Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the shear strength behavior of bio-stabilized soils over a range of amended bio-monomer and biopolymer soil addition rates using Western Iowa loess and Ottawa 20/30 sand. The unconfined compressive strength and ductility of loess was characterized after adding 2% to 4% monomer. For Ottawa sand, the shear strength and volume-change behavior of specimens stabilized by three different biopolymers at concentrations of 1%, 2% and 4% was tested. All specimens were prepared at moisture contents of optimum or 2% dry of optimum. To determine the optimum moisture content of the loess material, a modified 2"Ã?4" compaction test was conducted to satisfy the specimen aspect ratio requirement.\nThe unconfined compressive strength of monomer-amended loess was decreased significantly within the first 7 days of curing, but increased compared to untreated soil over 28 days of curing time. Based on these results, the monomer shows some potential for providing strength and ductility benefits for loess after curing times of 28 days or more.\nFor the Ottawa 20/30 sand, the peak strength of polymer-amended specimens for a given normal stress was increased by 1.5 to 2 times that of untreated sand. The G54 polymer gave the best results with a peak shear strength 1.4 to 1.5 times that of the 8% cement-amended sand, but this was lower than the strength using 12% cement. However, the values of cohesion imparted by all three polymers were comparable to those resulting from 8% and 12% cement. The failure behavior of the sand was made more ductile by the polymer, and beneficial effects of polymer aging and healing abilities were discovered.\nThe strength of the cohesionless sand improved significantly in all polymer-amended specimens. The improved results from the G54 biopolymer compared to those from cement demonstrate the potential of biopolymer as a substitute for traditional stabilizers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".