GCL hydration under simulated daily thermal cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The hydration of three different geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) subjected to daily thermal cycles was examined for a range of subsoil conditions. It was shown that daily thermal cycles can significantly decrease the equilibrium gravimetric moisture content of the GCL to as low as 15% of that under isothermal conditions in the worst case. For silty sand (SM) foundation soil with an initial gravimetric moisture content of 16%, the type of GCL had a significant effect on the daily variation in moisture content which ranged between 13% for one type of GCL and only 2% for another. The effect of these daily variations in moisture content on susceptibility to shrinkage is discussed. The initial moisture content and associated matric suction of the foundation soil was shown to have the dominant effect on GCL hydration. For GCLs over silty sand with initial moisture contents, wfdn, of 5, 10 and 16% and initial suction levels greater than their air entry value, the daily thermal cycles controlled GCL hydration at the end of the thermal cycle to moisture contents of between 14 and 30% and the GCL equilibrium moisture content was relatively insensitive to the initial foundation moisture content over this range. However when the foundation moisture content increased to wfdn = 21% (just below field capacity and the saturated moisture content) the GCL moisture contents increased to 113 to 127% (depending on GCL). Results are also reported for a GCL on poorly graded sand (SP) at 10% initial moisture content and the effect of the grading curve (and the related water retention curve) is discussed. The results of this study highlight the potential complexity of interpreting shrinkage of GCLs at the same site let alone at different sites.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".