Soil characterization, CBR modeling, and spatial variability analysis for road subgrade: a case study of Danchuwa – Jajere Road, Yobe State, Nigeria
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
Abstract Road construction projects require a thorough understanding of soil properties to ensure the stability and longevity of the infrastructure. This study investigates soil properties along a proposed 34 km road alignment in Yobe State, Nigeria, to characterize soil variability for road construction and develop a predictive model for California Bearing Ratio (CBR). Of the 34 soil samples analyzed, 30 were classified as A-3(1) and four as A-1(1) according to the AASHTO system. Geotechnical testing, including particle size distribution (grading percentages: gravel 0.02%–75.34%, sand 15.5%–90.88%, fines 8.92%–34.84%), Atterberg limits (liquid limits 17%–33%, plastic limits 14%–27%, plasticity index <12%), specific gravity (2.01 to 2.73), compaction (maximum dry density 1.83–2.19 Mg m −3 , optimum moisture content 7.29%–14.42%), and CBR tests (values ranging from 5%–62%), were conducted. Correlation analyses revealed strong positive relationships between maximum dry density (r = 0.82) and specific gravity (r = 0.89) with CBR values. Cluster analysis segmented the samples into four distinct groups: Cluster 0 (11 samples), Cluster 1 (9 samples), Cluster 2 (5 samples), and Cluster 3 (9 samples). A linear regression model predicted CBR using maximum dry density and specific gravity (mean squared error = 9.82, R 2 = 0.92). Based on CBR criteria, 8 out of 34 samples (CBR 20%–53%) satisfied subbase requirements, while none met the recommended minimum CBR of 80% for base course materials. This study enhances road construction planning through soil variability analysis, effective soil categorization via cluster analysis, and a reliable CBR prediction model. While on-site materials are unsuitable for subgrade and subbase layers, alternative materials or ground improvement techniques are recommended for the base course layer to enhance bearing capacity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it