Long-Term Effectiveness of Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Systems for Reinforced Concrete Highway Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the early 1980’s cathodic protection technology has been increasingly applied to reinforced concrete structures. Various anode materials in various configurations have been used. In this study an effort was made to document the long-term field performance of nineteen impressed current systems installed on fourteen bridge structures and one tunnel located in ten states of the United States of America and one Province of Canada over a period of five years. The cathodic protection systems evaluated in this study utilized zinc, titanium with mixed metal oxide coating, conductive coating, conductive polymer, and coke asphalt based anode materials. These systems were installed on bridge decks, super and substructure elements of bridge structures and a deck of a tunnel in various environmental conditions. At the end of the study the age of the systems varied from thirteen months to twelve years. As the ability of the cathodic protection system to stop corrosion is well established, the focus of this effort was to ascertain the effectiveness of each anode material and configuration to serve as a cathodic protection anode on reinforced concrete structures. This paper documents the findings of this study.
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) | 0.000 | 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".