Advances and remaining challenges for geosynthetics in geoenvironmental engineering applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine issues of importance to the use of geomembranes (GMs) and geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) as part of composite liners in geoenvironmental applications are examined. These issues include the effect of: GCL-leachate compatibility on hydraulic conductivity; freeze-thaw on GCL performance; internal erosion on GCL hydraulic conductivity; temperature on advection and diffusion as well as desiccation of GCLs and compacted clay liners (CCLs); the choice of protection layer on the strains developed in GMs; wrinkles on strains developed in GMs and the thinning of GCLs; holes in GMs on leakage through composite liners; winkles in GMs on leakage through composite liners; diffusion through GCLs and GMs; and temperature and leachate exposure on the service life of GMs. It is suggested that GCLs and GMs can play a very beneficial role in providing environmental protection. However, like all engineering materials they must be used appropriately and consideration should be given to factors such as those addressed in this paper. There is a need for site specific design, strict adherence to construction specification, and appropriate protection of the geosynthetics after construction. In particular, given the diversity of available GCLs and their different engineering characteristics, GCLs should be selected based on the required engineering properties, not just price.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".