Understanding the Effect of Pulp Mill Fly Ash on Strength, Compressibility, and Microstructure of Organic Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lower shear strength and higher compressibility impose major challenges for construction on organic soils. Cementitious materials have been effectively used in the improvement of the engineering properties of mineral soils with low organic contents. However, limited studies have been devoted to the stabilization of the organic soils commonly encountered in forested regions in Canada. The present study investigated the effects of pulp mill fly ash (PFA) on the compressibility of a natural soil consisting of 26% organic matter. Fall-cone and oedometer tests were conducted on organic soil mixed with different PFA dosages (5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%), as well as on untreated soil samples. The mineralogical and microstructural aspects of PFA-treated organic soil were examined using scanning electron microscope and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy techniques. The results suggest that when the organic soil was treated with PFA, its undrained shear strength and compressibility behavior were improved. Moreover, the potentially large settlement of organic soil can be reduced by the addition of PFA. The primary and secondary compression index (Cc and Cα, respectively) values decreased significantly when compared with the untreated organic soil, indicating that PFA stabilizers can effectively improve the creep behavior of organic soils. These findings indicate that the beneficial utilization of PFA for the stabilization of organic soils could be a practical step toward the environmentally sound management of this waste byproduct.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".