1.

Geopolymer-Based Soil Stabilization with Metakaolin: Eco-Friendly

Solutions for Enhanced Strength and Durability across Varied
Environmental Conditions.
2. Soil Stabilization by Different Mix-proportions of Metakaolin Geopolymer.
3. A State-of-The-Art Review on Metakaolin Based on Geopolymer Used for
Stabilized Clay Soils.
4. Evaluating Unconfined Compressive Strength of Clay Soils Stabilized with
Different Mix-Proportion of Metakaolin Geopolymer.
5. Characterizing and Modeling the Mechanical Property of the Clay Soil
Modified with Metakaolin Geopolymer for Various Temperatures: A
Comprehensive Review.
6. Unconfined Compressive Strength of Different Mix-Proportions of
Metakaolin Geopolymer Clay Soil Composites: A Systematic
Comprehensive Review and Modeling.
7. Characterizing, Modeling the Mechanical Property and Durability of the
Clay Soil Modified with Different Mix-Proportions Metakaolin Geopolymer
for Various Temperatures: A Comprehensive Review.

1
University of Suleimani
College of Engineering
Civil Engineering Department
MSc. Geotechnics

Research Methodology

A review about: Characterizing, Modeling the Mechanical

Property and Durability of the Clay Soil Modified with Different
Mix-Proportions Metakaolin Geopolymer for Various
Temperatures: A Comprehensive Review.

Name Student: Shifa Burhan Hussein

Lecturer: Prof. Dr. Ahmed Salih Mohammed

2
Characterizing, Modeling the Mechanical Property and Durability of the Clay
Soil Modified with Different Mix-Proportions Metakaolin Geopolymer for
Various Temperatures: A Comprehensive Review.

Abstract

In several civil engineering structures, soft and weak soils are often stabilized using ordinary
Portland cement (OPC) and lime. Traditional stabilizer manufacturing procedures are energy-
intensive and result in significant CO2 emissions contributing to global warming. During the last
several decades geopolymer has been attention to used for the improvement of soil, because of
derived from natural sources, while minimizing carbon emissions, and is considered eco-friendly
and cost-effective.

In the review paper, varying percentages of metakaolin (MK) based on geopolymer were
employed and tested across different temperature zones.

Metakaolin (MK) in soil demonstrates enhanced UCS and soil durability, reducing
compressibility, swelling, and shrinkage, incorporating different metakaolin. Contribute to the
effectiveness of this eco-friendly approach, showcasing potential applications in diverse soil
types and temperature conditions.

Keywords: Clay Soil, Soil Stabilization, Geopolymer, Unconfined Compressive Strength.

3
1. Introduction

In the world of construction, the strength of a building is of significant importance [1]. to last for
a long period without any cracks or problems in structures. Soils that support the base of the
structure, a comprehensive understanding of soil properties and the factors that influence them is
essential for effective soil [2].

When clay soil is discovered to be the subgrade, civil engineering projects are faced with a
challenging issue. When their moisture content is allowed to rise, high clay soils tend to inflate
[2]. The subgrade performs a crucial role in providing support for all construction loads placed
upon it, if the clay subgrade exhibits unfavorable characteristics, such as a low California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) and excessive swelling, when used in the building of a dirt road, the
underlying property will be susceptible to significant damage, to be employed in the construction
of CBR value, the material should have a high strength so that it can sustain a significant load.
Swelling of the soil during rainy periods might cause a decrease in its stable volume. Conversely,
during the dry season, the soil may not shrink excessively, which can help minimize or remove
fractures in the road [3,4]. Clay soil has a higher water retention capacity due to its cohesive
nature and limited air content; these particular forms of soil have a higher capacity to absorb
water, causing its particles to expand [2]. Conversely, when these particles dry up, they undergo
shrinkage similar to that of concrete. This particular soil type does not meet all the necessary
technical requirements for soil, such as mechanical strength, permeability, compressibility,
toughness, and plasticity [5]. Clay soil is often used as mud mortar in construction; however, its
bearing ability is very weak and cannot withstand tensile stresses. Consequently, several
researchers have done investigations into stabilizing clay soil [3-6].

Soil stabilization is a Technique to improve the properties of soil [2]. Soil properties include
mechanical strength, permeability, durability, compressibility, and plasticity [3]. Alternation of
the chemical and mechanical properties of soil is known as soil chemical and mechanical
stabilization [4]. This research analyzed many methods for stabilizing utilized to stabilize oil [5].
Soil stabilization is the technique of improving soil shear strength parameters, increasing
bearing capacity, and managing to shrink–swell soil properties [5-7]. The purpose of soil
stabilization is to increase the shear strength and durability of soil and decrease the

4
compressibility and permeability of soil by altering the physical properties of soil, increasing the
life of the structure [5, 8]. It is necessary to search for the best soil stabilizer with appropriate
cost and environmental effect [5, 8].

There are several methods of soil stabilization Plastic Stabilization, Geopolymers, and chemical
and mechanical stabilization, each of these has its advantages and disadvantages but does not
protect the environment [9, 10]. One of the most alternative methods for stabilization the
chemical stabilization [2]. But in recent decades geopolymer used for the improvement of soil
because eco-friendly and cost-effective, improving problematic soils with biopolymer—an
environmentally friendly soil stabilizer [11]. Polymer improved slope stability and controlled
dust at construction sites [12-15]. That has proven the polymer more environmentally friendly
than lime and cement [16].

Geopolymer is an inorganic aluminosilicate material with an Alkaline activator [17]. There are
many benefits associated with decreased environmental impact, fire resistance, chemical
corrosion resistance, high mechanical strength, and increased durability in construction material
[18-23]. Researchers prepare the geopolymer coating with excellent properties such as high
strength, artificial aging resistance, and high temperature, Geopolymer is the product of a blend
of materials because of strong and durability of a mixture that is high in alumina (Al2O3) and
silica (SiO2); it is inorganic [24]. With its cementitious properties and significantly reduced
emissions and energy consumption, geopolymer is a viable alternative to ordinary Portland
cement in several geotechnical engineering applications, including soil stabilization [25]. During
the last few years, some studies have been done on the applications of geopolymers as soil
stabilizers [22]. Geopolymer binder forming a denser microstructure in the soil increases the
mechanical properties of soil and the volume stability [26]. Dealing with soft subgrade or soil is
one of the most major problems [27].

To produce products that are both environmentally friendly and highly useful, industrial waste
materials are being investigated as potential sources of geopolymer materials [28-30]. Solid
aluminosilicate materials such as silicate and/or alumina components that may be sourced from
various industrial waste sources can be used to create geopolymers. Fly ash (FA), metakaolin
(MK), and ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (S) are the acronyms for these materials [31,

5
32]. For soil improvement, FA or S have been used in geotechnical engineering projects [33, 34].
It has been discovered that adding S or FA to the soil may increase its mechanical strength, a
study to indicate the efficiency of (FA) and (S) in soil stabilization [34, 35]. The characteristics
of S and FA were investigated during the period of 7, 14, and 28 days of curing. Following 28
days of curing, the plastic limit and water content values of the stabilized soil were both reduced,
and its strength of 0.45 MPa was attained, the results indicate that using S and FA as binders
offers a new opportunity to boost pozzolan activity, which could increase unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) clay soil and decrease their capacity to swell [36-39]. Metakaolin
geopolymer is a type of inorganic polymer formed by the reaction of aluminosilicate materials
with an alkaline activator solution, it is an alternative to traditional Portland cement, offering
potential environmental benefits and improved durability in certain applications [33].

The strength determined by the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test that had been
conducted, Unconfined Compressive Strength Test was conducted at Niger Pet Geotechnical
Engineering Laboratory, the UCS of the soil increased after geopolymer was added to the
sample, the UCS of the sample increased with increasing geopolymer concentration [40]. When
comparing the sample with 15% geopolymer content to the plain soil, the UCS increased by
547%, with a mean value of 418.5 kPa. Samples with a higher geopolymer content showed
significant strain softening in their post-peak behavior [9]. found that treating clayey soil with
metakaolin-based geopolymer stabilization was successful, with UCS increasing as the
percentage of geopolymer increased, additionally, stabilizing by geopolymer increases the
resilient modulus, especially by adding more alkali activator [40, 41].

6
Table 1

Effect of amount metakaolin (MK) geopolymer on various types of soil [42].

Percent MK
Type of the soil geopolymer by wt.% Improve Reference
wet soil
increase UCS. strength
reduction after
Clay 6-12 [43]
optimum activator
content
enhanced strength no
Lean Clay 3-15 [44]
influence in MDD
CL 10-20 Enhanced UCS [45]
enhanced UCS.
Reduce swell,
CH 4, 10, and 15 [46]
compressibility, and
shrinkage

These days, there are numerous techniques for stabilizing soil, such as chemical, mechanical,
polymer, and plastic stabilization, among others. While each has advantages and disadvantages,
the primary issue is that these techniques do not protect the environment [10].

7
1.1 Research Significant

- To investigate optimum metakaolin (MK) geopolymer for different types of soil

according to UCS.
- To investigate the influence of temperature on optimum MK geopolymer.

Fig. 1. Methodology chart for the current study.

8
2. Methodology

2.1 Material Characterization

2.1.1 Soil
The soil used by the authors is listed in Table 2.

9
 Property

Reference Specifi
c Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing Percent Percent Percent Maximum Optimum USCS
UCS
Gravity limit limit index No.200 of sand of clay of silt dry density moisture
(MPa)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g/cm3) content (%) Classification

[26] - 29 14 15 65 - - - 1.8 15 - CL

[43] 2.72 34 21 13 - - - - 1.72 18.2 - Clay

[47] 2.72 39 25 14 96 4 56 44 1.71 18.4 0.433 CL

[48] 2.7 42 24 18 - - - - - 37 - CL

[49] - 43.6 29.5 14.1 - - - - - - - Silty clay

[50] 2.73 61 34 27 86.08 13.92 24.39 61.69 1.52 26 - MH

[51] - 29 14 15 - - - - 2.1 14 - CL

[52] 2.78 80 53 27 - 9.5 52.4 37.8 1.57 24 - CH

[53] - - - - - - - - 1.72 18.2 0.178 SC

[54] - 82.2 28.8 53.4 - - - - 1.79 30.8 - CH

[55] 2.685 34 16 18 - - - - 1.72 18.2 0.1788 CL

[56] 2.72 39 25 14 96 4 56 - 1.71 18.4 0.433 CL

Table 2 Physical composition of soil

10
 2.1.2 Metakaolin Geopolymer
Many researchers used metakaolin (MK) geopolymer is listed in Table 3 and Table 4

Table 3

Chemical composition of MK

Silicon Potassiu
Aluminum Ferric Calcium Magnesium Sodium Sulfur
m
dioxid Loss on
Reference oxide oxide oxide oxide oxide trioxide
e oxide ignition
(Al2O3) (Fe2O3) (Cao) (MgO) (Na2O) (SO3)
(SiO2) (K2O)

[26] 52.20 43.11 1.53 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.99 0.18

[43] 57.16 37.7 1.28 0.13 0.09 0.01 0.55 0.01 -

[47] 39.934 26.445 8.819 17.344 0.158 - 5.60 0.344 11.616

[48] 50.60 45.70 0.31 0.20 0.23 - 0.11 0.14 -

[49] 53.80 43.10 0.80 0.60 0.20 0.20 0.10 - -

[50] 50 45 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.275 0.275 - -

[51] 52.20 43.11 1.53 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.99 -

[52] 50.75 45.91 0.45 0.06 - 0.23 - 0.08 -

[53] 47.50 47.50 - - - - - - -

[54] 52 43 2.20 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.40 0.05 -

[55] 57.16 37.7 1.28 0.13 0.09 0.01 0.55 0.01 -

11
Table 4

Metakaolin percent, temperature, and curing time for UCS test.

Reference Percent of MK (%) Temperature (°C) Curing time (day)

[26] 0,3,5,8,11,15 23 7,28

[43] 6,8,10,12 20 1,3,7

[47] 8,10,12,14 40 1,3,7,14,28

[48] 10,15,20,25,30 20 7,28,90,365

[49] 0,2,4,6 20 1,3,7,14,28

[50] 5,10,15 - 7,14,28

[51] 0,8,13 25 7,28

[52] 0,4,10,15 20 0,7,28

[53] 6,8,10,12 25 1,3,7

[54] 0,3,6,9,12,15 23 7

[56] 8,10,12,14 20,80 1,3,7,14,28

12
Fig.2: Bar chart for UCS with: (a) % MK = 8,10,12,14 [56]; T = 20°C, (b) % MK =
0,3,5,8,11,15 [26]; T = 23°C, (c) % MK = 8,10,12,14 [47]; T = 40°C, (d) % MK = 8,10,12,14
[56]; T = 80°C, (e) % MK = 0,8,13 [51]; T = 25°C, (f) % MK = 0,2,4,6 [49]; T = 20°C, (g) %
MK = 0,3,6,9,12,15 [54]; T= 23°C, (h) % MK = 0,4,10,15 [52]; T = 20°C.

fffffffffffff

Object 2

13
Fig.3: Bar chart for UCS for soil sample mixed with metakaolin in different temperatures.

14
2.2. Tests

2.2.1 Atterberg Limit

Similarly, this test was conducted by [28–30] based on ASTM D4318 – 17 [57].

2.2.2 Particle Size Distribution

The test was performed in the lab using a sieve and hydrometer similar test was conducted by
[9,40] based on ASTM D422 – 6 [58].

2.2.3 Specific Gravity

The test was performed in the lab using a pycnometer [48] or density bottles [55] based on
ASTM D854 – 02 [59].

2.2.4 Unconfined Compressive Strength

Similarly, this test was conducted by [36 – 39] based on ASTM D1557 – 02 [60].

2.2.5 Compaction
The test was performed in the lab using a standard or modified based on ASTM D1557 – 02 [61].

2.2.6 SIP measurement

Using the SIP-FUCHS, the SIP measurements were performed on the clay samples by first
mixing water and clay powder at greater water content as shown in Fig.4 (a) and (b), Allowing
the clay powder to remain in contact with water for a minimum of 24 hours to ensure proper
absorption, and thereafter combine the whole mixture with a mechanical drill until achieving a
uniform consistency as shown in Fig.4 (c). To achieve the necessary water content, remove any
extra water by allowing the clay mixture to undergo dehydration on a polyurethane foam as
shown in Fig.4 (d). Employ polyurethane foam to provide a uniform evaporation process,
enabling evaporation from all surfaces (bottom, top, and sides) of the clay mixture. The mass of
the mixture is continuously evaluated at each stage to ascertain the progression of water content
throughout the operation. Once the necessary water content is achieved, remove the clay mixture
from the foam, manipulate it by kneading, and place it into the sample container as shown in
Fig.4 (e). Once in place, perform the SIP measurement of the clay sample twice, from 1 MHz to
20 kHz as shown in Fig.4 (f). It is acknowledged that complete chemical equilibrium may not be

15
attained when measuring the SIP signal in the clay samples. However, we presume that the
discrepancy between the measured SIP signal and a fully equilibrated sample is insignificant.
Once the measurements have been completed, remove the sample from the sample holder and
subject it to a drying process in an oven set at a temperature of 105 °C for 24 hours as shown in
Fig.4 (g). By doing mass measurements at each stage of the procedure, can determine the water
content at each stage and then compute the porosity of the clay sample during the SIP
measurement.

Fig.4: SIP measurement: (a) Combination of clay powder and water. (b) Saturation of clay
powder for at least 24 hr. (c) Homogenization of mixture with drill. (d) Excess water evaporation
until correct plasticity is reached. (e) Setting clay in the sample holder. (f) SIP measurements. (g)
Clay sample drying.

16
Fig. 5: (a) SIP measurements equipment. (b) Sample holder sketch with the external structure.

17
 3. Result and Discussion

- As a result, in reviewing the existing literature on soil stabilization by metakaolin (MK) geopolymer a comprehensive analysis
reveals a consensus on its positive impact. Geopolymer technology is often considered more environmentally friendly
compared to traditional Portland cement, and lower carbon dioxide emissions, higher durability, and improved chemical
resistance compared to conventional cement-based materials.
- Various studies consistently report significant improvements in unconfined compressive strength (UCS) after treatment with
MK geopolymer.
- In Table 5 The results of UCS from the literature as shown.

Table 5: Result of UCS depending on MK percentage and temperature.

Temperature Percent of MK geopolymer (%)

(°C) 0% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% Reference
20 1.57 2.17 - 1.62 - 0.56 - - - - - - - - [49]
20 0.14 - - 0.25 - - - - 0.38 - - - - 0.45 [52]
20 - - - - - 3.15 - 4.02 - 3.9 - 3.54 - [56]
23 0.75 - 2.45 - 1.64 - 1.82 - 2.49 - - - 3.56 [26]
23 0.21 - 0.75 - - 0.80 - 0.71 - - 0.92 - - 0.83 [54]
25 0.64 - - - - - 2.085 - - - - 2.63 - - [51]
40 - - - - - - 4.82 - 6.00 - 6.82 - - 5.05 [47]
80 - - - - - - 3.87 - 3.45 - 3.87 - 3.45 - [56]

18
 - According to the results of the literature as shown in Fig.6, an increased percentage of MK
geopolymer causes to increase in UCS of soil stabilization.
with an increased percentage of MK geopolymer a higher likelihood of forming geopolymer
gel, this gel acts as a bonding matrix that strengthens the soil
structure, binder particle, and geopolymer gel as shown in Fig.7.

7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
UCS (MPa)

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%

MK (%)

0% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%

Fig.6: scatter for UCS for soil sample mixed with metakaolin.

19
 (a)

(b)

Fig.7: Images of SEM for improved soil, (a) particle of binder, (b) gel of geopolymer. [47]

- According to Fig.3 and Fig.6 the range of MK geopolymer in 8% to 15% in the range of
soil stabilization became stiff to hard soil.
- According to Fig.3 increased temperature causes an increase in UCS in an optimal range
that 20 °C to 40 °C, because the increased temperature can enhance the mobility of
particles within the soil geopolymer.

20
4. Conclusion

Based on the extensive literature review and discussions made in this study, the following
conclusions can be reached:

- soft and weak soils are often stabilized, geopolymer is used to stabilize soil.
- Metakaolin geopolymer is an eco-friendly material in the field of construction and civil
engineering.
- Metakaolin based on geopolymer used for soil stabilization and increased UCS.
- Optimum range of MK geopolymer 8% to 15%.
- Optimum range of temperature 20 °C to 40 °C, that increase UCS of soil stabilized by
MK geopolymer.
- In Table 6 the modeling of geopolymer from the literature is shown.

21
 Table. 6: evaluation of model performance

Equation Dependent Independent R2 SI RMSE MAPE Bias MAE MSE Reference

UCS = - 0.24x + 7.5 UCS (MPa) X = porosity (%) 0.67 - - - - - -

[49]
E50 = -23.4x + 772.8 E50 (MPa) X = porosity (%) 0.65 - - - - - -

E50 = 164 × UCS E50 (MPa) UCS (MPa) 0.92 - - - - - - [62]

Y = 334.33268 + 528.41184 × Y = UCS

X = curing age (day) 0.97661 - - - - - -
In (x - 1.93277) (kPa)
[63]
Y = UCS
Y = 8.21875x + 156.96748 X = curing age (day) 0.97225 - - - - - -
(kPa)

In1= LL (%), PI (%),

OA = ρA (In1)
S(%), FA(%), M,
1 OA = UCS A/B, Na/Al, Si/Al 0.927 0.196 1.049 2.607 0.147 - - [64]
ρA =
1+ ¿ ¿
a, b, c = coefficient

UCS = 0.1978 exp [-

2 2
(¿−0.875) ( PI −0.875)
- ¿+
1.2013 1.2013
2
(¿−1.235) UCS (MPa) LL (%), PI (%) 0.953 - 1.442 - - 0.803 - [65]
1.089 exp [- -
0.387
2
( PI −1.235)
¿
0.387

22
 Y = predicted Y = experimental
Y = 0.96 × T + 0.46 0.9823 - - 8.34 - - 1.5 [66]
UCS (MPa) UCS (MPa)

Table. 6: Continues.

Equation Dependent Independent R2 SI RMSE MAPE Bias MAE MSE Reference

Y = UCS X = curing time

Y = 160.12 + 8.34x 0.966 - - - - - - [67]
(kPa) (day)
UCS = PI (0.161 – 0.0723√ S ) +
0.221 (FA + √ FA ) – 0.0118
(Na/Al) + 1.31 S [1 –
0.22/(Na/Al) – 0.009 S + LL (%), PL (%),

√
0.00206 S /(
Na
Al
) (FA - √ FA +
√ 7.92 PI )] + 0.212 ( S A / B-
UCS (MPa) PI(%), S(%), FA(%),
M, A/B, Na/Al
0.924 - - - - 1.354 3.204

0.0577 S Na/ Al ) – 5.63

UCS = 0.887[PI + (Si/Al) +

(Na/Al)] +0.51 S (1 – 0.0132 S2 LL (%), PL (%),
× (Si/Al)/PL – 4.608 (S – PI(%), S(%), FA(%), [68]
UCS (MPa) 0.937 - - - - 1.239 2.674
FA)/PL(Si/Al) – 5.6 × 10-4 LL × M, A/B, Na/Al,
PL) + 0.0119 (2S + A/B + Si/Al
PL/M)2 – 24.536

LL (%), PL (%),
UCS = -0.0376 PI + 0.329 S +
PI(%), S(%), FA(%),
0.0658 FA + 2.827 A/B + 1.020 UCS (MPa) 0.788 - - - - 2.769 14.722
M, A/B, Na/Al,
Na/Al – 2.59
Si/Al

UCS = 0.0076 LL – 0.795 PL + UCS (MPa) LL (%), PL (%), 0.750 - - - - 2.810 16.204

23
0.316 S + 0.134 FA + 0.247 M PI(%), S(%), FA(%),
+ 4.367 A/B – 0.295 Na/Al – M, A/B, Na/Al,
1.966 Si/ Al + 16.12 Si/Al

Table. 6: Continues.

Equation Dependent Independent R2 SI RMSE MAPE Bias MAE MSE Reference

1
UCS = (0.0015 +
Y 1 ×Y 2
18.46Y25 × Y1 – 0.44 Y12 + 2.42
Y13 – 3.16 Y14 + Y24(-2.32 –
58.72 Y12) + Y1 Y2 (0.337 +
1.95 Y1 – 19.1 Y12 + 30.7 Y13) +
Y23(1.43 + 73.50 Y13) Y22(-0.45
+ 1.24 Y1 + 12.23 Y13 – 60.05
Y14)

Y1 = 1/M (5.8 = 96.37M – UCS (MPa) M, PI (%), S(%) 0.9364 - 0.0522 12.2401 - 0.037 0.0027 [69]
378.6M5 + M3 (-1027.59 –
11.45PI) -0.025PI + M2 (477.8
+ 3.5PI) +M4 (1016.34 +
8.25PI)

Y2 = 1/(PI×S) (5.8 − 96.37M −

378.6M5 + M3 (−1027.59 −
11.45PI) − 0.025PI + M2 (477.8
+ 3.5PI) + M4 (1016.34 +
8.25PI) )

24
Reference:
[1] Iravanian, A., & Haider, A. B. (2020, December). Soil Stabilization Using Waste Plastic Bottles
Fibers: A Review Paper. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 614,
No. 1, p. 012082). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/614/1/012082

[2] Sood, H., Srivastava, V. M., & Singh, G. (2018). Advanced MOSFET Technologies for Next
Generation Communication Systems-Perspective and Challenges: A Review. Journal of
Engineering Science & Technology Review, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.25103/jestr.113.25

[3] Gobinath, R., Akinwumi, I. I., Afolayan, O. D., Karthikeyan, S., Manojkumar, M., Gowtham, S., &
Manikandan, A. (2020). Banana fibre-reinforcement of a soil stabilized with sodium
silicate. Silicon, 12(2), 357-363. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.15.00108

[4] Huang, J., Kogbara, R. B., Hariharan, N., Masad, E. A., & Little, D. N. (2021). A state-of-the-art
review of polymers used in soil stabilization. Construction and Building Materials, 305, 124685.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124685

[5] Jiang, N., Wang, C., Wang, Z., Li, B., & Liu, Y. A. (2021). Strength characteristics and
microstructure of cement stabilized soft soil admixed with silica fume. Materials, 14(8), 1929.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14081929

[6] Nath, S. K., & Kumar, S. (2013). Influence of iron making slags on strength and microstructure of fly
ash geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials, 38, 924-930.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.070

[7] Chenarboni, H. A., Lajevardi, S. H., MolaAbasi, H., & Zeighami, E. (2021). The effect of zeolite and
cement stabilization on the mechanical behavior of expansive soils. Construction and Building
Materials, 272, 121630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121630

[8] Behnood, A. (2018). Soil and clay stabilization with calcium-and non-calcium-based additives: A
state-of-the-art review of challenges, approaches and techniques. Transportation Geotechnics, 17,
14-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.08.002

[9] Abdullah, H. H., Shahin, M. A., & Walske, M. L. (2019). Geo-mechanical behavior of clay soils
stabilized at ambient temperature with fly-ash geopolymer-incorporated granulated slag. Soils and
Foundations, 59(6), 1906-1920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2019.08.005

[10] Afrin, H. (2017). A review on different types soil stabilization techniques. International Journal of
Transportation Engineering and Technology, 3(2), 19-24.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijtet.20170302.12

[11] Rios, S., Ramos, C., Viana da Fonseca, A., Cruz, N., & Rodrigues, C. (2019). Mechanical and
durability properties of a soil stabilised with an alkali-activated cement. European Journal of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, 23(2), 245-267.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2016.1275987

[12] Orts, W. J., Roa-Espinosa, A., Sojka, R. E., Glenn, G. M., Imam, S. H., Erlacher, K., & Pedersen, J.
S. (2007). Use of synthetic polymers and biopolymers for soil stabilization in agricultural,
construction, and military applications. Journal of materials in civil engineering, 19(1), 58-66.

25
 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:1(58)

[13] Sojka, R. E., Bjorneberg, D. L., Entry, J. A., Lentz, R. D., & Orts, W. J. (2007). Polyacrylamide in
agriculture and environmental land management. Advances in agronomy, 92, 75-162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(04)92002-0

[14] Parthiban, D., Vijayan, D. S., Koda, E., Vaverkova, M. D., Piechowicz, K., Osinski, P., & Van Duc,
B. (2022). Role of industrial based precursors in the stabilization of weak soils with geopolymer–A
review. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 16, e00886.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00886

[15] Yang, Q. W., Pei, X. J., & Huang, R. Q. (2019). Impact of polymer mixtures on the stabilization and
erosion control of silty sand slope. Journal of Mountain Science, 16(2), 470-485.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-018-4905-6

[16] Latifi, N., Horpibulsuk, S., Meehan, C. L., Abd Majid, M. Z., Tahir, M. M., & Mohamad, E. T. (2017).
Improvement of problematic soils with biopolymer—an environmentally friendly soil
stabilizer. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 29(2), 04016204.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001706

[17] Davidovits, J. (2002, October). years of successes and failures in geopolymer applications. Market
trends and potential breakthroughs. In Geopolymer 2002 conference (Vol. 28, p. 29). Saint‐
Quentin, France; Melbourne, Australia: Geopolymer Institute.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

[18] Aiken, T. A., Kwasny, J., Sha, W., & Soutsos, M. N. (2018). Effect of slag content and activator
dosage on the resistance of fly ash geopolymer binders to sulfuric acid attack. Cement and
Concrete Research, 111, 23-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.06.011.

[19] Aliques-Granero, J., Tognonvi, M. T., & Tagnit-Hamou, A. (2019). Durability study of AAMs: Sulfate
attack resistance. Construction and Building Materials, 229, 117100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.06.011.

[20] Lahoti, M., Tan, K. H., & Yang, E. H. (2019). A critical review of geopolymer properties for structural
fire-resistance applications. Construction and Building Materials, 221, 514-526.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.076.

[21] Liu, Y., Su, P., Li, M., You, Z., & Zhao, M. (2020). Review on evolution and evaluation of asphalt
pavement structures and materials. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English
Edition), 7(5), 573-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2020.05.003.

[22] Shill, S. K., Al-Deen, S., Ashraf, M., & Hutchison, W. (2020). Resistance of fly ash based
geopolymer mortar to both chemicals and high thermal cycles simultaneously. Construction and
Building Materials, 239, 117886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117886.

[23] Vafaei, M., Allahverdi, A., Dong, P., & Bassim, N. (2018). Acid attack on geopolymer cement mortar
based on waste-glass powder and calcium aluminate cement at mild concentration. Construction
and Building Materials, 193, 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.203.

[24] Yaghoubi, M., Arulrajah, A., Disfani, M. M., Horpibulsuk, S., Bo, M. W., & Darmawan, S. (2018).
Effects of industrial by-product based geopolymers on the strength development of a soft soil. Soils
and foundations, 58(3), 716-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2018.03.005.

26
[25] Abdullah, H. H., Shahin, M. A., & Walske, M. L. (2019). Geo-mechanical behavior of clay soils
stabilized at ambient temperature with fly-ash geopolymer-incorporated granulated slag. Soils and
Foundations, 59(6), 1906-1920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2019.08.005.

[26] Zhang, M., Guo, H., El-Korchi, T., Zhang, G., & Tao, M. (2013). Experimental feasibility study of
geopolymer as the next-generation soil stabilizer. Construction and building materials, 47, 1468-
1478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.017.

[27] Cristelo, N., Glendinning, S., Fernandes, L., & Pinto, A. T. (2013). Effects of alkaline-activated fly
ash and Portland cement on soft soil stabilisation. Acta Geotechnica, 8, 395-405. DOI
10.1007/s11440-012-0200-9.

[28] Ren, B., Zhao, Y., Bai, H., Kang, S., Zhang, T., & Song, S. (2021). Eco-friendly geopolymer
prepared from solid wastes: A critical review. Chemosphere, 267, 128900.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128900.

[29] Shaikh, F. U. A., Fairchild, A., & Zammar, R. (2018). Comparative strain and deflection hardening
behaviour of polyethylene fibre reinforced ambient air and heat cured geopolymer
composites. Construction and Building Materials, 163, 890-900.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.175.

[30] Zou, S., Li, H., Liu, L., Wang, S., Zhang, X., & Zhang, G. (2021). Research on improving
comprehensive properties of a new sawdust composite insulation material by torrefaction. Process
Safety and Environmental Protection, 152, 361-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.06.015.

[31] Soleimani, S., Rajaei, S., Jiao, P., Sabz, A., & Soheilinia, S. (2018). New prediction models for
unconfined compressive strength of geopolymer stabilized soil using multi-gen genetic
programming. Measurement, 113, 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.08.043.

[32] Zeini, H. A., Al-Jeznawi, D., Imran, H., Bernardo, L. F. A., Al-Khafaji, Z., & Ostrowski, K. A. (2023).
Random Forest Algorithm for the Strength Prediction of Geopolymer Stabilized Clayey
Soil. Sustainability, 15(2), 1408. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021408.

[33] Abdila, S. R., Abdullah, M. M. A. B., Ahmad, R., Burduhos Nergis, D. D., Rahim, S. Z. A., Omar, M.
F., ... & Syafwandi. (2022). Potential of soil stabilization using ground granulated blast furnace slag
(GGBFS) and fly ash via geopolymerization method: A Review. Materials, 15(1), 375.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010375

[34] Khademi, F., & Budiman, J. (2016). Expansive soil: causes and treatments. i-Manager's Journal on
Civil Engineering, 6(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1031943

[35] Sharma, A. K., & Sivapullaiah, P. V. (2016). Ground granulated blast furnace slag amended fly ash
as an expansive soil stabilizer. Soils and Foundations, 56(2), 205-212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.02.004

[36] Alam, S., Das, S. K., & Rao, B. H. (2019). Strength and durability characteristic of alkali activated
GGBS stabilized red mud as geo-material. Construction and Building materials, 211, 932-942.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.261

[37] Martins, A. C. P., De Carvalho, J. M. F., Costa, L. C. B., Andrade, H. D., de Melo, T. V., Ribeiro, J.
C. L., ... & Peixoto, R. A. F. (2021). Steel slags in cement-based composites: An ultimate review on
characterization, applications and performance. Construction and Building Materials, 291, 123265.

27
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123265

[38] Phummiphan, I., Horpibulsuk, S., Rachan, R., Arulrajah, A., Shen, S. L., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2018).
High calcium fly ash geopolymer stabilized lateritic soil and granulated blast furnace slag blends as
a pavement base material. Journal of hazardous materials, 341, 257-267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.07.067

[39] Salimi, M., & Ghorbani, A. (2020). Mechanical and compressibility characteristics of a soft clay
stabilized by slag-based mixtures and geopolymers. Applied Clay Science, 184, 105390.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2019.105390

[40] Kang, X., Kang, G. C., Chang, K. T., & Ge, L. (2015). Chemically stabilized soft clays for road-base
construction. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 27(7), 04014199.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001156

[41] Mohammadinia, A., Arulrajah, A., Sanjayan, J., Disfani, M. M., Win Bo, M., & Darmawan, S. (2016).
Stabilization of demolition materials for pavement base/subbase applications using fly ash and slag
geopolymers. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 28(7), 04016033.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001526

[42] Jeremiah, J. J., Abbey, S. J., Booth, C. A., & Kashyap, A. (2021). Geopolymers as Alternative
Sustainable Binders for Stabilisation of Clays: A Review. Geotechnics, 2021; 1: 439-459.
https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics1020021

[43] Wang, S., Xue, Q., Zhu, Y., Li, G., Wu, Z., & Zhao, K. (2021). Experimental study on material ratio
and strength performance of geopolymer-improved soil. Construction and Building Materials, 267,
120469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120469

[44] Zhang, M., Guo, H., El-Korchi, T., Zhang, G., & Tao, M. (2013). Experimental feasibility study of
geopolymer as the next-generation soil stabilizer. Construction and building materials, 47, 1468-
1478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.017

[45] Canakci, H., Güllü, H., & Alhashemy, A. (2019). Performances of using geopolymers made with
various stabilizers for deep mixing. Materials, 12(16), 2542. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12162542

[46] Samuel, R., Puppala, A. J., & Radovic, M. (2020). Sustainability benefits assessment of
metakaolin-based geopolymer treatment of high plasticity clay. Sustainability, 12(24), 10495.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410495

[47] Othman, S., & Abbas, J. M. (2021). Stabilization Soft Clay Soil using Metakaolin Based
Geopolymer. Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, 131-140. doi: 10.24237/djes.2021.14311

[48] Canakci, H., Güllü, H., & Alhashemy, A. (2019). Performances of using geopolymers made with
various stabilizers for deep mixing. Materials, 12(16), 2542. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12162542

[49] Rong-rong, Z., & Dong-dong, M. (2020). Effects of curing time on the mechanical property and
microstructure characteristics of Metakaolin-based geopolymer cement-stabilized silty
clay. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2020, 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9605941

[50] Wassie, T. A., Demir, G., & Köktan, U. (2023). Influence of Curing Time and Initial Moisture Content
on Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer-Stabilized Soft Soil. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6673716

28
[51] Zhang, M., Zhao, M., Zhang, G., Nowak, P., Coen, A., & Tao, M. (2015). Calcium-free geopolymer
as a stabilizer for sulfate-rich soils. Applied Clay Science, 108, 199-207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.02.029

[52] Samuel, R., Puppala, A. J., Banerjee, A., Huang, O., Radovic, M., & Chakraborty, S. (2021).
Improvement of strength and volume-change properties of expansive clays with geopolymer
treatment. Transportation Research Record, 2675(9), 308-320.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211001842

[53] Wang, S., Su, J., Wu, Z., Ma, W., Li, Y., & Hui, H. (2021). Silty clay stabilization using metakaolin-
based geopolymer binder. Frontiers in Physics, 657. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2021.769786

[54] Khadka, S. D., Jayawickrama, P. W., & Senadheera, S. (2018). Strength and shrink/swell behavior
of highly plastic clay treated with geopolymer. Transportation Research Record, 2672(52), 174-184.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118797214

[55] Wang, S., Xue, Q., Ma, W., Zhao, K., & Wu, Z. (2021). Experimental study on mechanical
properties of fiber-reinforced and geopolymer-stabilized clay soil. Construction and Building
Materials, 272, 121914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121914

[56] Abdulkareem, S. O., & Abbas, J. M. (2021, September). Effect of Adding Metakaolin Based
Geopolymer to Improve Soft Clay under Different Conditions. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science (Vol. 856, No. 1, p. 012011). IOP Publishing. doi: 10.1088/1755-
1315/856/1/012011

[57] ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock. (2010). Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic
limit, and plasticity index of soils. ASTM international.

[58] ASTM, D. (2007). Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils.

[59] ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock. (2006). Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil
solids by water pycnometer. ASTM international.

[60] American Society for Testing and Materials. (2013). Standard Test Method for Monotonic
Compressive Strength Testing of Continous Fiber-reinforced Advanced Ceramics with Solid
Rectangular Cross-section Test Specimens at Ambient Temperatures. ASTM International.

[61] ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock. (2009). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 Ft-Lbf/Ft3 (2,700 KN-M/M3)) 1.
ASTM international..

[62] Bhavita Chowdary, V., Ramanamurty, V., & Pillai, R. J. (2021). Experimental evaluation of strength
and durability characteristics of geopolymer stabilised soft soil for deep mixing
applications. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 6, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-
00407-7

[63] ZHOU, H. Y., WANG, X. S., HU, X. X., XIONG, Z. Q., & ZHANG, X. Y. (2021). Influencing factors
and mechanism analysis of strength development of geopolymer stabilized sludge. Rock and Soil
Mechanics, 42(8), 4. https: //doi.org/10.16285/j.rsm.2021.5018

[64] Javdanian, H. (2017). The effect of geopolymerization on the unconfined compressive strength of
stabilized fine-grained soils. International Journal of Engineering, 30(11), 1673-1680.

29
[65] Javdanian, H., & Lee, S. (2019). Evaluating unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils
stabilized with geopolymer: a computational intelligence approach. Engineering with
Computers, 35, 191-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-0592-8

[66] Mozumder, R. A., & Laskar, A. I. (2015). Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of
geopolymer stabilized clayey soil using artificial neural network. Computers and Geotechnics, 69,
291-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.05.021

[67] Zhou, H., Wang, X., Wu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2021). Mechanical properties and micro-mechanisms of
marine soft soil stabilized by different calcium content precursors based geopolymers. Construction
and Building Materials, 305, 124722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124722

[68] Soleimani, S., Rajaei, S., Jiao, P., Sabz, A., & Soheilinia, S. (2018). New prediction models for
unconfined compressive strength of geopolymer stabilized soil using multi-gen genetic
programming. Measurement, 113, 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.08.043

[69] Rezazadeh Eidgahee, D., Rafiean, A. H., & Haddad, A. (2020). A novel formulation for the
compressive strength of IBP-based geopolymer stabilized clayey soils using ANN and GMDH-NN
approaches. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, 44(1),
219-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-019-00263-1

30