Cited by 7Geotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationGeotechnical and construction materials studiesConcrete and Cement Materials Research

Feasibility of using FA and GGBS-derived geopolymer for high liquid limit soil stabilization

Open access
Li, Chenchen, Tan, Guohao, Weng, Hui, Shi, Jiachen, Li, Shixiang, Xie, Jianwei·2025·Frontiers in Materials

Abstract

Introduction: To improve the comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solid wastes, this study developed geopolymer materials using fly ash ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), sodium silicate, and sodium hydroxide for the stabilization of high liquid limit soil. Method: A series of tests including compaction, unconfined compressive strength (UCS), California bearing ratio (CBR), resilient modulus, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) were conducted. The investigation focused on the influence of alkali activator modulus and dosage on the strength of geopolymers. Additionally, the impact of geopolymer dosage on the optimum moisture content (OMC), maximum dry density (MDD), UCS, CBR, and resilient modulus of stabilized soil was examined. Results and discussion: The results indicated that the OMC of the stabilized soil decreased while the MDD increased with increasing geopolymer dosage. The UCS of the stabilized soil significantly improved with the addition of geopolymer, achieving values of 0.52 MPa, 1.68 MPa, 3.25 MPa, and 4.18 MPa at 7 days for geopolymer dosages of 0%, 4%, 8%, and 12%, respectively. Similarly, the CBR of the stabilized soil increased with geopolymer dosage, reaching 1.2%, 3.5%, 6.5%, and 10.5% after 4 days of water immersion for geopolymer dosages of 0%, 4%, 8%, and 12%, respectively. Increasing geopolymer dosage effectively improved the resilient modulus of stabilized soil, but did not affect the stress-dependent behavior of stabilized soil. Increasing confining pressure or decreasing deviatoric stress still resulted in a higher resilient modulus for geopolymer stabilized soil.

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 · 10.3389/fmats.2025.1643683

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.

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 7

Authors
Li, C., Tan, G., Weng, H., Shi, J., Li, S., & Xie, J.
Affiliations
Changsha University of Science and Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Xie, Jianwei
Venue
Frontiers in Materials
Published
2025-08-06
Volume
12
ISSN
2296-8016 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4413002391
Cited by
7
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Materials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • 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 › Geotechnical and construction materials studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Concrete and Cement Materials Research
Keywords
geopolymer, fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, high liquid limit soil, soil stabilization, alkaline activator, sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide, unconfined compressive strength, California bearing ratio, resilient modulus, optimum moisture content, maximum dry density, industrial solid waste utilization

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