Non-aqueous-phase-liquid breakthrough during evaporative drying of clay barriers.
In this study, an attempt has been made to model a real field scenario, whereby an initially almost saturated clay liner in a waste site is gradually drying, due to evaporation at its lower boundary. A detailed conceptual model that deals with the penetration and breakthrough of non-aqueous-phase-liquid (NAPL) in clay liners is introduced. Water content of clay samples was monitored during ambient evaporation through apertures at the base of sample holders. Clay drying rate served as the primary parameter for the NAPL breakthrough study. The interconnection between drying rates, structural damage formation (cracks and suction) and NAPL penetration is especially addressed. The processes taking place in the clay samples during drying appear to be associated with the capillary effects between the different fluid phases in the vicinity of either the NAPL-clay or the clay-air boundaries. A conceptual model of NAPL penetration and breakthrough of the clay layer has been considered, based on both indirect and direct observations of structural damages produced on either clay boundaries. A mutual interaction between these two boundaries is suggested and discussed. NAPL breakthrough is suggested to take place through cracks initiated on the upper soil surface.
Some factors affecting the evaporation of water from soil
In 1914 the result of a study of the evaporation of water from soil was published by B. A. Keen, who distinguished two factors governing the rate of evaporation. One factor was that the available surface from which evaporation takes place decreases as the moisture content decreases. Keen deduced an equation that expressed the operation of this factor, viz. in which D is a constant, w = percentage of water by weight and s = the real specific gravity of the soil. He showed that this equation agreed with his experimental results with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Time and Heritage
As a historian studying what can be considered a form of intellectual history, I have slowly come to adopt Michel de Certeau’s observation made at the end of the 1980s that ‘objectifying the past, for the last three centuries, has undoubtedly left unconsidered time within a discipline that has continued to use it as a taxonomic instrument’. To a certain degree, time has become commonplace for the historian who has preserved or instrumentalized it. It is not considered because it is inconceivable, but because we do not think of it or, more simply, we do not think about it. As a historian attempting to pay attention to the time I’m living in, I have thus, like many others, noticed the swift development of the category of the present until it has become obvious that the present is omnipresent. This is what I refer to here as ‘presentism’.