Gas capture and extraction using multi-linear drainage géocomposite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design of gas drainage systems is essential for mitigating environmental impacts, especially in contaminated soils (e.g., hydrocarbons, radon) and landfill covers (e.g., methane and carbon dioxide management). This study experimentally investigates the gas drainage capacity and transport through mini pipes within multi-linear drainage geocomposites, as these mini pipes primarily determine the system’s overall drainage capacity. Initially, the assessment of the discharge capacities was performed on air, and CO₂ through various mini-pipe diameters and lengths to characterize the flow rate as a function of the gradient. Finally, the drainage capacity through mini-tube connections and their integration into the principal collection system was examined. These two steps enable the estimation of both linear and singular head losses, considering the extended lengths of the mini-pipes and their connections. The final objective is to extend these findings to gases such as methane and radon by establishing discharge equivalencies among various fluids. This experimentation is supported by well-known fluid transport concepts, allowing for the modeling and reproduction of the drained flow rate as a function of the fluid gradient. This paper presents the methodology and results of the proposed study, along with various analyses of equivalency considerations to enhance gas drainage system design.
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".