Development of mechanical properties of Edmonton stiff clay treated with cement and fly ash
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cohesive soils are often mixed in situ with cementitious binders to serve as a deep foundation. However, there is limited research on cemented stiff clay in applications where high soil strength is required. The present research is aimed to determine the mechanical properties of soilcrete produced with Edmonton stiff clay. The equivalent cement content is high, between 18 and 30%. Two cementitious binders were used: 100% ordinary Portland cement and a mix of 90% cement and 10% fly ash. Unconfined compressive strength tests were carried out at different curing ages. Scanning electron microscopy images were taken to inspect soilcrete texture and examine the effects of fly ash. Results showed that soilcrete behaves similar to an overconsolidated clay; the specimens reach peak strength at strain lower than 1% at mature age (>56 days). The peak strength decreases with increasing water to cement ratio. The measured moduli range widely from 30 to 270 MPa; the initial and secant moduli have a linear relation. The residual strength is nearly linearly related to the peak strength. SEM images show that addition of 10% fly ash helps disperse the cement and reduce cement clusters; the damage on soilcrete occurs along the failure plane due to crushing of cement clusters.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 it