Influence of Recycled Plastic Waste and Cement on Pavement Sub-Base Stabilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of recycled waste in road construction is part of the sustainable development of countries.Plastic waste poses an ecological problem because it is not biodegradable.Recycling this waste to reuse it in different areas seems to be a solution to reduce it.This article is devoted to the use of varieties of additions of recycled plastic waste (RPW) (5 and 10%) without and with Portland cement compound (PCC) (2 and 4%) moistened at the Proctor optimum, to stabilize the foundation layer of the section of the road connecting the highway at the Tixter dry port (Algeria).The results showed, that RPW increases the CBR (California Bearing Ration) of S0 approximately to 139.32%, however the use of 5% of RPW with 2% of PCC raises the CBR of the soil to 386.59% in unsoaked samples and 404.54% in soaked samples.Whereas, UCS (Unconfined Compressive Strength) tests, is marked by increases in compressive strength from 0 to1471.18KPa and from 754.67KPa to 2051.53KPa of samples dosed with 5% RPW and 4% PCC, soaked and unsoaked respectively.This study offers the opportunity to find the right soil-RPW-PCC combination to stabilize future roads.
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 | 0.001 | 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".