Suitability of Laboratory Compaction Procedure for Secondary Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study evaluates the suitability of the modified proctor test (MPT) using single and multiple batch compactions for two types of secondary materials: reclaimed municipal solid waste (RMSW) and MSW incinerated bottom ash (IBA).In the single batch (SB) technique, the same sample is re-compacted for each successive moisture increment, whereas in the multiple batch (MB) technique, a fresh sample is used for each moisture content.The composition and grain size analysis have substantiated the compaction results of the materials in concern.The maximum dry density values for RMSW were observed to be identical in both SB (1.70-1.74gm/cc) and MB (1.71-1.75gm/cc) compaction, indicating no effect of the compaction technique on RMSW.In contrast, SB (1.74-1.80gm/cc) overestimates the compaction characteristics of IBA compared to MB (1.65-1.69gm/cc).IBA experiences higher particle crushing in SB compaction, leading to an increase in fines content in each successive compaction phase, resulting in an inaccurate estimation of compaction parameters.Weak constituents like glass and sintered material make the coarse fraction of IBA susceptible to higher particle crushing than RMSW, which was also evident from the aggregate impact test.It is recommended to use the SB compaction for estimating compaction characteristics of RMSW, whereas MB compaction is appropriate for IBA.This study is essential to ensure appropriate field compaction control for using secondary materials in embankments and pavements.
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".