Search Results for « MARL »

Abstract The paper outlines the physical parameters and textural differences of clay marl, marl, and calcareous marl, focusing on the physical changes that are caused by water. The characterization of marls is often very difficult since their properties are variable, covering a broad range from low-strength friable rock to highly cemented durable lithologies. Consequently, the prediction of their physical parameters requires further consideration. The paper addresses this issue by physically and texturally characterizing Eocene marly lithologies and comparing their properties to various limestones. Density, water absorption, ultrasonic pulse velocity, uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Brazilian tensile strength, Young’s modulus, and their interdependencies are explained. The link between physical properties and various micro-fabrics is also outlined, with the help of new equations. Our tests show that UCS of calcareous marl can be as high as 100 MPa, but it decreases when the sample is water saturated. Relationships were calculated between the physical parameters of air-dry and water-saturated samples. Correlations between Young’s moduli and uniaxial compressive strength are also explained. The results of our analyses were compared to published physical parameters of marls and limestone, and relationships were outlined between the parameters of these carbonates.

Under fixed buyer declarations, common prices and lossless unconstrained clearing, splitting a fixed peer-to-peer energy pool changes individual allocations but not aggregate buyer cost. We study the resulting choice of fairness unit rather than propose a new multi-agent reinforcement-learning algorithm. Equal-weight proportional fairness and zero-disagreement Nash bargaining yield the same allocation as egalitarian water-filling; demand-weighted proportional fairness recovers the proportional rule. Although water-filling minimizes received-energy inequality, proportional clearing maximizes the worst demand-fulfilment fraction, so the two objectives can conflict at identical aggregate cost. An executable six-rule audit on 14,400 labeled simulator rounds confirms the allocation equivalences and this trade-off. The five retained scenario labels contain only three distinct declaration-price traces and 31 labeled scarce rounds; they are not independent market replications. Received-energy Gini falls from 0.3530 to 0.2151 on the shared allocation trajectory, while mean worst fulfilment on its scarce rounds falls from 2.1282% to 1.2758%. Existing three-seed closed-loop results are retained as a separate policy-adaptation check. Seller participation, strategic bids, network constraints, subjective satisfaction and field effectiveness remain untested.