MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316661968 · doi:10.58286/27243

Validation of wireless impact echo prototype for condition assessment of concrete structures

2022· article· en· W4316661968 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuee-Journal of Nondestructive Testing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsCimetrix Solutions (Canada)University of Ottawa
FundersMitacs
KeywordsEcho (communications protocol)Ground-penetrating radarClassification of discontinuitiesAcousticsUltrasonic sensorUltrasonic testingWirelessBluetoothComputer scienceSlabNondestructive testingDelamination (geology)RadarGeologyStructural engineeringEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new wireless impact echo prototype was developed for the condition assessment of reinforced concrete slabs. The new system includes a wireless handheld sensing device which connects by Bluetooth to a tablet equipped with a user-friendly software for managing the testing grid, recording measurements, processing and transforming the data to a frequency domain, and presenting the results in real time. To validate the device, three large-scale concrete slabs of dimensions 2000 mm x 2000 mm x 300 mm were fabricated with artificial defects including voids, delamination, vertical cracks, and geometric discontinuities. The influence of slab boundaries, defect depth and location, overall thickness, steel reinforcement, and an internal conduit on the obtained measurements were investigated. The results were also compared with other commercial non-destructive testing devices including ground penetrating radar (GPR) and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPE), and the advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed. Overall, the results suggest that the impact echo technique using the new wireless prototype is able to accurately detect and characterise various defect types provided that the right size of impactor is used. Use of improper impactor sizes can result in alternative vibration modes depending on the slab thickness and defect depth; in that case, multiple readings may be required. The new system greatly improved the ease-of-use of the impact echo technique, although the inspector should be trained to properly interpret the results. Compared with the GPR technique, the impact echo system was not as rapid and unable to detect the location of steel reinforcement; on the other hand, it was better able to detect defects in the presence of steel bars which tended to obscure readings using GPR. UPE measurements were also faster than the impact echo tests and performed well for slab thickness measurements and detection of certain defect types; however, readings were found to be affected by the presence of steel reinforcement and in some cases were inconsistent. Overall, it may be concluded that each technique presents certain strengths and weaknesses that should be considered in the condition assessment strategy. The results obtained from each technique are complementary and may be used to develop a complete understanding of the internal state of the structure.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.319 · 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