Influence of Normal Stress on Hydration of GCLS from Subsoil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) are often used as part of a barrier system in modern landfills to prevent the escape of leachate into the surrounding environment. The hydraulic performance of GCLs depends on the degree of hydration from the underlying subsoil. The hydration behaviour of two GCL products from different underlying subsoils was examined under various normal stresses (0 to 8 kPa). The rate of hydration of GCLs significantly increased as the normal stress, provided by the waste or leachate collection system, increased from 0 to 8 kPa. For instance, the final equilibrium moisture content of the GCL was achieved in approximately 8 weeks when placed on sand subsoil under 8 kPa normal stress, while it took about 24 weeks for the same GCL under no normal stress. However, the effect of the normal stress on the final equilibrium moisture content of GCLs was not so significant. A normal stress of 2 kPa was shown to induce slightly higher equilibrium moisture uptake for most GCLs. Nevertheless, results indicated a meagre variation of the equilibrium moisture content as the normal stress increased from 2 to 8 kPa. The GCL manufacturing processes and the grain size distribution of the subsoil were shown to affect both the rate of hydration and the final equilibrium moisture content attained.
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".