Numerical Simulation of the Radius of Influence for Landfill Gas Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America, most domestic waste produced is disposed in landfills. These sites generate leachate and gas, mainly CH 4 and CO 2 , which are harmful for the environment if not properly controlled. The design of active landfill gas recovery systems is based in large part on the radius of influence of vertical pumping wells. This parameter is commonly estimated empirically. This study presents results of numerical simulations of the radius of influence of gas recovery wells for different site conditions. The simulations were performed with the TOUGH2‐LGM simulator. In the simulation scenarios, the radius of influence was defined in relation to several factors: the waste thickness, the generation rate of CH 4 gas in the waste, and CH 4 concentration in the recovered landfill gas. The results are presented in the form of general graphs that are not site‐specific. The adequacy of the results still needs to be validated against field measurements. On the basis of simulation results, a systematic approach is proposed for the design of landfill gas recovery systems, and this approach is illustrated with a hypothetic example. This approach should guide landfill managers and engineers in the design of landfill gas recovery systems. The simulations only considered cases where landfills are open to the atmosphere, which are representative of most operating conditions. The results thus do not apply to post‐closure conditions usually involving an impermeable cover built on top of the waste.
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".