Quantifying Effectiveness of Cathodic Protection in Water Mains: Case Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cathodic protection is a viable measure to extend the residual life of water mains and thus defer capital investments in their rehabilitation and renewal. The effectiveness of cathodic protection varies with the unique set of conditions under which it is applied and is therefore difficult to quantify. Consequently, reported case histories have been largely anecdotal and most often based on the observed reduction of water main breaks following the application of cathodic protection. Models to assess the impact of cathodic protection programs were proposed in a previous companion paper “Quantifying the Effectiveness of Cathodic Protection in Water Mains: Theory.” This paper describes the application of these models to five groups of water mains from two water utilities that have had on-going programs of hot spot and retrofit cathodic protection. The case histories show that cathodic protection programs (hot spot and retrofit strategies) have had a significant effect on reducing breakage rates, however, in some cases it appears that the much cheaper hot spot strategy is sufficiently effective and there is no need to retrofit as well. The proposed analytical methods should assist water utilities to optimize the implementation and scheduling of future cathodic protection programs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".