Evaluates the mechanical behavior of soil-cement-glass powder mixtures, suggesting effective predictors for strength and durability.
This study evaluates the mechanical behavior and durability of a silty soil stabilized with Portland cement and recycled ground glass powder (GGP). The porosity–cement index (η/Civ) was applied to predict unconfined compressive strength (qu), splitting tensile strength (qt), and accumulated mass loss (ALM) under wetting–drying cycles. Mixtures were prepared with cement contents of 3%, 6%, and 9%, GGP contents of 5%, 15%, and 30%, and dry unit weights of 13.5, 14.5, and 15.5 kN/m3, and were cured for 7, 28, and 90 days. The experimental program consisted of a large dataset, comprising 486 mechanical tests (unconfined compressive and splitting tensile strength) and 81 durability tests, providing a robust basis for both empirical modeling and machine learning analysis. The results confirmed a strong power-law relationship between η/Civ and both qu and qt, achieving high coefficients of determination (R2 > 0.98). The strength coefficient (A) increased consistently with curing time and GGP addition, indicating enhanced pozzolanic reactivity and matrix densification. After 90 days, qu increased by over 250% and qt by nearly 700%. Durability tests revealed exponential reductions in ALM with higher density and binder content, achieving values below 0.5% for the densest mixtures, which contained 30% GGP. These findings validate the η/Civ index as an effective predictor of strength and durability in soil–cement–GGP geomaterials, establishing a solid basis for future integration with machine learning models. The implementation of twenty-eight machine learning presets for predicting qu, qt, and ALM demonstrated that the Matern 5/2 Gaussian Process Regression and the trilayered neural network are the most suitable algorithms, achieving R2 values higher than 0.987 in both the validation and testing stages.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baldovino et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: