Thermal exposure conditions for a composite liner with a black geomembrane exposed to solar radiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: A black 1.5 mm geomembrane (GMB) and geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) liner were placed on both a 3H: 1V (18.4°) slope and a gently sloping (3%) base (latitude 44°34′15″N) and left exposed for 4.7 years. The observed solar radiation, ambient air temperature, temperature at the interface between the GMB and GCL, and temperature at various depths (to 600 mm) in the underlying silty sand soil are reported. The interface temperature was up to 40°C higher than ambient temperature on a sunny day. The difference between interface temperature on the slope and base was minimal near summer solstice and increased significantly earlier and later in the year (except when covered in snow). There was significant variability in GMB and interface temperature depending on the contact conditions between the GMB and GCL. The interface temperatures at wrinkles could be 15°C higher than other locations where there was intimate contact between GMB and GCL. Snow-cover insulated the liner from solar radiation and extreme temperature. These insulating effects were lost on the south-facing slope before the base, subjecting the GCL on the slope to more daily freeze–thaw cycles than on the base. A correlation between the interface temperature, ambient air temperature, and the solar radiation gave good agreement with the observed temperatures. The cycling of interface temperatures is considered to be central to the mechanism of moisture evaporation from the GCL that may cause GCL panel shrinkage and moisture condensation-driven downslope bentonite erosion. Covering the composite liner with a ballast layer as quickly as possible is recommended.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".