Sustainable approaches for soil stabilization: geotechnical and life-cycle perspectives

Q2 Engineering
Kaveh Dehghanian, Hasan Volkan Oral
{"title":"Sustainable approaches for soil stabilization: geotechnical and life-cycle perspectives","authors":"Kaveh Dehghanian,&nbsp;Hasan Volkan Oral","doi":"10.1007/s42107-026-01746-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Sustainable soil stabilization has emerged as a promising strategy for improving weak soils while reducing the environmental impacts associated with conventional cement-based treatments. This study presents a quantitative comparative assessment of four sustainable stabilizers—fly ash (FA), rice husk ash (RHA), lime kiln dust (LKD), and biochar—for the stabilization of low-plasticity clay, integrating geotechnical performance indicators, life-cycle environmental evaluation, and multi-criteria decision analysis. Data synthesized from 27 peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025 were analyzed to evaluate unconfined compressive strength (UCS), permeability reduction, resistance to initial cyclic degradation, carbon emissions, and energy consumption. The results indicate that all four additives improve soil performance relative to untreated clay. Among the evaluated materials, LKD provided the highest mechanical performance, achieving the greatest strength enhancement and the lowest degradation under reported low-cycle loading conditions. Fly ash demonstrated balanced geotechnical and environmental performance, whereas biochar exhibited a carbon-negative life-cycle footprint due to its carbon sequestration potential. Multi-criteria evaluation using the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) ranked LKD as the most favorable overall alternative under equal weighting of engineering and environmental criteria. Unlike previous narrative reviews, this study integrates geotechnical performance, environmental sustainability, transport distance sensitivity, and decision-support analysis into a single comparative framework. The findings highlight the importance of balancing mechanical performance and environmental objectives when selecting sustainable stabilizers for geotechnical infrastructure projects. Limitations associated with heterogeneous literature datasets and the scarcity of long-term field validation data are also discussed to support appropriate interpretation of the results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8513,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Civil Engineering","volume":"27 10","pages":"4933 - 4947"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Civil Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42107-026-01746-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sustainable soil stabilization has emerged as a promising strategy for improving weak soils while reducing the environmental impacts associated with conventional cement-based treatments. This study presents a quantitative comparative assessment of four sustainable stabilizers—fly ash (FA), rice husk ash (RHA), lime kiln dust (LKD), and biochar—for the stabilization of low-plasticity clay, integrating geotechnical performance indicators, life-cycle environmental evaluation, and multi-criteria decision analysis. Data synthesized from 27 peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025 were analyzed to evaluate unconfined compressive strength (UCS), permeability reduction, resistance to initial cyclic degradation, carbon emissions, and energy consumption. The results indicate that all four additives improve soil performance relative to untreated clay. Among the evaluated materials, LKD provided the highest mechanical performance, achieving the greatest strength enhancement and the lowest degradation under reported low-cycle loading conditions. Fly ash demonstrated balanced geotechnical and environmental performance, whereas biochar exhibited a carbon-negative life-cycle footprint due to its carbon sequestration potential. Multi-criteria evaluation using the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) ranked LKD as the most favorable overall alternative under equal weighting of engineering and environmental criteria. Unlike previous narrative reviews, this study integrates geotechnical performance, environmental sustainability, transport distance sensitivity, and decision-support analysis into a single comparative framework. The findings highlight the importance of balancing mechanical performance and environmental objectives when selecting sustainable stabilizers for geotechnical infrastructure projects. Limitations associated with heterogeneous literature datasets and the scarcity of long-term field validation data are also discussed to support appropriate interpretation of the results.

土壤稳定的可持续方法:岩土工程和生命周期的观点
可持续土壤稳定已成为一种有前途的策略,可以改善软弱土壤,同时减少与传统水泥基处理相关的环境影响。本文综合岩土性能指标、生命周期环境评价和多准则决策分析,对粉煤灰(FA)、稻壳灰(RHA)、石灰窑灰(LKD)和生物炭四种可持续稳定剂对低塑性粘土的稳定性进行了定量比较评价。研究人员分析了2020年至2025年间发表的27项同行评审研究的综合数据,以评估无侧限抗压强度(UCS)、渗透率降低、对初始循环降解的抵抗力、碳排放和能源消耗。结果表明,与未经处理的粘土相比,四种添加剂均能改善土壤的性能。在所评估的材料中,LKD提供了最高的力学性能,在报道的低循环加载条件下实现了最大的强度增强和最低的退化。粉煤灰表现出平衡的岩土和环境性能,而生物炭由于其碳固存潜力而表现出碳负的生命周期足迹。使用TOPSIS (Order Preference Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution)的多标准评价方法,在工程和环境标准的同等权重下,将LKD评为最有利的整体方案。与以往的叙述性评论不同,本研究将岩土性能、环境可持续性、运输距离敏感性和决策支持分析整合到一个单一的比较框架中。研究结果强调了在为岩土基础设施项目选择可持续稳定剂时,平衡机械性能和环境目标的重要性。还讨论了与异构文献数据集相关的局限性和长期现场验证数据的稀缺性,以支持对结果的适当解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering Engineering-Civil and Structural Engineering
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing) welcomes articles and research contributions on topics such as:- Structural analysis and design - Earthquake and structural engineering - New building materials and concrete technology - Sustainable building and energy conservation - Housing and planning - Construction management - Optimal design of structuresPlease note that the journal will not accept papers in the area of hydraulic or geotechnical engineering, traffic/transportation or road making engineering, and on materials relevant to non-structural buildings, e.g. materials for road making and asphalt.  Although the journal will publish authoritative papers on theoretical and experimental research works and advanced applications, it may also feature, when appropriate:  a) tutorial survey type papers reviewing some fields of civil engineering; b) short communications and research notes; c) book reviews and conference announcements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书