Geosynthetic clay liners shrinkage under simulated daily thermal cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geosynthetic clay liners are used as part of composite liner systems in municipal solid waste landfills and other applications to restrict the escape of contaminants into the surrounding environment. This is attainable provided that the geosynthetic clay liner panels continuously cover the subsoil. Previous case histories, however, have shown that some geosynthetic clay liner panels are prone to significant shrinkage and separation when an overlying geomembrane is exposed to solar radiation. Experimental models were initiated to evaluate the potential shrinkage of different geosynthetic clay liner products placed over sand and clay subsoils, subjected to simulated daily thermal cycles (60°C for 8 hours and 22°C for 16 hours) modelling field conditions in which the liner is exposed to solar radiation. The variation of geosynthetic clay liner shrinkage was evaluated at specified times by a photogrammetry technique. The manufacturing techniques, the initial moisture content, and the aspect ratio (ratio of length to width) of the geosynthetic clay liner were found to considerably affect the shrinkage of geosynthetic clay liners. The particle size distribution of the subsoil and the associated suction at the geosynthetic clay liner-subsoil interface was also found to have significant effects on the shrinkage of the geosynthetic clay liner.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".