CT 30GB

C OLLECTION
TECHNIQUE
T 30
C I M B TO N English version
COMPARATIVE STUDY IN ROAD ENGINEERING

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS
Graphic method for environmental

and economic comparison

TREATED SOIL AGGREGATES
PLACEMENT IMPACT PLACEMENT IMPACT
4 8
3 7
Treated soil (cm) Aggregates (cm)

35 50
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20
10 Binder Equivalent
proportion distance
20 (%) (km)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
140
2 1 5 6
BINDER IMPACT DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT AGGREGATES EXTRACTION
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT TO BE TREATED IMPACT AND PRODUCTION IMPACT
COMPARATIVE STUDY IN ROAD ENGINEERING
Graphic method for environmental

and economic comparison
This document was written by Joseph ABDO, road manager - CIMBTON,
French cement association, and approved by the following Working Group:
Ludovic CASABIEL CIMENTS VICAT

David CUINET LAFARGE CIMENTS
Frdric DIDIER HOLCIM CIMENTS
Patrick DUBOIS CIMENTS CALCIA
Antoine GARRIDO CIMENTS CALCIA
Jean-Chrisrophe REDON LAFARGE CIMENTS
2
Foreword
To build roads, motorways, airport areas or any other area development for industrial,
commercial or logistical use, prior design and building of a specific road transport
platform of minimum bearing capacity is necessary, allowing construction of the actual
pavement structure.
Building the specific platform, which relates to road earthworks, consists in carrying out
levelling works (cuttings and embankments) and building a structural layer referred to as
capping layer .
Cutting, embankment and capping layer works may be performed using one of the two
following techniques:
The technique of unbound granular materials, which consists in using granular

materials from gravel pits or quarries,
The technique of in situ Soil treatment with hydraulic binders, which consists in
adding value to natural soils (existing on the construction site) by mixing them with
hydraulic binder and water.
These two techniques have advantages and drawbacks, both at economic and
environmental level.
The technique of unbound granular materials, that uses granular materials whose
extraction and production have low economic and environmental impact, may be
hindered by the impact generated by:
- transport of aggregates (a heavy bulk product), when the distance between the
quarry and the construction site exceeds a certain threshold.
- transport of surplus soil between the construction site and the tip.
The technique of in situ Soil treatment with hydraulic binders requires the use of a
hydraulic binder whose production has a non-negligible economic and environmental
impact. However, this binder is used in low proportion and the quantities produced and
transported are small compared to the quantities of unbound granular materials.
Therefore, depending on the context of each project (distance between quarry and
construction site, construction site and tip, binder proportion, distance between binder
plant and construction site), one of these two techniques may prove to be economically
and/or environmentally more valuable.
This manual, entitled Comparative study in road engineering - Soil treatment vs

Unbound granular materials provides a graphical method that helps determine and
compare economic or environmental indicators (Energy and CO2).
3
It has a dual advantage:
- it allows users to choose the values of parameters at each stage of the study,
depending on the local data of their projects,
- it allows users to quickly and visually assess and compare, in a cumulative

progression, which of the two techniques, Soil Treatment or Unbound granular
materials, is most appropriate, economically and/or environmentally.
It takes into account the production impact (binder, aggregates), transport impact (binder,
aggregates, surplus soil) and materials placement impact (Treated soil, Unbound granular
materials).
It does not take into account some factors which would have given advantage to Treated
soil technique : the cost of tipping, the cost to rehabilitate local road networks which
would be damaged by the traffic generated by the construction site (materials transport)
and the social cost, related to this traffic (risks of accidents, disturbances,).
In this document you will find a series of diagrams that may be photocopied, as often as
needed, for users to carry out specific studies.
The Economic diagram is adapted from the abacus published in appendix 4 of the
technical guide Soil treatment with lime and hydraulic binders (GTS SETRA/LCPC
2000). The Environmental diagrams (Energy and CO2) were made using the same
method but are previously unpublished.
We feel sure that the methodology that we have elaborated will help you efficiently make
the choices you need for your road earthworks projects.
Joseph ABDO
Road manager - CIMBTON
4
Contents
1 - Fundamental principles of the graphic comparison method 7

1.1 - The 3 comparative graphs 8
1.1.1 - Economic comparison graph 8
1.1.2 - Environmental - Energy Indicator Comparison Graph 8
1.1.3 - Environmental - CO2 Indicator Comparison Graph 9
1.2 - Division into 2 comparison zones 9
1.2.1 - Zone 1 10
1.2.2 - Zone 2 11
1.3 - Study of Zone 1 Soil treatment 12
1.3.1 - Quadrant 1 12
1.3.2 - Quadrant 2 13
1.3.3 - Quadrant 3 15
1.3.4 - Quadrant 4 16
1.4 - Study of Zone 2 Unbound granular materials 17
1.4.1 - Quadrant 5 17
1.4.2 - Quadrant 6 18
1.4.3 - Quadrant 7 19
1.4.4 - Quadrant 8 20
1.5 - Conclusion 21
2 - Economic comparison 23
2.1.1 - Quadrant 1 24
2.1.2 - Quadrant 2 25
2.1.3 - Quadrant 3 26
2.1.4 - Quadrant 4 27
2.2.1 - Quadrant 5 28
2.2.2 - Quadrant 6 29
2.2.3 - Quadrant 7 30
2.2.4 - Quadrant 8 31
2.3 - Conclusion 32
5
3 - Environmental comparison Energy Indicator 37
3.1.1 - Quadrant 1 38
3.1.2 - Quadrant 2 39
3.1.2.1 - Transport Energy 40
3.1.2.2 - Total Energy (production + transport) 41
3.1.3 - Quadrant 3 41
3.1.4 - Quadrant 4 43
3.2.1 - Quadrant 5 44
3.2.2 - Quadrant 6 45
3.2.3 - Quadrant 7 46
3.2.4 - Quadrant 8 47
3.3 - Conclusion 48
4 - Environmental comparison CO2 Indicator 53

4.1.1 - Quadrant 1 54
4.1.2 - Quadrant 2 55
4.1.2.1 - Transport CO2 impact 56
4.1.2.2 - Total CO2 impact (production + transport) 57
4.1.3 - Quadrant 3 57
4.1.4 - Quadrant 4 59
4.2.1 - Quadrant 5 60
4.2.2 - Quadrant 6 62
4.2.3 - Quadrant 7 63
4.2.4 - Quadrant 8 64
4.3 - Conclusion 65
5 - General conclusion 71
6
Chapter
1 Fundamental principles
of the graphic
comparison method
1.1 - The 3 comparative graphs

1.1.1 Economic comparison graph
1.1.2 Environmental - Energy Indicator Comparison Graph
1.1.3 Environmental - CO2 Indicator Comparison Graph
1.2 - Division into 2 comparison zones

1.2.1 Zone 1
1.2.2 Zone 2
1.3 - Study of Zone 1 Soil treatment

1.3.1 - Quadrant 1
1.3.2 - Quadrant 2
1.3.3 - Quadrant 3
1.3.4 - Quadrant 4
1.4 - Study of Zone 2 Unbound granular materials

1.4.1 - Quadrant 5
1.4.2 - Quadrant 6
1.4.3 - Quadrant 7
1.4.4 - Quadrant 8
1.5 - Conclusion
7
Chapitre 1 Fundamental principles of the graphic comparison method
1.1 - The 3 comparative graphs
This document includes 3 different graphs.

1.1.1 - Economic Comparison Graph
TREATED SOIL PLACEMENT COST
ECONOMIC COMPARISON AGGREGATES PLACEMENT COST
(/m3) (/m3)
Treated soil total cost (/m3)

4 Total cost (/m2)
8 Unbound granular materials 8 /m3
total cost (/m3)
6
4
2
44 44 44 0
14 /m3 40 40 40
12
10 36 36 36
8
6 32 32 32
4
2 28 28 28
0
24 24 24 7
20 20 20
3 16 16 16
12 12 12
8 8 8
Binder cost Materials transport and
Production + Transport 4 Treated soil (cm)
4 Aggregates (cm) 4 aggregates production cost
3
(/m3 of soil)
0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m )
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20
10 Binder Equivalent 4
Proportion distance
(%) (km) 52
20 8
48
30 12
44
40 16
40
50 20
36
60 24
32
70 0,15 28
28
80 32
24
90 36
0,20
20
100 40
16
110 44
0,25 12
120 48
8
130 0,30 52
2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 4
140 56
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
150 140130 120 110 100 90 80 /t t/m3 0,35 6
2 1 0,40 0,45 0,50 /m3.km 0 /m3
Materials
BINDER COST
Binder quantity
DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT 5 transport cost EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (/t) (/m3)
(kg/m3 of soil) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) COST (/m3.km) OF AGGREGATES COST (/m3)
1.1.2 - Environmental Comparison Graph - Energy Indicator

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON - ENERGY INDICATOR
TREATED SOIL Total Unbound granular AGGREGATES PLACEMENT
PLACEMENT ENERGY (Mj/m3)
Total 4 Energy
8 materials total Energy ENERGY (Mj/m3) 50
40
Energy
treated soil (Mj/m2) (Mj/m3) 30
20
20 30 (Mj/m3) 10
10 0
0 1000 1000 1000
900 900 900
800 800 800
700 700 700
600 600 600

3 7
500 500 500
400 400 400
300 300 300
200 200 200
100 100 100

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 1000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Materials transport and aggregates
Binder energy 10 Binder Equivalent 100 production total Energy
Production + Transport proportion distance (Mj/m3)
(Mj/m3 of soil) (%) (km) 200
20
30 300
1,8
2,0 400
40 2,2
2,4
50 2,6 500
2,8
3,0
60 3,2 600
2 3,4
70 3,6 700
3,8
4,0
80 800
550
90 900 500
450
100 1000 400
350
10000 110 1100 300
0 100 200 250
9000 120 1200 50 150
130 1300
8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6
3000 2000 1000 1 1,4 5 6
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
140 1400
Binder quantity Materials
(kg/m3 of soil) transport
energy
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT (Mj/m3) AGGREGATES PRODUCTION
BINDER ENERGY (Mj/t) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) ENERGY (Mj/m3.km) ENERGY (Mj/m3)
8
1.1.3 - Environmental / CO2 Indicator Comparison Graph
PLACEMENT CO2 IMPACT

ENVIRONMENT COMPARISON - CO2 INDICATOR AGGREGATES PLACEMENT
OF TREATED SOIL CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)
10,0 Treated soil Total CO2 Unbound granular
7,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3) materials total CO2 impact
5,0 Total CO2 impact impact
2,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m2) (kg CO2 eq./m3)
0
120
4 120
8 120 1,1
1,0
0,9
110 110 110 0,8
100 100 100
90 90 90
80 80 80
70 70 70
3 7
60 60 60
50 50 50
40 40 40
30 30 30
20 20 20 Materials transport and

Binder CO2 impact aggregates production
Production + transport 10 10 10 CO2 impact
(kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m3)
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20
Binder Equivalent
10 proportion distance 2,5
20 (%) (km) 5
30 7,5
0,05
40 10
50 0,075 12,5
60 15
2 0,10
70 17,5
80 20
0,125
90 22,5
100 25
0,15
1200 110 27,5
1100 120 0,175 30

1,4 t/m3
1000 130 0,20 32,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
140 1,6 0,225
1
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
900 0,25 0,30 5 6
1,8
150 0,275
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 2,4 2,2 2,0
Binder Materials transport

BINDER CO2 IMPACT quantity DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT CO2 CO2 impact AGGREGATES PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (kg CO2 eq./t) (kg CO2 eq./m3) CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)
(kg/m3 TO BE TREATED (t/m3) IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3.km)
of soil)
1.2 - Division into 2 comparison zones
Each of the 3 graphs presented in this document is divided into 2 zones (Zone 1 in green on the
left and Zone 2 in red on the right), where each zone represents a specific technique and is itself
divided into 4 quadrants.
4 8
3 7
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20
10 Binder Equivalent
proportion distance
20 (%) (km)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
140
2 1 5 6
BINDER IMPACT DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT AGGREGATES EXTRACTION
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT TO BE TREATED IMPACT AND PRODUCTION IMPACT
9
1.2.1 - Zone 1
It covers the left half of the graphs and relates to the in situ Treatment technique of materials.
TREATED SOIL
PLACEMENT IMPACT
4
Treated soil (cm)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 Binder
proportion
20 (%)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
2 1
BINDER IMPACT DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT TO BE TREATED
In this zone, the specific and main parameter is the binder that needs to be produced, transported
to the construction site where the placement process (spreading in small quantities in the order
of 30 kg/m2, mixing, spraying, levelling, compaction, curing) is carried through.
This enables to obtain a material treated for use in embankments (impact evaluated per m3 of
treated soil) or in capping layers (impact evaluated per m2 of treated soil).
In Zone 1, it is thus obvious that the comparison study should start with binder proportioning.
10
1.2.2 - Zone 2
It covers the right half of the graphs and relates to the technique of Unbound granular materials.
AGGREGATES
PLACEMENT IMPACT
8
Aggregates (cm)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20
Equivalent
distance
(km)
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
5 6
MATERIALS TRANSPORT AGGREGATES EXTRACTION
IMPACT AND PRODUCTION IMPACT
In this zone, the main parameter is the equivalent distance, or quarry-site distance + site-tip
distance. Indeed the Unbound granular materials technique requires, in addition to extraction,
production and placement (levelling, spraying, compaction) of aggregates, the transport of
heavy material for use in significant thickness for embankments and in large quantities (on the
basis of one ton per m2) for a capping layer, and especially tipping of surplus soil.
In Zone 2, it is thus obvious that the comparison study should start with the equivalent distance.
11
This zone is divided into 4 quadrants numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. Here are the main characteristics
of each of these quadrants.
1.3.1 - Quadrant 1
It helps calculate the quantity of binder required per m3 of soil to reach the performances required
for the material treated, within the scope of the project under study.
In this quadrant we see a family of straight lines (going through the origin) that represent various
dry densities, corresponding to a wide range of materials that can be found in nature (figure 1).
Thus, for a given project, when the dry density of the soil and the binder proportioning are known,
we simply draw a descending vertical line going from the binder proportion digit to the
intersection with the straight line of the dry density chosen: the binder quantity per m3 of soil
necessary for Soil treatment can then be read directly on the vertical axis of this Quadrant.
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 Binder
proportion
20 (%)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
1
Binder quantity DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL
(kg/m3 of soil)
TO BE TREATED (t/m3)
Figure 1: Soil treatment zone Material dry density quadrant
12
If, for a given project, the nature of the material to be treated is known but not its dry density,
refer to the indicative values of the table 1.
Materials Dry density

Silt 1,6 - 1,8
Clay 1,7 - 1,8
Sand 1,4 - 1,9
Homeometric sand 1,4 - 1,6
Graduated sand 1,6 - 1,9
Granular soil 1,8 - 2,2
Table 1: dry density of different types of materials
1.3.2 - Quadrant 2
Once the binder quantity per m3 of soil has been determined by Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2 helps
calculate its economic or environmental impact (Energy or CO2).
In this Quadrant, we can see straight lines (going through the origin) which, depending on the
graph used, will be either of economic or environmental nature (Energy or CO2).
Each of these straight lines has an impact value that takes into account production and transport
of binder between the plant and the construction site (figure 2).
So, for a given project, when the total impact (production + transport) per ton of binder is known,
we simply prolong horizontally the straight line of Quadrant 1 to the intersection with the straight
line corresponding to the chosen impact: the impact of the binder per m3 of treated soil can then
be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 2.
Binder impact 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
(Production + transport) 10
(for 1 m3 of soil)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
2
BINDER IMPACT
Binder quantity
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (kg/m3 of soil) Figure 2: Soil treatment zone
Binder impact quadrant
13
If the impact per ton of binder is not known or if the user wishes to accurately determine this
impact, considering the local data at hand, the user may refer to the diagram of figure 3.
When the transport distance between the cement plant and the construction site is known, as well
as the transport impact in /t.km and the production impact per ton of binder, this diagram helps
determine, successively, the transport impact and the total impact (production + transport). This
last impact is then transferred on Quadrant 2, which will allow deducing the impact of the binder
per m3 of treated soil.

BINDER IMPACT (TRANSPORT + PRODUCTION)
BINDER TRANSPORT IMPACT Binder transport BINDER PRODUCTION IMPACT (/t)

impact
(/t)
Transport 0 Binder total impact

distance Production + transport
(km) (/t)
Figure 3: diagram of evaluation of binder impact (production + transport)
14
1.3.3 - Quadrant 3
It relates to the impact of placement.
In this Quadrant, we see parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to
the impact of the placement equipment (spreader, mixer, sprinkler, compactor, grader).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined impacts of Quadrants 2 and 3: they are
thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to the values of their
impacts (figure 4).
As the impact value of the binder per m3 of treated soil has been determined by Quadrant 2, we
simply prolong vertically and upward the straight line obtained, to the intersection with the
straight line that represents the impact of the placement equipment: the total combined impact
per m3 of treated soil can then be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 3.
It is this value that will be considered to compare the impact of the Soil treatment technique and
the impact of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in embankments.
TREATED SOIL
PLACEMENT IMPACT Treated soil
total impact
0 (/m3)
Binder impact 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Production + transport
(/m3)
Figure 4: Soil treatment zone Placement impact quadrant
15
1.3.4 - Quadrant 4
Using a simple geometrical construction (Thales theorem), this quadrant enables to go from the
impact per m3 of treated soil to the impact per m2 of treated soil (figure 5).
It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the impact of the Soil treatment
technique and the impact of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in capping layers.
4
Treated soil Treated soil
total impact total impact
(/m3) (/m2)
Treated soil (cm) 35

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Binder
proportion
(%)
Figure 5: Soil treatment zone Quadrant of total impact (/m3 et /m2)
16
1.4.1 - Quadrant 5
It measures the impact of transport for the following materials:

- Unbound Granular materials, from the quarry to the construction site,
- Surplus soil (whose volume is supposed, in this document, equivalent to the volume of
unbound granular material), from the construction site to the tip.
The straight lines of this Quadrant go through the origin and represent the economic or
environmental impacts (Energy or CO2) of the various transport modes used.
For a given project, knowing the distance between quarry and site as well as the distance
between site and tip, we define an equivalent transport distance, i.e. the addition of quarry-site
distance and site-tip distance. Once this equivalent distance is determined, and knowing the
transport impact per m3.km, we use this Quadrant to read off the transport impact per m3 of
materials, as indicated by the figure 6.
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Equivalent
distance
(km)
5
Materials
MATERIALS TRANSPORT transport
impact
IMPACT (/m3.km) (/m3)
Figure 6: Unbound granular materials zone Materials transport impact quadrant
17
1.4.2 - Quadrant 6
It measures the impact of extraction and production per m3 of aggregates.
In this Quadrant we see several parallel straight lines, corresponding to the impacts of various
types of Unbound granular materials (rolled aggregate, crushed aggregate, hard rock, soft
rock).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined impacts of Quadrants 5 and 6: they are
thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to the values of their
impacts (figure 7).
As the value of the transport impact has been determined by Quadrant 5 and as the extraction
and production impacts are known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 6 enables to
assess:
- the tipping impact for a m3 of surplus soil,
- the extraction, production and transport impact for a m3 of aggregates.
Impact of materials transport

and aggregates production
(/m3)
0
6
0
Materials
AGGREGATES EXTRACTION
transport AND PRODUCTION IMPACT (/m3)
impact
(/m3)
Figure 7: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of aggregates extraction and production impact
18
1.4.3 - Quadrant 7
It measures the placement impact of Unbound granular materials.
In this Quadrant are parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to the
impact of the placement equipment (grader, sprinkler, compactor).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined impacts of Quadrants 5, 6 and 7: they
are thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to the values of their
impacts (figure 8).
As the impacts of extraction, production and transport have been determined by Quadrant 6, and
as the placement impact is known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 7 enables to
evaluate the total combined impacts of tipping per m3 of surplus soil, and extraction, production,
transport and placement impacts per m3 of aggregates.
It is this value that will be considered to compare the impact of the unbound granular materials
technique and that of Soil treatment, for use in embankments.
AGGREGATES
PLACEMENT IMPACT (/m3)
Unbound granular
materials total impact
(/m3)
0
0
Impact of materials transport
and aggregates production
(/m3)
Figure 8: Unbound granular materials zone Aggregates placement impact quadrant
19
1.4.4 - Quadrant 8
impact per m3 of granular base layer to the impact per m2 of granular base layer (figure 9).
It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the impact of the unbound granular
materials technique and that of Soil treatment, for use in capping layers.
8
Unbound granular Unbound granular
materials total impact materials total impact
(/m2) (/m3)
Aggregates (cm)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 9: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of total impact (/m3 et /m2)
20
1.5 - Conclusion
By applying this method on the 4 Quadrants of Zone 1 and on the 4 Quadrants of Zone 2 we can
compare the impacts of the Soil treatment technique and the impacts of the Unbound granular
materials technique.
For use in embankments, the comparison is made per m3 of material (figure 10).

Treated soil Total impact Unbound granular materials
total impact (/m3)
4 (/m2)
8 total impact (/m3)
3 7
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 10: impacts comparison diagram Embankments case
For use in capping layers, the comparison is made per m2 of material (figure 11).
Treated soil Total impact Unbound granular materials

total impact (/m3) 4 (/m2) 8 total impact (/m3)
Treated soil (cm) 35 Aggregates (cm)
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 11: impacts comparison diagram Capping layers case
21
22
Chapter
2 Economic
comparison
2.1.1 - Quadrant 1
2.1.2 - Quadrant 2
2.1.3 - Quadrant 3
2.1.4 - Quadrant 4

2.2.1 - Quadrant 5
2.2.2 - Quadrant 6
2.2.3 - Quadrant 7
2.2.4 - Quadrant 8
2.3 - Conclusion
23
Chapitre 2 Economic comparison
2.1.1 - Quadrant 1
In this quadrant is a family of straight lines (going through the origin) that represent various dry
densities, corresponding to a wide range of materials that can be found in nature (figure 12).
Thus, for a given project, when the dry density of the soil and the binder proportion are known,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 Binder
Proportion
20 (%)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4

t/m3
1
Binder quantity
DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL
(kg/m3 of soil) TO BE TREATED (t/m3)
24

Silt 1,6 - 1,8
Clay 1,7 - 1,8
Sand 1,4 - 1,9
2.1.2 - Quadrant 2
calculate its economic impact.
In this Quadrant, we can see straight lines (going through the origin) which represent the total
cost (production and transport) for a ton of binder (figure 13).
So, for a given project, when the total cost (production + transport) per ton of binder is known,
line of chosen cost: the binder cost per m3 of treated soil can then be read directly on the other
axis of Quadrant 2.
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
Binder cost
Production + Transport 10
(/m3 of soil)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150 140130 120 110 100 90 80 /t
2
BINDER COST
Binder quantity
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (/t) (kg/m3 of soil)
Figure 13: Soil treatment zone Binder cost quadrant
25
2.1.3 - Quadrant 3
It relates to the impact of placement.
In this Quadrant, we see parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to
the cost of the placement equipment (spreader, mixer, sprinkler, compactor, grader).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined costs of Quadrants 2 and 3: they are
thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values
(figure 14).
As the cost of the binder per m3 of treated soil has been determined by Quadrant 2, we simply
prolong vertically and upward the straight line obtained, to the intersection with the straight line
that represents the cost of the placement equipment: the total combined cost per m3 of treated
soil can then be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 3.
It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the cost of the Soil treatment technique
and the cost of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in embankments.

(/m3)
44
14 /m 3
40
12
10 36
8
6 32
4
2 28
0
24
20
3 16
12
8
Binder cost
Production + Transport 4
(/m3 of soil)
0
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
Figure 14: Soil treatment zone Placement cost quadrant
26
2.1.4 - Quadrant 4
cost per m3 of treated soil to the cost per m2 of treated soil (figure 15).
It is this value that will be considered to compare the cost of the Soil treatment technique and the
cost of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in capping layers.
Treated soil 4 Treated soil

total cost (/m3) total cost (/m2)
44 44
40 40
36 36
32 32
28 28
24 24
20 20
16 16
12 12
8 8
4 Treated soil (cm) 4

0 90 80 70 60 50 4035 30 20 10
Figure 15: Soil treatment zone Quadrant of total cost (/m3 et /m2)
27
2.2.1 - Quadrant 5
It measures the cost of transport for the following materials:

- Surplus soil (whose volume is supposed, in this document, equivalent to that of unbound
granular materials), from the construction site to the tip.
The straight lines of this Quadrant go through the origin and represent the costs (expressed in
/m3.km) of the various transport modes used.
For a given project, knowing the distance between quarry and worksite as well as the distance
transport cost per m3.km, we use this Quadrant to read off the transport cost per m3 of materials,
as indicated by the figure 16.
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Equivalent 4
distance
(km) 8
12
16
20
24
0,15 28
32
36
0,20
40
44
0,25
48
0,30 52
56
0,35
3
0,40 0,45 0,50 /m .km
Materials
MATERIALS TRANSPORT 5 transport cost
(/m3)
COST (/m3.km)
Figure 16: Unbound granular materials zone Materials transport cost quadrant
28
2.2.2 - Quadrant 6
It measures the cost of extraction and production per m3 of aggregates.
In this Quadrant we see several parallel straight lines, corresponding to the costs of various types
of Unbound granular materials (rolled aggregate, crushed aggregate, hard rock, soft rock)
expressed in /m3 (figure 17).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined costs of Quadrants 5 and 6: they are thus
tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values.
Materials transport and

aggregates production cost
3
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m )
4
52
8
48
12
44
16
40
20
36
24
32
28
28
32
24
36
20
40
16
44
12
48
8
52
4
56
6
0 /m3
Materials
transport cost EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTION
(/m3)
OF AGGREGATES COST (/m3)
Figure 17: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of aggregates extraction and production cost
As the transport cost has been determined at Quadrant 5 and as the extraction and production
costs are known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 6 enables to calculate the
cumulated total cost for tipping per m3 of surplus soil and total cost of extraction, production and
transport per m3 of aggregates.
29
2.2.3 - Quadrant 7
It measures the placement cost of Unbound granular materials.
In this Quadrant are parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to the costs
of placement equipment (grader, sprinkler, compactor).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined costs of Quadrants 5, 6 and 7: they are thus
tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values (figure 18).
As the cost of extraction, production and transport has been determined at Quadrant 6, and as the
placement cost is known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 7 enables to evaluate the
combined total cost for tipping per m3 of surplus soil and total cost of extraction, production, transport
and placement per m3 of aggregates.
It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the cost of the unbound granular materials
technique and that of Soil treatment, for use in embankments.
AGGREGATES PLACEMENT COST

(/m3)
Unbound granular materials 8 /m3
total cost (/m3)
6
4
2
44 0
40
36
32
28
24 7
20
16
12
8
4 aggregates production cost
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m3)
Figure 18: Unbound granular materials zone Aggregates placement cost quadrant
30
2.2.4 - Quadrant 8
cost per m3 of granular base layer to the cost per m2 of granular base layer.
It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the cost of the unbound granular
materials technique and that of Soil treatment, for use in capping layers (figure 19).
Unbound granular materials 8 Unbound granular materials

total cost (/m2) total cost (/m3)
44 44
40 40
36 36
32 32
28 28
24 24
20 20
16 16
12 12
8 8
4 Aggregates (cm) 4
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 19: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of total cost (/m3 et /m2)
31
2.3 - Conclusion
compare the costs of the Soil treatment technique and the costs of the unbound granular materials
technique.
TREATED SOIL PLACEMENT COST AGGREGATES PLACEMENT COST

(/m3) (/m3)

4 Total cost (/m2)
8 Unbound granular materials 8 /m3
total cost (/m3)
6
4
2
44 44 44 0
14 /m3 40 40 40
12
10 36 36 36
8
6 32 32 32
4
2 28 28 28
0
24 24 24 7
20 20 20
3 16 16 16
12 12 12
8 8 8
(/m3 of soil) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m3)
0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
Figure 20: costs comparison diagram Embankments case
For use in capping layers the comparison is made per m2 of material (figure 21).

4 Total cost (/m2)
8 Unbound granular materials
total cost (/m3)
44 44 44
40 40 40
36 36 36
32 32 32
28 28 28
24 24 24
20 20 20
16 16 16
12 12 12
8 8 8
4 Treated soil (cm)

4 Aggregates (cm) 4
0 90 80 70 60 50 4035 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 21: costs comparison diagram Capping layers case
32
(/m3) (/m3)
4 8 Unbound granular materials 8 /m3
Treated soil total cost (/m3) Total cost (/m2) total cost (/m3)
6
4
2
44 44 44 0
3
14 /m 40 40 40
12
10 36 36 36
8
6 32 32 32
4
2 28 28 28
0
24 24 24 7
20 20 20
3 16 16 16
12 12 12
8 8 8
(/m3 of soil) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m3)
0 90 80 70 60 50 4035 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
33
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20
Proportion distance
(%) (km) 52
20 8
48
30 12
44
40 16
40
50 20
36
60 24
32
70 0,15 28
28
80 32
24
90 36
0,20
20
100 40
16
110 44
0,25 12
120 48
8
130 0,30 52
2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 4
140 56
150 140130 120 110 100 90 80 /t t/m3 0,35 6
2 1 0,40 0,45 0,50 /m3.km 0 /m3
Materials
BINDER COST DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT 5 transport cost EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTION
Binder quantity (/m3)
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (/t) (kg/m3 of soil) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) COST (/m3.km) OF AGGREGATES COST (/m3)
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
To make your own economic comparison studies

between the Soil treatment technique and the Unbound
granular materials technique, you can simply photocopy
the unmarked graph on page 35, add data specific to
your study and read the result you need on the graph.
34
(/m3) (/m3)
4 8 Unbound granular materials 8 /m3
Treated soil total cost (/m3) Total cost (/m2) total cost (/m3)
6
4
2
44 44 44 0
3
14 /m 40 40 40
12
10 36 36 36
8
6 32 32 32
4
2 28 28 28
0
24 24 24 7
20 20 20
3 16 16 16
12 12 12
8 8 8
3
(/m3 of soil) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m )
0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
35
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20
Proportion distance
(%) (km) 52
20 8
48
30 12
44
40 16
40
50 20
36
60 24
32
70 0,15 28
28
80 32
24
90 36
0,20
20
100 40
16
110 44
0,25 12
120 48
8
130 0,30 52
2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 4
140 56
150 140130 120 110 100 90 80 /t t/m3 0,35 6
2 1 0,40 0,45 0,50 /m3.km 0 /m3
Materials
BINDER COST DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT 5 transport cost EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTION
Binder quantity (/m3)
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (/t) (kg/m3 of soil) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) COST (/m3.km) OF AGGREGATES COST (/m3)
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
36
Chapter
3 Environmental
comparison
Energy Indicator

3.1.1 - Quadrant 1
3.1.2 - Quadrant 2
3.1.2.1 - Transport Energy
3.1.2.2 - Total Energy (production + transport)
3.1.3 - Quadrant 3
3.1.4 - Quadrant 4

3.2.1 - Quadrant 5
3.2.2 - Quadrant 6
3.2.3 - Quadrant 7
3.2.4 - Quadrant 8
3.3 - Conclusion
37
Chapitre 3 Environmental comparison Energy Indicator
3.1.1 - Quadrant 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 Binder
proportion
(%)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
1 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4
140
Binder quantity
(kg/m3 of soil) DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL
TO BE TREATED (t/m3)
38

Silt 1,6 - 1,8
Clay 1,7 - 1,8
Sand 1,4 - 1,9
3.1.2 - Quadrant 2
calculate its Energy impact.
In this Quadrant, we can see straight lines (going through the origin) which represent the Energy
impact (production + transport) for a ton of binder (figure 23).
So, for a given project, when the total Energy (production + transport) per ton of binder is known,
line corresponding to the chosen Energy: the Energy of the binder per m3 of treated soil can then
be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 2.
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
Binder energy 10
Production + Transport
(Mj/m3 of soil) 20
30
40
50
60
2
70
80
90
100
10000 110
9000 120
130
8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
140
Binder quantity
3
(kg/m of soil)
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT
BINDER ENERGY (Mj/t)
Figure 23: Soil treatment zone Binder Energy quadrant
39
If the total energy per ton of binder is not known or if the user wishes to accurately determine this
energy with the local data at hand, he may refer to the diagram of figure 24.
BINDER TRANSPORT ENERGY Transport BINDER PRODUCTION ENERGY

(Mj/t.km) energy (Mj/t)
(Mj/t) 1625
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5
800
0,7
700
0,6
600
0,5
500
400
300
200
100
Transport 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 Binder energy
distance 250 1800 Production + transport
(km) (Mj/t)
Figure 24: diagram of evaluation of binder Energy (production + transport)
When the transport distance between the cement plant and the construction site is known, as well
as the transport energy of binder in Mj/t.km and the production energy for a ton of binder, this
diagram helps determine, successively, the transport energy and the total energy.
The total energy is then transferred on Quadrant 2, which will allow deducing the energy of the
binder per m3 of treated soil.
3.1.2.1 - Transport Energy
When the binder transport energy in Mj/t.km is not known, the user is able to calculate it using
the following formula: moyen de la formule suivante :
Consumption per 100 km x 35

F (Energy, D) =
Truck load capacity x 100
With:
Consumption per 100 km
16-ton truck: 29 litres of fuel
Truck load capacity
16-ton truck: 8-ton load capacity
Coefficient 35: this is the quantity of energy (in Mj) released by the combustion of a litre of fuel
Coefficient 100: for 100 km
40
3.1.2.2 - Binder production Energy
When the production energy per ton of binder is not known, we can use the values given as an
indication in the table 4.
Energy consumption
Binder
(Mj/t binder)
CEM I 5 930*
CEM II 4 395*
Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 70% Slag 2 636*
Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 30% Limestone 3 856*
Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 30% Fly Ash 3 887*
Quicklime 4 301**
* Source: ATILH ** Source: Union des Producteurs de Chaux
Table 4: Binder production Energy
To obtain the right production energy per ton of a given product, we invite you to contact directly
the binders producer.
3.1.3 - Quadrant 3
It relates to the Energy consumed during placement.
In this Quadrant we see parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to
the energies consumed by the placement equipment (spreader, mixer, sprinkler, compactor,
grader).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined energies of Quadrants 2 and 3: they are
(figure 25).
As the energy value of the binder per m3 of treated soil has been determined by Quadrant 2, we
simply prolong vertically and upward the straight line obtained, to the intersection with the
straight line that represents the energy of the placement equipment: the total combined energy
It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the total Energy of the Soil treatment
technique and the total Energy of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in
embankments.
41
TREATED SOIL Total

PLACEMENT ENERGY (Mj/m3) Energy
treated soil
20 30 (Mj/m3)
10
0 1000
900
800
700
600
3
500
400
300
200
100
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
Binder energy
Production + Transport
(Mj/m3 of soil)
Figure 25: Soil treatment zone Placement Energy quadrant
If the energy of the placement equipment is not known, we can use the following calculation
method:
E Mj = 35 L Litre
With:
E: energy consumed for the placement of a m3 of treated soil (Mj)
Coefficient 35: calorific value of a litre of fuel
L fuel consumption of all equipment used for placement of treated soil (for 1 m3). L values are
given in the table 5.
L Soil
0,7 Silty/sandy soil
0,8 Clay soil
0,9 Gravelly soil
1,0 Packed and difficult soil
> 1,0 Bouldery soil
Table 5: fuel consumption of all equipment used for placement treated Soil, according to soil nature
42
3.1.4 - Quadrant 4
Energy per m3 of treated soil to the Energy per m2 of treated soil (figure 26).
Total 4 Total
Energy Energy
treated soil treated soil
(Mj/m3) (Mj/m2)
1000 1000
900 900
800 800
700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
Treated soil (cm) 35
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
Figure 26: Soil treatment zone Quadrant of total Energy (/m3 et /m2)
It is this value that will be considered to compare the total Energy of the Soil treatment technique
and the Energy of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in capping layers.
43
3.2 - Study of Zone 2 Unbound granular material
3.2.1 - Quadrant 5
IIt measures the Energy of the following materials:

The straight lines of this Quadrant go through the origin and represent the energies (expressed
in Mj/m3.km) of the various transport modes used (figure 27).
transport energy per m3.km, we use this Quadrant to read off the transport energy per m3 of
materials, as indicated by the red line on the graph below.
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Equivalent 100
distance
(km) 200
300
1,8
2,0 400
2,2
2,4
2,6 500
2,8
3,0
3,2 600
3,4
3,6 700
3,8
4,0
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
5 1400
Materials
transport
energy
MATERIALS TRANSPORT (Mj/m3)
ENERGY (Mj/m3.km)
Figure 27: Unbound granular materials zone Materials transport Energy quadrant
44
When the transport energy per m3.km is not known, the user is able to calculate it using the
following formula:
Consumption per 100 km x 35 x 2.2

F (Energy, D) =
With:
Truck load capacity

Coefficient 35: this is the quantity of energy (in megajoules - Mj) released by the combustion of
a litre of fuel
Coefficient 2.2: density of aggregates
3.2.2 - Quadrant 6
It measures the Energy of extraction and production per m3 of aggregates.
In this Quadrant we see several parallel straight lines, corresponding to the energies of various
types of Unbound granular materials (rolled aggregate, crushed aggregate, hard rock, soft
rock).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined energies of Quadrants 5 and 6: they are
(figure 28).
As the transport energy has been determined at Quadrant 5 and as the extraction and production
energies are known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 6 enables to calculate the
combined energy of materials transport, of extraction and production of aggregates.
45
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0 Materials transport and aggregates
100 production total Energy
(Mj/m3)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
550
900 500
450
1000 400
350
1100 300
0 100 200 250
1200 50 150
1300
6
1400
Materials
transport
energy
(Mj/m3) AGGREGATES PRODUCTION
ENERGY (Mj/m3)
Figure 28: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of aggregates extraction and production Energy
3.2.3 - Quadrant 7
It measures the placement energy of Unbound granular materials.
energies of placement equipment (grader, sprinkler, compactor).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined energies of Quadrants 5, 6 and 7: they
are thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values
(figure 29).
As the energy of extraction, production and transport has been determined at Quadrant 6, and
as the placement energy is known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 7 enables to
evaluate the combined total energy of materials transport, of extraction, production and
placement of aggregates.
It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the total energy of the unbound
granular materials technique and that of the Soil treatment technique, for use in embankments.
46
Unbound granular AGGREGATES PLACEMENT
50
materials total Energy ENERGY (Mj/m3) 40
(Mj/m3) 30
20
10
0
1000
900
800
700
600
7
500
400
300
200
100
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0 Materials transport and aggregates
production total Energy
(Mj/m3)
Figure 29: Unbound granular materials zone Aggregates placement Energy quadrant
3.2.4 - Quadrant 8
Energy per m3 of treated soil to the Energy per m2 of treated soil (figure 30). It is this value that
will be considered to compare the total Energy of the Soil treatment technique and the Energy of
the unbound granular materials technique, for use in capping layers.

materials total Energy
8 materials total Energy
(Mj/m2) (Mj/m3)
1000 1000
900 900
800 800
700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
Aggregates (cm)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 30: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of total Energy (/m3 et /m2)
47
3.3 - Conclusion
compare the energie of the Soil treatment technique and the energie of the unbound granular
materials technique.

Total 4 Energy
40
Energy
20
20 30 (Mj/m3) 10
10 0
0 1000 1000 1000
900 900 900
800 800 800
700 700 700
600 600 600

3 7
500 500
500
400 400 400
300 300 300
200 200 200
100 100 100

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Materials transport and aggregates
Binder energy production total Energy
Production + Transport (Mj/m3)
(Mj/m3 of soil)
Figure 31: environmental comparison diagram (Energy) Embankments case
Total Unbound granular

Total 4 Energy
8 materials total Energy
Energy
treated soil (Mj/m2) (Mj/m3)
(Mj/m3)
1000 1000 1000
900 900 900
800 800 800
700 700 700
600 600 600
500 500 500
400 400 400
300 300 300
200 200 200
100 100 100

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 32: environmental comparison diagram (Energy) Capping layers case
48
TREATED SOIL Total Total Unbound granular AGGREGATES PLACEMENT
4 8 50
PLACEMENT ENERGY (Mj/m3) Energy Energy materials total Energy ENERGY (Mj/m3) 40
20
20 30 (Mj/m3) 10
10 0
0 1000 1000 1000
900 900 900
800 800 800
700 700 700
600 600 600

3 7
500 500 500
400 400 400
300 300 300
200 200 200
100 100 100

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Materials transport and aggregates
49
(Mj/m3 of soil) (%) (km) 200
20
30 300
1,8
2,0 400
40 2,2
2,4
50 2,6 500
2,8
3,0
60 3,2 600
2 3,4
70 3,6 700
3,8
4,0
80 800
550
90 900 500
450
100 1000 400
350
10000 110 1100 300
0 100 200 250
9000 120 1200 50 150
130 1300
8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6
1 1,4 5 6
140 1400
3
(kg/m of soil) transport
energy
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
To make your own studies on Environment comparison

Energy indicator between the Soil treatment
technique and the Unbound granular materials
technique, you can simply photocopy the unmarked
graph on page 52, add data specific to your study and
read the result you need on the graph.
50
Diagram of evaluation of binder Energy (production + transport)
BINDER TRANSPORT ENERGY Transport BINDER PRODUCTION ENERGY

(Mj/t.km) energy (Mj/t)
(Mj/t) 1625
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5
800
0,7
700
0,6
51
600
0,5
500
400
300
200
100
Transport 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 Binder energy
distance 250 1800 Production + transport
(km) (Mj/t)
Total 4 Energy
40
Energy
20
20 30 (Mj/m3) 10
10 0
0 1000 1000 1000
900 900 900
800 800 800
700 700 700
600 600 600
3 7
500 500 500
400 400 400
300 300 300
200 200 200
100 100 100
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
52
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Materials transport and aggregates
(Mj/m3 of soil) (%) (km) 200
20
30 300
1,8
2,0 400
40 2,2
2,4
50 2,6 500
2,8
3,0
60 3,2 600
2 3,4
70 3,6 700
3,8
4,0
80 800
550
90 900 500
450
100 1000 400
350
10000 110 1100 300
0 100 200 250
9000 120 1200 50 150
130 1300
8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6
3000 2000 1000 1 1,4 5 6
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
140 1400
(kg/m3 of soil) transport
energy
Chapter
4 Environmental
comparison -
CO2 Indicator

4.1.1 - Quadrant 1
4.1.2 - Quadrant 2
4.1.2.1 - Transport CO impact
4.1.2.2 - Total CO impact (production + transport)
4.1.3 - Quadrant 3
4.1.4 - Quadrant 4

4.2.1 - Quadrant 5
4.2.2 - Quadrant 6
4.2.3 - Quadrant 7
4.2.4 - Quadrant 8
4.3 - Conclusion
53
Chapitre 4 Environmental comparison - CO2 Indicator
4.1.1 - Quadrant 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Binder
10 proportion
20 (%)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
1,4 t/m3
130
140 1,6
1 1,8
150
2,4 2,2 2,0
Binder
quantity DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL
(kg/m3 TO BE TREATED (t/m3)
of soil)
54
Silt 1,6 - 1,8
Clay 1,7 - 1,8
Sand 1,4 - 1,9
4.1.2 - Quadrant 2
calculate its CO2 impact.
In this Quadrant, we can see straight lines (going through the origin) which represent the CO2
impact (expressed in kg CO2 equivalent) of the various types of binders (figure 34).
So, for a given project, when the total CO2 impact (production + transport) per ton of binder is
known, we simply prolong horizontally the straight line of Quadrant 1 to the intersection with the
straight line corresponding to the chosen impact: the CO2 impact of binder per m3 of treated soil
can then be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 2.
130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Binder CO2 impact 10
Production + transport
(kg CO2 eq./m3) 20
30
40
50
60
2
70
80
90
100
1200 110
1100 120
1000 130
140
900
800 700 150

600 500 400 300 200 100
Binder
BINDER CO2 IMPACT quantity
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (kg CO2 eq./t) (kg/m3
of soil)
Figure 34: Soil treatment zone Binder CO2 impact quadrant
55
If the total CO2 impact per ton of binder is not known or if the user wishes to accurately determine
this impact with the local data at hand, he may refer to the diagram of figure 35.
BINDER TRANSPORT CO2 IMPACT BINDER PRODUCTION CO2 IMPACT

(kg CO2 q./t.km) Binder transport (kg CO2 q./t)
CO2 impact
0,10 (kg CO2 q./t) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
0,09
80
0,08
0,07 70
0,06
60
0,05
50
0,04
40
30
20
10
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Transport distance (km) 250 315
Binder CO2 impact, Production + transport
(CO2 q./t)
Figure 35: diagram of evaluation of binder CO2 impact (production + transport)
Ce When the transport distance between the cement plant and the construction site is known, as well
as the transport CO2 impact in t.km and the CO2 impact for production of a ton of binder, this diagram
help determine, successively, the transport CO2 impact and the total production + transport CO2
impact.
The total CO2 impact is then transferred on Quadrant 2, which will allow deducing the CO2 impact
per m3 of treated soil.
4.1.2.1 - Transport CO2 impact
When the transport CO2 impact in t.km is not known, the user is able to calculate it using the
following formula:
Consumption per 100 km x 2.5

F (CO2, D) =
With:
Truck load capacity
Coefficient 2.5: his is the quantity of CO2 equivalent (in kg) released by the combustion of a litre
of fuel
56
4.1.2.2 - Binder production CO2 impact
When the CO2 impact per ton of binder is not known, we can use the values given as an indication
in the table 7.
CO2 impact
Binder
(kg CO2 eq./t binder)
CEM I 868*
CEM II 650*
Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 70% Slag 294*
Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 30% Limestone 614*
Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 30% Fly Ash 613*
Quicklime 1 059**
* Source: ATILH ** Source: Union des Producteurs de Chaux
Table 7: binder production CO2 impact
To obtain the right CO2 impact per ton of a given product, we invite you to contact directly the
binders producer.
4.1.3 - Quadrant 3
It relates to the CO2 impact of placement.
In this Quadrant we see parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to
the CO2 impacts of placement equipment (spreader, mixer, sprinkler, compactor, grader).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined CO2 impacts of Quadrants 2 and 3: they
(figure 36).
As the CO2 impact value of the binder per m3 of treated soil has been determined by Quadrant
2, we simply prolong vertically and upward the straight line obtained, to the intersection with the
straight line that represents the CO2 impact of placement equipment: the total combined impact
It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the total CO2 impact of the Soil
treatment technique and the total CO2 impact of the unbound granular materials technique, for
use in embankments.
57

OF TREATED SOIL
10,0 (kg CO2 eq./m3) Treated soil
7,5 Total CO2 impact
5,0
2,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3)
0
120
110
100
90
80
70
3 60
50
40
30
20
Binder CO2 impact
Production + transport 10
(kg CO2 eq./m3)
130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Figure 36: Soil treatment zone Placement CO2 impact quadrant
If the CO2 impact of placement equipment is not known, we can use the following calculation
method:
CO2 Impact = 2.5 L
With:
CO2 Impact: quantity of CO2 equivalent for placement of a m3 of treated soil (kg CO2 equivalent)
Coefficient 2.5: quantity of CO2 equivalent released by the combustion of a litre of fuel
L: fuel consumption of all equipment used for placement of treated soil (for 1 m3). L values are
given in the table 8.
L Soil
0,7 Silty/sandy soil
0,8 Clay soil
0,9 Gravelly soil
1,0 Packed and difficult soil
> 1,0 Bouldery soil
Table 8: fuel consumption of all equipment used for treated Soil, according to soil nature
58
4.1.4 - Quadrant 4
CO2 impact per m3 of treated soil to the CO2 impact per m2 of treated soil (figure 37).
Treated soil Treated soil

Total CO2 impact Total CO2 impact
120
4 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 Treated soil (cm) 10

90 80 70 60 50 40 35 30 20 10
Figure 37: Soil treatment zone Quadrant of total CO2 impact (/m3 et /m2)
It is this value that will be considered to compare the total CO2 impact of the Soil treatment
technique and the total CO2 impact of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in
capping layers.
59
4.2.1 - Quadrant 5
It measures the CO2 impact of the following materials:

The straight lines of this Quadrant go through the origin and represent the CO2 impact (expressed
in kg CO2 equivalent) of the various transport modes used (figure 38).
transport impact per m3.km, we use this Quadrant to read off the transport CO2 impact per m3 of
materials, as indicated by the red line on the graph below.
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Equivalent
distance 2,5
(km) 5
7,5
0,05
10
0,075 12,5
15
0,10 17,5
20
0,125
22,5
25
0,15
27,5
0,175 30
0,20 32,5
0,225
0,25 0,30 5
0,275
Materials transport
MATERIALS TRANSPORT CO2 CO2 impact
(kg CO2 eq./m3)
IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3.km)
Figure 38: Unbound granular materials zone Materials transport CO2 impact quadrant
60
When the transport CO2 impact per m3.km is not known, the user is able to calculate it using the
following formula:
Consumption per 100 km x 2.5 x 2.2

F (CO2, D) =
With:
Truck load capacity

Coefficient 2.5: this is the quantity of CO2 equivalent (in kg) released by the combustion of a litre
of fuel
Coefficient 2.2: density of aggregates
61
4.2.2 - Quadrant 6
It measures the CO2 impact of extraction and production for a m3 of aggregates.
In this Quadrant we see several parallel straight lines, corresponding to the CO2 impacts of
various types of Unbound granular materials (rolled aggregate, crushed aggregate, hard rock, soft
rock).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined CO2 impacts of Quadrants 5 and 6: they
(figure 39).

aggregates production
CO2 impact
(kg CO2 eq./m3)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
2,5
5
7,5
10
12,5
15
17,5
20
22,5
25
27,5
30
32,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Materials transport
CO2 impact AGGREGATES PRODUCTION
(kg CO2 eq./m3) CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)
Figure 39: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of aggregates extraction and production CO2 impact
As the transport CO2 impact has been determined at Quadrant 5 and as the extraction and
production CO2 impacts are known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 6 enables
to calculate the combined CO2 impact of materials transport and of extraction and production of
aggregates.
62
4.2.3 - Quadrant 7
It measures placement CO2 impact of Unbound granular materials.
CO2 impacts of placement equipment (grader, sprinkler, compactor).
These straight lines were drawn to include the combined CO2 impacts of Quadrants 5, 6 and 7:
they are thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own
values (figure 40).
As the CO2 impact of extraction, production and transport has been determined at Quadrant 6,
and as the placement CO2 impact is known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 7
enables to evaluate the combined total CO2 impact for materials transport and for extraction,
production, transport and placement of aggregates.
It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the total CO2 impact of the Unbound
granular materials technique and total CO2 impact of the Soil treatment technique, for use in
embankments.
AGGREGATES PLACEMENT
Unbound granular CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)
materials total CO2 impact
(kg CO2 eq./m3)
120 1,1
1,0
0,9
110 0,8
100
90
80
70
7
60
50
40
30
20 Materials transport and

aggregates production
10 CO2 impact
(kg CO2 eq./m3)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Figure 40: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of aggregates placement CO2 impact
63
4.2.4 - Quadrant 8
CO2 impact per m3 of unbound granular materials to the CO2 impact per m2 of unbound granular
materials (figure 41).
It is this value that will be considered to compare the total CO2 impact of the unbound granular
materials technique and the total CO2 impact of the Soil treatment technique, for use in capping
layers.

materials total CO2 impact materials total CO2 impact
120
8 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
Aggregates (cm)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 41: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of total CO2 impact (/m3 et /m2)
64
4.3 - Conclusion
compare the CO2 impacts of the Soil treatment technique and the CO2 impacts of the unbound
granular materials technique.
PLACEMENT CO2 IMPACT Treated soil Total CO2 Unbound granular

OF TREATED SOIL Total CO2 impact impact materials total CO2 impact
10,0 (kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m2) (kg CO2 eq./m3) CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)
7,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3)
5,0
2,5
0
120
4 120
8 120 1,1
1,0
0,9
110 110 110 0,8
100 100 100
90 90 90
80 80 80
70 70 70
3 7
60 60 60
50 50 50
40 40 40
30 30 30

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Figure 42: environmental comparison diagram (CO2 impact) Embankments case
Treated soil Total CO2 Unbound granular

Total CO2 impact impact materials total CO2 impact
(kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m2) (kg CO2 eq./m3)
120
4 120
8 120
110 110 110
100 100 100
90 90 90
80 80 80
70 70 70
60 60 60
50 50 50
40 40 40
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 Treated soil (cm) 10 10

Aggregates (cm)
90 80 70 60 50 40 35 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 43: environmental comparison diagram (CO2 impact) Capping layers case
65
ENVIRONMENT COMPARISON - CO2 INDICATOR AGGREGATES PLACEMENT
OF TREATED SOIL CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)
10,0 Treated soil Total CO2 Unbound granular
7,5 (kg CO eq./m3)
2 materials total CO2 impact
Total CO2 impact impact
5,0
0
120
4 120
8 120 1,1
1,0
0,9
110 110 110 0,8
100 100 100
90 90 90
80 80 80
70 70 70
3 7
60 60 60
50 50 50
40 40 40
30 30 30
(kg CO eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m3)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
66
2 90 80 70 60 50 40 35 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20
Binder Equivalent
20 (%) (km) 5
30 7,5
0,05
40 10
50 0,075 12,5
60 15
2 0,10
70 17,5
80 20
0,125
90 22,5
100 25
0,15
1200 110 27,5
1100 120 0,175 30
1,4 t/m3
1000 130 0,20 32,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
140 1,6 0,225
1
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
900 0,25 0,30 5 6
1,8
150 0,275
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 2,4 2,2 2,0
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (kg CO2 eq./t) (kg CO2 eq./m3) CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)
(kg/m3 TO BE TREATED (t/m3) IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3.km)
of soil)
To make your own studies on Environment comparison
CO2 indicator between the Soil treatment technique
and the Unbound granular materials technique, you can
simply photocopy the unmarked graph on page 69, add
data specific to your study and read the result you need
on the graph.
67
Diagram of evaluation of binder CO2 impact (production + transport)
BINDER TRANSPORT CO2 IMPACT BINDER PRODUCTION CO2 IMPACT
(kg CO2 q./t.km) Binder transport (kg CO2 q./t)
CO2 impact
0,10 (kg CO2 q./t) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
0,09
80
0,08
0,07 70
68
0,06
60
Environmental comparison - CO2 Indicator
0,05
50
0,04
40
30
20
10
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Transport distance (km) 250 315
Binder CO impact, Production + transport
2
(CO2 q./t)
4Chapitre
OF TREATED SOIL ENVIRONMENT COMPARISON - CO2 INDICATOR
10,0 Treated soil Total CO2 Unbound granular CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)
7,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3)
5,0 Total CO2 impact impact materials total CO2 impact
0
120
4 120
8 120 1,1
1,0
0,9
110 110 110 0,8
100 100 100
90 90 90
80 80 80
70 70 70
3 7
60 60 60
50 50 50
40 40 40
30 30 30

Production + transport 10 Treated soil (cm) 10 10 CO2 impact
Aggregates (cm)
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
69
130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20
Binder Equivalent
20 (%) (km) 5
30 7,5
0,05
40 10
50 0,075 12,5
60 15
2 0,10
70 17,5
80 20
0,125
90 22,5
100 25
0,15
1200 110 27,5
1100 120 0,175 30

1,4 t/m3
1000 130 0,20 32,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
140 1,6 0,225
900 1 0,25 0,30
1,8 5 6
150 0,275
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 2,4 2,2 2,0

(kg/m3 (kg CO2 eq./m3)
PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (kg CO2 eq./t) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)
J. ABDO - CIMBTON
IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3.km)

of soil)
70
Chapter
5 General
conclusion
This study aims to offer a simple visual method that will help users make decisions as regards the
choice of construction techniques, in the field of road earthworks.
It concerns the three impacts or indicators which are nowadays considered as most important:
Economic, Energy and CO2.
To supplement this study, other impacts or indicators may be studied in the future: water, natural
resources, waste materials, acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, human toxicity
71
Pictures credit
Romualda Holak, Cimbton, X
All rights reserved
Layout
Dorothe Picard
Published by
lot Trsor
RCS Paris B 408 745 149
First Edition November 2009

November 2009

CT 30GB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

CT 30GB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C OLLECTION

COMPARATIVE STUDY IN ROAD ENGINEERING

Graphic method for environmental

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

Treated soil (cm) Aggregates (cm)

Graphic method for environmental

Ludovic CASABIEL CIMENTS VICAT

The technique of unbound granular materials, which consists in using granular

This manual, entitled Comparative study in road engineering - Soil treatment vs

- it allows users to quickly and visually assess and compare, in a cumulative

1 - Fundamental principles of the graphic comparison method 7

4 - Environmental comparison CO2 Indicator 53

1.1 - The 3 comparative graphs

1.2 - Division into 2 comparison zones

1.3 - Study of Zone 1 Soil treatment

1.4 - Study of Zone 2 Unbound granular materials

1.1 - The 3 comparative graphs

This document includes 3 different graphs.

Treated soil total cost (/m3)

1.1.2 - Environmental Comparison Graph - Energy Indicator

900 900 900

800 800 800

700 700 700

600 600 600

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

PLACEMENT CO2 IMPACT

20 20 20 Materials transport and

1100 120 0,175 30

Binder Materials transport

1.2 - Division into 2 comparison zones

Treated soil (cm) Aggregates (cm)

Treated soil (cm)

1.3 - Study of Zone 1 Soil treatment

Figure 1: Soil treatment zone Material dry density quadrant

Materials Dry density

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

BINDER TRANSPORT IMPACT Binder transport BINDER PRODUCTION IMPACT (/t)

Transport 0 Binder total impact

Figure 3: diagram of evaluation of binder impact (production + transport)

It relates to the impact of placement.

Treated soil (cm) 35

Figure 5: Soil treatment zone Quadrant of total impact (/m3 et /m2)

It measures the impact of transport for the following materials:

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Figure 6: Unbound granular materials zone Materials transport impact quadrant

It measures the impact of extraction and production per m3 of aggregates.

Impact of materials transport

It measures the placement impact of Unbound granular materials.

Figure 8: Unbound granular materials zone Aggregates placement impact quadrant

TREATED SOIL AGGREGATES

Treated soil (cm) Aggregates (cm)

Figure 10: impacts comparison diagram Embankments case

Treated soil Total impact Unbound granular materials

Treated soil (cm) 35 Aggregates (cm)

Figure 11: impacts comparison diagram Capping layers case

2.2 - Study of Zone 2 Unbound granular materials

2.1 - Study of Zone 1 Soil treatment

140 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4

Figure 12: Soil treatment zone Material dry density quadrant

Materials Dry density