ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Comparative Study on the Engineering Performance of Lime- and Cement-Improved Argillaceous Siltstone.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Argillaceous siltstone is widely distributed along expressways in southern China; however, its strong water sensitivity and slaking properties severely restrict its utilization as subgrade fill, particularly under wet-dry cyclic conditions where bearing capacity deteriorates sharply. Existing studies have predominantly focused on mechanical performance evaluation of stabilizers, while systematic comparisons of lime and cement improvement effects and durability evolution under wet-dry cycles remain insufficiently understood. Drawing on the Yongjin Expressway reconstruction and expansion project, this study systematically investigates the durability of lime- and cement-improved argillaceous siltstone fill. Through unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests, California bearing ratio (CBR) tests, and five wetting-drying cycles, the evolution differences in strength development, water stability, and durability between the two improvement schemes are revealed. Results indicate that, under identical stabilizer contents (3-7%) and curing conditions, the UCS and CBR of cement-improved soil are significantly higher than those of lime-improved soil. At the same dosage, the strength of cement-improved soil is approximately 1.5-1.7 times that of lime-improved soil, and the absolute strength gap further widens with increasing dosage. Both stabilizers effectively inhibit water immersion swelling, but the swelling rate of lime-improved soil is about 1.3-1.5 times that of cement-improved soil at the same dosage. At 7% dosage, the swelling rates of cement- and lime-improved soils decrease to 0.40% and 0.60%, respectively, both meeting subgrade fill swelling control requirements. After five wet-dry cycles, the UCS retention rate of 7% cement-improved soil is 78.3%, while that of lime-improved soil is 69.0%; the residual strengths are 507.0 kPa and 303.6 kPa, respectively, both satisfying general subgrade engineering strength requirements. However, the 3% lime-improved soil declines to 47.5 kPa after cycling, falling below the engineering threshold. Integrating strength, deformation, and durability indices, high-grade highway roadbeds and other high-load-bearing sections should prioritize 7% cement improvement, whereas general subgrade sections and locations emphasizing crack resistance may adopt 7% lime improvement as an alternative. Low-dosage (<5%) lime improvement is not recommended for argillaceous siltstone subgrade engineering. The findings provide a scientific basis for the engineering application of argillaceous siltstone as subgrade fill and for optimization of improvement schemes.
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.