Hydraulic and strength properties of unexposed and freeze–thaw exposed cement-stabilized soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 108 specimens were prepared to examine the hydraulic performance and strength performance of nine different cement-stabilized soils under unexposed and freeze–thaw exposed conditions. Specimens from each mix design were evaluated under two levels of curing conditions (i.e., immature versus mature). Hydraulic conductivity and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) measurements were performed to assess changes in the performance of specimens after 12 cycles of freezing at −10 ± 1 °C and thawing at 22 ± 1 °C. Measured mass losses of the specimens from a standard brushing test were also monitored at different freeze–thaw cycles, and results were compared with the changes in the hydraulic performance for each mix design. Hydraulic conductivity measurements on unexposed mature specimens showed that the lowest values likely occurred at water contents slightly wet of optimum water content (OWC). The UCS values showed a general decreasing trend with the increase in the water content for both immature and mature specimens under unexposed conditions. After freeze–thaw exposure, specimens showed minor reductions as well as increases of up to 5250 times in hydraulic conductivity values. Increases of up to 14% and reductions of up to 58% in compressive strength were also observed, compared with unexposed conditions. For most cases, mature specimens resulted in a higher degree of damage compared with immature specimens. Results from the brushing tests showed this test method is not a suitable indicator for predicting changes in the hydraulic performance of cement-stabilized soils. Hydraulic conductivity measurements after a period of post-exposure healing showed damaged specimens have some potential in recovering parts of the increased hydraulic conductivity value due to the healing process.
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) | 0.001 | 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".