## 3 Results
### Normalization of the Strength and Stiffness of the Materials  
The data normalization was applied to the eight analyzed mixtures. This procedure enables the construction of robust predictive models that eliminate inherent variations among individual samples, facilitating the identification of both general and specific trends ([PERSON] et al., 2016). [PERSON] et al. (2016) demonstrated that it is possible to represent the behavior of dosage curves as a single trend by using the porosity/binder ratio as a parameter. In turn, [PERSON] et al. (2016) stated that normalization involves expressing the strength (q\({}_{\text{u}}\)) or stiffness (G\({}_{\text{o}}\)) as a ratio relative to the value the material would reach for a constant \(\eta/B_{\text{ie}}^{x}\) index, which must fall within the range defined by the curves fitted through a power function. Equations (2) and (3) present the mathematical expressions that define the new normalized dosage curves for strength and stiffness. Figures 14 and 15 display the graphical representation of the normalized data, along with a 95% prediction band for both unconfined compressive strength and initial stiffness. \[\frac{q_{u}}{q_{u-n}\big{(}n/\left(B_{\text{ie}}\right)^{x}=30\big{)}} =8.62\times 10^{5}{\left(n/B_{\text{ie}}\right)^{x}}^{-4.02}\left(R ^{2}=0.94\right) \tag{2}\] \[\frac{G_{o}}{G_{o-n}\big{(}n/\left(B_{\text{ie}}\right)^{x}=30 \big{)}} =2.35\times 10^{5}{\left(n/B_{\text{ie}}\right)^{x}}^{-3.65}\left(R ^{2}=0.96\right) \tag{3}\]  
Figure 13: Effects of the porosity/cement index on the unconfined compressive strength of the new geomaterials cured after 28 days. To derive these equations, the normalized strength and stiffness values (Table 5) were calculated using a specific value of the index \(\eta/B_{iv}^{\,\,\,x}=\
abla\). A normalization range for \(\
abla\) was calculated using a specific value of the index \(\eta/B_{iv}^{\,\,\,x}=\
abla\). The normalized strength and stiffness values were calculated using a specific value of the index \(\eta/B_{iv}^{\,\,\,x}=\
abla\). A normalization range for \(\
abla\) was calculated using a specific value of the index \(\eta/B_{iv}^{\,\,\,x}=\
abla\). Figure 14: Normalization of unconfined compressive strength using the porosity/binder index. Figure 15: Normalization of stiffness using the porosity/binder index. between 25 and 42 was defined, applicable to both unconfined compressive strength (q\({}_{\rm u}\)) and small-strain initial stiffness (G\({}_{\rm o}\)). A value of \(\
abla\) = 30 was selected, as it yielded the highest coefficients of determination for both mechanical properties, with \(R^{2}\) = 0.94 for strength and \(R^{2}\) = 0.96 for stiffness, respectively. Statistical Analysis of the Influence of Cement Mixed with Residues (CLW, GY, and GG), Xanthan Gum (XG) Addition, and XG-PPF Improvement on the Strength and Stiffness of Compacted Blends  
The ANOVA results for q\({}_{\rm u}\) and G\({}_{\rm o}\) (Tables A1-A10, Appendix A) confirm that the statistical models were highly significant across most experimental conditions, with corrected \(R^{2}\) values ranging from 0.980 to 0.999. Cement content consistently emerged as the most influential factor, showing \(p\)-values < 0.001 in all cases. In blends containing construction residues such as CLW, GY, and GG (Tables A1-A3 and A6-A8), both the residue type and the dry unit weight (yd) significantly affected the mechanical behavior, although interaction terms--particularly residue \(\times\)yd--were generally non-significant, indicating largely additive effects rather than synergistic ones. In the case of XG-treated blends (Tables A4 and A9), both q\({}_{\rm u}\) and G\({}_{\rm o}\) were significantly influenced by XG dosage and compaction density. The interaction XG \(\times\)yd was not significant in q\({}_{\rm u}\) (\(p\) = 0.493) but approached significance in G\({}_{\rm o}\) (\(p\) = 0.087), suggesting that stiffness may be more sensitive to the interaction between biopolymer content and compaction level.