. ' n4 ~ n-
w 41L~U CD ~ CA4) A CA
,-4 04 0 0-
Cu 4J J 0J4J4-.4 = -4 4 - -
4-1 Cd 0. #j co 0 - csrq4) 0n 0
'0 - 00 00 0 Go
r-- r. t-A -
oo < N I - ~ LA)'0 r- co OD co00
.-4 %0 \0 4t. LA LA) (
- -- 4 -4
O -uC 4-j.C 4+Cd thU Cd V) co -W
V) cz*.4 Q 4I- n CD 0 4 -4 =U - LA) LA m~ mI r 00
V)t) CU -. -. 0 r-4 ('4 (1 tn) fln rn ) to44 Cd Z m :3 CIS
InCU. r- CU'-
C4) J Q4- 1) Ln40 4j 0 4j )
CUCU UCU r-4
Cd-4
b0 10 rU u. - 00 C$. c= CU $4 ~
:3 Cd f : Uf).0 =CU IA rU ..0M t U>1 CU > CU 4-) (A Er, 0-14 -tj (A as CU 1-4 CU -1 u
ou 9-C a) -4 >, -4 >,., x u tnUq to CC 00 u CuU CU V) 4) *-q
-4 > -4 -4 -4 -4 >-~
0 U) .s u >, LICUC > CU > UC > )C . > ' 4)
-4 CU Cd -4 rCUC) Cd 0) %) CU CU CU MU -4 C-. 4q -4 4)0 CUu as 04 0 d) ,-4 -4 1-4 H4 co.0 U U En ul CA- (n U U U) U
00 10 )4) ) U
L) x r-4 0 d) 4) . x 0 4j 4-a -4>, 0 d - ) C) OOO0 H co)
., J-N1~.U C -4 .I.0+44-4 COE-j> 1:$ U) t.CU'd1.-4 -4 4
11 = 0 0 0 0 o 000 W M U)U)
10 ) tn + J m 41 -
r=4 '.4- z- <' z 0 S r= r r
00. C) C) 4U) c)" cfOOOOOU) 04C cd W /) W W WU
-44J $-
C) CU) CU CA4.r-4 0C) ) 44 C
CU x
-4oC C) r.= 4 -.)
IX 4 C) -
-)4
C) C)Z.. CU ~ -4 0
0>co C t 00 Cco C) m m
C14 -30 Go' a. c i
-4 Lt) )
CU
4.-4
CU 0
.CU.
C: Cd (
o ,. - 0 0
U 1 4 CU U) r-=
-. C) a) .0 0 LOCUC cy U) U D 4J
C9 CUM- CU -4 cU 4 -4=-4-r.M 0V ,q4)- H4 -4 Cth X) r- 0 =.H 4 -4 X 1AC H( - 04) x- .4 x 4$
.0 00 0U 0 ~ 0 t (A) 0) U nC . d44 0 .0 04 = 04
tv V) -e>U -CU C). mOWS.1 -1 z0
=U)), d0 > U)U) ) : U M.JM. 0 *4.-4 * 44 -M >, .4J CIS >1tAasu 11 .- 7*.-4 0U- *.tU- 00 =4 -uU~ S) =~4 CU .4 M Z =0
It S. - 0U 00RU SZ S 0.0C w 04- Z ZV : :S - C$. ) in 3 3z :3: : 14.4 _4Hr H :3 - .1-1 z $-H m >
0- 1: 41 T t 10U voL) .CU0U .0 _4 101 -.4110 :
,c - 4J 000 0000 0 m 0UU))UC 0 M W 0 tnt4 0C CV) VlC)) U/)U /)CVV) U) U /
CU
-4
CU
CU CU3
0
0 00 0M
01 -r- 4 -4 -4
444
0
0
u 0 u c' 'J v
-4 -4
co V
'-4 CU $U ft C0 C CU to ) 40 4) 4 4 u U 4J 4J C
10 0)c I r d " d14 " - cr4 m r4-
CU 0 CO -4t 40 X-40( q0 - 0 tn ' n JU r- -. )V 41 O 0-40 04. CO 44 $-. r4 .0 O V) 0 t T4e r4.
00j 04 -q 00 00 0) CU4 Ln Rr~0 a4 S. 0 .04 0 a 0 *4..- Cg M.4 *-4U 0
:3CU- 40C M O,4 O4 m H- -1 2 M -4 -r4 H.OOC= -4 ..4 .- 4
.0 -0 " p 00140 -p 0 140 1 0 "40C hi0 0 V Coc r1000 100 10000 m 0 C0 0.fC 0 4 V 4 -'0 1- $40 -4f
r0 U) th 0 V) .n 0 tn in ul 0u . )t 0 *.-0 tA wb A V
-4b
0
12
-4 4 - C4 -
a) ~ -1-4 t') C' t ')4)'4-4
coan a
0 tn pn tn
4.) o 0u
u. -d 0 - -4 0dr-4 *. U-
0 U ' u-4 U) UM W) U)>1
M) CA V) 4-) 1da) ) 4) 0d d) 1-4 1-4 cc -4
0 0 (D co 0 -4 *4 4) u
40 cd U) U) U)tnt
0 - U~ . U t) a 4 )>4. 0o U) n t' ) > tr
0 n1 ~ -4 1-4 r.W 4) a) ) -
U 4-) 41 4$) + J 0 w *,. Cd *-4 co xa) co co 0 00 00 cd 0 0 a a0 0>>. 44 d) 14 44 t r-+Z44~ 4 0 F ' u oS
*,q 4 -44 ,-4 .- .9-4 r-4 4) 00 0co0 -4 c oo coo 0 "*4 ) : O U - r:: U) 4 - 5 ,4
<-4
V. R . r L 0c dc,a a)J( D U ua -o0 0 0 C
U n :j -5-4- 1- (44 44 4 .1 - 44
0 .0 '0-n 0 C' 0-.,
- 4 a4.)a)5
001
-f tl4 00
11 t ~ rn t~ n .:I
C-. 0
*00
_ a
-~~a --- 4 4 , -40-- 4 1 c C .0U ba Oo t
C ) J) V - ~ J(
0- U
W dm C3 CO -4 W o co d asa)' 4) - r4 C ~ ,
~ U _Z UU U
(D 41 CU .) ) ) Q) 4J'1
m .- I +.j I= -4 a)0 )Lm U) (n 4. - 4-
S 4) U co 0U 0 It$-r 4a 0 -4 -4
rj 0 --
.+0 4-. <J -4 -4 M) IA- -4 -
Z -4 ., r-. U U +j s. U) (U
-4' ' 4 . 4) c: C 4J tOIt 0 ). 0 4o 4a 4o 0 4to4 - 4 00 t 0c
04CL~ m ~ C uuI.CU CUs4) ( CU C a-r
040).a 1-4 00 10010 a
-4 -x x . 4-x *. *x~
r 4) r=C- f-.. 4o F_ E 0cd-44F CU1 CU4 4h. 4).) CU (U4-A0 CU CU cc cc 4.4,- r.. 0O .,COC-U0
uUUC U~ CU CU u< U) CMuU -.4 u
-4c 14 14-4- -
Im 4) c c
-4t Lfn U) U)
a0 a.a
-t r) LA. U), L
cc <
C) t.J a- %D a- t- C'
44
C) C
Cu -. CU > na -u-) -4 ) C# d -4 co Z)a
r- . -4 = Q) V-)4J~(lC 4 CU >10)CU
0 . - r -4~C - >1 >1-4 4co En>~ CUC3u.0 u c C13
., -40 - U C
o u >: U~> U UU>. cis ~Cd -a4C r- r.C 0- r-C
W- co Ud C)U4 ~ U C) 4 Hcid a CS -4 . CU 0: CS4) -4 U Q4 -u (n4 Hn Ln Q) V -w c
CU)
H UU
C)d
afl 0 %1,4 t.., C a CC) UA 4- ) U) 4-) )> cUs w. 10 Co
4J 4J r- 4-
-40) V C) a - .4 :3cfs r=CrU *D. =0M H-4 440+ .0-t-4 >, 4-J ~ .*- M -Hr. =4
0) 4) 11 4 0 ms
-4~ 0oL j 400r )-
-4-)
CU -4 Cd t.r. 0~.44 CU
14) 4: 1C.) tA CU)
.,I r=4 CU d 4co >
go u ba0 __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ cca
-4 *o.4~ 4C a u m* c U dC.-C>
u~ ~C) ~ C
'3 Go CD-4 -4 -
0 C ,-4 t' . '%.0 %0D 0'0 I ' 1II
,-4 -4 -
0-4 r-4 C-I 1-- -4 r..
0
F 00
'-) -4 4-4 -4-4-4
r= tn 0 91-4 0 4)c a i
CU ~ ~ f CU CU0 CU CIUOUCCU ) >., 41 4 W) Ml V) Hl 1-U -) 4 1
.,4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -(n .4 -4 9 o4 C O. 3
4 t 10 o0 ) r.0 CO 4
01 .4 CO4 wc -4 4JCU 0,.0 41 +j 4 V) 4-1 j4 . % , ).m. 4 9
9 * .'\40Ln c Uo .0 a) 00J4 ) -r: J0 4-) C . 0 0~4-' 4J 110 CUm 0'-0) >.. CU 0- m 04 9 J44 0C .r -> ) Il > ) ~ 4J U)4J H bOqQ 0 4' ) 1r=4 ) )
04r. 4J 4.'4-1 _ 0 t4CU -4 W +J dp$. M= :.
o 0 CU c C*1% 0 0) CU'- CU'-' ~ 'IC O C O4J 1 2 QCU CU.X
-4.
41 C
0 0.H 0%
gUo C 41 P 0
t v- C fU4 04 U
00
t- to-0
-4 r- -4
0) .1p.
4)4
4 Lfn t-
o) m~ te-4 ('I
44 )'-D-4) LMl
-' 4)
0 .-4 r-4 -4 1-4
', 0 uU, >1 >.. u1>%
10 ~ ~ ~ 4)co " W
Q) Cd Cd 4)U OS co 0'.4 Ln U, w,)LL
.0
4) .44U I )>.9 - 4 0 4 J . 0-4 Cd 0)
., .) r-4+0 4- Nrm Z U)4) t)4~ *-4 () = r-
ed 4J Q bO 0 r= N>.4) 4)0
4) tn 4J 0 .) :(D-H4r40 n = $- t
>) 'f41 0 x C r. O4r4t.4e4 0o 4) 4)I0 4414 Jc
'r. 0 4)~5~- >d >, .4dr4 0Vt 4) 4J box 4)
10 CO V4 -4 -U.9 4J 9 > ~- 4 J C O0 04) CO 4J -4 0
10 4)aO.0.004-14) *. 40 4 J=. 4 t)00 rq = ) > 4
aI b04 A,-4.0S4)lO -4 .'40 O4J,$-4 t4 0S' 0 00C9~~~~~~ 0 U4 ->> 094 -r ) r rIC .r .4
.r
4)
o 00 >.> 3"(A 00 1 1c
to SO4)00o:3 4 r=r= 4
0 0 *.-=1: 4 -.
-4 0
00 00 '-44u- -4 001-
co4 -4
0u
0~7 Ch 0m-0 ~O4.4 Lfl t.) pn
4- 4-) +.j 4-)F -4 ~-4 .- 4 - -
41 --4 rj -4 -4inr- *-4 W~
-4 0 0 W CCU Cd CUS 0 d IU -4 .-4 -4
.0 u
al4. 4.) t)UJ W CU) 4-)U ~ -
z CU c: 4 > .-m0) *0)0 9 0 00 $
X-) 10 = 0c 10.0CU' 0U) 0. rr 0 Cd-4- .0' o = i0) +.) 00 x = ' -4~C )4.4 X M $41 1cs Wc-4 r
> ~CU r. 0 -H o '0 u U dr- u 0 '-CUS *-4 X in 4>, 3ucis 4-' r. * 0
-4' 1 d Z z CU *.14 tv :10*-4 1-4 >1 (
10 4J -0 to co *4 UU 004 -HP -400 =
> rIr UO 0~ -4 U C: 0 4) -- q = 004-' 00->- u ) ol ur- 14 0 U OCCUUC uCQ6. a)4.) 0*.4 .0 1-cdr~cou I U~ CU'-'~ .504ju
d9 U
o- z 0
cc r=xO 0 000,4 0 0) 0D 0 ~4 '0 0*4
0o c CU cdi CU 4U4 - 4 to'~ .0Xcc CU10 WX41) U UG ) U U0 L U) .- 40 U u*-4 :10
rU*4 *-4 C: .,q .1 -4 *-4 r_ *.,4 ~ *-4 *4-4..4 -4P-1 M 9 4) q r- dV4 v- 0 0I o ,4 r-4 0X0
*,4 -4 CO 4J -.4 *i4)0 Ce'-% *HnM U -4 -M 0UA0 t r=O U)ci in Vn)in0 t i4 n *.4 -. 4 (D tn in r,
-40 10 dp in,-4 ro o pr00U) ~ 41 ~u0 r4 ~ P'* 00 W -. ,4L c OO U t)
.4- 4 V) in, .4 -,4 0 L 0 -H ON4j 0 4 -4 -. 4O,4-
loi O.O 0dc o " ,- R 0 0.CU 0' H'..4' 1 0o'0".in40, to) 0. 0 0 -, 0O 0 %- .40r 4 0 0 t n-
Lfn 0) CD 4 C0C)
0-4'
as o)4 ('
u co V o(D 0 0 O (D
lz'. +j =N -A = 4J4 - I
$-. fm r- =. i = -I cz.,
-) C L 4 -4 -4 -4
0 d: OC) z CdC 0 a):99 0 z 0. 9: P. 0.
G) 0 LI 4 1 4 -4
4) CD+. 4J W+J ) C4JI+0 4- 0 -0 41 0
0 >
4) 0t
41' .m C 0 a) cC: 004) C =t
0 41 0d 0- 4 a
al4 0 -4U) >.U u Ua
C)t V)0~() M)41) LU I) >1 UM r- 0o U) 0
.0 0d 1-4 W 0 c 0U C 0-1 0 4) CO -40d 1-4 .,q 0 -4 0 (D U 0 4)0
4.J u x
000
:3 (44 -4
-. '4 R4 C
$.4 410 4J-- 04
-4a) & C .-4 1-a40 u1 4) .,40
"- M .,j a 9 4r-4 4J bo .4) 0o -44 0---4), #J. -u ~ 4 U a ( -0
u~ V) 0) cc 4 4 1
cc0 :3 4~ . 0 $.u0-M4no -t 4 - .,.f 4 w . 0 r.4 0 r -4 0-
10 toU 0c a 14 t r0V 0 .q 4
0 Uu 0.0 u =0 w.4W 00P. .14 c 0 00. 0U) U) U ~ 0. U C/) U) )
4J 4)
4) Ln. Ln. '.0 %0 x % '0 %0 L) LnA0
P: -
>~. >>-d CU
Ud M C.) Udc
Cd co c Cd Cd mU
04 -.. 1-4 1- - 14
Ef) U U U U U U
V Ca CU cUs CU CU CU CU CU CU cd -44), a) -4 4 ) -4 .- 4 41) 4) (D u
-,4 4J
-) 0 4-4 0). CU
CU4 Oa-0 . 4) 0 0
=o rC. co -4 -,01 C U 4-15 o
C: .,4 b0-40 CO Z -4a) W-4 c-40-4 -
co un C t 4 Ln En0 - 0 CU$u 0 0
4.) 4.) 4 $."4 + ICU CU I44 p 44 ce . 4
-1 4r4) -H 441) :C 4)- 4)
Co U -4-- 4. 0 0~,4 CU 0O 9: 4) 4.) +.P.0 U 0 r_
4)H m) 4) (DU 4)4.) 4.) CU Ucoto CU H. Lf)..4 = t
4) CU CD r 4) I..,q tn -k (n 4UU U -4W a) 0p $.. =4 004 .0In
-4 CU 4 .,q 0 U 4 10 r=r=4-FA >1. C0 4) R t4-4 CU 0 0- 0 0 0 0C, IM U r- 4J CU 4D .CU X 1" J " - "0.C .UC L/)
no4) CU $--o U U 1" 0. -4m -P4) 10 9 C4. rU 0 0C) 0) 4J 0 U) 00 "
CUCU >, 4) -4 U= 0.i 4. 0CC 4.U 0C0..4 41) M) U) M~ 4.) 4-).9 4) 4.) xC 41.0 1U
u U 4CU 0 -1 1 $.. . 0. $4 "$.0 ~ ~ Z 0 00
4-.'2)
CU C u u0-> -4 -1 -
00
"5 -4 tr
.H..-4 CO 4-) -4 CU rj CU 0
0d > 4) 0) -4) ,-4. t 0 0c 0 a
4J -H 5 V5 s5 0.1% 0 >5 f
M -0 ~ -44 z- ~ 4 4 - '23) ) '2) w 1u
0 U, U d U d -4 U - d -9 -dgC- 4
j '2)~ rIr ' & tZ - - ) 4 )u a)u4 =a (
-4 -1 '2-) ) " 1 4g c 4 C 4 0 c - 44 --q - ) .44 co u 1 - -4 j H $ >,-
.,I c JU C 1 . A$.0 0 C C: 0 0l C: EU $- =
')4j I. U 0 -4 4)4 tnQ 14 * - . - 41 a . 41-4 u! 9004dL u' o 044UE Z- 4.4 UH Z 4-4 Cdg0 3'2 U)') CU 0~ CU u u
CU 10 '2) "o 0') Q -- ~ - G 2
' d .0 cd.C CUd - CdC cUc cC---.
.0 J- -4> 0U2 CU.. *4 4 4- C H-5-04 CUU 05.J" 0. P.~ CU0.f CC-.~ U~.-
X x CU 4 CJ
on 0. Ow Ia
a)
(U
0) 0 - 'k4 o C
u- .,j .1 m0
0 H ., -4 *' -4 --4 -4
> ~~> >~ > uu
m m Co CU Co CU C: P C: C: r_-4 .4 1-4 -4 -4 MU C cU C3 cis
u U U U U U tin U) cin U) Ef)
4-
0I
0 - ) 0
a) . o- u
-4 a) a
CU t4-4 C -mu~ U-4U U u-) Z~cc 4- C) W) al o
- U L.4 m , "0 1 r--4
0 (1)~ 4 0 0 .0 r-z~ 9: 0 1 -4 -4 ~ r Cd
* ~-4 -4 -40) Q) .C )-4
-4 0 - 4 (U .,q003 U >4 $) 004-) > 0- l-,4 4
r-4
C14 0. C
W ~~~ ~ 0 71c .zC -4
4J U -. 4 CU -4'- cd -4
CU CU c$ 0 1 (1 -- W ZU 0 Cd 1 - 4-4 0) 40) -
U Cd C>1 u U rC-' -qM 4 U'M-4 $.U 0. CU i 4U)~ M CUCU-Lfl 0 04 U -4C dU CU 0Cd C0 *-4 4 U U>, -M-4 U -4
Cl0. r-t4 -4 - 4 =>- .- 4> -4 >.
0 '-4 -4'- . -4 .4) U $.-U 14u:3 U > CU cC r= U coum cocd
0. ~ Z
Cuu
4-44
4)4-b 4. 4)U*-4 >1 *-4 *-4 1-4
0 uU,1
Cu~4 (D -XC ~ (2 2 u
- Cu - ,- 0 0 0 -4 .0V) u u -4 .4 j~ u
0Ioo 1) .
0 - 1 D4- Q
-4 H0$. d- 4 WCA 41 th --4 4) -4 V) 0 -4C~ rz uz
F - >1 9 z+ 4 a 4 - 1:1- o ) -4 a 1Cd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -OCu 41 ;r ( D" 00U
4U 4-4 q 0 .-4 Uoc =44
tA - 4J 0 LW d 41
r=~- 4-) . a , 4- OC
4.) u C '-4 Q r-t(L004J 4) 4-
1.- 04 r4 CU r = 0r
(n 'A Cu V 0. -4o oo = 0.,) q 0) +*. c -4 0A 0~0 Cu -4'A )u d Z+j 41 QA (D- 0.f 0~ Cus4 40 C - M-
.0 -4 9L, C o 0u C t)uIo+
U ~ ~ ~ ~ - 4-).) 4~ )O A
Cu J -' -~(2 ) 44 \-4 (2 -4,-a*O4 - 4 J *~-4 C cis~
+)2 Cu Cu,4 Cu ' l -4 %:,w 1cC13 cc tA- r ~ -4 U '0. C -4 C
u0. d.~ .) $- " %U, '. x ~ I.
1d 41 4J 41 bU+,-4 r4
Q) C 0D %D
44.0
-4 '44 C 4CO 4) .- '>V) U .- U -4 Ou to
4)*-1 U U -4 '-4
1-4~~UC -4r4 1r- 4.-4W 1
-4~U *nc )r A - U c
U,~~~~f )4)4 .4U .'4-)
cUd 9co Cd 0 -H0 C U--Cd 4- CUUE) -4 cd V) M
r_- 4) *-0 .- Cd *-4 4) U "0 0
U- t-q r= g: r. -4 ' ~-4CD>.. CUU -4 (M .q 9 .
.4 .-- I0 m 0 U 0 U - e~U('UU a4) r U *-4 *. .- 4 .- 4 rj- 0 r-4 0
4)~~- -'- 0) )'- - co 0 U 0 CU ~ U 0
"4) .- 'f.-U >.4) 0 d1- U 4)>..ucaN th r. 0 c IO-44 Ul t-4 A u (D--I U a). U)r-CU ) $-*cd 1 > f . :-r= ", +j. 0. U)U 4)J 0) 4 :
> 0 x oi=,-u Cd Cd -4 P:F4 -*'0 ' 9 *C r 4) R-,4 F. ' 4toc 4-r- I U d) 1:1 $-r 4),o - 0 -4 '..'4 0)
41 qU)4) (D~ -4 'CU CU 110 E)-).. .1 4.)0u W % 0 40 ~ Cd -4 tnC uC ceI to -.0 Un CU UU C4 0
0 I -4 U44J) n4 0 U- -4 CUE- u W +-4 41
>..-4 cU-14) "0U) = F. -4- 1n ) -. 4 -H 0- r-
In.>1kCU 0 k -4Cr-0< >-C 0 W0 >1 9: (D 0 CU C r 0
C U 44 j >1 0 9 "04~4 .A ) C -mQ *ri4) 9U0 -4 .
4.d,4-1CU U 4-) 4) 0 =U4) -40 -.- >.0 -0 -1>.4 0 I..0 -4.4 -4 Vt Z4J 0 - -0 ~U-4 10C: 0 0 u 1C
(a U 0 r ::cd 0 0 ' 1 P r=)1 10 ~'CU0 P C CU CU 0W ~ P w, rn, .) U
r-4 1-4 -4 -4CU U toC CU
~.. 0. .
Ph4) r 4) +j
C_ 0t 0 0dCDcU) 4J ~ 4.1' 4-h
413 413
co0
0 00 m O ' 4 .. ~ Lf U'A ~Ln m Lfl4 an t.n-4 to) cd e'J C4 ('4 r4n ('4
0 0
q) $.
a. >1>1 CU t:CUC
0 -4 4 - '
0 91- 4 1 - .4 >-
U).- 43 CU CU CU uu C -u
S CU CU,-4 r-4 cc CU mU CU CU CU4) u .- 4 W) -) Q~ a) -)
4 o CU (L *-E 4-1U0 cd = q 4
0 00 -4 u 0 E~ 03 4) E r0' r-4 co ow 0 0) ) :3 -4 -4
s-6 .>0 a - P -4r -4 .100k a).. 00m 19 0~ :$ 0 4 0 = a 04)-4 0 CU C -H w CU M)--4 -q40 ~ 4-J V).- r- (
.0 F- 0 .,4 .-q 9 10 ~ -?q4j. CCU o -.4caU ) 4 0 0'.0 0 0) - -44)$_4 U o r=0aE- >' 4J r-4 40 0 0 W 4. +j ) tn0 uCU 0) V 04.4 0 (ACU' 004
CUO 0 C E- CU p ~ 0 4J 10 '-1 10 r. V43 4-J r- 0 0 -e 44 -4 . 01-40 CU *dr4 *r*4.H "-4 -~X *.q4a.,I wU 41 L) -4 x )u 0 x x (A x4I 04 1 X 4-)10 U 04- ZI( 0 ~ : 0 4 r-4.4 ft *-H 0 0Cto 0 4JU$ OCU0 t
cU-qIca-4 Z C: V) 1-4ca C 41-LL. r= s., ~4J kacUo 01 1. u0. 1-4p "~ 0 "d~ u ) :3 ro10410 u > V '~.14
0 VCU 004 0-~ >. '-4 '-o c ~-4. (L) '4JJ4000 -C) - - X 0- 0 CU 9) 0 .- 40 4J r=
0CUCU$. w 0 0U k*1, 4Q 0 +jr : r n 0UU 0 0V 4J 0 4J 0*.-444)1- ) >s$.OC *,-4 :3 - H.4 .3C44 -H :.=
$4.a cc CCU0 CU . 00 0 u t 0 0 0 t) 0 a- )) 0 0
4.3
.9
.,1 0 CUP. -. 4 4.)0) M44:3r 0 0i
0) 44 W-
d co 0) ) z0dc
0 0 -14 u
0
Cd CU CU C
4 41 4 1 4 4)4cc 0A co 0- to.4 - '4 ~ ~ ' 0 0 0
4) Ln L -4*. -0'. CD CD 4
0) a)O .0~. 4))at4 1 r4 ~ 41 -4 : 4J -4 0 4 _
CU co CU -r-4 1-4 4) uu u
Cd to Cd-4
-. c CU co '.4V
0. 1-4 14 14 -4 r
4) 4) w) /) U) L
0 ~ 4-j -4- ~
u r4 *.4
0 - 00 -4
0 CU 06 CE'.o )U4 :30c
00 04) 4) ) C4)) 4141 0 co.
co4 4) CU crCU
CU '.4 C.-I r -E-. 4.' C I C) 4) .-f
W- C-' 4-. c.- 41 41
'T . M'. --4 4 )
s o CU WU U 4) 4 . 4 -
4. '4 0C 00 uC
~~4 =v- 41 4)cis~0 0.4C 0- 40 co
04 '. '4 .- *
4) 00'i o
0 ~ 4 00 04 )4U0
94 "-4 4)r- r
- 4j .q044 0k
4.'. k) 4)10U 0 C'a) .,In 0 -
44) cd 0 .4.
CU 0) 1-q-IQ ) LAL
44U ')U) - -4 V-L).0 0 U ) -CU4.U CU 'y 41 ~ C) U i
41 CU-4 : 1 - 0.0)~ 0O)04 n-')-
u- -4
OC o u u
co C .0 CU Cco M) CU cU
-4-4 ca CU -4 CU CU 1-4- u -4 1-4 > -4 r-4 u
CU CU C CU CU,-4 CU CU CU CU-4 -4 CU 0 )U u - 0) Q)0
U .. ) En .4 .4 u .-4.-
a)
4. C 5 0
0 U - 0 4) 1.,., "-4 C41 41)u f-404) 41) 41 r= - U) ~CcU
uca 41. C UCU rU- = c) -)4.4C
C)44 9:tA :: 4' "0 ) +j . :-- ~4) r- 0 0 0 bo V)
d) U)4; :3r 0j U0 44U W . cUc.-4 0) 4-) 1 n ) X '0 4 -A C.0 > c CU CU OS 0-10Co -. 4 r =F Z5 U)CU0 0) -4 )F- 41) 0 0 ZV Q0 -.44-J) 4)0U) 4.+)
., 4 .. -M C:1 ucU CU tU) CU"0 =C .0(A)CU4 t- 0 C'~ 10r -4 CU '4
"0 u U 4) -4@ A )U).4 r 0 x 41+j 0. CU~4 5ca $. 0 01-4 .0 o$ -4 CU (D0 $U)0
CO.d0C Q 4) u U41 1
:3C zU UC .d j .0 0 .C0*.4C *- -H - . C:0ca 0 4-) -4
U)".,4 U0 4. i z0 I.CU 50 uC U) cU) r: tn ' CU"-.I -m V)*..-4 j =CU =U CU4400 z0 " $.. U0 01-4 r.4 U 0 - -4 C4j -q 4.j X0 co0.=0 -4 'o -4 Un "0U Co0Oto 00 0 .0 lm. I. A ) 010 Co 0U cncc
V)0
to C 0
xU 0) C) 0)
0 -0 0-40 0CU 4 -'0 10 $. Ix
444 4: 1. 'CU) ".U - cU 0. %-4 ,4) x
U 0 uCr' U C .o .9,0-0 0.r4 CU CU44- ' U) 0 ."q
U) 0 ) V) S +j V)4. xCU k I- C 0)0 0U ~Cd 0 C
cc CU -U"4 rU'- "4 .4 0 *.4U)'4-' -M U1$ -. 410 U 014 o U U'- UCU-4 uCU 0ou
UC: .-q cd 1-4 '-I CUl - -4C 0 -4 r4 >% V-4-. 4 cc t to- CU CU c 0.U) CU C.9 CU
q 0o u u u U U U
0 P0-q -I 0n L n L n L n L n - .0
Co tA r
44 O -4~U fJ (' r. cC)) m 0g1
444C) C)0. 44 Lo c I o)d c o A
od ot C0 0 m 0 0o 0d 0d U)
U). P-4 1-4 .-4 q- -4 u- .-4 4 .-4 u r00 u U u U u v u .0
C) Q 4) W 4) a) Q )0 0 u
44 0 000 0 0 0 0 * 0
.4 Uh = -4 04 0 o0 -
W~ C) *, >1
N 0 u .,q 0 0 0 0 0~4 0 0-4 04 0 ) Q 0) 0 0-4.4., 4 -4 0-4 - -4 0 ~ 4J - r. .- I ~ U) -
4 '0 1-( O u >-4 C., -V = C1) r- 1
U ) Q C)A4-1) w -4 r=4 r=S08r4 -
.,4 :3 -4d > 41 C)
0., C) r*0 u- uC0 VA a). -MC C)' > 0 U
4.1 0 d C) .0 4 0 C) C) C)=~ .4C) U >..a- 0 *. d .,Ib Z4) .4 r-4. to. 4 .1 C) 4J 4J 0
*4 d U).- 04.4 r4' C) u 0 0r, C) C) U 34.
5..d) v*tn0 G 4 -
., ..4 U- Uk )UC *.44 u ) C
C)0. r'0 X-4 C)44J 4 U 04 :3 00 0
-4 r4.1 1C
x 41
x X ~ 0) D0 o3 o00 En., 0
.. 4 ~0-44 r- d -4 0 40a COr=W 0 C00
co cU Cd co Cd ca al co4JJ 41 4 j J4-j 4j4-1+ 4-b. .).+j 41.bj 41 4-
4) caO CUO 0 U co0 c CU 0 U caO o0 cc0
1.4 toP- 4c - ) ca 4f) 4) CA tn c - 4c ) 4) 4) d4)a -0 c4 -H CD 4 .M 00 .r4 9% 0 -4 -e 0 -H O .. 0 -I -4 9 e .,f
4) 1O4 %r- o -4 LOO.- O..%0-4 tU,. r- $ r- ..1 r4 I- 0-
4)4) C1.0 4001.0 d)O. 4)Oo (.0 4) aiqo a.0 4o aio 4) m 104 4j s 4 - 3 4 --4 :3 4 -I 34 9-4 34 9-4 - 4 .- 4:
CC6C
E-.Ca CU
*4 CU CU CU CU CU cU CU CU0 -4 1- r-4.-4 -4 4-
r.) 9 U r_ 4- >1 r 9 C) U C.)
co CU CU CU '-4 toU c C. co CU-4 CU cU44) Q U .,4 1-4 Q U 4)U 4) Q
-y) - ~ - ~u .4 .- 3 .4
0
Uq
4))
4-)1
>4 44 _nCU4 M U n C
4 - ) Lfl 4 r= 44 4) 4) 11C 4
U ) WU ? -4rI -4 cC4 (-4 -9 1- C -
4) 4) L)~ U Ca
ce cU Cd co co cd cd ca41 41 1 41J 4 JJ 4. 4.)-+j414 + 4 J 4 J 4-J 4.I
4) CUO 0 O CUa 0U cc0c Wo0 CUO 0 U ca0 co0
C: ) (D Q) a)) 4) V) W
C) r44.- .I.,4 ~r'4 c:M .4 e-*I Ln -4 0 * -H -4 ~-*.44) Ch C. 4) (M.0 4) M.0 4)0M.0 4)).a 4) M.0 4)al.0 (D43 0
CU CU
r-4 co CU cU CU CU CU CU CU
0 u u u u U U u
CU CU CU a) cUs ed -4 CU cU -q CU.r-4W) a) a 0 a) a) H -4 Q)U (D u
0u
Vn
-4 4.1
.0 .- 0
a)aa
.,1 -4 .0U -44 :s
co Cd J v--$40 0 b-4
k) 0 Inju. U 0-CU th U) CU U) v
00 1 9 0 :341 4J +j 4 -4 1 $4 00
Ul U) V) 0 0) k 0 k I
4-J4J ~ 4 J. 4J J 41 1 14.) -j4) cUo 0 U co0 c0 C 0 ce 0
194) 4) C) 4) a)4) -4 -= .- -4 - . 4 .. , = -4 .= Lni) Ln LI n~
S. c~U tA cUU CU-U V cd CNAM MJt n
r, 44 - 4 ' - .4r 4- 4
CU ce CU C
u co-4
Cd ca Cd cl
co C CU-4 to cU Cd CU 1-4 co CU CU -4.,4 -4 .- 4 -4 -4 U -4 LO U U
CU cis C: CU 9:C CUc >-u ~ Cd led cs -4 CU,-4 CU C CU-4 CU3 cU 0- 1=V) 4) u 4)U 4 ) CU 4)U 4 ) ,4 CU CU
0 4) 0 a 4)
L) 4 -4 -4 (n U
0CU('I Ia. Q.) 4J Q) -4
4) > 0-4 ))coC4 . r4 -KC4.4CU C
.a4CUn -4 C-4 4J
Cd C 4) 4) )pa = o tU, v
:3*-= 0 .- E
0-4 Q-
-,A -40 $.".4 0 =) a) 0
4) 0 U V)4.i U)
CU U) 0j 4 0
4) 0 4)0
x)C 0 0
W e u uCD 0 -4 -d -4
4.4 J 4 4h 444J 4 J 14j + 4 J4) Cu 0u 00cd O C 0 cuo0
4) w4 -~ Lfl hJn 0D t- .n -. 4 - 4 co r-.4 ..4r4 -1 Ue'. ) r4 cd cd ul 1- e c e
44 $4 .Lfl.-I t.- - .g- 4) 1. 4 4 U 4a) 4) at.0 4)O1.0 > 4) (M 44)O1.0
M 4 -4: 4-)4 : 4-)4 -H +j-44J-
co Cu Cu-4 ,-4 4) Cu
Uu
Cu Cu 0J 4-) Cou
>1 u .4 % >. > Cu CIOr4 ca Cu MU -4 Cu U) Cu Cu Cu r-4 x r
*.1 .-4 r-4 r-4 >' P-4 r-4 -4 -4 u Cuo U U U u- u u U ..In
4) >. % t n
C Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu V-4 r. 4a) 4) (D -4) v-4 -4 4) 4) 4) U Cu 0 cc
0u
4) (D 4).0-4 4D) P
>0 co Mu -4Cu *v4 u 0.=-. 4.) *-= U
-4 I.V -4 U
to) .*.,40 $4 U
CCu-4 r4 4)4.4 +J 4 44
aCuu -4
00C
U)
.00Cu u Inv-
go S- 4) .0 u .0-
4) 4) In 4)Cu d 4I Cd Ud -4 01 -
N Cu r- Cu *4 I-. Cu4 wQ r4 c 4 rcctd0 -4 .4) 4. 0 1 L L' 0-
Cu Cu0 Q . 41 V .0 >1 9: 0C x 0 >v4
+j 9 u c.0. cu M 41) I p, U) Wn >1k 0 0 4 41 V. N U r. rl V 0 cu -4 r00 u u 1-4cc $-4 Cu 4) 4) 4Cu A0 v-I 0 cc
0 00 0 10 Qv .
+.j 41 41~ 4J 4J 41 j4
V) CUO CUO CUO I
g) CU7%C C -4 a: W)t.,q444 $.t ) ~ -4 I.. 1.-4 1. t- -4
4) o) (M)O.0 DM=. 407.0
0-009 - r. -
F-4 1-4U
) U ) 4CU
CU C CU C>1 >1C >.1-4 1-4 4) Cd .-4 co co CU C Cd CU.r4 U > -4 u U) -4 1-4 -40 U4 uU U ~ U u
C/) >. a >1r- "aC CC U C
CU 4J ed co CU CUC cd 4 CU CUco 0 .44) Cd Cd CU 4) u 4) CD
En z U) W) ..
Ui *,- 4) t
.0 >4 d -4 4.4 0 0
4o 0, (D,-4 C0 04- ) v-I C: r- u--4 4)c b U).. 4) C
10 0 a m a u .0(A Q.- 4) 4) 4->)0
u. I-. go -4>*0 W -jw r >, I0 C4J J 0CO4JU 0 4 0 tnI - 4
toU$ .CHC *, 0 ;-, 4)C.r1 1 4.tn0 4 )U 4 - 4.C
U 4) *HU -4 4J -IM $.40.-U 0 .1 0 0 0 V 0U 0Cd CU 010 ~0 0 $1al 0. u
'-4 CUCUd
41. 4.)
CU 0 cU 4)S 41 +.) W- 0 4) 0.
9: U 4 41~.C 41 '-4U 4) d) 4.j 4 - )
to ol sU xU 0 0noU ) CUC CU ca csU
*rl 4 ,q -4 4)I.0.4 I ' 4-'CU 'CU *4 4 -".4 4 V~ )0 0 0 0. 4-) >U) 4) 0 ) 0
U) U) U3 U3 W)U -
co CU CU cc co co co+j4 41 141 + 41 4 J.) J " .k " 4.J1
0a 0U ccO cUo0 CUO cUo CUO cUo0in m 10 10 0 0 00
44 1 t-4 . .4 t-. i - L 4 -I .. 4 -4 -44% ~ ~ v-
0) o 4M.0 . 0% . O 001.0 4 0O.0 )C 0a.0 )m
a -j 4= 4)- 41 -4 : 1 4 1 -4 3 4j-4 :34J-4
> > -4
co coU
.- 4 Co CU CUi CUt CU CU -4 r_*.-4 4-4 Li -4-4 .- 4 -4 Li CU3
C/) >., U)
cc CU3 CU CU CU as -4 Cd -4 CU .- 4 0
0) 1-4 (D0 0 0 O i u~ ) *.4 0
0
.0 4--4 .4-
.0 4 0
0$
I..u 0 CCd0) 4.4k 1. O414 CU tn r-4
CU kUU '0" 4-' Rt
od to 4.o 4.'4~ 0 c0d ..tn 0 -uIAJ~'
cU *vM .4 %0 co ~ O- '-d k rq4 CU-4 C: 1- -4 -4 .- 4c0 0 0 0 0 0
.W 00 Lfl In 0 0.1-4~ > U CDLi 10. ''-4 4
.,q *4 I% I- > -0~ to-4 I:3 i :3 0-..0 0 Li
aat
44.4) 4)0)L
4 J - 4 :
Cu0)
-4 -14 ~ -4>1 >.. *-4 Cu C uu~4 Cu cd W -4 14 4 -1
.-.4 -4 r-4 U u U>
C: Cdco cu.-4 Cu sz Cu co Coa) (D0 U-4 co Cu Cd -4 -
.. 1 -3 u En Vi) u u
41)
Cuu
r0
>4 -H -45-I (
.,1 4) 0 501
,a F- 0 V 0A 0 0-4 Cd U ) C ) ) cd Cu
uCu 41 du ) a)C Cu1j (I a4J J a4 . 14. a)I4J 4
CO k 4
4 co 5-4-4 $4 44 Cu r 4u)+-040 4- +)440. 0 .-Ol4444 H V
d) Cd U > - -H) CU)>4 -4Cu4 H 1 C 4 ,
~444) 4J =u 4J4-) 4)4J C: 4J 4.J.=4-) 4) 4-) XCZ : CU P. ~ U 40C dMU4 ISu+ o0
u CuU) CIS U C
-4 -u4Cu ~ .4 -It e~C *-.0 U U 10u
I . .- i- cu 9u- .,4 -q U tCIS -) 4) .-. CS .. r-0 :3 C
.44.) 1-u 0 U 0 r- 4 Cacc Cu 4) C .4 mC
=) 0.-4 " $-4 P.Q tn "C 4
41 1:6U >-4..Cu 0 >1- 50 OU <a).4U -4Cd V) u -4CZ 0. 44 Cu0p.u4)u
U IQU -P-4 -Ht W) )C I-U 4) u.,j Q _4 b r: 4) -4)4 bo 0 .4 41 .-
m U in *'4. to~u C N t 4414 0.44-' (' U-4 .uSC '4 .0 U) '-4 U) 4U) I4 z- 4b 040 u .. 13. 4) 0 ,dPO Z :4) 0 co U 4)'Cu a Cu .u W~) IA = )
ac~
0. 1- LIn 0) 00C$.4 0)t)MtF 4
CU- -4 a
-4) W 4.- r4
Cl) L) U u U)
'CU
4-i -) -)
4-U Z CU4- C: 4. C4-J
0 En~ 10 ) m -4*44 ~ -4'4-4r4t
-4 004 9z M H
el 0) iUC zUC 4)C -HV)
-1 al) 44U4-) >.. 10) ..* *.
> r C1-4 tn 4l). *444) 4-l 4) 4- I Q 4-)asU . mH 10) < +j =-CJ CU0) g 4U)C C: )C cz CU
H 4-) z CU - >,u) o Q 4-4-H (1) 44-H a) 4A-H.' U*H *C- H .CdU 10 E 1 tV k o r 0 r
It 0ti O~Cd u c > C3 -4H " -4H '-H C
-1Ha) to~ 1-. 0% C: % 9*44C U>, 1 0 a 4) 14 : 0) )-4: CU
O.H 1- J r C C- C' 1-1 E cU0 0 = 4 > 4I-.C'S rH 4J W -4 +.j W- 4)Q -4 U)>1'C $. c 44 t 4- CUU 9 U CUCr- U CUC= U *H
-H "- H>- >Q) -q 4) -H - CU a). -CU ( ( 0-,4 -C W -4
4 4J - CU0 Q) +j coU:-H + 4-C~ Z . Cr.H +jM:5-
ro~~0 0' CU.C c. d l0 o0
cd 1-CU V )) V).00 Y)4C.-. 1 13 3 34-
.H-1-4 Co tUO 0 CUO CCU .C4 0a r- UUrt) r-C>)C4- 4-l a) *-.4 4 -4 r-"t
(D- tn (U-4-
1-n 1-4 $4 zC.U 10 :3) v 0G ~0 E 4
C) - LA t-. f- I' t- I. r-I I- r- '.04S Ln Ln LfA Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln V)
A4
CUd
u CU
o d o Uv co
S -4 1 -4 -4 I
cis C U CU CU cU mU CU Cd CU CU CU Cd CU/3 C/) WA C) cn (P LA V) V) En EnLAL
4JQ) 0
0 5.4 -4 4 j0 k 4 .4CO.
UC0 -1 (A-44J M >14)
,-.4 ~ .. cd 4 '-4 0
WU .,I (D- 4J U -
4) j + 4) co 0- - CU>U u Cd CU C0 --. 4 4)d
H CUG CU+JEI I a-1 r-4 C1 1-4 Q .-
E- -4 0 4) )1
X 4 4 4) ) 4 5 tn *-4 = 910 =4--4-e -4r d) .-4 4 -4 U :3 0 4-M
CIS 0 0 C o0 0 - -1~'-U 0*44 *4
-4 3 1 r- -
-4 4>, 4) 4CU 5-1 4J 41 4 0F 0z
x . 4) CUF r- - 440. CU1 > a> 4) to-o 4)N u-
CU 44 CU CU 0 0 a.0- 4) -.4 W
*.I I .4 4 ..4 '04 C 4)co, 4) 4 - 41' L.-. N N N ~ .
.d -4 0V 0d 00 0n 0.) -.~ - 4 U
.m I - -4 -4- -4 co- o od o Cu 5.tA ) 0 -1 o 5-aC 5-a N-C N- 5.. S-a -i4 C
r)0--4 -I -
44
0 CuC u Cu u CuLn ~ 4- 4-
Cu03 C CO uCLn f) I
U 3 0 0 0 0 o o
0 m C CIS co~ cCi M uC()~ Cu> > > > U) t- > I
C) 4-)I I 4-4J,-4. 4-) 4 J, ('4 4-) J-
r-4 E) .4 C)u Uu LO) Uu C) Uu cd0 Uu cd).0 > 4- V- ~ ctC- co 4-4 -j Cd 44 4-) CO-4 4J Cul 44Jas r- 0 M 4-) Eu ~ .. C -, - M "I 4 Cd - -4 ) *-1. 4 cc
H- +-j - 4 (r.C(fCQ 4 -) =.44 4 J Z 44 4-1:34
4 t 4J :344r= Cu3 r- ' >, cz4 C-I tj( ~ -4 Un V) -4 as.4C V) V)-4
'*u -* ~>. -4 0 V) -4 W V) -4 Q A C V"u W~C 0 tn (n Co0. 0 c $a. 0 Cu u 9:u as0.O0
C) U4-J (1)4J r- 4-J ., 4-1 ' 4 -J .4 0 4-) -4. CZ~ M m 0 ) cli EC C u.C Mco r= = C3 rz =mu 4 ~4--4 > U 4J~ u +j U :34-)U EA u z +
4 1-4 4 l E-~ 0 4-1
4.C)J. Ln =CS~ co -. u 0 -z 0 5 ~C0O =s Q C0u:
M4 Cd- . 4 )c 0 W )U 0c )e1
Cu r.)C C
CIS Qu) cd -4 Cu Cu
5-. 41 - J 04JCSCS C ) C u 0 C13 C ) 4 )4.
4 C
Cu as s. -)t W ~ 4Ju-1 u u E u + u coU) ~ u IN dC) m 5-U3c
Cu :3 -4-4 C0 -4 Ur.4>,
-, U U-4 .u =cl U 4J- 4 -4Cd r-4 +j -4 -
.3 t Cd Cu C3 )' 10 to-4U U UU
-4 4 4 1-4 ., -1 0 ~ 14 e -40- u u h
co ed c Cd .- Cd *.- Cd Co ce
o ) V) U n En) V) En En V
0' ~ ' ~0~ 4-) 0
Cd CU C4U1U C C UC
4-J 0- -)+
..) ,4 4- Co444
10 >. 4J -4 CO ~ CUCU *-q V) 0 4-4 43Z+
4.) M U)-4 )U.-
.,- -4)-n - )
S CUVU r44 * -4
: 41 CU 0.01C CU -4 4. 4
0C 0
E- 0 :
440. CU 0 4- -1 CU 0
CO co Cw U
-4 (G) C: -4
Cd CU 4-) cU44 CU C 41 CU S CU CU 1CU CU co 41-4 to CU CU CU u *-4 cc$4 V-1 Q -4 V) 0 -4 V.4 L)"- .,q 0 VV0Q -0 4>1 4J>, 4.) 4)>1 +J 4J r 41 Cd 4141 4- >
41) Ci4) C) CUU) c n cs- CU) CUO CU 0 4 CC co toCU -4 4U .- 4-4 4 U 1-4 u -4 -4 -4'. >, - -4
o UO UO 4" UG)~C UV UO Ur-c U uC U*-4 CUU)A CU : CU r. .4 CU CU -4 CU U) o4)CUV c CC CU zW) V) -4 0)r= .,I >1 U) $. v -
CU 00 CU) a .l-4 CU 0 F e 19. ~.Oi r) r= r--4
.,q -Ib. "0 -44) *.CU0 *d 0 - .q 1 .,4 mu 0 0 u~ U41~ 00 00 u u o r U ()4J U U U 04r-4 m CU V44)u -4 0 -4 1 -4 -0 1-4)- 14 -4 0CUWI CU 0 mUC E CcUO CU z COOr CUQ1.9 c -
u U u U U Uu
cd 0 cUO0u
r- r-4 -- ' ~ I 4 -'" 40 0) %0 '.4 .
44 1.4 Ln -4 %a4'0-44, 40 M.0 4mQ .0
-4 z 1 4
CU
-4I ,- 4 1-4 10 Cd CU.-4 u U u U CU q r-
ot CU00 0 .U 0 CU
co U) U-o UUU , - , U - 4
cma)0 14 44.)4.)j- 1- 0~ -4
0 0 X- .OCUC 0 D D4Ua 4 41) 0 4 0 0 n$4
EU 4,J 0-4 4 14.4 >1 $ 34 d 0 a .
Cd4 0.~ 0 -f 440.)44J r I(Dx W1 014ca 0=444 .- 4.)>4 0 4 4
.H4J4 Q. "d~4 0.0 4- 4-I- . rnf.-04n- .- 4. 1.J CU
04 >-1. >1 j4, 0 4I r -4I WU $.o a) 4, -404 4
1 C 41 >U4 :D.-C 0) CU vd .S 4 ) CO .0, +.) o) 4, 4,4 a) 4,4,
0U. 1 0 4q4.
N~. In4 144 4J cc t 4, -4C
CJ .,.4 " $4 #. .C C'CU W W 44- 4-) 4.1 4, 4 ) ~
410 C-A CU) +j k(U0
# q q41 4 Cd 1. 0 4, 4,C.4k k 4, $-4 r= 4 CD -4 4JU
CU4'I coc c CO-4 04C0 0) 0Q UC
to 4.) tn : e C ,4 4an -.4 4 4U r 4 N *-4 n14 41> -
-4 CU C CU CU 4, (14 4)
f-4 0,4 -4 .. 4 r- , -4~ 4, 4.) u
134. tA- c q 4.) 0d *,o co 0 4u .5 ou0 u. u~ 4, u' .0 u - Q
4) ?- t- r- l Lfl I- in. n in LA in tnt t
4)
4)4
d dCU Cd Cd Cd- 4- - -4 -4 -4
Cded t Cd co CU CU CU cU C
0 C: 0 )
0)~c a) r.44U +j "- U1*,* C 04- 4 $ x %->1 z a 0 0u CU0a
.0.q J 0)4 U)u) $4 a4J r= U~a CU CL) m 14Oa0Cd 0 4- 0 En- CU C>%
Cd 4J V)4C F. a) = 4)IZ r. bC). *J Cd CO r=C4
o) 4 41. . 0 41 r- to 0> 41 41 tn (D >
.,4 o 4 10 m 0 4j H -4 tn -) 4 +j4j
0 ) 9:" ).,4 W 0 o 4 ( )r )t,a 0 (%3 0 c 0 u b ) Oa 0
o0 cd C:-C 00 c 4 c d>9.4 4J H -4 00 4) 0a) >
9f CU 90 -4 -0 C: -1 p C (>U 0, 0q 0) 4H S ( ,q 0 r4 ( -0
0 lm O = $4 cc.C)toU .- 4 4 -
0r 00o
* 0 0. . q 0. 0. 0.Ia. 12 It. IndW
4) RP Lfl r- qt ~ ~ L Lfn c rI
4 4W
-4
-4 ~-4 ~Cd toC CU
- -4 co CU
0 co fd(A>,( j -> >, >
~ 0 ~ ~ -4cc CU CU CU 0 co CUU u co CU Cd
cc 0
'+4 4-'
in ~-4 Q
d)- 4-i 4-i,-
.0 0 C4J CU '4.441C > *'-'C ".4
-4 00 *q 41 Z444-' cd $3. o ~ U U) 0 -4*,4 m.4 S..CU CU
IV 4)'.0U~U U CU)'C0 4:4s4.u11 . CUO0. 0
o r. (D - P-4 04 -44
CU -4 4j4 $- 1- ,".4 4t 0 41 =1 0r
-4 . co w. >,4- 9: 1CU 4Jk 0 -4 U CU
-M~~ >.)~ 4'-'eC0U c - 4 E
$4-4 0' to4J914 4-1 41 1-6 cc U 0C 0 IM' 40 I- -0 5 0 CU>toA
Z~~r 0 vU C '4~-4.. 4
r-4 4 . 04 C C
-4 -~4 4 u C Uo 04 -4
4J ~ 04- 4 b 4). %0 0 CU US *co 10 41 0 0 $.d U'S I C G ci0
lie CU 14 10 54. $.4 *-4 6U Cu 0 ~ o .. .-
ml IXf 0 co0 to UcdM .- ' a 4) -0 1:
UV)
0
co Co cd rd CU CU Co
-4 -4 ~ ~ ( 1-4 ~ ~ - 4
00
0) .4 "0~ 0
-M I-4 . -4 0 0 cUs 00,-40 CUm4) - -
-4 4 -*4 $ CU tC CU rz cU= C -4 > 3 0 = >
u o - 4 d) -4q., 1) 4 r4 4)U-40 u .>1 C 4 -) 4 J In +-) c CU C~-H J4
4 &n > 4') r 4 0 " :3 :3 U cUd- UCUU) P -4~ rz u cU..0 4) >Ip 0>1 > ra.1 .- 4 Cd 4-4 ) .- d 4q C 4-)4 'V 0 OZ 444co : - -4 CU-4.I = >%t t 1 + 41J 4) 1- .- 4C CU c >-4 "1 4 Cd
., 4 04j =4j ) 1-4 U 0 4- :3CU M 4-) 41 :344 : CU 4 -) Z4 44-) 0. u0 0.0 0C Uz, V) CL)W -4 CU C a)U Cfl(A 0 I Cfl Vl,-4
10 1 g; -4 0U~ C.n U Cd .- 4U~ 4J)' tCUt)'I ) szl (D. P +-) *- 4) :5>, 4-) -4 t . - 0 4J -4
I.co 14 1 1 4j 0 ~ 0 c~. P I-P. 4 +J-< W 1- CU Az>% +j U) caU4.) -j U 34J - In ~U U : J9 4-j
444j ca - 4-J4 .4 -1 -j co I Cd-4+ 4) 4) .,q40U)4JUM 44~ ) V) -4 P 0r r4 4 OZE IA cd 41 r
W-U~CU 0 ; 4V-4 M 0 -1 X)J~ 0 CU0~' -H CD $U.R4 E -4~
W 4 1
co U U 14 co 4 CA CU ) ' o 0 o t/3 4 U 0 -" f a 1: P 4- '--'Cfl) = i
w) #-c o u. dlw t 4 + )o A - op t . t
CU to. CU) CU
U) 41 -4 - 14J '-4 CdU>. r CId tA 0
u (D d) .14.U ) CU 4)
on U) CU) ca to I.5.
an 0 >.lu cc>>*, .0
41 1 o 4hCU ~ U U +U )U U)UC U) cUUto
4J 4J 4.) 4J
4) 00 00 n r- ) L
4)4 0 rq r. r
44 rCi.-4 $ r-
4) M)0.0 4MO.041 r4 : +J.-4
[-4 u
0 CU0 0 C
.-4 ed 4 Cd CU 0 rCU o4 cisUo u uf U
0 CU CU CUCU 0U 4CU CU 414--4 C
U41 Cjd cnu4- -
>. q) =5- 4 S.- 004U 0JCd 4) U b44 CA 04)4 4 ) + c 4c
co >--- U J44r r=J 4- 4.)e.,4 444 ) U 4) - n1 0 4o t
4 1 4J4)p 0n( -4): -l9: t-41U --4>-$4: 0) (A4 -)$ 4 r0- >
.0 4) C4-4 a)0 tn r:: P %W %CU .0t Q u-C 4.4. 0 4) -4 0-
4J SM4 H a)4 If $4~4) r-U 4J r= 1 FE -410 :
4)4)C) 4 4) -4 :3 4.4 10 R44 CUq. 4)4) ra .,I4- CIS4) C0~ IRE 4z ) 4o ) 0n)$e =~+ 0 $4 : -
4) E -0 r4.) 0 4)> 4(a4 41I C0 1-40 V 0.'4 4 0 4)
W4) .-. CU ~0 4) Nu00c4 1 9 ) C/Q.'") <0 a. $ OOU
U) 4)
0~ U oce 0 >5
4) 0 >% 41 41 4) u4.' r-4 N4 0o c~ 1 0Cd r4) >5 ''0 u 0
0 .4 >U -4 Ui- 0=~ -4 $4 0 -4 :j 00
U 1) 0 U CD 4 H*.-4,q 0q cc "0 0 4.' U 4
U) .4 >. %044 V) 4) 14 4.)06 CU .4 4 Id to U 0C -4
no k4 t4' C) N 0 U .- 14.) 16 U 44 $4 4.) .4 ,-4
ca 0 W. U ) 4 0 0z 0 1:6 C6 9W CL
4) %0 A AL 0 %0)
4) n t n tn tn .- 4 M m
4)
Cd Cd-4 Cdal-41 4 4 u 4 "0q U
CdC0ril CU) CU CU VCU
-4 CU>1 >~ u
=U U CU CU C dC+j U) 4
> ~~~4J 4- J4
., o V )- a D4 uCU 44) 4)rq4 ub~ 5:3.4 U-
C U +4 04 ~ +C) zX0t
4) (D) 0 4J 9 1 0.r. U0 1C 4 40 u
44 44 4
44C V)
Q > > Du Z-4J U 4) 04- ( CU4J0) 0) 12.3.4 C ~ 04 CO CU +4V) do
U) ~~9 L)4 UQQ4C 0CU C C
-4CU Cfl 4) 4)
.,49 4 +j14CU 0 CU coU4)
4) .,1 f 4 4J~ 0OC
4U 0 0n +j 44- CU -4C %4 0Zd 0 0 P-4~ Ul u u n 0D
00co0 ~-4 r- CO4 V 0 n ,.4 -1
M.- 4J 41 41 0t' e. C >,C: 4)
tG -'4 eq .,q -4 C 4) 00 4 -40 14) (D > >
1- P- 4 M l iI r-4~ rl (n u0 0000 0 m 0 OCU 4) 4)
93 I.IkO
C' ~ 4) t') C') 1') CD'D) CD CD) C) CD)
440
.- 4 Cu Cd -4-4 -4 -4 u
to U t U o c oc dC
U)V
0 4J0e$- 4-) .
V4 U u +je ) *,- *H co41 U) Cd~- Q -$ 0A ., -
4) u 9 IC uO C441 3u * r a
> C: 4J Z4- tH (nI=-4 -4>-Cu -4 (n (nU I- -) 04 u U -,--
-- (-A Cu r4-I tNU u- 4- * -1Itl .0 Vo P.VU 0~ .>I. 01 U)40
10~ >V0 :0 ,-* U culz It 4-) ., -41 -4 c -,4,-.'~
CD 0.,I C ri 0 a) '.0 uU) Vu u :34-4 ' U- co C41 .m .,j -4 W 4- 0 u U) Q =-
0 u 0 : C) >1 >%10 -4 4-4 0 as0Cr. . I $4E r i 0 = -f >, CuV 4) co., 4) 0U) F-'0 *-4 -4 4J Cu. X = "I 4 4J
V) -4 4)-lCd0 4 0 a 4.' 4J Cd Ct 4J CH'44
.4 ('J Co 0U) 0 0-4 w40 to :3 V
rq r I 0 :3cz ) 4) 4)4)4) 0, c.
C- cc 3 -4 Cu Cu
.1 .0 .0 Cu ' -4 V 0 - e-i) x . Cu cc co cc0 0 w d W A t-4 ,o 0 0 0 -4 0 cd $-4 4-4 c00- 00 -4
4-. .
t) rnt O 3 V
41) 00 0 0 000'4 .- 4 ). -
4J '-0
Cil
0 u
r- co
U d ''0 4--, 4Ur o 4 ,10Q dc
4) U~ 4-) '0 :>C I <
CU Cd Ln4)U rn "U CU r.) C )0 C
.0 4J $- U~ CJH P.l 4J -4 = Cr
o 0 1- r.c o - <0t)
*'4X -4 -1 00 4.-) 0 < 0)r e4 +j4-u . 0) U d 4 0> ou tM- jc .
:) U CU U04. u o~~r4)
CU H4 -4 C!O CU M~' 0. u' =4- -~ 4J-4 0~ 4-) U J'CO 4- >,-q - u$.V) U 4 (U- -H0 cO 0j M U -C ~ .- -t
0CU~~~~r E . -' r1 >- O -0. U) 40. -4 QU '4 -4- 0
4.) Q4~ od 0 ~ 1.4 Ua $'-- C > cs.U
4J CO ) 0 ' 4J -4 -4 CO04 CO-4 C-=0 r -+
0 r 04 00) X- 0US WU >CU M -0 ) + c COwO
+J00 th -U 4' ~ 0C -0 ~ 0 4
CU(iQ 0 CU0O- 00i~U 0 ) UQ). (U
CU 91 +j 4--.j
0) Cd4 0 0
4.) i u U
cc C o l 4.. M. -Uon Ln>~u 0'C OCC
4) 0 . 6U) .4 Go U
CU UCU0' d~~C CU U (J
co 0
0CO - th
0 .- 4 -4 'J 4 .0 ,-4
44 $. Lfl
Cd
Cd
co Cd U~ CCU CU,-4 -4 -4 -4 mU .-- 4.4 u u u ~-4 u u u0 u
r- Cd TjCU CU CU CU.-4 CUCUCco CU CU (D0 CU CU Cd
E/3 W)U) C/) U) U
CCCo 0 0 -L) 41 4-) rn
CU CUr.1 >, -4
Wf 4.)4.),- 4J. - : 40 ) 0 UCU 4) u -44 Cd rq'- > CU44 4J CU4-4 4) 4-) LM J4.'.0 .4 ',4 cd -... ,-4C m >1 fl-4 0
CU 4.) 4-):34-1 4-1~4. Z LH-4 > : t)C .4 tA W 1,-4 (A M-4 L ~04U)do > .4- :5> 4: w O l
1-4 0U) I )W E- 41-'0Cd 04 U0 OCU"0 C4 I c0..+.) -4 4) .,q u u 00c4. -z = d0 =4J 0.-C4
-r4 - -H ~ -H . -4
I 0 :3 0 0 4.4HU=0w-40 4E U0~ - -n 0C- 0 :
+j -. cd0 4.) 4J ),Cd 0 : -4 0 U -CU 91 - t-ca C 04 - AF CU 0 CdUa
'4 110 to "0 CDU.,4 CU9CU: -4 CUO +j- )co ca41
4 c > c CC Cfl CU 4-) -4 CU 4Q 1 ..4 0 CU > ~ . CdCU 4j co 4-) $4 bo .,4 4.j U -4
to CU Cu CU W~ c~ I-Cdu u S-40 -4 Cd 0 ) 0- C CUC o u cou :j 9.. 0 CO ~.ca 41' ca-4 - 4 W O4.J 00 0)uU) W~ U C: CU CU CU ur 0 -H :3 S-4cc CU IA CU*-14 cc 14 0 -4 C3 3r-4 -4
go CU CU I *. 4 >1 '.u
0U 0 a - CUU u U 9:u : 4J U C1 r-40u*.4.- . a-4 *co -H0couU CU CU
a)r-
tn erj t0 to tn t'
ca ~ Cd tlcs d 1
CdCd co co Cd Cd as
0
>U CH >U CUCUCUU)~ >1 (1) 5 U -H 00
4) tn 4 jI+ -)Z C - - U$
o- W 4 u o5 4 C 4H4dr1u csa -U0 > 0d 4-05>4)4- : - 44" d "4j a
4-) +j 044 '- 1 )-4 >,0 0 -4> 4J: -4 + 4 J r..-04) 1-4 0 - (A) 0 .4 U) ~ >14a tn( 4 r -co
10 u ., 54.) : 44- 0.cd IP.4- I> a 4-+44r CU r4. Q-4 ) VCU) 4 UH Q4 q)(nb-4 -U4- E ca)"0
.0 0U.04- 144~ -)d4 UC'--4 a) dc c o= I4J .- i- 4 u-C~4 0-,u I 0 -. 4CU .,. u ) *4) .1
-H -4 -,14- $.- H-4 ., $ -H r4 H~L. 4..4 :3: J41,- 44U- 0 M 4C4I4- 0 4 ) Q 4 , X -4C (n 4
o 0 -4 4 ) q - 4) -4) ~--4 )r >
1 4 ( C D Zt 0Vr- - .CC 4- O Z F)* -4 1 4 )
+-- C0 -4 0 0 UH * - 0 u , J - d0 =-4 4J+Ja)U
0-~U 4JO0'- -4~0 4 +'.CU C- a>
CU-45
,4 0 17-1 u) .U a)0 uCU *CU 4J 0 ( 4-'*-4 1-CU .0*-4 toC
*.,q (D)dCd04J 00 0 u -4$4 4-'U M CU 1-4 Cd CUE ~ Cd a)U 04) cUd co.- co H)C ~ U *-+j' '-4- u4~ -I0 r-4 uco U.0 0-4 4 U r. >.r4 u~4 ~ 0~
co 54 0 CU -4 4 14 co- 0-4 qU .9 ~ caW >, 4-'- *J u '4 0
u 0134) +.j r= 4 4)*.-H 054 >1 CU4.' 40 w 0 z 0 541-.
V fl 00 -44 *CU >1O' 00 1Cd uuco =4 q4- Uh X -4 CU m0 ano -4 u Q0 4) 0 >11 co t) cd
r-40 uC0 U CCa00-4 4 0 U'-U
Uo co W JC C )c l
4) nn
(L)
0
En >1
Cd Cd Cd cis co Cd cd CU Cd co
*'I / UU U U) U U U
(U CU CUC u C U C U
00 -CU+4. 4 4- U
04-) g +-
0d 41 0 , -4- +j o
(.. 4.4 4) 01u En a00 4.) 4 S-H 0)4 ( 41 + r
U4 4 ) s-4) CU $ 4) u CUCU>4-1 4 i 04' F 4 .- 4 as LW
co -4 cc~ >- co 4)) Uo 0CU o)4-J 4-4 -> 1 z 1 0- 4- C '4-4 44)
.,q4 H-4 P. *H O 1 -4 x ) U) V)'
10 4-) r:CU CU 0 0 9 >
0 U)u CU $. U U .0 q~ () Un
~W 1-+ U ~4J -4--U CU .04)D .. (D f4>. 1-4 CU 4J ) 41) -4
-C4 f 0 44-)< 0C
:3 1- ti '0 r 94d
Ur d 4r )0 CL -CU- 0
P. C: U j 1 a 1.C 0.qHU) > r * u 0
0 0 ziCd 4) 0 Sw >~0 ' 4)0))
*d- . -I'-Cd 4.) 0 4J0 COCU dM.
r4)
- 1-1 - CU u
CU u U U .,0 q ft.- H*.4 Co CU cU v 'U>-' V~ -I4
H,- .- 4 -4 I.. H- >1 ~ ' - ~4) U U U U - uu U..CU uo
41) ~4 -4 *-4 CU M4-J i CC C 4-J M-.H UCU - -4 ' -4 '-4 H -- 1 4) > CU
I-'H. ~ -0 H J- -HX *-4 -4 +.)
U U U U- 14-4 -14J -4 0 r-i>, 4)*ri CU CU cU >>- 0-4 ~ ) >=U) 4-)4 4-J $- 41
cc CU CU> 0 CU'CdU CU U u"0 1
1-4 1-4 LIn r' n.
4-4
C)1
E a~
0 u
-to --4 CDCUUt d Uo co 0 -4 (D
V)) .4 U)4J ~ 4) -4
0 z 00 0 V) C -4 Ccd co C U co C
Q) U) .1) +) 4-) .- U -
4. U ci )Eu d4
4- >- 11- o- -.
loo Z A OCA 0- C) 1JV)4-. E+ 0
(N- CId 0.0 'HG 0G >-C<) Q.U U) UC C 404-UH +H co-4 CUC4r44J=
u 4 4C) >- 4-4-C UH = 4~-JCU. +H 4- 0~- -4J4-H 0) C) -)U,- +) :
0) z. >,~ 0 >-cC (A
+j -4) * G) 4 4) *1HdU d C.UE ) . U - o cda .0
rCI rd C) (0 .. H t) )J)C4JC.CU JC)D. 4rq 0 0 th Q
CU +.).U 4-) CU4 0UQ4 '-'
+j -4Cd r,) E) m 4 j
Cu U >, 44- q d U)AFu -o CU CUC = 0 >1 >1 ) uUC)wCUq C) *H C) ) 41 7$tiH C)D 4) C -4 r= 41 rO
4.)4 F .-H4co cd - 4 . CU co 4ool .'I) >,C r. c S>, - - r ()
1-C 4J -- 4) -4U =U r- .C -4 ~c ) Ed C) CUU cH co 0 m
CU u4 E *CUC4 cUCe~
0 d
V). %~'0 %0 '0 .-4 al0 CD 0 n U o L 0 00 co0- t n te) -sU W' 1- .- ' 4 -4
t4
Cd CU Cd >1 CU CU CU-4CU U ,4 co r-4 -4 -4
u 0 u '-4 U U u10 ucd > >. >
CU CU C CU cc cU
CU -t 01 CU 0 0 0C d co .t 4c 0 10.C 10
Cl) Cl) 4 U r- .- 4 CU CU C0 U CU U cU CU CU(n >1 1.>
41 ~ 4-' > 4-) Cd "1 11C3 CU C U Ur-4 1-4 CU r-4 CU.-1 S: S: CU-q cU CU CU CU CU*-m -q -4 .,1 Q CUt CU CoU 0 0 0 0 0)rA (n) u 0/ .4 C/n (n V) . ~ ~ ~ -
0 .- 4
UU)
Q Q)
-4 >. 41'01 C -4 0 CU
H 4 Pi CU -4 0 0 0)
<~ U 10 -4 Cd. , 0 0 * .- 0S d -4 X U
04. 0 U 0
.0 0 - 4) W
o0 T $ 0o 0 0.. NCd co Cd
CUCD
0 ".-0 q C
41 4J -I ., 4- -1 4J 0cU 0.0 C 0 M, 0 CU 4-J
9 ~u 0 .-4 0 u U- u w
.H -4 -4 U :3-vi U4 -4 0'- V) .4 .-4
CU >1C U_ u U3 C/C tn
I" , 0 I t , 4 0 ~ X 1- 4 4Z CC4 -0, No .0 10 0.I U4
4)C 01 oUC cUo0 0 50 fL. ~ ~ Z Cl
0) In co 0o 0r CC CC coc n In
g4 -4
alCU C CU Cd UCU - -4 14 4 CU CU
-4 u u u C. 4 .4
u U% > u
m CU CU CU CU
CU 4o 0 ) "0 CU CU
'.4 .-4 9: I= u r--4
0 U CU CU CU od U U
CU CU CU r. 0 CU CU CU3 CUV) 0) 4 CU CU CU V)4 4) 4).3 - n -rU U n OZ - 4-~-
00
4.4 CU-4 4)
o0c -0oUd 9: C* A4 c U) 9
0 u u 1 0 (D C
4) 4) . 0 E4) Cf 4 0 0 -4:c
.0 to CU :3.4) * C
V- c~) 0 Z U cd 4(D g .,4 9 -4 4J 4) ~gU -0 Ces4 U 0 CU (D CZ0aMc *-4- 4 '- H 4 U 00 E-
0 ~~ .- ~U 0~ CU'4"-4 '..- 4)D~4 0~ ~C) 04h .1
CU 4JO CUO CUC CUCu 4-
4-0 4) dQ, ca 0 dr ut n
41 t4c - ,4 4 - - a C 4)-cc H.C 4J 0
CU 4) CUU CU
u th 0 Ln 0 0 41 )CU (n .) H)UC . 4 -4 * '
;.) 4--i 4- Q) 3A fAUCU *4:3 * 0'4)~ u 4 J3 Z
'.q u,0 L00 111 OC -4
00 c 5
o0 L) nMU fU, In U
Ln Lfn C, Lf) Le)
4-44
-4 -4 1-4u.~ u ' u
co 0 0 0
0) cd - 0) ox
u u0 t., 1-40 5 Vr
'- S 4J-40 1.
(1 40d ( d., d -0 V) 0C ) ) u)
S0 0 0Z -40 :
-4 00 . - -1'0 M4 cd '. - v
0) a.l oP 0.0u 0 . .
0 M 0
0 1 0~cH \O CY L--
0,. I I e -40 rd (L IH
,q -: 4 0 A
n 0 4) O
Id r-H 04-1 0 0 (a IL01o M P4 0
4., I o r
(a4 C) N 1 0 10H
o 0
14 0 000 4) \D - -tr 1. CC c p\
U) 0 ,-l I I IW n * 0 0 0 I0
0 ~0 V~ 0 0~
00
0. 0 00
41 jYN m
PRCKDING PAGi MANC-3OT Mmw~K
Appendix A: Documentation of Materials Evaluated
1. The information contained in this appendix covers the mate-
rials subjected to investigation and tests. These materials are grouped
by category (material categories listed below), secondary materials,
and date of report. Information listed as "not given" was not listed in
the referenced report and not available from other sources at WES. When
the "rate of material" is listed as "varied," several different rates
were used in the testing program. The "mixing capability" is listed
as "good" when no reference to this item is given in the reports.
Definitions of terms and tests used in this appendix are presented
below:
a. MIT. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
b. WES. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
c. Effectiveness categories. Excellent, moderate, slight,none, or detrimental.
d. Material categories. Resin, asphalt, cement, salt, lime,acetate, acid, silicate, or other ("other" includes mate-rials not in one of the given categories or material forwhich the proper category was not known).
e. Mixing capabilities. Excellent, good, difficult, orimpossible.
f. Test types and categories of stabilization:
(1) MIT unconfined compression test (Reference 29).Test specimens are prepared in cylindrical moldsabout 1-1/2 in.* in diameter and about 3 in. tall.The specimen is put in the mold and then tamped bymeans of a light piston about 1 in. in diameter.No standard compaction procedure is used, but it isbelieved that all specimens receive similar compac-tion. This light tamping is not believed to havemuch effect on the compressive strength of the speci-men except for the effect caused by air pockets beingeliminated. The strength of the specimen is deter-mined in simple compression; this method is a rapid,reliable method of detenrmining the shearing strength.For indication of absorption or capillary rise ofwater, the specimen is imersed in water either
A table of factors for converting U. S. customary units of measure-ment to metric (SI) units is presented on page h.
Al
completely or to a depth of about 1 cm. The specimenis observed visually and then subjected to unconfinedcompression tests when wet and when redried.
(2) MIT tensile test (Reference 30). Soil specimens areprepared with the chemical material. These specimensare 3 in. long with a l-in.-long by i/2-in.-wideportion at the mid-section. The applied load ismeasured by a proving ring.
(3) MIT compression test (Reference 35). The HarvardMiniature Compaction Apparatus is used in specimenpreparation. The dimensions of the mold are 2.82 in.in length and 1.312 in. in diameter. The specimensare prepared in three layers and compacted by 25tamps per layer of a 40-lb load.
(4) Category 1 stabilization* (References 13 and 37).This is obtained if the chemical additive can increase,within a 2-hr limit, the strength of the soil from acone index of 20 (equivalent to 1 CBR or less) to120 (equivalent to a minimum CBR of 4), with thislatter value deemed adequate for light traffic.
(5) Category 2 stabilization" (References 14 and 16).This condition occurs when a stabilizer is capable ofincreasing the compressive strength of the soil fromabout 25 psi (4 CBR) to about 100 psi (20 CBR) orgreater after 24 hr curing without benefit of drying.
(6) Test procedures for unconfined compression tests forsoil stabilizers and waterproofers; permeation
method (Reference 24):
(a) Untreated soil and treated soil are compactedin a Harvard miniature mold (1.312 in. indiameter by 2.82 in. long). Compaction isachieved by applying 20 tamps with a 40-lbspring to each of five equal layers. The speci-mens are then extruded from the mold and permit-ted to cure under ambient laboratory conditionsfor a period of at least 4 days.
(b) The compacted, air-dried, treated specimensare placed in a rubber membrane, and water ispermitted to enter the top and flow downwardthrough it. Duplicate untreated specimens arealso subjected to water. After 4 days of permea-tion, the specimens are subjected to unconfinedcompression tests.
* Also referred to as "emergency requirements.""* Also referred to as "routine requirements."
A2
(7) Test procedures for unconfined compression tests forsoil stabilizers and waterproofers; capillary method
(Reference 51):
(a) Untreated soil and treated soil are compactedin a Harvard miniature mold (1.312 in. in diam-eter by 2.82 in. long). Compaction is achievedby applying 20 tamps with a 40-lb spring to eachof five equal layers. The specimens are thenextruded from the mold and permitted to cureunder ambient laboratory conditions for a periodof at least 4 days.
(b) The air-dried specimens are then put in a mem-brane that is open at both ends and placed in anupright position on a 3/8-in.-thick porous stonein an evaporating dish. Water is placed in thebottom of the dish, the level of the water beingmaintained approximately 1/8 in. below the bottomof the specimens for a period of 4 days. This4-day period is considered to be a cycle. Afterthe specified number of cycles has been com-pleted, unconfined compression tests are thenconducted on the specimens.
(8) Emergency requirements. See Category 1 stabilization.
(9) Routine requirements. See Category 2 stabilization.
(10) Traffic tests. Details are given in the referencedreports.
A3
PctI'PA09 maUlcojo 121 ,
Category: Acid
A5
RFZCEDIIC PAGE BL*U(wNOV FZ1DI
Category*
Acid
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Phosphoric acid 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0% Not given
(H3IP 4 )
Secondary Material
Sodium fluosilicate 0.5% Not given
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency 'rest Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with 0.5% sodium fluosilicate and various rates ofphosphoric acid not compared to untreated samples. Tests were conductedafter a 24 hours water immersion.
H 3PO4
_ _. Strength (psi)
0.5 851.0O
1.5 1702.0 325
(Continued on next &Re) 630
* Basic material
A7
Effectiveness: As seen from the data above, once the amount of3PO 4 reaches 1.5 percent, the strength of the samples is very
good and with a small amount of increase in the acid, asignificant increase in strength is achieved.
A8
Category*Acid
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) 2 and 3% Not given
Secondary Material
See comments
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay GoodHeavy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 18
Comments:
Samples were molded in a Harvard Miniature Compaction Apparatus infive layers (each layer compacted with ten tamps with a 40-lb springtamper). Samples were tested after a 24-hour cure at 100 percentrelative humidity and after a 24-hour cure at 100 percent relativehumidity followed by a 24-hour water immersion. The strength of theuntreated soils was 20 psi. Materials added to the soils were con-sidered to have potential as stabilizers if they increased thestrength from 20 to 100 psi or greater.
Each of the following additives were used:
(Continued on next page)* Basic material
A9
2 percent phosphoric acid plus 0. 5 percent sodium fluosilicate
(Na SiP ); 0. 5 percent Na SiP2S6 2 6 and 0.5 percent n-octylamine; and
0. 5 percent O-P20 and 0. 5 percent Na SiF and 0.5 percent252 6 0 ecn
n- octylamine.
3 percent phosphoric acid plus 0. 5 percent sodium fluosilicate
(Na 2 SiF 6 ); 1. 0 percent Na 2 SiF 6 and 1 percent n-octylamine; and 1
percent Na 2SiF 6 and 1. 5 percent ferric chloride.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - The 3 percent H PO4 with 1 percent3 4sodium fluosilicate and 1. 5 percent ferric choride gave the bestresults (81 psi dry cure and 72 psi after soak); however, thesevalues were below 100 psi.
Heavy clay - Same comments as for lean clay; however, strengthvalues were 74 psi dry cure and 70 psi after soak.
A10
Category*
Acid
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Phosphoric acid (.3 PO) 2.0 and 3.0% Not given
Secondary MaterialCurz-ng agent-sodium fluosilicate 0.5% Not givenWaterproofing agent - 0.5% Not given
n-octylamine Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay GoodClay Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments See Commentscompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not gi-ven WES Reference 25
Comments:
The untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after4 days cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action. The 3percent phosphoric acid with the secondary materials was veryeffective as a stabilizer and waterproofing agent (300 psi unconfinedcompression strength).on the lean clay soil. There was a bigimprovement with the clay soil; however, the materials were noteffective as a stabilizer and waterproofer.
RBa-ic material
All
Category*
Acid
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) Varied (1 to 5%) Not given
Secondary Material
Additives (see comments)
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 38
Comments:
The basic material plus sodium fluosilicate was for stabilizing soiland octylamine and 2-ethyl hexylamine were added to check their water-proofing ability.
Additives
Sodium fluosilicate. 0.5 percent rate - the strength of soiltreated only with this material is not effective.
When this material (0.5 percent) is used with 5 percent phos-phoric acid, the strength of the 24-hour cure is approximately triplethe strength where only H3PO4 is used. The strength after 24 hours
and 24 hours water immersion closely parallels the 24-hour strength.
Basic material
A12
Octylamine. (Rate varied from 0.05 to 2.0 percent). It was
found that as little as 0.05 percent was adequate to waterproof the
soil when used with 2 percent H 3PO4 and sodium fluosilicate.
2-ethyl hexylamine. 0.2 percent was the most effective rate with2 percent phospLaric acid and 0.5 percent sodium fluosilicate; 28 psi
after 24 hours immersion, 198 psi after 24 hours humid cure, and 98psi after 24 hours humid cure followed by 24 hours immersion and tests.However, this combination of materials was not as effective as thatmentioned in Octylamine above. As the amount of the 2-ethylhexylamine was increased, the strength decreased.
Effectiveness:
Sodium fluosilicate is very effective when used with phosphoric
acid in increasing the strength of the treated samples.
Octylamine is more effective than 2-ethyl hexylamine in water-
proofing soil treated with phosphoric acid and sodium fluosilicate.
A13
Category*
Acid
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Phosphoric acid (H 3PO 2% Not given
Secondary MaterialSodium fluosilicate (Na 2 SiF6 0.5% Not givenOctylamine 0.05% Not givenOrtho-rhombic phosphoric 0.05, 0.10, 0.25% Not O$ en
laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Gocx
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:The samples treated with the additives were compared to samplestreated with only phosphoric acid. Tests were conducted after a 24hour humid cure followed by an immersion in water for 24 hours. Thecombinations of additives which showed the most promise are givenbelow.
(Continued on next page)* Basic material
A14
Strength Change Based onNa 2SiF6 Octylamine 0-P205 Strength Soil Treated with only
(0.5%) (0.05%) (%) psi H_3_PO04' %
0 0 0 200 --
Yes 0 0 325 +63
0 0 0.05 34o +70
Yes Yes 0.05 295 +48
0 Yes 0.05 425 +113
Yes 0 0.05 375 +88
Yes Yes 0 350 +75
* The Na 2SiF 6 was mixed with the soil after the O-P2 05
Effectiveness: The most effective combination of additives was 0.05percent octylamine plus 0.05 ortho-rhombic phosphoric anhydride (with-out sodium fluosilicate).
A15
Category*Acid
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Phosphoric acid 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Chemical additivesSodium fluosilicate 0.50% Not givenRosinamine silicofluoride 0.50% Not givenBenzene phosphoric acid 0.5 and 3.0% Not givenButyl acid phosphate 0.25% Not givenPhenyl acid phosphate 0.50% Not givenIsooctyl acid phosphate 0.33% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 37
Comments:
See next page:
(Continued on next page)* Basic material
A16
CompressiveCompressive Strength Percent StrengthAfter 24-hour Cure Increase after
100% Relative Humidity Over Immediateand 24-hour Immersionlpsi Control Immersionlpsi
Control (no additive) 175 - 0
Sodium fluosilicate 510 191 0
Rosinamine silicofluoride No test - 55
Benzene phosphoric acid 250 43 135(3 percent rate)
Butyl acid phosphate 210 20 0
Phenyl acid phosphate 135 Negative (-23) 0
Isooctyl acid phosphate 185 6 0
Effectiveness: Sodium fluosilicate is an effective additive for improv-ing phosphoric acid soil stabilization.
Benzene phosphoric acid when added to phosphoric acid was effectivefrom the standpoint of strength and water resistance.
A17
Category*
Acid
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Phosphoric acid 2, 5, and 10% on clayey silt Not given2% on sandy clay2 and 10% on clay
Secondary Material
Water 11-30%
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt GoodSandy clay GoodClay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments ExcellentCompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 36
Comments:Several methods or curing conditions were used; however, one weekcuring at room temperature and at 100 percent relative humidityfollowed by one week water immersion and then subjecting the samplesto compressive tests was considered the most severe.
The treated samples were not compared to untreated samples.
The clayey silt treated samples at the 5 and 10 percent rate of phos-phoric acid on dry soil and with a molding water content of 11 percenton dry soil were the only ones which showed promise as a stabilizer.After the curing conditions mentioned above, the 5 percent rate treatedsamples had a strength of 383 psi and the 10 percent rate treatedsamples had a strength of 605 psi.
* Basic material
A18
Category*
Acid
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Phosphorus pentoxide 3% (on dry soil) Not given
Secondary Material
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Sandy silt, clayey silt, Goodsandy clay, loess, andclay
Effectiv,.
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined. Stabilizer See comments Excellent forcompresson silt
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 36
Comments:
Tests were conducted on treated samples of 14 days cure and 7 days
water immersion. Treated samples were not compared to untreatedsamples.
Sandy silt and clayey silt soil samples treated with phosphoruspentoxide were the only samples which were considered to have re-tained any significant compressive strengths (282 and 153 psi,respectively) after tests.
* Basic material
A19
Category*
Acid
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Phosphorus pentoxide 3, 5, and 7% Not given
Secondary Material
Sodium fluosilicate 0.5% Not given
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent (incompression laboratory)
None (in fieldtests)
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 15
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples (20 psi). Sampleswere prepared using the Harvard Miniature Compaction Apparatus infive layers (each layer was compacted with ten tamps of a 40-1bspring tamper). The samples were then cured for 24 hours under 100percent relative humidity.
Each rate of basic material was used with the additive. The 5 per-cent rate gave the greatest (588 percent) strength increase and metthe Category 2 requirements for stabilization.
Field traffic tests: A traffic test section (lean clay) was preparedand treated with 5 percent treatment of pentoxide and 0.5 percentsodium fluosilicate. However, the section failed before meetingstated requirements.
* Basic material
A20
Cateo7(rvy: pu
A21.
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Asphalt cutback (see 5% Not givencomments for variousratios of asphalt to- olven )Seconaary Material
Phosphorus pentoxide (P 05) 3% Not given(additive) Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 37
Comments:
Asphalt- 50-60 penetration was used at four degrees of cutback: 3:1,2:1, 1:1, and 0.5:1 asphalt to gasoline. Cure conditions were 24 hoursat 100 percent relative humidity and then samples were immersed inwater for 24 hours. After immersion, the samples were subjected tocompression tests.
Effectiveness: The samples without the additive did not have any sig-nificant strength. Asphalt cutback at the ratio of 3:1 (asphalt togasoline) gave the best results with the additive, P 0 , when used to2
trpat soil samples. As the amount of solvent increased, the strengthvalues decreased. Also, the samples were harder to mix. The valuesfor the cutback ratios (3:1, 2:1, 1:1, and 0.5:1) were 225, 177, 170,and 143 psi, respectively.
* Basic material
A23
Category*Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Asphalt cutback 5% Not given(50-60 pen)
Secondary Material
Solvents (see comments) 3% Not givenPhosphorus pentoxide(P 0 ) - additive MixingaterialForm Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayrey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments ExcellentCompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 37
Comments:Asphalt cutback composition =1.43:1, asphalt to solvent (by volume).
Cure conditions - 24 hours cure at 100 percent relative humidity andthen 24 hours immersion in water. Compressive tests then conducted.
Solvents used were: carbon disulfide, n-hexane, carbon tetrachloride,gasoline, and kerosene.
Effectiveness: The samples treated with asphalt and the various sol-vents without the additive had very little compressive strength. Allsamples treated with the various solvents plus the additive had goodcompressive strengths as follows:
(Continued on next page)
Basic material
A24
n-hexine - 233 Psi
Carbon disulfide - 194 psi
Gasoline - 177 Psi
Carbon tetrachloride - 159 Psi
Kerosene - 76 psi
A25
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Asphalt cutback (see 5% Not givencomments for variouspenetration numbers)
Secondary Material
Phosphorus pentoxide 3% Not given(P2 0 5) (additive)
Mixing
'laterial Form* rype of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
F.ffect ivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompressive
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 37
Comments:
Cure conditions - 24 hours at 100 percent relative humidity followed by24 hours immersion.
Asphalt cutback composition = 2:1 asphalt to gasoline cutback asphaltwith various penetration numbers: 100-120, 85-100, 65-70, and 50-60were tested with samples withot additives and with additives (P205).
Effectiveness: The samples without additive when subject to the com-pressive tests had no significatn compressive strength, whereas thestrength of all treated samples with the additive, P_05, was 124 to 177psi. The lower the penetration number, the higher te strength was forthese samples. The samples tested with 100-120 pen asphalt had asphaltstrength of 124 psi, and those treated with 50-60 pen asphalt hadstrength of 177 usi.
* Basic material
A26
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
CaIlback asphalt 5% Not givenStraight run, cracked,and blownSecondary Material
Additives (see below)
Mixing
'laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompres sive
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency 'rest Report
Not given MIT Reference 35
Comments:
The following additives were tested with cutback asphalts. Cure timewas 1h days and rewet strength was checked after 7 days water immersion.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A27
Straight Run Cracked Blown
Epon 828 (10 percent) Toluene diisocyanate Toluene diisocyanateplus diethylene (10 percent) (10 percent)triamine (2 percent)
BF3 (2 and 5 percent) BF3 (2 and 5 percent)Toluene diisocyanate
(5 percent) plus H2Sh (Conc) H2SOh (Conc)ethylene glycol (5 percent) (5 percent)(5 percent)
Styrene (10 percent) Styrene (10 percent)Toluene diisoycanate plus BF3 (5 percent) plus BF3 (5 percent)(5 percent) plus
diethylene triamine Acrylonitrile (10 Acrylonitrile(5 percent) percent) plus BF3 (10 percent)
Epon 828 (10 percent) percent)Triphenyl methaneplus BF3 (2 percent Acrylonitrile triisocyanate (2
plus diethylene triamine (10 percent) plus percent)(2 percentO H2 Soh (Conc)
e(5 percent)Toluene iisocyanate (5diisocyanate (10(5 percent) plus percent)ethylene glycol Triphenyl methane
(5 percent) plus BF triisocyanate Diphenyl methane(2 percent) 3 (2 percent) diisocyanate (10
Styrene (20 percent) Toluene percent)
plus BF (10 percent) diisocyanate (10 Epon 828 (103 p ) percent) ercent) plus
Styrene (20 percent diethylene triamineplus BF3 (10 percent) Dipon te (2 percent)3 diisocyanate (10
plus Benzoyl peroxide percent) Methyl sulfate (10plus dimethylaniline Met)(2 percent) Diethylene percent)
triamine (10BF3 (5, 10, and 20 percent)
percent) Epon 828 (10 percent)
BF (10 percent) plus plus diethylene
3 triamine (2 percent)
acrylonitrile (10percent) Methyle sulfate (10
percent)
A28
It was concluded in the report that any additive capable of increasingthe rewet compressive strength to a value of 150 psi or greater would
merit further study.
Several of the additives fall into this category. Given below are theadditives which appeared beneficial to asphalt cutback stabiliation(and in order of effectiveness).
Straight Run Cracked
Toluene diisocyanate Diphenyl methane Diphenyl methane
(10 percent) diisocyanate (10 diisocyanate (10percent) percent)
P205 (20 percent) Toluene diisocyanate Epon 828 (10
Diphenyl methand (10 percent) percent plusDiisocyanate diethylent triamine(10 percent) Triphenyl methane (2 percent)
triisocyanateEpon 828 (10 (2 percent) Toluene diisocyanatepercent plus (10 percent)diethylene triamine Epon 828 (10 percent)(2 percent) plus diethylene
triamine (2 percent)
Methyl sulfate(10 percent)
Triphenyl methaneTriisocyanate(2 percent)
Further work was conducted with the asphalts and various additives asmentioned above. The results of the work led to the following conclu-sions:
a. Modification of asphalt cutbacks with reactive chemical com-pounds such as P205 or toluene or diphenyl methane diisocyanate (at
concentrations or 10 percent on the asphalt or below) significantlyimproves cutback stabilization of fine-graned soils, as measured byevelation of compressive strength after seven days water immersion.P205 also markedly accelerates the development of water resistance of
stabilized soil during drying and/or curing.
b. There is a general correlation between rewet strength and vol-atiles content of the specimen at the time of test. From this correl-ation, it has been deduced that asphalt, irrespective of its methodof incorporation with soil or its chemical alteration, functions pri-marily as a waterproofing agent for soil, the various additives andimproved methods if incorporation merely enhancing its characteristic.aterproofing ability.
A29
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (No-50 7.5 and 12% Not givenpen straight run asphalt)
Secondary Material
Solvent - unleaded 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not givengasoline
MixingTaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean Clay GoodHeavy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
Untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after 4 daysdry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - Both rates of asphalt were effective inwaterproofing and stabilizing the samples with no significant bene-fits with the higher rate of asphalt.
Heavy clay - Same as for lean clay.
* Basic material
A30
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (40-50 7.5% Not givenpen straight run asphalt)
Secondary Material
Solvent - unleadedgasoline 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not given
Additiv ) phosphoric acid 1% Not fiven
Materal Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay GoodClay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments See commentscompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
Untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after 4 daysdry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - The combination of materials was effectiveas a stabilizer and waterproofer; however, the combination was not aseffective as asphalt only treatment.
Clay - The combination of materials was only slightly effective; how-ever, the strength of asphalt only treated samples was twice that of the
samples treated with the combination of materials.
* Basic material
A31
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (40- 1.5% Not given50 pen straight runasphalt)
Secondary MaterialSolvent - unleaded gasoline 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not givenAdditives - phosphoric acid 1.0% Not givenplus alky dimethy benzyl Not givenammonium chloride Mxing'faterial Form* Type of Soil Treated CapabilityLiquid Lean clay Good
Clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer None Nonecompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
The samples treated with asphalt only gave much better results thanthose treated with the combination of materials.
* Basic material
A32
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (40-50 7.5% Not givenpen straight run asphalt)
Secondary MaterialSolvent - unleaded gasoline 2:1 (agphalt, gasoline) Not givenAdditives - phosphoric 1.U'0 Not givenacid (HPO)plus laqryI amine 0.10% " Mixing
'laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay GoodClay Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer None Nonecompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency 'rest Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
Untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after 4 daysdry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action. Samplestreated with only asphalt gave much better results.
* Basic material
A33
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (40-50 7.5% Not givenpen straight run asphalt)
Secondary MaterialSoivent - unleaded gasoline 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not givenAdditive: phosphoric acid 1% Not given
plus n-octylamine 0.1% Not givenMixing
'laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay GoodClay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer None Noneconrr-ssion Waterproofer
iaterial Costor Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency 'rest Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
The asphalt only treated samples gave much better results than thecombination of materials.
* Basic material
A34
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (40-50 7.5% Not givenpen straight run asphalt)
Secondary Material6olvent - unleaded gasoline 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not givenAdditives -Phosphoric acid (H3P04 ) 1.0% Not givenplus octadecyl amine acetate 0.10% " Mixing
'laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay GoodClay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer None None
compression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
Asphalt only treated samples were much more effective than thecombination of materials.
* Basic material
A35
Ca t ego ry*
Asrhalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (40-50 7.5 and 12' Not given
ven straight run asphalt)
Secondary Material
Solvent - unleaded gasoline 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not givenAdditive: Phosphorus YA Not given
,entoxide Mixing
'Iaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Lic Lid Lean Clay Good
Clay Good
Effective
Purpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See coments See comments
compression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu It
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
Untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after 4 daysdry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - Samples treated with both rates ofasphalt with additive were effective in waterproofing and stabilizing
the samples. However, the 7.5 percent asphalt gave the best results
of the two asphalt rates and this strength was significantly betterthan asphalt only treated samples.
Clay - Both rates of asphalt with additive were effective; how-
ever, greater strength values were obtained with only the basic material.
* Basic material
A36
Ca t ego r y
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (40-50 7.5 and 12% Not givenstraight run asphalt)
Secondary" MaterialSolvent - unleaded gasoline 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not givenAdditive:':osuhorus pentoxide 0.25% with 7.5% asphalt Not given(2 2) 0.4o0 with 12% asphalt Mixing
%taterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability-
Licuid Lean clay GoodClay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effec-iveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments See ommentscompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:Untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after 4 daysdry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - Both rates of asphalt with the additivewere effective in waterproofing and stabilizing the samples. However,the strengths of the samples with the 0.25 percent Po 0 were lessthan those with 7.5 percent asphalt only. The samples with 12 per-cent asphalt and 0.4 percent P 0 had strength somewhat higher than25the asphalt only treated samples.
Clay - Samples treated with both rates of asphalt with additivewere effective in waterproofing and stabilizing; however, the strengthvalues were less than those for 7.5 and 12 percent asphalt only.
* Basic material
A37
Category*Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (40-50 7.5 and 12% Not givenpen straight run asphalt)
Secondary Material
Solvent - unleaded gasoline 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not givenAdditives (see comments)
Mixing'faterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay Good
Clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comnets See commentscompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
Untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after 4 daysdry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Additives:
7.5% asphalt and 0.25% phosphorus pentoxide (P 0 ) plus 0.10%alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBaC
7.51 asphalt and 3.0% P205 plus 0.2% ADBAC
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A38
12% asphalt and 0.40% P2o 5plus 0.10% ADBAC
12% asphalt and 3.0% P2O5plus 0.2% ADBAC
Effectiveness: Lean clay - Both rates of asphalt with additives (allrates) were effective in waterproofing and stabilizing samples. How-ever, 7.5 percent asphalt with 3.0 percent P 0 and 0.10 percent ADBACwas more effective than asphalt alone. The ot~er combinations ofmaterials were not as effective as asphalt only.
Clay - 7.5 percent asphalt with 3.0 percent P 0 plus 0.10 percentADBAC was the most effective combination as was slignly more effectivethan cnly 7.5 percent asphalt. The other combinations of materials werenot as >ffective as asphalt only at the two different rates.
A39
Category*Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (40- 7.5 and 12% Not given50 pen straight run asphalt)
Secondary Material
Solvent - unleaded 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not givengasoline
Additives (see comments) Mixing
Ilaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay Good
Clay Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments See comments
compression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given IES Reference 25
Comments:
Untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after 4 daysdry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Additives:
7.5 percent asphalt and 0.25 percent phosphorus pentoxide plus0.10 percent lauryl amine.
7.5 percent asphalt and 3.0 percent phosphorus pentoxide (P20 5 )plus 0.2 percent laurly amine.
12 percent asphalt and 0.4 percent phosphorus pentoxide plus0.1 percent lauryl amine.
Continued on next page)Basic material
A4O
12 percent asphalt and 3.0 percent phosphorus pentoxide plus 0.2 per-cent lauryl amine.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - The asphalt (at both rates) with theadditives (all rates) ;ere effective in waterproofing and stabilizingthe samples. The 7.5 percent asphalt with 3.0 percent P 205 and 0.2
percent lauryl amine was the most effective combination of materials.This combination was also more effective that either rate of asphaltalone.
Clay - Treatment with only asphalt (both rates) was more effectivethan treatment with asphalt plus additives.
Ahi
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt (40-50 7. 5 and 1 i2% Not given
pen straight run asphalt)
Secondar - Mater ial
Solvent - unleaded gasoline 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not given
Mixing'laterial Form* 'ype of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay GoodClay Good
Lf feet ivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments See commentscompression Waterproofe.
Total Material CostPer :ii F't
of Trea ted So i 1 T'st \gency 'rest Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
Untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after 4days dry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Additive s
7. 5% asphalt and 0. 25% phosphorus pentoxide (P 2 0 5 ) plus 0.1%n- octylamine7. 5% asphalt and 3. 0% P 205 plus 0. 20% n-octylamine
(Continued on next page)* Basic material
A4 2
12% asphalt and 0. 4% P 2 0 5 plus 0. 1' n-octylamine
12% asphalt and 3.0V, P 2 0 5 plus 0. 2'; n-octylamine
Effectiveness: Lean clay - Both rates of asphalt with additives(all rates) were effective in waterproofing and stabilizing thesamples; however, the only combination that gave any great increase
over asphalt only was the following:7.5 percent asphalt plus 3.0 percent P205 and 0.20 percent
n-octylamine.
Clay - Both rates of phalt with additives (all rates) wereeffective in waterpro .ixg and stabilizing the samples; however,the only combinatio7, that gave any increase over asphalt only wasthe following: 7. 5 percent asphalt plus 3 percent P205 and 0. 2
percent n-octylamine. 2
A).
Cat ego ry*Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cutback asphalt 7.5 and 12' Not given(40-50 pen straight runasphalt)
Secondary MaterialSolvent - unleaded 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not givengasoline
Additives (see comments) Mix ing
'laterial F orm* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean Clay JoodClay Good
Effect ive
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Mater ia I Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments See Commentscompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency rest Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
Untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after 4 daysdry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Additives:
7.5% asphalt and 0.25% phosphorus pentoxide (P 205 ) plus 0.1% octadecylamine acetate
7.5% asphalt and 3.0% P205 plus 0.2% ocadecyl amine acetate
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A4b
12% asphalt and 0.4% P205 plus 0.1% octadecyl amine acetate
12% asphalt and 3.0% P205 plus 0.2% octadecyl amine acetate
Effectiveness: Lean clay - Asphalt at both percentages with theadditives (all rates) were effective in waterproofing and stabilizingthe samples. The 7.5 percent asphalt with 3 percent P205 and 0.2
percent octadecyl amine acetate was the most effective combination.This combination was more effective than 3ither rate of asphalt alone.
Clay - The 7.5 percent rate of asphalt with 3.0 percent P205 plus 0.2
percent octadecyl amine acetate was very effective in stabilizing andwaterproofing the samples. Treatment with only 12 percent asphalt wasmore effective that trea:'qent with 12 percent asphalt plus additives.
A45
Category *
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Straight run See comments Not givenasphalt
Secondary Material
Chemical additives (seecomments)
Mixing'1aterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Not given
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material Cost
Per Cu Ftof Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 36
Comments:The following chemical additives were each used with a 5 percent as-phalt cutback (composition 2:1 asphalt to gasoline) with a mixingwater content of 11 percent on dry soil.
Benz'-e phosphoric acid 85 percent H3PO4 (10 percent)(10 percent)
PC13 (10 percent) P0 5 (10 percent)
Yellow P (10 percent) + ArmeenPOC13 (10 percent) 18 Ac (2 percent) + CS2 (25 per-cent)2
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A46
PCI 5 (10 percent) SBC1 5 (ii percent)
P205 (10 percent) + Armeen Guanylurea phosphate (11 percent)
L8DAc (2 percent) 4 (ii percent)
P205 (10 percent) + Armeen KH2PO4 (i percent)
18DAc (i percent) CrPO4 (11 percent)
SNCl4 (2.5 percent) 85 perenet H2PO4 (10 percent)
P205 (10 percent) + Armeen Methanitrobenzoic acid (10 percent)
12D (2 percent) Hydrochloric acid (10 percent)
Ethyl orthosilicate Fmaric acid (0(C2H3 )3 PO 4 (10 percent) Fumaic anid ( 10 percen t)
CR2 03 (ii percent) Phthalic anhydride (10 percent)
moo3 (11 percent) Benzoic acid (10 percent)
PC15 + Excess CaO Adipic acid (10 percent)
(10 percent)
P2 S5 (12 percent)
CrO3 (11 percent)
The most promising additives as an acid to asphalt stabiliztion wereliquid phosphoric acid (85 percent), benzene phosphoric acid.phosphorus pentachloride, chromium trioxide, and phosphorustrichloride. They improved rewet strengths more that phosphoricacid, but their relative high cost makes them less commerciallyattractive.
A47
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Straight run asphalt 5% Not given(40-50 pen)
Secondary Material
Emulsifying agents:Duomeen T 5. 0% Not givenHydrochloric acid 4.7% Not given
Solvent - gasoline 2:1:3 (asphalt, gasoline, water) -
Additive - Chromic chloride 0. 25% Not givenPhosphoric acid 1.5% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with above materials were not compared to untreatedsamples. Tests were conducted after a 24 hour humid cure followedby a 24 hour water immersion. Strength of these samples was 165 psi.
* Basic material
A48
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Straight run (40 to 5 and 10% Not given
50 pen) asphalt (cutback composition -
2:1 asphalt to gasoline
Secondary Material
Phosphorus pentoxide 0.5 to 3% Not givenAntistripping additives 0.1 to 3% Not given
Water 14.2% Mixing
'laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Sandy soil Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 36
Comments:1. Phosphorus pentoxide (P20 5) and antistripping additives were used
separately and in combination at the percentage ranges cited abovewith cutback asphalt at the two rates shown. The antistrippingagents were A12D (lauryl amine) and A18DA, Armeen 18D acetate(octodecyl amine acetate). The samples treated with P205 and other
additives with asphalt were compared to samples treated with asphaltonly. The samples were cured for 14 cays and after 7 days of waterimmersion, they were subjected to unconfined compression tests.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A49
The results indicated that the 5 percent rate of asphalt in com-bination with P205 (1.5 percent) gave an increase in compressive
strength of 60 percent over the asphalt only treated soil. The com-bination of A12D (0.1 percent) and 1205 (0.5 percent) gave the best
results (48 percent increase over asphalt-treated soil).
At the 10 percent asphalt rate in combination with P205, an
increase of 75 percent over the asphalt only treated soil resulted.The combination of A12D (0.3 percent) and P205 (3.0 percent) gavethe next best increase (54 percent). 2
Effectiveness: P2 0 is considered as the most effective additive
with the basic material on sandy silt soil.
2. Phosphorus pentoxide (P205 ) was used separately and in combination
wisli antistripping additives (AI2D - 0.1 to 0.3 percent and A18DA -0.1 percent) and straight run asphalt (5 and 10 percent rates) on thefollowing additional soils. Compressive tests were conducted after14 days dry cure and 7 days water immersion.
a. ClayeY silt: Mixing water content - 11 percent; asphalt cut-back composition - 2:1 asphalt to gasoline.
The P205 (1.5 percent rate) with 5 percent rate asphalt gave
the best results relative to the asphalt only treated samples, anincrease of 93 percent in compressive strength.
The P205 (1.5 percent rate) with 10 percent rate asphalt gave
the best results relative to the asphalt only treated samples, anincrease of 166 percent in compressive strength.
b. Sandy clay: Mixing water content - 16 percent; asphalt cut-back composition - 2:1 asphalt to gasoline.
The A12D (0.2 percent) with 5 percent rate asphalt gave bestresults relative to asphalt only treated samples, an increase of 109percent in compressive strength (23 psi asphalt only to 0.2 percentA12D additive - 48 psi).
The P205 (3 percent rate) with 10 percent rate asphalt gave
the best results relative to the asphalt treated samples, an increaseof 560 percent in compressive strength.
c. Vicksburg loess: Mixing water content - 18.1 percent.Asphalt cutback composition - 2:1 asphalt to gasoline.
A50
At the 5 percent asphalt rate, no favorable results wereachieved with the additives.
Asphalt rate - 10 percent. The P205 ( 3 percent) and A12D
(0.3 percent) gave the best results relative to the asphalt onlytreated samples, an increase of 1090 percent in compressive strength.
P205 ( 3 percent) gave an increase of 570 percent in compressive
strength.
d. Vicksburg buckshot: Mixing water content - 22.7 percent.Asphalt cutback composition - 2:1 asphalt to gasoline.
At the 5 percent asphalt rate, no favorable results wereachieved with the additives.
At the 10 percent asphalt rate, no favorable results wereachieved with the additives.
A51
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Straight run asphalt 5% Not given(100-200 pen)
Secondary Material
Emulsifying agents:Duomeen T 5.0% Not givenHydrochloric acid 4.7% Not given
Solvent - gasoline 2:1:3 (asphalt, gasoline, water)Additive - chromic 0. 25% Not given
chloride
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated CapabilityLiquid Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with above materials were not compared to untreatedsamples. Tests were conducted after a 24 hour humid cure plus a 24hour water immersion.
Effectiveness,. The above combination of materials produced sampleswith insignificant strengths.
Other samples contained the above materials plus 1. 5 percent phos-phoric acid, and this conbination was effective as a soil stabilizer(190 psi strength).
* Basic material
A52
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of aterial Cost
Straight run asphalt 5% Not given(100-120 pen)
Secondary Material
Emulsifying agents:Duomeen T 5.0% Not givenHydrochloric acid 4.7% Not given
Additive - chromic chloride 0.1% Not givenWater 3:3 (asphalt, water) Not givenPhosphoric acid 1. 5%
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with above materials were not compared to untreatedsamples. Tests were conducted after a 24 hour humid cure followedby a 24 hour water immersion.
The strength of the treated samples was 110 psi.
* Basic material
A53
Category*Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Straight run asphalt 7.5% Not given(100-200 pen)
Secondarv MaterialEmulsifying agents:
Duomeen T 5.0% Not givenHydrochloric acid 4. 7% Not given
Solvent - gasoline 2:1:2 (asphalt, gasoline, water) -
Additive - chromic chloride 0. 1% Not givenPhosphoric acid 1. 5% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
rype of Test Material Increase FffectivenessUnconfined Stabilz er See comments Excellent
compre ssion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with above materials were not compared to untreatedsamples. Tests were conducted after a 24 hour humid cure followedby a 24 hour water immersion.
The strength of the treated samples was 125 psi.
* Basic material
A54
Category*Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Straight run asphalt 3, 4, and 5% Not given
(100-120 pen)
Secondarv MaterialEmulsifying agents:
Duomeen T 5.0% Not givenHydrochloric acid 4.7% Not given
Solvent - gasoline 2:1:3 (asphalt, gasoline, water)Additives: Ferric chloride 0.1% Not given
Phosphoric acid (H 3PO4 ) 1.5, 2, and 5% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthFype of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Ufnconfined Stabilizer See comments Exceientcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency lest Report
Not given IT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with above materials were not compared to untreated
samples. Tests were conducted after 24 hours humid cure plus a 24hour water immersion.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A55
"- . . ... .. .. . .. . .. . . - . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . a l . . .. . .. .. .. . -- .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..
Effectiveness: Combination of materials above where several rates aregiven, all give high strength (155 psi) and are considered effective asstabilizers; however, shown below are strengths in order of effective-ness:
Asphalt (%) H3 PO (%) Strength (psi)
4 5 61o4 2 2655 1.5 1953 2.0 155
A56
Category*
Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Straight run asphalt 5% Not given(100-120 pen)
Secondary Material
Emulsifying agents:Duomeen T 5% Not givenHydrochloric acid 4.7% Not given
Solvent - gasoline 2:1:3 (asphalt, gasoline, water) -
Phosphoric acid 1. 5% Not given
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Cood
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with above materials were not compared to untreatedsamples. Tests were conducted after a 24 hour humid cure followedby a 24 hour water immersion.
The strength of the treated samples was 125 psi.
* Basic material
A57
Category*Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Straight run asphalt 5% Not given(100-200 pen)
Secondary Material
Emulsifying agent:Nonic 218 6.25% Not given
Solvent - gasoline 2:1:3 (asphalt, gasoline, water) -
Phosphoric acid 1. 5% Not given(H3PO 4
MixingMaterial Form* _ype of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with above materials were not compared to untreatedsamples. Tests were conducted after 24 hours humid cure plus 24hours water immersion.
The addition of phosphoric acid is necessary for adquate stabilizat-ion given 24 hour humid cure plus 24 hour water immersi-n.
Basic material
A .
Category*Asphalt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Straight run asphalt 5, 10, and 12. 5% Not given
(100-120 pen)
Secondary MaterialEmulsifying agents:
Duomeen T 5.0% Not givenHydrochloric acid 4.7% Not given
Solvent - gasoline 2:1:3 (asphalt, gasoline, water)Additives - Ferric chloride 0.1% Not given
Phosphoric acid 2.0%
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clay (Vicksburg) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:Samples treated with above materials were not compared to untreatedsamples. Tests were conducted after a 24 hour humid cure followed bya 24 hour water immersion.
The most effective rate of asphalt was the 10 percent. The strength ofsamples treated with this asphalt and other materials was 85 psi.This value was substantially higher than values previously obtainedwith this soil using asphalt cutback-phosphoric acid combinations.
Basic material
A59
PRMEDIM PAG9 BLAWI..NOT tItHD
Category: Cement
A61
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Alumina cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Modifiers (see comments) 1% Not given
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Loess Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments ExcellentCompre s sion N/O Modifiers
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Internal Data
(1956), notpublished
Comments:
Samples treated with cement and modifiers were compared to un-treated samples. Preparation of the samples was with the Harvardminiature compaction apparatus, five layers with an effort of 25tamps per layer using a 40-lb spring tamper. Samples were curedin a humid room for 24 hours prior to testing.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A62
Modifie r s:
Sodium hydroxide Polyvinyl alcohol Plaster of ParisAmmonium hydroxide (grade 50-42) Ethyl silicateCalcium acrylate Potassium permanganate NitrobenzeneHydrated line Potassium chloride Sulphuric acidPortland cement Sodium fluoride phosphoric acid
Modifiers (continued):
Sodium tetraphosphateArquad 2 HTCarboxymethyl cellulose
(grade 1800)Chrome ligninGlycerin
Effectiveness: Sodium hydroxide and ammonium hydroxide wereused separately with the basic material in an effort to alter the pH ofthe treated samples. There was no increase in strength.
The alumina cement alone met the requirements of Category 2stabilization.
The only modifiers when used with the cement which exhibitedany significant advantage were: Polyvinyl alcohol (720)), carboxy-methyl cellulose (69%), and carboxymethyl cellulose (one part)plus (one part) hydrated lime (40%). Numbers in parentheses arethe percent increase in strength over cement only treated samples.
A63
Category*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cement 10% Not given
Secondary MaterialAdditive s:
Sodium hydroxide plus 1:0, 2:1, 1:1, HI, 1:2, 0:1 Not givensodium sulfate Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clay (Texas #2) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MET Reference 39
Comments:
Samples treated with additive and cement were compared to cement-treated samples. The cure time varied from I to 28 days. Priorto testing, the samples were immersed in water for 24 hours.
Effectiveness: The ratio of 1:0 sodium hydroxide to sodium sulfatein combination with cement gave the only significant increase instrength over the samples with only cement. (64 percent after 1 daycure and 67 percent after 28 days cure).
Basic material
A64
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cement 3. 5, 6. 8, and 10% Not given
Secondary Material
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 0. 5 N and 1. 0 N Not given
Mixing1laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clay (Vicksburg) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test ReportNot given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
In the range of 3 to 10 percent cement, wet strength increased withthe amount of cement and 1 N NaOH giving the higher increase ofstrength afte'r the one day cure; however, as the length of curingtime increased, the difference in using IN NaOH and 0. 5 N NaOHis insignificant.
To achieve a wet strength of 150 and 300 psi after 7 days of cure,4 and 6 percent cement with 0. 5 N NaOH is needed, respectively.
* Basic material
A65
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cement 10% Not given
Secondary MaterialAdditive s:
Sodium hydroxide plus 1:0, 2:1, 1:1, 1:2, 0:1 Not givensodium sulfate Mix i ng
1aterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Po. de r Sand (Wisconsin #1) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comments:
Samples treated with additives and cement were compared to cement-treated samples. The cure time ranged for 1 to 28 days. Prior totesting, the samples were immersed in water for 24 hours.
Effectiveness: The ratio of 1:0 sodium hydroxide to sodium sulfatein combination with cement gave less strength than the cement onlytreated samples. As the ratio of sodium hydroxide to sodium sulfatedecreased, the effectiveness of the combined additive increased. Themost effective combination of sodium hydroxide to sodium sulfatewas 0:1 with the strength increase after 1 day cure being 720 percentand after 28 days cure being 1748 percent.
* Basic material
A66
.. _
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Additive s:Sodium hydroxide plus 1:0, 2:1, 1:1, 1:2, 0:2 Not givensodium sulfate Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Silt Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test ReporL
Not given MiT Reference 39
Comments:Samples treated with additives and cement were compared to coment-treated samples. The cure time ranged from 1 to 28 days. Prior totesting, the samples were immersed in water for 24 hours.
Effectiveness: The most effective ratio of sodium hydroxide tosodium sulfate was 1:1. The strength increase was 202 percentafter 1-day cure and 292 percent after 28 days cure. However, allsamples with the additives, regardless of the ratio of the two, werestronger than those treated with cement only.
* Basic material
A67
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Cement (plus IN NaOH - 5% Not givensodium hydroxide)
Secondary Material
See comments
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clay (Vicksburg) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer None Excellentcompre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with IN NaOH and cement were compared to samplestreated only with cement. Tests were conducted after 1, 7, and 28days humid cure plus 24 hours water immersion. The samples withthe sodium hydroxide and cement for 1, 7, and 28 days cure hadstrength increases of 180, 46, and 41 percent, respectively, oversamples treated with cement only.
Other individual additives tested with cement plus IN NaOH were:
Rosinamine'D acetate - 0.025, 0.1, 0. 2, and 0.7 percentMelamine - 1.0 percent
Continued on next page)Basic material
A68
Aniline - 1. 0 percentZinc nitrate - 0. 5 and 1. 0 percentStannous chloride - 0. 1 percentFerric chloride - 0. 1 percentFerrous chloride - 0. 5 and 1. 0 percent
None of the additives above produced any significant strength in-crease over that achieved with only cement plus sodium hydroxide(N NaOH).
A69
Category*Cement
Basic Maerial Rate of Material Cost
Fast Fix 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, and 20% $0. 035 per lb
Secondary Material
Mixing'Iterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay, heavy clay, and Goodsand
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments See comments
compre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test ReportNot given WES Internal Data
(1971), not
published
Comments:
Sarryjples treated with Fast Fix were compared to samples treatedwith Type I portland cement. Samples were prepared with a Harvardminiature compaction apparatus, five layers, ten tamps per layer ofa 40-lb spring tamper. Prior to tests as a Category 2 stabilizer, thesamples were cured at 100 percent relative humidity followed by 24hours water immersion.
Effectiveness: To satisfy the Category 2 stabilization, approximately15 percent and more than 15 percent Fast Fix is required on lean andheavy clay, recpectively. Approximately 7.5 percent is required onsand.Continued on next page)
Basic material
A70
To satisfy the same requirements on all three soils, only approxi-mately 6 percent portland cement is required. Cement also costs lessthan one third that of Fast Fix. From these two standpoints, theFast Fix does not offer any advantages in stabilization.
A71
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Lumnite cement 5, 10, and 15% Not given
Secondary Material
Mixing4aterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Sand, loess, and Goodheavy clay
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Internal Data(1956), notpublished
Comments:
Samples treated with luannite cement were compared with thosetreated with poutland cement. Samples were prepared using theHarvard miniature compaction apparatus. For the loess and heavyclay samples, compaction was applied on each of three layers by25 tamps of a 40-lb spring tamper. The sand samples were com-pacted on each of thiee layers by 25 tamps of a 20-lb spring tamper.Cure times were 6 hours, 24 hours, 3 days, and 7 days under humidconditions prior to testing.
Effectiveness: The rate of strength development and ultimate strengthsachieved in the loess and heavy clay using the lumnite cement are lessContinued on next page)
Basic materia1
A72
than that achieved using normal portland cement under comparable
test conditions.
On sand, the lumnite cement was much more effective than
portland cement. At the 10 percent rate of treatment, the strength
increase of the lumnite over the portland cement was 429, 131, and
83 percent after 1, 3, and 7 days cure, respectively. Higher
strength values were achieved with 15 percent lumnite cement.
A73
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Plaster of Paris 3, 5, and 10% Not given
Secondary Material
Mixing'laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay and heavy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Nonecompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Internal data(1956-57), notPublished
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples. Preparationof the samples was with a Harvard miniature compaction apparatus,five layers, ten tamps per layer with a 20-lb spring tamper. Thesamples were tested against Category 1 stabilization requirements.
Effectiveness: The strength increase of the treated samples as com-pared to the untreated varied 200 to 1700 percent; however, this didnot satisfy the requirements.
* Basic material
A74
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 3% Not given
Secondary Material
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Loess Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer 239% Excellent
compression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test ReportNot given WES Reference 24
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples (23 psi un-confined compression strength). Samples prior to tests were air-dried 4 days followed by 4 days wetting by permeation. Thestrength of the treated samples was 78 psi which was in increase of239 percent. The material showed promise as a waterproofer.
This material was also subjected to field investigations at WES asa dustproofer and waterproofer; however, the result did not indicatethe need for additional tests of this material.
* Basic material
A75
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Mixinglaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay Good
clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments See commentscompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency rest Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
The untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after4 days dry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - The treated samples possessed good com-pressive strength (203 psi); however, the samples were not water-proof.
Clay- The samples possessed no strength nor were they water-proof.
Basic material
A76
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland Cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Additives (see comments) 0.5 and 1.0% Not given
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clayey Silt Good
Effective
Purpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 35
Comments:
The treated samples with additives were compared to soil-cement
samples. Compressive strengths were determined after 7 and 28 days of
soaking. The soil-cement samples after 7 days soak had a compressivestrength of 170 psi and 28- psi after 28 days soak in water.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A77
Strength Change Based on Soil-
Additive Cement Without Additives. Percent
% 7-day Soak 28-day Soak
Calcium chloride 0.5 +41 Negative1.0 +71 +39
Sodium tetraphosphate 0.5 +41 +381.0 +147 +82
Pozzolith 2AA 0.5 +30 +91.0 Negative Negative
Aerotel 0.5 Negative Negative1.0 Negative Negative
Daxad 21 0.5 +30 +21.0 Negative Negative
Lignosol X2D 0.5 +56 +121.0 Negative Negative
Posassium permanganate 0.5 +82 +751.0 +165 +136
Calcium hydroxide 0.5 +11 +23
1.0 Negative 0
Polyvinyl alsohol 1.0 +68 +14
Potassium permanganate and sodium tetraphosphate are the most promisingadditives follow cd by calcium ch loride and polyvinyl alcohol
Additives with "negative" stated were detrimental to soil-cementtreated samples.
A78
Category*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material CostPortland cement 5% Not given
Secondary MaterialArquad ZHT plus sodium 0. 1 plus 0. 99%; Not given
hydroxide 0.5 plus 1.08%; and1. 0 plus 1. 07%
Arquad 12 1.0% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clay (Texas #2) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comments:Arquad ZHT - di-hydrogenated tallow dimethyl ammonium chloride
Arquad 12 - lauryl trimethyl ammonium chloride
Samples treated with additives and cement compared to samples treatedwith cement only. After cure time shown below and prior to tests,samples were immersed in water for 24 hours.
(Continued on next page)* Basic material
A79
StrengthChangeBasedon SoilWithout
Curing Strength Additive
Additive Additive Days psi
None 0 1 172 -4 218 -
7 180 -28 18o -
Arquad 2HT plus 0.1 1 100 Negative
sodium hydroxide 0.00 4 200 Negative7 250 +79
28 390 +117
0.5 1 208 +211.08 4 291 +34
7 372 +10728 423 +135
1.0 1 293 +701.07 4 280 +28
7 365 +10228 364 +102
Arquad 12 1.0 1 139 Negative4 184 Negative7 208 +1628 262 +46
Effectiveness: Arquad 2HT (0.1 percent) plus sodium hydroxide (0.99
percent) with cement produced the highest strength increast except forthe one day cure. Arquad 2 HT (1 percent) plus sodium hydroxide (1.0
percent) gave the greatest increase, 70 versus 21 percent for the firstrates given. The remaining materials only gave strength increase after7 and 28 days cure. /
A80
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
See comments for additives
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capabilit"
Pcwder Clay (Vicksburg) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comments:
The samples treated with cement plus each additive were compared to
samples treated with only cement. The samples were cured for 1,4, 7, and Z8 days plus 24 hours water immersion and then subjectedto te sts.
The additives with rates (percent) are shown below:
a. Sodium hydroxide - 0. 48 and 1. 00 percent
b. Ferric shloride - 0.10 and 0. 5 percentplus sodium hydroxide - 1. 03 and 1. 00 percent
(Continued on ne t page)Basic materiai
A81
c. Arquad ZHT (di-hydrogenated tallow dimethyl ammoniumchloride) - 0. 10 and 0. 20 percent
d. Arquad 12 (laurly trimethyl ammonium chloride) - 0. 50and 1. 00 percent plus sodium hydroxide - 0. 98 and 0. 96percent
e. Triethylene tetramine (TTA) - 0. 50 and 1. 00 percentplus sodium hydroxide - 0. 96 and 0. 98 percent
f. Octylamine (soil pretreated with this material prior to theaddition of sodium hydroxide ) - 0. 50 and 1. 00 percentplus sodium - 1. 04 and 1. 00 percent
Effectiveness: All additives with cement gave some increase instrength over only cement-treated samples. Sodium hydroxide(1. 00 percent) was the most effective additive and gave the great-est strength increase for all cure days. However, 10 percentcement only treated samples gave better results than 5 percentcement plus the sodium hydroxide.
A82
Category*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5 and 10% Not given
Secondary Material
Chemical additives (see Varied (0. 5 to 2. 0%) Not givencomments)
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 37
Comments:
The molding moisture content varied from 20. 1 to 21. 7 percent. Thenumber of curing hours varied from 4 to 168. In the tabulation below,data are given on the rates (percent) and hours that gave the mosteffective combination with the materials used. The Optimum rate ofadditive is also given. The cure condition for the optimum rate ofadditive is also given. The cure conditions for the samples were asfollows: room temperature, 100 percent relative humidity, 24hours immersion in water, and then samples subjected to tests.
(Continued an next page)* Basic material
A83
StrengthChange
Based OnMolding Soil Cement
Concentration Water Curing Compressive Withoutof Additive Content Time Strength Additive
Additive % % Hrs psi %
A. 5 percent cement
None 0 20.9 168 107 --
Sodium metasilicate 1.0 20.6 168 359 +236
Sodium silicate 1.0 20.5 168 277 +159
Sodium hydroxide 1.0 20.5 168 285 +166
Potassium hydroxide 1.43 21.0 168 270 +153
Lithium hydroxide 0.59 20.8 168 198 +85
Sodium sulfite 1.0 21.2 168 322 +200
Sodium carbonate 1.0 20.5 168 375 +250
Sodium bicarbonate 1.0 21.0 168 248 +132
B. 10 percent cement
None 0 19.6 168 312 --
Sodium metasilicate 1.0 19.1 168 515 +65
Sodium hydroxide 1.0 19.2 168 462 +48
Sodium carbonate 1.0 19.3 168 492 +58
Effectiveness:
5 percent cement. The additive, sodium carbonate, gave the mosteffective increase in compressive strength over the soil-cement samples.Sodium metasilicate and sodium sulfite were next in order of effectiveness.However, all chemical additives were effective in increasing the samplestrength over the cement only treated samples.
10 percent cement. Sodium metasilicate was the most effetive additiveused with 10 percent cement. All additives, however, incre~sed the compre,;-sive strength of the samples. The percent increase for the 10 percentcement was not as great an increase as for the 5 percent cement; however,the compressive strengths were higher when compared to the cement onlytreated samples.
A84
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material CostPortland cement 10% Not given
Secondary Material
Calcium shloride 0. 6% Not givenSodium hydroxide 0. 5 and 1. 0% Not givenSodium carbonate 1.0% Not givenSodium sulfite 1.0% Not givenSodium sulfate 0.5% Not givenSodium metasilicate 1.05% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Sand (Winconsin #2) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 38
Comment s:
Samples treated with the secondary materials were compared tosamples treated with cement only. Curing time was 1, 4, and 7days followed by 1 day of water immersion prior to tests. Eachsecondary material was used with 10 percent cement.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A85
Effectiveness: All materials except 1. 0 percent sodium hydroxide,
one day cure time, increased the strength of the cement-treatedsamples for all cure days. Sodium metasilicate (1 percent) was themost effective in that after one day cure the strength was increasedover the cement-treated only by 734 percent and after 7 days cure
the strength was increased by 95 percent. All materials acceleratedthe rate of cure of the samples.
A86
Categcry*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
See comments 1%
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay GoodHeavy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 18
Comments:
Samples were molded in a Harvard Miniature Compaction Apparatusin five layers (each layer compacted with ten tamps of a 40-lb springtamper). Samples were tested after 24 hours cure at 100 percentrelative humidity and after a 24 hour cure at 100 percent relative
humidity followed by 24 hours water immersion. The strength ofthe untreated soils was about 20 psi. Materials which when added to
the soil helped to increase the strength from 20 to 100 psi or greaterwere con3idered to have potential as stabilizers.
Portland cement (5%) was used alone with both soils and in combina-tion with the following materials on both soils. (Each material was
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A87
used at a 1 percent rate.)
Sodium hydroxide, sodium sulfate, sodium aluminate, sodiumorthosilicate, sodium metasilicate, sodium hydroxide plus sodiumorthosilicate, sodium hydroxide plus sodium metasilicate, sodiumsulfate plus sodium orthosilicate, and sodium sulfate plus sodiummetasilicate.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - Samples treated with 5 percent portlandceenent with no additives gave the best results (185 psi after 24hours dry cure and 150 psi after 24 hours soak. ) Sodium orthosilicateand sodium metasilicate each with cement gave somewhat higherwet strengths; however, the dry strengths were less than that forcement only treated samples.
Heavy clay - Samples treated with 5 percent portland cement and1 percent sodium hydroxide gave the best results (165 psi drystrength and 150 psi after 24 hours soak). Treatment with only 5percent portland cement was the next best treatment (145 psi drystrength and 106 psi after soak).
A88
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Dispersants (seecomments) See comments
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clayey silt Good
Effective
Purpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 35
Comments:
The concentration of dispersants was 1 percent except for the Kent
wetting agent which was 5 percent. The treated samples were com-pared to a soil cement sample with 270 psi compressive strength.
(Continued on next page)* Basic material
A89
Strength Change Based
Dispersant on Soil Cement, Percent
Lignosol XZD +41
Lignosol SF +11
Lignosol SFX Negative
Pozzolith ZAA +59
Daxad 21 +33
Kent wetting agent + 22
Sodium thiosulfate + 52
Calcium phosphate - monoba sic Negative
Sodium fluosilicate Negative
Trisodium phosphate +37
Sodium tetraphosphate +19
Tetrasodium pyrophosphate 0
Modified sodium phosphate Ne gative
Trisocium phosphate +26(anhydrous)
Sodium tripolyphosphate +7
As seen from the data above, the most promising were pozzolithZAA, sodium thiosulfate, lignosol X2D, and trisodiurn phosphate.Others which indicated some improvement were Kent wettingagent, sodium tetraphosphate, Daxad 21, and trisodium phosphate(anhydrous).
The maximum compressive strength of soil-cement using 10 per-cent cement and without dispersant was 390 psi. The four mostpromising gave a strength increase approximating that of anadditional 5 percent cement over the base amount of 5 percent(about same strength as 10 percent cement only).
A90
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary MaterialSodium hydroxide 1.0% Not givenSodium carbonate 1.0% Not givenSodium metasilicate 1.0% N i
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Loess Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 38
Comments:
The treated samples (with each additive) were compared to samplestreated only with 5 percent cement. Cure time is listed below; however,before testing, the samples were also subjected to 24 hours waterimmersion.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A91
Strength ChangeBased on SoilWithout
Curing Strength Additives
Additive Additive Day psi
None 0 1 102 04 175 07 132 0
28 232 0
Sodium hydroxide 1.0 1 98 Negative4 274 +577 355 +16928 450 +94
Sodium carbonate 1.0 1 146 +434 180 +37 175 +33
28 310 +34
Sodium metasilicate 1.0 1 211 +1074 264 +517 265 +100
28 430 +86
Effectiveness: Except for the slow curing after one day, sodiumhydroxide is the most effective in increasing the strength. Sodiummetasilicate and sodium carbonate are next in order of effectiveness.
A92
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 10% Not given
Secondary Material
Sodium hydroxide 0.25 to 1.0% Not givenSodium carbonate 1.0% Not givenSodium metasilicate 1.0% Not givenSodium sulfate 0.54 and 1.08% Not given
MixingMa'Prial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Sand (Wisconsin #1) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of TTeated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 38
Comments:
Samples treated with the cement and additives were compared to samplestreated only with cement. Tests were run on samples after 1, 4, 7, and28 days of cure followed by 24 hours water immersion.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A93
Effectiveness: The following secondary materials gave no increase in
strength of the cement-treated samples or the addition of thesematerials was detrimental to the strength of the samples: sodium
hydroxide, sodium carbonate, and sodium metasilicate. Sodium sulfate
was very effective in combination with 10 percent cement in improvingthe strength of treated samples. AtO.54 percent sodium sulfate, thestrength increased from 500 after one day cure to 1030 percent after28 days cure over that for cement only treated samples. At 1.08 per-cent sodium sulfate, the strength increased from 720 after one day cureto 1739 percent after 28 days cure over that for cement only treatedsamples.
A94
Category*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material CostPortland cement 5T Not given
Secondary MaterialSodium hydroxide, sodiumcarbonate, sodium metasilicate, All materials Not givensodium sulfate, sodium were each testedaluminate, sodium fluosilicate, with cement at 0.5,sodium fluoride, sodium 1.0, and 2.0% ratesfluoborate, and sodiumtetraborate
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
T ype of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 38
Comments:Treated samples (with each additive) were compared to samples treatedonly with 5 percent cement. Cure time is listed below; however, beforetesting, the samples were also subjected to 24 hours water immersion.Of the three ratcs for each additive used, the most effective rate isshown below:
(Continued on next page)
• Basic material
Ay)
Strength Change
Based on SoilWithout
% Curing Strength Additives
Additive Additive Days psi %
None 0 1 80 -24 90
7 9528 125 -
Sodium hydroxide 1.0 1 145 +804 217 +1417 235 +148
28 28o 12L
Sodium carbonate 1.0 1 1474 18b7 220 +1;I
28 285 +1b
Sodium metasilicate 1.0 1 135 +69198 +120
218 +130344 +175
Sodium sulfate 1.0 1 228 +1854 275 +2057 325 +242
28 435 +248
Sodiun aluminate 0.5 1 230 +1884 282 +2137 330 +247
28 425 +240
Effectiveness: Other additives which were used (sodiun fluosilicate,sodium fluoride, sodium fluoborate, ET-218, and sodium tetraborate) wereeither detrimental when added to the cement or no significant strength in-crease resulted.
Sodium aluminate (0.5 percent) and sodium sulfate (1.0 percent) were veryeffective in increasing the strength of the treated samples. Sodiumhydroxide, carbonate, and metasilicate were also effective in increasingthe strength of the additive-cement-treated samples over the strength ofthe cement only treated samples.
A96
. . . . . . . . . . . . . I II . . ... .. ... ... ... .[ I . .. . .... .. .. . ... .... ..
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland Cement 1o% Not given
Secondary Material
AdditivesSodium hydroxide 0.98, 1.93, and 2.90% Not given
Sodium sulfate 1.71, 3.32, and 4.63% Not given
Sodium aluminate 0.51, 1.03, and 2.08% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Fype of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See coments Excellent
compression
Fotal Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comments:
Samples treated with cement plus each additive were compared to samplestreated with cement only. All samples were tested after the cure time
shown below followed by 24 hours water immersion. The combinations(percent) of materials which gave best results are shown below:
(:ontinued on next page)
* Basic material
A97
Strength ChangeBased on SoilWithout
Curing Strength AdditiveAdditive Additive Days psi
None 0 1 128 -4 2o87 28328 360
Sodium hydroxide 0.98 1 192 +504 331 +597 362 +28
28 478 +33
Sodium sulfate 3.32 1 315 +1464 426 +1057 410 +45
28 640 +78
Effectiveness: The sodium sulfate (3.32 percent) was the most effectiveadditive.
The amount of strength increase with additives and cement is less thanthat for 5 percent cement treatment; however, the early strength of thesamples is much better.
A98
Category*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material CostPortland cement-- Not given
Secondary Material
Sodium hydroxide 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0% Not givenSodium sulfate 0.51, 0.99, 1.96, and 3.96% Not givenSocium aluminate 1.10, 2.22, and 4.32% Not givenFeiric chloride plus 0.10 plus 1.00 and 1.00 plus
sodium chdroxide 1.02% Not givenOc ylamine plus sodium 0.50 plus 1.0 and 0.56, 1.07, Not given
hydroxide and 0.99%Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clay (Texas #2) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comments:
Samples treated with each additive at various percentages were comparedto samples treated only with cement. All samples were tested after cureof 1, 4, 7, 28, and 34 days followed by a 24-hour water immersion.
Effectiveness: The additives with rate of treatment (percent) are listedbelow in order of increase in strength over the cement only treatedsamples:
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A99
J
Ferric chloride (0.10 percent) plus sodium hydroxice (1.0 percent):
1 day cure - 209 percent strength increase4 day cure - 236 percent strength increase
7 day cure - 136 percent strength increase
Octylamine (0.50 percent) plus sodium hydroxide (0.56 percent):1 day cure - 144 percent strength increase4 day cure - 131 percent strength increase7 day cure - 84 percent strength increase
Sodium aluminate (1.10 percent):1 day cure - 142 percent strength increase4 day cure - 123 percent strength increase7 day cure - 88 percent strength increase
Sodium hydroxide (1.0 percent):1 day cure - 110 percent strength increase4 day cure - 80 percent strength increase7 day cure - 17 percent strength increase
The sodium sulfate was detrimental to the soil-cement mixture.
AlO0
Category*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 10% Not given
Secondary Material
Sodium hydroxide 0.57, 0.59, 1.09, 1.15, and 2.35% Not, givenSodium sulfate 0.97, 1.99, and 3.95% Not givenSodium aluminate 1.13, 2.26, and 4.44% Not givenSodium metasilicate 0.88 and 1.88% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clay (Texas #2) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comments:Samples treated with each additive at various percentages were comparedto samples with cement only.
Sodium hydroxide (2.35 percent) was effective in improving the strengthof the soil with 10 percent cement. The increase in strength was 70percent after one day cure and 91 percent after 34 days cure. Next inthe order of improvement were sodium aluminate (2.26 percent and sodiummetasilicate (1.88 percent which gave improvements of 41 percent (oneday cure) and*74 percent (34 days cure), and 64 percent (one day cure)and 67 percent (34 days cure), respectively.
* Basic material
A1OI
Category*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary MaterialSodium hydroxide (see note) 1.0% Not givenSodium sulfite 1.0% Not givenSodium carbonate 1.0% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clay (Illinois) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See conmments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 38
Comments:
Cure was for 1, 4, and 7 days. Each sample was then subjected to 24hours water immersion and tested. Samples treated with 5 percentcement and additive were compared to samples treated with 5 percentcement. Each secondary material was used with cement in treatingsamples.
Effectiveness: The sodium hydroxide (1 percent) was slightly effective.The increase in strength over the 5 percent only treated samples for1, 4, and 7 days cure was 72, 41, and 36 percent. The other twoadditives were detrimental to the strength of the samples treatedwith the 5 percent cement.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A102
NOTE: Further testing was conducted with sodium hydroxide (0.5, 1.0,and 1.5 percent) as an additive for 5 and 10 percent cement for sta-bilizing. It was found that the optimum effectiveness for both 5 and10 percent cement was sodium hydroxide at 1.0 percent. However,samples treated with 15 percent cement only had strengths of 143 per-cent and 13 percent greater than that for 5 and 10 percent cement plussodium hydroxide, respectively.
A103
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Sodium hydroxide 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0% Not givenSodium sulfite 1.0% Not givenSodium carbonate 1.0% Not givenSodium metasilicate 1.0% Not given
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clay (TE as #1) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 38
Comments:
Samples treated with cement and each additive were compared to samplestreated only with cement. Tests were run on samples after 1, 4, and7 days cure followed by 24 hours water immersion.
Effectiveness: Samples treated with the additives sodium sulfite andsodium carbonate had lower strengths than samples treated with cementalone (detrimental).
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A104
The strength of cement with the additive sodium hydroxide was increased
by 30 percent after one day cure and by 45 percent after seven days cureas compared to the same cure time for cement only treated samples. Thismaterial's effectiveness was slight.
Sodium metasilicate (1 percent) was next in effectiveness with somewhatlower values of strength increase.
Al05
Category*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Sodium hydroxide 1% Not givenSodium hydorxide plusbarium chloride 1.0 and 0.1% Not given
Sodium sulfite 1.0% Not givenSodium carbonate 1.0% Not givenSodium metasilicate 1.0% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clay (Texas #2) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 38
Comments:
The treated samples (with each additive) were compared to samplestreated only with 5 percent cement. Cure time is listed below; however,before testing, the samples were also subjected to 24 hour water immersion.
Continuedon next page)
* Basic material
A106
Strength ChangeBased on SoilWithout
% Curing Strength Additive
Additive Additive Days psi
None 0 1 764 1037 157
Sodium hydroxide 1.0 1 162 +113
4 185 +80
7 184 +17
Sodium hydroxide 1.0 1 115 +51plus barium chloride 0.1 4 195 +89
7 232 +48
Sodium sulfite 1.0 1 45 Negative4 lO4 07 107 Negative
Sodium carbonate 1.0 1 50 Negative4 87 Negative7 95 Negative
Sodium metasilicate 1.0 1 115 +514 195 +897 232 +48
Effectiveness: Sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate were detrimental tothe strength of the additive-cement treated samples. Sodium hydroxidegave the highest one-day cure strength; however, sodium metasilicateand sodium hydroxide plus barium chloride were overall more effective.
A107
Category*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Sodium metasilicate 1% Not given
Mixing'laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder lean clay Goodclay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments See comments
compression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test ReportNot given WES Reference 25
Comments:The untreated samples were unsuitable for compression tests after 4days dry cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - The treated samples possessed some com-pressive strength (115 pSi); however, the samples were not waterproof.
Clay - The samples possessed no strength nor were they waterproof.
* Basic material
A108
Ctegory*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Sodium orthosilicate 1.0% Not given
Mixing
Iaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay GoodClay Good
Effective
Purpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments See comment
compression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES References 25
Comments:
The untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after 4
days cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Effectiveness: Lean clay -The samples possessed some compressive
strength (53 psi); however, they were not waterproof.
Clay - The samples possessed no strength nor were they waterproof.
, aterial
A109
Category*
Cement
"asic Material Rate of Material CostPortland cement 5% Not given
Secondary MaterialSodium orthosilicate o.54 and 1.03 /0 Not givenSodium metasilicate 0.60 and 1.33% Not given3rade 50 silicate 1.00 and 1.98% Not given3rade 40 silicate 1.00 and 1.98% Not givenSodium oxide (Na20)
Silicon doixide (SiO2
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comment s:
Samples treated with each additive plus soda and silica at variouspercents were compared to samples treated with cement only. All semnpleswere tested after the cure time shown below followed by a 24-hour waterimmersion. The additive (percent) which gave the best results isgiven below.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
Al10
Strength ChangeRatio of Based onNa 20 Soil Cementto Without
Additive Curing Strength Additive
Additive % Si0 2 Days psi %
None 0 0 1 80 --
4 90 --
7 95 --28 125 --
Sodium 1.03 2:1 1 217 +1(1orthosilicate 4 235 +161
7 286 +201
28 491 +293
Sodium 1.33 1:1 1 135 +69metasilicate 4 198 +120
7 218 +12928 344 +175
Grade 50 1.00 1:2 1 123 +54silicate 4 370 +311
7 420 +34228 553 +342
Grade 40 1.00 1:3.22 1 290 +263silicate 4 352 +291
7 386 +30628 530 +324
Effectiveness: All additives shown above were very effective in increas-ing the strength of the soil-cement samples.
Grade 40 silicate-treated samples developed the highest initial (one-day)strength.
Grade 50 developed the highest (28 days) strength followed closely byGrade 4u silicate.
All]
,. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ., , . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5, 6, 8, and 10% 1.5¢ per lb
Secondary Material
See commentsSodium sulfate 1% 10¢ per lb
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Loess Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
$1.60 (exclusive of shipping, WES Reference 14storing, and construction)
Comments:
Samples were molded in a Harvard Miniature Compaction Apparatus infive layers (each layer compacted with ten tamps of a 40-lb springtamper). Samples were cured at 100 percent relative humdity for 24hours and subjected to tests. When the strength of the treatedsamples as compared to untreated samples (25 psi) increased from 25psi to 100 psi or greater, the materials were considered to warrantfurther consideration as stabilizers.
(Continued on next page)* Basic material
A112
StrengthStrength Increase
Unconfined Increase ComparedCompression as Compared to
Additive Strength to Untreated Cement Without
Additive % psi Soil Additive
None 0 24
Portland cement with: 5 160 +567Sodium carbonate 1 167 +596 +4Sodium hydroxide 1 90 +275 NegativeSodium sulfate 1 207 +763 +29Sodium sulfite 1 127 +429 NegativePotassium
permanganate 1 112 +367 Negative
Portland cement 6 165 +588 +3
Portland cement 8 175 +629 +9
Portland cement 10 209 +771 +31
Portland cement (5 percent ) with 1 percent sodium sulfate gave the bestresults. Portland cement (10 percent) gave a slight increase over thecombination of the two materials.
Traffic tests were conducted on a lean clay soil treated with 5 per-cent portland cement and 1 percent sodium sulfate and the strengthdeveloped was sufficient to meet the requirements of emergencymilitary roads.
A113
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondarv MaterialSodium sulfate 0.5% Not givenET-224 dispersant 0.1% Not givenBarium chloride 1.0% Not givenSodium fluosilicate 1.0% Not given
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Loess Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Tvpe of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 38
Comments:
The treated samples with the additive were compared to samples treatedwith 5 percent cement. Curing time is listed below: however, beforetesting the samples were also subjected to 24 hours water immersion.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A114
Strength Change
Based on SoilWithout
Curing Strength Additive
Additive Additive Days psi %
None 0 1 145 -
4 1727 195 -
Sodium sulfate 0.5 1 217 +504 247 +447 275 +41
ET-224 Dispersant 0.1 1 165 +144 260 +517 304 +56
Barium chloride 1.0 1 100 Negative4 145 Negative7 172 Negative
Sodium fluosilicate 1.0 1 78 Negative4 96 Negative
7 126 Negative
Effectiveness: Sodium sulfate (0.5 percent) and ET-224 dispersant(0.1 percent) were effective in combination with 5 percent cement forstabilizing loess soil.
All5
Category*
CementBasic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Sodium sulfate 1% Not givenSodium metasilicate 1% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay GoodClay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments See comment
compression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
The untreated samples were not suitable for compression tests after4 days cure followed by 4 days wetting by capillary action.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - The treated samples possessed some com-pressive strength (96 psi); however, the samples were not water-proof.
Clay - The samples possessed no strength nor were they water-proof.
* Basic material
A116
Category*Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Portland cement 10% Not given
Secondary Material
Sulfate compounds(see comments)
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Sand (Wisconsin #1) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comments:
Samples treated with each sulfate plus cement were compared to samplestreated with cement only. Cure time is shown below; however, inaddition to this time, samples prior to testing were immersed in water24 hours. Each additive was tested at several rates; however, themost effective is shown. Also, methods of adding additive weresolution, slurry, and dry mix with cement. The most effective methodis given.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A117
StrengthChange
Based on
Method Soil Cementof Without
Additive Adding Curing Strength AdditiveAdditive % Additives Days si
None 0 -- 1 25 --
4 20 --
7 19 --
28 23 --
Sodium sulfate 1.08 Solution 1 205 +7204 350 +16507 342 +1700
28 425 +1748
Calcium sulfate 1.10 Slurry 1. 165 +560anhydrite 4 280 +1300
7 363 +181028 413 +1696
Calcium sulfate 1.10 Slurry 1 183 +632hydrate (gypsum) 4 271 +1255
7 292 +143728 378 +1543
Magnesium sulfate 0.48 Solution 1 167 +5684 193 +8657 227 +1095
28 304 +1222
Effectiveness: The additives above are listed in the order of theireffectiveness. However, all additives were very effective in increasingthe strength of the cement-treated samples. The lowest increase in
effectiveness was 308 percent.
A118
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Type I normal 5% Not givenportland cement
Secondary Material
Chemical additives 0.5 and 1% Not given(see comments)
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Loess Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 36
Comments:
The treated samples with additives were compared to soil-cementtreated samples. Samples were cured for 7 and 28 days at roomtemperature in 100 percent relative humidity and then immersed inwater for 24 hours. The soil-cement strength after a 7-day curewithout additive was 180 psi and 260 psi after a 28-day cure.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A119
Strength Change Based on
Soil-Cement Without Additive, percentAdditive Percent 7-Day Cure 28-Day Cure
Quadrafos 0.5 +22 Negative
Lignosol X2D 0.5 +22 Negative
1.0 +47 +6
Polyvinyl alcohol (50-42) 1.0 +25 Negative
Piccolyte S125 0.5 +3 Negative
Picco XX-IOOB 0.5 +25 01.0 +28 Negative
Vinsol 0.5 +8 Negative
Arquad 2HT 0.5 +6 Negative
Calcium hydroxide 0.5 +14 Negative
Sodium hydroxide 0.5 +89 +491.0 +87 +77
Sodium sulfite 0.5 +81 +151.0 +67 +32
Sodium carbonate 0.5 +44 +111.0 +72 +27
Other chemical additives used with 5 percent cement-treated soil sampleswere as follows:
Pozzolith 2AA Ferric sulphate
Daxad 21 Ferric chloride
Arcolor 4465 Calcium chloride
Phosphorus pentoxide Sodium chloride
Darex polyvinyl acetate X52L Potassium permanganate
These materials, when used, either gave no increase in compressive
strength over the 5 percent cement treated samples or gave less strength(chemicals were detrimental to strength).
(Continued on next page)
A120
Effectiveness. As seen from the percent increase in compressive
strength when the additives were used, only sodium hydroxide (1percent rate) gave any significant increase in strength. Sodiumsulfite and sodium carbonate gave the nec t highest increase instrength.
Samples with 10 percent of cement without additives have strength of415 and 525 psi for 7 and 28 days cure, respectively. These values
are 135 percent over the strength value for the 5 percent of cement(plus additives), 7-day cure, and 102 percent over the strengthvalue for the 5 percent of cement (plus additives), 28-day cure.
A121
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Type I normal 5% Not givenportland cement
Secondary Material
Chemical additives 0.5 and 1.0% Not given(see comments)
Mixingaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 36
Comments:
The treated samples with additives were compared to soil-cementtreated samples. Samples were cured for 7 and 28 days at roomtemperature in 100 percent relative humidity and then immersed inwater for 24 hours.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A122
Strength Change Based on
Soil-Cement Without Additive, Percent
Additive Percent 7-Day Cure 28-Day Cure
Quadrafos 0.5 +32 +791.0 +48 +132
Aroclor 4465 0.5 +16 +291.0 +21 +21
Vinsol 0.5 +5 +331.0 +26 +33
Piccopale emulsion A-1 0.5 +11 +21
1.0 +37 +12
Piccopale emulsion A-35 0.5 +53 +751.0 +16 +46
Calcium chloride 0.5 +58 +751.0 +48 +62
Sodium chloride 0.5 +69 +751.0 +90 +133
Potassium chloride 0.5 +16 +291.0 +53 +133
Potassium permanganate 0.5 +63 +921.0 +126 +204
Potassium dichromate 0.5 +84 +1131.0 +95 +142
Sodium hydroxide 0.5 +74 +1001.0 +174 +200
Calcium hydroxide 0.5 +5 +171.0 +16 +21
Potassium hydroxide 1.0 +156 +83
Sodium sulfite 0.5 +200 +1261.0 +137 +146
Sodium carbonate 0.5 +216 +1741.0 +240 +106
(Continued on next page)
A123
Other chemical additives used with 5 percent cement-treated soil
samples were as follows:
Pozzolith 2AA PVA (65-98)Daxad 21 PVA (65-98) + paraformaldehyde
Lignosol X2D Phosphorus pentoxideLosorb BoraxPVA (5-88)PVA (5-88) + Par'formaldehyde
These materials when used either gave no increase in compressivestrength over the 5 percent cement treated samples or gave lessstrength (chemicals were detrimental to the strength).
Effectiveness. As seen from the percent increase in compressivestrength when the additives were used, sodium hydroxide (1 percentrate), potassium permanganate (1 percent rate), sodium carbonate(0.5 and 1.0 percent rates), and sodium sulfite (0.5 and 1.0 percentrates) were quite effective. Potassium hydroxide (1.0 percent rate),potassium dichromate (0.5 and 1.0 percent rates), sodium chloride(1.0 percent rate), and potassium chloride (1.0 percent rate) werenext in order of effectiveness.
A124
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Type I normal 5% Not givenportland cement
Secondary Material
Chemical additives 0. 5 and 1% Not given(see comments)
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Silty clay Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 36
Comments:
The treated samples with additives were compared to soil-cement
treated samples. Samples were cured (for 7 and 28 days) at roomtemperature in 100 percent relative humidity and then immersed in
water for 24 hours. The soil-cement strength after a 7-day curewithout additive was 300 psi and 435 psi after a 28-day cure.
(Continued on next page)
Basic material
A125
Strength Change Based onSoil-Cement Without Additive
Additive Percent 7-Day Cure 28-Day Cure
Aroclor 4465 0.5 +12 +231.0 +31 +23
Vinsol 0.5 +12 Neative1.0 +20 +3
Sodium chloride 0.5 +7 Negative1.0 +6 +10
Potassium chloride 0.5 +6 Negative
Potassium permanganate 1.0 +65 +43
Darex polyvinyl 0.5 +6 Negative
Quadrafos 0.5 +38 +381.0 +105 +105
Sodium hydroxide 0.5 +169 +2651.0 +174 +215
Sodium sulfite 0.5 +7 +331.0 +130 +174
Sodium carbonate 0.5 +93 +1121.0 +200 +199
Other chemical additives used with 5 percent cement soil-treated sampleswere as follows:
Polyvinyl alcohol (50-42) Arquad 2HT
Piccolyte S125 Acetate X52L
Potassium hydroxide Calcium chloride
Ferric chloride PVA (5-88)
Ferric sulfate PVA (5-88) + paraformaldehyde
Phosphorus pentoxide
These materials, when used, either gave no increase in compressivestrength over the 5 percent cement-treated samples or gave less strength(chemicals were detrimental to strength).
(Continued on next page)
A126
Effectiveness. As seen from the percent increase in compressivestrength when the additives were used, only potassium permanganate(1 percent rate), Quadrafos (1 percent rate), sodium hydroxide (0. 5 andI percent rates), sodium sulfite (1 percent rate), and sodium carbonate(0. 5 and 1 percent rates) showed any real effectiveness.
Samples with 10 percent of cement without additives had strengthof 560 and 665 psi for 7- and 28-days curing, respectively. Thesevalues are 87 percent over the strength value for 5 percent ofcement (7-day cure) and 53 percent over the strength value for5 percent of cement and 28-day cure.
The chemical additives [Quadrafos (1 percent rate), sodium hydroxide(0. 5 and 1 percent rates), sodium sulfite (1 percent rate), and sodiumcarbonate (0. 5 and 1 percent rates)] are the only ones that, when usedwith 5 percent of cement-treated samples, exceeded the strength ofsamples treated only with 10 percent of cement.
A127
Category*
Cement
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Type I portland cement 6% (on lean clay) Not given
5% (on heavy clay)
Secondary Material
Sodium hydroxide (with 1% Not givenheavy clay only)
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay GoodHeavy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilize r See comments Excellentcompressionand traffic
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 9
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples (18 psi).Samples were prepared using the Harvard Miniature CompactionApparatus in five layers (each layer was compacted with ten tamps ofa 40-lb spring tamper). Samples were tested after 24 hours cureunder 100 percent relative humidity and after 24 hours cure under100 percent relative humidity followed by immersion in water for24 hours.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A128
Laboratory tests: The 6 percent portland cement treated lean clay inunconfined compression tests met the requirements of Category 2stabilization, and 5 percent portland, cement with 1 percent sodiumhydroxide with heavy clay soil also met the Category 2 requirements.
Traffic tests: The materials as listed for the laboratory tests alsomet the requirements for emergency military operations.
A129
PmaCDi~a PAaz BLAUCvNO flLMID
Category: Lime
A131.
Category*
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Hydrated lime 2.5, 4, and 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Additives: Sodium hydroxide i% Not givenSodium sulfate, sodium carbonate, 1% Not givenMagnesium sulfate, calcium oxide 1 and 2 % Not givenCalcium hydroxide 2.5% Not givenPortland cement 2.5% Not given
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Test Material Increase Effectiveness
-iconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Internal Data (1960),not published
Comments:Samples were prepared in a Harvard miniature compaction apparatus, fivelayers, ten tamps per layer with a 40-1b spring tamper. Treated sampleswere compared to untreated samples.
Effectiveness: Even though all combinations of the trcated samples hadstrength increases, all combinations did not meet the requirements ofCatefory 2 stabilization.
The 4 percent hydrated lime plus 1 percent sodium sulfate and 2.5 percenthydrated lime plus 2.5 percent calcium oxide were the only two combinationsof materials which satisfied the requirements.
Basic material
A132
Category*Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium hydroxide 6.6% Not given(slaked lime)
Secondary Material
Mixingaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Solid (lumps) Clay (Vicksburg) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 41
Comments:
Treated samples were not compared to untreated samples. Testswere conducted after a 24 hour humid cure followed by a 24 hourwater immersion.
The strength of the treated samples was 150 psi.
* Basic material
A133
Ca t ego r v *
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium hydroxide 6.6% Not given(slaked lime)
Secondary Material
Magnesium sulfate 1 25% Not given
Mixing'laterial Form* rype of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clay (Vicksburg) Good
Effect ivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 41
Comments:
Treated samples with additive compared to samples treated onlywith basic material. Tests conducted after a 24 hour humid curefollowed by a 24 hour water immersion.
The strength of the samples was 165 psi which was an increase of10 percent over those with only the hydroxide (150 psi).
* Basic material
Al1 4
Ca t ego ry*Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium and magnesium CaO - 3, 2, and 1% Not givenlimes (DaO and MgO) MgO - 1, 2, and 3%
Secondarv Material
Magnesium sulfate 1% Not given
Mix ing
'I tcrial Form* Ty of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay GoodHeavy clay
17f fect ivePurpose of Strength
T*pc of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilize r See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Internal Data(1961), not
publishedComments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples (20 psi) and tosamples treated with 4 percent calcium oxide plus 1 percent magnesiumsulfate (139 psi). The samples were cured at 100 percent relativehumidity for one day and then tested for Category 2 stabilization.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A135
Effectiveness: The only combination of materials on lean clay whichgave an increase over the 4 percent CaO plus 1 percent MgSO 4 was
3 percent CaO plus 1 percent MgSO 4 plus 1 per cent MgO (154 psi).
On the heavy clay soil, 3 percent CaO plus 1 percent MgO plus1 percent MgSO 4 was effective (162 psi).
A136
Category*
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium oxide 1, 2, 5, and 7% Not given
Secondary Material
Mixing
'laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Solid (lumps) Clay (Houston black) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 41
Comments:
Treated samples not compared to untreated samples. Tests wereconducted ater a 24 hour humid cure followed by a 24 hour waterimmersion.
Effectiveness: Two percent calcium oxide added to the soil gave thehighest strength (315 psi). The next highest strength was 260 psi atthe 5 percent rate.
Basic material
A137
Category*
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium oxide (lime) 5% Not given
Secondary Material
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Solid (lumps) Clay (Vicksburg) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 41
Comments:
Treated samples were not compared to untreated samples. Tests
conducted after a 24 hour humid cure followed by a 24 hour waterimme r s ion.
Strength of the treated samples was 125 psi.
* Basic material
A1 38
Category*
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium oxide 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Additives (see comments)
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Solid (lumps) Clay (Houston black) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 41
Comments:
Samples treated with additives compared to samples treated with 5percent calcium oxide (260 psi strength). Tests conducted ater a 24hour humid cure followed by a 24 hour water immersion.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
Al 39
Strength Change Basedon Samples Treated
Additive Strength with Calcium OxideAdditive % psi %
None 0 260 --
Magnesium sulfate 1.25 390 +50
Sodium metasilicate 1.57 345 +33
Magnesium sulfate plus 1.25 505 +94sodium metasilicate 1.37
Zinc sulfate i.46 205 Negative
Nickel sulfate 1.34 450 +73
Effectiveness: All additives except zinc sulfate gave higher strength
than samples with the calcium oxide only.
Magnesium sulfate (1.25 Dercent) plus sodium metasilicate (1.57percent) were additives which gave the most improvement in strength.
A140
Category*
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium oxide 5% Not given
Secondary Material
See comments for additives
Hixing
Iaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Solid (lumps) Clay (Vicksburg) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompre ssion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 41
Comments:
Samples treated with additives compared to samples treated withcalcium oxide only. Tests were conducted ater a 24 hour humidcure followed by a 24 hour water immersion.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A141
Strength Change Basedon Soil Treated
with Calcium OxideAdditive Strength Without Additive
Additive % psi %
None 0 125 --
Magnesium carbonate 0.47 115 Negative
Magnesium fluoride 0.32 125 0
Magnesium oxide 0.20 110 Negative
Ammonium chloride 2.50 140 +12
Sodium metasilicate 1.30 170 +36
Sodium metasilicate plus 1.30 265 +112magnesium sulfate 1.25
Sodium metasilicate plus 2.00 270 +116magnesium sulfate 1.25
Zinc sulfate 1.46 200 +60
Nickel sulfate 1.34 170 +36
Copper sulfate 0.81 170 +36
Aluminum sulfate 1.69 100 Negative
Zinc sulfate plus 1.46 210 +68sodium metasilicate 1.54
Nickel sulfate plus 1.34 190 +52sodium metasilicate 1.54
Copper sulfate plus 0.81 180 +44sodium metasilicate 1.54
Effectiveness: The additives and/or combination of additives with theplus percentages are more effective than samples treated with tne calciumoxide only. Below are the additives which are most effective:
Sodium metasilicate (2 percent) plus magnesium sulfate (1.25 percent).Sodium metasilicate (1.30 percent) plus magnesium sulfate (1.25percent).
A142
Category*Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium oxide (lime) 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Magnesium sulfate 1.25% Not given
Mixing
'1aterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Solid (lumps) Clay (Vicksburg) Good
Effective
Purpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 41
Comments:
Treated samples with additives were compared to samples treated
with only 5 percent calcium oxide. Tests were conducted after a 24
hour humid cure followed by a 24 hour water immersion.
The strength of the samples was 235 psi. This represents an in-
crease of 88 percent over the strength of the calcium oxide (125 psi)
treated samples.
* Basic material
A143
Category*
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium oxide 4 and 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Magnesium sulfate 1. 0 and 1. 25% Not given
Potassium sulfate 1.25% Not given
Magnesium chloride 1.25% "i Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Solid (lumps) Clay (Vicksburg) Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples with basic material and/or additives were not compared tountreated samples. Tests were conducted after a 24 hour humid curefollowed by 24 hours water immersion.
Effectiveness: Calcium oxide (5 percent rate) alone was effective in
stabilizing the soil (195 psi).
Calcium oxide (5 percent rate) with the addition of 1. 25 percentmagnesium sulfate treated samples had a somewhat higher
strength (210 psi).
(Continued on next page)Basic material
A1L4
Calcium oxide with the other additives gave somewhat lowerstrengths.
A145
Category*
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium oxide plus 3% Not givenmagnesium sulfate plus 0.75%cutback asphaltSecondary Material
Solvent - gasoline 2:1 (asphalt, gasoline) Not given
MixingIlaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Calcium oxide - powder Lean clay GoodMagnesium sulfate - crystals Clay GoodCutback asphalt - liquid
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 25
Comments:
Samples were subjected to 4 days dry cure followed by 4 dayswetting by capillary action. Untreated samples after wetting werenot suitable for compression tests.
Effectiveness: Lean clay - The samples possessed good compressivestrength (191 psi) and the materials waterproofed the samples.
Clay - Same as lean clay except the strength was 188 psi.
* Basic material
A146
Category*Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Quicklime 1-5% Not given
Secondary Material
Mixing
Ilaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Solid Clayey silt, silt, clay, Goodand loess
E ffec tive
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Cone Stabilizer See comments Excellentpenetromete r
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 17
Comments:
Quicklime was tested for suitability as a category I stabilizer withthe four soils and percentage of treatment below:
(Continued on next page)
Basic material
Ai47
Required Strength of Percent
Strength Treated StrengthAfter Samples Increase
Quicklime 2 Hours Cure 2 Hours Cure OverSoil % psi psi Required
Clayey silt 1 125 210 682 460 2683 86o 588
Silt 3 125 230 84
Clay 3 125 170 36
5 340 172
Loess 1 125 160 283 520 316
5 970 670
Effectiveness: All four soils are effectivenly stabilized to meet therequirements of category I stabilization by using 1 to 3 percent
Quicklime.
A148
Category*
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Quicklime 3, 4, and 5% $1. 00 per 100 lb
Secondary Material
Magnesium sulfate 0. 25, 0. 5, 1. 0, 1. 5, 2,and 3 % $5. O0 per 100 lb
Mixingaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay, heavy clay, Goodclayey silt, silt, blue clay,sandy clay, and sand
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent exceptcompression for silt and sand
soils
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
See comments WES Reference 17
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples. Various com-binations were used of the basic material with the secondary materialon lean clay. It was found that 4 percent quicklime with 1 percentmagnesium sulfate was most effective. This combination was thenused in preparing samples with the other soils. Samples were pre-pared using the Harvard Miniature Compaction Apparatus in fivelayers (each layer was compacted with ten tamps of a 40-lb springtamper). After 24 hours cure under 100 percent relative humidity,the samples were tested.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A149
The strength of all untreated samples was about 20 psi. The in-creast.! in the strength of the treated soils (except silt and sand) wassufficient for the 4 percent quicklime and 1 percent magnesium sul-fate to be considered as Category 2 stabilizers. Silt and sandtreated samples did not meet Category 2 stabilization.
Traffic tests were also conducted on sections of heavy clay and leanclay treated soils. The sections were treated with 4 percent quick-lime and 1 percent magnesium sulfate. These sections withstoodtraffic requirements for emergency military operations.
Costs: A 4 percent quicklime/i percent magnesium sulfate treatmentwould cost about $0. 85 per sq yd (12 in. deep) exclusive of construct-ion or other costs, as the quicklime was about $1. 00 per 100 lb andsulfate was about $5. 00 per 100 lb.
A150
Category*
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Quicklime 3. 5, and 8% Not given
Secondary Material
Mix ing'laterial FPorm* Type of Soil T_._datLed Capabilitv
Powder: Lean clay Good
Purpose of St rc: gt,
Type of Test Material I 1cr v. Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
Total Material CostPer Cu F:t
of '[reated Soil Test A en,, Test Report
Not given WES Reference 16
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples. Samples wereprepared using a Harvard Miniature Compaction Apparatus in fivelayers (each layer was compacted using ten Tamps ot a 40-lb springtamper). After curing for 24 hours under 100-pe.rc't relativehumidity, the samples were subjected to unconfin#d compressiontests using the criteria for Category 2 stabilizatior.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A151
The test results showed that for between 3 and 8 percent treatment withquicklime, the requirements for Category 2 stabilization were met. Addi-tional tests were conducted with 4 and 8 percent quicklime.
Traffic tests were also conducted. It was found that both 4 and 8 percentquicklime--stabilized soil surfaces are more than adequate for trafficrequirements for emergency military roads and airfield operations.
A152
L
Category*
Lime
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Quicklime 4 and 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Modifiers: See comments
Mixing
Material Parm* Tjpe of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Lean clay GoodHeavy clay Good
tEffect ivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments See commentscompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 18
Comments:
Samples were molded in a Harvard Miniature Compaction Apparatusin five layers (each layer compacted with ten tamps of a 40-1b springtamper). Samples were tested after a Z4-hour cure at 100 percentrelative humidity and after a 24-hour cure at 100 percent relativehumidity followed by 24 hours water immersion. The strength ofthe untreated soils was 20 psi. Materials which, when added to thesoils, helped to increase the strength from 20 to 100 psi or greaterwere considered to have potential as stabilizers.
(Continued on next page)
Basic material
A153
Quicklime (5 percent ) and quicklime (4 percent) plus the followingmodifiers were tested:
Magnesium sulfate (1%) 'Magnesium sulfate (1%) plus 0. 1%Sodium hydroxide n-octylamineMagnesium sulfate (1%) plus Magnesium sulfate (1%) plus 1%
alkyl dimethyl benzyl sodium orthosilicateammonium chloride (0. 5%) Magnesium sulfate (1%) plus 1%
Magnesium sulfate (1. 0%) sodium metasilicateplus 0. 5% amine D Magnesium sulfate (1%) plus 1%acetate sodium silicate solution
Magnesium sulfate (1. 0%) 3% quicklime plus 0. 75%plus 0. 5% octadecyl magnesium sulfate plus 3%amine acetate cutback asphalt
Magnesium sulfate (1%)plus 0. 5% octadecylamine
Effectiveness: Lean clay_- The strength of the dry cured samples of5 percent quicklime exceeded 100 psi (103); however, the strengthafter soaking wa5 only 28 psi. Several of the samples treated with4 percent quicklime plus modifier(s) had dry strength in excess of100 psi; however, the wet strengths were much less. The com-bination of materials which showed the most promise was: 4 per-cent quicklime plus 1 percent sodium sulfate and 1 percent sodiummetasilicate, with 151 psi dry strength and 69 psi after soaking.However, the wet strength did not meet the criteria of 100 psi.
Heavy clay - The strength of the dry cure samples of 4 percentquicklime plus 1 percent magnesium sulfate was 132 psi; however,the strength after soak was only 48 psi (which does not meet therequired minimum of 100 psi).
A154
Category: Resin
A155
PRECEDIND PAGE BLA INoT fLMD
Category*Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material CostAM9 (water-soluble 2.1 lb per sq yd Not givenacrylamide anddiacrylamide)
Secondary MaterialCatalyst - Dimethylamino-
propionitrile-potassiumferricyanide-ammonium persulfate
Solvent - water 8.8 lb per sa yd MixingMaterial Form* Type o Soil Trea ed CapabilityLiquid Sand Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test ReportNot given Ashland Chemical Co. Reference 57
Comments:Treated samples were not compared to untreated samples. Cure time was3 days at room termperature. Unconfined compression strength was 1723psi. After wet-dry (8 cycles), unconfined compression strength was1180 psi. Wet-dry cycles consisted of water immersion of samples for8 hours at room temperature, water drained off, and then samples weresubjectel to heat for 16 hours in a forced draft oven at 140 F.
* Basic material
A15T7)
Catego v*t sin
Basic Mlaterial Rate ot Material Cost
Aniline -t'Iu!ralan!! r-: ar
Sr'
Secondar . !_ateri.,
Mix i ng
'later i a I o rm* Type of Soil Treated CapabilityLiquid Loess Jood
Effect ivePurpose of Strength
Type of Iest Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfinea Stabilizer 696 ,' Excellentcomprelsio; Watoriroofer
Total \latere 11 (i -,tPer Ci I-
of Tlecst ,J -o I lest Agencyv Test Report
Not give- WES Reference 24
Comment.-:
Treated sa wrJs wc- !;cmared to untreated samples (23 psi unconfinedcompression strengtl). Sam;les prior to tests were air-dried for 4days follow,:-i ty !. d ays wet>ii by pcrmeation. Thle strength of thetreated sam'i. 2 was i- .'_ which was an increase of 696 percent.This mat.,riaI sLowcu rotential as a waterproofer.
'This mat, -ial wua" alL;o suLjt,,ted to field investigations at the WES asa dusturool',1 and water: roo:tr. The results indicated that furtherinvestiga'ion was warrartci.
* Basic material
A-5 8
Category*
Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Aniline furfural Aniline - 2% Aniline($0.16 per lb)
Furfural - 1% FurfuralSecondary Material ($0.18 per ib)
MixingMlaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay Good
Clay
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression Waterprooferand traffic Dustproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
$1.18 (1969 cost) WES Reference 51
Comments:
Samples for the laboratory tests were molded in a Harvard MiniatureCompaction Apparatus. After the samples were taken from the molds,they were air-dried for 4 days followed by wetting cycles by capil-lary action for 4 days. This completed one cycle. Four cycles werecompleted prior to sample testing.
Analine furfural proved to be a highly effective waterproofing agent.Numerous ratios and percentages of aniline to furfural were used indetermining the most effective combination. The rate given aboveproved to be all round the most effective.
* Basic material
A159
Category*Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material CostAropol 7110 2.6, 6.0, 6.5 Not given
and 8.7 lb per sq yd
Secondary Material
Solvent - styrene 15, 11.8, 15.5 Not givenand 15.4 lb per sq yd
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Sand Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test ReportNot given Ashland Chemical Co. Reference 57
Comments:Treated samples were not compared to untreated samples. Samples werecured for three days at room temperature. Strengths for 2.6 lb persq yd with 15 lb per sq yd solvent and 8.7 lb per sq yd solvent were1173 and 1890 psi, respectively. After 8 wet-dry cycles, thesestrengths were 1412 and 2020 psi. Each wet-dry cycle consisted ofimmersing the samples in water for 8 hours, pouring off water, andthen subjecting the samples to heat for 16 hours in a forced draftoven at 1400 F.
* Basic material
A160
Category*Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material CostArothane 170 4% Not given
Secondary MaterialSolvent - butyl acetate 3% Not given
Mixinglaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Sand Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given Ashland Chemical Co. Reference 57
Comments:
Treated samples were not compared to untreated samples. Strengthafter 3 days cure at room temperature was 706 psi. After 8 wet-drycycles, the strength was 667 psi. Each cycle consisted of immersingthe samples in water for 8 hours, pouring water off, and subje 8tingthe samples to heat for 16 hours in a forced draft oven at 140 F.
* Basic material
A161
Category*Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material CostBisphenol A 1.3, 2.6, 5.2, 6.9 Not given(Epon 828) and ii lb per sq yd
Secondary Material
Catalyst - Ashland #1496 " Included with basic materialSolvent - solox 5.1, 10.4, 14.6,
and 16.4 lb per sq yd Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
liquid Sand Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given Ashland Chemical Co. Reference 57
Comments:
Treated samples not compared to unt,eated samples. A strength of 1079psi was achieved as a use level of 5.2 lb per sq yd resin and 5.1 persq yd solvent. This strength was achieved aft r three days cure.Wet-dry resistance was determined by immersing the specimens in waterfor eight hours at room temperature, drainin, the water, an8 subject-ing them to heat for 16 hours in a forced draft oven at 140 F. Aftereight cycles, they were subjected to unconfined compression tests.The strength of the specimens at the rate given above was 1140 psi.
* Basic material
A162
Category*Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material CostCalcium acrylate 7% Not given
Secondary Material
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Loess Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer 408% Excellent
compression Dustproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test ReportNot given WES Reference 24
Comments:Treated samples were compared to untreated samples (23 psi unconfinedcompression strength). Samples prior to tests were air-dried for 4days followed by 4 days wetting by permeation. The strength of thetreated samples was 117 psi which was an increase of 408 percent.This material showed potential as a waterproofer.
This material was also subjected to field investigations at the WESas a dustproofer and waterproofer. The results did not indicatethat further work with this material should be coneucted.
Basic material
A16 3
Cat ego r y*Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium acrylate Varied Not given
Secondary MaterialSee comments for catalystsand activators
Mixing
'laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated CapabilityPowder Sandy clay
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Tensile Stabilizer See comments See comments
Total Material .CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency' Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 31
Comments:
Treated samples were not compared to untreated samples. A series ofsoil-calcium acrylate solutions with a pH range of 3.7 to 9.9 werestudied. It was found that as the pH increased. the tensile strengthand flexibility increased. Various inhibitors, activators, andcatalysts used with calcium acrylate are shoi-.n in the following table:
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A164
Inhibitors Activators Catalysts
Benzoquinone Sodium theiosulfate Ammonium pursulfateHydroquinone Sodium sulfite Potassium persulfatePicric acid Sodium bisulfite Hydrogen peroxideMethylene blue Sodium hydrosulfite Sodium pyrophosphate
peroxideSodium sulfide Sodium carbonate
peroxidePotassium ferrocyanide Sodium perborsilicateFerrous sulfate Calcium peroxideSilver nitride Urea peroxideStannous chloride t-butyl hydroperoxideCuprous chloride 1-hydroxycyclohexyl-Cupric sulfate hydroperoxide-1Titanium sulfateinHydrochloric acidHydroxylamine hydrochlorideHydrazine hydrateHydrazine sulfate
HydroquinoneCatechol
ResorcinolPhloroglucinol
DextroseTetramethylene pentamine
The properties of a soil stabilized by the in-situ polymerization ofcalcium acrylate depend on the method of polymerization. The type ofredox system used has the most influence. Three satisfactory redoxsystems were found: ammonium persulfate-sodium thiosulfate, potassiumpersulfate-sodium thiosulfate, and t-butyl hydroperoxide-sodiumthiosulfate.
A165
Category*
Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Calcium acrylate Varied Not given
Secondary Material
Salt additives (below) Varied Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Sandy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Tensile Stabilizer See comments See comments
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test ReportNot given MIT Reference 31
Comments:Treated'samples not compared to untreated samples.
a. Ten of the salts tested are -- ammonium., lithium, sodium,magnesium, manganese, and nickel chlorides, and sodim, magnesium,manganese, and nickel sulfates-- had minor effects on the tensilestrength.
b. Two salts, calcium chloride and aluminum chloride, increasedthe tensile strength at the highest ratios.
c. Three salts, zinc chloride, zinc sulfate, and chromium chloride,increased the tensile strength markedly.
* Basic material
A166
Category*Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material CostCalcium acrylate Varied Not given
Secondary Material
Various salts (see comments)
MixingPlaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Sandy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Tensile Stabilizer See comments See comments
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 32
Comments:
Various salts tested with calcium acrylate are given below. Nostrength values were given; however, a work description of the testresults was given on each salt tested.
Ammonium chloride - No appreciable effect on the strength ofsamples.
Lithium chloride - No appreciable effect on the strength ofsamples.
Sodium chloride - No appreciable effect on the strength of samples
(Continued on next page)Basic material
A167
Sodium sulfate - No effect on the tensile strength, however, the
elongation was increased with increasing amounts of sulfate.
Potassium chloride - Prevented solidification of samples.
Barium chloride - Prevented solidification of samples.
Copper sulfate - Prevented solidification of samples.
Ferric chloride - Prevented solidification of samples
Lead acetate - Prevented solidification of samples.
Magnesiom chloride - Ao appreciable effect on strength of samples.
Magnesium sulfate - No appreciable effect on strength of samples.
Nickel chloride - No appreciable effect on strength of samples.
Nickel sulfate - No apprecialbe effect on strength of samples.
Manganous chloride - No effect on tensile strength; however, the
elongation decreased.
Manganous sulfate - Slight increase in tensile strength and a
slight decrease in elongation.
Zinc chloride - Slight increase in tensile strength and a great
increase in elongation.
Zinc sulfate - Increased tensile strength, decreased elongation,and samples brittle.
Aluminum sulfate - Increased tensile strength, decreased elongation,
and samples brittle.
Chromium chloride - Increased tensile strength, decreased elong-
ation, and samples brittle.
A168
Category*
Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Epon VIII 20%O Not given
Secondarv Material
Curing agentsAgent A (amine) le';% Not 7 iv'efDiethylenetriamine 10% Not given(see comments)
Water 35to f0(,0
Mix ingMaterial Form* Tnpe of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Sandy clay Good
Effect ivePurpose of Strength
Tlype of Test Material Increase _Fffectiveness
Tensile Stabilizer See comments None
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil 'Test Agency 'Test Report
Not given :-"IT Re~, -c c 34
Comments;
Treated samples were not compared to untreat-d ,-trnies.
a. Agent A (amine). After 4 hours curin,: wu in an ovcn at 110 0 Ctensile strength of 410 psi for the dry 'saiplL was obtaiv-,I. Aftersoak tests, the strength dropped to 220 psi.
(Continued on next page)
*Basic material
0b. Diethylenetriamine. After 4 hours curing time in an oven at110 C, tensile strength of 400 psi for the dry samples was obtained.After soak tests, the strength dropped to 210 psi.
Samples treated with materials that have to oven cure are impracticalfor field use.
A170
Category*Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Epon 562 10% Not given
Secondary Material70% diethylene triamine 2% Not given30% dimethyl aminomethyl phenol 2% Not given
(above 2 are curing agents)Acetone (solvent) 10% Not givenPotassium hydroxide (KOH) 1% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Sandy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Tensile Stabilizer See comments See comments
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT See comments
Comments:
The samples where acetone was used as a solvent were compared to samplestreated with resin only.
Effectiveness: For the same period of cure time, the samples with thesolvent had an increase in tensile strength of 46 percent. Therefore,the solvent is effective for achieving a faster cure rate.
The potassium hydroxide when used with Epon 562 caused a detrimental effecton the strength of the samples.
* Basic material
A171
Category*
Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Epon 828 10% based on wight of dry Not givensoil
Secondarv Materiil
Xylene 10% Not givenCuring agents
Diethylene triamine 20% on weight of resin Not givenDiethylaminomethyl phenol 20% on weight of resin Not givenMixtures of above curing 20% on weight of resin Not given
agentsPolyethylenimine 20% on weight of resin Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Sandy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Fype of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Tensile Stabilizer See comments Excellent
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference
Comments:
Treated samples not compared to untreated samples. Curing agent,diethylene triamine, when used in preparing test samples, yielded soilswith dry and iewet tensile strengths (160 to 200 psi); however, thesesystems du not develop high strength on curing under wet conditions.These strengths were developed only after one to six days cure time.Diethylaminomethyl phenol as a curing agent yielded soil of low dry andrewet strength (h0 and 3 psi) but developed somewhat higherstrength of 80 psi, rewet of 70 psi, and also 80 psi strength on curingunder wet conditions. The use of polyethyleneimine gave poor resultswher used as a curing agent.
* Basic material
A172
Category*
Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Epon 828 10% of dry soil weight Not given
Secondary Material70% diethylene triamine 2% on dry soil Not given30% dimethyl aminomethyl phenol weight
(curing agents)Solvents - see comments
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Sandy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Tensile Stabilizer See comments See comments
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 37
Comments:
Solvents used were acetone (1 to 3 percent) and zylene (1 percent). Thesewere used separately with the basic material and secondary materials. Thetreated samples where the solvent was used were compared to samplestreated with the resin only.
Effectiveness: The samples where the xylene was used had less tensilestrength than those treated with only the resin.
The acetone accelerated the curing of the samples. As compared to(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A173
samples treated with only the resin and after one day cure time and24 hours water imnersion, the samples treated with acetone had astrength increase of 66 percent.
A174
Category*Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Epon 828 3, 5, and 10% Not given
Secondary Material
Curing agent: 7:1 ratio of 20% Not givendiethylene triamine todimethyl aminomethyphonel
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay and heavy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See coments Nonecompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Internal Data(1956-57), not published
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples. Preparation of sampleswas with a Harvard miniature compaction apparatus, five layers, ten tampsper layer with a 20-1b spring tamper. The samples were tested against CCategory 1 stabilization requirements.
Effectiveness: The strength increase of the treated samples as compared tothe untreated samples varied from 400 to 600 percent; however, this did notsatisfy the requirements.
* Basic material
A175
Category*
Resin
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Epon 828 20% Not given
Secondary Material
Curing agentsTetraethylenepentamine 10% Not givenDiethylenetriamine 10 and 15% Not given
Water (See comments) 35 and ho%
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Sandy clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Tensile Stabilizer See comments See comments
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 34
Comments:
These samples were cured at room temperatur.
a. Tetraethylenepentamine. Very low tensile strengths were developedafter a long curing time of seven days with this curing agent. Effect-inveness - None.
b. Diethylenetriamine. Relatively high tensile strengths weredeveloped (395 to 530 psi with the different rates of the curing agent)after long curing times of 7 to 12 days. The samples after the soaktests retained most of the dry cure strength. Effectiveness - Moderate.
(Continued on next page)* Basic material
A176
Other curing agentz; were sta wit.h Apon 83-, at rates which varied
from 6 to 67 percent, depending on which agent was used with 834.Long curing times from three to seven days were required on dry-cured samples and from two to seven days on wet-cured samples. Thedry-cured samples had good tensile strengths; however, they were poor
after the soak test. Agents used in the dry-cured samples werediethylenetriamine, monothanolamine, benzylamine, hexamethylenediamine,citric acid, polyamide 115, dimethylaminc'!ethylphenol, and 2,4,6-tridimethylaminomethylphonel.
Agents used in the wet-cured samples were citric acid,diethylenetriamine, polyamide 115, and dimethylaminomethylphenol.The strength of the wet-cured samples was poor even after two toseven days of cure time.
A177
PRECEDINIO PAGE BLAN4K.NOT FIME
Category: Salt
A179
Category*
Salt
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Arquad 2HT 0.5% Not given(Dialkyl dimethyl-ammonium chloride)
Secondary Material
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Paste Loess Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer 374% Excellent
compression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 24
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples (23 psi
strength). Samples prior to tests were air-dried for 4 days followedby 4 days wetting by permeation. The strength of the treatedsamples was 109 psi which was an increase of 374 percent. Thismaterial showed potential as a waterproofer.
This material was also subjected to field investigations as a water-proofer and dustproofer at WES and the results indicated that furthertests of this material were warranted.
* Basic material
a 180
Category: Silicate
A181
PRECEDIN[ PAGE BLO&NOT FILMED
Category*
Silicate
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Sodium silicate (30% 14.5% Not givensolution)
Secondary Material
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Loess Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer 243% Excellentcompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 24
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples (23 psi un-confined compression strength). Samples prior to tests were aid-dried for 4 days followed by 4 days wetting by permeation. The
strength of the treated samples was 79 psi which was a 243 percentincrease. This material showed some potential as a waterproofer.
This material was also subjected to field investigations at the WES
as a waterproofer and dustproofer. The results indicated that nofurther tests were warranted.
* Basic material
A183
Category*
Silicate/Other
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Sodium silicate plus Varied (see comments) Not givenbasic magnesium carbonate
Secondary Material
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder plus powder Loess Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compres sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given IT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with basic materials were not compared to untreatedsamples. (Sodium silicate is a combination of silicon dioxide andsodium oxide.)
The effects of varying the silica and magnesium content'a werestudied. For each test, two of the components were held at thesame rate while the rate of the third one varied.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A184
Effectiveness:
Silica content varied. 2. 51, 3. 82, and 5.12 percent withmagnesium (1. 80 percent) and sodium (1. 59 percent) corstant.Highest strength achieved was 140 psi at 3. 82 percent silica.
Magnesium content varied. 1. 20, 1. 80, 2. 40, and 3. 00 percentwith silica (5.12 percent) and sodium (1. 59 percent) constant.Highest strength achieved was 105 psi at 3. 00 percent magnesium.
The most effective combination for stabilization was 3. 82 percentsilica, 1. 59 percent sodium, and 1. 80 percent magnesium - 140 psi.
Al-85
Category*
Silicate
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Sodium silicate N 21.6% Not given
Secondary Material
Solvent - water 3%
Mixing
Iaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Sand Good
lFffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given Ashland Chemical Co. Reference 57
Comments:
Treated samples were not compared to untreated samples. Initialtests were conducted after three days cure at room temperature.Strength was 650 psi, After the 8 wet-dry cycles, the strengthdropped to 240 psi. Each wet-dry cycle consisted of immersion ofthe samples in water for 8 hours, pouring off the water, and dryingfor 16 hours in a forced draft oven at 140 0 F.
* Basic material
A186
Category*
Silicate
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Sodium silicate (composed 1. 59% sodium oxide Not givenof two components at 3. 82% silicon dioxideright)Secondary MaterialPrecipitating agents:Magnesium oxide 0. 77, 1.03, and 1. 54% Not givenMagnesium carbonate 1. 2 and 1. 8% Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with each precipitating agent were not compared tosamples without treatment. Tests were conducted after one day humidcure plus one day water immersion.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A187
Effectiveness: The basic material with 1. 8 percent magnesium car-bonate was the most effective stabilizer (650 psi).
All rates of each agent were effective in stabilizing the soil.Magnesium oxide (1. 54 percent) gave the highest strength with thisagent only.
A combination of the two; 1. 2 percent magnesium carbonate plus0. 26 percent magnesium oxide, gave a strength of 565 psi.
The reaction of magnesium oxide is very slow; however, it has threeadvantages over magnesium carbonate: (1) smaller weight must beadded to the soil per equivalent of magnesium, (2) magnesium oxide ismore dense and less bulky for a given weight, and (3) the carbonateion is not present in the oxide and the problem of possible sodiumcarbonate crystallization is eliminated.
A188
Category*
Silicate
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Sodium silicate 1 and 5% Not given(49.8% solids, potassium
oxide to silicon dioxide =
1:1.58)Secondary MaterialPrecipitantCalcium hydroxide 4.12, 2.17, l.6, 0.46, 0.23% Not givenCalcium sulfate 2.24% Not givenMagnesium oxide 1.25% Not givenMagnesium carbonate 2.63, 1.97, 1.32, 0.53, 0.27% Not given
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
White lumps or powder Clayey silt Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comments:
Samples treated with each precipitant were not compared to samples treatedwith basic material only. Samples were tested in various combinations(percent) with basic material and precipitants. The most promisingbased on 24 hours humid cure strength are given in order of effective-ness:
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
Al189
Sodium Silicate 24 Hours Huid Cure-% -Precipitant () Compressive Strength, psi
5 Magnesium - 1.97 490carbonate
5 Calcium - 4.12 282hydroxide
Al190
Category*
Silicate
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Sodium silicate See comments Not given
Secondary Material
Magnesium carbonate See comments Not given(precipitant)
Mixing
Iaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
White lumps or powder Clayey silt Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comments:
Tests were run to detennine the effect of varying the amount of sili-con dioxide in the basic material and varying the amount of magnesiumcarbonate. A ratio of 1:2 and 1:1. 58 sodium oxide (Na 9) to silicon
dioxide (SiO 2 ) was used with equivalent Mg++ per 100 gm dry soil of
0. 0308, 0. 0462, and 0. 0615.
Effectiveness: The most effective ratio of qa 2O:SiO 2 was 1:2 and
equivalent Mg++ was 0.0462. The compressive strength of this com-
bination of basic material and precipitant was very high after 24 hourshumid cure followed by 24 hours water immersion - 665 psi.
Basic material
A191
Category*
Silicate
Basic Material Rate of Material CostSodium silicate 5% Not given(49.8% solids; sodium
oxide to silicon dioxide=1:1.58)Secondary MaterialPrecipitant - Magnesium carbonate 1.971 Not givenWaterproofing agents:Octylamine 0.11Arquad 12 (lauryl trimethyl 0.1%ammonium chloride)
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
White lumps or powder Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 39
Comments:
Samples treated with each waterproofing agent were compared to samplestreated with precipitant and basic material. Samples were cured for24 hours and immersed in water for 24 hours then tested.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A192
Strength ChangeBased on Treated
Samples WithoutWaterproofing
Waterproofing Agent Strength AgentPrecipitant (%) %_psi %
Magnesium carbonate(1.97) None (0) 380
Magnesium carbonate(1.97) Octylamine (0.10) 417 +10.0
Magnesium carbonate
(1.97) Arquad 12 (0.10) 452 +19.0
Effectiveness: The 24 hours humid cure strength of the magnesium-carbonate-treated samples was 490 psi. After 24 hours water immersion,the strength was 380 psi. This is a dropoff of 22 percent without awaterproofing agent. From these data listed above, the addition of thewaterproofing agents had little effect on improving the strength of thesamples.
A193
Category*
Silicate/Other
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Sodium silicate plus Sodium oxide - 1. 6% Not givencalcium hydroxide, Ca(OH) Silicon dioxide - 3. 8%
Calcium hydroxide - o. 95, 1.4,
Secondary Material 1.9, and 5.7%
Mixing'laterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder plus powder Clayey silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase EffectivenessUnconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent
compression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Sodium silicate is composed of sodium oxide and silicon dioxide.Strength of samples was determined after 24 hours cure plus 24hours water immersion. Treated samples were not compared to un-treated samples.
The only effective combination of materials was with 5. 7 percentcalcium hydroxide. A strength value of 173 psi resulted. It wasbelieved that the stabilization was primarily due to the sodiumhydroxide rather than the silicate, since the same amount of sodiumhydroxide with much smaller amounts of silicate stabilized the soilalmost as effectively.
* Basic material
A19h
Category*
Silic ate / Other
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Sodium silicate plus Varied (see comments) Not givenbasic magnesium carbonate
Secondary Material
MixingMIaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder plus powder Silt Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellentcompre s sion
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given MIT Reference 40
Comments:
Samples treated with basic materials were not compared to untreatedsamples. (Sodium silicate is a combination of silicon dioxide andsodium oxide.) The effects of varying the silica, magnesium, andsodium contents were studied. For each test, two of the componentswere held at the same rate while the rate of the third one varied.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A195
Effectiveness: Silica content varied. 2.51, 3.82, and 5.12 percentwith magnesium (1. 8 percent) and sodium (1. 59 percent) constant.Highest strength achieved was 180 psi at 5. 12 percent silica.
Magnesium content varied. 1. 20, 1. 80, and 2. 40 percent withsilica (5. 12 percent) and sodium (1.59 percent) constant. Higheststrength achieved was 235 psi at 2. 40 percent magnesium.
Sodium content varied. 1. 59, 2.14, and 3. 24 percent with silica(5.12 percent) and magnesium (1.80 percent) constant. Higheststrength achieved was 350 psi at the 2.14 percent sodium.
The most effective combination for stabilization was silica (5.12percent), magnesium (1. 80 percent), and sodium (2.14 percent) -
350 psi.
A196
Category: Other
A197
PRECEDINC pAcg BLA_ .. oT nLMZD
Category*
Other
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Chrome lignin 5% Not given
Secondary Material
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder Loess Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer 335% Excellent
compression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Reference 24
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples (23 psi unconfinedcompression strength). Samples prior to tests were air-dried for 4days followed by 4 days wetting by permeation. The strength of thetreated samples was 100 psi which was an increase of 335 percent.The material showed promise as a waterproofer.
This material was also subjected to field investigations at WES as adustproofer and waterproofer. Howevcr, the results Ii! not indicate
the need for further tests of this material.
* Basic material
A199
Category*
Other
Basic Material Rate of Material CostLignin (clarion extract) 1% (5%) Not given
Secondary MaterialSodium dichromate 0.17% (0.82%) Not givenSulfuric acid 0.17% (o.82%) Not givenSodium chloride 0.17% (0%)
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Clay Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments See commentscompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given Cornell University Reference 5
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples. These sampleswere allowed to air cure for varying amounts of time. Comparisonsof strengths are given below. The numbers in parentheses give theamount of each material used in a second test.
(Continued on next page)
* Basic material
A200
Strength Change
Basic Based onBasic Material Cure Time Strength Untreated Samples
Material %_ Days psi %
None 0 2 83 --
None 0 9 210 --
None 0 28 407 --
Lignin 1 1 25 Negative
Lignin 1 29 541 +33
Lignin 5 2 71 Negative
Lignin 5 14 404 +93
Effectiveness: After long periods of time, samples treated with 1 and5 percent lignin have an increase in strength with the 5 percent treat-ment the most effective.
A201
Category*
Other
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Powder A plus powder B 6.5 and 13% Not given
Secondary Material
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Powder loess and heavy clay Good
Effect ivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Goodcompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Internal Data(1974), notpublished
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples (24 psi). Sampleswere prepared with a Harvard miniature compaction apparatus, fivelayers, each layer ten tamps of a 40-lb spring tamper. Prior totests, samples were cured at 100 percent relative humidity followedby 24 hours water immersion.
Effectiveness: Loess - the 6.5 and 13 percent rates produced strengthincreases of 259 and 389 percent over the untreated samples.
Heavy clay - None. Samples disintegrated when subject to waterimmersion.
* Basic material
A202
Category*Other
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
SA-I See comments Not given
Secondary Material
Mixing11aterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay and heavy clay Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See commentscompression
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Internal Data
(1974), notpublished
Comments:
Preparation of the samples was with a Harvard miniature compactionapparatus, ten tamps on each of five layers with a 40-lb springtamper. The treated samples were compared to untreated samples.
Rate of material: Lean clay - 0.5 milliliter SA-1 to 99.5 milli-
liter of water
1 milliliter SA-1 to 999 milliliterwater
1.5 milliliters SA-1 to 998.5 milli-liters water
(Continued on next page)
Basic material
A203
2 milliliters SA-l to 998 milliliters water
Heavy clay - 0.5 milliliters SA-1 to 999.5 milliliters water2
2 milliliters SA-1 +o 999 milliliters water
Effectiveness: Lean clay - Jie only rate that met the requirementsof Category 2 stabilization was the third rate above.
Heavy clay - The only rate that met the requirements of Category2 stabilization was the second rate above.
Although the rates stated met the requirements of Category 2 stab-ilization, portland cement at 6 percent gave higher rates and is acheaper material.
A2o
Category*Other
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Sundcrete 3% Not given
Secondary Material
Mixing
Material Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Lean clay and sand Good
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent forcompression clay
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Not given WES Internal Data(1972), not pub-lished
Comments:
Preparation of samples was with a Harvard miniature compactionapparatus using ten tamps on each of five layers with a 20-lb springtamper. Treated samples of the lean clay soil were compared tountreated samples. The untreated sand samples fell apare and couldnot be tested.
Effectiveness: Sand - After 24 hours humid cure, the strength oftwo samples was l4-T'nd 186 psi. Two other samples were, in additionto the 24 hours humid cure, immersed in water for 24 hours. Thestrengths of these samples were 228 and 231 psi. Sand treated samplestherefore met the requirements of Category 2 stabilization.
Lean clay - Slight increase in strength; however, not enough to
satisfy Category 2 stbbilitation.
Basic material
A205
Category*Other
Basic Material Rate of Material Cost
Sodium methylethyl 1.0% Not givenpropyl siliconate
Secondary Material
Mixing4aterial Form* Type of Soil Treated Capability
Liquid Loess Good
Effective
Purpose of StrengthType of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer 417% Excellentcompression Waterproofer
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency, Test Report
Not giver WES Reference 24
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples (23 psi unconfinedcanpression strength.) Samples prior to tests were air-dried for 4days wetting by permeation. The strength of the treated samples was119 psi which was aa increase of 417 percent. The material showedpromise as a waterproofer.
This material was also subjected to field investigations at the WESas a dustproofer and waterproofer. The results indicated that furthertests of the material were warrented.
* Basic material
A206
Category*Other
Basic Material Rate of Material CostSoil-Set 3, 7, 10, 20, and 30% $0.75 per lb
Secondary Material
MixingMaterial Form* Type of Soil Treated CapabilityPowder Lean clay, heavy clay, and Good
sand
EffectivePurpose of Strength
Type of Test Material Increase Effectiveness
Unconfined Stabilizer See comments Excellent forcompression clay
Total Material CostPer Cu Ft
of Treated Soil Test Agency Test Report
Cost will vary from $2.50 WES Internal Data (1966),to $7.00 per sq yd per in. not published
Comments:
Treated samples were compared to untreated samples. Samples whentested to satisfy emergency requirements were prepared in a Harvardminiature compaction apparatus, ten tamps on each of five layerswith a 20-lb spring tamper. Samples were cured for 2 hours in 100percent relative humidity and then subjected to tests. Samples whentested to satisfy routine requirements were prepared in a Harvardminiature compaction apparatus, ten tamps on each of five layers witha 40-lb spring tamper. Tests were then conducted after a 24-hour cureof the samples under 100 percent relative humidity. Other sampleswere subjected to 24 hours humid cure followed by 24 hours waterimmersion.
(Continued on next page)* Basic material
A207
Effectiveness: Emergency requirements: Approximately 14 percent and 8percent Soil-Set are required to increase the strength of the lean andheavy clay, respectively, from 1 to 2 psi to 20 psi or higher in 2 hours.
Routine requirements: Approximately 6.5 and 9.0 percent of Soil-Set are required for lean and heavy clay, respectively, to increase thestrength from 20 to 100 psi in 24 hours.
The strength developing ability of Soil-Set treated fine sands is afunction of water content. For water content of 5 to 10 percent, approx-imately 15 percent Soil-Set by dry soil weight is required to satisfyroutine requirements. Excessively wet sands (water content >20 percent)do not respond to treatment by Soil-Set.
A208
In accordance with letter from DIAF.N-RI)C, DAEN-ASI dated22 July 1977, Subject: Facsimile Catalog Cards forLaboratory Technical Publications, a facsimile catalog
card in Library of Congress MARC format is reproduced
below.
Oldham, Jes_ ie C
Materials evaluated as potential soil stahil izers / byJessie C. Oldham, Royce C. lFavi.s, Peiev W. White, Jr.Vicksburg, Miss. : U. S. ,ater",a s V[pri ment Station,1977.
19, 44 3
a, 208 p. ; ,. 2Mi-ce I m'u. paper - U. S.Army rngineer Wat~rwa 'vs lxperinit t itation ; S
- 15)
Prepared for Office, "biet of fnvinecr , 1U. S. Army,Washington, ). C., r'ro~i t .1"62-1';Ito, ind U. S. ArmyMateriel )evelopment R. Peadincss CommoNd, "l exandria, Va.,Prehect 1I't211AS28.
Re'erences: p. 12-19.
I, Chemical soil stil itation. 2. ,ibh i i \gents).3. Soil stabilization. 1. tav s, Royce layton, jointauthor. I1. White, Dewe W., joint tuthor. IlI. UnitedStates. Army. Corps of Rngi c r . IV. Il t,.] Stitcl's.Army Materiel Pex'tlolpment and No , i a kollilland. V. Series:
United Status Waterways txperinient station, VicksbirgMiss. Miscellaneotas paper _ *'7-1I,.
TA7.W34m .- -15
In accordance with letter from DAEN-RDC, DAEN-ASI dated22 July 1977, Subject: Facsimile Catalog Cards forLaboratory Technical Publications, a facsimile catalogcard in Library of Congress MARC format is reproducedbelow.
Oldham, Jeszie CMaterials evaluated as potential soil stabilizers / by
Jessie C. Oldham, Royce C. Faves, Dewey W. White, Jr.Vicksburg, Miss. : U. S. Waterways Experiment Station,1977.
19, ,4 3,, 208 p. ; 27 cm. (Miscellaneous paper - U. S.Army 7ngineer Waterways Experiment Station ; S-77-15)
Prepared for Office, Chief of Engineers, 11. S. Army,Washington, I). C., Project 4A762719'140, .3nd U. S. ArmyMateriel I)evelopment "I Readiness Command, Alexandria, Va.,Pro-ect 1T16211A528.R7e"rences: p. 12-19.
1. Chemical soil stabilization. 2. Stabilizers (Agents).3. Soil stabilization. T. Eaves, Royce Clayton, jointauthor. Yr. White, Dewey W., joint author. lT. UnitedStates. Army. Corps of Engineers. IV. United States.Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command. V. Series:United States. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,Miss. Miscelianeous paper ; S-77-15.TA7.W34m i.S-77-15
