The Use of Filter Press Tests in Soil-Bentonite Slurry Trench Construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Filter press tests are widely used for field quality control of bentonite slurry in slurry trench excavations and often are incorporated in technical specifications for assessing filtrate properties of initial (freshly mixed) slurry and occasionally for in-trench slurry. In some cases, the results of filter press tests conducted on in-trench slurry are directly or indirectly used to assess the hydraulic performance of the cutoff wall. However, specifications for maximum filtrate loss from filter press testing of in-trench slurry can result in unnecessary construction delays and costs. The authors examine the reasons for specifying filtrate parameters for slurry and present the results of filter press tests conducted on lab and field samples to evaluate the utility of filtrate loss as an appropriate quality control measure for soil-bentonite cutoff walls. These results show no evidence to support that excessive filtrate loss of in-trench slurry (i.e., above the maximum value employed in typical specifications) compromises trench stability or contributes to an overall higher permeability of the completed vertical barrier. Higher in-trench filtrate loss is associated with higher sand content, which results in higher slurry density and improved trench stability. Furthermore, the permeability of all filter cake specimens created in this study from in-trench slurries with sand contents as high as 35 percent were less than 10-7 cm/s, which is the lowest target permeability typically specified for soil-bentonite cutoff wall backfill in hydraulic or geoenvironmental containment applications. The authors do not recommend using filtrate loss of in-trench slurry as a quality control parameter for assessing the effectiveness of slurry trench cutoff walls.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".