CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140Geotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchGeotechnical and construction materials studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Shear strength and life cycle assessment of volcanic ash-based geopolymer and cement stabilized soil: A comparative study

Open access
Ghadir, Pooria, Zamanian, Mostafa, Mahbubi-Motlagh, Nazanin, Saberian, Mohammad, Li, Jie, Ranjbar, Navid·2021·Transportation Geotechnics
DOI 10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100639
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There is a growing interest in developing environmentally-friendly substitution for Portland cement in soil stabilization. This study evaluated the feasibility of using volcanic ash (VA)-based geopolymer as an alternative soil stabilizer to cement by comparing their shear strength behavior and life cycle assessment (LCA). The effects of curing conditions, vertical confinements, binder contents, and alkali activator properties were investigated. The results revealed that regardless of the type of binder, increasing binder content changes the structure of clayey soil through aggregation, thus improves the shear resistance. The interparticle bonds developed faster at higher curing temperatures, and the interlocking of the particles increased at higher confining pressures. Based on the determined boundary conditions, the LCA suggested a comparative environmental impact for both binders to stabilize 1 m3 functional unit of clayey soil with similar shear strength.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100639

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 59 · Cited by 140

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Lian, 2019, Mechanical response of root-reinforced loess with various water contents, Soil Tillage Res, 193, 85, 10.1016/j.still.2019.05.025 · DOI
  2. Hung, 2000, Chi-Chi earthquake induced landslides in Taiwan, Earthquake Eng Eng Seismology, 2, 25
  3. Wang, 2013, Probabilistic back analysis of slope failure–A case study in Taiwan, Comput Geotech, 51, 12, 10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.01.008 · DOI
  4. Stark, 2005, Drained shear strength parameters for analysis of landslides, J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, 131, 575, 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:5(575) · DOI
  5. Farhangi, 2020, Effect of micropiles on clean sand liquefaction risk based on CPT and SPT, Appl Sci, 10, 3111, 10.3390/app10093111 · DOI
  6. Saberian, 2020, Application of demolition wastes mixed with crushed glass and crumb rubber in pavement base/subbase, Resour Conserv Recycl, 156, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104722 · DOI
  7. Hataf, 2018, Investigation of soil stabilization using chitosan biopolymer, J Cleaner Prod, 170, 1493, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.256 · DOI
  8. MolaAbasi, 2020, Evaluation of the long-term performance of stabilized sandy soil using binary mixtures: A micro-and macro-level approach, J Cleaner Prod, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122209 · DOI
  9. Ghadir, 2018, Clayey soil stabilization using geopolymer and Portland cement, Constr Build Mater, 188, 361, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.207 · DOI
  10. Pourakbar, 2016, Model study of alkali-activated waste binder for soil stabilization, Int J Geosynthetics Ground Eng, 2, 35, 10.1007/s40891-016-0075-1 · DOI
  11. Roychand, 2021, Development of zero cement composite for the protection of concrete sewage pipes from corrosion and fatbergs, Resour Conserv Recycl, 164, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105166 · DOI
  12. Gartner, 2004, Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements, Cem Concr Res, 34, 1489, 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.01.021 · DOI
  13. Shariatmadari N, et al. Experimental study on the effect of chitosan biopolymer on sandy soil stabilization. in E3S Web of Conferences. 2020. EDP Sciences. · DOI
  14. Worrell, 2001, Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry, Annu Rev Energy Env, 26, 303, 10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303 · DOI
  15. Chang, 2016, Introduction of microbial biopolymers in soil treatment for future environmentally-friendly and sustainable geotechnical engineering, Sustainability, 8, 251, 10.3390/su8030251 · DOI
  16. Jahandari, 2019, Experimental study of the effects of curing time on geotechnical properties of stabilized clay with lime and geogrid, Int J Geotech Eng, 13, 172, 10.1080/19386362.2017.1329259 · DOI
  17. Rezazadeh Eidgahee, 2020, A novel formulation for the compressive strength of IBP-based geopolymer stabilized clayey soils using ANN and GMDH-NN approaches, Iranian J Sci Technol, Trans Civil Eng, 44, 219, 10.1007/s40996-019-00263-1 · DOI
  18. Abdullah, 2021, Cyclic behaviour of clay stabilised with fly-ash based geopolymer incorporating ground granulated slag, Transp Geotech, 26, 10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100430 · DOI
  19. Suksiripattanapong, 2021, Evaluation of polyvinyl alcohol and high calcium fly ash based geopolymer for the improvement of soft Bangkok clay, Transp Geotech, 27, 10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100476 · DOI
  20. Rivera, 2020, Fly ash-based geopolymer as A4 type soil stabiliser, Transp Geotech, 25, 10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100409 · DOI
  21. Wattez, 2021, Interactions between alkali-activated ground granulated blastfurnace slag and organic matter in soil stabilization/solidification, Transp Geotech, 26, 10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100412 · DOI
  22. Yaghoubi, 2019, Impact of field conditions on the strength development of a geopolymer stabilized marine clay, Appl Clay Sci, 167, 33, 10.1016/j.clay.2018.10.005 · DOI
  23. Thiha, 2018, Shear strength enhancement of compacted soils using high-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer, Int J Geomate, 15, 1, 10.21660/2018.48.35692 · DOI
  24. Amiri, 2019, Shear strength of an unsaturated loam soil as affected by vetiver and polyacrylamide, Soil Tillage Res, 194, 10.1016/j.still.2019.104331 · DOI
  25. Kuenzel, 2019, Dissolution mechanism of fly ash to quantify the reactive aluminosilicates in geopolymerisation, Resour Conserv Recycl, 150, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104421 · DOI
  26. Chang, 2019, Shear strength behavior and parameters of microbial gellan gum-treated soils: from sand to clay, Acta Geotech, 14, 361, 10.1007/s11440-018-0641-x · DOI
  27. Ghadakpour, 2020, Experimental study of impact of cement treatment on the shear behavior of loess and clay, Arabian J Geosci, 13, 184, 10.1007/s12517-020-5181-7 · DOI
  28. Ranjbar, 2018, Hot-pressed geopolymer: Dual effects of heat and curing time, Cem Concr Compos, 86, 1, 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.11.004 · DOI
  29. Elandaloussi R, et al. Effectiveness of lime treatment of coarse soils against internal erosion. Geotech Geol Eng, 2019. 37(1): p. 139-154. · DOI
  30. Guo, 2013, The signature of shear-induced anisotropy in granular media, Comput Geotech, 47, 1, 10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.07.002 · DOI
  31. Al-Shayea, 2001, The combined effect of clay and moisture content on the behavior of remolded unsaturated soils, Eng Geol, 62, 319, 10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00032-1 · DOI
  32. Zhang, 2001, Shear strength of surface soil as affected by soil bulk density and soil water content, Soil Tillage Res, 59, 97, 10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00163-5 · DOI
  33. Aluko, 2000, The essential mechanics of capillary crumbling of structured agricultural soils, Soil Tillage Res, 55, 117, 10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00105-7 · DOI
  34. Alonso, 2010, A microstructurally based effective stress for unsaturated soils, Géotechnique, 60, 913, 10.1680/geot.8.P.002 · DOI
  35. Fasinmirin, 2018, Strength and hydraulics characteristics variations within a tropical Alfisol in Southwestern Nigeria under different land use management, Soil Tillage Res, 182, 45, 10.1016/j.still.2018.04.017 · DOI
  36. Wei, 2015, Splash erosion of clay–sand mixtures and its relationship with soil physical properties: The effects of particle size distribution on soil structure, Catena, 135, 254, 10.1016/j.catena.2015.08.003 · DOI
  37. Ziaie Moayed, 2017, Specimen size effects on direct shear test of silty sands, Int J Geotech Eng, 11, 198
  38. Guo, 2010, Compressive strength and microstructural characteristics of class C fly ash geopolymer, Cem Concr Compos, 32, 142, 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.11.003 · DOI
  39. Cristelo, 2012, Soil stabilisation using alkaline activation of fly ash for self compacting rammed earth construction, Constr Build Mater, 36, 727, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.037 · DOI
  40. Sukmak, 2013, Strength development in clay–fly ash geopolymer, Constr Build Mater, 40, 566, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.015 · DOI
  41. Hu, 2009, Alkali-activated fly ash-based geopolymers with zeolite or bentonite as additives, Cem Concr Compos, 31, 762, 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.07.006 · DOI
  42. Martin RT. Adsorbed water on clay: A review, in Clays and Clay Minerals, E. Ingerson, Editor. 1962, Pergamon. p. 28-70. · DOI
  43. Villar, 2004, Influence of temperature on the hydro-mechanical behaviour of a compacted bentonite, Appl Clay Sci, 26, 337, 10.1016/j.clay.2003.12.026 · DOI
  44. Anderson, 1958, The density of water adsorbed by lithium-, sodium-, and potassium-bentonite 1, Soil Sci Soc Am J, 22, 99, 10.2136/sssaj1958.03615995002200020002x · DOI
  45. Yong, 1999, Soil suction and soil-water potentials in swelling clays in engineered clay barriers, Eng Geol, 54, 3, 10.1016/S0013-7952(99)00056-3 · DOI
  46. Kong, 2000, Study on shear strength and swelling-shrinkage characteristic of compacted expansive soil, Unsaturated Soils For Asia. Singapore, 515
  47. Dove, 2006, Particle-scale surface interactions of non-dilative interface systems, Geotext Geomembr, 24, 156, 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.01.002 · DOI
  48. Pradhan, 2019, Comparative LCA of recycled and natural aggregate concrete using Particle Packing Method and conventional method of design mix, J Cleaner Prod, 228, 679, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.328 · DOI
  49. Teh, 2017, Hybrid life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from cement, concrete and geopolymer concrete in Australia, J Cleaner Prod, 152, 312, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.122 · DOI
  50. Stafford, 2016, Life cycle assessment of the production of cement: a Brazilian case study, J Cleaner Prod, 137, 1293, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.050 · DOI
  51. Salas, 2018, Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete, Constr Build Mater, 190, 170, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.123 · DOI
  52. Passuello, 2017, Evaluation of the potential improvement in the environmental footprint of geopolymers using waste-derived activators, J Cleaner Prod, 166, 680, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.007 · DOI
  53. Habert, 2011, An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends, J Cleaner Prod, 19, 1229, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.012 · DOI
  54. Abdulkareem, 2020, Environmental and economic perspective of waste-derived activators on alkali-activated mortars, J Cleaner Prod, 280
  55. Tchakouté, 2016, Synthesis of sodium waterglass from white rice husk ash as an activator to produce metakaolin-based geopolymer cements, J Build Eng, 6, 252, 10.1016/j.jobe.2016.04.007 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Ghadir, P., Zamanian, M., Mahbubi-Motlagh, N., Saberian, M., Li, J., & Ranjbar, N.
Affiliations
  • Iran University of Science and Technology (IR)
  • Shahid Beheshti University (IR)
  • RMIT University (AU)
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Ranjbar, Navid
ORCID
Venue
Transportation Geotechnics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
31
Pages
100639
ISSN
2214-3912 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100639
OpenAlex
W3193887373
Cited by
140
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 4
FWCI
10.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Transportation Geotechnics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (submittedVersion)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Iran's National Elites Foundation
  • Horizon 2020
  • Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (713683)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Concrete and Cement Materials Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical and construction materials studies
Keywords
volcanic ash, geopolymer, cement stabilization, soil stabilization, shear strength, life cycle assessment, clay soil, curing conditions, confining pressure, alkaline activator, binder content, cement replacement, environmental impact

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Shear strength and life cycle assessment of volcanic ash-based geopolymer and cement stabilized soil: A comparative study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100639
The paper
Ghadir, P., Zamanian, M., Mahbubi-Motlagh, N., Saberian, M., Li, J., & Ranjbar, N. (2021). Shear strength and life cycle assessment of volcanic ash-based geopolymer and cement stabilized soil: A comparative study. Transportation Geotechnics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100639