MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283765110 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2022-0019

Effect of subgrade on tensile strains in a geomembrane for tailings storage applications

2022· article· en· W4283765110 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jiying Fan, R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubgradeUltimate tensile strengthGeotechnical engineeringGeotextileGeomembraneMaterials scienceTensile strainSubbaseComposite materialModulusGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments were conducted to quantify short-term tensile strains induced in a 1.5 mm thick high-density polyethylene geomembrane overlain by tailings. Four subgrades, a poorly graded angular to subangular gravel (GP), a well-graded angular to subangular gravel (GW), a poorly subrounded graded sand (SP), and silty sand (SM), and two nonwoven geotextiles, 450 and 1420 g/m 2 , were evaluated. All the indentations in the geomembrane (GMB) were due to the subgrade, and with an adequate fraction of sand size particles in the subgrade, the tensile strains could be minimized. At 2000 kPa, the maximum tensile strain was 32% for GP, 16% for GW, 13% for SP, and no discernable indentation was observed for SM prepared at the optimum water content of 11%. For the soft SM subgrade prepared at 20% water content, only one indentation with the tensile strain of 2% was observed. At 2000 kPa, a 450 g/m 2 geotextile beneath the GMB reduced the maximum tensile strain from 32% to 23% for GP subgrade, from 16% to 8% for GW subgrade, and from 13% to 6% for SP subgrade; the 1420 g/m 2 geotextile reduced the maximum tensile strain to 14% for GP subgrade. Thus, minimal subgrade indentation induced strain and hence the possibility of a very long service life of GMB could be achieved using SM subgrade.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207