Durability is a key factor affecting the long-term performance of stabilized pavement materials when exposed to environmental conditions. This study examined the durability and cyclic mechanical behavior of geopolymer-stabilized laterite soil (LS) under repeated wetting–drying (WD) cycles and compared its performance with that of cement-treated LS. Three geopolymer mixtures were prepared using 20%, 30%, and 40% fly ash (FA) combined with 10% ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), activated with NaOH–Na2SiO3 solutions. A mixture stabilized with 12% cement was also included as a reference. The results showed that the geopolymer-stabilized mixtures exhibited significantly superior durability compared with the cement-treated mixture. From 0 to 12 WD cycles, the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) values of the FA30 and FA40 mixtures increased from 1.79 and 1.85 MPa to 7.95 and 7.48 MPa, corresponding to increases of approximately 4.4 and 4.0 times, respectively. Similarly, the splitting tensile strength (STS) values of the FA30 and FA40 mixtures increased to 0.73 and 0.62 MPa after cyclic exposure. In contrast, the cement-treated mixture reached its maximum UCS value of 2.54 MPa after 10 WD cycles and subsequently decreased to 1.73 MPa after 12 WD cycles, indicating the onset of durability degradation under prolonged moisture cycling. In addition, the geopolymer mixtures exhibited substantially lower weight loss (1.3–3.2%) than the cement-treated mixture (approximately 6%) after 12 WD cycles. Cyclic triaxial tests further demonstrated that the geopolymer-stabilized mixtures maintained higher resilient modulus values under repeated loading conditions. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observations together with X-ray diffraction (XRD) results indicated that 30% and 40% FA content promoted the development of a denser geopolymer gel matrix, which helped limit the formation of microcracks during repeated wetting and drying. These results demonstrate the strong potential of geopolymer stabilization for improving the durability of laterite soil under WD conditions. The findings also suggest that 12 WD cycles may still be insufficient for a full assessment of long-term durability because geopolymerization and matrix densification were continuing to develop during the later stages of testing.
HoLSHuynhT-P. Long-term mechanical properties and durability of high-strength concrete containing high-volume local fly ash as a partial cement substitution. Results in Engineering2023; 18: 101113.
2.
HoLSVan-PhamD-THuynhT-P. Strength development and microstructural characterization of eco-cement paste with high-volume fly ash. Results in Engineering2025; 26: 105013.
3.
DavidovitsJ. Geopolymer chemistry and applications. Institut Géopolymère, Saint-Quentin, France, 2008.
4.
HoLSJhangB-JHwangC-L, et al.Development and characterization of a controlled low-strength material produced using a ternary mixture of Portland cement, fly ash, and waste water treatment sludge. J Cleaner Prod2022; 356: 131899.
5.
SinghBIshwaryaGGuptaM, et al.Geopolymer concrete: a review of some recent developments. Constr Build Mater2015; 85: 78–90.
6.
AlmutairiALTayehBAAdesinaA, et al.Potential applications of geopolymer concrete in construction: a review. Case Studies in Construction Materials2021; 15: e00733.
7.
HassanAArifMShariqM. Use of geopolymer concrete for a cleaner and sustainable environment–A review of mechanical properties and microstructure. J Cleaner Prod2019; 223: 704–728.
8.
TayehBAZeyadAMAgwaIS, et al.Effect of elevated temperatures on mechanical properties of lightweight geopolymer concrete. Case Studies in Construction Materials2021; 15: e00673.
9.
MehtaASiddiqueR. An overview of geopolymers derived from industrial by-products. Constr Build Mater2016; 127: 183–198.
10.
YangK-HSongJ-KSongK-I. Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkali-activated concrete. J Cleaner Prod2013; 39: 265–272.
11.
PhummiphanIHorpibulsukSSukmakP, et al.Stabilisation of marginal lateritic soil using high calcium fly ash-based geopolymer. Road Materials and Pavement Design2016; 17: 877–891.
12.
ZhengXWuJ. Early strength development of soft clay stabilized by one-part ground granulated blast furnace slag and fly ash-based geopolymer. Frontiers in Materials2021; 8: 616430.
13.
PhetchuayCHorpibulsukSSuksiripattanapongC, et al.Calcium carbide residue: alkaline activator for clay–fly ash geopolymer. Constr Build Mater2014; 69: 285–294.
14.
ZhangMGuoHEl-KorchiT, et al.Experimental feasibility study of geopolymer as the next-generation soil stabilizer. Constr Build Mater2013; 47: 1468–1478.
15.
OkoyeFNPrakashSSinghNB. Durability of fly ash based geopolymer concrete in the presence of silica fume. J Cleaner Prod2017; 149: 1062–1067.
16.
ShillSKAl-DeenSAshrafM, et al.Resistance of fly ash based geopolymer mortar to both chemicals and high thermal cycles simultaneously. Constr Build Mater2020; 239: 117886.
17.
AlbitarMAliMMVisintinP, et al.Durability evaluation of geopolymer and conventional concretes. Constr Build Mater2017; 136: 374–385.
18.
NgoT-PBuiQ-BPhanVT-A, et al.Durability of geopolymer stabilised compacted earth exposed to wetting–drying cycles at different conditions of pH and salt. Constr Build Mater2022; 329: 127168.
19.
WasimMNgoTDLawD. A state-of-the-art review on the durability of geopolymer concrete for sustainable structures and infrastructure. Constr Build Mater2021; 291: 123381.
20.
NooluVRaoGMChavaliRVP. Strength and durability characteristics of GGBS geopolymer stabilized black cotton soil. Mater Today Proc2021; 43: 2373–2376.
21.
AdhikariBKhattakMJAdhikariS. Mechanical and durability characteristics of flyash-based soil-geopolymer mixtures for pavement base and subbase layers. Int J Pavement Eng2021; 22: 1193–1212.
22.
KazeCRLemougnaPNAlomayriT, et al.Characterization and performance evaluation of laterite based geopolymer binder cured at different temperatures. Constr Build Mater2021; 270: 121443.
23.
FekouaJNNKazeCRDunaLL, et al.Effects of curing cycles on developing strength and microstructure of goethite-rich aluminosilicate (corroded laterite) based geopolymer composites. Mater Chem Phys2021; 270: 124864.
24.
Van EssaLKKazeRCNemaleuJGD, et al.Engineering properties, phase evolution and microstructure of the iron-rich aluminosilicates-cement based composites: cleaner production of energy efficient and sustainable materials. Cleaner Materials2021; 1: 100017.
25.
RazaliRRashidASALatDC, et al.Shear strength and durability against wetting and drying cycles of lime-stabilised laterite soil as subgrade. Phys Chem Earth2023; 132: 103479.
26.
ObonyoEAKamseuELemougnaPN, et al.A sustainable approach for the geopolymerization of natural iron-rich aluminosilicate materials. Sustainability2014; 6: 5535–5553.
27.
VenyitePMakoneECKazeRC, et al.Effect of combined metakaolin and basalt powder additions to laterite-based geopolymers activated by rice husk ash (RHA)/NaOH solution. Silicon2022; 14: 1643–1662.
28.
KazeRCMoungamLMBCannioM, et al.Microstructure and engineering properties of Fe2O3 (FeO)-Al2O3-SiO2 based geopolymer composites. J Cleaner Prod2018; 199: 849–859.
29.
KamseuEKazeCRFekouaJNN, et al.Ferrisilicates formation during the geopolymerization of natural Fe-rich aluminosilicate precursors. Mater Chem Phys2020; 240: 122062.
30.
LemougnaPNMadiABKamseuE, et al.Influence of the processing temperature on the compressive strength of Na activated lateritic soil for building applications. Constr Build Mater2014; 65: 60–66.
31.
LatifiNEisazadehAMartoA. Strength behavior and microstructural characteristics of tropical laterite soil treated with sodium silicate-based liquid stabilizer. Environ Earth Sci2014; 72: 91–98.
32.
PhummiphanIHorpibulsukSRachanR, et al.High calcium fly ash geopolymer stabilized lateritic soil and granulated blast furnace slag blends as a pavement base material. J Hazard Mater2018; 341: 257–267.
33.
ThanasisathitNChompooratTJongpradistP, et al.Toughness enhancement of geopolymer stabilized laterites using para rubber latex for sustainable base and subbase applications. Sci Rep2025; 16: 2147.
34.
Van BuiLHuXDangVQ, et al.Microstructure and physico-mechanical properties of geopolymer stabilized soils considering the influence of precursor contents and curing conditions. Materials Today Communications2025; 49: 113721.
35.
KazeRCNaghizadehATchadjieL, et al.Lateritic soils based geopolymer materials: a review. Constr Build Mater2022; 344: 128157.
36.
ASTM D422-63. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. 2007.
37.
AASHTO Designation: M 145-91. Standard Specification forClassification of Soils and Soil–Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes. 2021.
38.
ASTM C618-03. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete.
39.
AzizIHAbdullahMMABMohd SallehMAA, et al.Strength development of solely ground granulated blast furnace slag geopolymers. Constr Build Mater2020; 250: 118720.
40.
DuxsonPFernández-JiménezAProvisJL, et al.Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. J Mater Sci2007; 42: 2917–2933.
41.
PalomoAGrutzeckMWBlancoMT. Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement for the future. Cem Concr Res1999; 29: 1323–1329.
42.
HorpibulsukSSuksiripattanapongCSamingthongW, et al.Durability against wetting–drying cycles of water treatment sludge–fly ash geopolymer and water treatment sludge–cement and silty clay–cement systems. J Mater Civ Eng2016; 28: 04015078.
43.
AliabdoAAAbd ElmoatyMSalemHA. Effect of cement addition, solution resting time and curing characteristics on fly ash based geopolymer concrete performance. Constr Build Mater2016; 123: 581–593.
44.
ZhangRZhengJBianX. Experimental investigation on effect of curing stress on the strength of cement-stabilized clay at high water content. Acta Geotech2017; 12: 921–936.
45.
ASTM D559-15. Standard Test Methods for Wetting and Drying Compacted Soil Cement Mixtures. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2023 .
46.
The Japanese Geotechnical Society (in Japanese), JIS A 1216. Method for unconfined compression test of soils. Japanese Industrial Standard, Guidance and Basic - Soil Test. 2010.
47.
AASHTO T 307-99. Standard Method of Test for Determining the Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials. 2021.
48.
PuppalaAJHoyosLRPotturiAK. Resilient moduli response of moderately cement-treated reclaimed asphalt pavement aggregates. J Mater Civ Eng2011; 23: 990–998.
49.
HamidWAlnuaimA. Evaluation of the durability and strength of stabilized sabkha soil with geopolymer. Case Studies in Construction Materials2023; 18: e02051.
50.
WuDZhangZChenK, et al.Experimental investigation and mechanism of fly ash/slag-based geopolymer-stabilized soft soil. Appl Sci2022; 12: 7438.
51.
ChindaprasirtPJitsangiamPSakdinakornR, et al.Effects of sulfate attack under wet and dry cycles on strength and durability of cement-stablized laterite. Constr Build Mater2023; 365: 129968.
52.
KampalaAHorpibulsukS. Engineering properties of silty clay stabilized with calcium carbide residue. J Mater Civ Eng2013; 25: 632–644.
53.
KomnitsasKBartzasGKarmaliV, et al.Factors affecting alkali activation of laterite acid leaching residues. Environments2021; 8: 4.
54.
ZhaFSLiuJJXuL, et al.Cyclic wetting and drying tests on heavy metal contaminated soils solidified/stabilized by cement. Chin J Geotech Eng2013; 35: 1246–1252.
55.
NamikawaTKosekiJ. Evaluation of tensile strength of cement-treated sand based on several types of laboratory tests. Soils and Foundations2007; 47: 657–674.
56.
BuiT-TBuiQ-BLimamA, et al.Failure of rammed earth walls: from observations to quantifications. Constr Build Mater2014; 51: 295–302.
57.
BaldovinoJJIzzoRLRoseJL, et al.Strength, durability, and microstructure of geopolymers based on recycled-glass powder waste and dolomitic lime for soil stabilization. Constr Build Mater2021; 271: 121874.
58.
BaldovinoJDJAIzzoRLDSFeltrimF, et al.Experimental study on guabirotuba’s soil stabilization using extreme molding conditions. Geotech Geol Eng2020; 38: 2591–2607.
59.
TesanasinTSuksiripattanapongCVan DucB, et al.Engineering properties of marginal lateritic soil stabilized with one-part high calcium fly ash geopolymer as pavement materials. Case Studies in Construction Materials2022; 17: e01328.
60.
OwusuRAckahFSXiaoY. Effect of wetting and drying cycles on resilient modulus and microstructure characteristics of heterogeneous quicklime-stabilized subgrade. Case Studies in Construction Materials2025; 22: e04009.
61.
KumarPPuppalaAJTingleJS, et al.Resilient characteristics of polymer emulsion-treated sandy soil. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board2022; 2676: 526–538.
62.
ElkadyTAI-MahbashiAAI-ShamraniM. Resilient modulus of lime treated expansive subgrade15th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 2015; 1631–1638. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-603-3-1631.
63.
RiveraJFOrobioACristeloN, et al.Fly ash-based geopolymer as A4 type soil stabiliser. Transportation Geotechnics2020; 25: 100409.
64.
NoralianiAKamarudinARadzuanS, et al.Impact of vibration on double-porosity unsaturated laterite soil with different water contents. In: MATEC Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences, p. 02007.
65.
LiuWHuangXFengX, et al.Compaction and bearing characteristics of untreated and treated lateritic soils with varying moisture content. Constr Build Mater2023; 392: 131893.
66.
HoLSNakaraiKDucM, et al.Analysis of strength development in cement-treated soils under different curing conditions through microstructural and chemical investigations. Constr Build Mater2018; 166: 634–646.
67.
SukmakGSukmakPHorpibulsukS, et al.Generalized strength prediction equation for cement stabilized clayey soils. Appl Clay Sci2023; 231: 106761.
68.
RoshanKChoobbastiAJKutanaeiSS. Evaluation of the impact of fiber reinforcement on the durability of lignosulfonate stabilized clayey sand under wet-dry condition. Transportation Geotechnics2020; 23: 100359.
69.
CristeloNGlendinningSMirandaT, et al.Soil stabilisation using alkaline activation of fly ash for self compacting rammed earth construction. Constr Build Mater2012; 36: 727–735.
70.
CristeloNGlendinningSTeixeira PintoA. Deep soft soil improvement by alkaline activation. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Improvement2011; 164: 73–82.
BernalSAProvisJLWalkleyB, et al.Gel nanostructure in alkali-activated binders based on slag and fly ash, and effects of accelerated carbonation. Cem Concr Res2013; 53: 127–144.
73.
MishraJNandaBPatroSK, et al.Sustainable fly ash based geopolymer binders: a review on compressive strength and microstructure properties. Sustainability2022; 14: 15062.
