Effect of Alkaline Activator to Fly Ash Ratio for Geopolymer Stabilized Soil
Open accessAbstract
Geopolymer technology have been developed and explored especially in the construction material field. However, lack of research related to geopolymer stabilized soil. In this research, the utilization of geopolymer has been investigated to stabilize the soil including the factors that affecting the geopolymerization process. Unconfined compressive test (UCT) used as indicator to the strength development and hence evaluating the performance of geopolymer stabilized soil. This paper focusing on the effect of fly ash/alkaline activator ratio, Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio and curing time on geopolymer stabilized soil. A various mix design at different fly ash/alkaline activator ratio, Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio were prepared and cured for 7 and 28 days. Molarity and the percentage of geopolymer to soil were fixed at 10 molar and 8 percent respectively. Then, the UCT tests were carried out on 38mm diameter x 76mm height specimens. The highest strength obtained at the fly ash/alkaline activator ratio 2.5 and Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio 2.0 at 28 days curing time.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Abdullah et al. results are not in accordance with ASTM D 4609 criteria; strength should be >0.8 MPa.
“However, the results are not in accordance with the ASTM D 4609 [76] soil stabilization criteria for road construction applications. The strength of the soil should be greater than 0.8 MPa [76,91].”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAbdullah et al. analyzed influence of S/L (2.0,2.5,3.0) ratio to soil stabilization using fly-ash-based geopolymer, observing lower extent of binder formation, resulting in sample with S/L ratio higher than 2.5.
“Abdullah et al. [51] also analyzed the influence of solid-to-liquid (2.0, 2.5, and 3.0) ratio to soil stabilization using fly-ash-based geopolymer, observing a lower extent of binder formation, which resulted in a soil and fly-ash-based geopolymer sample with a solid-to-liquid ratio higher than 2.5.”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
Table 1 lists fly-ash-to-activator ratios of 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0, and the Conclusions report the highest strength at 2.5. The paper measures compressive strength, however; it does not report observing less binder formation in samples above 2.5. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn soil stabilization-based geopolymer, fly ash Class C and GGBFS are used as primary source material containing mostly high content in Si and Al that dissolve in alkali solution for geopolymerization.
“Commonly, in soil stabilization-based geopolymer, fly ash Class C and GGBFS are used as the primary source material containing mostly high content in silica (Si) and alumina (Al) that dissolve in alkali solution for geopolymerization in soil stabilization application [51,65,72,73,74].”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
The Introduction describes fly ash reacting with an alkaline activator to form a geopolymer, and §2.1 uses fly ash for soil stabilization. But §3.2 identifies the fly ash studied as Class F, not Class C; the paper does not address GGBFS or establish that Class C fly ash and GGBFS are commonly used together as primary source materials. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAt this S/L ratio, liquid content was negligible compared to solid content.
“At this solid-to-liquid (S/L) ratio, the liquid content was negligible in comparison to the solid content [51,74].”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
The Results (section 3.4; page unavailable) report the highest shear strength at a fly-ash-to-activator ratio of 2.5, indicating more solid than liquid activator. The paper does not describe the liquid content as negligible relative to the solid content; that stronger characterization is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.79)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHigher sodium silicate (Na2SiO3)/sodium hydroxide (NaOH) ratios lower the workability and strength of the mixture.
“However, higher sodium silicate (Na2SiO3)/sodium hydroxide (NaOH) ratios are encouraged to be studied for geopolymer systems due to commercial and marketing interest, lowering the workability and strength of the mixture [51,74,78,102,103,109,110].”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
The Uniaxial compressive strength test section (page not provided) reports the highest strength at a Na₂SiO₃/NaOH ratio of 2.0, supporting lower strength at the higher ratios tested. The paper does not report that higher ratios lower workability, so that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
10 M NaOH solution is suitable for Class F and Class C fly-ash-based geopolymer.
“The researcher found that 10 M NaOH solution is suitable for Class F and Class C fly-ash-based geopolymer, respectively [51,74,101,107,108].”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
Material selection reports using 10 M NaOH, and Chemical composition of fly ash identifies the tested ash as Class F. The study reports strength results for that mixture, but it does not test Class C fly ash or establish that 10 M NaOH is suitable for Class C geopolymers. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCrucial factors influencing properties of geopolymer include solid-to-liquid ratio, sodium hydroxide molarity, and sodium silicate/sodium hydroxide ratio.
“A few crucial factors influencing the properties of geopolymer so as to contribute to achieving a good mix of design and formulation of geopolymer include solid-to-liquid (S/L) ratio, sodium hydroxide molarity, and sodium silicate (Na2SiO3)/sodium hydroxide (NaOH) ratio [51,74,92,93,94].”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
The Introduction identifies solid-to-liquid ratio and sodium hydroxide–to–sodium silicate ratio as factors in the strength of geopolymer-stabilized soil. The Abstract says molarity was fixed at 10 M, so this paper does not establish sodium hydroxide molarity as an influencing factor. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAbdullah et al. found maximum strength attained with fly ash/alkaline activator ratio 2.5 and Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio 2.0 after 28 days curing.
“The maximum strength was attained with a fly ash/alkaline activator ratio of 2.5 and a Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio of 2.0 after 28 days of curing period.”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
A sodium silicate (Na2SiO3)/sodium hydroxide (NaOH) ratio of 2.0 in soil stabilization using fly-ash-based geopolymer shows the best performance.
“This is supported by multiple another study, which also found that sodium silicate (Na2SiO3)/sodium hydroxide (NaOH) ratio at 2.0 in soil stabilization using fly-ash-based geopolymer process shows the best performance [51,74].”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
Mixture of fly ash geopolymers contributed to filling large surface area of voids between clay particles and controlling moisture content of clay.
“Additionally, the mixture of fly ash geopolymers contributed to filling the large surface area of the voids between the clay particles and controlling the moisture content of the clay.”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
The paper studies geopolymer-stabilized coarse sand, not clay (sections 2.1 and 3.1). Its standard compaction test measures optimum moisture content (section 3.3), but our copy does not say that fly ash geopolymers fill voids between clay particles or control clay moisture. Searches for those mechanisms found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThis is due to high degree of supersaturation of aluminosilicate phase, producing less connected geopolymer structure.
“This is due to the high degree of supersaturation of the aluminosilicate phase, so as to produce a less connected geopolymer structure [51,74].”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
The Introduction describes geopolymer formation from aluminosilicate and an alkaline solution, while the uniaxial compressive strength results and Conclusions report effects of mixture ratios and curing time. A search for supersaturation and reduced structural connectivity found no passage in our copy explaining that mechanism; pages are not provided in the indexed copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAs solid-to-liquid ratio rose, geopolymers sample became less homogeneous due to limited amount of alkali activator.
“As the solid-to-liquid ratio rose, the geopolymers sample became less homogeneous due to the limited amount of alkali activator [48,51,72,74,78,93,94,98].”
From Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review (2022) · cites this paper as [51]
Section 2.2 says the samples were mixed until the alkaline activator was evenly distributed. Section 3.4 examines how the fly-ash-to-activator ratio affects strength, but does not report that higher solid-to-liquid ratios made samples less homogeneous or attribute such an effect to limited activator. Searches for homogeneity and insufficient activator found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- P.J. Davidovits, Geopolymer 2002 Conference, (2002)
- D. Khale, R. Chaudhary, J. Mater. Sci., 42, 729 (2007)
- P. Duxson, A.F. Jiménez, J.L. Provis, G.C. Lukey, A. Palomo, J.S.J. Deventer, J. Mater. Sci., 42, 2917 (2006)
- A. Gonzalez, R. Navia, N. Moreno, Waste Manag. Res., 27, 976 (2009)
- T.P. Ngernkham, A. Maegawa, N. Mishima, S. Hatanaka, P. Chindaprasirt, Constr. Build. Mater., 91, 1 (2015)
- R.A. Mozumder, A.I. Laskar, Comput. Geotech., 69, 291 (2015)
- M. Zhang, H. Guo, T.E. Korchi, G. Zhang, M. Tao, Constr. Build. Mater., 47, 1468 (2013)
- P. Sukmak, S. Horpibulsuk, S.L. Shen, P. Chindaprasirt, C. Suksiripattanapong, Constr. Build. Mater., 47, 1125 (2013)
- D. Hardjito, S.E. Wallah, D.M.J. Sumajouw, B.V. Rangan, Advances in Geopolymer Science and Technology, 6, 88 (2007)
- W.K. Part, M. Ramli, C.B. Cheah, Constr. Build. Mater., 77, 370 (2015)
- M.M.A. Abdullah, H. Kamarudin, M. Hussain, I.K. Nizar, A.R. Rafiza, Y. Zarina, Adv. Mater. Res., 328, 1475 (2011)
- N. Cristelo, S. Glendinning, T. Miranda, D. Oliveira, R. Silva, Constr. Build. Mater., 36, 727 (2012)
- N. Cristelo, S. Glendinning, L. Fernandes, and A.T. Pinto, Constr. Build. Mater., 29, 167 (2012)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Abdila, S. R., Abdullah, M. M. A. B., Ahmad, R., Burduhos Nergis, D. D., Rahim, S. Z. A., Omar, M. F., Sandu, A. V., Vizureanu, P., & Syafwandi (2022) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma15010375 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Abdullah, M. S., & Ahmad, F.
- Affiliations
- Universiti Sains Malaysia (MY)
- ORCID
- Ahmad, Fauziah
- Venue
- MATEC Web of Conferences
- Publisher
- EDP Sciences
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 97
- Pages
- 01012
- ISSN
- 2261-236X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2584593853
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- MATEC Web of Conferences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Universiti Sains Malaysia Institutional Repository (Universiti Sains Malaysia) (acceptedVersion)
- Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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
- fly ash, alkaline activator, Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio, curing time, unconfined compressive strength, geopolymerization, soil stabilization
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
