Effects of Surface Decay on Remaining Strength of Transmission-Line Wood Cross-arms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper develops a model that correlates the amount of surface deterioration to the remaining strength of rectangular Douglas-fir cross-arms used in a 115-kV transmission line. One challenge that utility companies face today is to develop effective strategies to replace cross-arms that are potentially detrimental to the transmission-line system. Inservice cross-arms are continuously exposed to the environment and experience wide ranging temperatures and moisture conditions. Furthermore, rainwater entrapment on surface and bolt holes causes rotting and decay of wood, resulting in gradual loss of strength. The evaluation of the remaining strength of inservice cross-arms is complicated further by a large variability associated with the wood microstructure, the decay process, defects, and environmental conditions. To understand the effects of surface decay on the strength of wood cross-arms, an image-processing technique is employed to accurately quantify the amount of deterioration and examine the effects of decay location. Full-scale bending tests are used to assess the remaining strength. Statistical models have shown that surface decay, depending on its location, has a direct linear relationship with the strength loss for wood cross-arms in bending.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".