MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074640571 · doi:10.1680/geot.8.p.051

Application of a hyperbolic model to municipal solid waste

2011· article· en· W2074640571 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manoj Kumar Singh, Ian Fleming

Bibliographic record

VenueGéotechnique · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpper and lower boundsMunicipal solid wasteGeotechnical engineeringStrain (injury)Stress (linguistics)MathematicsEnvironmental scienceGeologyMathematical analysisEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An understanding of the stress–strain behaviour of landfilled waste is important in landfill design. Based on evaluation of numerous strain–strain curves obtained from triaxial compression testing of samples of municipal solid waste (MSW) ranging from fresh to degraded, it is proposed that the stress–strain behaviour of MSW under loading follows a non-linear elastic (hyperbolic) model. The hyperbolic model is typically described using σult and E, but can also be described using c′ and φ′ in conjunction with three other parameters (K, n and Rf). The use of the parameters K, n and Rf to describe the stress–strain behaviour may be particularly useful for MSW, because it is often difficult to obtain values of σult and E. Stress–strain data from 15 datasets comprising 57 individual triaxial tests have been compiled. These data originated both from published studies and from the authors' own laboratory testing of large intact and recompacted samples of MSW from three different landfills in Canada. Best-fit hyperbolic model parameters K, n and Rf were determined for 12 of these datasets (comprising 50 individual triaxial tests), and upper- and lower-bound values of K, n and Rf were determined for the 90% confidence level. By using these upper- and lower-bound values, the five-parameter hyperbolic model was effectively reduced to a two-parameter (c′–φ′) model. It is proposed that the resulting lower and upper bounds of the stress–strain curves plotted using the proposed lower and upper bounds of K, n and Rf in conjunction with site-specific c′–φ′ values can reasonably embrace the experimental strain–strain curves up to an axial strain of 20%, even given the significant variability of the waste samples considered. This approach is given further credence as it yields a reasonable prediction of the stress–strain behaviour when compared with the last three datasets (comprising seven individual triaxial tests), which had not been included in the statistical analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéotechniqueSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207