A head-to-head comparison of soil strengthening methods
Chemical soil stabilization methods like cement, lime, and fly ash are popular choices for strengthening poor subgrades. But does their popularity rest on misunderstandings? The low initial cost of chemicals may be attractive, but other factors that go into proper installation like soil compatibility, curing time, and specialized equipment needs are often overlooked. There are also steep penalties for environmental statute violations and uncertainty surrounding its long-term performance.
It's time we re-examine chemical stabilization and compare it to proven mechanical stabilization with geogrids. Tensar multi-axial geogrids are the most advanced in the industry. They enhance the performance of poor soils by interlocking unbound aggregate materials. As the granular material strikes through the geogrid openings, it becomes laterally restrained and obtains a higher degree of confinement. This stiffer, stabilized layer resists rutting, improves bearing capacity, and increases traffic capacity.
Download the Dashboard
Contractors want a subgrade stabilization method that's inexpensive, quick, and won't require reconstruction in the short-term. Chemical stabilizers are touted as being more cost-effective over traditional methods, but they can put a much bigger dent in construction budgets than you realize.
Mechanical stabilization with Tensar geogrid offers a solution that's cost-effective and easier to install. Check out our side-by-side comparison, and see the benefits yourself.
Featured Article
Dr. Jie Han, the University of Kansas's geotechnical engineering professor, recently published an article in Geostrata magazine summarizing the two soil strengthening methods, their respective benefits and challenges, and the practicality of implementing each method on a job site. His article covers several advantages to using mechanical stabilization with geogrids.
