Laboratory and numerical analyses on polyurethane–scrap rubber-reinforced base layer
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
Previous studies have explored using scrap rubber in constructing the ballasted track and showed tremendous potential to mitigate noise and vibration. However, its application for slab tracks has not been extensively investigated. This study intends to utilise scrap rubber in the base layer of the slab track; however, the high stress below base layer of the slab track may render its use unsuitable. The addition of scrap rubber would improve the damping performance but reduce the elastic modulus and cause excessive settlement of the track. This paper utilises an experimental programme comprising static and cyclic triaxial testing and numerical analyses to assess the suitability of four mixes, e.g., mix-A (soil), mix-B (soil mixed with rubber), mix-C (polyurethane-treated soil), and mix-D (polyurethane-treated soil mixed with rubber), as a base layer in slab tracks. The laboratory investigations reveal that the best performance in terms of improved damping ratio and resilient modulus, and lowered excess pore water pressure and vertical strains are shown by mix-D. These experimental test findings were supplemented with the results from three-dimensional full-scale finite element analyses, which showed a drastic reduction in the vibration levels of the track with mix-D as a base layer instead of conventional lean-mix concrete.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it