See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276487660

Investigation on Soil–Geopolymer with Slag, Fly Ash and Their Blending

Article  in  ARABIAN JOURNAL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING · May 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s13369-015-1677-y

CITATIONS READS

33 1,424

3 authors, including:

Binod Singhi Aminul Laskar

National Institute of Technology, Silchar National Institute of Technology, Silchar
2 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   382 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

DESIGN OF OPTIMIZED MODEL OF SMOKELESS CHULHABY USING GEO-POLYMER AND INSTALLATION FOR POOR VILLAGERS IN NORTH EAST INDIA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aminul Laskar on 11 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:393–400
DOI 10.1007/s13369-015-1677-y
RESEARCH ARTICLE - CIVIL ENGINEERING
Investigation on Soil–Geopolymer with Slag, Fly Ash
and Their Blending
Binod Singhi1 · Aminul Islam Laskar1 · M. Ali Ahmed1
Received: 30 December 2014 / Accepted: 23 April 2015 / Published online: 5 May 2015
© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2015
Abstract Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS)-
based geopolymer is an excellent binder that attains high
strength by curing at room temperature. Fly ash-based
geopolymer binder, on the other hand, attains high strength
when heated in particular temperature range. Although liter-
atures on GGBS- and fly ash-based geopolymer are plenty,
reported literatures on soil–geopolymer system are lim-
ited. An attempt has therefore been made in the present
paper to investigate soil–geopolymer incorporating slag, fly
ash and blending of slag and fly ash as source materials.
It was observed that unconfined compressive strength of
soil–geopolymer system increases with the source material
content. Molar concentration of alkali activator, alkali-to-
source material ratio and percent content of source material
altogether affect the unconfined compressive strength of sta-
bilized soil that is not straightforward. Na/Al and Si/Al ratios
of the geopolymer mix ultimately govern the strength of sta-
bilized soil. It was also observed that slag content is the most
dominating factor affecting unconfined compressive strength
rather than Na/Al ratio in case blending of GGBS and fly ash.
Keywords Geopolymer · Blast furnace slag · Fly ash ·
Unconfined compressive strength · Clayey soil
1 Introduction
Clayey soils are considered as problematic soil with their
unpredictable performance in the presence of moisture. A
little change in moisture content in this type of soil may
B Aminul Islam Laskar
aminul.nits@gmail.com
1 Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute
of Technology, Silchar 788010, India
lead to decrease in shear strength associated with swelling,
shrinkage, settlement, consolidation and disruption under
imposed wheel load due to vehicular traffic. Improvement
of clayey soil by treating with lime, cement, slag and fly ash
are nowadays established methods used widely around the
world. Lime stabilization is preferred as a stabilizer because
of its simplicity and overall economy of construction. On the
other hand, cement is the most common stabilizing agent used
extensively for sub-grade, sub-base and base construction in
pavement engineering since 1950. Cement stabilization is an
established technology to improve the engineering proper-
ties of wide variety of soils including granular materials, silt
and clay. Mixing of soil and cement in the presence of water
causes mark improvement in soil characteristics like increase
in internal friction, decrease in shrinkage–swelling behavior
and decrease in settlement due to continuous evolution of
hydration products [1]. The hydration products are responsi-
ble for strength gain in soil–cement system by holding soil
particles within themselves [2]. The replacement of cement
by waste materials, such as fly ash (FA), rice husk ash, and
biomass ash, has been extensively applied in practice. The
application of fly ash to geotechnical engineering is reported
by many researchers. There are plenty of literatures avail-
able at present on soil stabilization by lime, fly ash, rice husk
and slag [3–6]. Among all stabilization techniques, cement
stabilization is proven to the best for obvious reasons.
Geopolymer technology was first patented and reported
by Joseph Davidovits more than 30 years ago [7,8]. Since
then, a considerable knowledge has been gained in this
discipline. Civil engineers could make use of geopolymer
successfully in concrete and mortar, and today, a large num-
ber of literatures are available on geopolymer concrete and
mortar [9,10]. Works on geopolymer–soil are very recent
and are limited in number [11–15]. It is reported that fly
ash-based soil–geopolymer may attain unconfined compres-
123
394 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:393–400

sive strength up to 50 N/mm2 after curing for one year at
elevated temperature [14,15]. The aforesaid literatures on
soil–geopolymer are based on fly ash-based geopolymer
only. Zhang et al. [16] examined the feasibility of metakaolin-
based geopolymer–soil. Reported literature on slag-based
geopolymer–soil system is rare. Recently, Yi et al. [17] inves-
tigated the use of slag-based geopolymer in marine clay.
However, detail study on the factors affecting unconfined
compressive strength of clayey soil–geopolymer needs to be
explored. In the present study, an attempt has been made
to study various mix parameters which control the strength
gain process in the soil–geopolymer. Attempt was also made
to explain how unconfined compressive strength of soil–
geopolymer is actually controlled by Na/Al and Si/Al ratios.
2 Materials and Mixtures
2.1 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
Commercially available ultra-fine GGBS was used as the
source material for geopolymer binder. The properties of
GGBS are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 Chemical composition of source material
Particulars Content [mass (%)]
2.2 Fly Ash
ASTM class C fly ash obtained from thermal power plant at
Farakka (India) was used in the present study. The properties
of fly ash are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
2.3 Alkali Activators
The most common alkaline liquids used in geopolymeriza-
tion are combination of either sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and
sodium silicate or potassium hydroxide (KOH) and potas-
sium silicate [9]. Sodium hydroxide solution was chosen
in the present study as alkali activator. Sodium-based solu-
tions were chosen because they are cheaper and because it
is reported that NaOH possesses greater capacity to liber-
ate silicate and aluminate monomers [18]. It is also reported
that sodium cations have better zeolitization capabilities in
geopolymer-forming systems [19]. The commercial-grade
sodium hydroxide in pallets (purity 98 %; specific gravity
2.13) was used to prepare the solution with tap water. The
mass of NaOH pallets in a solution varied according to the
molar strength (M). Alkali solution was prepared one day
prior to use. Sodium silicate used in the study had specific
gravity 1.5, and its purity was 97 %. The molecular weight of
the sodium silicate (Na2 SiO3 · 5H2 O) was 212. The weight
ratio of SiO2 /Na2 O is 0.97 and percentage of Na2 O and SiO2
are 29.25 and 28.30 % in sodium silicate, respectively.

Slag Fly ash

2.4 Soil Type
CaO 34 0.67
Al2 O3 20 22.63 Clayey soil used in the present study was collected from area
Fe2 O3 2 5.30 nearby National Institute of Technology, Silchar, India. As
SO3 0.8 0.41 per USCS classification, the soil is classified as clay with
MgO 8 0.16 low plasticity (CL). Particle size and fineness of the soil
SiO2 35 66.39
are determined using laser diffraction particle size analyzer
and presented in Table 2. The physical properties of soil are
presented in Table 3. For the determination of different char-
Table 2 Particle size and fineness of different materials acteristics of soil, Indian Standard code of Practice IS 2720
Properties Material type Part 1: 1995—Preparation of Dry Soil Samples was used.
Slag (GGBS) Fly ash Soil (S)

d10 (micron) 0.757 4.156 2.505 3 Testing Methodology

d50 (micron) 4.137 29.531 18.340
d90 (micron) 8.566 156.312 66.590 Remolded cylindrical specimens having diameter 38 mm and
Mean particle size 21.901 22.302 30.678 height 76 mm were prepared in PVC molds. The soil sam-
Specific surface area 28,000 8400 9980 ples were prepared using various ratios of source material
(cm2 /gm)
(GGBS/fly ash or combination of both) to soil, and the ratios

Table 3 Physical properties of

Soil type Liquid limit Plastic limit Plasticity index MDDa (gm/cm3 ) OMCb
clayey soil
S 37.68 % 23.61 % 14.07 % 1.69 19.05 %
a MDD refers to maximum dry density, and b OMC means optimum moisture content

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:393–400 395

are 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 % by weight. Molar strengths of sodium

hydroxide solutions used for activation were 12 and 14.5 M
and were used for each blend of soil and source material.
For determination of UCS of any specimen, average of three
readings after 28 days curing was reported as the UCS of
specimen. Preparation of soil-source material combination
sample was done using following procedure:

• Oven-dried soil was weighed to the nearest gram;

• The requisite quantity source material was weighed to
the nearest gram;
• The soil and source material were mixed thoroughly for
five minutes; Fig. 1 UCS of soil–slag-based geopolymer system at various percent-
• Alkali was added to soil-source material mixture and age of slag at M = 12
mixed thoroughly until a uniform mix was prepared.
Mixing can be done easily using mixing appliance used
in kitchen.

The soil mixed with binder were rolled, put in PVC molds
and compacted until air was expelled from the mix.

3.1 Curing

The prepared samples were kept in laboratory for 24 h and

then placed in an open yard for curing. The samples were
covered by moist cotton cloth throughout its curing period.

3.2 Unconfined Compressive Strength
The cured samples due for testing were taken out from the
curing yard. The molds of the samples were removed and
immersed in water for 24-h soaking. The soaked samples
were again air-dried at room temperature for 1 h before test-
ing. Unconfined compressive strength test of the specimens
was performed as per the Indian Standard Code of Prac-
tice IS—2720 (Part 10): 1991—Determination of unconfined
compressive strength. The specimens were placed in the
compression testing machine, and the compression load was
applied till the sample failed. Constant rate of loading were
maintained during the UCS test.
4 Test Results and Discussion
4.1 Slag-Based Geopolymer–Soil
Figure 1 shows the variation of UCS of slag-based
geopolymer–soil samples with % slag content at M = 12
and R = 0.45, 0.65 and 0.85 after 28 days of curing, where
M = represents molar concentration of NaOH solution and
R represents alkali-to-slag ratio (by weight). Samples with
alkali activated slag did not yield significant UCS when slag
content was ≤8 % for R = 0.65 and 0.85. In case of R = 0.45,
Fig. 2 UCS of soil–slag-based geopolymer system at various percent-
age of slag at M = 14.5
UCS was found to increase from 12 % slag content onwards.
At higher slag content, UCS increased steadily due to the
availability of more quantity of binder in the geopolymer–
soil matrix. More was the alkali-to-slag ratio (R), more was
the strength because of more binder.
Tests were also carried out at M = 14.5 of NaOH solution,
and the results are shown in Fig. 2 for R values 0.45, 0.65
and 0.85 after 28 days of curing. UCS for R = 0.65 showed
a steady rise with increase in slag content beyond 8 % and
developed an UCS as high as 11.3 N/mm2 at 20 % slag con-
tent. In case of R = 0.45, there was steep increase in UCS
between 12 and 15 % slag content, and slope of the curve
became gentle beyond 12 % slag content. When R = 0.85, the
specimens showed maximum values of UCS up to 12 % slag
content compared to the other two, and the slope became
almost flat with the further increase in slag content.
4.2 Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer–Soil
Figure 3 presents the variation of UCS of stabilized samples
with fly ash content at M = 12 and R = 0.45, 0.65 and 0.85.
As the fly ash content increased, UCS was found to increase

123
396 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:393–400

beyond 4 %. UCS continuously increased with the increase

in fly ash content, and the increase was due to the availability
of more geopolymer binder in the system. At M = 14.5, the
specimens did not show any strength up to 4 % fly ash con-
tent (Fig. 4). Fly ash content beyond 4 % showed steady rise,
but resulting UCS were very small for all combinations of

Fig. 6 Comparison of UCS of soil–geopolymer system at various per-

centage of source material at M = 12 and R = 0.65

M and R. Fly ash-based geopolymer–soil samples remained

soft after 28 days of curing and exhibited appreciably large
axial deformation with radial bulging under axial loading
Fig. 3 UCS of soil–fly ash-based geopolymer system at various per-
centage of fly ash at M = 12
(Fig. 5). When kept in water for soaking before UCS test,
water became turbid with large amount of fly ash and soil.
The characteristic deep greenish color of geopolymer was
not noticed in the samples after crushing which indicates
that there was insignificant geopolymerization with fly ash.
Comparison of UCS of specimens with geopolymer incor-
porating slag and fly ash for identical mix proportions and
molarity is shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that
slag-based specimen showed strength of 11.0 N/mm2 at 20 %
slag content, whereas fly ash-based specimen showed only
0.20 N/mm2 at same percent content for same M and R. Slag-
based specimen exhibited prism-type failure for UCS higher
than 3 N/mm2 (Fig. 5).

4.3 Role of Na/Al on Soil–Geopolymer

It is evident from Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that higher M and R value

Fig. 4 UCS of soil–fly ash-based geopolymer system at various per- may not always yield high UCS of test samples. A particular
centage of fly ash at M = 14.5 combination of all the ingredients of the mix would result in

Fig. 5 Typical failure pattern

of a fly ash-based geopolymer
soil system, b slag-based
geopolymer soil system

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:393–400 397

Table 4 Na/Al and Si/Al ratios at various M and R

Molar concentration Alkali/slag ratio Na/Al Si/Al
(M) (R)

4 0.45 0.31 1.35

8 0.45 0.55 1.35
12 0.45 0.74 1.35
14.5 0.45 0.84 1.35
12 0.65 1.06 1.35
14.5 0.65 1.21 1.35
12 0.85 1.39 1.35
14.5 0.85 1.58 1.35

Fig. 7 Effect of Na/Al ratio on UCS at Si/Al = 1.35 and slag = 20 %

the highest UCS. In fact, the reaction kinetics of geopolymer

synthesis governs the strength of the product and is controlled
by combination of Na/Al and Si/Al ratios [19–21]. There-
fore, investigations were carried out to examine the role of
Na/Al and Si/Al ratios on UCS of slag-based geopolymer–
soil specimens. Slag was the source for both Al+ and Si+
in the system. The ratio of Si/Al will remain same for any
source material unless Al+ and Si+ from secondary sources
were added in mix. Source of Na+ was sodium hydroxide,
and it increases with the increase in both concentration of
alkali (M) and alkali-to-slag ratio (R). Detail calculation of
Na/Al and Si/Al for the specimens prepared for different val-
ues of M and R at various slag percentages is presented in
Table 4. Fig. 8 Effect of Na/Al ratio on UCS at Si/Al = 1.35 and slag = 16 %
Figures 7 and 8 show the variation of 7-day UCS versus
Na/Al ratio at constant Si/Al ratio (1.35). When Na/Al ratio Table 5 Different Si/Al ratios with sodium silicate addition
was ≤0.55, resulting UCS of test specimen was insignifi- NaOH (%) Si/Al Si/Al Si/Al
cant. Increase in Na/Al ratio beyond 0.55 up to 1.2 showed (Na/Al = 1.15) (Na/Al = 1.06) (Na/Al = 1.21)
continuous increasing values of UCS. Thereafter, there was 100 1.35 1.35 1.35
a decrease in UCS for both 20 and 16 % slag content. Similar 95 1.39 1.39 1.39
trend for UCS versus Na/Al ratio after 14 days curing was also
90 1.42 1.42 1.43
observed. For 28 days curing, stabilized specimens showed
85 1.46 1.45 1.46
almost constant UCS between 0.84 and 1.06 and maximum
80 1.49 1.48 1.50
value of UCS was noticed at 1.21. Xu and Deventer [22] also
75 1.53 1.52 1.54
observed similar range of Na/Al ratio for maximum strength
60 1.63 1.61 1.65
of geopolymer paste.
45 1.74 1.71 1.72
35 1.81 1.77 1.79
4.4 Effect of Si/Al Ratio on Soil–Geopolymer
25 1.88 1.84 1.87
Si/Al ratio of a source material is constant. To have vari-
ation in Si/Al ratio in a mix, either Si+ content or Al+
content has to be changed. In the present study, variation 1.88) was considered for three different Na/Al ratios: 1.06,
in Si/Al ratio was done by adding sodium silicate in the mix 1.15 and 1.21. The detail information of the mix is presented
as a secondary source of Si+ . Sodium silicate also contains in Table 5.
Na+ . When sodium silicate was added in the mix, content of Figure 9 shows the variation of 28-day UCS of samples
sodium hydroxide was reduced in such way that the overall with the variation of Si/Al ratio. There was a continuous
weight of the sodium remained constant. To study the effect increase in UCS with the increase in Si/Al ratio. Maxi-
of Si/Al ratio on UCS of test specimens, slag content was mum strength was shown by specimens with M = 12 and
kept constant at 20 %. A wide range of Si/Al ratio (1.35– R = 0.65. Again, specimens prepared with M = 14.5 and

123
398 Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:393–400

R = 0.65 showed lower UCS at every Si/Al ratio. Speci-
men with M = 10 and R = 0.80 showed lowest UCS up to
Si/Al = 1.80. The differences of UCS in all three cases of
Fig. 9 may be attributed to the role played by Na/Al ratio. Cal-
culation of Na/Al ratio shows that in case of specimens with
M = 12 and R = 0.65, Na/Al is closer to its optimum range than
any other specimens at a particular Si/Al ratio. To investigate
further, sodium hydroxide is replaced by sodium silicate in
samples with M = 10, R = 0.80 so that a very high values of
Si/Al ratio is obtained. At constant Na/Al ratio of 1.15, the
maximum Si/Al ratio could be achieved is 2.06 by 100 %
replacement of NaOH. Increase in Si/Al ratio beyond 2.06
was not possible, because further increase in sodium silicate
would lead to change in both Si/Al and Na/Al ratios. Maxi-
mum UCS (18.9 N/mm2 ) was observed at Si/Al ratio equal
to 2.06 (Fig. 9). Xu and Deventer [22] reported that when
Na/Al ratio lies within 0.75–1.25, strength of geopolymer
paste was the maximum provided, Si/Al = 2.0. Thokchom et
al. [23] reported that there is continuous increase in strength
of fly ash-based geopolymer binder at elevated temperature
beyond Si/Al ratio more than 2.0. It needs further investi-
gation to explain why UCS increases with increase in Si/Al
ratio beyond 2.0 at ambient temperature.
Fig. 9 Effect of Si/Al ratio on UCS
4.5 Effect of Na/Al and Si/Al Ratios on UCS
with Blended Source Materials
Na/Al and Si/Al ratios vary with the change in blending
proportion of slag and fly ash. In the present study, two dif-
ferent molar concentrations of NaOH solution, namely 12
and 14.5 M, were considered to study the effect of blending.
Blending of slag and fly ash as source material with 12 M
alkali activator was designated as Type I and 14.5 M alkali
activator was designated as Type II. Variation of Na/Al and
Si/Al ratios for samples with blended source material is pre-
sented in Table 6. In Table 6, FA0SL100 means that fly ash
and slag contents were 0 and 100 %, respectively, of the total
source material (i.e., blend of fly ash and slag). Similarly,
FA20SL80 means that fly ash was 20 % and slag was 80 %
by weight of source material and so on. Table 6 shows that
with the increasing slag content, Na/Al ratio of both Type I
and Type II increases. Variation of molar concentration also
changes the Na/Al ratio. Na/Al ratio of entire Type I series
lies within 1.20–1.25, and for Type II series, it lies between
1.36 and 1.41. Figure 10 shows the variation of UCS of spec-
imens with the variation of Na/Al ratio containing blended
source materials. The increase in UCS was steady with the
increase in Na/Al ratio from ‘A’ to ‘B’ (Fig. 10). Similar
increasing trends was noticed in UCS with the increase in
Na/Al ratio from point ‘C’ to ‘D,’ but the curves are dis-
continuous. Apparently, from ‘B’ to ‘C,’ there was sudden
drop in UCS with the increase in Na/Al ratio. The variation
in Na/Al was associated with two factors: One was due to
variation in source material (A–B and C–D) and the other
was due to variation in alkalinity. With reference to Table 6,
curves of Fig. 10 correspond to different alkalinity of NaOH,
viz 12 and 14.5 M, and the discontinuity was due to change
in molarity of alkali. The observed Na/Al ratio for maximum
UCS in both Type I and Type II is not in line with the findings
of Rees [20]. Increase in Na/Al ratio in both Type 1 and Type
2 specimens in Table 6 means increase in slag content rela-

Table 6 Different Na/Al and Si/Al ratios blended source material at R = 0.65
Mix designation Sample type Blended mix content Mix parameters Na/Al ratio Sample designation Si/Al ratio

SL20FA80 I Slag 4 %, FA 16 % 12 M, 0.65 1.20 Sample 1 2.27

SL40FA60 Slag 8 %, FA 12 % 12 M, 0.65 1.21 Sample 2 2.03
SL60FA40 Slag 12 %, FA 8 % 12 M, 0.65 1.22 Sample 3 1.79
SL80FA20 Slag 16 %, FA 4 % 12 M, 0.65 1.24 Sample 4 1.55
SL100FA0 Slag 20 %, FA 0 % 12 M, 0.65 1.25 Sample 5 1.30
SL20FA80 II Slag 4 %, FA 16 % 14.5 M, 0.65 1.36 Sample 6 2.27
SL40FA60 Slag 8 %, FA 12 % 14.5 M, 0.65 1.37 Sample 7 2.03
SL60FA40 Slag 12 %, FA 8 % 14.5 M, 0.65 1.39 Sample 8 1.79
SL80FA20 Slag 16 %, FA 4 % 14.5 M, 0.65 1.40 Sample 9 1.55
SL100FA0 Slag 20 %, FA 0 % 14.5 M, 0.65 1.41 Sample 10 1.30

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:393–400
Fig. 10 Effect of Na/Al ratio on UCS with 20 % blend as source mate-
rials
Fig. 11 Effect of pulverized fly ash on UCS (M = 12 and R = 0.65)
tive to fly ash in the blended source material. The dissolution
of Si+ and Al+ is comparatively less in fly ash because of its
high binding energy compared to slag [24].
Strength gain of Type I and Type II samples with the
increase in Na/Al ratio was predominantly due to the avail-
ability of more and more slag in the system. Thus, in case
of slag–fly ash blending, slag content was more dominating
rather than the Na/Al ratio of the blend because of different
dissolution potentials of two different source materials. For
similar reasons, point C onwards, UCS increases although
Na/Al ratio was beyond optimal range (i.e., 0.75–1.25) [22].
Dissolution extent of blended source materials at different
blend proportions is still not clear from the present study.
It needs further investigation to know the actual partici-
pating Na/Al ratio in geopolymer–soil with blended source
material.
4.6 Effect of Mechanical Activation of Fly Ash
Mechanically activated fly ash (i.e., fly ash after further grind-
ing) improves the compressive strength in geopolymer paste
399
[25,26]. Accordingly, fly ash in the present study was pul-
verized using a laboratory-type pulverizer. Soil–fly ash-based
geopolymer specimens were prepared as before with pulver-
ized fly ash, and UCS values were determined after 28 days
of curing. The test results are shown in Fig. 11. UCS contin-
uously increased with the increase in fly ash content beyond
4 %. Pulverized fly ash-based geopolymer–soil showed lower
UCS compared to specimens made with un-pulverized fly ash
up to 10 % source material content, and the exact reason is
not clear. However, specimens with pulverized fly ash show
better UCS beyond 10 % content.
Effect of the presence of lime in GGBS was not investi-
gated in present work, although a considerable quantity of
lime is present in GGBS. It is reported by many researcher
that calcium dissociated from the surface of GGBS will pre-
cipitate as Ca(OH)2 in alkaline medium [27,28]. Dissolved
calcium that does not precipitate as Ca(OH)2 may participate
in the formation of C–S–H gel though this is not a dominant
product after slag-based geopolymer synthesis [28]. C–S–H
within geopolymer gel could be a part of the resultant prod-
uct. The formation of C–S–H gel may help to bridge the gaps
between different geopolymer products and un-reacted parti-
cles, thereby making more dense and homogeneous products
[27,28]. The formation of CSH gel within a geopolymer
binder could also work as microaggregates, and its contribu-
tion toward compressive strength is secondary in geopolymer
paste [27]. At higher alkalinity, the dominating binder com-
ponent is always the geopolymeric gel [27].
5 Conclusions
Experimental investigation on soil–geopolymer incorporat-
ing fly ash, GGBS and their blending as source materials
was carried out. It was observed that geopolymer is an excel-
lent material for soil stabilization. The following are general
conclusions derived from the present study:
1. UCS of stabilized soil steadily increases with the increase
in slag content. Below 8 % slag content, gain in UCS is
not significant.
2. When fly ash is used as source material for geopolymer
stabilization, UCS is much less compared to UCS of slag-
based geopolymer stabilized soil.
3. Effect of molar strength of alkali, alkali-to-binder ratio,
source material content on UCS of stabilized soil is not
straightforward. UCS of stabilized soil eventually is con-
trolled by Na/Al and Si/Al ratios.
4. When slag and fly ash are blended, slag content is
more dominating rather than Na/Al ratio of the blending
because of different dissolution potentials of slag and fly
ash.
123
400
5. When fly ash is pulverized and used as source material,
UCS of stabilized soil increases at higher fly ash con-
tent because of the availability of more surface area for
geopolymer synthesis.
References
1. Baker, S.: Deformation behavior of lime–cement column stabilized
clay. PhD Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
(2000)
2. Eskisar, T.: Influence of cement treatment on unconfined com-
pressive strength and compressibility of lean clay with medium
plasticity. Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 40, 763–772 (2015)
3. Veith, G.H.: Engineering properties of sulfate bearing clay soil
stabilized with lime activated ggbs. PhD Thesis, University of
Glamorgan (2000)
4. Bergardo, D.T.; Anderson, L.R.; Miura, N.; Balasubramaniam,
A.S.: Soft ground improvement in low land and other environ-
ment. pp. 234–304. ASCE Press, New York (1996)
5. Chew, S.H.; Kamruzzaman, A.H.M.; Lee, F.H.: Physicochemical
and engineering behavior of cement treated clays. J. Geotech. Geo-
Environ. Eng. 130(7), 696–706 (2004)
6. Probaha, A.; Shibuya, S.; Kishida, T.: State of the art in deep mixing
technology part III. Geomater. Charact. Ground Improv. 3, 91–
100 (2000)
7. Davidovits, J.: Mineral polymer and methods of making them. US
Patent 4, 349,386 (1982)
8. Davidovits, J.: Geopolymer–inorganic polymeric new materials. J.
Therm. Anal. Calorim. 37(8), 1633–1656 (1991)
9. Morsy, M.S.; Alsayed, S.H.; Salloum, Y.A.; Almusallam, T.: Effect
of sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratios on strength and
microstructure of fly ash geopolymer binder. Arabian J. Sci.
Eng. 39, 4333–4339 (2014)
10. Qureshi, M.N.; Ghosh, S.: Effect of silicate content on properties
of alkali activated blast furnace slag. Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 39, 5905–
5916 (2014)
11. Jing-Wen, C.; Cheng-Feng, C.: High-strength ecological soil mate-
rials. ASCE J. Mater. Civil Eng. 26(3), 149–154 (2007)
12. Verdolotti, L.; Iannance, S.; Lavorgna, M.; Lumanaa, R.: Geopoly-
merization reaction to consolidate incoherent pozzolanic soil. J.
Mater. Sci. 43, 865–873 (2008)
13. Cristelo, N.; Glendinning, S.; Farnandes, L.; Pinto, A.T.: Effect of
calcium content on soil stabilization with alkaline activation. Con-
str. Build. Mater. 29, 167–174 (2011)
123
View publication stats
Arab J Sci Eng (2016) 41:393–400
14. Cristelo, N.; Glendinning, S.; Pinto, A.T.: Deep soft soil
improvement by alkaline activation. Ground Improv., Inst. Civil
Eng. 164(1), 1–9 (2012)
15. Phetchuay, C.; Horpibulsuk, S.; Suksiripattanapong, C.; Chinkulk-
ijniwat, A.; Arulrajah, A.; Disfani, M.M.: Calcium carbide residue:
Alkaline activator for clay–fly ash geopolymer. Constr. Build.
Mater. 69, 285–294 (2014)
16. Zhang, M.; Guo, H.; El-Korchi, T.; Zhang, G.; Tao, M.: Experi-
mental feasibility study of geopolymer as the next-generation soil
stabilizer. Constr. Build. Mater. 47, 1468–1478 (2013)
17. Yaolin, Y.; Cheng, L.; Songyu, L.: Alkali-activated ground-
granulated blast furnace slag for stabilization of marine soft
clay. J. Mater. Civil Eng. ASCE (2014). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.
1943-5533.0001100
18. Zhang, Y.S.: Research on structure formation mechanism and
properties of high-performance geopolymer concrete. PhD The-
sis, Southeast University, Nanjing (2003)
19. Duxson, P.; Fernandez-Jimenez, A.; Provis, J.L.; Palomo, A.; van
Deventer, J.S.J.: Geopolymer technology, the current state of the
art. J. Mater. Sci. 42, 2917–2933 (2007)
20. Rees, C.A.: Mechanism and kinetics of gel formation in geopoly-
mers. PhD Thesis, The University of Melbourne, Australia (2007)
21. Khale, D.; Chaudhary, R.: Mechanism of geopolymerisation
and factors influencing its development: a review. J. Mater.
Sci. 42, 729–746 (2007)
22. Xu, H.; van Deventer, J.S.J.: Effect of source materials on geopoly-
merization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42, 1698–1706 (2003)
23. Thokchom, S.; Mandal, K.K.; Ghosh, S.: Effect of Si/Al ratio on
performance of fly ash geopolymers at elevated temperature. Ara-
bian J. Sci. Eng. 37, 977–989 (2012)
24. Hua Jian, L.; Heng Hu, S.; Xu, C.T.; Xue, J.X.: A new method to
evaluate the hydraulic activity of Al–Si materials. Sci. China Ser.
E. Technol. Sci. 51(2), 113–120 (2008)
25. Mehrotra, S.P.; Kumar, S.; Bandopadhyay, A.; Kumar, R.: An
improved process for the production of geopolymeric material from
fly ash. Australian Patent no. AU 2007200076 A1 (2008)
26. Marjanovic, N.; Komlijenovic, M.; Bascarvic, Z.; Nikolic,
V.: Improving reactivity of fly ash and properties of ensu-
ing geopolymer through mechanical activation. Constr. Build.
Mater. 57, 151–162 (2014)
27. van Jaarsveld, J.G.S.; van Deventer, J.S.J.: Effect of the alkali metal
activator on the properties of fly ash based geopolymer. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 38, 3932–3941 (1999)
28. Yip, C.K.; Lukey, G.S.; van Deventer, J.S.J.: The coexistence of
geopolymeric gel and calcium silicate hydrate at the early stage of
alkali activation. Cem. Concr. Res. 35, 1688–1697 (2005)