A Simple Compatibility Testing Protocol for Bentonite-Based Barrier Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates macroscopically observable properties of bentonite. Bentonite slurries were prepared with varying pore water chemistry, using salt solutions for which compatibility problems have been shown. Using these samples, a rapid testing protocol was developed for evaluation of compatibility. Fann viscometer and filter press testing are well-established methods to examine bentonite quality and expected permeability of bentonite based barrier systems. This paper presents new research into the use of these simple tools to examine potential alteration or compatibility problems. Bentonite slurries made using the permeant of interest can be quickly evaluated for comparison with water-hydrated slurries. These results were confirmed with permeameter tests using GCLs. The permeability from the GCLs can be compared with the relative values inferred from the filter press and viscometer testing related to the double layer thickness. The authors believe that this work suggests that a few quick and simple tests can be done to evaluate potential compatibility issues with bentonite in natural form or in prefabricated geosynthetics. For industry, this will have the advantage of a very quick and cheap test that may be carried out to evaluate compatibility issues.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".