Predicted temperatures and service lives of secondary geomembrane landfill liners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The heat flow through double composite landfill liner systems is modelled for different liner configurations and different modes of landfill operation. The estimated temperature is used to estimate the likely service life (SL) of the secondary geomembrane (SGM) and to compare this with the SL of the primary geomembrane (PGM). The results show that the temperature in SGM is high enough to impact on its SL, and this should be considered in the design of landfill liners. The SL of the SGM was a minimum for an all-geosynthetic system, ranging between 310 years if the PGM temperature is at or below 30°C and 50 years when the PGM is at 50°C. This SL could be improved to between 390 years at 30°C and 75 years at 50°C by the use of a primary composite liner involving a GM and either a GCL and a 1 m thick foundation layer or a 1 m thick CCL. These predictions assume that the temperature of the primary liner remains constant over the period of time being considered. Consideration of a temperature–time history will give longer estimates of service life for a given peak liner temperature. Nevertheless, this study suggests that the temperature of the secondary liner requires consideration in the design of MSW landfills to ensure that the SL of the system is likely to exceed the contaminating lifespan for a particular design.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".