HBM Platforms

Guidance on the use of HBM in working
platforms

Project code: AGG79-06

Date of commencement of research: August 2005
Finish date: March 2006

Written by:
Hilary Skinner, Andrew Dunster, Rachel Harrex, Flavie Moulinier
(BRE)

Published by:

The Waste & Resources Action Programme
The Old Academy, 21 Horse Fair, Banbury, Oxon OX16 0AH
Tel: 01295 819900 Fax: 01295 819911 www.wrap.org.uk
WRAP Business Helpline: Freephone: 0808 100 2040

August 2006

ISBN: 1-84405-285-0
Creating markets for recycled resources
R
&
D

R
e
p
o
r
t
:

A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
s

Added value of using new industrial waste streams as secondary aggregates 1
Executive Summary
This document is concerned with the use of hydraulically bound material (HBM) in working platforms used in a variety of
civil engineering and building projects.

Stabilising land with the use of lime, cement or other binders to produce HBMs is now an extremely cost effective
method of converting weak soils into construction materials. Virtually any soils found on site can be improved using the
HBM process for bulk fill or building applications. By using 'on site' soils or materials, construction can be carried out
more cheaply and quickly. In addition, use of site won materials can lead to significant savings in lorry movements and
reductions in the environmental damage that this causes to the surrounding area. Ultimately, this also reduces the need
for quarrying and for landfill. Soil stabilisation therefore offers the potential for reduced environmental impacts otherwise
associated with the extraction of primary aggregates, transportation of materials and landfilling.

A working platform provides a safe and sufficiently durable working surface from which construction plant, such as piling
rigs and cranes can operate. Platforms are essential when in situ soils give insufficient support, and good design can
ensure maximum efficiency of construction processes. Clear economic and environmental benefits can be derived from
the use of platforms, particularly
where increased use can be made of either site-won or recycled materials
when platforms can be used and re-used for a variety of purposes throughout the construction process
when platforms can be re-used for permanent works.

Examples can be found of working platforms that are utilised many times through a construction life-cycle; they may
provide support for the ground works plant, ensure minimal degradation or improve the subsoils, act as formwork for
casting pad foundations, provide a surface for steelwork erection and act as a structural element within a floor slab or
pavement.

This is a guidance document for the use of recycled materials by means of HBM in the design, specification, installation,
operation, maintenance and repair of a working platform and its subsequent reuse. Case studies can be found in
Appendix A.

This document has been written by BRE with extensive help from a project team comprising:
Barry Chaddock (TRL)
Paul Edwards (Scott Wilson Pavement Engineering)
Nizar Ghazireh (Scott Wilson Pavement Engineering, formerly Tarmac)
J ohn Kennedy (J K Pavement Consulting)

The project team were also grateful for advice and comments made by the Steering Group, comprising the project team
together with:
Chris Harnan and Mark J ones (O'Keefe Construction, on behalf of BRITPAVE)
Tony Suckling (Stent Foundations, on behalf of FPS)
J ohn Barritt (WRAP)

Stabilisation works at the City of Manchester stadium (Britpave)


Contents

1. Introduction 3
2. Site conditions 8
3. Design 12
4. Platform Construction 18
5. Operation, Maintenance and Repair 21
6. Use for and interface with permanent works (formwork, blinding, foundation for pavements etc) 23
7. Standards and references 24
Appendix A Case studies 26

Note on scope of this document

The guidance seeks to avoid being over-prescriptive as this might limit the scope for innovation and the development of
cost-effective solutions. Hence the guide should be seen as an enabling document and not a code of practice.

The guidance cannot be relied upon to limit the liabilities or responsibilities of anyone involved in the
design, specification, installation, operation, maintenance and repair of a working platform.

While the guidance describes good practice in general terms it cannot deal with every eventuality and site condition. A
formulation of good practice can only be of value where it is applied with careful supervision, control and monitoring of
the platform on site under appropriate contractual arrangements. All parties have to exercise their own knowledge,
experience and judgement.
1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction
Working platform definition
Recycling, reuse and conservation of materials
Scope of guidance

A working platform provides a safe and sufficiently durable working surface from which construction plant, such as piling
rigs and cranes can operate. The expression working platform is restricted in this guidance to ground-supported working
platforms, including not only the platform itself but also the associated ramps and accesses.

A working platform supporting piling plant (Stent Foundations)

Platforms are essential when in situ soils give insufficient support, and good design can ensure maximum efficiency of
construction processes. Clear economic and environmental benefits can be derived from the use of platforms,
particularly
where use can be made of either site-won or recycled materials
when platforms can be used and re-used for a variety of purposes throughout the construction process
when platforms can be re-used for permanent works, and if not recycled for other site use.

Use of site won materials can lead to significant savings in lorry movements and the environmental damage that this
causes to the surrounding area. This also reduces the need for quarrying and for landfill with their associated
environmental impacts.

Sites with soft, waterlogged subsoil before and after stabilisation (O'Keefe Soil Remediation)

Examples can be found of working platforms that are utilised many times through a construction life-cycle; they may
provide support for the ground works plant, ensure minimal degradation or improve the subsoils, act as formwork for
casting pad foundations, provide a surface for steelwork erection and act as a structural element within a floor slab or
pavement. The case studies within this project (see project report) highlight the re-use of working platforms originally
placed for the ground works plant later in the construction works and for permanent elements.

The guidance seeks to avoid being over-prescriptive as this might limit the scope for innovation and the development of
cost-effective solutions. Hence the guide should be seen as an enabling document and not a code of practice. The
guidance does not in any way limit the responsibilities of those parties involved in the design, specification, installation,
operation, maintenance and repair of a working platform.

While the guidance describes good practice in general terms it cannot deal with every eventuality and site condition. A
formulation of good practice can only be of value where it is applied with careful supervision, control and monitoring of
the platform on site under appropriate contractual arrangements. All parties have to exercise their own knowledge,
experience and judgement.

1.2. Introduction to hydraulically bound materials (HBM)
HBM
CBM
In situ and ex situ mixing

Stabilisation using hydraulic binders can improve the strength and durability of otherwise less suitable materials. As
such, they offer the opportunity to produce working platforms that are sufficiently strong and durable that they can be
reused many times during a construction project and could potentially form part of the permanent works.

This guidance covers the key issues related to working platforms constructed using stabilised materials. In this guidance,
these comprise hydraulically bound materials (HBM), mixtures that set and harden by hydraulic reaction. HBMs include
cement bound materials (CBM i.e. mixtures based on the fast setting and hardening characteristics of Portland Cement)
and hydraulically bound mixtures based on slower setting and hardening binders made from industrial by-products such
as pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and granulated and ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS)
1
.

Throughout this report the added hydraulic component is known as a binder. Different binders can have slightly different
effects that are dependent on the specific soil stabilised, and the correct mixture is part of the design process. HBM
mixtures can rapidly dry out and significantly strengthen many weak soils.

HBM construction is well known and versatile in terms of availability of plant and materials. HBM can be produced by
either ex situ or in situ methods.
Soils or granular materials can be mixed with hydraulic binder in a stationary mixing plant and the resulting HBM
placed and compacted by non-specialist plant. Plant for laying and compaction of HBM is similar to that required for
laying and compacting other paving materials such as unbound layers or bituminous bound products. The mixing
process can be carried out using a "fixed plant" or "mobile plant". Both methods are classified as "ex situ".
Alternatively, surface soils on site can be mixed in-place with binders using specialist plant such as binder spreaders
and rotavators. Compaction and grading can then take place. This offers significant advantages in the use of
indigenous materials instead of importing material to the site. This process is known as either the mix-in-place or
"in situ" method. Often in situ mixing can be used on imported, otherwise unsuitable, material.

Throughout this guidance, the terms 'moisture content' and 'water content' should be considered interchangeable.

1
HBM materials cover a very wide range of granular and cohesive soils and binders, more information can be found in
section 3.

Ex situ stabilisation - batching plant (Sitebatch Technologies Ltd)

I n situ stabilisation - specialist mixing plant (O' Keefe Soil Remediation)

1.3. Responsibilities
Parties involved in provision of working platform for temporary and permanent works
Responsibilities to be defined
Use of appropriately qualified and experienced staff

A number of parties are likely to be involved in the design, installation, maintenance and repair of a working platform,
including the client, the principal contractor, the designer of the permanent works and the contractors or subcontractors
for whose work the platform is initially required. Table 1 gives an example of how this involvement may emerge during a
construction project.

Table 1. Example of parties involved in platform provision.

Often the information is incomplete at the time the platform is designed and installed. Whilst this should be avoided as
far as possible, the design for the platform should clearly state the basis on which the platform strength and durability
has been determined so that it can be checked against any subsequent use.

Contractual arrangements should ensure that the platform is adequately operated, maintained and, as necessary,
repaired throughout its working life. The respective roles of the various parties should be clearly understood and the
responsibilities and liabilities of all parties should be defined in the relevant contract.

This guide does not extend or affect such responsibilities and liabilities.

1.4. Management procedures
Installation
Monitoring, maintenance and repair
Operating requirements

Installation requirements need to be specified and a quality management process is required so that it can be certified
that the platform has been installed as specified. A check that the platform has reached the required strength will be
needed.

Operating requirements need to be specified so that the platform is not subjected to loads or other conditions which
were not allowed for in the design. Procedures should be established to enforce these operating requirements and
responsibilities need to be clearly established.

Operation, maintenance and repair of the platform should ensure that it performs in accordance with the design over its
working life. Systems should be in place to ensure that:
monitoring of the platform takes place regularly; this should involve visual assessment of the performance of the
platform and operating plant and drainage
regular maintenance can be carried out to keep a level surface or maintain drainage
repairs are carried out when problems are identified and the platform reinstated after any excavation or damage.

1.5. Causes of platform failure
Identification of hazards
Localised problems
Maintenance and repair
Permanent works design

The objective of enhancing safety in use without excessive expenditure can only be achieved by identifying the most
significant hazards and determining where the primary risks lie. Otherwise there may be unnecessary expenditure
improving matters that are already satisfactory. Identification of the most significant hazards is a crucial first step in the
design procedure. To date there is no known case of failure of an HBM platform in use.
Table 2 shows the most likely theoretical causes of platform failure or observed poor performance other than inadequate
design.
Table 2. Possible causes of platform failure or poor performance
Identifier Possible cause
Excessive early age deformation Strength of HBM not yet mobilised
Insufficient or inappropriate binder
Inadequate thickness
Poor compaction
Local cracking and deformation Localised soft spot in subgrade
Poor repair
Platform of inadequate strength or thickness
Edge cracking Use of plant too close to edges of HBM platform
Party Requirement
Permanent works engineer Define platform life, design for permanent works application
Platform designer Design and specify platform
Contractor or subcontractors Plant loading and other requirements
Platform contractor Install to specification, notify any changes from specification
conditions
Principal contractor Overall responsibility under CDM
Surface degradation Lack of maintenance
Excessive spragging
Surface finish not robust enough to withstand plant movements
Insufficient or inappropriate binder
Poor compaction
Surface rutting Material strength inadequate with imposed loads
Waterlogging Lack of or inadequate drainage

The identification of local weaknesses in the subgrade and the prevention of weaknesses being formed in the platform
are likely to do more to improve safety than refinement of design calculations. Other hazards such as open excavations
and the edges of the platform and access ramps should be identified and clearly marked.

Safe working areas around platform edges need to be clearly defined when the platform is ready to use
(Geofirma)

HBMs have particular issues relating to:
strength change with time
water degradation
repairs

These require careful consideration in order to ensure that the platform remains safe for use in both its temporary
condition and provides design performance for later temporary uses or permanent works.

Permanent works design must address performance and durability issues relating to the HBM; these may well be
different from those required for the temporary works.

Treated
Untreated
2. Site conditions
2.1. Site investigation (SI)
Involve a competent person at an early stage
Importance of site appraisal
Ground investigation for design parameters
Weather dependency of near-surface ground
Identification of weaker zones and hard spots
Location of services

The investigation for and design of working platforms, including those constructed using HBM, are specialised processes
and it is advisable to consult a competent person at an early stage.

The importance of a thorough appraisal of the entire site at an early stage cannot be over-emphasised. This should
include a site inspection and it is particularly important to check for and report on the location of any weak and variable
areas and drainage.

Appropriate and sufficient ground investigation is vital to ensure the provision of an adequate working platform.
Information pertinent to the working platform design should be collected during the site investigation. The properties
and variability of the near-surface ground are critical for the design and operation of the working platform. In contrast,
for most construction projects it is the strength at greater depths that is important and, consequently, the near-surface
strength may not have been adequately characterised in the site investigation for the construction project.

Historical records of site use, demolition records and the local knowledge of nearby residents may prove helpful and
should be included in the health and safety plan. Trial pits facilitate examination of the near surface ground, but careful
reinstatement is essential to avoid creating weaker zones in the subgrade. Characterisation of material types and their
properties are required for HBM design purposes and for the overall platform design. The site investigation should
provide all the data that is required for both temporary and permanent works design and installation
2
.

Localised weaker zones in the subgrade, including poorly backfilled excavations, can be critical for the performance of
the platform and need to be identified. However, hard spots, such as old basement walls, can be just as hazardous as
weaker zones. It is necessary that the whole of the platform area is examined. On a brownfield site, the records of the
demolition contractor on site reinstatement should be of assistance. The location of existing and abandoned services
should be carefully investigated. The likelihood of weaker areas needs to be assessed and groundwater conditions
evaluated. Variability in ground conditions needs to be identified.

Following the site investigation for the main works, it may be necessary to augment information obtained for the
construction project with further investigation specifically for the working platform.
2.1.1. SI for HBM mix design
The primary purpose of the site investigation for HBM mix design is to locate, sample and identify the various types of
soil such that sampling is representative of the platform area(s). The sampling regime and testing requirements may
also depend on whether the working platform is to be reused later in the construction works or as permanent works.
Where HBM is being considered for a given end use, for example in a pavement layer, there may be specific
requirements on the SI
3
(see also Section 2.1.3)

If in situ stabilisation of the soil is being considered, samples should relate to the area, site level and anticipated mix
depth which will be encountered so that tests of suitability can be made. This section gives a general guide to the SI that
may be needed, in practice a competent person should specify and supervise the SI.

If soil is to be imported from offsite or elsewhere on site for ex situ stabilisation, samples should be taken at regular
intervals to adequately characterise the materials to be used.

2
HD 25/94 Highways Agency DMRB Vol 7 Sect 2, Pt 2 indicates the scope of SI needed for pavements, note that this
may be too onerous for many temporary applications. This has now been superseded by IAN 25/06.
3
HA74/00 DMRB Vol. 4 Pt. 6 Treatment of fill an capping materials using either lime or cement or both. Note that this
does not cover all HBM applications.
A competent person with expertise in soil stabilisation may be able to estimate the type and likely volume of binder
requirement for some materials from a visual examination of the material; this can be carried out initially so that a
decision can be made, on economic grounds, on whether to proceed with laboratory testing
4
.

When assessing the suitability of materials (whether in situ or imported) for the production of HBM layers, generally they
fall into one of three categories:

1. No pre-treatment required
Materials that can be stabilised without preliminary treatment are predominantly granular materials, mixtures of granular
and clayey soils where the clay content is low. Some uniformly graded granular materials may have a very high binder
demand in order to produce significant strength gain, but this strength increase may not be required for a temporary
platform.

2. Pre-treatment required
Clays that can be rendered suitable for stabilisation by pre-treatment with lime. Typically 2-3% by weight of lime is
required to reduce water content and plasticity and enable mechanical mixing. Silts and mixtures of granular soils with a
high clay content will also need pretreatment.

3. Not treatable
Some materials are difficult to stabilise because they are unsuitable chemically or may require excessive mechanical
modification. Highly acidic materials may require careful binder selection as they can delay setting of cement. Sulfate-
rich soils can cause swelling and disintegration of cement-bound layers; this can be associated with water uptake and
rapid softening of stabilised clays. Whilst this may only be an issue for platforms incorporated in permanent works
5
, the
risk posed by heave should be identified for both short and long term applications and testing may be considered
appropriate.

If stabilisation is a viable prospect, the material, if granular, should then be laboratory tested to determine its grading
and, if cohesive, its liquid and plastic limits and in situ moisture content, or all if necessary.

2.1.2. SI for temporary platform design
The design of a temporary platform requires information about each load bearing layer. The subgrade is in general
characterised by an undrained shear strength (cohesive, c
u
) or angle of shearing resistance (granular, '); representative
values should be identified for the areas of platform to be designed.
2.1.3. SI for permanent works design
The later applications for the working platform may require further information for design purposes. Whilst in general
volume stability of a temporary platform will not be an issue, the sulfate content of soils to be treated may well need to
be addressed if the risk of heave is considered sufficient for temporary or permanent works. Permanent works design
may require this consideration
6
.

Reuse of the platform as a pavement area may require SI to be carried out for design to Highways Agency guidance
7
.
Other applications may also have specific guidance, covered by existing and emerging standards
8
.
2.1.4. SI for HBM installation
The binder quantities may depend on the condition of the soils at the time of stabilisation. It will be important that the
site investigation information can be related directly to the HBM strength development timescale.

It is important to assess the condition of the subgrade (beneath the HBM layer) as this may have an impact on
installation as well as overall platform design. The subgrade must be sufficiently stiff that compaction of the HBM layer
can be carried out. In situ tests can be used. Guidance on subgrade assessment is given in HD25
9
.

4
Cement-bound materials for sub-bases and road bases. BCA 46.027 (1990)
5
Special Digest 1. Concrete in aggressive ground. BRE. (2005)
6
See HA74/00 and Britpave publication BP/16 - Stabilisation of Sulfate Bearing Soils
7
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DMRB Volume 4, HA 74/00 gives guidelines for both SI and testing
8
BS EN 13285 Unbound and hydraulically bound mixtures (test methods), BS EN 14227:2004. Hydraulically bound
mixtures Specifications, BS1924:1990. Stabilized materials for civil engineering purposes.
9
HD 25/94 Highways Agency DMRB Vol 7 Sect 2, Pt 2 indicates the scope of SI needed for pavements, note that this
may be too onerous for many temporary applications. This has now been superseded by IAN 25/06.

2.2. Pre-construction site assessment
Check site investigation findings
Current site drainage
Latest information on working platform location and level

The site investigation information available before the construction stage of a project commences may be inadequate
with regard to the needs of working platform design and installation.

Table 3. SI requirement.
Issue Requirement
SI information doesn't relate to current location
(level and/or area) of platform as SI often
carried out well before main works
Essential to test soils that will be stabilised, samples must be
representative
A supplementary SI may be needed
SI information doesn't give sufficient information
for platform design as SI may not give sufficient
information if it has not been targeted at the
platform design
Definition of materials properties for HBM or other parameters may
be needed
A supplementary SI may be needed

When the site becomes available for construction, existing information should be reviewed, any additional requirements
identified and, if required, further specific site investigation carried out.

Site drainage requirements may vary throughout the year and the need for any additional drainage should be assessed
and incorporated into the platform construction programme. Weather, particularly temperature, may be important for
the setting or the development of strength of some HBM binders.

Last minute project design changes can lead to changes in construction, and thereby working platform levels. The
potential implications of such changes, particularly when there is cut and fill on a site, should be recognised and the
working platform designer informed.
2.3. Site preparation
Excavation and backfilling of weaker zones and old foundations and services
Deterioration of subgrade
Inspection of subgrade prior to installation of platform

The specialist subcontractor responsible for the installation of the HBM layer generally carries out the site assessment
and may specify or carry out preparation.

During site preparation, weak or variable areas should be identified. Often this is carried out by proof-rolling the platform
area. It may be necessary to excavate localised weaker zones, old foundations and abandoned services. Such
excavations should be backfilled to an appropriate level with material suitable for the stabilisation process. Generally for
in situ stabilisation this would consist of fill of similar nature to the rest of the pre-treated material. A granular fill, well
compacted, would be a suitable infill when overlaid by ex situ HBM.

Major changes in site level can have a significant effect and should be checked against the design.

When ex situ mixing is utilised, the preparation of the layer to receive the HBM is no different from that required for any
oversite material, and the usual care and consideration paid to its compaction, surface levels and profile. HBM material
should never be laid on frozen or softened material, standing water or any other unsuitable materials
10
.

10
Highways Agency MCDHW Vol. 1 Series 800 details requirements for subgrades to receive HBM

Site preparation (Beach Stabilisation Division)

Prior to in situ stabilisation, the formation should be graded to achieve the required level of the final treated layer, with
allowance made for bulking. This can be 2-5% for lime stabilisation or lime/cement stabilisation of clayey soils. The level
and density of the soil prior to treatment can determine the accuracy of the mixing depth, final thickness and overall
strength and consistency of the layer.

An allowance for bulking during mixing should be made (Geofirma)
3. Design
3.1. General features
Overall approach related to risk and performance requirements
Competence of designer
Parties with input to the design
Constraints on level of working platform
Edge effects
Sloping sites
Access ramps

The approach to platform design should be related to the risks which have been identified in connection with the plant
for which a platform is required and with the operations to be carried out, as well as the soil conditions. A simple design
approach for working platforms may be appropriate for many routine temporary cases. Where the HBM layer also forms
part of the permanent works, a design method appropriate to that end use should also be carried out.

The design of a working platform is a geotechnical design process and should be carried out by a competent person. The
designer should have full access to the health and safety plan, including the desk study and all other site investigation
information. This guide is not intended to replace or reduce the designer's input, but rather to promote the
implementation of minimum design, installation and maintenance standards.

As a minimum the parties identified in
Table 4 should have input into the design which will generally be critical for defining the requirements of the working
platform.

Table 4. Parties who should have input into platform design.
Party I nputs
Permanent works designer Additional uses for the platform as part of the overall development
or to define materials that may be re-used
Principal contractor Other construction activities purposes for which they would use
the platform, timetable of activities
Contractor or subcontractor Requirements for platform performance, including gradients,
ramps and edges

The platform level may be dictated by construction requirements rather than the final design of the permanent structure.
This should be considered early in the design and construction process to ensure that where possible working platforms
can be re-used for other purposes.

Attention needs to be given to the edges of working platforms. It should be determined how near the edge of the
platform plant and vehicles can be permitted while avoiding instability. A minimum distance of half a machine width is
usually required for tracked plant and clear marking of the acceptable working area for the design is essential.

Sites where there have been cut and fill operations, or where plant is required to operate near slopes or batters, will
need to be checked for stability of earthworks or other structures with the additional loading of the plant in place.
Sloping sites present particular problems for stability, which should be addressed in the design. In general a slope of 1 in
10 provides a limit for plant stability.

Access ramps can be a problem. They should be sufficiently wide and stable to permit safe movement of rigs and cranes
and should be graded to plant-specific and drainage requirements. The base of access ramps may require additional
strengthening.
3.2. HBM mixture design
Identify binders
Find optimum moisture content for good compaction conditions
Confirm binder content
Assess strength gain and rate of gain
Platform usage
This section provides a very simple guide to HBM mixture design. More comprehensive guidance can be found in BS EN
14227
11
and publications produced by the BCA
4
and Britpave
12
. Preparation and testing of samples should be carried out
in a way and to a timescale that reflects field conditions and the plant to be used as well as the time period before the
platform will be used.

Experience has shown that HBMs, designed to be compacted by rolling, exhibit a relationship between moisture content
and compaction similar to that found by Proctor
13
for soils. A relationship exists between the moisture content of the mix
and the dry density obtainable by means of a given amount of compaction by rolling. It has also been found that the
strength of a HBM is dependent upon binder type(s), binder content and dry density so that:
There is an optimum moisture content (OMC) for compaction, above or below which dry densities are reduced.
For a constant binder content and moisture content, strength increases as the dry density increases.
For a constant dry density and moisture content, strength generally increases as the binder content increases
14
.

Knowledge of binder options and these three relationships form the basis of mix design procedure for HBMs.

A simple step-by-step description of the design process is as follows:
Step 1 Identify soils, categorise by type, plasticity, moisture content and grading
Step 2 Select appropriate binder, estimate quantity
Step 3 Mix, compact and cure samples.
Step 4 Test for strength (generally at 28 days)
Step 5 Iterate 2-4 until strength required is obtained at correct timescale
15
.

HBM design can be divided into design for granular or aggregate-based HBM's and those stabilising cohesive soils.
3.2.1. Binders and soil modifiers
The most common binders or modifiers and their general uses are:
Lime (usually quicklime) is a soil modifier used to reduce the moisture content and/or plasticity index of
unacceptable cohesive materials and to reduce the moisture content of granular materials.
Cement is primarily used to increase strength, although moisture content will be reduced due to hydration of the
cement. Compaction must be undertaken within 2 hours of mixing due to the rapid setting of cement bound
mixtures.
Lime and cement. Some cohesive materials do not achieve the required strength when lime alone is added so
cement is added to achieve the required strength. In this two stage process the initial addition of lime is primarily to
make the cohesive material friable so that the cement can be mixed successfully.
Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) is a hydraulic binder that gains strength more slowly than cement.
Activation by lime is common. GGBS can also be used with cement.
Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) is a pozzolanic material that reacts with lime to cause a strength increase. As with GGBS
this is a relatively slow reaction that is temperature dependent. PFA can also be used with cement.

A number of binders or combinations, can also be used
16
.
3.2.2. Determination of binder quantity
17

For determination of the binder content, specimens for strength testing have to be prepared with a range of binder
quantities. Using values of moisture content determined
18
samples should be prepared and tested
19
and a suitable binder
content selected based on the strength, or other, design requirements. Both testing and binder choice should reflect the
timescale over which the strength gain is required - for example if a platform is to be used very soon after construction,
cement will generally be required.

Testing for frost susceptibility may also be required if the platform is to be incorporated into the permanent works or
where heave may pose a risk even in the temporary case.

11
A guide to the use and specification of cold recycled materials for the maintenance or road pavements TRL report 611,
Merrill, Nunn & Carswell. 2004. ISBN 0968-4107. Replaces TRL report 386
12
Stabilised soils as subbase or base for roads and other pavements. Technical Data Sheet BP/08, Britpave. (2004)
13
Note that for non-cohesive soils or aggregates compaction by vibrating hammer is more appropriate.
14
Whilst this is generally true, there is often an optimum binder content
15
It can be difficult to accurately predict HBM strength, particularly where soils are variable and testing may be an
essential step in mix design
16
An example is ENV 13282:2000 Hydraulic road binders - composition, specifications and conformity criteria
17
BRITPAVE design note BP/13
18
determination of optimum moisture content see testing methods in BS EN 13286
19
determination of binder composition, see Britpave BP/08
Generally binder contents are chosen that result in strengths of around 2N/mm
2
(strength class C1.5/2.0) which has
been found reasonable for platforms for most construction activities.

Different construction processes carried out on or through the platform may impose strength requirements that need to
be taken into account in the HBM design. A platform that is very strong may form an ideal running surface for plant but
this may cause problems in the construction process if drainage runs cannot be dug.

Typical foundation construction processes that require a platform that can be penetrated may have limitations such as:
CFA, bored piles and bored minipiles are unlikely to have difficulty in penetrating most HBM platforms
Driven piles and bored displacement piles can penetrate some stabilised platforms but the platform may crack
unless preboring is employed (or trenching for sheet piles) especially if UCS strength is greater than 0.5N/mm
2
.
Vibroflots (for vibro compaction, vibro columns or vibro concrete column construction) have been found effective for
platforms thinner than 500mm, for greater thicknesses than this pre-boring would be required.
Dynamic Compaction - a HBM platform is not a recommended solution for dynamic compaction, since repeatedly
dropping a heavy weight breaks up the stabilised layer, which can degrade further in wet weather.

Driven piling rigs operating on stabilised platforms (Rock and Alluvium, Aarsleff)

3.3. Geotechnical design (including drainage and combined platforms)
Loading used in design calculations
Weight of plant
Distribution of pressure under machine tracks
Crane outriggers
Wheeled plant

3.3.1. Working platform design for tracked plant.
Loading.
It is not easy to reflect in the design calculations the loading which will actually be experienced by a working platform.
Radically simplified stress distributions are generally used in design calculations.

The contractor or sub-contractor should provide the platform designer with a list of plant and equipment which will be
used in the specialist work carried out from the platform, together with the maximum ground pressure and loaded areas
for each item.

Where loading is imposed by drilling rigs this should be calculated according to EN 791:1996 (Drill rigs - safety) and EN
996:1996 (Piling equipment - safety requirements) to determine the maximum ground pressure that could be exerted by
the equipment. Methods of calculating the distribution of pressures under machine tracks are given in these two
European Standards. For specific cranes or piling equipment, the maximum track pressures can be estimated by static
calculation for critical jib positions by methods specified in these standards. This requires the consideration of the full
range of orientation of the rig in relation to the tracks under a range of operating conditions and identification of the
worst combinations. Special consideration should be given to the pressures from loads imposed by stabilising pads and
skid mounted rigs. It should be noted that, in general, for working construction plant the pressure imposed cannot be
calculated simply using the plant weight and footprint.

Loading imposed by piling rigs must be calculated according to EN791 (Cementation Foundations
Skanska)

Non-uniform loading distributions can be transformed into equivalent uniform loads over a reduced area extent using the
method described by Meyerhof
20
.

Platform thickness
Thus far, there has been no reported failure of an HBM platform. However, as yet, no universally accepted method for
the design of platforms constructed from HBM layers exists. A platform design should be able to identify the ultimate
failure load, or at least the minimum factor of safety inherent in the thickness and strength of platform chosen on a
given subgrade that experiences a given working load. It should be noted that strength is time-dependent for a HBM
layer and the worst case must be identified for checking in the design thickness. Experience in HBM design thus far has
been limited to the design of pavement layers, for which the number of load cycles is very high and 'failure' is a
serviceability issue generally characterised by excessive deformation.

Currently platforms are designed using simplified methods and calibrated by the experience gained in their use for
temporary and permanent works elements.

A simple method for the design of granular working platforms, including subgrade and platform contributions to bearing
capacity, can be found in BR470 'Working platforms for tracked plant'. Reference can be made to CIRIA C752 (Crane
safety on site) for a discussion of outrigger support methods and CIRIA SP121 for an alternative method for granular
working platforms. BR470 assumes a 'punching' failure mode for the granular platform in conjunction with a bearing
capacity failure in the subgrade.

The punching mechanism may not accurately describe the failure associated with an HBM layer, given that they are
constructed using a wide range of materials on varied subgrades. Use of this method should be limited to those
occasions where:
the failure mechanism is possible,
the HBM can be characterised by a density and angle of shearing resistance (') and
experience exists of similar situations.

A lower bound to the failure load could be attained using this method for granular HBM's, by assuming unbound
conditions. Depending on the timescale for the project, both short term and long term conditions may need to be
checked.

The characterisation of HBM using an angle of shear resistance (') is not a simple process and should be carried out
using past experience of similar stabilised material and, if possible the results of testing on representative samples. Some

20
Meyerhof GG (1953) The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined loads. Proc. 3
rd
International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich, vol 1, pp440-445.
shear box testing has been carried out, and designs using ' in excess of 40 degrees have been found adequate. It is
most likely that this representation is applicable only to relatively weak HBM-soil mixtures. Shear box testing must be
critically analysed for any given HBM; specimen size versus the largest aggregate size may be an issue for some
mixtures with large particles; testing may not adequately represent the likely failure plane (which may in practice fall on
a discontinuity). As yet there is insufficient data to judge whether compressive strength is a good indicator for shear
strength.

Design calculations should indicate the minimum thickness of working platform that is required for the given HBM,
subgrade and loading conditions. However, any design method is likely to contain many simplifying assumptions and
there may be considerable variability in near-surface ground conditions, hence achievable strength. It is important,
therefore that the results of calculations are critically appraised by a competent person.

Platform thickness is one element of design (McArdle Stabilisation)

Where design falls outside the previous experience of the platform designer and installer, or where conditions dictate
such as very early use of the platform or adverse weather conditions, the platform can be checked using in situ tests. In
situ plate testing can be used to verify the working load, provided that the plate is sufficiently large (suggested minimum
600mm diameter).
3.3.2. Design for wheeled plant
Platforms may be subjected to single or repeated loading from wheeled plant. The worst case of repeated loading may
be imposed by concrete wagons. Simplified design of HBM pavements can be used to design the working platform for
these cases, using a relatively low number of passes to determine the design criteria. TRL 611 Tables 7.4 and 7.5 for
example show thickness design for bound layers
11
for light commercial use that can form a major part of a pavement
foundation. Alternatively TRRL LR1132 can be used to estimate sub-base thickness required to carry construction plant.
3.3.3. Drainage
HBM materials are likely to have very low permeability. Hence drainage design is critical, to ensure that the platform
remains suitable for use and not waterlogged.

In general this can be carried out by careful construction of the platform layer. Falls can be constructed into the platform
by means of grading during final compaction. Large areas may require falls to intermediate drains as plant stability
necessitates a maximum gradient of 1 in 10.

In all cases the requirements of the construction timescale should be taken into account - winter working may require
drainage design for heavier rainfalls and account taken of the raising of the water table beneath the platform. Similarly
ice forming on the platform due to the presence of standing water can render construction activities dangerous. In the
worst cases it may be necessary to place a granular topping layer.

Due consideration must be given to the piling process employed. Some piling techniques will cause groundwater to be
deposited on top of the platform and this quantity must be added to that from rainfall and any rising groundwater table.
Also if the piling technique employs a support fluid then this must also be taken into account.

Drainage design is essential for efficient use (Stent Foundations)
3.3.4. Design life
Use as a working platform
Subsequent uses (see also section 6)

The intended duration of the working platform is a significant element in its design. The bearing resistance of the
platform may be reduced by degradation under repeated loading.

Where the working platform subsequently has other temporary or permanent uses, the extent of degradation during its
use as a working platform may become critical. Piling or other works on the platform may leave it contaminated.
However, the incorporation of the platform into the permanent works can save significantly on cost and programme.
Furthermore, there is a tendency on site to take greater care of the platform if it is seen as part of the permanent
structure.

Examples of subsequent uses of the platform may be:
Re-use as temporary works for later construction activities, such as use of the platform for formwork
Re-use as pavement layer, where permanent works design must be carried out.

Reuse may, for weakly bound HBM, require removal of say 30mm of material and/or regrading. For some uses, in situ
testing of the platform may also be necessary. Reconstitution of drainage may be necessary after piling works.
4. Platform Construction
Specification
Methodology
Quality control
Site hazards
Environmental factors
Edge of working platform
Performance testing

Specifications for HBM construction can be found in TRL 611. Although this relates to highway maintenance works, it
does highlight the key issues that may need to be considered for platforms. Where a temporary application is required,
the specification may not require as much process control.

HBM construction requires slightly different process controls depending on the construction method and the binder type
to be used.

Table 5. HBM construction methods.
Item In situ Ex situ
Binder storage and
mixing
Storage of binders for in place mixing Storage of binders for batching prior to laying
Mix constituents Check in situ soils are as anticipated, only
mix in appropriate weather conditions
Check material being batched is of appropriate
and consistent grading
Mixing Binder may be:
Spread on soil and rotavated.
21

Mixed in situ using enclosed machinery
Mixing in batching plant
Compaction HBM must be compacted as a single layer
Compaction must take place quickly after
mixing if cement is used as a binder, this
is less critical for slower-setting binders
Poor compaction leads to low strength
Generally a larger area is mixed than
required to ensure restraint and good
compaction in the platform area
HBM can be compacted in multiple layers as
required. Compaction must take place quickly
after mixing if cement is used as a binder, this is
less critical for slower-setting binders
Poor compaction leads to low strength
Edge restraint during compaction ensures
compaction is effective up to the boundary
Control testing In situ testing; tests on samples manufactured from mixed materials
Grading The surface may be graded to form a final level
Sealing The surface is often sealed with a bitumen emulsion to maintain its moisture content during
curing

21
If soil is very high plasticity a two-pass mixing process may be needed.

Grading and compaction of HBM layer (Beach Soil Stabilisation)

Spraying of bitumen surfacing (Sitebatch Technologies Ltd)

Quality controls may also be required, particularly where the platform forms part of the permanent works. This may
require testing of the consistency of the mix, a check on the in situ soil CBR, records of binder quantity and mix depth,
testing of density of the final HBM layer or samples compacted at the same time.

A final check on platform strength may be required prior to plant using it (see section 3.3.1). in addition, performance
testing may be specified. The extent of the testing and its composition will depend on the treatment as well as the
performance requirements of the platform in the short and long term. Early life performance may not be completely
within the control of the contractor (as temperature impacts the strength development) and this should be taken into
account. TRL 611 and HA74/00 describe a number of tests for compliance and performance measurement.


Performance testing, here using plate test of smaller diameter than minimum recommended for working
platform (Geofirma)

Construction of drainage may be necessary to prevent water or piling slurry from lying on the platform or spilling onto
adjacent areas or contaminating water courses.

The boundaries of the permissible working area should be clearly marked.
4.1.2. Environmental and safety issues in HBM construction

Site hazards
Where underground and overhead services are present, markers should be provided and maintained in accordance with
the requirements of the relevant statutory authorities. The working platform level may be dictated by the levels of these
existing services.

Materials
Safe and dry storage, handling and use of binders requires careful site preparation, an awareness of the local constraints
and good selection of appropriate mixing techniques.

Short and long term risks should be considered:

The materials used in the stabilisation operation may need to form part of the Environmental Management System
for the site works. In general the same issues as for concrete and cement must be addressed, specific risk
assessments and COSHH assessments will need to be carried out.

Mixing methods that require spreading of dry binder prior to mixing may not be appropriate for sites in close
proximity to possible receptors (this could be human, natural or other building environments), particularly in windy
weather. Techniques that carry out mixing in an enclosed environment release little dust and are better suited to
such situations.

Interceptor ditches may be necessary to prevent water or slurry from spilling onto adjacent areas or contaminating
water courses.

Longer term risks may arise from possible leaching from the bound material, and should include the potential for
changes in pH accompanying stabilisation to change mobility of some elements. In some cases, stabilisation has
been used as an effective means of providing a capping layer over mildly contaminated ground
22
.

22
BCA A guide to the treatment of contaminated land by stabilisation/solidification
5. Operation, Maintenance and Repair
Control of working platform
Usage of platform
Prevention of deleterious works
Importance of maintenance
Monitoring and remediation
Repair
Safety regulations

Throughout its working life, the platform should be under the day-to-day control of competent site staff. Contractual
arrangements should ensure that the platform is adequately inspected, controlled and maintained.

Regular observation of platform performance is essential to ensure that the design assumptions are reasonable and
remain valid throughout the platform life.

The working platform has been designed and installed to be safely used by certain plant. Site control should be
adequate to ensure that it is not used by plant for which it has not been designed and that only designated working
areas are used. Problems may arise where working platforms are also used as haul roads. A number of factors related to
the usage of the working platform will affect its performance and hence the required maintenance:

type of rigs and service cranes used and dynamic or vibratory effects due to their operation
frequency of passage across the platform of service cranes with heavy loads
frequency of passage of concrete trucks/supply vehicles which may be restricted to routes where the platform has
been strengthened
scale and duration of works
drainage, contamination, degradation of material
acceptable minimum thickness stated in design.

Inadequate performance of working platforms may be due to poor maintenance and many of the problems experienced
with rig instability can be associated with failure to adequately maintain and, where necessary, repair a working platform
rather than with inadequacies in specification or installation.

The working platform should be reasonably level, well drained and kept in good condition for the duration of the works.
Timely and appropriate maintenance relies mostly upon adequate monitoring and remediation on site by the contractor
responsible for the platform. Careful surveillance can detect a deteriorating situation before it becomes a major hazard.
Simple checks on platform thickness can be made using profile boards. Deformation or cracking of the platform surface
should be routinely observed and maintenance carried out when necessary.

Maintenance of heavily trafficked areas such as access routes and ramps requires special attention. Problems can be
caused by plant spragging, heavy concrete wagons and other traffic. Contamination may be caused by mud from the
site, from machine wheels or tracks, from specialist operations involving spoil generation or specialist materials such as
bentonite. Poor drainage can cause difficulties and flow of water across the surface of the platform should be avoided.
Generally routine maintenance will involve cleaning off the platform surface. Maintenance of drainage may require:

water to be pumped off the working area
drainage channels to be maintained
soakaways installed
stone surface dressing placed if water is causing a problem that cannot otherwise be resolved.

Any site activity that could affect the integrity of the working platform, such as an excavation through the platform,
should only be permitted if it is supervised by competent site staff and adequately reinstated to the original specification.

All excavations should be backfilled with material of similar characteristics to the platform and must achieve the strength
required at the time the platform is to be used. Repairs should also be carried out such that the HBM material of the
platform is not damaged by water ingress. In practice this will often involve backfilling excavations with lean mix or
foamed concrete. Damage to the platform should be repaired promptly so that the platform is reinstated to the required
specification.


Specialist stabilisation plant reduces dust generation during the mixing process (O' Keefe Soil
Remediation)

Irrespective of who designs the platform, the principal contractor under the CDM regulations is responsible for safety on
site and should be in overall control of all other contractors working on the site. The principal contractor is therefore the
body with sufficient control to be responsible for ensuring that the platform is adequately maintained and repaired.

6. Use for and interface with permanent
works (formwork, blinding, foundation
for pavements etc)

The following list is not intended to be exhaustive, rather to demonstrate that a working platform constructed of durable
materials such as HBM can perform a number of tasks in the construction programme. Key issues related to the
examples are listed. The case studies in the project report show examples of where HBM platforms have been
successfully reused and the references list in Section 7 gives sources for further guidance.
6.1. Construction activities
Construction platform
A durable and level surface improves the efficiency and safety of all construction activities. Particular examples requiring
significant support may be steelwork erection, mobile cranes, concrete trucks and formwork.

Checks will be needed that the strength and platform thickness are sufficient for the activities to take place on the
platform; this should be critically assessed after any previous activities have taken place.

Formwork
HBM can be sawn through to provide accurate in situ formwork for foundation pads. Strength of the HBM is generally
not an issue, but the formwork requirements may determine the platform thickness.

Blinding
The level of a blinding layer for a ground bearing slab needs to be graded and cleaned off prior to concreting.
6.2. Permanent works
Ground bearing slab
The HBM layer can be used to improve the foundation for a ground bearing slab. This can be used in designing the slab
to provide advantage in terms of slab thickness.

Car parks
HBM layers are often used as car parking with very limited pavement layers laid on top of the HBM surface. An in situ
CBR can be used to characterise the weaker HBM once the surface has been cleaned off.

Non-adopted/ minor roads
The HBM layer can form the major foundation and pavement components. A value of in situ strength (characterised by
CBR) can be used to design the pavement layers
23
.

Adopted roads
The use of an HBM foundation can significantly reduce the required thickness of pavement layers. HD 25/94 (now
replaced by IAN73/06) describes the current design methodology adopted by the Highways Agency. This is also likely to
be sufficient for roads to be adopted by Local Authorities.

Stabilisation of contamination
Stabilisation/solidification (s/s), by mixing soil with binder, can be used to immobilise contaminants. The mix design must
take into account the different requirements of contaminant immobilisation. Two key references for the design,
construction and monitoring of s/s remediation of contaminated land are given in the bibliography.

23
BRITPAVE BP/08
7. Standards and references
7.1. Standards
BS EN 14227:2004. Hydraulically bound mixtures
Specifications
Part 1: Cement bound granular mixtures (CBGM).
Part 2: Slag bound mixtures (SBM).
Part 3: Fly ash bound mixtures (FABM).
Part 4: Fly ash (FA*) for hydraulically bound mixtures.
Part 5: Hydraulic road binder bound mixtures (HRBBM).

European standard for the constituents, mixture types
and performance requirements for granular materials
treated with cement and other hydraulic binders and
combinations for use in earthworks and pavements
prEN 14227 Hydraulically bound mixtures
Specifications
Part 10: Soil treated by cement (SC).
Part 11: Soil treated by lime (SL).
Part 12: Soil treated by slag (SS).
Part 13: Soil treated by hydraulic road binder (SHRB).
Part 14: Soil treated by fly ash (SFA).
European standard for the constituents, mixture types
and performance requirements for soil treated with
cement and other hydraulic binders and combinations for
use in earthworks and pavements. Standards are in the
final stages before UK implementation
BS EN 13286:2003, 2004, 2005. Unbound and
hydraulically bound mixtures Part 1 to 5, 7, & 40-53.
Test methods for HBM covering; laboratory compaction,
specimen manufacture, laboratory mechanical
performance testing and miscellaneous tests covering,
swelling, pulverization, workability period, slag alpha
coefficient, MCV, & immediate bearing index (IBI)
BS1924:1990. Stabilised materials for civil engineering
purposes.
Test methods for soils treated by cement and lime
7.2. Bibliography
Highways Agency HD25/94 Pavement design and maintenance - Foundations (now replaced by Interim
Advice Note IAN73/06)
HD74/00 Treatment of fill and capping materials using either lime or cement or both
(under revision 2006)
Specification for Highways Works Series' 800 and 1100
TRL TRL 611 A guide to the use and specification of cold recycled materials for the
maintenance of road pavements
(updates TRL 386 Design guide and specification for structural maintenance of
highway pavements by cold in situ recycling)
TRRL 1132 The structural design of bituminous roads
Britpave BP/08 Stabilised soils as a sub-base for roads and other pavements
BP/13 Cement and other hydraulically bound mixtures: the new European standard.
BS EN 14227, Parts 1-5.
BP/14 Immediate trafficking of cement bound materials
BP/15 Soil stabilisation - guidelines for best practice
BP/16 Stabilisation of sulfate-bearing soils
www.soilstabilisation.org.uk
WRAP Promoting the use of applications incorporating recycled and secondary aggregates
in HBM : Research Report
HBM technical guidance - No.1 Major Roads
HBM technical guidance - No. 2 Minor roads and paved areas
HBM technical guidance - No. 5 Heavy duty paving
HBM Durability and Test methods
HBM Case Studies
www.wrap.org.uk
BCA / The Concrete Centre Essential Guide to Stabilisation / Solidification for the Remediation of Brownfield Land
using Cement and Lime. (The guide, reviews the process of s/s using a number of
binders)
Cement-bound materials for pavements: materials selection, mix design, construction
and testing
www.cementindustry.co.uk
Environment Agency Guidance for the use of Stabilisation/Solidification for the treatment of contaminated
soil

Science report SC980003/SR1 can be downloaded from
www.environment-agency.gov..uk
UK QUALITY ASH
ASSOCIATION,

Technical data sheet 6.2: Laboratory mixture design for lime activated fly ash bound
mixtures (FABM) for sub-base and road base
Technical data sheet 6.5: LFA (lime treated fly ash) for capping and sub-base
Technical data sheet 6.9: The role of PFA for enhanced stabilized capping
www.ukqaa.org

7.2.1. Other references

[1] HEATH D C. The application of lime and cement soil stabilization at BAA airports. Paper 9817, Proceedings Institution
of Civil Engineers, 1992.
[2] KOLIAS S & WILLIAMS R I T. Cement bound road materials: strength and elastic properties measured in the
laboratory. TRRL Supplementary Report 344, TRL, 1978.
[3] SHERWOOD P T. The properties of cement stabilized materials. LR 205. Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne,
Berkshire, England, 1968.
[4] SHERWOOD P T. Stabilized capping layers using either lime, or cement, or lime and cement. Contractor report 151.
TRL, Berkshire, 1992.
[5] THE EAST MIDLANDS GEOTECHNICAL GROUP OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS. Lime stabilization.
Proceedings of the seminar held at Loughborough University Civil & Building Engineering Department, 25th September
1996.
[6] WILLIAMS R I T. Cement-treated pavements materials, design and construction. Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers, London, 1986.

Appendix A Case studies
BMW Car Showroom at Costessey, Norwich

LIME MODIFIED AND CEMENT STABILISED WET FILL AS A WORKING
PLATFORM

Background

Project Information

Name LIND BMW Car Showroom
Region East of England
Type of project Commercial
Date March May 2005
Client Lind Automotive Group
Building Design & Clients Agent Les Brown Associates
Planning & Development Consultants
Design Development Feilden & Mawson
Engineer T A Millard Consulting Engineers
Main Contractor Adonis Construction Limited
Stabilisation Contractor OKeefe Soil Remediation (OKSR) Limited

The Project
Adonis Construction Limited on behalf of the Lind Automotive Group, were contracted to construct a car
showroom facility at a site located at Costessey in Norfolk. The plot, which was approximately 30,000 m2,
was to have three steel-framed car showrooms and associated parking, servicing and delivery areas (Figure
1).

The site was part of the former Longwater sand and gravel extraction pit. Construction commenced in late
February 2005 and was scheduled for completion in J anuary 2006.

Figure 1: Completed individual steel framed car showrooms, associated parking,
servicing and delivery areas

Ground Conditions
The site surface consisted of gravely sand which was very soft, slightly clayey and also had areas of standing
water. It was believed that this material had recently been placed from an adjacent construction project and
spread on the site.

The fill material had an extremely high moisture content (in the initial 500 mm depth) and was in a slurry-
like condition in certain areas. Access to large parts of the site with tracked plant was virtually impossible
due to the soft nature of the fill (Figure 2). California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values were less than 1%. Below
this top 500 mm layer the fill materials were drier, more compact and were described as slightly clayey
gravely sand.

Figure 2: Tracked plant and areas of standing water

Throughout early 2005, OKSR carried out extensive laboratory testing on recovered samples of the fill
material, including assessment of particle gradings, Atterberg limits, compaction studies and design mix
testing. Typically, moisture condition value (MCV) figures for the untreated natural fill material were below 4.
For a normal material to be compacted as a fill, an MCV in the range 8 12 would be expected. Once
treated with between 2 4% quicklime powder OKSR established that MCVs increased to levels where the
fill had been adequately dried to allow for placement and compaction.

Regulatory/ environmental issues
There were no additional requirements beyond those normally required in a site of this nature e.g. the need
to minimise dust in a site next to the A47, a busy highway.

Construction Specification and Related Details

Specification
The three car showrooms were intended to be placed on vibro-stone columns; however, the very soft nature
of the fill material in its untreated state made it unsuitable for use as a working platform for the piling rigs.
Adonis Construction did not want to remove the 15,000 m3 of wet fill material and import a replacement
stone material for reasons of both cost and time and therefore turned to considering a stabilized solution.

Following initial laboratory trials, OKSR suggested that the wet fill could be adequately dried and improved
by the addition of quicklime and its performance further enhanced by the addition of cement to create a
working platform (Figure 3) across the entire construction site.

Figure 3: HBM working platform

Design information
The OKSR proposal was to construct a 500 mm working platform in two 250 mm layers with a target
strength of 90% CBR using the addition of both lime and cement. The platform was to be used by the vibro
piling contractor and subsequent trades e.g. Ground worker, steel frame erector and cladding contractor
during the main programme works. The stabilised platform upon completion of the piling would also double
as a sub-base replacement layer to the car showrooms.

OKSR, following guidelines within the BRE publication on Working Platforms for Tracked Plant calculated a
single layer 250 mm thick of CBR 90% platform was sufficient for the vibro piling contractor to safely
operate his rig. This platform was then increased to the full 500 mm depth for the loadings applied by
subsequent trades. The strength of the completed 500 mm platform to the car showrooms was such that all
the pile caps and strip footings were "sawn" out from the stabilised material; therefore, requiring no
formwork to the foundations, no working space allowance and no backfill was necessary.

This resulted in increased efficiencies both in time and money to the whole project. As the construction of
the car show rooms progressed, the full 500 mm thick stabilised working platform was extended to the
whole of the external site area. The depth and strength of the lime and cement material replaced capping,
sub-base and even lower asphalt layers, leaving just a requirement of 100 mm of surface and binder course
asphalt for all car parking, vehicle display areas and unloading areas.

Binder Additions
Quicklime was initially added to the wet fill materials to reduce moisture content. Quicklime additions of
between 2 4% by weight were sufficient to bring MCV values from 4 or less to values between 8 10 and
thus values suitable for subsequent use and treatment with cement. The enhanced working platform
achieved the required CBR values of 90% and above with the addition of 5% CEM I Portland Cement after
the lime addition.

Figure 4: Pile caps and strip footings sawn out from the stabilized material


Construction process
Initially a 250 mm working platform was created using both lime and cement to the building footprints as a
platform for Keller Ground Engineering who were installing vibro stone columns. Due to the very soft nature
of the site, lime drying of the existing soil was commenced at the site entrance and slowly worked its way
across the site until the whole area had been lime dried to give a workable material with minimum a MCV of
8. Cement was then mixed to the building footprint areas to create the required 250 mm thick piling
platform.

Both lime and cement were mixed into the site soils using OKSR's "integrated" soil recycling machine. This
machine controls the emissions of dust, which was a key consideration working directly alongside the
adjacent A47 dual carriageway. Each vibro-stone column position was set-out and pre-augured through the
250 mm stabilised material, to allow the stone pile to be constructed.

Upon completion of the piling a further 250 mm of lime and cement stabilisation was placed onto the
building footprints, to create the full 500 mm depth, CBR 90% platform. This was partly a requirement from
the structural engineer regarding the building loads and also to accommodate subsequent temporary plant
loadings throughout the remainder of the contract period. The 500mm working platform was also created in
all external work areas of the project to act as foundation layers to car parks, roadways and vehicle display
areas. The stabilisation was graded to 10 mm throughout the car parking areas, thus allowing the 100 mm
of surface and binder course asphalt to be laid without the need for additional regulating layers.

Figure 5: Wet fill material with the A47 dual carriageway in the background

Environmental Effectiveness
The in-situ treatment of very soft clayey gravely sand to create piling platforms for the car showroom project
at Costessey, saved the removal from site of approximately 15,000m3 of unsuitable material. This saved
nearly 2000 separate lorry movements and approximately the same number of movements to bring in an
aggregate fill material. Producing HBM on site greatly decreased the impact of the construction project on
the local environment and also provided a good example of sustainable development, with large cost savings
and programme advantages for the construction team and the client.

The integrated soil recycling machine used on the car showroom project at Costessey differs from the
commonly used stabilisation machines in that it carries the stabilizer within an on-board hopper. The
stabilizer is discharged through the body of the machine into the underlying soil being processed. This had
the advantage of reducing dust emissions during processing, which can occur with traditional spread and
rotovate stabilisation techniques (Figure 6). This was a key consideration when working in close proximity
to the A47 dual carriageway.

Rubber apron prevents
airborne spread
Wet soil
Variable mixing chamber
with milling and mixing
motor
Crumbly soil mixture
with reduced water
content
Working
direction
Rubber apron prevents
airborne spread
Wet soil
Variable mixing chamber
with milling and mixing
motor
Crumbly soil mixture
with reduced water
content
Working
direction

Figure 6: Photograph and cross-section of the main stabilisation machine
illustrating its reduced dust emission design

Performance results

Strength
In-situ CBR testing carried out on each 250 mm layer of the stabilized working platform indicated an average
CBR value in excess of 100% 7 days curing after cement addition.

Density
In-situ density checks confirmed that the working platform had been placed and compacted to achieve 95%
of the materials maximum dry density (MDD).

Frost Heave
Frost heave tests (performed to BS1924:1990) were performed on the stabilised material. Test results
indicated that the stabilised material was "non-frost susceptible". Recorded movement of test samples within
the frost cabinet were only 0.8 mm. This was far below the allowable upper limit of 15 mm heave for a non-
frost susceptible material.

Lessons Learnt
For the client this site was an object lesson in how a relatively new technique can be so much better than
traditional methods. Amazement was expressed at the transformation of the site from its original wet and
saturated condition, and at the savings realised: at least 200,000 in lorry movements alone. The multi-
tasking of the hydraulically bound material was impressive:

Unsuitable fill material at this site was dried and strengthened with the controlled addition of both
lime and cement to create a usable construction material.
The stabilized material was used to support piling rigs during piling operations and was subsequently
used as a working platform for following trades.
The stabilization was also engineered to replace the asphalt base layer to asphalt surfacing for all
car parking areas, which gave rise to financial benefits.
The working platform was sawn through by the ground work subcontractor and was used as
permanent formwork for the foundation bases/pile caps
Sub-base to the buildings.

Lind Automotive Group
LES BROWN ASSOCIATES
Planning and Development Consultants
University of East London Docklands Campus - Business School and Knowledge
Dock Centre buildings at the Royal Albert Dock

LIME MODIFIED AND CEMENT STABILISED MADE GROUND AND ALLUVIAL
ORGANIC CLAY DEPOSITS FOR 10,000 SQ M PILING PLATFORM

Background

Project Information

Name University of East London Docklands Campus - Business School and
Knowledge Dock Centre buildings at the Royal Albert Dock
Region East London (South East region)
Type of project Piling Platform Construction
Date November December 2004
Client University of East London (UEL)
Structural Engineer Building Design Partnership
Project Manager Gardiner & Theobold Management Services
Main Contractor HBG Construction (HBG)
Stabilisation Contractor OKeefe Soil Remediation (OKSR) Limited

The Project
The new Business School and Knowledge Dock Centre (Figure 1) are a development continuation of the UEL
Docklands Campus. The buildings run along the Royal Albert Dock, a 2 km stretch of water adjacent to the
River Thames.

The 61 week project to construct two new University buildings joined by a link bridge at their respective 2nd
floor levels, at a contract value of 21.5 M, is due for completion on 18 April 2006.

OKeefe Construction (Greenwich) Limited were awarded a subcontract to provide a piling platform as part of
the overall enabling works plus the groundworks.

The Business School Centre building is a 9,000m2 steel frame structure with profiled metal cladding and
curtain walling. The 5 storey block, which houses the business school and a 400 seat lecture theatre, is
founded on 220 No. 500mm diameter, 20m deep continuous flight auger (CFA) piles. These were installed
by HBW-BAM Grondtechniek working on the piling platform constructed by OKSR.

The Knowledge Dock Centre building is a 7,000m2 steel framed three-storey building with metal cladding
and curtain walling. Similarly positioned on 180 No. CFA piles, the building houses laboratories and teaching
facilities.


Figure 1: The new Business School and Knowledge Dock Centre buildings
nearing completion

Ground Conditions
An exercise of trial pitting and sampling was carried out by OKSR laboratory to establish the range of
material types and their moisture condition. Removal of existing oversite concrete revealed an assortment of
made ground conditions overlying variable alluvial organic clay deposits to a depth of around 6 m. Organic
content tests revealed organic values of up to 3.2% within the variable ground conditions.

There were no additional requirements beyond those normally required in a site of this nature e.g. the need
to minimise dust in a site next to Royal Albert Dock. Dust suppression was achieved using mixing plants
which operate as an enclosed unit, carrying the binders on board and releasing/mixing them under the body
of the machine. There is no need to spread and lay large volumes of binder on the surface of the ground
prior to mixing, which can give rise to dust issues if windy.


Specification
Following analysis of the variable made ground material recovered from the site trial pits, laboratory checks
for water soluble sulphate, acid soluble sulphate and total sulphur were carried out along with a series of
performance checks. These included compaction studies followed by laboratory compacted CBR tests at a
range of moisture contents using the proposed binder additions. From the results of these tests, a mix
design including the addition of lime for the wetter areas of made ground, followed by Portland Cement was
chosen to provide a 500mm thick piling platform with a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of >50%. The
thickness and in situ strength of the platform were determined after a comprehensive set of cone
penetrometer tests (carried out by Lankelma CPT Ltd) to meet HBGs proposal to use a 73 tonne piling rig
with a 39 m high stick.

Design information
The piling platform design was carried out by OSKR based upon information supplied by principle contractor
HBG and following the design guidelines detailed within the BRE publication Working Platforms for Tracked
Plant.

Binder Additions
The binders used were lime and cement. The amount of lime addition was tailored to suit the ground
conditions on site, in order to bring the soil to an appropriate state ready to receive the cement treatment.
The quantity of lime added depended upon the soils moisture content, however, typically 2-3% was added.
Following lime conditioning, Portland Cement was mixed into the made ground. Prior laboratory testing
confirmed that 5% (95kg/m3) of Portland cement would be sufficient to achieve the desired design strength
of the platform e.g.. >50% CBR.

Construction process
Once the oversite concrete had been lifted and crushed and the 12,000 m area site reduced to level,
stabilisation was carried out over a two week program during November and December 2004 using an
integral spreading and mixing machine. On completion of the works, plate loading tests were carried out by
Scientifics testing laboratory to verify the in-situ performance of the mat.

A total of 400 piles of 500 mm diameter and up to 20 m in length, were installed over the following 2
months (Figure 2).

Figure 2: CFA piling rig carrying out operations on the
500 mm deep in-situ stabilised piling platform

Following completion of the piling operation, the stabilised mat provided a durable weatherproof platform
over the following year for the remaining construction of a series of laboratory and
classroom/teaching/research facilities for the University.

The successful in-situ treatment of the existing made ground at this project with lime and Portland cement
binders to create a working platform gave a number of environmental benefits.

The soft clay/sandy made-ground, complete with brick, concrete and tile fragments, was unsuitable as a
construction fill material without treatment. In a traditional construction project, this made ground would
have been excavated, loaded onto lorries and taken to a landfill site. This specific project alone would have
generated in excess of 5,000 m3 of spoil for landfill using approximately 600 lorry movements at a cost of
96,000. Subsequent to that removal, 5,000 m3 of aggregate would have needed to be imported and placed
on the site. The ability to re-use the sites existing made ground resulted in a dramatic reduction of lorry
movements and less impact on the local community and road network.

Performance results

Independent plate bearing tests were performed in situ on the stabilized working platform by Scientifics
Limited. Plate tests were performed across the platform using 600 mm diameter plates, which were loaded
with a maximum of 16 tonnes. The test results gave equivalent CBR values throughout the stabilized
working platform of over 200% CBR (Figure 3).


Figure 3: Strength of the stabilised piling platform demonstrated
whilst being used as a storage area for reinforcing bars for piling.

Lessons Learnt
The strength achieved by the stabilised working platform meant that after completion of the piling
operations the durable platform could be used for lay-down and general storage areas, skip marshalling
areas, safe working areas for scissor lifts, mobile elevated working platforms and mud-free pedestrian
walkways.

The stabilized working platform also acted as the sub-base for the ground floor slabs for both buildings.
Upon completion of the foundations for each building, a sand blinding layer was placed directly onto the
platform followed by a gas diffuser system. The concrete slabs were then poured and finished.

The uses of the stabilized working platform firstly as a piling mat and secondly as the sub-base to the
buildings gave significant programme and cost advantages for the whole project and construction team.

Project Fonda (Debenhams Regional Distribution Centre), Peterborough

CEMENT STABILISED PFA AS FILL, WORKING PLATFORM AND EXTERNAL
AREAS FOR A DISTRIBUTION CENTRE

Background

Project Information

Name Project Fonda (Debenham's Regional Distribution Centre), Peterborough
Region East of England
Type of project Piling platform construction
External areas sub-base construction
Date October 2003 J une 2004
Client Prologis Developments
Engineer Nolan Associates
Main Contractor Winvic Construction Limited
Stabilisation Contractor Geofirma Soils Engineering Ltd

The Project
The project involved the construction of a single storey warehouse with offices, associated service yards and
car parks totalling 120,000 m2 on an old PFA lagoon (Figure 1). Due to the poor nature of the ground, the
building was fully suspended on piles driven into the underlying Oxford Clay.

An earthmoving exercise was undertaken amounting to 36,000 m3 of cut and fill to utilise the upper metre
of PFA to form the building platform. This PFA fill was cement-stabilised to provide a stable platform due to
the soft nature of the PFA. Once the site was excavated and filled to reach design levels, the upper 300 mm
of PFA was further cement stabilised to provide a sub-base for the externals hard-standings and a piling mat
for the building area.

A nominal thickness of Type 1 stone (amounting to 50 mm over the externals and 7 mm to the building) was
incorporated into the stabilised PFA sub-base to provide added strength and durability to the stabilised layer.

Figure 1: PFA lagoon

Ground Conditions
Borehole and trial pit records showed the site to be underlain by a thick cover of made ground (PFA or clay
fill) within former brick clay pits, upon initially weathered solid geology of Oxford Clay. Trial pits within the
PFA fill encountered water seepages, generally at approximately 1.00m depth below the base of the crust
of the PFA fill, at 1.30 m to 2.50 m depth. Levels were expected to rise to within 1.00 m of the surface
during wet periods.

Total sulfates were reported as exceeding 1% in the Oxford Clay, up to 5% in places. Because of the
presence of sulfate minerals and total sulfate values above 1%, the Oxford Clay was deemed to be
unsuitable for lime/cement treatment and was omitted from the works. Sulfate levels in the PFA were
however, deemed to be suitable (as proven by prior laboratory testing and comprehensive compliance
testing in the field).

It was assumed that the sub-grade would provide a CBR of 2% as long as at least 1m of the PFA crust
remained. The PFA was tested prior to commencement of the work and was found to be suitable for
treatment. This was subsequently proven by extensive on-going testing.

Because of the metal contamination within the PFA and groundwater, the enclosed lagoon could not be
drained to allow the water table to be lowered or indeed to stop it rising due to rainfall. This limited the
upper layer of dry PFA (above the groundwater table) to 1.00 m which made the cut and fill exercise difficult
when this crust was reduced and in some areas removed completely. Some major soft spots developed
which were excavated and replaced with cement treated fill.


General- construction process
Following a topsoil strip and as part of a cut and fill exercise by Geofirma, any soft PFA which was unsuitable
for filling was modified with cement to produce a structural fill material (known as Firmafil) with a CBR
strength of 5% and 95% degree of compaction, for use as fill to the building ground slab and external areas.
Soil was placed in fill areas in 300 mm layers prior to in-situ treatment.

Due to potentially high sulfate levels in the Oxford clay soils above 1%, stabilisation was not undertaken on
this material.

Once the site had been levelled and treated under a cut and fill exercise with the Firmafil as described, the
fill material was in-situ stabilised as follows:

a) External Areas Sub-base replacement
An end product criteria of CBR>150%, well in excess of a normal sub-base criteria of >30% was used to
design layers for the external areas for the construction works. A single 300 mm layer of PFA was cement
stabilised to produce a frost resistant Firmabase layer with a 30% CBR. 50 mm thickness of Type 1 stone
was then placed over this layer. This stone to the car park and service yard (not Access Road) was then
cement stabilised to 100 mm thickness to incorporate 50 mm of the underlying Firmabase to achieve a
150% remoulded CBR for added performance under site construction conditions.

b) Building Area Piling Mat
The piling mat was required to carry plant loading of 240 kPa. To satisfy this end product criterion, a single
300 mm layer of PFA and Type 1 was cement stabilised to produce a Firmabase layer with a 150% CBR.
75mm thickness of Type 1 stone was placed over the PFA prior to Firmabase treatment. This 75mm stone
was mixed with the underlying PFA to a total depth of 300 mm to achieve the 150% remoulded CBR (Figure

Figure 2: Integrated soil recycling machine passing over treatment area (left)
and full compaction of treated soil in-situ by vibrating roller (right).

Design information
As an alternative to conventional stone sub-base/capping, the following design (Table 1) was adopted as
stated above:

Table 1: Summary of design information for Project Fonda
ALTERNATIVE Firmabase OPTIONS
Location Surfacing (mm) Type 1 stone (mm) Firmabase
thickness (mm)
Total (mm)
Building Slab 290 + 100 heave
zone for piles
75mm incorporated
into 300mm
Firmabase layer
300 690
Car Park 110 50* 300 460
Access Road 240 100 300 640
Service Yard 175 50* 300 525
* Cement stabilised to 100mm after Firmabase produced.

The Firmabase to the external areas was designed to a 30% CBR to provide the same theoretical cracked
stiffness performance as conventional stone Type 1 sub-base/capping based on a minimum underlying CBR
of 2% in accordance with TRL 248.

The piling mat was required to support piling rig pressures of 240 kN/m2 over 2.61 m2 (Figure 3). The
proposed platform, comprising 300mm of HBM with a CBR 150% and between 300-700 mm of HBM of CBR
5%, was a minimum of 600mm deep. The underlying subgrade had an undrained shear strength of 40 kPa
(2% CBR). Platform design was carried out by an in-house method (note this was prior to publication of
guidance). The bound material was assessed to have allowable bearing pressures of 500 kPa for the upper
layer and 100 kPa for the lower layer and have performance well in excess of that required.


Figure 3: Piling mat with pre-drilled holes through the top crust (left)
and piling rig operating on working platform (right).

Specification
Construction was carried out to achieve the end product stated above in general accordance with the
Specification for Highway Works Clause 614 for cement stabilised capping.

Binder Additions
Portland cement and/or lime were used to treat the PFA materials as appropriate to achieve the end product
specifications.

This solution allowed the re-use of the soft PFA material for sub-base and piling platforms with only a
nominal import of Type 1 stone amounting to 16,000 tonnes against a potential stone import exceeding
100,000 tonnes. i.e. an 84% reduction in imported stone equivalent to more than 4000 lorry movements.

Performance results

Introduction
Between October 2003 and J anuary 2004 Geofirma undertook Firmafil bulk-fill treatment and Firmabase sub-
base stabilisation on the Project Fonda site.

Four different treatments were undertaken:

1. Firmafil lime or cement treatment to the Bulkfill material and any soft spots (to 5% CBR).
2. Firmabase cement stabilisation of PFA and Stone to the building area (to 150% CBR).
3. Firmabase cement stabilisation of PFA to the external areas (to 30% CBR).
4. Firmabase cement stabilisation of PFA and Stone to the external areas (to 150% CBR).


Figure 3: Treated area (left) and untreated area (right)

Prior testing
Geofirma took samples of the PFA and clay soils from site for laboratory testing.

The materials were tested for total sulfate, total sulphur and organic content. Trial mixes and soaked CBR
testing were undertaken to determine material suitability and the required binder addition in accordance
with DTp document HA74/00.

Compliance testing
Compliance testing of the Firmafil and Firmabase was undertaken throughout the contract. The results are
summarised in Tables 2 to 4 below. It can be seen from the tables that the results fully comply with the
specification.

Table 2: Summary of CBR test results achieved for Firmafil
Results
Type of Test
Range Mean
Specification
Unsoaked CBR Value
6 58% (with 100%
compliance)
27%
5% minimum with at least 90%
compliance
Soaked CBR Value 5 49% 29% 5% mean 3% minimum
Percentage Compaction
96 102% (with 100%
compliance)
N/A
compliance

Table 3: Summary of CBR test results achieved for Firmabase (Building Area)
Results Type of Test
Range Mean
Specification
Unsoaked CBR Value
81 253% with 93%
compliance
167%
compliance
Soaked CBR Value 112 258% 163% 150% mean, 80% minimum
94 101% (with 99%
compliance)
N/A
compliance

Table 4: Summary of CBR test results achieved for Firmabase (External Areas)
Results
Type of Test
Range Mean
Specification
Unsoaked CBR Value
31 142% (with 100%
compliance)
55%
compliance
Soaked CBR Value 30 118% 61% 30% mean, 16% minimum
96 101% (with 100%
compliance)
N/A
95% with at least 90%
compliance
Unsoaked CBR value
(PFA plus stone layer)
171 235% (with 100%
compliance)
195%
compliance
Plate testing
In addition to the compliance testing, plate testing (Figure 4) was undertaken on the building area for record
purposes. The average plate bearing pressure obtained was 564 kN/m2 at 1.27 mm penetration (range 436
838 kN/m2).

It should be noted that the estimated CBR value derived from the Plate Tests represents the value of the top
500 600 mm of the material, i.e. Firmafil and Firmabase and therefore values below 150% CBR are to be
expected.

Figure 4: Plate testing

Frost Heave
During the compliance testing, two samples of the stabilised soil were also submitted for frost heave testing
and were found to be non-frost susceptible.

Lessons Learnt

Cement stabilised PFA with the incorporation of a Type 1 stone produces an effective piling platform
providing CBRs in excess of 150%.

PFA is particularly weather susceptible and care is required to manage the earthmoving to minimise
exposure to rainfall prior to treatment and to provide sufficient temporary drainage to minimise standing
water.

An additional stabilised stone protection layer is beneficial for protection of the stabilised soil under
construction traffic.

Cement stabilisation improves programme and reduces cost against imported stone.


HBM Platforms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HBM Platforms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidance on the use of HBM in working

You might also like