Challenges of the Filter Paper Suction Measurements in Geosynthetic Clay Liners: Effects of Method, Time, Capillarity, and Hysteresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Time and method dependencies, lack of sufficient capillary connections, and wetting-drying hysteresis may cause inaccurate results from filter paper tests (FPTs) when used for suction measurements of geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs). These limitations of the filter paper method for suction measurements of GCLs were investigated using initially dry contact, initially wet contact, and noncontact FPTs. Wetting-drying hysteresis was observed in the initially dry contact and noncontact FPTs and was significantly higher in the latter. The initially wet contact and initially dry contact FPTs were reliable in measuring matric and total suction, respectively. These two methods can provide suction measurements from both the cover and the carrier geotextile sides of the GCLs (i.e., from the hydratable surfaces of the GCL after installation on site), thus allowing suction measurements without impacting the integrity of the geotextile-bentonite-geotextile structure. Suction measurements on a granular bentonite-based GCL showed higher time dependency compared with powdered bentonite-based GCLs. For the specific GCLs and conditions tested, the woven and nonwoven scrim-reinforced geotextile structure causes pronounced capillary break effects on the hydratable surface of GCL. In contrast, the woven geotextile structure has a minimal impact. When the FPT procedures are applied to GCLs, the interpretation of the results requires careful consideration of the method and time dependencies, wetting-drying hysteresis, capillary breaks, and how the measurements of total or matric suction are performed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".