Protecting the Environment with Geosynthetics: 53rd Karl Terzaghi Lecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design- and construction-related factors that affect leakage through geomembranes, used either alone or in a composite liner, are examined. The development, detection, and number of holes that can develop during construction and operation of a facility are discussed. The relationship between leakage through holes in a geomembrane, and the hydraulic conductivity of the material above (including tailings) and below a geomembrane, is examined, considering both a relatively permeable subgrade and an underlying clay liner (including the unstressed zone beneath a wrinkle) in a composite liner. The leakage observed in the primary liners of 180 landfill cells is explained by holes in geomembrane wrinkles with a length consistent with those observed in the field and an appropriate choice of hydraulic conductivity for the clay liner below the geomembrane wrinkle with a hole. Leakage through geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) overlaps below wrinkles is examined. The latest research into the physical and chemical aging of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes liners is discussed in the context of the compatibility of the antioxidant package and resin with the solution to be retained, liner temperature, nature of exposure, sustained tensile strains, and welds. The estimation of the service life of a geomembrane based on immersion tests and simulated field conditions is examined in terms of antioxidant depletion, stress cracking, and the maximum allowable strain in a geomembrane. It is projected that the service life of a geomembrane may range from just a few years to many centuries.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.028 |
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".