Using Tuff and Limestone Sand to Minimize Water Consumption of Pavement Construction in Arid Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Soil compaction is a significant parameter for road construction projects. Since materials and soil compaction play important roles in the stability and durability of roads. This study focuses on the importance of the problems related to water resources in arid regions, considering both the economy and the population in these areas. For this reason, the local materials in Bechar (Algeria) were used to enhance the road construction process. Hence, using the combination of tuff and limestone sand (LS) materials to minimize the amount of water for the road construction compaction is investigated. Different combinations, including 100% tuff, 80% tuff and 20% limestone sand, 70% tuff and 30% limestone sand, and 60% tuff and 40% limestone sand, were evaluated with the Proctor and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests. The test results showed that using 60% tuff and 40% limestone sand resulted in the minimum water content of 10.5% compared to other combinations of tuff and limestone sand of this study, and it will be beneficial in arid regions where there is a water shortage. Three different percentages of lime (1%,2%, and 3%) were also added to the optimum mixture. However, the results showed that adding this material has no significant mechanical effects.
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".