MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022540801 · doi:10.1520/jte20170497

Distributed Strain Sensing to Study a Composite Liner for Cast Iron Water Pipe Rehabilitation

2018· article· en· W3022540801 on OpenAlexaff
Titilope Adebola, Neil A. Hoult, Ian D. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Testing and Evaluation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtensometerMaterials scienceReflectometryCrossheadComposite materialOptical fiberComposite numberBendingTension (geology)Fiber optic sensorRayleigh scatteringDisplacement (psychology)FiberUltimate tensile strengthFlexural strengthOpticsTime domain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of cured-in-place pipe lining systems for the rehabilitation of cast iron water pressure pipe has grown significantly in the past 20 years. With limited information on the performance of these lining systems in service, strain measurements are needed to evaluate theoretical findings about three-dimensional strength limits. The application of distributed optical fiber sensing to study the properties of a polymer composite liner was investigated in this research. Polyimide optical fibers were installed into flat liner coupons fabricated in the laboratory, and the specimens were subsequently tested in uniaxial tension and four-point bending. Using optical frequency domain reflectometry, Rayleigh backscatter was monitored from preinstalled optical fiber sensors and strains of up to 4,000 μϵ were obtained. Comparisons between experimental optical fiber measurements and results obtained from conventional strain measurement techniques (i.e., extensometer and crosshead displacement) showed a strong correlation with an average difference of 3 % in four-point bending and 6 % in tension. However, the orientation and diameter of the composite fiber reinforcements were observed to affect distributed sensing performance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Testing and EvaluationSame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207