ANÁLISE DA EFICIÊNCIA DE LOCALIZADORES DE ARMADURA ELETROMAGNÉTICOS: UM ESTUDO COMPARATIVO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMO: Na inexistência dos projetos executivos é possível determinar a armadura da estrutura e o seu respectivo cobrimento a partir de aparelhos denominados pacômetros. O presente trabalho tem como objetivo analisar as leituras de equipamentos de dois modelos, o Profometer 5+ e o Wallscanner D-Tect 150, utilizados na detecção das armaduras e cobrimento de um dos pilares do viaduto em Curitiba. A metodologia desenvolvida foi dividida em três etapas, a primeira, para calibração dos equipamentos, realizada em pilares pré-moldados de concreto armado. Na segunda fase, foram executadas leituras em um pilar de um edifício comercial e finalmente, na terceira etapa foram realizadas medições em um pilar com armação desconhecida localizado no viaduto. As leituras realizadas mostraram a eficiência dos equipamentos na localização das armaduras, porém, apresentaram pouca precisão na determinação dos diâmetros das barras. Não foram detectadas armaduras localizadas em camadas mais profundas. Os dois aparelhos permitiram a estimativa do cobrimento das barras detectadas, contudo, a leitura foi bastante afetada em zonas de alta concentração de armadura. Os resultados obtidos, aliados à leveza e facilidade de uso dos equipamentos, permitiram concluir que é recomendável a utilização de pacômetros em inspeções preliminares de pilares de estruturas de concreto armado.ABSTRACT: In the absence of the executive projects it is possible to determine the armature of the structure and its respective covering from devices called pacemakers. The present work has the objective of analyzing the equipment readings of two models, Profometer 5+ and Wallscanner D-Tect 150, used in the detection of the reinforcement and covering of one of the columns of the bridge in Curitiba. The methodology developed was divided into three stages, the first one, for equipment calibration, performed on precast concrete columns. In the second phase, readings were performed on a column of a commercial building and finally, in the third stage measurements were made on a column with unknown frame located on the viaduct. The readings showed the efficiency of the equipment in the location of the reinforcement, but presented little precision in the determination of the bar diameters. No reinforcement was found located in deeper layers. The two devices allowed the estimation of the covering of the detected bars, however, the reading was very affected in zones of high concentration of reinforcement. The results obtained, combined with the lightness and ease of use of the equipment, allowed us to conclude that the use of pacometers in preliminary inspections of pillars of reinforced concrete structures is recommended.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".