Assessment of alternative protection layers for a geomembrane – geosynthetic clay liner (GM–GCL) composite liner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A protection layer is required above geomembrane (GM) – geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) landfill liners to limit physical damage (GM strains and GCL thinning) from an overlying granular drainage layer. A 150 mm thick layer of sand has been found to provide excellent protection at a vertical pressure of 250 kPa. However, the use of sand may not be practical in many cases. Experimental results are presented where the effectiveness of alternate protection systems above one particular GM–GCL liner were examined with 50 mm coarse gravel at an applied vertical pressure of 250 kPa. A 150 mm thick layer of compacted clay and a 150 mm thick layer of rubber tire shreds with a nonwoven needle-punched geotextile (570 g/m2) were found to limit the geomembrane strains and GCL extrusion to acceptable levels. Layered geotextiles performed much better than single layers of geotextiles. A layered geocomposite, with a thick nonwoven needle-punched geotextile in the middle to provide cushioning and stiffer woven geotextiles on the top and bottom to carry tensile force, was able to limit the short term strain to less than 3%, but it was not able to prevent local thinning of the GCL because of the deformation required to mobilize force in the geotextiles.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".