|
| Stabilizer | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|
| Ca based materials (CSMs): lime [12, 104–106], cement [107], FA [12, 24], SF [108], GGBS [109], BA [76, 110], CCR [72], POFA [111], GSA [93] | (i) Long-term strength is achieved as a result of pozzolanic reaction which is time-dependent and lasts for longer duration. | (i) The release of deleterious substances contaminate the underground water. The “ultimate” strength gain reaches several years. |
| (ii) Lime-treated soils undergo immediate modification resulting in a relatively denser microstructure and higher strength. | (ii) These cause adverse environmental and economic concerns by vast CO2 emissions. At early modification stages, lime makes the soil less dense. |
| (iii) In viewpoint of economy, usually small amount of material is required as compared with non-CSMs. | (iii) The variation in site conditions with those simulated in a laboratory often leads to marginal errors. |
| (iv) The rate of strength gain is much higher and faster in soil stabilized using cement. | (iv) The brittle failure is undesirable with respect to structural stability. |
| (v) The PI reduction by lime is the highest for problematic Mt. Alternatively, using quicklime due to its elevated reaction temperature enables stabilization in cold regions. | (v) The effect of lime modification in clays containing quartz is almost negligible due to the increased period of curing is essential. |
| (vi) The most commonly used materials comprising aluminosilicates include GGBS and fly ash. | (vi) Class F fly ash contains low calcium and thus requires an activator in order to be used as the stabilizer material. |
|
