MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393068018 · doi:10.3233/brs-240220

Lok-Test and Capo-Test pullout for in-situ concrete strength

2024· article· en· W4393068018 on OpenAlex
Claus Germann Petersen

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBridge Structures · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringTest (biology)Structural engineeringForensic engineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the test systems for in-place concrete strength available today, two measure the in-place physical strength, pullout, and cores. Both systems are dealt with in detail in this paper, the pullout systems named LOK-TEST/CAPO-TEST (ASTM C900-19) and coring (ASTM C42/42M-18). Testing in-situ with accurate test systems will reveal effects on the final strength from a potential mix’s over transportation, pumping, consolidation, compaction, and curing. With the LOK-TEST system testing of the pre-installed inserts takes 4–5 minutes each, easily and with only one small suitcase brought along. The CAPO-TEST, originally designed to supplement the LOK-TEST, takes 15–20 minutes for each test to be performed anywhere on a structure without pre-installed inserts. No large holes are left in the structure from coring and thinner elements may be tested without weakening them structurally. The pullout test provides accurately the In-Place Strength without testing cores and the duration is about 15 minutes compared to 3–4 days for coring correctly cured. General robust correlations to strength of standard specimens exist no matter what parameter is considered for normal concrete, even for carbonation of the surface layer. With the systems the cover layer protecting the reinforcement may be checked efficiently and quickly, not at least in areas with dense reinforcement or on slim structures. Bad curing conditions are revealed and the consequences in terms of reduced service life for presence of chlorides or carbonation may be estimated swiftly. This paper is benchmarking 50 years of successful in-situ concrete strength measurements, from studies of the failure mechanism and laboratory/on-site correlations to full scale testing of structures in Europe, Scandinavia, and Canada. Six testing cases with emphasis on pullout and cores are illustrating different applications: Case 1. Production testing at the Great Belt Link, Denmark. Case 2. Service life of bridge pier, Great Belt Link, Denmark. Case 3. Curing of the cover layer evaluated by pullout and conductivity, Denmark. Case 4. Strength testing with CAPO-TEST for further loading of old bridges, Poland. Case 5. In-Situ compressive strength testing of quarantined precast concrete tunnel lining segments using CAPO-TEST, UK. Case 6. Safe and early loading with LOK-TEST, Canada. Other cases are given on www.NDTitans.com

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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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