Identifying an Effective Binder for the

Stabilisation of Allophanic Soils

Isaac Kett
Hiway Stabilizers NZ Ltd

John Evans
Opus International Consultants Ltd

Dr Jason Ingham
University of Auckland

Allophanic soils have been identified as being problematic for the construction of roading
pavements. When stabilised with lime, allophanic soils gain strength for a limited period of
time, but they have been known to revert and return to their original strength. The binders
that are currently used for allophanic soil treatment are lime and cement, and while the
reverting process is avoided, these binders are not economical. Various potential binders for
allophane were identified and put through a testing process that involved several phases, the
final of which was a field trial. The field trial determined that three binder combinations
provided approximately equal strength, although the cost of each dictated how useful each
may become in the industry. The “Binder A” plus lime combination had the greatest ability to
stabilise allophanic soil economically, and it was assumed that the cementitious nature of this
binders reaction would prevent the soil from reverting over time.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The compaction and stabilisation of soils can be problematic when the soils contain
allophane. Allophane is a soil mineral that is formed when the ash from a volcanic eruption
weathers under specific environmental conditions. Allophanic soils tend to lose strength with
greater compaction effort, and if stabilised with lime, appear to ‘revert’ back to their natural
state resulting in inadequate pavement support. A high-volume application of lime and
cement is able to prevent the ‘reversion’ process, but this is an expensive option.

A 12 month research project was conducted in order to identify a binder that is effective at the
stabilisation of allophanic soils. Several testing procedures were employed in various phases
in order to determine which of the binders were most effective at stabilising allophanic soils.

An extensive laboratory testing program identified the binders with the most potential for
stabilising soils that contain allophane. Those binders were then used in a field trial in order
to simulate the conditions that are typically encountered on a roading project. Several lanes
of were constructed using industry standard stabilisation equipment to allow the strength of
the stabilised soil to be compared to the natural allophanic soil under typical field conditions.
The strength of each section was reviewed utilising industry standard test procedures, and
the cost of each binder was included in a cost analysis. It was therefore possible to make a
comparison between each of the binders in terms of the soil strength achieved and the
estimated cost.

2.0 BACKGROUND TO NATURE OF COMMON SOILS

2.1 Structure

The term ‘soil’ covers a wide range of materials. Soils range from clay, where the particles
are too small to see, up to gravels, where particles can be easily separated as pebbles.
Many common clay types are formed by two stable compounds that connect together in
different arrangements. These two compounds are the silica tetrahedron and the aluminium
octahedron, as shown in Figure 2.1 (Little, 1995; Pender, 2002).

Oxygen Atom Hydroxyl

Silicon Atom Aluminium (or

other metallic)
ion

Figure 2.1: (a) Silica Tetrahedron and (b) Aluminium Octahedron (Little, 1995).

The tetrahedron and octahedron units form together to make sheets which are one unit thick,
but can theoretically carry on indefinitely in a lateral direction. The silica atoms in the
tetrahedron units have strong repulsion forces away from each other, so two tetrahedron units
will only bond in a configuration that results in the two silicon atoms being as far apart as
possible. This occurs when one oxygen atom from each of the two units bonds at a single
corner. In addition to the sheets that form clay minerals, multiple tetrahedron units may also
join to form rings and chains (Little, 1995; Pender, 2002). The sheets commonly formed by
the tetrahedron and octahedron units are shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3.
 Figure 2.2: Silica Tetrahedra joined to form layers (Little, 1995).

Figure 2.3: Aluminium Octahedron joined to form layers (Little, 1995).

These sheets come together in layers of different combinations to form various types of clay.
Four of the most common clay minerals are; kaolinite, smectite, illite and montmorillonite.
(Little, 1995; Pender, 2002).

2.2 Engineering Properties

Compaction can be defined as “the

process of increasing the density of
soil by packing the particles closer
together” (Pender, 2002). This is
particularly important for road
building because of the three
improvements that greater density
brings to the soil mass. These are
greater soil strength, increased
stiffness, and reduced permeability
(Pender, 2002)

For common clays, a greater effort in

compaction results in a greater dry
density. This is demonstrated in
Figure 2.4, which is taken from a soil
sample that has been compacted in
laboratory conditions. Standard
compaction is represented by a
2.5 kg rammer falling 300 mm, while
a 4.5 kg rammer falling 450 mm
represents heavy compaction. Figure 2.4: The dry density of a common soil
compared to its water content, under different
It is assumed that readers are levels of compaction. (Pender, 2002)
familiar with some of the basic behaviour of soils as demonstrated in Figure 2.4. i.e. The
water content of the soil influences the dry density that is achievable after compaction, and
the maximum density obtained on each curve is at the optimum water content (OWC) for the
respective compaction effort (L. Wesley, 2004; Wilson, 2004).
3.0 THE ALLOPHANE MINERAL
3.1 General

The term ‘allophane’ relates to an alumino-silicate mineral which is typically found within
volcanic soils. The allophane mineral is typically referred to as being a clay, although it has a
structure that is vastly different from the most common clay types. Soils containing allophane
(referred to as allophanic soils) occupy about 12% of the surface area of New Zealand’s
North Island, in areas such as the Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Taranaki and the King Country
(Rijkse & Hewitt, 1995). The exact areas are shown in Figure 3.1.

In most circumstances, allophane is a derivative of the weathering of volcanic ash. Ash is

formed by the rapid cooling of material originating from an erupting volcano, a process which
is too fast for the formation of crystalline structures. For the ash to weather into allophane, it
appears the material from which the ash is originally formed must be non-crystalline and that
it must remain well drained as it cools (L. Wesley, 2002).

Figure 3.1: Soil map of New Zealand’s North Island (Rijkse & Hewitt, 1995)
3.2 Structure

The chemical structure of the allophane molecule is completely unlike that of the more
common clays that were discussed in Section 2.1.1. In recent times electron microscopy has
been used to show that allophane is not amorphous (non-crystalline), as was first suggested
several decades ago. It is now known that allophane consists of spherical particles which, in
New Zealand conditions, vary in size between 3.5 and 5.0 nanometres (Gustafsson, Karlton,
& Bhattacharya, 1998; Nater, 2000; Parfitt, 1980, Wada, 1989 #56). The chemical
composition of the spheres is approximately Al2Si2O5.nH20. The ratio of Aluminium to Silicon
in the soil has an effect on the ability of the soil to adsorb water, and this is discussed further
below. Parfitt (1990) has stated that allophane deposits within New Zealand have a Al:Si
ratio of between 0.9:1 and 4:1.

The spheres are connected by threads that consist of tubes known as imogolite, which has a
similar chemical composition to that of allophane. Several authorities have assumed that it is
these threads that contribute the majority of the strength in the allophane matrix (Gustafsson
et al., 1998; Nater, 2000; L. D. Wesley, 2002). Figures 3.2 (a) and 3.2(b) are electron
micrographs of allophane, on which the spherical particles and imogolite threads can be
seen. Figure 3.3 is a simplified diagram of an allophane sphere.

Figures 3.2(a) and Figure 3.2(b) Electron micrographs of allophane (L. D. Wesley, 2002).

Similar to more common clays, imogolite consists

of tetrahedral and octahedral units. With imogolite
however, the units form small tubes rather than
sheets, as was the case with the common clays.
As with allophane, imogolite has an Al:Si ratio that
can vary, although the suggested range of
variation is not consistent between various
researchers (Nater, 2000). Parfitt (1990) states
that by comparison to other countries, allophane
samples that originate from New Zealand have a
particularly low proportion of imogolite tubes.

Research by Parfitt (1990) and Rousseaux &

Warkentin (1976) has shown that the allophane Figure 3.3: A simplified allophane
molecule is effective at retaining water. Parfitt sphere. (Bourgeios, 2004)
(1990) has stated that water molecules that are held on the inside of the hollow sphere are
also adsorbed into its outer layer. Rousseaux & Warkentin (1976) have undertaken
experiments specifically related to the allophane sphere’s ability to adsorb water. Their
findings demonstrated that when the allophane sphere was Al-rich it had a more open
structure, resulting in a greater number of water molecules being bound to the outer layer of
the sphere. The water content of allophanic soils is discussed further in section 3.3.

3.3 Engineering Properties

Wesley (2002) has reported the results

obtained after measuring the Atterberg
Limits of a large quantity of allophanic
soils. The samples were shown to
have liquid limits ranging between 80
and 240, and a plasticity index lying
between 20 and 80. This demonstrates
that allophanic soils are not identical
and that they can have variable
engineering properties between
samples, as per the more common clay
types (L. D. Wesley, 2002).

For contractors that have experience in

constructing roads in some of the more
common clay types, allophanic soils
can be difficult to work with. This is
because the effect of heavy compaction
on allophane is generally opposite to
that of other clay types. Wesley (2002)
suggests that heavy compaction
destroys the chemical structure of the
allophane, thereby transforming the
mineral into an amorphous mass with a
low strength. Additionally, the Figure 3.4: Compaction of various allophanic soils
breakdown of the chemical structure (Kuno, 1978).
releases the large amounts of adsorbed
water that is held within that structure, causing further strength reduction. Wesley concluded
that increased compaction does not result in a return of the strength as more air voids are
removed, rather the structure is increasingly broken apart. This is demonstrated in Figure
3.4, where several samples of allophanic soils have been compacted. Samples A though E
are from a range of soils that have been classified as Kanto loam, which is an allophanic soil
that originates from Japan. The figure shows that as the number of compaction blows
increases, the cone index strength decreases. It was also evident that allophanic soils from
different locations do not have identical engineering properties. Some allophanic soils are
shown to be more sensitive than others, while two gain strength under light compaction. The
water content of each of the soils is also shown on Figure 3.4, and these high values are
typical for allophanic soils (Kuno, 1978; L. D. Wesley, 2002).

A soil’s sensitivity value describes how sensitive a soil is to remoulding. Jacquet (1990) has
confirmed that the sensitivity value can vary drastically between each sample of allophanic
soil. In the tests carried out by Jacquet, the sensitivity values of various samples varied
between 5:1 and 55:1. Jacquet also reported that these variations were not dependant on
differences in the chemical structure of the sphere-imogolite tube matrix. Wesley’s
assumption that remoulding causes the soil’s structure to be destroyed is confirmed by x-rays
conducted by Jacquet. It was reported that the imogolite tubes are broken, and they do not
appear to reform after long periods of rest (Jacquet, 1990).

The ‘rule of thumb’ that ‘allophanic soils always have a high water content’ has been
investigated by Wesley and So (So, 1995; L. D. Wesley, 2002). Their combined findings are
illustrated in Figure 3.5, which shows an obvious link between allophane content and water
content. The two soils that were used for investigations in this study are also plotted on the
figure. The soil utilised for the low-allophane testing fitted the trend established by Wesley
and So, however the high-allophane soil did not. The water content of the high-allophane soil
far exceeded the water content of comparable samples, although the reason for this was not
immediately obvious.
250
Wesley
So
Kett
Linear Approximation (Wesley & So)
200
Natural water content (%)

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Allophane content (%)

Figure 3.5: The natural water content of allophanic soils compared to their allophane content
(So, 1991).

Allophanic soils have a water content – dry density relationship that is different from that of
other soil types. New Zealand Standard 4402:1986 states that allophanic soils display
irreversible changes in physical properties upon drying and that each point on the graph
essentially relates to a different soil. It is suggested that this is because the water that is held
within the structure of the soil is removed, therefore altering the structure of the soil NZS 4402
goes on to say that there is no maximum dry density, but a region where the same dry density
can be achieved for a wide range of water content. Furthermore, in some cases the dry
density continues to increase with a decrease in water content even to quite low values. All
of these statements are verified in Figure 3.6, which illustrates the water content – dry density
relationship of an allophanic clay dried back under various conditions.

Figure 3.6: Density curves for allophane soil (L. D. Wesley, 2002).
3.4 Stabilisation of Allophanic Soils

The response obtained when allophanic soils are stabilised with lime is markedly different
from that of other clay types. The common clays increase in dry density, dry out, and gain
strength on a seemingly permanent basis. In preliminary tests carried out by HSL and Opus
Laboratories, the strength gain of stabilised allophanic soils was shown to be only temporary
in most cases. Where a long term strength gain was achieved, it has only been through the
addition of excessively high volumes of lime and cement.

Allophane has been encountered in parts of Fiji, and McNamara (2003) has conducted a
series of stabilisation investigations with this soil. McNamara has reported that stabilisation of
these soils is not effective when the binder is 3% lime because the initial strength increase is
lost over time. McNamara states that a binder content of at least 5% lime is required to avoid
this reduction. McNamara has also shown that KOBM binder applied at 3%, can increase the
strength of allophanic soil by 300% if a long curing time is achieved (McNamara, 2003).

Ei-Kon So (1995) has conducted an investigation into the lime stabilisation of soils containing
allophane. He has determined that lime is not effective when the soil contains a substantial
proportion of allophane, and that the optimum lime content increases with increasing
allophane content. These findings are displayed in Figure 3.7.
16

14
Optimum lime requirement (%)

12

10

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Allophane content (%)

Figure 3.7: Influence of Allophane Content on the Lime Requirement (So, 1995).

Figure 3.7 shows how attempting to stabilise allophanic soils with lime would not be
economical in most situations. It is not known why So reports that an increasing volume of
lime oxide is optimal, as the allophane content decreases below 27%. It appears that soils
with an allophane content of less than 20% were not investigated by So, but experience
shows that if a soil contains more than 5% allophane, then there will be a drastic affect on the
strength achieved if an attempt is made at stabilisation.

So also investigated the unconfined compression strength as a result of the amount of lime
oxide that is adsorbed into the soil. As would be expected, the strength of each soil increases
as more lime is adsorbed. Furthermore, the soils that had a higher allophane content did not
gain as much strength as quickly as the low-allophane soil. So assumed that the 49% and
60% allophane samples shown in Figure 3.8 were significantly weaker than the other three
samples because of the curing time. So hypothesises that the curing time that he employed
(28 days,) was sufficient for soils containing less than 40% allophane, but not for those that
contain more than this amount.
 800
22% allophane
27% allophane
700 35% allophane
49% allophane
Unconfined compression strength (kPa)

60% allophane
600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Adsorbed lime oxide (mg /g)

Figure 3.8: Influence of lime and allophane content on the strength of soil (So, 1995).

4.0 POTENTIAL BINDERS OF ALLOPHANIC SOILS

A wide range of binders are in production in New Zealand and around the world. Some
binders, such as lime and cement, are manufactured from raw materials as products that
have multiple uses, one of which is stabilisation. A number of the other binders that are
available on the market are produced from the by-products of other industries.

Each binder is effective at stabilising a limited range of materials. Lime is most effective at
stabilising very fine particles such as clay, while cement is most effective at stabilising
aggregates. If an existing aggregate pavement is contaminated with clay, then a two-stage
stabilisation with both lime and cement may be appropriate. Table 4.1 shows which material
selected binders are effective at stabilising (Vorobieff, 1998). Selected binders are briefly
discussed here, although it is assumed that the reader is familiar with these common industry
standard binders.
 Table 4.1: Materials Suitable for Selected Binders

* Depends upon grading. Single size sands require higher additive contents.

4.1 Pozzolanas

A pozzolana is defined as “a siliceous, or siliceous and aluminous material, which in itself

possesses little or no cementitious value but will, in finely divided form and in the presence of
moisture, chemically react with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form
compounds possessing cementitious properties” (Sherwood, 1995). Pozzolanas can be both
natural and artificial. Some examples of naturally occurring pozzolanas are the common
clays that react with lime (calcium hydroxide), which forms the basis of the industry-standard
lime stabilisation process. Artificial pozzolanas include blastfurnace slag, which was also
investigated.

4.2 Lime

Lime is particularly effective at stabilising clays, or

aggregates containing a high proportion of fine clay
particles. It has been determined that for lime to be
effective the clay content of the material should be at
least 10% while the plasticity index is between 10 and
50% (Bartley, 1998).

A document by Bartley Consultants (1998) has

reported that lime stabilisation is not equally effective
on all types of clay. Lime is recorded as being most
effective on montmorillonite and kaolinite, followed by
illite and halloysite. Investigations conducted by
McNamara show that despite an initial strength
increase, allophanic soils stabilised with a small
amount of lime do not maintain this strength over time,
and this is consistent with observations reported by
Wilson and the authors. McNamara believes that at
least 5% lime is required to prevent this from
occurring. Figure 4.1: The reaction that occurs when
clay is stabilised with lime
4.3 Portland Cement

Portland cement is a particular mix of chemicals that form a strong binding matrix when
hydrated with water. The composition of roading aggregate or soil affects the ability of the
cement to form a cementitious bond between the particles. It is stated that the plasticity index
of the soil should be less than 8 to achieve an effective bond. Lime is often used prior to
cement to lower the plasticity index if it is above this mark (Bartley, 1998).

The reaction that forms the cementitious bond is known as hydration. Hydration is a slow
process where calcium silicate and calcium aluminate in the cement form a product that is
less soluble than the original products. This process takes many days to complete, but the
initial reaction upon mixing is sufficient to allow the passage of traffic after a relatively short
period of time (Bartley, 1998).

4.4 Blast-furnace Slag

Blast-furnace slag is a by-product of the steel manufacturing industry and is formed when
lime is used to purify iron into steel. Blast-furnace slag is cementitious when combined with
water, although the reaction is considered slow even when compared to the hydration of
cement. Further stabilising properties can be activated when it is used with certain other
chemicals, known as activators. The most common activator is cement (Vorobieff, Clouston,
& Quickfall, 2000).

In New Zealand, a similar type of slag is marketed under the name of KOBM Binder. The
initials KOBM stand for Kontinuous Oxygen Blown Maxiitte, which is the name of the slag
material produced at New Zealand Steel Ltd, and it has consequently been adopted as the
binder name (Allan & High, 1992). Cuthers and Smith (1996) state that KOBM is not only
effective at stabilising typical base course aggregates, but suggest that it is also suitable for
clays and volcanic ash.

Despite allophanic soils having a high water content the literature suggests that KOBM is
nonetheless effective at increasing its strength. McNamara (2003) has established that there
is no reduction in strength with KOBM-stabilised allophanic soils, as is the case with modest
quantities of lime.

4.5 Other binders

Several binders were also investigated throughout the laboratory tests that were conducted
prior to the field trial. Three of these binders were successful in reaching the field trial, but
exact nature of these binders will not be disclosed due to commercial reasons. However a
brief outline of each is given below:

Binder A: Man-made by-product that is reputed to create cementitious bonds upon

combining with lime.
Binder B: Natural product that is mined and crushed. Is known for its ability to adsorb a
high volume of water, although it is also claimed to form some bonds upon
combining with lime.
Binder C: A natural product that is purified and concentrated for human use. Is not
normally a stabilising agent but is said to form strong bonds with allophanic
soil.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.1 Determination of Allophane Content

The presence of allophane was confirmed by testing

for allophane in accordance with NZS 4402:1986,
‘Methods of Testing Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes’. This test involved a small amount of soil
being spread on the type indicator paper that is

Figure 5.1: NaF test for allophane.

typically used for the measurement of pH. One drop of sodium fluoride (NaF) solution is then
added to the soil. The fluoride from the NaF causes the hydroxide ions to be released from
the soil, hence causing the indicator paper to change colour as the pH increases. Any colour
change is observed, and the soil is placed into one of the following categories (NZS, 1986):

Red: more than 7% allophane

Pink to red: 5% to 7% allophane
Natural soil colour: less than 5% allophane

To determine the specific content of allophane within a soil sample, a more sophisticated
procedure is used. The more advanced procedure is particularly important if a high
proportion of organic material is within the soil, because the NaF can then give an incorrect
positive high result (Parfitt, 2005). The NaF test is demonstrated in Figure 5.1.

The test that is used to determine the exact

percentage of allophane within a soil is
more time consuming and sophisticated
than the NaF test. In this method, the Al:Si
ratio is determined, and this is used on a
chart to determine a multiplication factor.
This factor is multiplied by the total
proportion of silicon within the soil to
determine the allophane content (Parfitt,
1990).

To determine the Al:Si ratio a flame

spectrometer is used. A flame
spectrometer is used to burn a small
amount of soil in liquid form, as seen in
Figure 5.2. The wave length of the flame is Figure 5.2: A flame spectrometer
then measured to ascertain the volume of
each element within the soil.

5.2 Soil Properties

The properties of the soils that were used in the penetrometer tests are listed in Table 5.1.
Westney Road soil was used to investigate low-allophane soils, while the soil from Rangitoto
Road contained a high proportion of allophane.

Table 5.1: Properties of the Allophanic Soils that were used in the Penetrometer Tests
Property Westney Road Soil Rangitoto Road Soil
Colour with sodium fluoride Red Red
Percentage of allophane 13.5% 35.9%
Aluminium: Silicon Ratio 1.67 1.59
Liquid limit 65 243
Plastic limit 56 151
Plasticity index 9 92
Clay content 46% 40%
Silt content 40% 42%
Natural Water content 67.9% 215.6%

The Atterberg limits state that the soil from Westney Road was in liquid form, although it is
close to being below the liquid limit. Meanwhile, the Rangitoto Road soil had very high plastic
and liquid limits, and its natural water content placed it securely within the plastic condition.
This seemed to be a fair assessment of the in-situ condition of both soils.

If an allophanic soil is particularly rich in aluminium it is able to adsorb and retain water due to
its open structure (Rousseaux & Warkentin, 1976). The aluminium: silicon ratio of the
Westney Road and Rangitoto Road soils were quite similar, at a moderate value of 1.6 – 1.7.
It was obvious that the higher allophane content of the Rangitoto Road soil was the dominant
reason for its higher water content, and the effects of aluminium on the water content were
not observed.
As discussed previously, Wesley (2002) and NZS 4402 state that it is not possible to find a
maximum dry density for allophane as it is possible to do with the more common soil types.
Figure 5.3 demonstrates that as the water content of the Rangitoto Road high-allophane soil
decreased, its dry density continued to increase. The highest dry density achieved during
testing was measured when the water content of the allophane had reduced from above
200% to 50%.
0.8

0.7

0.6
Dry density (t/m )
3

0.5

0% air voids
0.4
10% air voids

0.3

0.2
0 50 100 150 200 250
Water Content (%)

Figure 5.3: Compaction curve of high-allophane soil collected from Rangitoto Road.

The binders known to be most effective for each soil type were shown in Table 4.1. The table
shows that if these were common soils, cementitious binders or granular stabilisation would
be most appropriate for soil from Westney Road. Lime would be most suitable for the
Rangitoto Road soil. In preliminary tests that are not summarised here, all of these options
(excluding granular stabilisation) were investigated. A laboratory penetrometer test, CBRs
and UCS tests were used to select the binders that were used in the field trial (discussed in
Chapter 6). Prior to any new potential binders being added to the allophanic soil, the effect of
adding 3% lime was observed, as it is traditionally the most common binder for stabilising clay
soils. In Figure 5.4, the common clay performed as expected, but the allophanic soil had a
negligible response to stabilisation.

8
Common soil - natural

7
Common soil - 3% lime hydroxide

6 Allophanic soil - natural

5 Allophanic soil - 3% lime hydroxide

Stress (MPa)

0
1 10 100 1000
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.4: The stress required over a needle for it to be pushed into a low-allophane soil.
The ability of lime to stabilise low-allophane soil was also compared to the high-allophane
soil. Figure 5.5 shows how the high-allophane soil had an even poorer response to lime
stabilisation than the low-allophane soil.
1000
13.5% Allophanic soil - natural
13.5% Allophanic soil - 3% lime hydroxide
35.9% allophanic soil - natural
35.9% Allophanic soil - 3% lime hydroxide
800

600
Stress (kPa)

400

200

0
1 10 100 1000
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.5: The stress required over a needle for it to be pushed into a high-allophane soil.

6.0 FIELD TRIAL

6.1 Trial Results

Preliminary penetrometer, CBR and UCS tests were conducted in order to establish which
combinations of binders with the greatest potential to stabilise allophane. In order to compare
the ability of these combinations, eight 20 metre long test lanes were constructed using
industry standard equipment and techniques, as seen in Figure 6.1. Each of the eight lanes
was used to test a different combination of binders, and these were compared to two
additional lanes which contained no binder, thus representing a natural soil. Of the eight
lanes, one was used to investigate the suitability of the most common stabilisation method
(lime only), and a second represented the current allophane treatment method (lime and
cement). The remaining 6 lanes contained various combinations of KOBM, lime, cement, and
other potential binders that will remain confidential as stated previously.

The field trial was located at Westney

Road, Auckland, at the same location
were soils were collected for the
preliminary laboratory tests. At that time
the soil in the vicinity of the field trial was
found to contain 13.5% allophane.

Several tests were conducted throughout

the field trial, both during construction
and after various periods of curing. Soil
was collected from behind the hoe for
use in CBR tests. The results of the
CBR tests are presented in Figure 6.2.

CBR tests demonstrated that the

strength of lime and cement were Figure 6.1: Field trial stabilisation underway.
superior to any of the other binder
combinations, but it is possible that the
lower allophane content in this lane contributed to this.
 50

45

40
Californian Bearing Ratio (%)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
6% Binder B + 3% Binder B + 3% lime 3% Binder C + 6% Binder A + 3% Binder A + 6% KOBM + 3% lime + 3% Natural
3% lime 3% lime 3% lime 3% lime 3% lime 3% cement cement
Binder Combination

Figure 6.2: 7-day CBR of materials sampled ‘behind the hoe’ during the field trial.

The deflection the soil experienced while under a 8.2 tonne axle load was measured using a
Benkelman beam. The deflection of each lane was measured three times, and the median
deflection for each lane appeared to be an accurate reflection of the overall soil strength, with
the exception being the lane that contained KOBM. Two of the lanes had a deflection that
was smaller than the lime and cement lane, while another was less than half a millimetre
larger, as shown by Figure 6.3.
7

5
Median Deflection (mm)

0
3% lime 3% lime + 3% 6% KOBM + 6% Binder A + 3% Binder A + 6% Binder B + 3% Binder B + 3% Binder C +
cement 3% cement 3% lime 3% lime 3% lime 3% lime 3% lime
Binder Combination
Figure 6.3: Deflection of stabilised soils under a 8.2t axle, measured by a Benkelman beam.

Clegg Impact Values were used to measure the surface strength of the stabilised soil on the
day of construction, and four days, and five months after construction. Those sections that
contained lime and cement, KOBM and cement, and 3% Binder A and lime had the greatest
increase in strength as cementitious bonds began to form. Binder B had a smaller gain in
strength, confirming an early hypothesis that although this material would dry the soil out, few
cementitious bonds would be formed

The site of the field trial was revisited 5 months after construction. It appeared that the trial
site had not been disturbed, although in some locations water had been pooling. Figure 6.4
shows how the increase in strength in the lane containing lime and cement was significantly
greater than in the other lanes, while the 3% Binder A + 3% lime lane had the second largest
increase. The lane containing KOBM also displayed a significant strength increase (CIV
increase greater than 12), but the other lanes increased by a CIV of less than 10. Small
strength increases were observed in the natural lanes, where it was apparent that the surface
of the soil had been dried out in the sun.
40
1 Hour
36
4 Days
32
Mean Clegg Impact Value

28 5 months

24

20

16

12

0
tur
al al 2 lim
e ent ent lim
e
lim
e
lim
e
lim
e
lim
e
Na tur 3% cem cem 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Na % %
+3 +3 A+ A+ B+ B+ C+
lim
e
BM der der der der der
3% KO Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin
6% 6% 3% 6% 3% 3%
Binder Combination
Figure 6.4: Average Clegg Impact Value of stabilised allophanic soil.

6.2 Cost Analysis

A performance based specification was used as the basis of a cost analysis. It was assumed
that the contractor would attempt to maximise the strength of the subgrade so that the
amount of aggregate required in the pavement would be minimised. The ‘Austroads design
chart for an unbound granular pavement’ states that the minimal amount of aggregate can be
used when the design CBR of the subgrade is 30. Only two of the binders achieved a CBR of
30 or higher; these were 3% cement and 3% Binder B (each with 3% lime). Another two
binders were very close to CBR 30, achieving CBRs of 28 and 29. For those binders that did
not reach the maximum design CBR of 30, the design CBR was taken as the actual strength
that was obtained. The Austroads Design Chart (Austroads, 1992) was then used to
determine the required aggregate thickness. The thickness of aggregate required and the
total costs of the various pavement options are listed in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Table 6.1: Estimated aggregate price for building a pavement above stabilised subgrade.
Actual Design Required Aggregate Aggregate Sale
Binder CBR (%) CBR (%) Thickness (mm) Price (per m2)
Natural 3.7 3.7 480 $36.00

3% lime 16 16 200 $15.00

3% lime &
46 30 140 $10.50
3% cement
6% KOBM &
25 25 160 $12.00
3% cement
6% Binder A &
20 20 180 $13.50
3% lime
3% Binder A &
29 29 140 $10.50
3% lime
6% Binder B &
23 23 175 $13.13
3% lime
3% Binder B &
31 30 140 $10.50
3% lime
3% Binder C &
28 28 145 $10.88
3% lime
 Table 6.2: Estimated total price for building a pavement above stabilised subgrade.
Aggregate Binder Price Hoe Price Total Sale
Binder Price ($/m2) ($/m2) ($/m2) Price ($/m2)
Natural $36.00 $0.00 $2.00 $38.00
3% lime $15.00 $3.15 $2.00 $20.15
3% lime & 3% cement $10.50 $7.05 $2.00 $19.55
6% KOBM & 3% cement $12.00 $6.60 $2.00 $20.60
6% Binder A & 3% lime $13.50 $5.85 $2.00 $19.45
3% Binder A & 3% lime $10.50 $4.50 $2.00 $17.00
6% Binder B & 3% lime $13.13 $6.15 $2.00 $21.28
3% Binder B & 3% lime $10.50 $4.65 $2.00 $17.15
3% Binder C & 3% lime $10.88 $7.05 $2.00 $19.93

Binders A & B were the most cost effective binders when applied at a rate of 3% in
combination with lime. The total cost of constructing a pavement over a subgrade containing
Binder C and lime was determined to be similar to a subgrade containing either KOBM and
cement or lime and cement. It was likely that the results of these cost investigations would
have been different had the transportation cost been altered for the binders and the
aggregate, to take into account the location of the project.

6.3 Further investigations

Stabilised allophanic soils have been recorded as reverting between 6 and 12 months after
stabilisation with lime. Due to the nature of cement bonds the current allophane treatment
method prevents the reversion processes, but it was not known if this was the case with the
potential binders that have thus far only been monitored in the short term. It was assumed
that the pozzolanic ‘Binder A & lime’ reaction would create cementitious bonds, but there was
less certainty with regards to Binder B, which, due to the nature of the binder, is not likely to
form a substantial number of cementitious bonds. To determine the long-term durability of
the soils stabilised during the field trial, a Clegg Hammer and Scalar Penetrometer will be
used to monitor the strength of the pavement over time. Due to the low proportion of
allophane within the soil used in the field trial, it is not yet known if any reversion would be
particularly noticeable.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS
A range of binder combinations were investigated in order to find an economical method for
the stabilisation of allophanic soils. A two-stage CBR testing regime was conducted, and
from this the binder combinations that appeared to have the greatest potential to stabilise
allophanic soils were utilised in a field trial.

The field trial was located in an area that had a low proportion of allophane within the soil. It
appeared that Binder A performed well when combined with lime, and was also one of the
most economical solutions. Furthermore, ‘5% Binder A & 5% lime’ appeared to stabilise the
high-allophane soil successfully during the CBR tests, despite having an exceptionally high
volume of allophane.

Binder B was effective at increasing the strength of the soil but it appeared that this was due
its ability to dry out the soil. It was assumed that a smaller change in the Clegg Impact
Values after of curing indicated that few cementitious bonds were forming within the soil.

It has been reported by various researchers that the ions of Binder C are held tightly by the
allophane molecule. However it was thought that field trials conducted in a soil with a higher
proportion of allophane would be required to determine if this bond could be exploited to allow
Binder C to become the preferred binder for allophanic soils. This is because the high cost of
Binder C would not justify its use in a project where the soils are similar to those encountered
during the field trial.
There are many factors that come into a consideration as a pavement is being designed, and
price is just one of them. If a significant amount of funding was available for a high-
performance pavement then it is likely that a cement & lime combination will be the desired
option because of the superior performance record of these binders. However many local
authorities need to stabilise large areas of pavement over a number of roads, and in that case
the economics will likely determine which of the binders are used. In this instance a Binder A
& lime combination would be the most suitable.

8.0 REFERENCES
Allan, J., & High, R. (1992). KOBM Stabiliser, A Review of the Current State of Knowledge:
Works Consultancy Services, New Zealand.

Austroads Pavement Research Group. Pavement Design. 1992. Austroads: Sydney.

Bartley. (1998). Design of Pavements Incorporating a Stabilised Subgrade Layer (No. 104).
Auckland: Transfund New Zealand.

Gustafsson, J. P., Karlton, E., & Bhattacharya, P. (1998). Allophane and Imogolite in Swedish
Soil (No. TRITA-AMI 3049). Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.

Jacquet, D. (1990). Sensitivity to Remoulding of Some Volcanic Ash Soils in New Zealand.
Engineering Geology, 1(32), 101-105.

Little, D. N. (1995). Stabilization of Pavement Subgrades & Base Courses with Lime.
Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

McNamara, G. (2003). The Presence of Allophanes in Soils and Its Effects on Long Term
Stabilized Strength of Fiji Roading Materials. Auckland: Materials and Stabilising
Consultancy.

Nater, E. (2000). Allophane, Imogolite, and Poorly Crystalline Materials (No. Soil5311):
University of Minnesota.

Parfitt, R. (1980). Structure of Some Allophanes from New Zealand. Clays and Clay Minerals,
28(4), 285-294.

Parfitt, R. (1990). Allophane in NZ. Australian Journal of Soil Research (28), 343-360.

Pender, M. (2002). Soil Description & Classification. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Rijkse, W., & Hewitt, A. (1995). Soil Map of New Zealand. Lincoln: Manaaki Whenua Press.

Rousseaux, J., & Warkentin, B. (1976). Surface Properties and Forces Holding Water in
Allophane Soils. Soil Science of America Journal, 40(3), 446-451.

So, E. (1995). Influence of Allophane Content on the Reactivity and Pore Size Distribution of
Lime Stabilized Volcanic Soil. Journal of the Society of Materials Science Japan, 44(503),
1007-1010.

Vorobieff, G., Clouston, P., & Quickfall, G. (2000). Selection of Stabilisation Methods for Road
Works. Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Highway Technology.

Wesley, L. (2004). Electronic Mail. In I. Kett (Ed.). Auckland.

Wesley, L. (2002). Geotechnical Properties of Two Volcanic Soils. University of Auckland.

Wada, K. Allophane and Imogolite. Minerals in Soil Environments (2nd Edition) 1989,
SSSA Book Series No 1, pp. 1051-1087