Recycling of Construction Waste Concrete as a Stabilizer for Gypseous Soils
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents the possibility of recycling Crushed Waste Concrete resulting from the demolition of buildings, and making practical use of these abundantly available materials, by grinding them and adding them in different proportions to gypseous soils to increase their maximum bearing capacity and reduce compressibility. A laboratory model with dimensions (300*300 *600mm) of galvanized steel, 4 mm thick, was used to study the effect of mixing (0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, and 8%) Crushed Waste Concrete with three types of water-flooded natural gypseous soils with different percentages of gypsum (30%, 46%, and 66%). Loading tests were carried on square steel footing (70*70mm) and 9mm thick, placed on these soils. More than 15 tests were conducted on the laboratory model, in addition to the usual classification tests on the soils used in the study. All tests were carried after submerging gypseous soils due 24 hours. The study showed a clear improvement in the susceptibility of the three gypseous soils using all the addition percentages of concrete powder, the best percentage was 8%, while the improvement rates were less using 2%, 4%, and 6%. As the bearing capacity of the soil increased after mixing it with this ratio due to filling the voids formed as a result of melting gypsum during the water immersion process, which compensated for it at this stage. Mixing gypseous soil with crushed waste concrete by 8% increases ultimate bearing stress about 8 times, while it is 2.5 times for model mixed with 2% of this additive, compared with the untreated one.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it