Towards a more rational approach to chemical compatibility testing of clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical compatibility tests using hydraulic conductivity testing with chemical permeants are normally undertaken to assess the integrity of compacted clayey liners used for waste containment. This paper highlights the fact that current routine methods of flexible wall and rigid wall testing techniques fail to represent the zero lateral strain boundary condition that is required to realistically represent the field situation. The test results indicate that flexible wall permeameters underestimate the likely increases in hydraulic conductivity due to chemicals, while the rigid wall permeameters can severely overestimate these effects. A new test technique, which incorporates the zero lateral strain condition in a simple manner, is presented. This technique involves the use of a rigid wall concept in a flexible wall permeameter. A split rigid mould is used to encase the soil specimen that is glued to the internal surfaces of the mould, to apply the zero lateral strain boundary condition. The new technique is shown to be suitable for both chemical compatibility and desiccation testing. The tests were undertaken with varying concentrations of saline water, methanol, and landfill leachate. The test results indicate that the new technique produces results that fall between the results obtained from flexible wall and rigid wall permeameters. It is argued that the new test technique provides a more rational approach for chemical compatibility testing than the current rigid wall and flexible wall techniques.Key words: soil, hydraulic conductivity, chemical compatibility, landfill, permeameter, boundary condition.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".