Influence of Ceramic Waste and Cement on the Mechanical and Hydraulic Properties, and Microstructure of the Road Sub-Base Layer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines cement and ceramic waste (CW) for the sub-base layer of roads. This innovative method can do away with the risks associated with improper disposal of industrial waste. To achieve this objective, several proportions of cement and CW were used, ranging from 1.5 to 2% and 5% to 15%, respectively. The aim of the work was to examine the influences of CW and ordinary Portland cement (OPC) on the unconfined compressive strength (UCS), permeability, consolidation, and microstructures of untreated and treated soil of road sub-base layer. The Guelph permeameter, UCS, permeability, and one- dimensional consolidation were among the laboratory and in-situ tests that were examined; the microstructures were characterised using SEM, infrared (IR), and mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP). The findings indicated that the high permeability of the natural soil caused harm to our road soon after construction. Applying 5 to 15% CW reduced permeability by approximately 100% and settlement by around 43%. Furthermore, under wet and immersed conditions, mixing CW and OPC with soil raised UCS by approximately 182% and 20 times, respectively. This study demonstrated that by enhancing the geotechnical properties of soil, CW and OPC combined with it could be used as a road sub-base layer material.
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".