Experimental assessment of subgrade stiffness of lateritic soils treated with crushed waste plastics and ceramics for pavement foundation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of subgrade stiffness of four test soils treated with crushed waste ceramics (CWC) and crushed waste plastics (CWP) has been experimented on under laboratory conditions. There have been recorded failures of pavements resulting from inadequate subgrade formations and the use of weak and expansive soils as subgrade materials. The changes in the behavior of these foundation materials affect the performance and overall behavior of the entire pavement or foundation structure. The aim of this work was to assess the behavior of test soils commonly used as subgrade materials and treat same with selected solid waste based geomaterials to enhance their ability to withstand dynamic and cyclic loads. The selected solid waste based geomaterials were crushed waste ceramic and crushed waste plastics. The test materials including the soils were tested for characterization procedure. The preliminary test results showed that the test soils were classified as A-2-7, A-2-6, A-7 and A-7-5, respectively according to AASHTO classification system and poorly graded soils according to USCS. They were also classified as highly plastic soils and expansive with plasticity indexes of above 17%. The oxide composition test on the CWC and CWP shows that the materials possess pozzolanic properties with high aluminosilicates. The test soils were treated with these geomaterials in the proportion of 10% to 120% by weight. The treatment protocol showed that the CBR, resilient modulus, and r-value improved consistently with increased CWC and CWP. Lateral deformation observed from the modified triaxial compression also reduced consistently with increased proportions of CWC and CWP. It is novel to have achieved improved California bearing ratio characteristics, resilient modulus, resistance value and lateral deformation properties of the test soils with a solid waste based geomaterial. It is also promising that beyond the proportion utilized in the laboratory, the CWC and CWP treated soils will resist both axial and lateral deformation or failure when compacted to the maximum dry density and optimum moisture.
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".