## 2 Materials and Methods
### Materials
#### 2.1.2 Properties of Recycled Materials (CLW, GG, and GY) and XG  
The CLW (Figure 3) was collected from a quarry located near Cartagena (\(9^{\circ}57^{\prime}57.04^{\prime\prime}\) N \(75^{\circ}6^{\prime}5.77^{\prime\prime}\) O). The material was subjected to Gs testing, chemical analysis, and morphological characterization using SEM. Figure 3a shows the general appearance of the residue, while Figure 3b displays its surface structure obtained via SEM (MAG: 72\(\times\); FOV: 2.87 mm). The CLW exhibited a G\({}_{\text{s}}\) of 2.52, gray coloration, and a textural composition predominantly consisting of MS (38%) and CS (30%), along with a 15% silt fraction. According to USCS [28], the CLW was classified as SW. The Cu and Cc coefficients were 13.67 and 1.59, respectively [6]. The chemical composition is presented in Table 3.  
The GG, primarily composed of silica, was obtained by crushing recycled glass bottles collected from recycling points in Cartagena. A total of 40 kg of residue was processed in a ball mill BM for 40 min at 1 Hz, followed by sieving through a 0.15 mm mesh. The GG exhibited a Gs of 2.40, white coloration, and a particle size distribution dominated by silt (83%) and fine sand (13%), with 4% clay content. According to the USCS [28], it was classified as ML. The Cu and Cc coefficients were 5.71 and 1.03, respectively [6]. Figure 4a shows the processed residue, while Figure 4b presents its morphology (SEM MAG: 2.67 kc; FOV: 77.6 \(\upmu\)m), where the particles exhibit irregular geometry and diameters \(<\) 0.10 mm. SEM observations of the CLW, GY, and GG samples revealed a granular arrangement with no visible signs of chemical interaction between particles. The chemical composition data for GG are provided in Table 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline
**Materials** & **SiO\({}_{\text{2}}\)** & **Al\({}_{\text{2}}\)O\({}_{\text{3}}\)** & **SO\({}_{\text{3}}\)** & **K\({}_{\text{2}}\)O** & **CaO** & **Fe\({}_{\text{2}}\)O\({}_{\text{3}}\)** & **TiO\({}_{\text{2}}\)** & **LOI** \\ \hline Soil (CL) & 66 & 21.1 & 4 & 3.1 & 3 & 0.9 & 0.3 & 1.6 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Chemical composition of soil sample (% by weight) [25]. Figure 2: (a) Microstructure of soil sample [6]. (b) X-ray diffraction (XRD) of the soil sample. Figure 4: GG (**a**) processed material; (**b**) CY morphology recorded in the SEM analysis [6]. Figure 3: CLW: (**a**) processed residue; (**b**) CLW morphology recorded in the SEM analysis [6]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compound**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Chemical Contents by Weight (\%)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Cement** & **CLW** & **GG** & **GY** \\ \hline CaO & 62.7 & 72.4 & 7.1 & 50.5 \\ MgO & 3.8 & 2.1 & 2.2 & - \\ SiO\({}_{2}\) & 21.1 & 9.0 & 78.2 & 0.4 \\ Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 5.2 & 1.3 & 2.2 & - \\ Fe\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 2.6 & 0.9 & 0.19 & 0.3 \\ SO\({}_{3}\) & 3.5 & - & - & 37.6 \\ Na\({}_{2}\)O & 0.1 & - & 9.3 & 1.3 \\ MnO & 0.2 & 14.3 & - & - \\ P\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{5}\) & - & 72.4 & - & 1.9 \\ LOI & 0.8 & 2.1 & 0.7 & 8.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Chemical composition of the soil sample, cement, CLW, GG and GY [6]. The GY (Figure 5) was obtained by grinding ceiling panels recovered from demolition waste. A total of 40 kg of material was collected, of which 4 kg were processed in a BM for 40 min at 1 Hz. The ground material was then stolen using a 1 mm mesh. The GY recorded a Gs of 2.33, white coloration, and was primarily composed of fine sand (59%) and silt (32%), with a small fraction of clay (3%). According to the USCS [28], the GY was also classified as SW. The Cu and Cc coefficients were 18.50 and 1.76, respectively [6]. The chemical composition is reported in Table 3, and its microstructure is shown in Figure 6b (SEM MAG: 299\(\times\); FOV: 695 \(\upmu\)m). According to [PERSON] et al.