Using Fine Silica Sand and Granite Powder Waste to Control Free Swelling Behavior of High Expansive Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many researchers have been interested in studying the effect of adding local natural materials or construction waste on the properties of poor subgrade soil. However, changes in size and strength of expansive soils can cause extensive damage to the geotechnical infrastructure. This damage is often repeatable and latent in the long term, and is a critical issue in highway subgrade engineering. This paper examines the effect of adding both Fine Silica Sand (FSS) and Granite Cutting Powder Waste (GPW) materials on the welling characteristics of expansive soils. Atterberg limits, free swell index, and rate of swell of the mixtures were used as a key to assess properties of a group of expansive soil samples after adding different percentages of the mentioned materials. The rates of additions were 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60 and 70% of the weight of the soil samples. The test results showed that FSS and GPW significantly affect the expansive soil properties. However, adding 70% of both FSS and GPW reduced the swelling index from 58.3% to 6.6% and from 58.3% to 11% after 7 days of curing, respectively. This study suggests that the Fine Silica Sand and Granite Powder Waste can be used as stabilizers for expansive highly plastic soils.
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".