ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Mechanical Properties and Durability Performance of Low Liquid Limit Soil Stabilized by Industrial Solid Waste.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Synergistic Utilization of Multi-Source Industrial Solid Wastes in Cementitious Materials: A Comprehensive Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To improve the mechanical and durability properties of low liquid limit soil, an eco-friendly, all-solid, waste-based stabilizer (GSCFC) was proposed using five different industrial solid wastes: ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), steel slag (SS), coal fly ash (CFA), flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, and carbide slag (CS). The mechanical and durability performance of GSCFC-stabilized soil were evaluated using unconfined compressive strength (UCS), California bearing ratio (CBR), and freeze-thaw and wet-dry cycles. The Rietveld method was employed to analyze the mineral phases in the GSCFC-stabilized soil. The optimal composition of the GSCFC stabilizer was determined as 15% SS, 12% GGBS, 16% FGD gypsum, 36% CS, and 12% CFA. The GSCFC-stabilized soil exhibited higher CBR values, with results of 31.38%, 77.13%, and 94.58% for 30, 50, and 98 blows, respectively, compared to 27.23%, 68.34%, and 85.03% for OPC. Additionally, GSCFC-stabilized soil demonstrated superior durability under dry-wet and freeze-thaw cycles, maintaining a 50% higher UCS (1.5 MPa) and a 58.6% lower expansion rate (3.16%) after 15 dry-wet cycles and achieving a BDR of 86.86% after 5 freeze-thaw cycles, compared to 65% for OPC. Rietveld analysis showed increased hydration products (ettringite by 2.63 times, C-S-H by 2.51 times), significantly enhancing soil strength. These findings highlight the potential of GSCFC-stabilized soil for durable road sub-base applications. This research provides theoretical and technical support for the development of sustainable, cost-effective, and eco-friendly soil stabilizers as alternatives to traditional cement-based stabilizers while also promoting the synergistic utilization of multiple solid wastes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.