Gas permeability of a compacted bentonite–sand mixture: coupled effects of water content, dry density, and confining pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gas-tightness of compacted bentonite–sand mixtures is important to the total sealing efficiency of geological repositories. The initial aim of this work was to determine whether the combination of a high confining pressure (P c ) and incomplete saturation could cause a bentonite–sand mixture to become gas-tight. The results show that the physical characteristics of the materials (degree of saturation, S r ; porosity, [Formula: see text]; and dry density, ρ d ) are very sensitive to changes in the applied confining pressures and their own swelling deformation (or shrinkage). The combination of these changes affects the sample’s effective gas permeability (K eff ). For materials prepared at a relative humidity (RH) of 98%, K eff decreased from 10 −16 to 10 −20 m 2 when P c increased from 1 to 7 MPa. This means that gas-tightness can be obtained for a compacted bentonite–sand mixture when the materials experience a series of changes (e.g., w, S r , [Formula: see text], and ρ d ). In addition, larger irreversible deformation (or hysteresis) was observed during the loading–unloading cycle for the sample with higher water content. This phenomenon may be attributed to larger interactions between the macrostructural and microstructural deformations and the decrease of preconsolidation pressure during hydration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".