A comparative study of selected models simulating the settlement of municipal solid waste (MSW) with a focus on landfills in northern climates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• The settlement response of different models was examined with respect to field data. • The field data showed resistance to compressibility under increasing applied stress. • Waste disposal under freezing temperatures delayed biodegradation-induced settlement. • Improved predictions by making mechanical creep coefficient stress-dependent. • MCC model’s yield surface must account for the time-dependent volumetric strain. • Extended MCC model showed unrealistic increase in the pre-consolidation pressure. Evaluating model parameters through laboratory experiments presents challenges due to waste heterogeneity and scale effects. This study investigates the settlement response of selected models using field-scale data collected from the filling and post-closure phases of the Ste. Sophie landfill in Canada. The first model was based on primary and secondary compression ratios, which could capture the overall settlement but ignored the effect of freezing temperatures on biodegradation-induced settlement. The second model was a composite model with a primary compression ratio, and rheological and first-order decay equations. The model failed to accurately simulate mechanical creep and account for the effect of freezing temperatures. A modified version, with mechanical creep expressed as a function of the applied stress, was proposed and showed improved settlement predictions. The third model was a Generalized Kelvin-Voigt (GKV) model with biodegradation-induced strain expressed as a function of waste expended energy. This model could simulate the field settlement by considering resistance to compressibility and effects of freezing temperatures. The final model was based on the Modified Cam-Clay (MCC) model. Several studies in the literature have extended the MCC yield surface by incorporating specific mechanical and biological creep models. In this study, a general procedure was proposed to integrate time-dependent strain into the MCC yield surface, irrespective of the mechanical and biological creep models used. The extended MCC model revealed an unrealistic increase in preconsolidation pressure, resulting in an initial elastoplastic response followed by a pure elastic response. It also provided a poor estimation of the field settlement.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".