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

Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review

Open access
Abdila, Syafiadi Rizki, Abdullah, Mohd Mustafa Al Bakri, Ahmad, Romisuhani, Burduhos Nergis, Dumitru Doru, Rahim, Shayfull Zamree Abd, Omar, Mohd Firdaus, Sandu, Andrei Victor, Vizureanu, Petrica +1 more·2022·Materials
DOI 10.3390/ma15010375PMC PMC8746325
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Geopolymers, or also known as alkali-activated binders, have recently emerged as a viable alternative to conventional binders (cement) for soil stabilization. Geopolymers employ alkaline activation of industrial waste to create cementitious products inside treated soils, increasing the clayey soils’ mechanical and physical qualities. This paper aims to review the utilization of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS)-based geopolymers for soil stabilization by enhancing strength. Previous research only used one type of precursor: fly ash or GGBFS, but the strength value obtained did not meet the ASTM D 4609 (<0.8 Mpa) standard required for soil-stabilizing criteria of road construction applications. This current research focused on the combination of two types of precursors, which are fly ash and GGBFS. The findings of an unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test on stabilized soil samples were discussed. Finally, the paper concludes that GGBFS and fly-ash-based geo-polymers for soil stabilization techniques can be successfully used as a binder for soil stabilization. However, additional research is required to meet the requirement of ASTM D 4609 standard in road construction applications, particularly in subgrade layers.

Verified 2026-10-31 · 2 references not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review concludes that fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS)-based geopolymers can be used as binders for soil stabilization, but further research is needed to meet ASTM D 4609 (>0.8 MPa) for road construction, especially subgrade layers. It synthesizes prior unconfined compressive strength (UCS) results and identifies solid-to-liquid ratio, NaOH molarity, and Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio as key factors affecting geopolymer properties.

Key findings

  • The paper concludes that GGBFS and fly-ash-based geopolymers for soil stabilization can be successfully used as a binder, but additional research is required to meet the ASTM D 4609 standard (>0.8 MPa) in road construction applications, particularly subgrade layers.
  • Prior studies using one precursor or conventional fly ash/GGBFS often fell short: Sharma et al. used 70% fly ash and 30% GGBFS and reached 0.45 MPa after 28 days; Oormila et al. found 20% GGBFS optimum and increased clayey soil strength by about 73.79%; Mujtaba et al. found 30% GGBFS increased 28-day remolded strength by approximately 35% and met ASTM D 4609 but required long curing.
  • Geopolymer studies showed mixed compliance: Abdullah et al. obtained maximum strength with fly ash/alkaline activator ratio 2.5 and Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio 2.0 after 28 days; Shihab et al. found 12 M NaOH optimum; Phummiphan et al. selected 20% GGBFS and 30% fly ash as optimum, but many results still did not meet ASTM D 4609 or needed long curing.
  • Key factors affecting geopolymer properties are solid-to-liquid (S/L) ratio, sodium hydroxide molarity, and sodium silicate/sodium hydroxide ratio; most fly ash Class C and GGBFS assessments used S/L between 1 and 3, 10 M NaOH was found suitable for Class F and Class C fly ash, and Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio 2.0 showed best performance in fly-ash-based soil stabilization.

Methods

  • Narrative review of soil stabilization using fly ash and GGBFS via geopolymerization, focused on unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test results from prior studies.
  • Data are previous studies summarized in Tables 1 and 2; no new experimental tests are reported.
  • Analysis covers conventional stabilization, geopolymerization mechanism, raw material sources, alkali activators, and factors affecting geopolymer properties.

Limitations

  • The paper states it only discusses performance of geopolymer technology in soil stabilization based on compressive strength in road construction, especially subgrade layers; swell behavior, flexural strength, and abrasion resistance of GGBFS and fly ash Class C geopolymer in road construction have not been investigated.
  • The paper states that if soil stabilization only uses geopolymers, it does not produce CO2, so the CO2 emission reduction ratio of soil-based geopolymers cannot be evaluated and discussed.
  • As evident from the text, this is a review with no original experimental data; its conclusions depend on cited studies, and many cited studies did not meet ASTM D 4609 or required long curing times.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ma15010375

Cites

94 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

61 of 177 cited sources checked · 13 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Anne et al. strength value still does not comply with ASTM D 4609 (>0.8 MPa).

    “However, the strength value still does not comply with the ASTM D 4609 standard [76], which requires a value greater than 0.8 MPa.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [72] Tigue, 2018, Synthesis of a one-part geopolymer system for soil stabilizer using fly ash and volcanic ash, Minerals source

      Section 3.2 (Unconfined compressive strength; page not provided) reports a maximum strength of 971 kPa, or 0.971 MPa—above the claimed 0.8 MPa threshold. Other tested formulations were below 0.8 MPa, but the paper does not say that all its strength values fail that threshold; it instead discusses a 75 kPa requirement from the National Structural Code of the Philippines, not ASTM D 4609. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [76] 4609 AD (2017). Standard Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of Admixtures for Soil Stabilization, ASTM International.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    In order to produce geopolymer, the sources of alumina and silica (fly ash and GGBFS) act as precursors that are easily dissolved in alkaline solutions resulted from alkaline activation, making geopolymerization possible.

    “In order to produce geopolymer, the sources of alumina and silica (fly ash and GGBFS) act as precursors that are easily dissolved in alkaline solutions resulted from alkaline activation, making geopolymerization possible [47,49,57,58,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 10 sources checked
    • cites [47] Hamzah, 2015, Review of soil stabilization techniques: Geopolymerization method one of the new technique, Key Eng. Mater. source
    • cites [49] Hanegbi, N., and Katra, I. (2020). A clay-based geopolymer in loess soil stabilization. Appl. Sci., 10. source

      The Introduction (page not provided) says geopolymers can be synthesized from calcined kaolin and a strongly alkaline solution, and mentions fly ash among materials used in loess stabilization. It does not identify GGBFS as a precursor or explain dissolution of alumina and silica as the mechanism of geopolymerization. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [57] Javdanian, 2017, The effect of geopolymerization on the unconfined compressive strength of stabilized fine-grained soils, Int. J. Eng. Trans. B Appl.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [58] Sukprasert, 2021, Fly ash-based geopolymer stabilization of silty clay/blast furnace slag for subgrade applications, Road Mater. Pavement Des. source
    • cites [60] Samuel, 2021, Improvement of Strength and Volume-Change Properties of Expansive Clays with Geopolymer Treatment, Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board source
    • cites [61] Ravi, 2019, Effect of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Metakaolin on Geotechnical Properties of Clayey Soil, ICSWMD

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [62] Abdullah, 2020, Systematic approach to assessing the applicability of fly-ash-based geopolymer for clay stabilization, Can. Geotech. J. source
    • cites [63] Alam, 2019, Strength and durability characteristic of alkali activated GGBS stabilized red mud as geo-material, Constr. Build. Mater. source
    • cites [64] Toryila, 2016, Expansive Soil Stabilization Using Industrial Solid Wastes an Expansive Soil Stabilization Using Industrial Solid Wastes a Review, Int. J. Adv. Technol. Eng. Sci.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [65] Dayalan, 2016, Comparative Study on Stabilization of Soil with Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) and Fly Ash, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    The UCS value for Sharma et al. does not fulfill ASTM D 4609 (>0.8 MPa).

    “However, the unconfined compressive strength value does not fulfill the ASTM D 4609 standard [76], which must be more than 0.8 MPa.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [67] Sharma, 2016, Ground granulated blast furnace slag amended fly ash as an expansive soil stabilizer, Soils Found. source

      The Testing methodology (§2.2; page unavailable) describes UCS testing under IS:4332 and ASTM D2166, while the strength discussion (§3.3; page unavailable) describes trends without numerical UCS values. Searches for 0.8 MPa and ASTM D4609 found no passage establishing the claimed threshold or showing that Sharma et al.’s results fell below it. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [76] 4609 AD (2017). Standard Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of Admixtures for Soil Stabilization, ASTM International.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Chemical stabilization processes such as mixing with GGBFS and fly ash by-products can alter the compressive strength, swelling potential, and volume change properties of soil.

    “It is possible to alter the compressive strength, swelling potential, and volume change properties of soil through chemical stabilization processes such as mixing with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) and fly ash by-products, as well as mixes of any of these materials [39,40,41,42,43].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [39] Neeladharan, 2019, Stabilization of soil using Fly ash with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) as binder, Suraj Punj. J.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [40] Amulya, 2020, Stabilization of lithomargic clay using alkali activated fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag, Int. J. Pavement Eng. source
    • cites [41] Sihag, 2021, Estimation of UCS-FT of Dispersive Soil Stabilized with Fly Ash, Cement Clinker and GGBS by Artificial Intelligence, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. source
    • cites [42] Ghaffoori, 2019, Effects of Fly Ash and Granulated Ground Blast Furnace Slag on Stabilization of Crude Oil Contamination Sandy Soil, Polytech. J. source

      The Abstract (page not available) reports that GGBFS and fly ash affect the direct shear strength and compaction properties of clean and crude-oil-contaminated sandy soil. It does not report compressive strength, swelling potential, or volume change as such, so those specific properties are not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [43] Miraki, H., Shariatmadari, N., Ghadir, P., Jahandari, S., Tao, Z., and Siddique, R. (2021). Clayey soil stabilization using alkali-activated volcanic ash and slag. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. source

      The study description (p. 3) says the authors tested compressive strength in clayey soil stabilized with alkali-activated volcanic ash and GGBS. The Introduction (p. 2) also reports strength findings for fly-ash and slag binders. The cited paper does not establish the claimed effects on swelling potential or soil volume change, and its own mixtures used volcanic ash rather than fly ash. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    A longer curing time is required to reach optimum strength for Anne et al.

    “Furthermore, a longer curing time is required to reach the optimum strength.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [72] Tigue, 2018, Synthesis of a one-part geopolymer system for soil stabilizer using fly ash and volcanic ash, Minerals source

      Section 3.3, Sulfuric acid resistance (page not provided), reports higher strength after 28 days of acid immersion and suggests that the additional time may have allowed further curing. It does not establish that longer curing is required to reach an optimum strength; the proposed effect of curing time is hedged. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 4
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 13

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Addition of fly ash is one method to stabilize soil because fly ash is a pozzolan that can bind to minerals in soil and make the soil stable.

    “The addition of fly ash is one of the methods to stabilize soil because fly ash is a pozzolan, in which it can bind to minerals in soil and make the soil stable”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim4 of 10 sources checked
    • cites [41] Sihag, 2021, Estimation of UCS-FT of Dispersive Soil Stabilized with Fly Ash, Cement Clinker and GGBS by Artificial Intelligence, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. source
    • cites [42] Ghaffoori, 2019, Effects of Fly Ash and Granulated Ground Blast Furnace Slag on Stabilization of Crude Oil Contamination Sandy Soil, Polytech. J. source

      The Abstract (page not specified in our copy) describes fly ash as a material used to stabilize sandy soil and improve its strength and stability. It does not say that fly ash is a pozzolan or that it stabilizes soil by binding to soil minerals; that proposed mechanism is unsupported by the passages found. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [44] Kumar, 2020, Stabilization of expansive subgrade soil by using fly ash, Materials source
    • cites [46] Prasad, 2021, Experimental Investigation of Soil Behaviour Using Industrial Fly Ash, Am. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. source

      The Introduction and Conclusion say that adding fly ash can stabilize soil, including the black cotton soil tested. Our copy does not say that fly ash is a pozzolan or that binding to soil minerals is the reason for the stabilization. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [54] Mandal, 2016, Stabilization of Soil using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Fly Ash, IJIRSET

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [69] Tyagi, A., and Soni, D.K. (2019). Effects of Granulated Ground Blast Furnace Slag and Fly Ash on Stabilization of Soil, Springer. source
    • cites [70] Mujtaba, 2018, Improvement in Engineering Properties of Expansive Soils using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, J. Geol. Soc. India source
    • cites [71] Tigue, A.A.S., Malenab, R.A.J., Dungca, J.R., Yu, D.E.C., and Promentilla, M.A.B. (2018). Chemical stability and leaching behavior of one-part geopolymer from soil and coal fly ash mixtures. Minerals, 8. source

      The Abstract and Introduction describe a soil stabilizer made with fly ash, supporting the general point that fly ash can be used in soil stabilization. But the studied binder also requires solid alkali activators, and the paper does not explain stabilization as fly ash acting as a pozzolan that binds to soil minerals. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [72] Tigue, 2018, Synthesis of a one-part geopolymer system for soil stabilizer using fly ash and volcanic ash, Minerals source

      The Introduction describes fly ash as naturally pozzolanic, and §3.2 reports that increasing its proportion in an alkali-activated geopolymer mixture increased the compressive strength of stabilized soil. The paper does not establish the claim’s specific mechanism that fly ash binds to minerals in soil; the tested stabilizer also contained volcanic ash and alkali activators. Page numbers are not available for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [73] Thomas, 2018, A Laboratory Investigation of Soil Stabilization Using Enzyme and Alkali-Activated Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Addition of fly ash reduces swell shrinkage of soil and improves soil strength.

    “so as to reduce the swell shrinkage of the soil and improve soil strength [41,42,44,46,54,69,70,71,72,73].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim4 of 10 sources checked
    • cites [41] Sihag, 2021, Estimation of UCS-FT of Dispersive Soil Stabilized with Fly Ash, Cement Clinker and GGBS by Artificial Intelligence, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. source
    • cites [42] Ghaffoori, 2019, Effects of Fly Ash and Granulated Ground Blast Furnace Slag on Stabilization of Crude Oil Contamination Sandy Soil, Polytech. J. source

      The Abstract (page not provided) says fly ash was used to stabilize sandy soil and identifies increasing soil strength as a study goal. It does not report reduced soil swell–shrinkage; the shrinkage mention in the References concerns concrete, not this study's soil. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [44] Kumar, 2020, Stabilization of expansive subgrade soil by using fly ash, Materials source
    • cites [46] Prasad, 2021, Experimental Investigation of Soil Behaviour Using Industrial Fly Ash, Am. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. source
    • cites [54] Mandal, 2016, Stabilization of Soil using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Fly Ash, IJIRSET

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [69] Tyagi, A., and Soni, D.K. (2019). Effects of Granulated Ground Blast Furnace Slag and Fly Ash on Stabilization of Soil, Springer. source
    • cites [70] Mujtaba, 2018, Improvement in Engineering Properties of Expansive Soils using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, J. Geol. Soc. India source
    • cites [71] Tigue, A.A.S., Malenab, R.A.J., Dungca, J.R., Yu, D.E.C., and Promentilla, M.A.B. (2018). Chemical stability and leaching behavior of one-part geopolymer from soil and coal fly ash mixtures. Minerals, 8. source

      The Conclusions report compressive strength for a soil–fly ash geopolymer cement, with strength increasing after acid exposure. They do not report reduced soil swell–shrinkage or compare soil with and without fly ash to show that adding fly ash improved its strength. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [72] Tigue, 2018, Synthesis of a one-part geopolymer system for soil stabilizer using fly ash and volcanic ash, Minerals source

      Section 3.2 (Unconfined compressive strength) reports that increasing fly ash increased the compressive strength of geopolymer-stabilized soil. The paper does not report a reduction in soil swelling or shrinkage; its soil characterization in Section 3.1.1 describes the soil as non-plastic silty sand. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [73] Thomas, 2018, A Laboratory Investigation of Soil Stabilization Using Enzyme and Alkali-Activated Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mixing GGBFS with soil improves compressive strength, permeability, and durability.

    “Mixing GGBFS with soil improves compressive strength, permeability, and durability [39,54,65,66,67,68,69].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [39] Neeladharan, 2019, Stabilization of soil using Fly ash with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) as binder, Suraj Punj. J.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [54] Mandal, 2016, Stabilization of Soil using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Fly Ash, IJIRSET

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [65] Dayalan, 2016, Comparative Study on Stabilization of Soil with Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) and Fly Ash, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [66] Oormila, 2014, Effect of Stabilization Using Flyash and GGBS in Soil Characteristics, Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. source
    • cites [67] Sharma, 2016, Ground granulated blast furnace slag amended fly ash as an expansive soil stabilizer, Soils Found. source

      The Conclusions report increased unconfined compressive strength in artificially mixed expansive soil treated with a fly ash–GGBS binder. The Testing methodology says the study focused on physical properties, compaction, and strength; it does not report improved permeability or durability. The result also concerns a fly ash–GGBS mixture, not GGBS mixed with soil alone. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [68] Simatupang, M., Mangalla, L.K., Edwin, R.S., Putra, A.A., Azikin, M.T., Aswad, N.H., and Mustika, W. (2020). The mechanical properties of fly-ash-stabilized sands. Geosciences, 10. source

      The Introduction and Abstract discuss fly ash mixed with soil and report increased strength, including unconfined compressive strength; they do not address GGBFS. Searches for GGBFS, slag, permeability, and durability found no passage in our copy establishing the claimed effects of GGBFS. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [69] Tyagi, A., and Soni, D.K. (2019). Effects of Granulated Ground Blast Furnace Slag and Fly Ash on Stabilization of Soil, Springer. source

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    Sharma et al. found strongest soil after 28 days curing with fly ash 70% and GGBFS 30%, compressive strength 0.45 MPa.

    “Based on the strength result, the strongest soil was achieved after 28 days of curing time, with a compressive strength value of 0.45 MPa.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [67] Sharma, 2016, Ground granulated blast furnace slag amended fly ash as an expansive soil stabilizer, Soils Found. source

      Section 2.1 identifies a 70:30 fly ash–GGBS binder, and Section 3.3 reports that strength increased with curing time across the 7-, 14-, and 28-day tests. Our copy does not state that the strongest soil had a compressive strength of 0.45 MPa; searches for that value and 450 kPa found no matching result. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Geopolymers have outstanding engineering properties, such as increased strength and improved soil adhesion.

    “Geopolymers have outstanding engineering properties, such as increased strength and improved soil adhesion [36,40,56].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [36] Firoozi, 2017, Fundamentals of soil stabilization, Int. J. Geo Eng. source

      The sections on cement stabilization and fiber reinforcement discuss strength gains from those materials, not from geopolymers. Searches of the full-text copy for “geopolymer” and for geopolymer strength and soil adhesion found no passage addressing the claimed properties. (LLM, conf=0.75)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [40] Amulya, 2020, Stabilization of lithomargic clay using alkali activated fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag, Int. J. Pavement Eng. source
    • cites [56] Duxson, 2007, Geopolymer technology: The current state of the art, J. Mater. Sci. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [51] Abdullah, 2017, Effect of Alkaline Activator to Fly Ash Ratio for Geopolymer Stabilized Soil, MATEC Web Conf. source

      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 measured

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    Anne et al. found strength increased as amount of fly ash increased (15% and 25%).

    “According to the findings, strength increased as the amount of fly ash increased.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [72] Tigue, 2018, Synthesis of a one-part geopolymer system for soil stabilizer using fly ash and volcanic ash, Minerals source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [51] Abdullah, 2017, Effect of Alkaline Activator to Fly Ash Ratio for Geopolymer Stabilized Soil, MATEC Web Conf. source

      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 measured
    • cites [76] 4609 AD (2017). Standard Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of Admixtures for Soil Stabilization, ASTM International.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [91] Provis, 2018, Alkali-activated materials, Cem. Concr. Res. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Higher 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].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [51] Abdullah, 2017, Effect of Alkaline Activator to Fly Ash Ratio for Geopolymer Stabilized Soil, MATEC Web Conf. source

      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
    • cites [74] Abdila, S.R., Mustafa, M., Bakri, A., Ahmad, R., Zamree, S., Rahim, A., Rychta, M., Wnuk, I., Nabiałek, M., and Muskalski, K. (2021). Evaluation on the Mechanical Properties of Ground Granulated Blast Slag (GGBS) and Fly Ash Stabilized Soil via. Materials, 14. source

      The Method section says the NaOH-to-Na2SiO3 ratio was fixed, so the study does not establish how changing that ratio affects workability or strength. The Results section reports lower workability and strength at higher solid-to-liquid (S/L) ratios, which is a different ratio. The Conclusions call for further study of the Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio rather than stating the claimed effect; the provided copy gives no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [78] Aziz, 2019, Behaviour changes of ground granulated blast furnace slag geopolymers at high temperature, Adv. Cem. Res. source
    • cites [102] Trinh, 2018, Influencing of Clay, and Binder Content on Compression Strength of Soft Soil Stabilized by Geopolymer Based Fly Ash, Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [103] Ghugal, 2013, Effect of Fineness of Fly Ash on Flow and Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete Effect of fly ash fineness on workability and compressive strength of geopolymer concrete, Indian Concr. J.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [109] Kwek, S.Y. (2021). Influence of Liquid-to-Solid and Alkaline Activator (Sodium Silicate to Sodium Hydroxide) Ratios on Fresh and Hardened. Materials, 14. source

      Section 3.2 (page unavailable) reports that flow decreased as the Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio increased, supporting the workability claim. It also reports that compressive strength increased up to a ratio of 2.5 and declined marginally at 3.0. Thus, higher ratios do not generally lower strength; that finding applies only beyond the study’s optimum. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [110] Zaliha, 2013, Review on Soil Stabilization Techniques Review on Soil Stabilization Techniques, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Abdullah 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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [51] Abdullah, 2017, Effect of Alkaline Activator to Fly Ash Ratio for Geopolymer Stabilized Soil, MATEC Web Conf. source

      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 measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    The majority of assessments of fly ash Class C and GGBFS utilized an S/L ratio between 1 and 3.

    “The majority of assessments of fly ash Class C and GGBFS utilized an S/L ratio between 1 and 3.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Previous research only used one type of precursor: fly ash or GGBFS.

    “Previous research only used one type of precursor: fly ash or GGBFS”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Phummiphan et al. found optimum dosage can be selected as 20% for GGBFS and 30% for fly ash.

    “Based on unconfined compressive strength (UCS) result, the optimum dosage can be selected as 20% for GGBFS and 30% for fly ash.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [88] Phummiphan, 2017, Revised manuscript HAZMAT-D-17-00478R2 High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Stabilized Lateritic Soil and Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Blends as a Pavement Base Material, J. Hazard. Mater. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The compressive strength of soil with 30% GGBFS fulfils ASTM D 4609 standard but requires long curing time.

    “Although, the compressive strength of the soil fulfils the ASTM D 4609 [76] standard, it requires a long curing time to get the optimum strength value.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [70] Mujtaba, 2018, Improvement in Engineering Properties of Expansive Soils using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, J. Geol. Soc. India source
    • cites [76] 4609 AD (2017). Standard Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of Admixtures for Soil Stabilization, ASTM International.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    A long curing time is required to reach optimum strength for Phummiphan et al.

    “Furthermore, a long curing time is required to reach optimum strength.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [88] Phummiphan, 2017, Revised manuscript HAZMAT-D-17-00478R2 High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Stabilized Lateritic Soil and Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Blends as a Pavement Base Material, J. Hazard. Mater. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    Neeladharan et al. recommended 20% binder as optimal for fly ash (5-25%) and GGBFS (2.5-10%) stabilization.

    “According to the results of the unconfined compressive strength test, a binder percentage of 20% is recommended as the optimal.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [39] Neeladharan, 2019, Stabilization of soil using Fly ash with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) as binder, Suraj Punj. J.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This can cause clay to become stable and compact and increase compressive strength of clay.

    “This can cause the clay to become stable and compact and increase the compressive strength of the clay.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Leong et al. compressive strength fulfils ASTM D 4609 but required long curing time.

    “Although the compressive strength of the soil fulfils the ASTM D 4609 [76] standard, it required a long curing time to obtain the optimum strength value.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [81] Leong, 2018, Strength Development of Soil–Fly Ash Geopolymer: Assessment of Soil, Fly Ash, Alkali Activators, and Water, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. source
    • cites [76] 4609 AD (2017). Standard Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of Admixtures for Soil Stabilization, ASTM International.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Shihab et al. compressive strength fulfils ASTM D 4609 but requires high molarity to obtain optimum compressive strength.

    “Although the compressive strength of the soil fulfils the ASTM D 4609 [76] standard, it requires a high molarity to obtain the optimum compressive strength value.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [80] Ibrahim, 2018, Effect of NaOH molar concentration to soft clayey soil stabilized by fly ash-based geopolymer mechanical strength subjected to initial heating, Int. J. Eng. Res. Sci. Technol.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [76] 4609 AD (2017). Standard Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of Admixtures for Soil Stabilization, ASTM International.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Parhi et al. found 10 molal samples have greater 3- and 7-day strength than 12.5 and 15 molar samples, making them more cost effective.

    “The 10 molal samples have a greater three- and seven-day strength than the 12.5 and 15 molar samples, which make them more cost effective than the 12.5 and 15 molal samples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [75] Parhi, 2018, Stabilization of an Expansive Soil Using Alkali Activated Fly ash based Geopolymer, Sustain. Civ. Infrastruct. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Oormila et al. found use of GGBFS increased strength characteristics of soil; optimum amount 20%, increased strength by about 73.79% of clayey soil.

    “The result indicates that the use of GGBFS increased the strength characteristics of the soil. Based on compressive strength, the optimum amount of GGBFS was 20%, as it increased the strength by about 73.79% of clayey soil.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [66] Oormila, 2014, Effect of Stabilization Using Flyash and GGBS in Soil Characteristics, Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Soil stabilization based on geopolymers using fly ash Class C and GGBFS as raw materials can increase the compressive strength of clayey soil.

    “Previous research has demonstrated that soil stabilization based on geopolymers using fly ash Class C and GGBFS as raw materials can increase the compressive strength of clayey soil.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The mix design of soil stabilization-based geopolymer is critical in defining the mechanical and physical properties of soil stabilization-based geopolymer.

    “The mix design of soil stabilization-based geopolymer is critical in defining the mechanical and physical properties of soil stabilization-based geopolymer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Initial solid content highly influences rate of geopolymer formation; large number of precipitates observed with increasing solid-to-liquid ratio.

    “Based on a previous study by Alonso et al. [97], it is said that the initial solid content highly influences the rate of geopolymer formation; it was evident that a large number of precipitates was observed with an increasing solid-to-liquid ratio.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [97] Alonso, 2001, Calorimetric study of alkaline activation of calcium hydroxide-metakaolin solid mixtures, Cem. Concr. Res. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    The soil, fly ash, and GGBFS act as the source materials for polymerization, producing soil-based geopolymers.

    “In other words, the soil, fly ash, and GGBFS act as the source materials for polymerization, producing soil-based geopolymers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    The S/L ratios vary according to the materials utilized.

    “The S/L ratios vary according to the materials utilized.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Clayey soil or problematic soil can be stabilized and its strength improved by using a fly ash Class C and GGBFS-based geopolymerization process.

    “This paper presents the clayey soil or problematic soil that can be stabilized and the strength improved by using a fly ash Class C and GGBFS-based geopolymerization process.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The potential applications of GGBFS-FA geo-polymer are seen in soil stabilization operation with deep injection techniques, slope stabilization techniques, and in situ stabilization techniques.

    “of GGBFS-FA geo-polymer are seen in soil stabilization operation with deep injection techniques, slope stabilization techniques, and in situ stabilization techniques.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    If the soil stabilization only uses geopolymers, it does not produce CO2.

    “Additionally, if the soil stabilization only uses geopolymers, it does not produce CO2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Increasing the amount of fly ash Class C and GGBFS used will improve the calcium content.

    “For instance, increasing the amount of fly ash Class C and GGBFS used will improve the calcium content.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Geopolymerization process is a relatively new approach for soil stabilization that has the potential to outperform previous treatments (conventional method).

    “Geopolymerization process is a relatively new approach for soil stabilization that has the potential to outperform previous treatments (conventional method).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
31 of 31

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Geopolymerization starts with the dissolution of the source materials by the alkali solution, which causes the breaking of the aluminosilicate bond and releases silica and alumina, mainly in the source materials.

    “This model assumes that geopolymerization starts with the dissolution of the source materials by the alkali solution, which causes the breaking of the aluminosilicate bond and releases silica and alumina, mainly in the source materials [78,79].”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Only a few scholars investigated the use of geopolymer for soil stabilization application.

    “Much attention has been given to the utilization of stabilization materials for soil stabilization, but only a few scholars investigated the use of geopolymer for soil stabilization application.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A wealth of literature is available on using fly ash Class C and GGBFS-based geopolymers, but they nearly always refer to their use in building materials.

    “While a wealth of literature is available on using fly ash Class C and GGBFS-based geopolymers, they nearly always refer to their use in building materials.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Several researchers reported on the use of geopolymers for soil stabilization but did not discuss their applicability in road construction, particularly in the subgrade layer.

    “Several researchers reported on the use of geopolymers for soil stabilization but did not discuss their applicability in road construction, particularly in the subgrade layer.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    One ton of cement manufactured accounts for approximately one ton of greenhouse gas CO2 released into the atmosphere as a result of lime decarbonization in the kiln during cement manufacture.

    “However, if soil stabilization involves the use of materials such as cement, it is possible to evaluate and discuss the CO2 emission because one ton of cement is manufactured, accounting for approximately one ton of greenhouse gas CO2 released into the atmosphere as a result of lime decarbonization in the kiln during cement manufacture.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The swell behavior, flexural strength, or abrasion resistance of soil stabilization-based geopolymer using GGBFS and fly ash Class C in road construction, particularly in the subgrade layer of the soil, have not been investigated.

    “Moreover, the swell behavior, flexural strength, or abrasion resistance of soil stabilization-based geopolymer using GGBFS and fly ash Class C in road construction, particularly in the subgrade layer of the soil, have not been investigated.”
6 of 6

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Earlier fly-ash treatment is said both to fail and fulfill the strength criterion

    Major

    The abstract says previous single-precursor research did not meet the stated criterion, whereas the review says a fly-ash-based geopolymer treatment fulfilled it.

  • ASTM standard number differs from its cited reference

    Minor

    The text identifies reference [14] as ASTM D 2487, but reference [14] lists ASTM D 4287.

  • Reported fly-ash maximum was not among the listed amounts

    Minor

    The Tyagi study is described as using fly-ash amounts in 5% steps from 0% to 30%, but its reported maximum occurs at 18% fly ash, an amount not in that list.

  • Earlier geopolymer study used both precursors

    Minor

    The abstract says previous research used only fly ash or GGBFS, but the review describes an earlier geopolymer study that blended both.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Pandey, 2017, Soil stabilization using cement, Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol., 8, 316
  2. Lakhanpal, 2018, A Brief Review on Various Methods and Materials Used for, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., 5, 682
  3. Utami, 2014, Clayey soil stabilization with lime effect the value CBR and swelling, ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 9, 1744
  4. Mokhtar, 2016, An experimental study on dust shell as an admixture in soft soil stabilization, ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 11, 7254
  5. Neeladharan, 2019, Stabilization of soil using Fly ash with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) as binder, Suraj Punj. J., 9, 23
  6. Pathak, 2014, Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, J. Eng. Res. Appl., 4, 164
  7. Mandal, 2016, Stabilization of Soil using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Fly Ash, IJIRSET, 5, 21121
  8. Dayalan, 2016, Comparative Study on Stabilization of Soil with Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) and Fly Ash, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., 3, 2198
  9. Ibrahim, 2018, Effect of NaOH molar concentration to soft clayey soil stabilized by fly ash-based geopolymer mechanical strength subjected to initial heating, Int. J. Eng. Res. Sci. Technol., 7, 1
  10. Zaliha, 2015, The Influence of Geopolymerization Process on Liquid and Plastic Limits of The Influence of Geopolymerization Process on Liquid and Plastic Limits of Soils, Appl. Mech. Mater., 754, 886
  11. Ayyappan, 2017, Influence of Geopolymers in the Stabilization of Clayey soil, Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Eng. Res., 5, 108
  12. Trinh, 2018, Influencing of Clay, and Binder Content on Compression Strength of Soft Soil Stabilized by Geopolymer Based Fly Ash, Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res., 13, 7954
  13. Ghugal, 2013, Effect of Fineness of Fly Ash on Flow and Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete Effect of fly ash fineness on workability and compressive strength of geopolymer concrete, Indian Concr. J., 1, 57
  14. Zaliha, 2013, Review on Soil Stabilization Techniques Review on Soil Stabilization Techniques, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci., 7, 258
  15. Tempest, B., Sanusi, O., Gergely, J., Ogunro, V., and Weggel, D. (2009, January 4–7). Compressive Strength and Embodied Energy Optimization of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Proceedings of the 3rd World Coal Ash, WOCA Conference, Lexington, KY, USA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
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
Affiliations
  • Universiti Malaysia Perlis (MY)
  • Faculty of Materials Science and Engineering, Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iaşi, Boulevard D. Mangeron, No. 51, 700050 Iasi, Romania
  • Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iași (RO)
  • Mercu Buana University (ID)
Corresponding author
  • Abdila, Syafiadi Rizki
  • Abdullah, Mohd Mustafa Al Bakri
ORCID
Venue
Materials
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-01-05
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
375
ISSN
1996-1944 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ma15010375
PMC
PMC8746325
OpenAlex
W4205454475
Cited by
140
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 9
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Materials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • University Malaysia Perlis, University MercuBuana and Center of Excellence Geopolymer &amp; Green Concrete Technology (CEGeoTech) (UniMap)
  • CNFIS Romania (CNFIS-FDI-2021-0354)
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
soil stabilization, geopolymer, alkali-activated binders, ground granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash, unconfined compressive strength, clay soil, road subgrade, industrial 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-31.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-31.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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