Laboratory and field trials assessed cement-stabilized phyllite in railway subgrades, indicating improved strength and sustainability.
Fully weathered phyllite is widely encountered along railway corridors in China, yet its suitability as subgrade fill remains insufficiently documented. This study provides an integrated laboratory and field evaluation of both untreated and low-dosage cement-stabilized phyllite for sustainable transport constructions. Laboratory investigations covered mineralogy, classification, compaction, permeability, compressibility, shear strength, and bearing capacity, while large-scale field trials examined the influence of loose lift thickness, moisture content, and compaction sequence on subgrade quality. Performance indicators included the degree of compaction and the subgrade reaction modulus K30, defined as the plate load modulus measured with a 30 cm diameter plate. A recommended cement dosage of 3.5% (by weight of dry soil) was established based on preliminary trials to balance strength development with construction reliability. The results show that untreated phyllite, when compacted under controlled conditions, can be used in lower subgrade layers, whereas cement stabilization significantly improves strength, stiffness, and constructability, enabling reliable application in the main load-bearing subgrade layers. Beyond mechanical performance, the study demonstrates a methodological innovation by linking laboratory mix design directly with field compaction strategies and embedding these within a life-cycle perspective. The sustainability analysis shows that using stabilized in-situ phyllite achieves lower costs and approximately 30% lower CO2 emissions compared with importing crushed rock from 30 km away, while promoting resource reuse. Overall, the findings support circular economy and carbon-reduction objectives in railway and road earthworks, offering practical guidance for low-carbon, resource-efficient infrastructure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: