Skip to main content
Download PDF

Reutilization of solid wastes to improve the hydromechanical and mechanical behaviors of soils — a state-of-the-art review

Sustainable Environment Research volume 33, Article number: 17 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

The rapid urbanization, industrialization, and population growth have led to a considerable rise in solid waste production, highlighting the need for efficient solid waste management and recycling methods. To address the challenge of solid waste production, an alternative solution is to repurpose it in geotechnical engineering. This offers promising benefits as solid waste exhibits various mechanisms that can improve soil's hydromechanical and mechanical behaviors. This review aims to comprehensively analyze the effects and potential application of various solid waste types to stabilize and reinforce soil. The impacts and research trends of industrial waste, such as fly ash, red mud, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, and construction and demolition waste, as well as agricultural and municipal solid wastes, including rice husk ash, press mud, used waste tires, and face masks, on soil properties were identified. The findings contribute to a better understanding of the potential of solid waste as a sustainable and cost-effective solution for improving soil quality, highlighting new research themes in this area. A wide range of innovative methods to stabilize and reinforce soil have also been proposed; however, ingenious and effective containment techniques, as well as addressing the potential impacts of climate change on stabilized and reinforced soils (SRS), still need to be developed for robust field applications. This state-of-the-art review offers useful insights into the reutilization of solid wastes as a promising alternative for improving the hydromechanical and mechanical behaviors of SRS.

1 Introduction

Solid wastes are produced during various activities and are non-liquid or non-gaseous in nature. The increase in human population along with rapid urbanization and industrialization has created large amounts of waste. According to the World Bank [1], in 2016, the average amount of solid waste was approximately 0.74 kg cap−1 d−1 and the annual amount of solid waste was approximately 2010 Mt. Moreover, the latter is expected to reach 3400 Mt by 2025. This waste poses a risk to all living things, as well as the environment. Therefore, proper solid waste management/reutilization is necessary to mitigate the problems related to the generation of large accumulations of solid waste.

Waste management aims to provide sanitary living conditions by reducing the amount of material entering or leaving society and encouraging material reutilization within society [2]. The general processes of waste management are (a) the collection, handling, and transport of wastes and (b) the processing, disposal or recycling, and treatment of wastes [2, 3]. Typical methods for managing solid waste include composting, incineration, recycling, and disposal in landfills or open dumps. Figure 1 shows that approximately 40, 19, and 11% of waste is disposed in landfills, recycled and composted, and incinerated, respectively. Because the amount of waste generated, waste composition and income vary among countries, considerable research has been conducted to investigate appropriate solid waste management practices in different countries to minimize environmental pollution and maximize resource recovery [4,5,6,7,8,9,10].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Solid waste management methods (Kaza et al. [1] with modifications, data in 2018)

Full size image

Numerous researchers have recently demonstrated that using solid wastes in geotechnical engineering, especially in stabilized and reinforced soils (SRS), is a suitable solid waste management method. SRS results have been reported by adding various types of additives, including chemicals [11,12,13,14,15,16], biochemicals [17,18,19], fibers [20,21,22], and solid wastes, to improve their weak engineering properties. Traditional stabilizing agents may have negative impacts on the environment and ecology [23, 24]; for example, the production of cement or lime consumes high amounts of energy and can result in carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) emission [25, 26]. Accordingly, different researchers have explored the use of solid wastes as an alternative material to ensure that the geotechnical properties of problem soils meet the minimum standard requirement [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36].

Despite the effectiveness of many waste materials in enhancing soil behaviors, the use of various waste materials for forming SRS and their soil improvement mechanisms have yet to be fully understood. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of various solid wastes that have been widely studied or applied in the context of SRS, including their mechanisms and remarks related to soil improvement and hydromechanical and mechanical properties of SRS. The state-of-the-art review will serve as a valuable guide for researchers and practitioners in the field of SRS, while also highlighting areas that require further investigation.

2 Solid wastes used for forming SRS

This section presents the solid wastes that have been used as stabilizers and that can improve the hydromechanical and mechanical properties of problem soils, including fly ash (FA), red mud (RM), ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), construction and demolition (C&D) waste, rice husk ash (RHA), press mud (PM), waste tire, and face mask (FM). The solid wastes are classified into (a) industrial, (b) agricultural, and (c) municipal solid waste, as listed in Table 1. The effects of each solid waste on the hydromechanical and mechanical properties of problem soils are presented, and the problems and shortcomings in the application of each type of solid waste as a soil stabilizer are discussed.

Table 1 Classification of solid waste
Full size table

2.1 Industrial solid wastes used for forming SRS

Industrial solid waste refers to waste generated from industrial activities, including any solid material that becomes useless during the manufacturing process [37]. Some of the research related to using industrial solid wastes for forming SRS are described in the following sections.

2.1.1 FA

FA is a by-product of the burning of pulverized coal in thermal power plants [38, 39]. According to a survey [40], approximately 780 Mt of FA are produced globally each year. The reutilization of FA has significant environmental and economic benefits because it contains SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, and CaO, which have potential pozzolanic reactivity [41], low unit weight and compressibility [28], and are cost-effective and energy-efficient [28]. FA can be divided into Class C and Class F according to the type of coal burned, corresponding to high-lime and low-lime FAs, respectively [27, 42]. The use of FA as pozzolanic material to replace cement has been extensively investigated. For instance, Sezer et al. [27] investigated the effects of high-lime FA (Class C) on the strength characteristics of a soft clay subgrade of a military zone in Izmir, Turkey. The results showed that the inclusion of FA improved the soil properties, including unconfined compressive strength, qu, and shear strength parameters (cohesion, c, and internal friction angle, ϕ), and the effects of FA increased with the increase in curing time (t) and content (Fig. 2). The improvement in soil properties after treatment with FA is attributed to the pozzolanic reaction and pore refinement effect of FA, as well as its high free-lime content. In addition, multiple regression models for predicting the qu, c, and ϕ of the FA-treated soil, as shown in Eqs. (1, 2, 3), respectively, have been developed.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Relationship among curing time, FA content, and (a) qu; (b) c; (c) ϕ of FA-treated clayey soil

Full size image
$$\mathrm{q}_{u}(\mathrm{kN m}^{-2}) = 247.1034 + 22.2932 \times \mathrm{ FA}(\mathrm{\%}) + 7.5042 \times \mathrm{ t }(\mathrm{d})$$
(1)
$$\mathrm{c }(\mathrm{kN m}^{-2}) = 20.7375 + 9.9473 \times \mathrm{ FA}(\mathrm{\%}) + 11.9468 \times \mathrm{ t }(\mathrm{d})$$
(2)
$$\upphi (^\circ ) = 17.3267 + 0.5083 \times \mathrm{ FA}(\mathrm{\%}) + 0.0698 \times \mathrm{ t }(\mathrm{d})$$
(3)

The above-mentioned study confirms that FA can improve soil characteristics. Additionally, some researchers have found that incorporating an activator or secondary additive can further enhance the soil-stabilization effects of FA [29, 30, 43]. For example, Karami et al. [29] conducted a series of mechanical tests, including California bearing ratio (CBR), standard Proctor compaction, aided with various microscopic tests, including scanning electron microscope (SEM), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) tests, which help identify the mechanisms involved in soil stabilization, to evaluate of the role of secondary additives, such as lime, calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA) cement, enzymes, and polymers in improving Class F FA-treated soil. Their results revealed that adding secondary additives can further enhance the strength of FA-treated soil, with the addition of lime and enzymes to FA-treated soil producing the best performance (highest CBR value). This may be due to the combined effect of the formation of pozzolanic and cementitious products and density enhancement. Accordingly, it can be concluded that Class C FA, owing to its high lime content, might have a better reaction with soil, resulting in more effective stabilization. Therefore, Class C FA presents an opportunity for applications where there is no need for secondary additives, thereby offering a more cost-effective alternative for a wide range of stabilization applications. The various studies on FA used for forming SRS are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Use of FA for forming SRS
Full size table

2.1.2 RM

RM is the reddish–brown alkaline by-product of bauxite processing during alumina production. Depending on the grade of raw bauxite and the type of alumina extraction process, RM can be divided into Bayer RM, sintering RM, and combined process RM, of which more than 95% is Bayer RM [45,46,47,48,49]. An estimated 120 Mt of RM are produced globally each year [50]. Due to the strong alkalinity and hydrolysis of RM, the addition of RM to the soil as a partial alternative to cementitious material (e.g., cement and lime) can boost the pozzolanic, carbonization, and ion exchange reactions to generate more cementitious gels, such as hydrated calcium silicate (C–S–H), hydrated calcium aluminate (C–A–H), hydrated calcium silico–aluminate (C–A–S–H), and ettringite [51], leading to a denser structure. The pozzolanic mechanism can be explained by reactions, as shown in Eqs. (4, 5, 6):

$${\mathrm{Ca}}^{2+}+2\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)^{-}+{\mathrm{SiO}}_{2 }\to \mathrm{C}-\mathrm{S}-\mathrm{H}$$
(4)
$${\mathrm{Ca}}^{2+}+2\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)^{-}+ {\mathrm{Al}}_{2}{\mathrm{O}}_{3}\to \mathrm{C}-\mathrm{A}-\mathrm{H}$$
(5)
$${\mathrm{Ca}}^{2+}+2\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)^{- }+{\mathrm{SiO}}_{2 }+{\mathrm{Al}}_{2 }{\mathrm{O}}_{3} \to \mathrm{C}-\mathrm{A}-\mathrm{S}-\mathrm{H}$$
(6)

Chen et al. [31] evaluated the dynamic characteristics and environmental impact (dynamic stress, σd, moisture content, w, confining pressure, σ3, and loading frequency, f) of loess treated with a combination of RM and a small amount of cement (RM-cement) under adverse conditions. The results demonstrated that σd and w have a greater effect on treated loess than σ3 and f. The higher w significantly reduced the dynamic load resistance of the treated loess; however, the addition of RM-cement can still improve the microstructure and water sensitivity of the loess. The enhancement in the loess dynamic characteristic via the addition of RM-cement can be attributed to the pore filling effect, the dissolution of active ions, and strong alkalinity, which promote the pozzolanic reaction to produce more gelation. Wan et al. [32] conducted a series of experimental tests, including unconfined compressive strength (UCS), hydraulic conductivity, and microscopic tests to investigate potential use of combination of RM and phosphogypsum (PG) in improving cement-treated marine dredged clay (MDC). MDC mixed with 5% RM and 5% PG exhibited higher UCS, which is attributable to the alkaline environment and Ca2+ produced by RM and PG, respectively, significantly increasing the early strength. In addition, SO42− produced by PG promotes the breaking of Si–O and Al–O bonds in the RM and MDC in an alkaline environment, resulting in the generation of more cementitious gels (C–S–H, C–A–H, C–A–S–H, and ettringite). The studies on the use of RM for forming SRS are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Use of RM for forming SRS
Full size table

2.1.3 GGBS

GGBS is a by-product of the iron manufacturing industry. During the manufacture of iron, iron oxides, coke, and limestone are fed into a blast furnace, where the iron oxides are reduced to iron and separated from the molten slag (known as blast-furnace slag). When the molten slag is rapidly quenched by granulation in water, it forms a fine, granular, mostly non-crystalline, glassy substance, namely, granulated blast-furnace slag. GGBS is then obtained by drying and grounding the granulated blast-furnace slag into a fine powder. According to research, the annual global production of GGBS is approximately 530 Mt [52]. GGBS is mainly composed of calcium, aluminum, silica, magnesium, and oxygen [53,54,55]. Because GGBS is a latently hydraulic material, it is usually blended with cement or activated by lime for soil stabilization [35, 36]. GGBS used alone exhibits a slow hydration rate and, therefore, a very low early strength. Thus, chemical activation is required to increase its hydration rate and produce compounds such as C–S–H, C–A–H, or C–A–S–H [33, 34]. Many chemicals can be used as GGBS activators, among which NaOH, Na2CO3, Na2O·nSiO2 (water glass), CaO, and Na2SO4 are the most widely used and economical [34]. Lime-GGBS has been used for soil stabilization for more than 10 years, most of which involve the suppression of expansion associated with sulfates or sulfides in lime-treated soil incorporating GGBS [33, 34, 36, 56].

Yi et al. [36] used quick lime and hydrated lime to activate GGBS for marine soft clay stabilization and compared the result to the use of cement. The results demonstrated that both types of lime-activated GGBS-treated marine soft clays achieved a higher UCS than cement-treated soil when the lime/GGBS ratio (by dry weight) was larger than 0.1. The quick lime-activated GGBS-treated marine soft clay cured for 7 and 28 d yielded slightly higher UCS than hydrated lime-activated GGBS-treated marine soft clay, whereas opposite results were observed in the sample cured for 90 d. This may be because that, under the content, quick lime is hydrated to become more hydrated lime, which improves the early-age GGBS-activating effect and reduces the water content of marine soft clay. On the other hand, the binding capacity of C–S–H decreases with increasing Ca/Si ratio, resulting in a relatively low UCS in marine soft clay cured for 90 d. Because the weight of quick lime increases by 1.32 times after hydration to form hydrated lime, a relatively lower UCS can be achieved in the marine soft clay treated with quick lime-activated GGBS.

Reactive MgO has recently been determined to be more efficient than Ca(OH)2 in activating GGBS, resulting in a higher soil strength development rate. A series of tests, including UCS, permeability, and nondestructive analyses, were conducted by Yi et al. [33] to compare the improvement in MgO-activated and lime-activated GGBS-treated soil. The results showed that at optimum GGBS/MgO ratios of 19:1–4:1, varying with additive content and curing duration, MgO-activated GGBS-treated soil yielded higher UCS than lime-activated GGBS-treated soil. In MgO-activated GGBS-treated soil, hydrotalcite, in addition to hydration products similar to those of cement, was produced. The studies on GGBS used for forming SRS are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Use of GGBS for forming SRS
Full size table

2.1.4 C&D waste

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency [57], C&D waste refers to waste generated when new building and civil engineering infrastructures are constructed by demolishing or renovating existing buildings or civil engineering infrastructures, including concrete, brick, reclaimed asphalt, steel, timber, plastics, and other building materials and products (Fig. 3). The rapid growth of the infrastructure sector has resulted in the generation of large amounts of construction waste globally [58]. This waste is mostly dumped on already scarce landfill sites, causing land, resource, and material depletion and deterioration [59, 60]. Due to the increasing scarcity of natural resources and the growing cost of disposal in landfills in many countries, researchers around the world have been driven to seek more sustainable solutions to these problems and reuse waste materials. In particular, the use of recycled C&D waste in geotechnical engineering applications has gained popularity.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Blast demolition and rubber recycling of the building (adopted from Blengini [61])

Full size image

Recycled concrete aggregate (RCA), crushed brick (CB), waste rock (WR), reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), and fine recycled glass (FRG) are the five predominant types of C&D wastes. In addition to being used as an additive to improve soil performance, C&D waste has been utilized alone as a geomaterial in applications such as pavement subbase or as fill material for geosynthetic reinforced infrastructures. Therefore, their geotechnical properties are studied by various researchers as presented in Table 5 [62]. Because C&D waste is pozzolanic, it has the potential for soil stabilization [63]. Sharma and Hymavathi [63] investigated the effects of FA, pulverized C&D waste, and lime use on the geotechnical characteristics of clayey soil via a number of tests, including differential free swell, pH, compaction, UCS, and CBR tests. The C&D waste used in the study is mainly composed of a cement concrete layer covered by a cement-sand-rich mortar layer with tiling above. The results revealed that the addition of C&D waste decreased differential free swell and maximized dry density but increased pH, UCS, and soaked CBR. Such an improvement can be attributed to the pozzolanic reaction between soil and C&D waste. Cristelo et al. [64] investigated the stabilization of pulverized C&D waste with a high fine content using alkali-activated FA. The mechanical behavior was assessed through UCS tests, and the reaction products were characterized via XRD, FT-IR, SEM, and back-scattered electron microscopy (BSEM)/energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. The elemental constitution of C&D waste allowed C–A–S–H gel formation in the early stage under alkaline activation, whereas the progressive addition of FA promoted the coexistence of C–A–S–H and N–A–S–H gels, especially after 4 weeks of curing. The formation of the gels improves the UCS results. Hasan et al. [65] investigated the effect of GGBS and C&D waste on bentonite clay stabilization through UCS tests and microanalysis tests (SEM, XRD, and energy dispersive spectrometer). The increase in UCS after the addition of GGBS and C&D waste, with long curing, was pronounced. This may be due to the formation of structural bonds between additives and bentonite in treated soil, considering slag crystals and bentonite particles were observed to occupy cavities and vesicles on C&D waste particles. Moreover, no significant improvement was observed if only C&D waste was added to the soil. The above literature suggests that C&D waste has a high potential for soil stabilization. The studies on the role of C&D waste used for forming SRS are summarized in Table 6.

Table 5 Geotechnical properties of C&D waste [62]
Full size table
Table 6 Use of C&D waste for forming SRS
Full size table

2.2 Agricultural solid wastes used for forming SRS

Agricultural solid waste refers to waste from the growing and processing of raw agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, and other crops [69, 70]. The following sections of this review will focus on SRS based on RHA and PM.

2.2.1 RHA

Rice husk is an agricultural solid waste obtained from the outer cover of rice during milling. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) [71], global rice production in 2020 was approximately 757 Mt. An estimated 23% of rice husk is from rice production [72], and approximately 174 Mt per year of rice husk is generated worldwide. Generally, rice husk is disposed of by dumping or burning in boilers. The RHA produced by burning rice husk is approximately 20% of its weight [73]. RHA reacts with CaO and SiO2 to produce C–S–H, which is the main parameter affecting SRS. Previous studies investigated the addition of RHA and other materials for soil stabilization, and the results have revealed that RHA is a promising secondary material for improving lime or cement-treated soil [74,75,76]. Basha et al. [74] evaluated the properties of residual soil treated with RHA, cement, and a combination thereof via a series of experimental tests, including Atterberg limits, compaction, UCS and durability, and CBR tests. The results showed that RHA can improve the properties (reduction in PI and increase in strength and resistance to immersion) of the residual soil either solely or mixed with cement. In general, the addition of 6–8% of cement and 10–15% RHA to the residual soil produced the optimum improvement in the soil properties.

To maximize the pozzolanic reactivity of RHA, some treatments such as grinding, acid/alkali, and calcium-based material excitation can be used to improve the physical and chemical properties of RHA. By grinding RHA to smaller particle size, surface energy, electrostatic Coulomb forces, and van der Waals forces between particles of the RHA can be improved, thereby enhancing the pozzolanic and filling effects of RHA [77]. Moreover, leaching rice husks with acetic acid and oxalic acid before burning them to RHA improved the purity, reactivity, brightness, surface area, and pore volume [78]. The studies on the use of RHA used for forming SRS are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7 Use of RHA for forming SRS
Full size table

2.2.2 PM

PM is one of the solid wastes left after sugarcane juice filtration in sugar industries and is also known as sugar filter mud or filter cake [81]. According to FAO [71], the global annual production of sugarcane reached 1870 Mt in 2020. PM is conservatively estimated to account for approximately 2% of the total sugarcane mass, and therefore, approximately 37.4 Mt of PM are annually generated worldwide [82]. By-product wastes from the production of sugar from sugarcane include sugarcane trash, bagasse waste, ash, PM, and spent wash [83], of which bagasse and PM have higher economic values [84]. Currently, PM is used in soil fertilization, as a bio-sorbent, as animal feed, and as a source of chemicals, with a large amount of PM being landfilled [81, 85]; however, the application of PM to soil stabilization is relatively unexplored. Because the general compositions of PM are sugar, fiber, crude wax, crude protein, SiO2, CaO, P2O5, MgO, and total ash (Table 8) [86], it has the potential for use in soil stabilization. For example, fiber, as a tension-resisting material, could be used to reinforce soil to improve its shear strength, density, and compressibility [87, 88]. Notably, if the organic content of PM (fiber) exceeds a certain amount, it may be detrimental to stabilization [44]. Sugar indicates the presence of saccharides, which allow the material to function as a hydrocolloid [89] and form adhesive gels that act as connecting bridges between soil particles, thus increasing the cohesion and mechanical strength of the soil [90]. However, if the sugar is in the form of sucrose, it may reduce the strength development of cement-treated soil [91]. The pore filling effects caused by the presence of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in PM may densify the soil matrix and enhance the soil strength. When PM is used as a partial lime replacement material, its high CaO content can provide additional calcium ions to increase electrolyte concentration and ion exchange capacity thereby decreasing the plasticity achieved by lime [85]. Notably, the presence of phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) in PM is known to affect strength development [89].

Table 8 General composition of PM [86]
Full size table

James [85] investigated the potential of PM as a secondary material to improve lime-treated expansive soil. The results revealed that the benefits of adding PM to lime-treated expansive soil are pronounced in immediate and early strengths, suggesting its potential use as a strength accelerator in lime-treated soil. The strength enhancement in lime-treated expansive soil reaches peaks when the PM content is 0.25%. When the PM content exceeds 0.25%, the strength enhancement decreases due to the high organic content (15–30% in PM as reported by Partha and Sivasubramanian [86]). The addition of PM to lime-treated expansive soil modifies the mineral types formed during pozzolanic reactions, thus affecting the strength enhancement. Gumanta et al. [92] investigated the effect of PM as an alternative material for improving the performance of mudstone soil through a series of experimental tests including UCS, free swell, one-dimensional consolidation, and three-dimensional volumetric shrinkage tests. Besides, microstructural analyses were carried out to identify the mechanisms involved in forming SRS. Unlike other studies, in this study, PM was used alone to improve soil behavior. The results indicated that PM could act as a binder, effectively enhancing both the peak and postpeak strengths of mudstone soils. Additionally, treatment with PM improved swelling and shrinkage characteristics. However, the addition of PM also led to a slight increase in the compressibility of mudstone soils. It should be noted that no detrimental effects on mudstone soil stabilization were observed. Microstructural analyses revealed that the enhanced performance of mudstone soil with the addition of PM can be attributed to the formation of additional cementitious gels (C–S–H, C–A–H, and C–A–S–H gels). The studies on the role of PM for forming SRS are summarized in Table 9.

Table 9 Use of PM for forming SRS
Full size table

2.3 Municipal solid wastes used for forming SRS

Municipal solid waste refers to waste generated by households, offices, small-scale institutions, and commercial enterprises and managed by the municipality [3]. The studies related to waste tires and FM used for forming SRS are presented in the following sections.

2.3.1 Waste tire

Over the past decades, the increasing volume of waste tires and the difficulties associated with their proper disposal have led to worsening environmental problems. Approximately 263.4 million scrap tires were generated in the United State in 2019, approximately 15% of which are disposed of in landfills [93]. Therefore, identifying alternatives for the beneficial reuse of discarded tires represents an acute need. Due to unique properties, such as high durability, promising strength and compressibility, resiliency, and high frictional resistance, waste tires offer significant value in terms of reutilization in a wide variety of geotechnical engineering applications, including as lightweight fill and use in embankment construction [94, 95]. According to ASTM D6270-20 [96], scrap tires are classified into granulated tires (dimensions from 425 μm to 12 mm), tire chips (dimensions from 12 to 50 mm), and tire shreds (dimensions from 50 to 305 mm). Many studies have investigated the performance of diverse types of soils mixed with waste tires of dissimilar sizes, which have confirmed that waste tire has potential as an alternative material in geotechnical engineering applications [94, 95, 97,98,99,100].

Ghadr et al. [99] conducted a series of experimental tests, including consistency limit and linear shrinkage, UCS, free swell, and filter paper tests, to determine the optimum granulated tire content for use in expansive soil. The results showed that the addition of granulated tire to the expansive soil substantially decreased the swelling potential, modestly reduced the compression index, and lowered the bulk density. The inclusion of granulated tires resulted in a decrease in shear strength and stiffness, but an increase in failure strain, exhibiting a ductile postpeak plastic behavior. Expansive soil mixed with 15–20% granulated tire by dry weight appeared optimal for improving the soil properties. A series of consolidated drained (CD) triaxial compression tests were performed by Zornberg et al. [95] to evaluate the optimum content and aspect ratio (defined as the ratio of the length to width of an individual tire shred) of waste tire shreds in sands. The stress–strain and volumetric strain behaviors of the tire shred–sand mixture were affected by the tired shred content and aspect ratio. The optimum shred tire content, leading to the maximum shear strength, is approximately 35%. Under the same tire shred content, increasing the aspect ratio (from 1 to 8) of the tire shred led to an increase in overall shear strength. This increase may be attributed to the tensile force induced by the presence of tired shreds. Additionally, the effects of waste tires on the liquefaction resistance of silty sand have been studied by Ghadr et al. [94]. The waste tire has a relatively higher elasticity than sand; thus, it lends a damping effect to elements, relaxes skeletal stresses, and reduces the chance of sand particles' contact destruction, thereby further increasing the liquefaction resistance. The studies on waste tires used for forming SRS are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10 Use of waste tire for forming SRS
Full size table

2.3.2 FM

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of personal protective equipment, such as FM, has drastically increased worldwide. Approximately 129 billion FMs were being disposed of into the environment monthly as of June 2020 [101]. Although useful in preventing the spread of COVID-19, FMs end up in landfill or being incinerated. The increase in FM disposal has led to an increased demand for incinerators and landfill capacity, posing a threat to the environment and economy. Energy consumption and carbon production during incineration often exceed the amount stipulated in the carbon neutralization policy agreed upon by many countries. Meanwhile, FMs, which are nonbiodegradable, reportedly take hundreds of years to break down in landfills [87].

In general, the main components of the FM are nonwoven fabric, melt-blown nonwoven fabric, and polypropylene composite fiber [87]. Because of their flexibility, they have the potential to improve soil properties. Recently, some studies have investigated the potential of using FM for reinforcing soils [87, 102,103,104]. Ghadr et al. [87] explored the applicability of shredded FMs as an alternative for sand reinforcement by conducting a series of consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial compression tests. The experimental results revealed that using shredded FM as reinforcing material can considerably improve the undrained shear strength of the sands and produce dilative and strain-hardening behaviors. Such improvements increased with increasing FM length and decreasing D50 (diameter corresponding to 50% finer) of the sample. The strengthening effect of FM is likely due to the enhanced interface interaction between FM and sand. To evaluate the static and dynamic behaviors of granular soil reinforced with FM chips, Zhang et al. [102] conducted a series of monotonic and cyclic triaxial tests with various confining pressure and FM chip contents. The results indicated that the addition of FM chips to granular soil results in an increase in the shear strength and internal friction but a reduction in the stiffness, shear dilatancy, and delayed peak state under monotonic loading. Meanwhile, under cyclic loading, the energy absorption capacity increased significantly with the increase in FM chip content, and the settlement slightly increased; however, the resilience modulus decreased. The increase in strength caused by the addition of FM chips can be explained by the FM chip exerting additional tension on the surrounding particles to suppress their movement. The studies on FM used for forming SRS are summarized in Table 11.

Table 11 Use of FM for forming SRS
Full size table

3 Other solid wastes used for forming SRS

In addition to the above-mentioned solid wastes, Table 12 summarizes some other solid wastes used for forming SRS, including lime kiln dust (LKD), calcium carbide residue (CCR), recycled bassanite, and bagasse ash, with a brief description of their source, composition, and soil improvement mechanism.

Table 12 Summary of some other solid wastes used for forming SRS
Full size table

4 Discussion

4.1 Mechanisms behind SRS

From the introduction of waste management as applied in soil stabilization, several mechanisms facilitate the use of solid waste for forming SRS, including pore filling, cementation of hydration products, and reinforcement. A summary of these mechanisms is illustrated in Table 13.

Table 13 Summary of mechanisms behind SRS
Full size table

4.2 Discussion on potential toxic elements present in solid wastes

In recent years, environmental pollution by potential toxic elements in waste has garnered increasing attention. Potential toxic elements refer to chemical elements, including metals and nonmetals that, in high concentrations, can cause potentially harmful effects on organisms [106]. Metal(loid)s, such as chromium, arsenic, selenium, cadmium, mercury, and lead, are extensively employed in various industrial processes, posing a significant challenge in the management of solid waste due to their potential acute and chronic hazards to both human health and ecosystems [106,107,108]. Therefore, it is essential to consider the potential toxicity of solid waste generated from industrial processes (such as industrial solid waste and municipal solid waste). Table 14 lists the potential toxic substances present in the industrial and municipal solid waste discussed in this study. It is important to note that while the high alkalinity of RM makes its disposal a major challenge and poses serious environmental issues, such as groundwater pollution, it can also be utilized as an environmental remediation material for wastewater purification, waste gas purification, and soil remediation [49, 109]. As an aqueous solution adsorbent, RM can effectively remove various pollutants, including inorganic anions such as phosphate, fluoride, ferricyanide, boron, and nitrate, heavy metals like As, Cr, Pb, and Cu, as well as organic pollutants [109]. Moreover, it has been reported that alkali-activated GGBS exhibits superior capability for immobilizing heavy metals [110]. The treatment of waste with waste is an efficient method for environmental protection as it allows for the simultaneous treatment of multiple wastes, resulting in a positive outcome.

Table 14 Potential toxic substances present in the industrial and municipal solid wastes
Full size table

A major concern in utilizing solid waste generated from industrial processes is the leachate generated, which may pollute groundwater beyond the allowable limits set by the World Health Organization and US EPA. Few studies have examined metal leaching from mixtures of soil and solid waste generated from industrial processes in recent years [116,117,118]. For example, Goswami and Mahanta [116] investigated the leaching characteristic of heavy metals from residual lateritic soil stabilized with FA and lime through a single batch leaching test and column leaching tests. Their results revealed that the high pH induced by lime addition helps to retain most of the metals within the treated soil matrix.

Additionally, many researchers have investigated the treatment for reducing leaching [119,120,121], among which the most common and effective method is the use of various additives to immobilize the hazardous element present in solid waste generated from industrial processes. The main purpose of this method is to minimize the solubility, leaching, and toxicity of the contaminants. Importantly, Ghadr et al. [122] also emphasized the significance of containment techniques for the SRS and suggested that a new technique and precautions should be taken for field-scale applications.

5 Summary and future work

This review presents an overview of the common and diverse solid wastes that have been studied or used for SRS. The conclusion can be drawn as follows:

  • 1. Various types of solid waste are effective in improving the mechanical and hydromechanical behaviors of soils. The mechanisms behind SRS depend on the characteristics of both the soil and solid wastes.

  • 2. The mechanisms behind soil reinforcement and stabilization using solid wastes are (a) pore filling, (b) cementation of hydration products, and (c) reinforcement.

  • 3. The presence of activators can improve the reactivity of some solid wastes (e.g., FA, GGBS, and RHA).

Potential toxic elements from solid waste can be harmful to organisms in the environment. The use of various additives is an effective method of immobilizing the hazardous element present in solid waste generated from industrial processes.

Based on the identified gaps, some potential for future work is suggested below:

  • 1. Adding some solid wastes (e.g., FA, RHA) to the soil significantly improves the UCS of the soil. However, treated soils may exhibit brittle behavior [74, 123]. Using waste tire or FM, tension-resisting materials, in FA- or RHA-treated soils can not only improve the soil ductility but also recycle more solid waste, further minimizing environmental pollution.

  • 2. The literature review provides valuable insights into the mechanical and hydromechanical improvement of soil treated with solid waste. Sooner than later, numerical calibrations of the experimental results should be attempted to characterize the constitutive behavior of treated soils and a develop method to incorporate this behavior into the framework needed to numerically predict the response of treated soil. Also, the role of 3D printing techniques in SRS could become even more important.

  • 3. The previous studies on the effects and mechanisms of various solid wastes to improve the hydromechanical and mechanical behaviors of soils have been conducted mainly through laboratory tests; however, model, large-scale, and field testing may be required to ensure practical applications. Additionally, the inclusion of field or large-scale tests with numerical simulations (adopting or developing more advanced constitutive models) would allow a deeper understanding of the effects of various solid wastes on SRS. Note that three-dimensional and seismic effects can be important factors affecting the performance of the SRS [124, 125] and should be carefully considered. In addition, the containment technique and potential impact of climate change on SRS (i.e., thermo-hydro-mechanical behavior) should be taken into account in the near future.

Availability of data and materials

This study does not generate new data and/or new computer codes.

References

  1. Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, Van Woerden F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group; 2018.

  2. Demirbas A. Waste management, waste resource facilities and waste conversion processes. Energ Convers Manage. 2011;52:1280–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nanda S, Berruti F. Municipal solid waste management and landfilling technologies: a review. Environ Chem Lett. 2021;19:1433–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Das S, Bhattacharyya BK. Optimization of municipal solid waste collection and transportation routes. Waste Manage. 2015;43:9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mian MM, Zeng XL, Nasry AANB, Al-Hamadani SMZF. Municipal solid waste management in China: a comparative analysis. J Mater Cycles Waste. 2017;19:1127–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Das S, Lee SH, Kumar P, Kim KH, Lee SS, Bhattacharya SS. Solid waste management: Scope and the challenge of sustainability. J Clean Prod. 2019;228:658–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Miezah K, Obiri-Danso K, Kadar Z, Fei-Baffoe B, Mensah MY. Municipal solid waste characterization and quantification as a measure towards effective waste management in Ghana. Waste Manage. 2015;46:15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gupta N, Yadav KK, Kumar V. A review on current status of municipal solid waste management in India. J Environ Sci-China. 2015;37:206–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tozlu A, Ozahi E, Abusoglu A. Waste to energy technologies for municipal solid waste management in Gaziantep. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2016;54:809–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Malav LC, Yadav KK, Gupta N, Kumar S, Sharma GK, Krishnan S, et al. A review on municipal solid waste as a renewable source for waste-to-energy project in India: Current practices, challenges, and future opportunities. J Clean Prod. 2020;277:123227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ghadr S, Assadi-Langroudi A, Hung C. Stabilisation of peat with colloidal nanosilica. Mires Peat. 2020;26:9.

    Google Scholar 

  12. GhavamShirazi S, Bilsel H. Characterization of volume change and strength behavior of micro-silica and lime-stabilized Cyprus clay. Acta Geotech. 2021;16:827–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Golhashem MR, Uygar E. Volume change and compressive strength of an alluvial soil stabilized with butyl acrylate and styrene. Constr Build Mater. 2020;255:119352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Komurlu E, Çelik AG. An experimental study on stress relaxation behaviour of cement stabilized sands. J GeoEngin. 2022;17:189–194.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Elsawy MBD. Performance of sand dunes in stabilizing highly expansive soil. J GeoEngin. 2021;16:23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Azaiez H, Cherif Taiba A, Mahmoudi Y, Belkhatir M. Polyurethane organic polymer as an eco-friendly solution for improvement of shear strength of sand-fly ash mixtures. J GeoEngin. 2022;17:103–12.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Huang JX, Wang YH, Nguyen TA, Hsu CS, Hung WY. Soil improvement by microbial induced calcite precipitation and a chemical method for liquefaction mitigation. J GeoEngin. 2021;16:35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gao YQ, Wang LY, He J, Ren J, Gao YF. Denitrification-based MICP for cementation of soil: treatment process and mechanical performance. Acta Geotech. 2022;17:3799–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gupta S, Lal B, Sachan SG. Improving the strength of sand by miccp process using seashell. J GeoEngin. 2021;16:91–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Malekzadeh M, Bilsel H. Hydro-mechanical behavior of polypropylene fiber reinforced expansive soils. KSCE J Civ Eng. 2014;18:2028–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Estabragh AR, Bordbar AT, Javadi AA. A study on the mechanical behavior of a fiber-clay composite with natural fiber. Geotech Geol Eng. 2013;31:501–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ple O, Le TNH. Effect of polypropylene fiber-reinforcement on the mechanical behavior of silty clay. Geotext Geomembranes. 2012;32:111–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cui HZ, Jin ZY, Bao XH, Tang WC, Dong BQ. Effect of carbon fiber and nanosilica on shear properties of silty soil and the mechanisms. Constr Build Mater. 2018;189:286–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ghadr S, Liu CH, Mrudunayani P, Hung C. Effects of hydrophilic and hydrophobic nanosilica on the hydromechanical behaviors of mudstone soil. Constr Build Mater. 2022;331:127263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chenarboni HA, Lajevardi SH, MolaAbasi H, Zeighami E. The effect of zeolite and cement stabilization on the mechanical behavior of expansive soils. Constr Build Mater. 2021;272:121630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yi YL, Liska M, Unluer C, Al-Tabbaa A. Carbonating magnesia for soil stabilization. Can Geotech J. 2013;50:899–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sezer A, Inan G, Yilmaz HR, Ramyar K. Utilization of a very high lime fly ash for improvement of Izmir clay. Build Environ. 2006;41:150–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yarbasi N, Kalkan E, Akbulut S. Modification of the geotechnical properties, as influenced by freeze-thaw, of granular soils with waste additives. Cold Reg Sci Technol. 2007;48:44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Karami H, Pooni J, Robert D, Costa S, Li J, Setunge S. Use of secondary additives in fly ash based soil stabilization for soft subgrades. Transp Geotech. 2021;29: 100585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rios S, Cristelo N, A Viana da Fonseca, Ferreira C. Stiffness behavior of soil stabilized with alkali-activated fly ash from small to large strains. Int J Geomech. 2017;17:04016087.

  31. Chen RF, Cai GJ, Congress SSC, Dong XQ, Duan W. Dynamic properties and environmental impact of waste red mud-treated loess under adverse conditions. B Eng Geol Environ. 2021;80:93–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wan X, Ding JW, Jiao N, Mou C, Gao MY. Mechanical and microstructural properties of cement-treated marine dredged clay with red mud and phosphogypsum. B Eng Geol Environ. 2022;81:266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yi YL, Liska M, Al-Tabbaa A. Properties of two model soils stabilized with different blends and contents of GGBS, MgO, lime, and PC. J Mater Civil Eng. 2014;26:267–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yi YL, Li C, Liu SY. Alkali-activated Ground-Granulated Blast Furnace Slag for stabilization of marine soft clay. J Mater Civil Eng. 2015;27:04014146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yi YL, Liska M, Jin F, Al-Tabbaa A. Mechanism of reactive magnesia – ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS) soil stabilization. Can Geotech J. 2016;53:773–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yi YL, Gu LY, Liu SY. Microstructural and mechanical properties of marine soft clay stabilized by lime-activated ground granulated blastfurnace slag. Appl Clay Sci. 2015;103:71–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Soliman NK, Moustafa AF. Industrial solid waste for heavy metals adsorption features and challenges; a review. J Mater Res Technol. 2020;9:10235–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang J, Su Y, He XY, Tan HB, Jiang YZ, Zeng LH, et al. Pore structure evaluation of cementing composites blended with coal by-products: Calcined coal gangue and coal fly ash. Fuel Process Technol. 2018;181:75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yang J, Huang JX, Su Y, He XY, Tan HB, Yang W, et al. Eco-friendly treatment of low-calcium coal fly ash for high pozzolanic reactivity: A step towards waste utilization in sustainable building material. J Clean Prod. 2019;238:117962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kaur M, Singh J, Kaur M. Synthesis of fly ash based geopolymer mortar considering different concentrations and combinations of alkaline activator solution. Ceram Int. 2018;44:1534–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Yao ZT, Xia MS, Sarker PK, Chen T. A review of the alumina recovery from coal fly ash, with a focus in China. Fuel. 2014;120:74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. ASTM. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete (C618–23e1). West Conshohocken: American Society for Testing and Materials International; 2023.

  43. Sivapullaiah PV, Prashanth JP, Sridharan A, Narayana BV. Technical note reactive silica and strength of fly ashes. Geotech Geol Eng. 1998;16:239–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Tastan EO, Edil TB, Benson CH, Aydilek AH. Stabilization of organic soils with fly ash. J Geotech Geoenviron. 2011;137:819–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang P, Liu DY. Physical and chemical properties of Sintering red mud and Bayer red mud and the implications for beneficial utilization. Materials. 2012;5:1800–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Liu Y, Lin CX, Wu YG. Characterization of red mud derived from a combined Bayer Process and bauxite calcination method. J Hazard Mater. 2007;146:255–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhao Y, Liang NX, Chen H, Li Y. Preparation and properties of sintering red mud unburned road brick using orthogonal experiments. Constr Build Mater. 2020;238:117739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Dentoni V, Grosso B, Massacci G. Environmental sustainability of the alumina industry in Western Europe. Sustainability-Basel. 2014;6:9477–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mukiza E, Zhang LL, Liu XM, Zhang N. Utilization of red mud in road base and subgrade materials: A review. Resour Conserv Recy. 2019;141:187–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sun YH, Li JS, Chen Z, Xue Q, Sun Q, Zhou YF, et al. Production of lightweight aggregate ceramsite from red mud and municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash: Mechanism and optimization. Constr Build Mater. 2021;287:122993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Chen RF, Cai GJ, Dong XQ, Mi DY, Puppala AJ, Duan W. Mechanical properties and micro-mechanism of loess roadbed filling using by-product red mud as a partial alternative. Constr Build Mater. 2019;216:188–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ahmad J, Kontoleon KJ, Majdi A, Naqash MT, Deifalla AF, Ben Kahla N, et al. A comprehensive review on the ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) in concrete production. Sustainability-Basel. 2022;14: 8783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Singhi B, Laskar AI, Ahmed MA. Investigation on soil–geopolymer with slag, fly ash and their blending. Arab J Sci Eng. 2016;41:393–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sharma AK, Sivapullaiah PV. Ground granulated blast furnace slag amended fly ash as an expansive soil stabilizer. Soils Found. 2016;56:205–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Oner A, Akyuz S. An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the compressive strength of concrete. Cement Concrete Comp. 2007;29:505–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Higgins D. Briefing: GGBS and sustainability. Proc Inst Civ Eng: Constr Mater. 2007;160:99–101.

    Google Scholar 

  57. USEPA. Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-management-construction-and-demolition-materials#what (Accessed 19 Apr 2023).

  58. Sharma A, Sharma RK. Sub-grade characteristics of soil stabilized with agricultural waste, constructional waste, and lime. B Eng Geol Environ. 2021;80:2473–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Behera M, Bhattacharyya SK, Minocha AK, Deoliya R, Maiti S. Recycled aggregate from C&D waste & its use in concrete – A breakthrough towards sustainability in construction sector: A review. Constr Build Mater. 2014;68:501–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang JY, Li ZD, Tam VWY. Critical factors in effective construction waste minimization at the design stage: A Shenzhen case study, China. Resour Conserv Recy. 2014;82:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Blengini GA. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A case study in Turin, Italy. Build Environ. 2009;44:319–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Arulrajah A, Piratheepan J, Disfani MM, Bo MW. Geotechnical and geoenvironmental properties of recycled construction and demolition materials in pavement subbase applications. J Mater Civil Eng. 2013;25:1077–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sharma RK, Hymavathi J. Effect of fly ash, construction demolition waste and lime on geotechnical characteristics of a clayey soil: a comparative study. Environ Earth Sci. 2016;75:377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Cristelo N, Fernandez-Jimenez A, Vieira C, Miranda T, Palomo A. Stabilisation of construction and demolition waste with a high fines content using alkali activated fly ash. Constr Build Mater. 2018;170:26–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hasan U, Chegenizadeh A, Budihardjo MA, Nikraz H. Experimental evaluation of construction waste and ground granulated blast furnace slag as alternative soil stabilisers. Geotech Geol Eng. 2016;34:1707–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. ASTM. Standard Practice For Classification of Soils For Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) (D2487–17e1). West Conshohocken: American Society for Testing and Materials International; 2017.

  67. Sharma A, Sharma RK. Strength and drainage characteristics of poor soils stabilized with Construction Demolition Waste. Geotech Geol Eng. 2020;38:4753–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sharma A, Sharma RK. Effect of addition of construction–demolition waste on strength characteristics of high plastic clays. Innov Infrastruct Solut. 2019;4:27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Obi FO, Ugwuishiwu BO, Nwakaire JN. Agricultural waste concept, generation, utilization and management. Nigerian J Technol. 2016;35:957–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Paul SC, Mbewe PBK, Kong SY, Savija B. Agricultural solid waste as source of supplementary cementitious materials in developing countries. Materials. 2019;12:1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. FAO. Crops and livestock products. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL (Accessed 19 Apr 2023).

  72. Chen RF, Congress SSC, Cai GJ, Duan W, Liu SY. Sustainable utilization of biomass waste-rice husk ash as a new solidified material of soil in geotechnical engineering: A review. Constr Build Mater. 2021;292:123219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Kumar A, Gupta D. Behavior of cement-stabilized fiber-reinforced pond ash, rice husk ash-soil mixtures. Geotext Geomembranes. 2016;44:466–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Basha EA, Hashim R, Mahmud HB, Muntohar AS. Stabilization of residual soil with rice husk ash and cement. Constr Build Mater. 2005;19:448–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Hossain KMA. Stabilized Soils Incorporating combinations of rice husk ash and cement kiln dust. J Mater Civil Eng. 2011;23:1320–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Ordoñez Muñoz Y, Luis dos Santos Izzo R, Leindorf de Almeida J, Arrieta Baldovino J, Lundgren Rose J. The role of rice husk ash, cement and polypropylene fibers on the mechanical behavior of a soil from Guabirotuba formation. Transp Geotech. 2021;31:100673.

  77. Noaman MA, Karim MR, Islam MN. Comparative study of pozzolanic and filler effect of rice husk ash on the mechanical properties and microstructure of brick aggregate concrete. Heliyon. 2019;5:e01926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Chandrasekhar S, Pramada PN, Praveen L. Effect of organic acid treatment on the properties of rice husk silica. J Mater Sci. 2005;40:6535–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Canakci H, Aziz A, Celik F. Soil stabilization of clay with lignin, rice husk powder and ash. Geomech Eng. 2015;8:67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Sharma RS, Phanikumar BR, Rao BV. Engineering behavior of a remolded expansive clay blended with lime, calcium chloride, and rice-husk ash. J Mater Civil Eng. 2008;20:509–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Radwan MKH, Mo KH, Onn CC, Ng CG, Ling TC. Waste press mud in enhancing the performance of glass powder blended cement. Constr Build Mater. 2021;313:125469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Tran G. Sugarcane press mud. Rome: Feedipedia - Animal Feed Resources Information System - INRAE CIRAD AFZ and FAO; 2015. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/563 (Accessed 20 Apr 2023).

  83. Balakrishnan M, Batra VS. Valorization of solid waste in sugar factories with possible applications in India : A review. J Environ Manage. 2011;92:2886–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Yadav RL, Solomon S. Potential of developing sugarcane by-product based industries in India. Sugar Tech. 2006;8:104–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. James J. Sugarcane press mud modification of expansive soil stabilized at optimum lime content: Strength, mineralogy and microstructural investigation. J Rock Mech Geotech. 2020;12:395–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Partha N, Sivasubramanian V. Recovery of chemicals from pressmud – A sugar industry waste. Indian Chem Eng. 2006;48:160–3.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ghadr S, Chen CS, Liu CH, Hung C. Mechanical behavior of sands reinforced with shredded face masks. B Eng Geol Environ. 2022;81:317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Shukla SK. Fundamentals of fibre-reinforced soil engineering. Berlin: Springer; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  89. James J, Pandian PK. Geoenvironmental application of sugarcane press mud in lime stabilisation of an expansive soil: a preliminary report. Aust. J. Civ. Eng. 2016;14:114–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Ghasemzadeh H, Modiri F. Application of novel Persian gum hydrocolloid in soil stabilization. Carbohyd Polym. 2020;246:116639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Tremblay H, Duchesne J, Locat J, Leroueil S. Influence of the nature of organic compounds on fine soil stabilization with cement. Can Geotech J. 2002;39:535–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Gumanta FS, Ghadr S, Chen CS, Liu CH, Hung C, Assadi-Langroudi A. Enhancing the mechanical and hydromechanical behaviors of mudstone soils using sugarcane press mud. Transp Geotech. 2023;40:100948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. USTMA. 2019 U.S. Scrap Tire Management Summary. Washington DC: U.S. Tire Manufactures Association; 2020. https://www.ustires.org/sites/default/files/2019%20USTMA%20Scrap%20Tire%20Management%20Summary%20Report.pdf (Accessed 28 Apr 2023).

  94. Ghadr S, Samadzadeh A, Bahadori H, O'Kelly BC, Assadi-Langroudi A. Liquefaction resistance of silty sand with ground rubber additive. Int J Geomech. 2021;21:04021076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Zornberg JG, Cabral AR, Viratjandr C. Behaviour of tire shred – sand mixtures. Can Geotech J. 2004;41:227–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. ASTM. Standard Practice for Use of Scrap Tires in Civil Engineering Applications (D6270–20). West Conshohocken: American Society for Testing and Materials International; 2020.

  97. Araujo GLS, Moreno JAS, Zornberg JG. Shear behavior of mixtures involving tropical soils and tire shreds. Constr Build Mater. 2021;276:122061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Ghadr S, Javan A. Effect of shredded rubber on undrained shear strength of fine-grained sands. Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol 2020;7:562–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Ghadr S, Mirsalehi S, Assadi-Langroudi A. Compacted expansive elastic silt and tyre powder waste. Geomech Eng. 2019;18:535–43.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Reddy SB, Kumar DP, Krishna AM. Evaluation of the optimum mixing ratio of a sand-tire chips mixture for geoengineering applications. J Mater Civil Eng. 2016;28:06015007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Prata JC, Silva ALP, Walker TR, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T. COVID-19 pandemic repercussions on the use and management of plastics. Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54:7760–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Zhang JQ, Wang X, Yin ZY, Yang NY. Static and dynamic behaviors of granular soil reinforced by disposable face-mask chips. J Clean Prod. 2022;331:129838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Xu WQ, Yin ZY, Wang HL, Wang X. Experimental study on the monotonic mechanical behavior of completely decomposed granite soil reinforced by disposable face-mask chips. J Clean Prod. 2022;352:131528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Rehman ZU, Khalid U. Reuse of COVID-19 face mask for the amelioration of mechanical properties of fat clay: A novel solution to an emerging waste problem. Sci Total Environ. 2021;794:148746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Samadzadeh A, Ghadr S, Bahadori H, Kheiri G. Experimental study on the cyclic behavior of silty sands reinforced by disposal of shredded facemask. Transp Geotech. 2022;37:100871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Xiong XN, Liu XM, Yu IKM, Wang L, Zhou J, Sun X, et al. Potentially toxic elements in solid waste streams: Fate and management approaches. Environ Pollut. 2019;253:680–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Marra A, Cesaro A, Rene ER, Belgiorno V, Lens PNL. Bioleaching of metals from WEEE shredding dust. J Environ Manage. 2018;210:180–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Song QB, Li JH. Environmental effects of heavy metals derived from the e-waste recycling activities in China: a systematic review. Waste Manage. 2014;34:2587–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Wang MF, Liu XM. Applications of red mud as an environmental remediation material: A review. J Hazard Mater. 2021;408:124420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Xu B, Yi YL. Soft clay stabilization using ladle slag-ground granulated blastfurnace slag blend. Appl Clay Sci. 2019;178:105136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Tsiridis V, Samaras P, Kungolos A, Sakellaropoulos GP. Application of leaching tests for toxicity evaluation of coal fly ash. Environ Toxicol. 2006;21:409–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Wang SH, Jin HX, Deng Y, Xiao YD. Comprehensive utilization status of red mud in China: A critical review. J Clean Prod. 2021;289:125136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Liu HF, Zhang JX, Li BY, Zhou N, Xiao X, Li M, et al. Environmental behavior of construction and demolition waste as recycled aggregates for backfilling in mines: Leaching toxicity and surface subsidence studies. J Hazard Mater. 2020;389:121870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Gomes FO, Rocha MR, Alves A, Ratola N. A review of potentially harmful chemicals in crumb rubber used in synthetic football pitches. J Hazard Mater. 2021;409:124998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Asim N, Badiei M, Sopian K. Review of the valorization options for the proper disposal of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Environ Technol Inno. 2021;23:101797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Goswami RK, Mahanta C. Leaching characteristics of residual lateritic soils stabilised with fly ash and lime for geotechnical applications. Waste Manage. 2007;27:466–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Cetin B, Aydilek AH. pH and fly ash type effect on trace metal leaching from embankment soils. Resour Conserv Recy. 2013;80:107–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Komonweeraket K, Cetin B, Benson CH, Aydilek AH, Edil TB. Leaching characteristics of toxic constituents from coal fly ash mixed soils under the influence of pH. Waste Manage. 2015;38:174–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Chen L, Wang L, Cho DW, Tsang DCW, Tong LZ, Zhou YY, et al. Sustainable stabilization/solidification of municipal solid waste incinerator fly ash by incorporation of green materials. J Clean Prod. 2019;222:335–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Li XY, Chen QY, Zhou Y, Tyrer M, Yu Y. Stabilization of heavy metals in MSWI fly ash using silica fume. Waste Manage. 2014;34:2494–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Wang FH, Zhang F, Chen YJ, Gao J, Zhao B. A comparative study on the heavy metal solidification/stabilization performance of four chemical solidifying agents in municipal solid waste incineration fly ash. J Hazard Mater. 2015;300:451–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Ghadr S, Assadi-Langroudi A, Hung C. The response of authors to the comment on "a new approach to stabilization of calcareous dune sand" [Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19, 3581–3592 (2022)]. Int J Environ Sci Te. 2022.

  123. Yilmaz Y. Compaction and strength characteristics of fly ash and fiber amended clayey soil. Eng Geol. 2015;188:168–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Liu HB, Hung C, Cao JZ. Relationship between Arias intensity and the responses of reinforced soil retaining walls subjected to near-field ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2018;111:160–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Hung C, Liu CH, Liu H. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls with turning corners. Geotext Geomembranes. 2021;49:629–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the support from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan. The research was, in part, supported by the Higher Education Sprout Project, Ministry of Education, Taiwan, Headquarters of University Advancement to the National Cheng Kung University.

Funding

The authors appreciate the support from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan. The research was, in part, supported by the Higher Education Sprout Project, Ministry of Education, Taiwan, Headquarters of University Advancement to the National Cheng Kung University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, 70101, Taiwan

    Chih-Hsuan Liu & Ching Hung

Authors
  1. Chih-Hsuan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ching Hung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, C.-H.L. and C.H.; methodology C.-H.L. and C.H.; writing—original draft preparation, C.-H.L.; writing—review and editing, C.-H.L. and C.H.; supervision, C.H.; project administration, C.H.; funding acquisition, C.H. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ching Hung.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, CH., Hung, C. Reutilization of solid wastes to improve the hydromechanical and mechanical behaviors of soils — a state-of-the-art review. Sustain Environ Res 33, 17 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42834-023-00179-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42834-023-00179-6

Keywords

Sustainable Environment Research

ISSN: 2468-2039

Contact us