Influence of Treatment Temperature Conditions on the Performance of Enzyme-Induced Cemented Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enzyme induced calcite precipitation (EICP), as a bio-cementation technique, has been used to improve the strength and stiffness of unstable soils. In this paper, the influence of key treatment conditions for EICP soil treatment such as curing temperatures (at 5°C, 25°C, 30°C, and 50°C) as well as post-treatment conditions such as “oven-dried” (at 60°C) or “wet” (at room temperature, ~22°C) on the strength of EICP-treated sand were evaluated. The results from this study indicate that unconfined compressive strength (UCS), splitting tensile strength (STS), CaCO3 content (CC), the mass of precipitated CaCO3 (MCaCo3), and CaCO3 precipitation ratio (PR) increased with increasing curing temperatures during EICP soil treatment possibly due to the increase in urease enzyme activity at high temperatures. For similar CC, the “oven-dried” samples showed a significantly higher strength (i.e., UCS and STS) compared to the “wet” samples, possibly due to the transformation of unstable vaterite to a more stable form (i.e., calcite) during oven-drying. Scanning electron microscopy images and X-ray powder diffraction analysis showed that the “oven-dried” sample mainly produced calcite crystals, while the “wet” sample produced a mixture of calcite and vaterite crystals. The results indicate that thermodynamically unstable vaterite crystals formed at low temperatures may be transformed into a more stable polymorph of CaCO3 (e.g., calcite) at high temperatures (~40°C to 60°C), an indication of the higher strength achieved for the “oven-dried” samples.
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) | 0.003 | 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".