Life cycle cost of support poles in distribution lines
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood poles are the most common support structures for distribution lines in North America. Wood poles typically have a service life of 40-50 years but may be replaced prematurely when they fail or are damaged by climatic loads or when they have degraded prematurely. The distribution network of Hydro-Quebec comprises more than 2 million wood poles and the selection of an optimal class of poles for new or refurbished lines can potentially represent significant savings. In this project, wood poles from class 1 to 5 and steel poles are considered for new or refurbished lines using life-cycle-cost analysis. The evaluation of life-cycle-costs of a line for a service life of 50 years was performed in two steps. A reliability model was first developed to estimate the probability of failure of single poles with climatic loads. The results of the reliability analysis were then integrated in an economic model that computes the Net Present Value of construction costs and pole replacement costs associated with failure under climatic loads of the whole line. Maintenance costs were neglected in this study since they were determined to be approximately similar for the various classes of poles. The results indicate that the Class 4 poles that are currently used for the distribution network are not optimal from an economic point of view. For distribution lines located in regions with moderate ice hazard expositions, a Class 2 pole has a 15% cost advantage over the Class 4 poles. For distribution lines located in regions with severe ice hazard expositions, a Class 2 pole has a 30% advantage over the Class 4 poles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it