Application of Flax Straw in Subgrade Strengthening

By

Zvjezdan Lazic
Regional Preservation Planner, Central Region
Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Ron Gerbrandt, P.Eng.

Preservation Engineer, Central Region
Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Paper prepared for presentation at the Environmental Benefits of In-Situ Material

Recycling and Strengthening Session
of the 2004 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada
Quebec City, Quebec

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Saskatchewan Highways

and Transportation.
 Abstract

Due to the recent developments affecting the transportation systems in Saskatchewan

such as rationalization of the grain handling facilities, economic diversification, increased
value-added production, abolishment of the Crow Rate, consolidation of railway branch
lines and introduction of bigger truck configurations, Saskatchewan Department of
Highways and Transportation (DHT) has been struggling to provide a desirable level of
service on its thin membrane structure (TMS) road network. This has occasionally
resulted in less than acceptable and unsafe road surface conditions.

In order to address some of these problems, DHT began researching innovative TMS
strengthening techniques. One such technique involves rotomixing the existing asphalt oil
surface and incorporating mulched flax straw to increase the subgrade tensile strength.
Flax straw was chosen primarily because of its tough fiber properties and slow
biodegradability caused by the fiber oils that act as decomposition inhibiting agents. In
the summer of 2000, DHT installed three test sections using flax straw as a primary
subgrade strengthening material on a section of the provincial Highway 19 near
Strongfield, approximately 100 kilometers south of Saskatoon.

The main purpose of this paper is to describe the construction procedures used in
incorporating flax straw into the subgrade on Highway 19 and share DHT experience in
using this agricultural waste by-product as a subgrade strengthening material. The field
test results and performance findings are also discussed. The research methodology used
considers three main elements: 1. pre-construction investigation including road surface
conditions, preliminary field and lab tests; 2. construction procedures used in installing
the flax straw test sections; and 3. discussion of post-construction field and lab test
results.

Key terms: thin membrane structure (TMS), desirable level of service, rotomixing, flax
straw, subgrade strengthening, construction procedures, field and lab tests, performance
findings.

1.0 Introduction

Saskatchewan Department of Highways and Transportation (DHT) is currently

responsible for 26,267 kilometers of year-round provincial highways and 131 kilometers
of seasonal ice roads (DHT 2003). Of those, 13,696 kilometers are classified as structural
pavements that are further subdivided into granular structures with sealed surface (4,764
km) and asphalt concrete pavement structures (8,932 km). There are also 12,440
kilometers of non-structural roads in the province, mainly 6,763 kilometers of dust-free
thin membrane structure roads (TMS) and 5,677 kilometers of gravel surface roads.

Majority of the TMS road network was built in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s when
asphalt prices were relatively low. TMS roads were designed to provide a dust free
surface in rural Saskatchewan and support light vehicles and smaller farm trucks at that
time. In addition, DHT had also adopted road maintenance strategies that were relatively
successful in providing an adequate level of service to the traveling public on the TMS
road network. However, due to the recent developments affecting the transportation
systems in Saskatchewan such as rationalization of the grain handling facilities, economic
diversification, increased value-added production, abolishment of the Crow Rate,
consolidation of railway branch lines and introduction of bigger truck configurations,
DHT has been struggling to provide a desirable level of service on its TMS road network.
This has occasionally resulted in less than acceptable and unsafe road surface conditions
as illustrated in Figure 1.

As the pressures on the TMS road system increased DHT began doing more conventional
structural overlays on some of the roads that warranted those improvements.
Conventional overlays consist of building the structure up by laying down and
compacting subbase, base and surface aggregate seal or asphalt concrete mat. This type
of treatment has been proven adequate in addressing road structural issues. Engineering
principles behind structural strengthening are also well understood and engineering
design procedures well developed. Figure 2 (Stack 2000) illustrates the difference
between a TMS non-structural road and a fully structural road.

Conventional strengthening construction practices employed by the Saskatchewan Road

Builders and the DHT maintenance crews usually hold good and reliable results.
However, increased costs of the treatment has become an issue in a tight budget.
Furthermore, road widening is often required when this type of treatment is applied
because the road structure is raised up, thus resulting in a narrower top surface.
Conventional construction methods also highly depend on adequate supply of crushed
aggregate material used in road construction (subbase, base and seal or asphalt concrete
mix). Aggregate materials are a non-renewable natural resource with finite supply. This is
especially becoming evident in aggregate scarce areas where the long aggregate hauls
increase the costs of preserving the road network in a desired condition.

Therefore, in order to address some of these problems, DHT began researching

innovative TMS strengthening techniques. As a result of its continuous search for more
cost effective construction methods DHT has considered various preservation and
upgrading techniques such as different cement products, lime, flyash, geotextiles,
geogrids, natural fibers such as flax straw, emulsified bitumen, and tall oil (Berthelot and
Gerbrandt 2003). Most of the above treatments presume a structural “build down”
approach or a combination of build down and conventional build up approaches.
Consequently, Highway 19 between Highways 44 and 15 was used to construct over 30
field test sections to compare the conventional and non-conventional construction
methods. The Highway 19 test sections layout is illustrated in Figure 3 (Stack 2000) with
detailed description provided in Table 1.

As part of this research one such technique evaluated was the rotomixing of the existing
asphalt oil surface and incorporation of mulched flax straw to increase the subgrade
tensile strength. The main purpose of this paper is to describe the construction procedures
used in incorporating flax straw into the subgrade on the provincial Highway 19 and
share DHT experience in using this agricultural waste by-product as a subgrade
strengthening material.

2.0 Flax Straw as a Strengthening Material

Flax is usually grown for its oil seeds used in the production of various edible and non-
edible products such as linseed oil. This oil serves as an ingredient in the production of
paints and low quality paper. Flax straw left in the fields after harvest, on the other hand,
have found a very limited application. It is usually burnt in the field because of its too
tough a fiber for agricultural activities to easily handle it. Therefore, no wonder farmers
in Western Canada are almost willing to give away flax straw to anybody interested in
taking it (Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission). Furthermore, many factors
such as the amount of litter and weed in the straw as well as height, fiber content and
dimensions of the straw pieces impact the quality and potential application of the straw
(Government of Saskatchewan – Department of Agriculture).

Despite of some of these apparent problems with flax straw attempts have been made to
apply it in road strengthening. Charleson and Widger (1989), for example, describe a
study on the provincial Highway 307 in west central Saskatchewan where a
geocomposite consisting of mulched flax straw and sand was used to stabilize and
reinforce the shoulders of a sand subgrade. In addition, some attempts have also been
made to use flax pulp mill liquor as a lignosulfonate component in road construction
stabilizers (Environmental Management Centre).

For the purpose of this project, flax straw was chosen as a subgrade strengthening
material primarily because of its tough fiber properties and slow biodegradability caused
by the fiber oils that act as decomposition inhibiting agents. In the summer of 2000, DHT
installed three test sections using flax straw as a primary subgrade strengthening material
on a section of provincial Highway 19 near Strongfield, approximately 100 kilometers
south of Saskatoon. The test sections varied in percent of the flax straw incorporated in
the soil and the thickness of the overlaying crushed base aggregate layer.

3.0 Pre-construction Site Investigation

Road surface condition data were collected in the fall of 1999 as part of the DHT annual
asset management data collection process. The following surface distresses were
observed on Highway 19-06 from kilometer 22.5 to kilometer 27.1 prior to the
construction: 1.) rutting – good (overall score slight - S). Over 90% of manual rutting
measurements (using a straight edge bar and a calibrated wedge) were between 5 and 10
mm which is identified as slight in the DHT asset management rating protocol. The
remaining 10% were measured as less than 5 mm which is classified as non-existent
rutting; 2.) International Roughness Index (IRI) – poor (4 mm / m). This is considered as
very rough in DHT asset management; 3.) Cracking – poor (overall score Extreme - X).
Figure 4 illustrates typical road surface conditions on Highway 19-06 before
construction.
Grain size distribution of core soil samples taken from the subgrade and mat from various
locations throughout the test sites on Highway 19-06 is illustrated in Figure 5 (Stack
2000). Course grain size points are obtained from sieve analysis of the collected soil
samples and finer grain size points come from hydrometer lab analysis. Standard Proctor
moisture-density tests performed on the Highway 19-06 subgrade reveal optimum
moisture content from 16.2% to 16.6% and optimum density of 1,765 to 1,865 kg/m3. In
addition, it was observed from Atterburg limit soil characterization that the subgrade is
mainly composed of clay and is highly plastic.

4.0 Construction of Test Sections

This paper will look at the construction and performance of five different segments
constructed on Highway 19 as illustrated in Table 2.

Three of the those segments were constructed using flax straw as a primary subgrade
strengthening material. The other two segments were constructed using DHT
conventional base overlay strengthening methods. These five segments provide a basis
for further performance evaluation of the flax straw test sections and comparison with the
conventional strengthening method.

Test sections were constructed using a typical cold in-place recycling methodology.
Equipment used for rotomixing in this project consisted of road reclaimer, packers
(vibratory pad and sheepsfoot), motor grader and water truck. In addition, agricultural tap
grinder, tractor and tractor with bale lift fork were used for mulching flax straw bales.
During base aggregate overlay, tandem trucks, water trucks, motor graders and packers
were utilized.

4.1 Flax Straw Test Sections

The flax straw test segment #92 was constructed by first processing the flax straw bales
through the tap grinder into smaller stem pieces (5 to 10 cm long) as seen in Figure 6 and
then spreading it across the entire road width as illustrated in Figure 7. This procedure
resulted in the flax straw fibers being somewhat unevenly spread. For this test segment
the amount of flax straw added was based on 0.5% of soil weight. The flax straw was
then rotomilled into 150 mm of subgrade with the road reclaimer as shown in Figure 8.
The result was a geocomposite consisting of randomly oriented flax straw fibers,
subgrade soil material and old asphalt mat. Figure 9 illustrates this mix. Rotomixed
material was then bladed off using the motor graders, water was sprayed down on the
road, material was put back and compacted until no further settlement was apparent and
the particles were well keyed into place. Figures 10, 11 and 12 illustrate those
construction procedures. The segment was left like this for few weeks to be further
compacted under traffic. The final step in the construction was to lay down 100 mm of
base aggregate material and compact it as presented in Figure 13. High float emulsion
(HF-250) was sprayed on top of the compacted base layer and graded aggregate seal
(total thickness of 25 mm) was added as a final surface as seen in Figure 14.
The flax straw test segment #94 was constructed in the same way as segment #92. The
only difference was in the amount of flax straw rotomixed into the subgrade (0.3% of soil
weight).

The third flax straw test segment #95 was first pre-milled to the depth of 150 mm and
than lightly compacted. After that the same procedure was followed as for the
construction of the segment #94 with the exception of laying down 150 mm of base
aggregate material.

4.2 Conventional Base Overlay Sections

Segments #33 and #93 were constructed for the comparison purposes. Segment #33 was
simply overlaid with 100 mm of base aggregate material and 25 mm graded aggregate
seal installed as a top wearing course. On the other hand, segment #93 was first
rotomixed to a depth of 150 mm and then tightly compacted. No subgrade strengthening
material was added during this process. Once properly compacted it was then overlaid
with 100 mm of base aggregate material with 25 mm graded aggregate seal installed as a
final surface wearing course.

5.0 Test Sections Performance Evaluation

5.1 Traffic Data

Highway 19 is considered a low volume highway according to the DHT functional

classification system. Table 3 shows the Average Annual Daily Traffic collected for this
highway from 1999 to 2003. It is generally estimated that truck traffic is about 11% of
the total traffic. Traffic trends do not significantly change over the years.

5.2 Road Surface Distresses

Every year in the fall, after all planned construction and preservation work has been
completed or is near completion, DHT evaluates its road network conditions by
collecting current road surface condition data. The condition rating is done according to
the surface condition rating manuals that ensure the collection of high quality data and
measurement procedures (DHT 2000). The following distresses are used to evaluate the
field performance of the constructed test sections: International Roughness Index (IRI),
cracking and rutting.

DHT has just recently moved to a fully automated data collection system. This system
consists of the three major functional components used for measuring cracking, rutting
and IRI. These major components and their accompanying hardware and software are
described in Lazic (2003). This switch has resulted in different measurement methods
and units of measurements compared to the old manual (rutting and cracking) and
automated (IRI) distress scores. Because of that it may not be possible to follow the
performance of the installed test sections on a temporary basis. However, direct
comparison of the performance of different test sections is possible in the same year.
Table 4 presents measured surface condition data from 1999 to 2003.
5.3 Benklemen Beam Test

In addition to the road surface conditions, DHT staff also regularly collect Benklemen
Beam data on Highway 19 that show the deflection of the road structure under static
loading of 80 kN on the rear dual axle of a single axle truck. Once the truck moves away
a 3.65 m long beam measures the rebound of the road structure. Measurements are taken
every 50 meters and then, average values are calculated for each segment as presented in
Table 5. No data are available for 1999 and 2000 for the project limits from 23.39 km to
25.04 km. The performance of the road structure is estimated based on the deflection
numbers. Essentially, it can be approximated that the smaller the deflection the more
structurally sound the road. However, when the comparison is made over a few year span
environmental conditions should also be considered especially the amount of
precipitation in a given year.

5.4 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Measurements

Furthermore, to help fully appreciate and understand different strengthening strategies

implemented on Highway 19-06, DHT contracts out data collection of dielectric
permittivity and surface deflections under dynamic loading to Pavement Scientific
International (PSI). Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is used to measure surface and
subgrade dielectric permittivities as well as layer mean thickness. In addition, Falling
Weight Deflectometer (FWD) measures peak surface deflections and is also collected by
PSI.

An air coupled GPR emits and receives pulses of electromagnetic energy through a
medium such as road structure and subgrade at highway speeds. As the radar signal
reflects off materials the antennas ‘echo locate' materials under ground based on different
electromagnetic conductivity and dielectric permittivity of each layer within a soil matrix.
This reflection is then processed and displayed along a horizontal line with the reflection
time related to the depth of a soil layer. GPR penetrates to a depth of 0.5 to 1 meter.
Table 6 (PSI 2003) shows mean surface and subgrade dielectric permittivity collected in
2001 and 2002.

5.5 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Results

The FWD is used for non-destructive testing of the pavement strength. It operates on a
principal of loading the pavement in a controlled manner such that the load pulse
resembles that from moving traffic. A dynamic load is generated by dropping a mass
from a variable height onto a loading plate. The magnitude of the load and the pavement
deflection are measured by a load cell and geophones equally spaced away from the
loading point. The recorded shape of the surface is often called the "Deflection Bowl".
The magnitude of the applied load is also recorded. Table 7 (PSI 2003) captures mean
peak surface deflections collected on the test sections.
5.6 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

DCP data were collected in 2000 immediately after the construction. The DCP test
consists of dropping an 8 kg hammer on a cone attached to a 16 mm diameter metal rod
from a 575 mm height. The depth of penetration in millimeters is recorder after each
hammer drop. Figures 15 – 19 show the penetration plotted against the hammer drops
(Morrison 2001). This is a quick field test used to measure the relevant strength of the
upper road layers.

6.0 Discussion of the Field Results and Test Segments Performance

From the surface data collected over a five year period it can be argued that the flax
straw segments have slightly outperformed the other two conventionally strengthened
segments. This is specially evident in the case of segment #95. However, the evidence is
not strong enough to conclusively suggest that the flax straw added to the subgrade had
indeed contributed to the increase in the tensile strength of the test segments.

The results from Benklemen beam testing reveal that the flax straw test segments exhibit
somewhat lower deflection under static loading. Even though this phenomenon is pretty
consistent over a three year period of data collection it is, however, not significant
enough to be considered conclusive.

GPR mean surface and subgrade dielectric permittivity data show that the flax straw
segments #94 and #95 perform slightly better than the two conventional segments. The
conventional segment #33 consistently has the worst values of the five test segments.

Deflection measurements collected in 2002 although fairly close across all five segments
show that the two conventional segment marginally outperformed the flax straw test
sections.

Similarly, the conventional segments, especially segment #33, perform somewhat better
structurally compared to the flax straw segments.

7.0 Summary

Flax straw provides a source of natural fibers suitable for the application in road
strengthening. This is mainly contributed to the tough properties of the fibers and slow
biodegradability. During the construction procedure the flax straw is mulched into
smaller stem pieces and rotomixed with in situ materials such as the existing asphalt mat
and subgrade material. This creates a geocomposite consisting of the in situ material and
randomly oriented natural flax straw fibers.

Despite data available from the various data collection methods the results are
inconclusive as to the real performance of the flax straw test segments compared to the
conventionally strengthened test sections. At best, there might be only some marginal
advantages of having the natural fibers mixed into the subgrade. On the other hand, if a
road agency is already rotomixing its existing road, then adding mulched flax straw can
only be a benefit because it can be essentially obtained from the farming community at
almost no extra cost.

Saskatchewan Department of Highways and Transportation continues to monitor all

installed test sections. It is expected that more insight into the performance of the flax
straw test sections will be gained as more information becomes available in the future.

8.0 References

Berthelot C. and Gerbrandt R., 2003. Full Depth In-Place Recycling and Road
Strengthening Systems for Low Volume Roads – Highway No. 19 Case Study. 8th
International Conference on Low Volume Roads, Reno, Nevada, 2003.

Charleson D.A. and Widger R.A., 1989. Laboratory and Field Performance of Sand
Reinforced with Randomly Oriented Fibers. 42nd Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1989.

Lazic Z., 2003. From Road Condition Data Collection to Effective Maintenance.
Transportation Association of Canada Annual Conference, St.John’s, Newfoundland,
2003.

Morrison K., 2001. Cold In-Place Recycling and Subgrade Strengthening Construction
Report – SDHT Highway No. 19-06: 2nd Year Performance Report. Prepared for
Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation.

Pavement Scientific International Inc., 2003. Structural Evaluation of Alternative Road

Strengthening Systems - SDHT Control Section 19-06 and 15-10 Three Year
Performance Report. Prepared for Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation.

Saskatchewan Department of Highways and Transportation, 2003. Highways Inventory

System.

Stack E., 2000. Cold In-Place Recycling and Subgrade Strengthening Construction
Report – SDHT Highway No. 19-06. Prepared for Saskatchewan Highways and
Transportation.

9.0 Internet sources

Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission: www.saskflax.com

Government of Saskatchewan – Department of Agriculture: www.agr.gov.sk.ca

Environmental Management Centre: www.emcentre.com

Figures

Figure 1 – Surface Failures on TMS Highway 19

 THIN MEMBRANE SURFACE STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT
80 TO 130mm ASPHALT CONCRETE
20 to 40mm ASPHALTIC MIX
SHOULDER VARIES FROM
GRAVEL SHOULDER
45mm ASPHALT CONCRETE TO GRAVEL

150 TO 200mm BASE

SUBGRADE
150 TO 450mm SUB-BASE

SUBGRADE

Figure 2 - Comparison of a Typical Thin Membrane Surfaced Cross-Section with a

Structural Pavement
Figure 3 – Highway 19 Test Sections Layout
 Figure 4 – Pre-construction Road Condition on Highway 19

100

80
% Passing

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Size (mm)

Figure 5 – Grain Size Distribution of Subgrade Material on Highway 19

 Figure 6 – Mulching of Flax Straw

Figure 7 – Spreading of the Flax Straw Pieces

 Figure 8 – Rotomixing Flax Straw Into Subgrade

Figure 9 – Geocomposite of Flax Straw and In Situ Material

 Figure 10 – Blading Off Geocomposite

Figure 11 – Blading, Water Spraying and Compaction Procedure

Figure 12 – Road Compaction Procedure

Figure 13 – Base Aggregate Overlay

 Figure 14 – Sealing Operation

Highway 19-06 DCP Test Results - Segment 92

# of Blows
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
0

100
Depth of Penetration (mm)

200

at 75m SB Lane
300 at 150m NB Lane
at 225 m SB Lane

400

Flax Straw (.5% soil weight)/Depth 150/Base 100/HF-250

500

600

Figure 15 – DCP Results for Segment #92

 Highway 19-06 DCP Test Results - Segment 93

# of Blows
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
0

100
Depth of Penetration (mm)

200

at 50m NB Lane
300 at 100m SB Lane
at 150m NB Lane

400

500

Grinded blank control section/Depth 150/Base 100/HF-

250
600

Figure 16 – DCP Results Segment #93

Highway 19-06 DCP Test Results - Segment 33

# of Blows
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
0

50

100

150
Depth of Penetration (mm)

200

at 80m SB Lane
250 at 160m NB Lane
at 240m SB Lane

300

350

400
Base overlay segment/Base 100/HF-
250
450

500

Figure 17 – DCP Results Segment #33

 Highway 19-06 DCP Test Results - Segment 94

# of Blows
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
0

100
Depth of Penetration (mm)

200

at 50m NB Lane
300 at 100m SB Lane
at 150m NB Lane

400

Flax Straw (.3% soil weight)/Depth 150/Base 100/HF-

250
500

600

Figure 18 – DCP Results Segment #94

Highway 19-06 DCP Test Results - Segment 95

# of Blows
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
0

100

200
Depth of Penetration (mm)

at 150m SB Lane
300 at 300m NB Lane
at 450m SB Lane

400

Flax Straw (.3% soil weight) - pre-grinded150/Base 100/HF-250

500

600

Figure 19 – DCP Results Segment #95

 Tables

Table 1 – Highway 19-06 Test Sections

Segment # From km To km Section Description

71 13 13.5 LFA150/Depth150/Base150/HF-250
72 13.5 14 LFA150/Depth150/Base150HF-250P
73 14 14.5 NoStb/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
74 14.5 15 CBR150/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
75 15 15.5 CBR150/Depth150/Base150/HF-250P
76 15.5 17 NoStb/Depth0/Base150/HF-250 and 250P
77 17 19 NoStb/Depth150/Base150/HF-250 and 250P
30 19 21.3 CKD 250/Depth 250/Base 100/HF-250
78 21.3 22.5 NoStb/AddBase75/Depth150/Base150/HF-250
96 22.5 22.8 Geo-grid BXGI/Base150/HF-250
97 22.8 23.07 Geo-textile HS1100/Base150/HF-250
98 23.07 23.39 Geo-textile GMF 245/Base100/HF-250
92 23.39 23.7 Flax Straw (.5% soil weight)/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
93 23.7 23.9 Grinded blank control section/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
33 23.9 24.23 Base overlay segment/Base100/HF-250
94 24.23 24.43 Flax Straw (.3% soil weight)/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
95 24.43 25.04 Flax Straw (.3% soil weight) - pre-grinded150/Base150/HF-250
99 25.04 25.35 Geo-textile GMF 245/Base150/HF-250
34 25.35 27.1 2001: Subbase150/Base150/HF-250

CBR300/Depth300/Base0/HF-250/Section failed so 200mm were

79 27.1 27.5
milled and compacted again in 2000;100mm base added and sealed.

CBR150/Depth150/Base0/HF-250/Section failed so 200mm were

80 27.5 27.9
milled and compacted again in 2000;100mm base added and sealed.

81 27.9 28.3 CBR150/Depth150/Base150/HF-250

82 28.3 28.7 CBR150/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
83 28.7 29.1 NoStb/Depth150/Base0/HF-250
84 29.1 29.5 LFA300/Depth300/Base0/HF-250
85 29.5 29.9 LFA150/Depth150/Base0/HF-250
86 29.9 30.3 LFA150/Depth150/Base150/HF-250
87 30.3 30.7 LFA150/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
88 30.7 31.1 CKD300/Depth300/Base0/HF-250
89 31.1 31.5 CKD150/Depth150/Base0/HF-250
90 31.5 31.9 CKD150/Depth150/Base150/HF-250
91 31.9 32.3 CKD150/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
32 32.3 42.16 CKD150/Depth150/Base150/HF-250
 Table 2 – Flax Straw Test Segments
Segment From To
# Km Km Segment Description
92 23.39 23.7 Flax Straw (.5% soil weight)/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
93 23.7 23.9 Grinded blank control section/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
33 23.9 24.23 Base overlay segment/Base100/HF-250
94 24.23 24.43 Flax Straw (.3% soil weight)/Depth150/Base100/HF-250
Flax Straw (.3% soil weight) - pre-grinded150/Base150/HF-
95 24.43 25.04 250

Table 3 – Annual Average Daily Traffic 1999-2003

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

357 314 325 246 314

Table 4 – Road Surface Conditions 1999 - 2003

Segment #92 Segment #93 Segment #33 Segment #94 Segment #95
IRI 99 4 4 4 4 4
IRI 00 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
IRI 01 2.5 2 2.6 2 2
IRI 02 2.38 2.54 2.3 1.92 1.64
IRI 03 2.74 2.69 2.66 2.06 1.76
Rut 99 Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight
Rut 00 None None None None None
Rut 01 Slight Slight Slight None Slight
Rut 02 5.94 mm 4.2 mm 3.89 mm 3.38 mm 3.86 mm
Rut 03 5.7 mm 4.6 mm 4.35 mm 4.38 mm 4.84 mm
Cracking
99 Extreme Extreme Extreme Extreme Extreme
Cracking
00 None None None None None
Cracking
01 None None None None None
Cracking
02 None None None None None
Cracking 782 lineal 609 lineal 1,014 lineal 749 lineal 704 lineal
03 m/km m/km m/km m/km m/km
 Table 5 – Benklemen Beam Data 2001 - 2003
Deflection 2001 Deflection 2002 Deflection 2003
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Segment
#92 1.68 1.65 1.89
Segment
#93 1.76 1.86 1.87
Segment
#33 2.02 1.83 1.84
Segment
#94 1.7 1.6 1.69
Segment
#95 1.71 1.52 1.65

Table 6 – GPR Dielectric Permittivity

Mean Surface Dielectric Mean Subgrade Dielectric

Permittivity Permittivity
2001 2002 2001 2002
Segment
#92 7 6.7 9.2 8
Segment
#93 6.3 6.4 9.1 7.6
Segment
#33 6.8 6.8 10.6 8.2
Segment
#94 6.3 6.2 9 7.4
Segment
#95 6.3 6.4 9 7.9

Table 7 – FWD 40 kN Mean Peak Surface Deflections

Deflection 2001 Deflection 2002

(mm) (mm)
Segment #92 N/A 1.69
Segment #93 2.47 1.46
Segment #33 N/A 1.19
Segment #94 2.38 1.5
Segment #95 1.59 1.36