Laboratory thermal calibration of contact pressure cells installed on integral bridge abutments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydraulic contact pressure cells were installed on the abutments of an integral abutment bridge to monitor changes in earth pressure over an extended period of time. The accuracy of field data from such instruments is affected by a number of factors. In particular, temperature changes are one of the key factors that can influence earth pressure measurements. Thermal calibration factors supplied by manufacturers of such cells tend to only account for the effect of temperature on the pressure transducer, rather than on the instrument as a whole. Therefore, in an effort to quantify the effect of temperature on data collected from the contact pressure cells installed on the integral abutment bridge, laboratory thermal calibration of these sensors was undertaken. Construction-related time constraints precluded extensive testing of the instruments installed in the field; however, extensive tests were conducted on an identical contact and earth pressure cell. Laboratory thermal calibration tests were conducted on the sensors for an unloaded, unconfined condition and with sensors confined in soil and loaded with uniform pressure. All tests were conducted in a cold room where temperatures could be controlled over a wide range. Results indicate that both temperature and applied pressure affect the performance of hydraulic pressure cells. Thermal correction factors were developed from linear-regression analysis of the unloaded, unconfined test data; however, application of these factors to the loaded, confined test data was found to account for only a portion of the pressure variation, with the remaining variation still being significant. Similar correction factors by linear regression analysis could not be developed from the loaded, confined pressure test data. However, when considering the range of temperatures experienced by the pressure cells installed on the integral abutment bridge, it was concluded in a 2013 study by the authors that the thermal pressure variations present in the field data should not exceed ±10 kPa. The results of this research demonstrate the need for extensive laboratory calibration of these types of pressure cells for proper interpretation of field data.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".