Increasing density and cement content in stabilization of expansive soils: Conflicting or complementary procedures for reducing swelling?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study makes three contributions to the literature of expansive soils: (i) it proposes equations to predict soil swelling based on dry density and cement content, (ii) it checks the developed general equation by predicting the swelling of different expansive soils from the literature, and (iii) it designs experiments that investigate factors that have a significant influence on swelling. An experimental programme was carried out to analyse the expansion of bentonite–kaolin–cement blends. Different proportions of bentonite–kaolin, cement content, dry density, and moisture content were evaluated. A unique relation of the cement/porosity index was obtained for cement-stabilized expansive soils’ swelling; this index has been used before to portray strength, stiffness, and loss of mass of stabilized soils and is now shown to be applicable to describe swelling of expansive soils treated with Portland cement. In the present research, cement content and dry density are seen as conflicting parameters regarding the swelling of expansive soils, because increasing the amount of Portland cement reduces swelling and increasing the density (through compaction) causes higher expansion. A general swelling model is proposed and successfully checked with data from the literature; it is able to predict the swelling of expansive soils with different densities, expansive mineral, moisture content, and cement content.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".