| description abstract | High-quality coarse aggregates are routinely used for the surface, base, and subbase layers in paved roads or the surface course in unpaved low-volume roads. Unfortunately, high-quality aggregates meeting stringent material specifications are becoming increasingly costly and difficult to find within reasonable distances of road construction projects. Various stabilization technologies can be employed to improve the mechanical properties of available aggregate materials, providing environmental and economic benefits. This investigation used three laboratory test methods to evaluate and compare all the existing kinds of additive technologies suitable to stabilize a coarse-graded road unbound layer. Two traditional solutions (cement and bitumen) and eleven nontraditional solutions (categorized as either brine salts, clay binders, organic nonpetroleum products, organic petroleum products, or synthetic polymers) were included. Repeated load triaxial tests were performed to evaluate the dynamic behavior of the untreated and treated aggregates in terms of their resilient modulus and the resistance against permanent deformation. A modified version of the rolling bottle test was used to appraise the stripping resistance offered by each additive. A microscopic analysis was conducted to visually evaluate the propensity of the additives to adequately coat the surface of the aggregates. All the stabilization technologies improved the material stiffness, with the most significant improvements produced by calcium chloride salt, bentonite, lignosulfonate, and cement mixed with a mineral mixture. The stabilization additives effectively reduced permanent deformations, except for the specimens stabilized with polyurethane and bitumen. Finally, the polymer-based additives and bitumen demonstrated very good resistance to stripping, with polyurethane providing the smallest mass loss. This study documents that nontraditional stabilization technologies can provide effective alternatives to the traditional stabilizers and documents that a “one-size-fits-all” additive agent is unlikely to be developed. | |
