Improving damage resistance of a composite pole using a computer experiment strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transmission poles are widely used for transmitting electricity from power plants to industrial and commercial sites as well as residential areas. The total cost of a transmission line is partly driven by the maintenance cost of poles and wires. To reduce this cost, designers can choose more durable materials and optimal design strategies. In recent years, the use of polymer composite transmission poles has become more popular and they have been implemented in a number of power systems. In this paper, a tapered composite pole under lateral wind load is modelled and its damage resistance under a set of composite failure criteria is investigated. The composite pole is made of glass fibre-reinforced polyester and is manufactured by filament winding. By focusing on fibre orientation angles in the pole layers, a computer experiment (simulation) strategy is designed along with a maximin space-filling sampling criterion. The goal is to choose the best combination of ply angles that can minimise pole damage while maintaining minimal computational cost. A 37% improvement in the matrix cracking failure index was achieved from the initial value of 1·00 (i.e. a damaged pole) to the optimised value of 0·63 (no damage).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".