Influence of the nature of organic compounds on fine soil stabilization with cement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that organic matter may affect the cementing process in soils, but what happens when cement is added to an organic soil? Both the organic matter content and the nature of this organic matter affect the properties of a treated soil. It appears that some organic compounds delay or even inhibit the hydration process of cement, while others do not affect the reaction at all. This paper presents some results of a laboratory study in which 13 different organic compounds were added separately to two different soils, and then treated with 10% cement. To assess the cementing process, undrained shear strength was measured on the different specimens, and some chemical analyses were performed on the pore liquid. The results indicate that the organic acids producing a pH lower than 9 in the pore solution strongly affect the development of cementing products and almost no strength gain was noted. Also, oils and hydrocarbons, which are insoluble in water, delay the cement hydration but do not affect the final strength. Finally, the pH value and the SO 4 concentration in the pore solution are good indicators of the cementing effectiveness of the treated specimens.Key words: soil stabilization, organic compounds, undrained shear strength, cement, chemical analyses.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".