Acta Geotechnica

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-01876-7 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Experimental study on static and dynamic characteristics

of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils
Shengnian Wang1,2 • Xinqun Gao1,4 • Wei Ma3 • Kai Zhao1,2 • Peiwen Xu1

Received: 4 November 2021 / Accepted: 21 March 2023

Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Cementitious coarse-grained soils are widely used as filling materials in infrastructure projects such as high-speed railway
subgrades, earth dams, and highway bases, due to their excellent strength, stiffness, and stability performances. This study
conducted unconfined compression tests on fine-grained soils first to investigate the optimal mixing ratio of the raw
material (metakaolin) and alkali activator (composed of quicklime (CaO) and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3)) for com-
prising the geopolymer binder. Then, the dynamic characteristics of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils with a
relatively fixed dosage of the geopolymer binder were studied by large-scale dynamic triaxial tests. The influences of rock-
block content and confining pressure on the dynamic parameters of the geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils were
further discussed. The results indicated that the ideal mixing ratio of metakaolin, CaO, and NaHCO3 for preparing the
geopolymer binder was 4:1:1, and their optimal mixing ratio for fine-grained soil stabilization was 15% by the weight of
dry soil. The maximum dynamic shear modulus of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils had an approximately linear
relationship with the rock-block content and a nonlinear relationship with the effective confining pressure. With the shear
strain being normalized, the dynamic shear modulus ratios of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils were distributed
in a narrow band with low dispersion, while the damping ratio increased with the shear strain and showed a relatively high
dispersion in values. The dynamic shear modulus ratio and normalized damping ratio of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soils could be described by functions of the normalized shear strain amplitude. The results of this study could
provide a design parameter basis for the application and popularization of similar geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained
soils in engineering practices.

Keywords Coarse-grained soil  Dynamic triaxial test  Dynamic shear modulus  Damping ratio  Empirical formula 
Geopolymer  Optimal mixing ratio

1 Introduction

The high-speed railway is essential for accelerating the

‘‘Belt and Road Initiative.’’ However, the service status and
dynamic performance of high-speed railway subgrades will
continue to change due to long-term exposure to vehicle
& Kai Zhao
zhaokai@njtech.edu.cn loads and periodic environmental effects [66]. They will
cause the desirable lifetime attributes (including high
1
College of Transportation Engineering, Nanjing Tech smoothness, high stability, and high reliability) of the high-
University, Nanjing 211816, China speed railway subgrade to be difficult to guarantee and may
2
Jiangsu Province Engineering Research Center of even threaten the safety of the railway [3, 36]. For exam-
Transportation Infrastructure Security Technology, Nanjing ple, subgrade diseases such as performance deterioration,
Tech University, Nanjing 211816, China
3
differential settlement, and cumulative deformation
State Key Laboratory of Frozen Soil Engineering, Chinese exceeding the specification requirements have been dis-
Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
4
covered in large numbers in the construction and operation
China Design Group Co., Ltd, Nanjing 210014, China

123

of high-speed railways in China, including Harbin-Dalian,
Beijing-Harbin-Qinhuangdao, and Dandong-Dalian from
2012 to 2018, significantly affecting the running speed of
the trains [13, 26, 28]. All these monitored results indicated
that the quality of filling materials is a crucial factor in
determining the safety of high-speed railway subgrade
engineering and is directly related to the long-term firm-
ness, stability, and durability of subgrades [13, 14, 32, 67].
However, high-quality natural subgrade fillings are often
scarce in most practical engineering. Even though natural
subgrade fillings exist at or near high-speed railways, they
might not be directly used in high-speed railway subgrades
owing to specific weaknesses, such as not meeting the
current subgrade specifications [13]. Therefore, improving
the engineering performance of natural subgrade fillings
and developing a better-quality and broader range of sub-
grade fillings has become an urgent problem in current
high-speed railway construction.
The engineering community generally recognizes
coarse-grained soils (including soil–rock mixtures, gravelly
soils, and rockfills) as an ideal filling material [28, 67].
However, engineering practices have proven the certainty
of excessive deformation of subgrades subjected to long-
term traffic loads and harsh service environments (such as
projects in cold areas), even with well-graded coarse-
grained soils. Therefore, improving coarse-grained soils’
physical and mechanical properties have become an
inevitable choice [40]. Chemical stabilization of problem-
atic coarse-grained soils is a traditional but cost-effective
technique for enhancing their properties, including
strength, stiffness, water stability performance, and dura-
bility, by incorporating various industrial-based admixtures
such as lime, fly ash, cement, or other inorganic binders
[30, 59, 65]. Jin et al. [21, 22] reported that lime and fly ash
combinations would not be suitable for improving group
filling A as they cause a considerable increase in the height
of capillary water and exhibit poor water stability. How-
ever, the strength and modulus of coarse-grained soils with
a cement mixing ratio of 3% were significantly improved
compared to a sample without cement. Deng et al. [12]
had found that the resistance of coarse-grained soils to
deformation could be enhanced dramatically after grouting,
and their skeleton effect became more significant with the
increasing content of coarse particles. Chen et al. [6]
addressed that the stiffness of cement-stabilized argilla-
ceous coarse-grained soils could be enhanced with reduced
viscosity, and the confining pressure and loading frequency
significantly affected their dynamic characteristics. Liu
et al. [33] highlighted that the high-speed railway subgrade
could demonstrate excellent resistance to deformation if
4% cement were used in fillings containing fine particles
(d B 0.075 mm) of less than 5%. They all indicated that
inorganic cementitious materials could change the internal
123
Acta Geotechnica
structure of coarse-grained fillings and improve their
physical and mechanical properties.
Geopolymers are alkali-activated inorganic cementitious
materials, attracting widespread attention from researchers
globally [23, 44, 56]. They have high strength, good
impermeability, low contractility, excellent durability,
chemical corrosion resistance, rich raw materials, energy-
saving properties, and excellent potential for replacing
ordinary Portland cement. Many scholars focused on the
types and ratios of raw materials and alkali activators of
geopolymers in recent decades [1, 53]. They indicated that
the raw materials of geopolymers could be metakaolin
(MK), fly ash (FA), glass waste (GW), red mud (RM), and
combinations of two or more of these materials, and the
alkali activator (AA) could be RxOH, RxCO3, RxHCO3,
RxO(n)SiO2, or other alkaline metal oxides (RxO) in which
Rx represents an alkaline ion, such as Na?, K?, Li?, or
Ca2?. They even pointed out that the mechanical properties
of geopolymers were significantly affected by their alkaline
excitation environments, such as alkalinity, temperature,
and curing age [18]. Studies on geopolymer-stabilized fine-
grained soils proved that applying geopolymers could
significantly enhance the strength, ability to resist shrink-
age cracking deformation, and anti-corrosion performances
of soft soils [9, 15, 63, 68]. If geopolymers were used for
coarse-grained soil stabilization, the binding force among
particles and the ability to resist the deformation would be
enhanced. The common quality problems of high-speed
railway subgrades would be reduced even though they were
exposed to long-term superstructural and traffic loads [66].
However, the documented literature related to geopolymer-
stabilized coarse-grained soils up to now is minimal.
Phetchuay et al. [43] used calcium carbide residue as an
alkaline activator and fly ash as the raw material to
improve the engineering properties of subgrade filling
materials. Sargent [48] summarized the research progress
and application of geopolymer-stabilized soils. These
studies can provide a valuable reference for further studies
on the dynamic characteristics of geopolymer-stabilized
coarse-grained soils. Nevertheless, it should be noted that
the silicon and aluminum minerals’ polymerization
requires reaction environments with relatively high alka-
linity, which poses significant challenges to environmental
footprints and may cause difficulties in engineering con-
struction [18, 43]. The application of geopolymers under
ambient temperature and weak alkali environments thus
needs to be improved.
The dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio from
small to large shear strain levels are the key parameters in
the design of subgrade structures under rapid and repetitive
loads [8]. The secant shear modulus and damping ratio on
the shear strain levels of shear strain–shear stress hysteresis
curves has been investigated by many researchers via
Acta Geotechnica
multi-scale indoor tests, including resonant column tests
[17, 39, 52], cyclic torsional shear tests [7], cyclic triaxial
tests [8, 13, 16, 45, 50], shaking table tests [5, 47], and
dynamic centrifuge tests [70]. However, only a few were
performed on gravel and gravelly soils due to the sam-
ple’s size limitation of the experimental apparatus. Clayton
[10] and Chen et al. [8] indicated that the dynamic shear
modulus of coarse-grained soils at small strain levels was
affected by the void ratio, interparticle contact stiffness,
and deformation and flexing within individual particles.
Wang et al. [61] reported that the dynamics properties of
coarse-grained soils were significantly controlled by the
interaction and properties of rock blocks and the external
environment. Zhao et al. [69] pointed out that the coarse
grain content with diameters larger than 5 mm significantly
impacted saturated gravel soils’ dynamic residual defor-
mation characteristics. Payan et al. [42] and Sun et al. [55]
investigated the effect of granule shape on the shear
modulus and damping ratio of gravel soils. Liu et al. [34]
further found that the effect of particle shape on the max-
imum dynamic shear modulus varied with the particle
gradation. These studies proved that the structure effect
was one of the critical factors affecting the dynamic
properties of coarse-grained soils. Some researchers
devoted themselves to investigating the small strain shear
modulus of coarse-grained soils and proposing empirical-
type formulas for its prediction. Hardin and Drnevich [16]
proposed a function of void ratio and effective confining
pressure for gravelly soils’ shear modulus and damping
ratio. Seed et al. [50] summarized empirical prediction
formulas for cohesionless soils. Iwasaki and Tatsuoka [20]
found a strain-dependent empirical equation for sands
irrespective of grain shape and size. Ye et al. [64] proposed
a method to determine the dynamic modulus of coarse-
grained soil filling with the reasonable range of the work-
ing dynamic modulus ratio. Some studies pointed out that
the dynamic shear modulus strongly depended on the type
of particles, including morphology and mineralogy
[10, 51]. Other studies considered the influence of loading
frequency on the dynamic properties of coarse-grained
soils [42, 70]. Besides, the hyperbolic model reported by
Kondner and Zelasko [24] and improved by Stokoe et al.
[54] was always used to describe the nonlinear stress–strain
behavior of soils ranging from small to medium strains.
Wichtmann and Triantafyllidis [62] improved the damping
ratio formula proposed by Hardin and Drnevich by
employing a minimum damping ratio at a small shear
strain. These documented studies could provide a con-
structive reference for a better understanding of the
dynamic behavior of coarse-grained soils.
This study conducted the unconfined compression tests
of metakaolin-based geopolymer-stabilized fine-grained
soil with different mixing ratios of raw material and alkali
activator. The optimal mixing ratio of the raw material
(metakaolin) and alkali activator (composed of quicklime
(CaO) and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3)) for preparing
the geopolymer and their optimal mixing ratio in the fine-
grained soil were investigated first. Then, the large-scale
dynamic triaxial tests of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soil with different rock-block contents were carried
out. The dynamic characteristics of geopolymer-stabilized
coarse-grained soils with different rock-block contents
were studied. The influence of the rock-block content and
confining pressure on the dynamic parameters of the
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils were discussed
in the final.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Experimental materials
(1) Coarse-grained soils.
The original gradation curve of coarse-grained soil in this
study was designed according to that of a typical soil–rock
mixture in southwestern China, as shown in Fig. 1. To
facilitate the sample preparation, coarse-grained soils were
considered as the soil matrix and rock blocks. If Rc denotes
the rock-block content in coarse-grained soils, the content
of the soil matrix should be 1 - Rc. The statistical law of
the soil–rock threshold (dthr) proposed by Medley [38] and
Lindquist [31] was used to distinguish the soil matrix and
rock blocks.
dthr ¼ 0:05Lc ð1Þ
where Lc is the characteristic dimension. For three-di-
mensional engineering problems, the diameters of the
samples were considered. The diameter of large-scale
samples in this study was 100 mm. Therefore, the threshold
of the soil matrix and rock blocks should be 5 mm.
100
Original grading curve
Test grading curve
80
Percent finer by weight (%)
60
40
Rock blocks
20
Soil matrix
0
100 10 1 0.1
Grain size (mm)
Fig. 1 Gradation curve of coarse-grained soils in this study
123
 Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 2 Coarse-grained soils with different rock-block contents

Table 1 Physical parameters of clay used in this study

Natural density /g Specific gravity of Liquid Plastic Plasticity Optimal moisture Maximum dry density/g
cm-3 solids limit/% limit/% index content/% cm-3

1.64 2.72 34 21 13 18.3 1.72

clay and crushed stone were used to configure the coarse-

Fig. 3 Powder of metakaolin
However, for the sake of conservativeness, this value was
limited to 2 mm.
The maximum rock-block size was usually considered
to be 0.2 times the diameter of the samples to eliminate the
influence of rock-block size effect on testing results as
much as possible. Thus, the maximum rock-block size was
considered to be 20 mm. However, the rock-block sizes in
natural coarse-grained soils were 2–60 mm. This study
used methods of combining grading similarity and
replacement for sample preparation. Rock blocks with a
size of greater than 60 mm were replaced with the equiv-
alent weight of rock blocks with a size of 2–60 mm by
following the same grading curve of the original coarse-
grained soils first, and then the replaced grading curve was
scaled down to the size of 2–20 mm. As shown in Fig. 2,
grained soil samples with different rock-block contents
(volume fractions back-calculated from their mass frac-
tions). Fine-grained clay, as the soil matrix, was collected
from a construction site on the Jiangpu campus of Nanjing
Tech University. The physical and mechanical indices of
the undisturbed soil are listed in Table 1. The crushed stone
mainly comprised limestone particles with a natural density
of 2100 kg/m3. It was collected from the Shelu quarry in
Jiangning District, Nanjing, China.
(B) Raw material.
The raw material for preparing the geopolymer binder in
this study was white powdered metakaolin produced by
Shengyun Mining of Hebei Province, as shown in Fig. 3.
Its model was AS2-1250 mesh. The chemical composition
of metakaolin is shown in Table 2.
(C) Alkali activator.
Many studies have shown that a strong alkali (NaOH) and
water glass (Na2SiO4) have an excellent excitation effect
on geopolymer raw materials [35, 44, 48]. However, sig-
nificant difficulties could be encountered in their trans-
portation and storage in practical applications, and the
environmental footprints may also not be neglectable. This
study used powders of quick lime (CaO) and sodium
bicarbonate (NaHCO3) to create an alkali-simulated

Table 2 Chemical composition of metakaolin

Chemical composition SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO K2O Na2O SO3 TiO2

Proportion/% 57.16 37.7 1.28 0.13 0.09 0.55 0.01 0.01 3.06

123
Acta Geotechnica

environment based on the feasibility of engineering appli- Table 3 Test scheme for the optimal mixing ratio of geopolymer
cations. The reactions that were expected to occur were components
CaO ? H2O ? Ca(OH)2; Ca(OH)2 ? NaHCO3- Ratios of Ratios of alkali activator
? CaCO3; ? NaOH ? H2O. It should be noted that this metakaolin
3% 5% 7% 9% 11%
reaction only occurs when excess quick lime is used. That
is, the molar ratio of quick lime to sodium bicarbonate 6% M6A3 M6A5 M6A7 M6A9 M6A11
should be greater than 1:1. However, it is well known that 8% M8A3 M8A5 M8A7 M8A9 M8A11
excessive Ca(OH)2 will also cause significant dry shrink- 10% M10A3 M10A5 M10A7 M10A9 M10A11
age and cracking in lime soil. Therefore, the amount of 12% M12A3 M12A5 M12A7 M12A9 M12A11
quick lime should be controlled appropriately. The mass
ratio of quick lime and sodium bicarbonate in this study
was selected to be 1:1 to configure an alkali activator. This
ratio can satisfy the amount of quick lime required to create (1) Test scheme for the optimal mixing ratio of
an alkali-stimulated environment and facilitate the mea- geopolymer components.
surement of material consumption dosage. The quick lime Table 3 shows the testing scheme of geopolymer-stabi-
and sodium bicarbonate used were collected from the State lized clay prepared with metakaolin contents of 6, 8, 10,
Key Laboratory of Materials and Chemical Engineering of and 12% and alkali activator contents of 3, 5, 7, 9, and
Nanjing Tech University. The sodium bicarbonate com- 11%. Here, the dosage of these constituents in each sample
prised 100-mesh powder particles, and the quick lime was determined based on the relative mass of dry soil.
comprised powder-fine particles, as shown in Fig. 4. They Theoretically, the diameter of cylindrical specimens less
were both chemically pure. than five times the size of the biggest particles in samples
would significantly impact the experimental results.
2.2 Experimental schemes Namely, the size effect of grain particles should be con-
sidered. For the metakaolin-based geopolymer-stabilized
This study investigated the optimal mixing ratio of raw fine-grained soil matrix, since the maximum size of parti-
material and the alkali activator for preparing the cles was less than 2 mm, the specimens were prepared with
geopolymer binder and their optimal ratio in soil matrix sizes of 39.1 mm in diameter and 80.0 mm in height to
stabilization by unconfined compressive strength tests first. reduce the work of experiment workload. These dimension
Then, the geopolymer usage in coarse-grained soils was selections evidently could meet the above requirements of
determined based on the relative content of fine-grained specimen size. Three specimens from each group were
soil as the cementation of the geopolymer functions pri- used in parallel tests. Since the previously published
marily on the soil matrix. This strategy, on the one hand, studies had proven the stabilization of geopolymer binder
can reduce the experimental workload while ensuring the to soils within seven days, all the specimens were cured at
research purpose; on the other hand, it can ensure the ambient temperature for seven days [60, 61]. A YSH-2
consistency of the clay and geopolymer in all coarse- electric unconfined pressure gauge was used to obtain the
grained soil samples. Finally, the influence of the rock- unconfined compressive strength. The strain loading rate
block content and confining pressure on the dynamic was 1.0 mm/min, determined following the Specification
characteristics of the geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained for Mix Proportion Design of Cement Soil issued by the
soils was studied via large-scale dynamic triaxial tests and Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of
then discussed. China [58].

Fig. 4 Components of alkali activator

123

(B) Test scheme for the dynamic characteristics of
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils.
The purpose of the large-scale dynamic triaxial tests was
to study the dynamic characteristics of geopolymer-stabi-
lized coarse-grained soils and explore the influences of
rock-block content and confining pressure on their dynamic
shear modulus and damping ratio. However, with the
increase in rock-block content, the aerial phenomenon of
rock blocks became more and more severe in sample
preparation. Although there had an attempt to make
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soil samples with
rock-block content higher than 60%, it failed because the
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils cannot be
completely packed into the mold by following the design
gradation. Therefore, only five rock-block contents (0, 15,
30, 45, and 60%) and four confining pressures (50, 100,
200, and 400 kPa) were considered in the undrained mul-
tistage strain-control triaxial cyclic tests, as listed in
Table 4. Each specimen was 100 mm in diameter and
200 mm in height. The dosage of the geopolymer in each
sample was determined based on the relative mass of dry
fine-grained particles (less than 2 mm) in the coarse-
grained soils. Namely, the final dosage of geopolymer
binder was the mass of dry fine-grained particles multiplied
by the optimal mixing ratio obtained from the above tests.
Since dry rock blocks could absorb water when sampling,
the final water consumption for the sample preparation was
the amount of water required for the soil matrix to reach
the optimal moisture content plus the water consumption
for realizing a water–binder (geopolymer) ratio of 0.35
with the consideration of a 5% surplus. As shown in Fig. 5,
a large-scale triaxial cyclic shear instrument developed by
the American company GCTS was used for dynamic test-
ing. This device used an electrohydraulic servo and could
independently control dynamic loads, including the axial
force, confining pressure, and back pressure. The maxi-
mum designed working frequency was 20 Hz. The maxi-
mum confining pressure and backpressure were 3.0 MPa.
The full scales (FS) of axial displacement and force sensors
were 7.5 mm and 4 kN, respectively. The range of the pore
pressure sensor was ± 3.0 MPa, and the test accuracy of
Table 4 Test scheme for geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils
Confining Rock-block content/%
pressure/
kPa 0 15 30 45 60
50 R0P50 R15P50 R30P50 R45P50 R60P50
100 R0P100 R15P100 R30P100 R45P100 R60P100
200 R0P200 R15P200 R30P200 R45P200 R60P200
400 R0P400 R15P400 R30P400 R45P400 R60P400
123
Acta Geotechnica
displacement and axial force sensors was better than
0.1%FS.
During testing, the specimen was soaked in water for
24 h before being set up on the instrument and then satu-
rated following the vacuum method. The back pressure was
increased to 400 kPa. The specimen was considered fully
saturated when the B-value was greater than 0.95. It should
be noted that the chemical interaction during saturation was
limited. Theoretically, the geopolymerization rate mainly
depended on material composition, high alkalinity, and
ambient temperature [53, 63]. This study determined the
mixing ratio of material constituents and their alkali
environment by the unconfined compression tests on
metakaolin-based geopolymer-stabilized fine-grained soils.
The dosage of the geopolymer binder in coarse-grained
soils was then specified by the relative content of the soil
matrix multiplied by the optimal ratio of the geopolymer in
fine-grained soil. Since the ratio of the geopolymer binder
to the mass of dry fine-grained particles in coarse-grained
soils was the same, the alkalinity of prepared samples was
constant. Namely, both of them did not affect the
geopolymerization rate. And thus, the ambient temperature
became the most significant influence factor on the chem-
ical reaction rate of geopolymers in coarse-grained soils.
However, some studies also reported that the ideal reaction
temperature for aluminosilicate polymerization in an alkali
environment was greater than 40 °C [46]. The lower the
temperature, the slower the reaction rate. This requirement
was difficult or even impossible for actual engineering
practices. Hence, the chemical reaction rate of the
geopolymer should not change dramatically at the ambient
temperature. In addition, although the saturation might
reduce the alkaline concentration of the samples to some
extent, the formation of cementitious material did not
change due to the short saturation time and low ambient
temperature. Therefore, the inner structural changes of
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils induced by the
ambient temperature and saturation in a short curing age
can be neglected. When the test began, each confining
pressure was applied to consolidate the specimen for more
than six hours. The axial strain was then applied through
compressive waves. The axial strain amplitude ea was
increased from 1 9 10–5 to 1 9 10–2 in a step-by-step
manner, as shown in Fig. 6. Considering that the pore
water pressure in the soil would increase with continuous
cyclic loading, the number of cyclic loadings at each strain
amplitude was limited to 5. When the cyclic loadings at
one strain amplitude were completed, the testing specimen
was reconsolidated at the same confining pressure for at
least 15 min to ensure an effective pore water pressure
dissipation. The loading frequency in this study was 0.5 Hz
due to the device’s limitations.
Acta Geotechnica

1. FRM-100-TQ-40
test paltform
2. PCP-300-HCA
pressure-control
cabinet
3. Computer
4. SCON-2000 digital
servo controller
and acquisition
system
5. HPS-15-50-380
hydraulic source
6. Vacuum pump

Fig. 5 Large-scale triaxial cyclic system GCTS HCA-300

Consolidation time
1×10-2

1×10-3

1×10-4
Axial strain amplitude

1×10-5

-1×10-5

-1×10-4

-1×10-3 10s 1200s

-2
-1×10

0 10 20 1220 1230 2430 2440 3640 3650

Time (s)

Fig. 6 Time history of strain or stress for dynamic load

2.3 Sample preparation It can be seen from the above equations that the
depolymerization of aluminosilicate minerals in an alkaline
(1) For the optimal mixing ratio of geopolymer environment requires the participation of water. On the
components. contrary, the polycondensation of alumina and silicon
The fine-grained clay was dried in an oven at 105 °C for monomers in an alkaline environment is a dehydration
24 h, then crushed and passed through a 2-mm sieve. The process. This difference means that the geopolymerization
amount of water for each specimen preparation was of aluminosilicate minerals in a suitable alkaline environ-
determined by the amount required for the soil to reach the ment should not consume the water in the soil. The water
optimal moisture content plus the water consumption for consumption in the whole process of soil stabilization thus
realizing a water–binder (geopolymer) ratio of 0.35. The should be due to the hydration of CaO. Theoretically, the
reason for selecting this water–binder ratio was that the
geopolymerization of aluminosilicate minerals in meta-
kaolin at a suitable alkaline environment has to experience
two phases: depolymerization and polycondensation as
[60]
(Si2 O5 Al2 O2 Þn þ H2 O þ OH
! Si(OH)4 þ Al(OH)4 ; depolymerization
j j
Si(OH)4 þ Al(OH)4 ! ð Si O  Al OÞn
j j
O O
þ 4H2 O, polycondensation
Fig. 7 Clay mixed with the geopolymer

123

CaO can consume water at an ideal molar ratio of 1:1 to
produce Ca(OH)2. However, this study used a water–
geopolymer ratio of 0.35 for sample preparation. The
corresponding molar ratio of water to geopolymer was
1.225:1, which was greater than the ideal molar ratio of
1:1. Namely, the water used for sample preparation was
enough.
When sampling, the dried soil, metakaolin, quick lime,
and sodium bicarbonate were weighed and mixed accord-
ing to the design proportion, as shown in Fig. 7, and the
water was then added to them. Each evenly mixed soil
sample was divided into four equal parts, placed in a mold
comprising petroleum jelly coated on its inner wall, and
compacted to the specified height in a layer-by-layer
manner. When they were completed, all prepared speci-
mens were numbered and placed for 24 h in the standard
curing conditions suggested by the Standard for Geotech-
nical Testing Method GB/T 50,123–2019 issued by the
Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of
China [57]. The temperature and humidity of a standard
curing environment were required to be 20 ± 3 °C and
90–95%, respectively. Then, the mold was removed, as
shown in Fig. 8. After curing under the same environ-
mental conditions for another six days, unconfined com-
pression tests were conducted on the samples using an
electric unconfined pressure gauge.
(B) For the dynamic characteristics of geopolymer-
stabilized coarse-grained soils.
According to the test scheme in Table 4, the dosages of the
clay, rock blocks, and geopolymer binder for each case
were carefully calculated. The samples were weighed and
mixed; water was added, and the mixtures were stirred
well. After that, each sample was divided into several parts,
successfully filled into the specimen mold, and compacted
to the specified height layer by layer. All the specimens
were numbered and placed in a standard curing environ-
ment for 24 h. Then, the mold was removed. The undrained
multistage strain-control triaxial cyclic test was conducted
Fig. 8 Specimens of geopolymer-stabilized clay
123
Acta Geotechnica
500
Unconfined compressive strength (kPa)
Mk 6%
418.63 Mk 8%
M10A5
400 M8A4 Mk10%
Mk12%
M6A3 M12A6
300
200
100
5%
0
2 4 6 8 10 12
Alkali activator content (%)
Fig. 9 Unconfined compressive strength of geopolymer-stabilized
clays (Mk indicates metakaolin)
after curing under the same environmental conditions for
another 6 days.
3 Results
3.1 Optimal mixing ratio of the geopolymer
Figure 9 presents the 7-day unconfined compressive
strength of geopolymer-stabilized clay with different mass
mixing ratios of raw material and the alkali activator. It can
be observed that the unconfined compressive strength of
geopolymer-stabilized clay first exhibited an increasing
trend and then decreased with the increasing ratios of raw
material and alkali activator. The maximum compressive
strength was obtained when the ratios of the raw material
and alkali activator in the clay were 10 and 5%, respec-
tively. The maximum average compressive strength of the
geopolymer-stabilized clay was 418.63 kPa.The uncon-
fined compressive strength of geopolymer-stabilized clays
with the same raw material content exhibited the maximum
values when the mixing ratios of the raw material and
alkali activator were approximately 2.0. Namely, the ideal
mixing ratio of the raw material and alkali activator for
stabilizing the synthetic geopolymer could be 2:1. To fur-
ther verify this inference, unconfined compression tests on
geopolymer-stabilized clays with metakaolin contents of 8
and 12% were performed, wherein the corresponding alkali
activator contents were 4% and 6%. It can be observed that
the peak values of the four unconfined compressive
strength curves corresponding to the raw material contents
of 6, 8, 10, and 12% were just obtained when the alkali
activator contents were exactly 3, 4, 5, and 6%. All this
evidence proved the previous inference that the ideal mass
mixing ratio of the raw material and alkali activator for
preparing the geopolymer was 2:1. Therefore, the mixing
Acta Geotechnica

1000 3.2 Characteristics of stress–strain hysteresis

curves
Peak compressive strength (kPa)

800 Figure 11 presents the stress–strain hysteresis curves of

geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils with different
rock-block contents. It can be observed that the gradient of
600
the hysteresis curves of the geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soils with the same rock-block content increases
with the confining pressure. In contrast, the area of the
400 Test values
Average value
hysteresis curves decreases. For a constant confining
pressure, the gradient of the hysteresis curves of the
0 5 10 15 20
Geopolymer content (%)
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils increased with
the rock-block content. Still, the area of the hysteresis
Fig. 10 Unconfined compressive strength of clay stabilized with curves first decreased and then increased with the
different ratios of the geopolymer increasing rock-block content. The rock-block content and
confining pressure should significantly impact the dynamic
ratio of metakaolin, CaO, and NaHCO3 used for preparing characteristics of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained
the geopolymer was 4:1:1. soils.
Figure 10 illustrates the peak compressive strength of
fine-grained clay stabilized with different ratios of the 3.3 Definition of dynamic shear modulus
geopolymer. The mean peak strength of geopolymer-sta- and damping ratio
bilized clay increased first and then decreased slightly as
the geopolymer ratio increased. The maximum mean The dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio are two
compressive strength of geopolymer-stabilized clay was basic parameters that reflect the nonlinear and hysteretic
obtained when the ratio of the geopolymer was 15%. characteristics of the soil’s dynamic stress–strain relation-
Therefore, the optimal ratio of the geopolymer in the clay ship. The dynamic shear modulus is commonly defined as
should be 15%.
400 400 400 400 400
Case: R0P50 Case: R15P50 Case: R30P50 Case: R45P50 Case: R60P50
300 300 300 300 300
Deviator stress σd (kPa )

200 200 200 200 200

Deviator stress σd (kPa )
Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

100 100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0 0

-100 -100 -100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400 -400 -400

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%)

400 400 400 400 400

Case: R0P100 Case: R15P100 Case: R30P100 Case: R45P100 Case: R60P100
300 300 300 300 300
Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

200 200 200 200 200

100 100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0 0

-100 -100 -100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400 -400 -400

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%)

400 400 400 400 400

Case: R0P200 Case: R15P200 Case: R30P200 Case: R45P200 Case: R60P200
300 300 300 300 300
Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

200 200 200 200 200

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

100 100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0 0

-100 -100 -100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400 -400 -400

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%)

400 400 400 400 400

Case: R0P400 Case: R15P400 Case: R30P400 Case: R45P400 Case: R60P400
300 300 300 300 300
Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

200 200
Deviator stress σd (kPa)

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

200 200 200

Deviator stress σd (kPa)

100 100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0 0

-100 -100 -100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400 -400 -400

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%) Axial strain εa (%)

Fig. 11 Stress–strain hysteresis curves of coarse-grained soils stabilized with different ratios of the geopolymer

123
 Acta Geotechnica

Table 5 Test scheme and test results

No Maximum shear Reference Damping ratio
modulus shear strain
Gmax,c/ Gmax,t/ cr,c/ cr,t/% kmin/ kmax/
MPa MPa % % %

R0P50 28.59 30.40 0.118 0.084 3.28 16.74

R0P100 52.73 49.43 0.144 0.117 2.92 16.87
R0P200 74.33 76.95 0.190 0.139 2.65 16.39
R0P400 113.2 112.8 0.217 0.166 2.18 14.70
R15P50 32.59 30.52 0.094 0.055 3.81 17.71
R15P100 50.86 51.16 0.119 0.092 3.35 16.97
R15P200 86.14 84.22 0.153 0.115 2.97 18.43
Fig.12 Hysteretic shear stress–strain relationship R15P400 126.1 120.9 0.180 0.143 2.59 15.22
R30P50 40.33 42.35 0.083 0.054 4.13 18.56
the gradient at both ends of the stress–strain hysteresis R30P100 54.78 55.22 0.104 0.080 3.68 17.11
curve under one cyclic loading. The damping ratio is R30P200 96.44 100.8 0.134 0.091 3.19 16.21
related to the area of the hysteresis loop. Considering the R30P400 145.2 146.4 0.147 0.125 2.94 16.68
asymmetry of the dynamic stress–strain hysteresis curves R45P50 47.39 46.57 0.064 0.046 4.65 18.38
in the compression and tension status obtained in this R45P100 64.27 67.67 0.079 0.064 4.15 17.48
study, the data processing method proposed by Kumar R45P200 118.5 112.9 0.109 0.084 3.59 16.13
et al. [25] was used to obtain the dynamic shear modulus R45P400 163.6 160.4 0.128 0.105 3.34 17.37
and damping ratio of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained R60P50 55.06 55.52 0.055 0.036 4.84 19.08
soils. As shown in Fig. 12, the dynamic Young’s modulus R60P100 75.82 74.69 0.060 0.047 4.47 18.04
Esec can be obtained from the corresponding axial strain R60P200 126.3 126.6 0.071 0.059 3.82 17.70
amplitude ea and the peak deviator stress rd, max. The shear R60P400 178.4 176.3 0.076 0.075 3.85 19.37
strain amplitude ca and dynamic shear modulus G (in-
cluding compression and tension status, Gc and Gt) can be
obtained with the aid of basic formulas of material
mechanics. of elastic strain energy is the sum of the areas of the two
ca ¼ ð1 þ tÞea ð2Þ triangles AD1 and AD2 and a rectangle Ah. Hence, the
damping ratio can be calculated using the following
G ¼ Esec =½2ð1 þ tÞ ð3Þ formula:
where t is the Poisson’s ratio. 1 ALðoabcdÞ
k¼  ð6Þ
Considering that the specimens do not produce volume p AD1 þ AD2 þ Ah
strain under an undrained load, Poisson’s ratio t could be
where A denotes the area of the identification zone.
considered 0.5. This selection referred to some published
The maximum dynamic shear modulus, reference shear
works by Prof. Chen [8, 29]. The above formulas for the
strain, and damping ratio of the geopolymer-stabilized
shear strain amplitude ca and dynamic shear modulus G
coarse-grained soils with different rock contents and con-
can be rewritten as
fining pressures are listed in Table 5. The maximum
ca ¼ 1:5ea ð4Þ dynamic shear modulus Gmax was the dynamic shear
G ¼ Esec =3 ð5Þ modulus when ca = 1 9 10–6. However, since it was
challenging to realize a small strain level by dynamic tri-
The damping ratio is usually defined as the ratio of the axial tests, Gmax was always determined by extrapolation.
dissipated energy to the elastic strain energy in a loading
loop. As shown in Fig. 12, the damping ratio was defined 3.4 Characteristics of dynamic shear modulus
as the ratio of the area of the hysteresis curve to the curves
equivalent area of elastic strain energy within the loading
loop according to the energy calculation formula, owing to Figure 13 presents the dynamic shear modulus curves of
the asymmetry of the hysteresis curves of geopolymer- geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils. It can be
stabilized coarse-grained soils. The area of the hysteresis observed that the maximum dynamic shear modulus of
curve can be obtained via integration. The equivalent area geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils with different

123
Acta Geotechnica

180 180
R0P50 R15P50 R0P50 R15P50
R30P50 R45P50 R30P50 R45P50
160 160
R60P50 R0P100 R60P50 R0P100
R15P100 R30P100 R15P100 R30P100
140 R45P100 R60P100 140 R45P100 R60P100
R0P200 R15P200 R0P200 R15P200
120 R30P200 R45P200 120 R30P200 R45P200
R60P200 R0P400 R60P200 R0P400
Gc (MPa)

Gt (MPa)
R15P400 R30P400 R15P400 R30P400
100 R45P400 R60P400 100 R45P400 R60P400

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20
(a) under compression (b) Under tension
0 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Shear strain amplitude (%) Shear strain amplitude (%)

Fig. 13 Dynamic shear modulus curves of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils

rock-block contents under different confining pressures
decreased as the shear strain amplitude increased, irre-
spective of compression or tension status. With the same
rock-block content, the maximum dynamic shear modulus
of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils under high
confining pressure was always greater than that under low
confining pressure. The greater the confining pressure
deviation was, the more significant the difference in the
maximum dynamic shear modulus was. With the same
confining pressure, the lower the rock content was, the
smaller the difference in the maximum dynamic shear
modulus was. However, as the confining pressure
increased, this difference became more significant with an
increase in the rock-block content.
3.5 Characteristics of dynamic shear modulus
ratio curves
Since the structural effect significantly affected the
mechanical properties of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soils due to the content and random distribution of
rock blocks, the differences in their dynamic shear modulus
could not be studied comparatively. Fortunately, this
unexpected inexecution could be solved easily by applying
normalized data. The dynamic shear modulus ratio G/Gmax
usually describes the relationship between the dynamic
shear modulus and shear strain amplitude. Martin and Seed
[37] proposed a nonlinear elastic model for soils, namely
the Davidenkov model described in Eq. (7). This model
has been proven effective in characterizing the nonlinearity
of coarse-grained soils. Therefore, it was also used in this
study to explore the relationship between the dynamic
shear modulus and shear strain amplitude of geopolymer-
stabilized coarse-grained soils.
G=Gmax ¼ 1=ð1 þ ca =cr Þ
where cr is the reference shear strain. To simplify the
calculation, cr took the value of ca when G/Gmax = 0.5. The
cr value for each sample is listed in Table 5.
Figure 14 presents the geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soils’ dynamic shear modulus ratio envelope
curves. The dynamic shear modulus ratio envelope curves
of sand, gravelly soil, and gravel are also presented, which
were summarized by Seed et al. [50], Rollins et al. [45],
and Oztoprak and Bolton [41]. The results show that the
dynamic shear modulus ratio envelope area of geopolymer-
stabilized coarse-grained soils was wider than that of the
other three types of soils and decreased with the overall
increase in the shear strain amplitude. When the shear
strain amplitude was less than 0.01%, the reduction rate of
the dynamic shear modulus ratio of geopolymer-stabilized
coarse-grained soils was significantly slower than that of
the other three types of soils. When the shear strain
amplitude was greater than 0.01%, the dynamic shear
modulus ratio of the geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained
soils began to decrease rapidly. When the shear strain
amplitude was between 0.01 and 1.0%, the reduction rate
of the dynamic shear modulus ratio of the geopolymer-
stabilized coarse-grained soils was significantly greater
than that of the other three types of soils. When the shear
strain amplitude was greater than 1.0%, the reduction rate
of these four soils’ dynamic shear modulus ratio decreased
and tended to be equal. The dynamic shear modulus ratio
distribution of the geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained
soils under compression and tension status was generally
higher than that of the other three types of soils, and their
area under tension was wider.
ð7Þ

123
 Acta Geotechnica

1.0 1.0
R0P50 R15P50 R0P50 R15P50
R30P50 R45P50 R30P50 R45P50
R60P50 R0P100 R60P50 R0P100
R15P100 R30P100 R15P100 R30P100
0.8 R45P100 R60P100 0.8 R45P100 R60P100
R0P200 R15P200 R0P200 R15P200
R30P200 R45P200 R30P200 R45P200
R60P200 R0P400 R60P200 R0P400
Gc/Gmax,c

0.6 R15P400 R30P400 R15P400 R30P400

0.6

Gt / Gmax,t
R45P400 R60P400 R45P400 R60P400
Gravelly soil (Seed et al,1986) Gravelly soil (Seed et al,1986)
Gravel (Rollins et al,1998) Gravel (Rollins et al,1998)
Sand (Oztoprak et al,2013) Sand (Oztoprak et al,2013)
0.4 This study 0.4 This study

0.2 0.2

(a) Under compression (b) Under tension

0.0 0.0
1E-4 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1E-4 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Shear strain amplitude (%) Shear strain amplitude (%)

Fig. 14 Dynamic shear modulus ratio curves of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils

3.6 Characteristics of damping ratio curves k ¼ kmin þ k0 ð1  G=Gmax Þb ð9Þ

The damping ratio k is an important input parameter for where kmin is the basic damping ratio related to the nature
evaluating the seismic performance of engineering sites of the soil and its consolidation state, and k0 and b are the
and is closely related to the properties of the soil itself. If curvature coefficients of the damping ratio curve, which
the soil is a viscoelastic material, the energy loss caused by could be obtained via data fitting.
the elastomer is zero, and the work done by the damping Figure 15 presents the damping ratio curves of geopoly-
ratio on the soil is just the energy loss of the soil. The mer-stabilized coarse-grained soils. It can be observed that the
greater the damping ratio was, the faster the attenuation minimum and maximum damping ratios of geopolymer-sta-
rate of energy was, and the greater the energy loss was. In bilized coarse-grained soils with different rock-block contents
1972, Hardin and Drnevich [16] found a connection increased with the shear strain amplitude. When the shear
between the dynamic shear modulus ratio G/Gmax and strain amplitude was between 0.001% and 0.01%, the damp-
damping ratio k as ing ratio curves tended to be flat, and the curve deviation could
be ignored. When the shear strain amplitude was between 0.01
k ¼ f ðG=Gmax Þ ð8Þ
and 1%, the damping ratio curves changed significantly. It was
Thus, an improved empirical formula proposed by Chen known that the increase in the damping ratio was an inherent
et al. [4] was used to describe such a connection relation- property of geotechnical engineering materials. Their damp-
ship, which was developed through many newly deposited ing ratio should be constant at a given stress state and strain
soil tests based on Eq. (8). level. However, the results of this study showed that the
damping ratio of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils
changed for the same shear strain amplitude. It can be inferred
18 that both rock-block content and confining pressure could
R0P50 R15P50
16 R30P50 R45P50 affect the damping ratio of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
R60P50 R0P100
14 R15P100 R30P100 grained soils. The laws that determine their influence on the
R45P100 R60P100
damping ratio thus should be paid more attention.
Damping ratio (%)

R0P200 R15P200
12 R30P200 R45P200
R60P200 R0P400
10 R15P400 R30P400
R45P400 R60P400
8 4 Discussion
6

4
4.1 Influence of rock-block content on dynamic
shear modulus and damping ratio
2

0 4.1.1 Maximum dynamic shear modulus

0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Shear strain amplitude (%)
Figure 16 presents the relationship between the maximum
Fig. 15 Damping ratio curves of geopolymer-stabilized coarse- dynamic shear modulus and rock-block content of
grained soils

123
Acta Geotechnica
200
50kPa 100kPa
200kPa 400kPa
Gmax,c = 26.70 + 0.466P
Gmax,c = 48.23 + 0.317P
150 Gmax,c = 71.60 + 0.933P
Gmax,c = 108.8 + 0.940P
Gmax,t (MPa)
Gmax,c (MPa)
100
50
(a) Under compression
0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Rock-block content(%)
Fig. 16 Relationship between the maximum dynamic shear modulus and rock-block content
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils. It can be
observed that the maximum dynamic shear modulus
always increased with the rock-block content linearly,
irrespective of their loading status. The fitting lines’ gra-
dient variation indicates that the maximum dynamic shear
modulus increased with the effective confining pressure.
4.1.2 Dynamic shear modulus ratio
Figure 17 presents the dynamic shear modulus ratio curves
of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils with differ-
ent rock-block contents. It can be observed that when the
confining pressure was constant, a higher rock-block con-
tent would result in a lower dynamic shear modulus ratio of
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils at the same
shear strain amplitude. The gradient characteristics of these
curves illustrated that the geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soils with a low rock-block content had the fastest
reduction rate. The opposite was the case for high rock-
block content. The reason for this phenomenon might be:
(1) With the increasing rock-block content, the skeleton
structure of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils
gradually changed from the fine-grained matrix to rock
blocks and became the main load-bearing component. (2)
When the shear strain amplitude increased, the pores inside
the sample would shrink under the loading normally, and
the structure would be more compact. However, when the
shear strain amplitude was greater than 1.0%, coarse-
grained soils with a high rock-block content would be
difficult to compact. The dynamic shear modulus ratio
curves thus decreased slowly and tended to be flat. This
difference implied that when the shear strain amplitude
exceeded a certain level, the influences of rock-block
content on the dynamic shear modulus ratio of geopoly-
mer-stabilized coarse-grained soils could be neglected.
200
50kPa 100kPa
200kPa 400kPa
Gmax,t = 27.60 + 0.436P
Gmax,t = 46.00 + 0.446P
150 Gmax,t = 74.40 + 0.826P
Gmax,t = 109.2 + 1.120P
100
50
(b) Under tension
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Rock-block content (%)
4.1.3 Normalized damping ratio
This study used the normalized damping ratio knor to
investigate the relationship between the damping ratio and
rock-block content.
knor ¼ ðk  kmin Þ=ðkmax  kmin Þ ð10Þ
where kmin and kmax were the minimum and maximum
damping ratios, respectively.
Theoretically, the kmin of an ideal viscoelastic material
should be zero. However, energy dissipation during cyclic
loading was inevitable, even at low strain levels. Therefore,
the kmin of an ideal viscoelastic material should be deter-
mined by other means. Chen et al. [7] highlighted that
because the damping ratio of the soil increased very slowly
when the shear strain amplitude was less than 5 9 10–5, the
approximate damping ratio value when the shear strain
amplitude was 5 9 10–5 should be adopted as the mini-
mum damping ratio. The maximum damping ratio kmax of
the soil was the sum of kmin and k0 in Eq. (9).
Figure 18 presents the normalized damping ratio curves
of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils with differ-
ent rock-block contents. It can be observed that the growth
of the normalized damping ratio can be divided into three
stages overall: the initial, growth, and stable stages. In the
initial stage, the higher rock-block content would result in a
smaller shear strain amplitude corresponding to the nor-
malized damping ratio that starts to increase. It might be
because the failure of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soils always began at the contact surface between
the soil matrix and rock blocks. The higher rock-block
content signified a large number of contact surfaces, which
implied the higher failure probability of these contact
surfaces at the same strain level and the greater energy
consumption. In the growth stage, the normalized damping
ratio growth rate of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained
123
 Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 17 Relationship between dynamic shear modulus ratio and rock-block content

soils with different rock-block contents was approximately
identical, which meant that the rock-block content had a
limited influence on the normalized damping ratio. In the
stable stage, the normalized damping ratio gradually
became constant because the structure of geopolymer-sta-
bilized coarse-grained soils was dense. The normalized
damping ratio curves had a good coincidence in different
rock-block contents overall, which implied that the rock-
block content has a limited effect on the normalized
damping ratio of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained
soils.

123
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 17 continued
4.2 Influence of effective confining pressure
on dynamic shear modulus and damping
ratio
4.2.1 Maximum dynamic shear modulus
Figure 19a and b presents the relationship between the
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils’ maximum
dynamic shear modulus and the effective confining pres-
sure. It can be observed that the maximum dynamic shear
modulus increased with the effective confining pressure,
and the relationship between the maximum dynamic shear
modulus and confining pressure had a noticeable nonlinear
feature. Hardin and Drnevich [16] found an approximately
exponential relationship between the maximum dynamic
shear modulus and confining pressure and proposed an
empirical formula for soils’ maximum dynamic shear
modulus.
Gmax ¼ f ðeÞrn
where r was the effective confining pressure, n was the
fitting parameter related to soil characteristics, and f(e) was
a function of the porosity of the soil. Since the triaxial
cyclic tests in this study were undrained, the geopolymer-
stabilized coarse-grained soils did not produce volume
strain under the load. Thus, the f(e) could be considered a
constant.
However, both rock-block content and confining pres-
sure had an important influence on the maximum dynamic
shear modulus. The empirical formula shown in Eq. (11)
can thus be further improved.
Gmax ¼ Cf ðeÞrn
where C is a structure-related parameter of the soil and
could be obtained via data fitting.
The fitting parameters of Eq. (12) for geopolymer-sta-
bilized coarse-grained soils’ maximum dynamic shear
modulus are also listed in Fig. 19a and b. It can be
observed that the fitting parameter n exhibited a small
fluctuation in its values. Hence, the influence of the con-
fining pressure on the maximum shear modulus may be
limited. Figure 19c and d presents the relationship between
the fitting parameter C and the rock-block content. It can be
known that the fitting parameter C exhibited an approxi-
mately linear relationship with rock-block content. This
relationship implied that the structure of geopolymer-sta-
bilized coarse-grained soils significantly influenced the
maximum dynamic shear modulus. Namely, the C value
could be regarded as an index for evaluating the influence
of rock-block content on the maximum dynamic shear
modulus of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils.
ð11Þ
4.2.2 Dynamic shear modulus ratio
Figure 20 presents the geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soils’ dynamic shear modulus ratio curves under
different effective confining pressures. As the shear strain
amplitude increased, the greater the effective confining
pressure was, the larger the gradient of the dynamic shear
modulus ratio curves was, and the faster the reduction rate
of the dynamic shear modulus ratio of geopolymer-stabi-
lized coarse-grained soils was. The dynamic shear modulus
ratio of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils tended
to be equal when the shear strain amplitude exceeded a
ð12Þ certain level. This flattening change indicated that the
123

Fig. 18 Relationship between normalized damping ratio and rock-block content
influence of effective confining pressure on the dynamic
shear modulus ratio of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soils was weakened as the shear strain amplitude
increased.
4.3 Normalized damping ratio
Figure 21 presents geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained
soils’ normalized damping ratio curves with different
effective confining pressures. It can be observed that as the
confining pressure was increased, the difference in the
normalized damping ratio of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soils decreased gradually. High confining pressure
could decrease the normalized damping ratio at the same
shear strain amplitude. Since the contact between the soil
matrix and rock blocks in geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
grained soils became closer with the increasing confining
123
Acta Geotechnica
pressure, the inner gaps disappeared, the wave propagation
accelerated, and the normalized damping ratio decreased.
4.4 Empirical formula of dynamic characteristic
parameters
4.4.1 Dynamic shear modulus ratio
Normally, the secant modulus was always used to express
the dynamic shear modulus. Kumar et al. [25] conducted an
exemplary record of discussion on the dynamic character-
istics of sand. As the dynamic stress–strain hysteresis
curves of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils with
different rock-block contents were in an asymmetric dis-
tribution under different confining pressures, the data pro-
cessing following such a method was feasible. The
previous results presented in Fig. 13 showed that the rock-
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 19 Relationship between the maximum dynamic shear modulus and confining pressures
block content and confining pressure affected the dynamic
properties of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils.
The results further presented in Figs.16 and 19 illustrated
that the maximum dynamic shear modulus of geopolymer-
stabilized coarse-grained soils had an approximately linear
relationship with the rock-block content and an exponential
relationship with the confining pressure. Several studies
presented the same conclusions. But they did not provide a
correlation between the maximum dynamic shear modulus,
rock-block content, and effective confining pressure
[2, 19, 27]. In 1972, Seed and Idriss [49] plotted the G/
Gmax * logc curve for sand. In the same year, Hardin and
Drnevich [16] described the nonlinear stress–strain
behavior of soils at small to medium strains using Eq. (7).
Menq [39] and Darendeli [11] further proposed a modified
hyperbolic model based on the testing of sand and gravel
samples and could provide a good reference for this study.
G=Gmax ¼ 1=½1 þ ðca =cr Þa  ð13Þ
where a is the curvature coefficient.
Figure 22 presents the relationships between the
dynamic shear modulus ratio and normalized shear strain
amplitude of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils
under compression and tension conditions. It could be
observed that the dynamic shear modulus ratio of
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils exhibited a
lower dispersion and decreased smoothly as the normalized
shear strain amplitude increased. Therefore, a modified
Davidenkov model was used to describe the nonlinear
elastic behavior of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained
soils. If cnor denotes the normalized shear strain amplitude
ca/cr, the dynamic shear modulus ratio empirical formula of
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils could be
expressed as
8
> 1
>
< ; R2 ¼ 0:983; under compression
G 1 þ c0:877
nor
¼ 1
Gmax > > ; R2 ¼ 0:997;
: under tension
1 þ c0:996
nor
ð14Þ
123
 Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 20 Relationship between dynamic shear modulus ratio and effective confining pressures

123
Acta Geotechnica

Fig. 20 continued

c0:934
knor ¼ nor
; R2 ¼ 0:977 ð17Þ
4.4.2 Normalized damping ratio 1 þ c0:934
nor

According to the normalized formula (10) of the damping

ratio,
5 Conclusion
b
knor ¼ ð1  G=Gmax Þ ð15Þ
This study investigated the mixing ratio of the metakaolin-
That is, based geopolymer binder and their optimal mixing ratio in
 a b
cnor fine-grained soil by unconfined compression tests. Then,
knor ¼ ð16Þ the dynamic characteristics of geopolymer-stabilized
1 þ canor
coarse-grained soils were studied and discussed via
It could be observed that the normalized damping ratio undrained multistage strain-controlled triaxial cyclic tests.
was a function of the normalized shear strain amplitude. Some main conclusions were obtained: (1) The ideal
Figure 23 presents the relationship between the normalized mixing ratio of the raw material and alkali activator for
damping ratio of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained preparing the geopolymer binder was 2:1, and their optimal
soils and the normalized shear strain amplitude. Their ratio for soil stabilization was 15%. (2) The maximum
normalized damping ratios were distributed in a narrow dynamic shear modulus of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-
band. Based on Eq. (16), the normalized damping ratio grained soils had an approximately linear positive corre-
empirical formula for geopolymer-stabilized coarse- lation with the rock-block content but a power function
grained soils could be expressed as growth relationship with the effective confining pressure.

123

Fig. 21 Relationship between normalized damping ratio and confining pressure
(3) The dynamic shear modulus ratio envelope area of
geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils was wider than
that of sand, gravel, and gravelly soils. It exhibited a lower
dispersion and decreased smoothly as the normalized shear
strain amplitude increased. Hence, the modified Davi-
denkov model could be used to characterize the nonlinear
elastic behavior of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained
123
Acta Geotechnica
soils. (4) The damping ratio appeared slightly affected by
rock-block content and confining pressure. A normalized
shear strain amplitude function could describe the nor-
malized damping ratio. (5) The results of this study could
provide a reference for understanding the dynamic char-
acteristics of geopolymer-stabilized coarse-grained soils
Acta Geotechnica

1.0 1.0
GC/GCmax GT/GTmax
Curve Fitting Curve Fitting
0.8

0.6
GC/GCmax

GT/GTmax
0.5

0.4

0.2

(a) under compression (b) under tesnion

0.0 0.0
1E-4 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1E-4 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Normalized shear strain amplitude(%) Normalized shear strain amplitude(%)

Fig. 22 Relationship between dynamic shear modulus and normalized shear strain

1.0 3. Chen YM, Bian XC (2018) The review of high-speed railway

Normalized damping ratio track foundation dynamics. Chin Civil Eng J 51(6):1–13
Curve fitting 4. Chen G, Liu X, Zhu D et al (2006) Experimental studies on
0.8 dynamic shear modulus ratio and damping ratio of recently
Normalized damping ratio

deposited soils in Nanjing. Chin J Geotech Eng 28(8):1023–1027

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1E-4 0.001 0.01 0.1
Normalized shear strain amplitude (%)
Fig. 23 Relationship between normalized damping ratio and normal-
ized shear strain
and as theoretical support for their application and pro-
motion in subgrade engineering.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41902282, 51978335),
the Science and Technology Planning Project of Jiangsu Province(-
Grant No. BE2022605), the Science and Technology Development
Planning Project of Nanjing, China (Grant No. 202211011), and the
State Key Laboratory of Frozen Soil Engineering (Grant No.
SKLFSE201809).
Data Availability The data used to support the findings of this study
are available from the corresponding author upon request.
References
1. Bayuaji R, Yasin AK, Susanto TE et al (2017) A review in
geopolymer binder with dry mixing method. AIP Conf Proc
1887(1):20022
2. Chang WJ, Phantachang T (2016) Effects of gravel content on
shear resistance of gravelly soils. Eng Geol 207:78–90
5. Chen GX, Wang BH, Sun T (2012) Dynamic shear modulus of
saturated Nanjing fine sand in large scale shaking table tests. Chin
J Geotech Eng 34(4):582–590
6. Chen LQ, Zhang JS, Chen JH et al (2017) Testing of static and
dynamic strength properties of cement-improved argillaceous-
slate coarse-grained soil. Rock Soil Mech 38(7):1903–1910
7. Chen GX, Zhou ZL, Pan H et al (2016) The influence of
undrained cyclic loading patterns and consolidation states on the
deformation features of saturated fine sand over a wide strain
range. Eng Geol 204:77–93
1 10 100
8. Chen GX, Zhou ZL, Sun T et al (2019) Shear modulus and
damping ratio of sand-gravel mixtures over a wide strain range.
J Earthquake Eng 23(8):1407–1440
9. Chu CF, Li XC, Deng YF et al (2013) Influence of metakaolin on
mechanical properties of cement-modified marine soft soil. Chin
J Geotech Eng 35:170–174
10. Clayton CRI (2011) Stiffness at small strain: research and prac-
tice. Géotechnique 61(1):5–37
11. Darendeli M (2011) Development of a new family of normalized
modulus reduction and material damping curves[D]. University
of Texas at Austin, Texas
12. Deng CJ, Dang FN, Miao Z et al (2019) Experimental study on
grouting technology of rockfill and mechanical properties after
grouting. Chin J Geotech Eng 41(10):1907–1913
13. Deng GD, Zhang J, Wang J et al (2014) Experimental study on
coarse-grained soil about the relationships among dynamic strain,
dynamic elastic modulus and damping ratio. Electron J Geotech
Eng 19:313–326
14. Elandaloussi R, Bennabi A, Dupla JC et al (2019) Effectiveness
of lime treatment of coarse soils against internal erosion. Geotech
Geol Eng 37(1):139–154
15. Ghadir P, Ranjbar N (2018) Clayey soil stabilization using
geopolymer and Portland cement. Constr Build Mater
188:361–371
16. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modules and damping in
soils: design equation and curves. J Soil Mech Found Div Asce
98(7):667–692
17. Hardin BO, Kalinski ME (2005) Estimating the shear modulus of
gravelly soils. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 131(7):867–875

123

18. Hyugmoon K, Min HH, Van Chanh N et al (2013) Influence of
curing condition and clay content on strength of geopolymer
soils. Adv Mater Res 772:858–862
19. Ishihara H, Mcnally D S, Urban J P, et al (1996). Effects of
hydrostatic pressure on matrix synthesis in different regions of
the intervertebral disk. J Appl Physiol (1985) 80(3): 839–846.
20. Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F (2008) Effects of grain size and grading on
dynamic shear moduli of sands. J Jpn Soc Soil Mech Foundat Eng
17(3):19–35
21. Jin L (2015) Study on frost heave properties of improved coarse
grained fillings for high-speed railway. Beijing: China Academy
of Railways Sciences.
22. Jin L, Zeng YW, Zhang S (2017) Large scale triaxial tests on
effects of rock block proportion and shape on mechanical prop-
erties of cemented soil-rock mixture. Rock Soil Mech
38(1):141–148
23. Komnitsas K, Zaharaki D (2007) Geopolymerisation: a review
and prospects for the minerals industry. Miner Eng
20(14):1261–1277
24. Kondner R L, Zelasko J S (1963) A hyperbolic stress-strain
formulation of sands. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Pan-American
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation. Brazil,
pp 289–324.
25. Kumar SS, Krishna AM, Dey A (2017) Evaluation of dynamic
properties of sandy soil at high cyclic strains. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 99:157–167
26. Lai YM, Xu XT, Dong YH et al (2013) Present situation and
prospect of mechanical research on frozen soils in China. Cold
Reg Sci Technol 87:6–18
27. Lamas-Lopez F, Dupla J, Saussine G et al (2017) Effects of
inclusion contents on resilient modulus and damping ratio of
unsaturated track-bed materials. Can Geotech J 51. Senetakis K, Anastasiadis A, Pitilakis K (2013) Normalized shear
54(12):1672–1681
28. Leng WM, Zhou WQ, Nie RS et al (2016) Analysis of dynamic
characteristics and accumulative deformation of coarse-grained
soil filling of heavy-haul railway. Rock Soil Mech 37(3):728–736
29. Liang K, Chen GX, He Y et al (2019) An new method for cal-
culation of dynamic modulus and damping ratio based on theory
of correlation function. Rock Soil Mech 40(4):1368–1376
30. Liang RW, Zhang M, Bai XH (2001) Analysis of laboratory test
results of cemented soil. Rock Soil Mech 22(2):211–213
31. Lindquist ES (1994) The strength and deformation properties of
melange[D]. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley
32. Liu XY, Liu EL, Zhang D et al (2019) Study on effect of coarse-
grained content on the mechanical properties of frozen mixed
soils. Cold Reg Sci Technol 158:237–251
33. Liu H, Niu FJ, Niu YH et al (2011) Study of design of filling
material and setting anti-frost layer for high-speed railway
roadbed in seasonally frozen regions. Chin J Rock Mech Eng
30(12):2549–2557
34. Liu X, Zou D, Liu J et al (2021) A gradation-dependent particle
shape factor for characterizing small-strain shear modulus of
sand-gravel mixtures. Transportation Geotechn 28:100548
35. Ma C, Awang AZ, Omar W (2018) Structural and material per-
formance of geopolymer concrete: a review. Constr Build Mater
186:90–102
36. Ma W, Zhou GQ, Niu FJ et al (2016) Progress and prospect of the
basic research on the major permafrost projects in the Qinghai-
Tibet Plateau, China. Basic Sci 18(6):9–19
37. Martin PP, Seed HB (1982) One-dimensional dynamic ground
response analyses. J Geotech Eng Div 108(7):935–952
38. Medley E (1994) The engineering characterization of melanges
and similar block-in-matrix rocks (bimrocks). University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley
39. Menq FY (2003) Dynamic properties of sandy and gravelly soils.
University of Texas at Austin.
123
Acta Geotechnica
40. Niu FJ, Zheng H, Li AY (2020) The study of frost heave
mechanism of high-speed railway foundation by field-monitored
data and indoor verification experiment. Acta Geotech
15(3):581–593
41. Oztoprak S, Bolton MD (2013) Stiffness of sands through a
laboratory test database. Géotechnique 63(1):54–70
42. Payan M, Khoshghalb A, Senetakis K et al (2016) Effect of
particle shape and validity of models for sand: A critical review
and a new expression. Comput Geotech 72:28–41
43. Phetchuay C, Horpibulsuk S, Arulrajah A et al (2016) Strength
development in soft marine clay stabilized by fly ash and calcium
carbide residue based geopolymer. Appl Clay Sci 127:134–142
44. Provis JL, Bernal SA (2014) Geopolymers and related alkali-
activated materials. Annu Rev Mater Res 44:299–327
45. Rollins KM, Evans MD, Diehl NB et al (1998) Shear modulus
and damping relationships for gravels. J Geotechn Geoenviron
Eng 124(5):396–405
46. Rovnanik P (2010) Effect of curing temperature on the devel-
opment of hard structure of metakaolin-based geopolymer.
Constr Build Mater 24(7):1176–1183
47. Sadrekarimi A (2013) Dynamic behavior of granular soils at
shallow depths from 1 g Shaking table tests. J Earthquake Eng
17(2):227–252
48. Sargent P (2015) The development of alkali-activated mixtures
for soil stabilisation. Handbook of alkali-activated cements,
mortars and concretes, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 555–604.
49. Seed H, Idriss I (1972) Soil moduli and damping factors for
dynamic response analyses. J Terrramech 8(3):109
50. Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM et al (1986) Moduli and damping
factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. J Geotechn
Eng 112(11):1016–1032
modulus reduction and damping ratio curves of quartz sand and
rhyolitic crushed rock. Soils Found 53(6):879–893
52. Senetakis K, Madhusudhan BN, Anastasiadis A (2016) Wave
Propagation Attenuation and Threshold Strains of Fully Saturated
Soils with Intraparticle Voids. J Mater Civ Eng 28(2):4015108
53. Singh NB, Middendorf B (2020) Geopolymers as an alternative to
Portland cement: an overview. Constr Build Mater 237:117455
54. Stokoe KHI, Darendeli MB, Andrus RD et al (1954). Dynamic
soil properties:laboratory,field and correlation studies. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 2nd International Conference onEarthquake
Geotechnical Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal, pp 811–845.
55. Sun T, Chen GX, Wang BH et al (2014) Experimental research of
effect of granule shape on shear modulus and damping ratio of
gravel. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 33:4211–4217
56. Tao WH, Fu XH, Sun FJ et al (2008) Studies on properties and
mechanisms of geopolymer cementitious material. Bull Chin
Ceramic Soc 27(4):730–735
57. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of
China. Standard for Geotechnical Testing Method (GB/T
50123–2019). Beijing, 2019.
58. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of
China. Specification for mix proportion design of cement soil
(JGJ/T 233–2011. Beijing, 2011.
59. Wang TL, Wang HH, Song HF et al (2018) Effects of cement
content and grain-size composition on engineering properties of
high-speed-railway macadam subgrade. Cold Reg Sci Technol
145:21–31
60. Wang SN, Xue QP, Zhu Y et al (2020) Experimental study on
material ratio and strength performance of geopolymer-improved
soil. Constr Build Mater 267:120469
61. Wang S, Zhu Y, Ma W et al (2021) Effects of rock block content
and confining pressure on dynamic characteristics of soil-rock
mixtures. Eng Geol 280(1):105963
Acta Geotechnica
62. Wichtmann T, Triantafyllidis T (2013) Effect of uniformity
coefficient of sands on G/Gmax and damping ratio of uniform to
well graded quartz sands. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng
139(1):59–72
63. Yao JL, Qiu HJ, He H et al (2019) Experimental research and
application of geopolymer in soft soil foundation treatment[C].
Springer, Cham
64. Ye Y, Cai D, Yao J et al (2020) Review on dynamic modulus of
coarse-grained soil filling for high-speed railway subgrade.
Transportation Geotechnics 27(6):100421
65. Zha FS, Liu SY, Du YJ (2007) Experiment on improvement of
expansive clays with lime-fly ash. J Southeast Univ (Natural
Science Edition) 37(2):339–344
66. Zhai WM, Zhao CF, Xia H et al (2014) Basic scientific issues on
dynamic performance evolution of the high-speed railway
infrastructure and its service safety. Sci China Technol Sci
44(7):645–660
67. Zhang JS, Chen XB, Li ZY (2014) Effect of granite gravel
content on improved granular mixtures as railway subgrade fill-
ings. J Central South Univ 21(8):3361–3369
68. Zhang M, Guo H, El-Korchi T et al (2013) Experimental feasi-
bility study of geopolymer as the next-generation soil stabilizer.
Constr Build Mater 47:1468–1478
69. Zhao K, Zhou JJ, Sun T et al (2018) Dynamic residual defor-
mation characteristics of saturated gravel soil considering drai-
nage condition and coarse grain content. Yantu Lixue/Rock Soil
Mech 39(3):926–932
70. Zhou YG, Sun ZB, Chen YM (2016) Curved ray paths of shear
waves and measurement accuracy of bender elements in cen-
trifuge model tests. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 142(6):4016008
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
123