Table 1 Summary of recent studies on soil stabilization and reinforcement of lateritic and fine-grained soils.
No. | Authors | Materials | Key findings | Limitation/gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Cabalar et al.27 | Silt with waste limestone powder | Improved strength and compressibility using quarry fines | Durability and field-scale testing lacking |
2 | Cabalar et al.28 | Organic soil plus rock powder | Increased UCS; reduced compressibility | Limited microstructural analysis |
3 | Mohajerani et al.29 | Recycled rubber inclusions | Enhanced ductility; promoted circular economy | Lack of design standardization |
4 | Phummiphan et al.12 | Clay with metal waste | Significant strength gain; good subgrade potential | Only single soil type evaluated |
5 | Phummiphan et al.12 | Lateritic soil plus fly ash geopolymer | Curing time strongly affects UCS | Long-term durability untested |
6 | Al-Taie et al.30 | Lime-treated expansive clay | Reduced swelling, improved strength | SWCC–strength coupling unassessed |
7 | Mohammadinia et al.31 | Recycled C&D plus lime | Improved stiffness and bonding | Environmental impact is not quantified |
8 | Ikechukwu et al.13 | Nano-geopolymer plus expansive soil | Increased resilient modules, reduced cracks | Durability and moisture cycles were not tested |
9 | Onyelowe et al.32 | AI model for geopolymer-treated soil | Reliable prediction of stiffness gains | Requires experimental validation |
10 | Patel et al.33 | Lime-treated laterite | Strength improved; cost-effective vs. cement | No geogrid comparison |
11 | Amare et al.34 | Laterite with hybrid binders | Combined mechanical/chemical treatment effective | Lack of long-term durability data |
12 | Styer et al.10 | Geogrid-reinforced subgrades | Reduced rutting under cyclic load | No comparison with chemical methods |
