Soil stabilization is fundamental to geotechnical engineering, yet traditional cement- and lime-based methods impose significant environmental burdens through high energy consumption and CO 2 emissions. This review systematically analyzes sustainable stabilization technologies, including bio-mediated techniques (microbially induced carbonate precipitation [MICP] and enzyme-induced carbonate precipitation [EICP]), industrial by-product utilization (fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag [GGBS], steel slag, and cement kiln dust [CKD]), geopolymer and alkali-activated binders, and bio-based additives (biopolymers and plant root reinforcement). For each technology, the review presents fundamental mechanisms, engineering performance data, environmental benefits, and current limitations based on a systematic literature survey of 187 studies from 2010 to 2026. A novel multidimensional decision matrix mapping soil type, environmental exposure, and structural requirements to optimal stabilization technology is presented. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies are discussed with cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave boundary analyses. Comparative evaluations of durability, cost-effectiveness, and carbon footprint reveal that geopolymer binders offer 60%–80% CO 2 reduction versus Portland cement, while MICP achieves near-zero direct emissions but remains limited by scalability constraints. Critical knowledge gaps include scalability challenges (95% of MICP studies remain bench-scale), long-term durability concerns, standardization needs, and insufficient field-scale validation. Future research directions emphasize hybrid stabilization systems, carbon-negative geotechnics, smart monitoring technologies, and circular economy integration. This review provides an evidence-based reference for researchers and practitioners seeking to adopt sustainable soil stabilization practices aligned with global decarbonization goals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishwor Thapa (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: