Coring or Core Drilling is a technique used in the modern construction as an option for cutting precise holes in the construction. When core drilling is carried out by a diamond drill bit it is called diamond drilling. Widely regarded as the gold-standard method for drilling holes, diamond coring/drilling is used in industrial sectors. The diamond drill bit allows one to drill through any material, both quickly and efficiently and also has a number of other significant advantages over conventional drilling.

The use of diamond in the drill bit makes cutting more accurate and delivers a higher standard of the end-result. The increased accuracy implies that there is a reduced risk of inadvertent structural damage. There is also a bonus of notably less amount of debris that in turn helps save time, effort and disposal costs. Another reason why diamond drilling is getting adapted more frequently is that diamond drilling can even be conducted in harsh jobsite conditions such as confined spaces and even underwater. And, with a remote control operability, it is highly convenient.

Diamond coring has found its way to may coring and drilling applications. Let’s take a look at some of the applications where we can use diamond coring effectively.

Various Applications of Diamond Coring

To make openings for ducts, pipes, and cables

Ducts, pipes, and cables are essential for instilling functionality to a structure. One needs to drill ducts and piping system for various HVAC, air filters, and plumbing. Cabling system, on the other hand, is instrumental in electrical system and connectivity in a building. Manual operation, e.g., digging horizontally may not be sufficient. Diamond coring, therefore, will expertly create a hole without any damage to the structure.

To make openings for jual besi siku semarang structural anchors

Anchor fasteners as discussed in an earlier post provide foundational strength to any temporary and permanent structure. Previously, anchor fasteners were installed by pouring concrete mixture on the bolts that would then affix themselves to the base and serve as the anchor. Even though this practice is still quite common for new structures, but diamond drilling is apt when a building is already in place. Diamond coring helps to drill a hole in the base material, place the bolts, and then seal it by pouring the concrete.

To facilitate anchor installations

Anchor installations can be tricky as the choice of the anchor inserts for structure connection, whether mechanical or chemical, depends on the load. When the load is too big, the ideal choice is to drill or core the material using diamond drilling instead of doing it manually. In such a case coring helps you achieve a precise result without causing any damage to the inherent structure.

For the creation of manholes

Initially, manholes were created by a single person digging and hammering the concrete from one point to another. This process often took weeks, even months depending on the length and diameter specified. These days the entire process of digging a manhole has been reduced to half, thanks to coring. A coring machine helps to achieve an accurate and smooth finish instead of the manual process that is cumbersome, time taking and inaccurate.

To help manage rebar fixing

Rebarring, also known as reinforcing bar, is used to strengthen the hold of the concrete to the tension. A strong foundation is imperative for an excellent rebar system. During the renovation process, it is important to redo and fix the rebar as per the new design. Since it is hidden under layers of concrete, the hole needs to be core at the exact place to reveal the rebar system. In such a case, diamond coring is extremely important.

Diamond coring facilitates new age drilling of holes with utmost accuracy and efficiency. Contrary to the popular belief, diamond coring has several other uses besides creating service entries.

id=”article-body” class=”row” section=”article-body”> Six years into the “new normal” of terror alerts, identification checks, electronic surveillance, and increasing levels of secrecy-based security, the prospect of a national identification card needs serious public debate. In March, the Department of Homeland Security released its long-awaited guidance document regarding national implementation of the Real ID program, as part of its post-9/11 national security initiatives. It is perhaps quite telling that despite bipartisan opposition, Real ID was buried in a 2005 “must-pass” military spending bill and enacted into law without public debate or congressional hearings.

DHS has maintained that the Real ID concept is not a national identification database. While it’s true that the system is not a single database per se, jual wiremesh semarang this is a semantic dodge; according to the DHS document, Real ID will be a collaborative data-interchange environment built from a series of interlinking systems operated and administered by the states. In other words, to the Department of Homeland Security, it’s not a single database because it’s not a single system. But the functionality of a single database remains intact under the guise of a federated data-interchange environment.

The DHS document notes the “primary benefit of Real ID is to improve the security and lessen the vulnerability of federal buildings, nuclear facilities, and aircraft to terrorist attack.” We know now that vulnerable cockpit doors were the primary security weakness contributing to 9/11, and reinforcing them was a long-overdue protective measure to prevent hijackings. But this still raises an interesting question: Are there really so many members of the American public just “dropping by” to visit a nuclear facility that it’s become a primary reason for creating a national identification system? Are such visitors actually admitted?

They will become stigmatized, branded, marked, ostracized, segregated. DHS proposes guidelines for proving one’s identity and residence when applying for a Real ID card. Yet while the department concedes it’s a monumental task to prove one’s domicile or residence, it leaves it up to the states to determine what documents would be adequate proof of residence–and even suggests that a utility bill or bank statement might be appropriate documentation. If so, a person could easily generate multiple proof-of-residence documents. Basing Real ID on such easy-to-forge documents obviates a large portion of what Real ID is supposed to accomplish.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for Americans, the very last paragraph of the 160-page Real ID document deserves special attention. In a nod to states’ rights advocates, DHS declares that states are free not to participate in the Real ID system if they choose–but any identification card issued by a state that does not meet Real ID criteria is to be clearly labeled as such, to include “bold lettering” or a “unique design” similar to how many states design driver’s licenses for those under 21 years of age.

In its own guidance document, the department has proposed branding citizens not possessing a Real ID card in a manner that lets all who see their official state-issued identification know that they’re “different,” and perhaps potentially dangerous, according to standards established by the federal government. They would become stigmatized, branded, marked, ostracized, segregated. All in the name of protecting the homeland; no wonder this provision appears at the very end of the document.

One likely outcome of this DHS-proposed social segregation is that people presenting non-Real ID identification automatically will be presumed suspicious and perhaps subject to additional screening or surveillance to confirm their innocence at a bar, office building, airport or routine traffic stop. Such a situation would establish a new form of social segregation–an attempt to separate “us” from “them” in the age of counterterrorism and the new normal, where one is presumed suspicious until proven more suspicious.

It’s time to rethink some of the security decisions made during the emotional aftermath of 9/11. Two other big-picture concerns about Real ID come to mind: Looking at the overall concept of a national identification database, and given existing data security controls in large distributed systems, one wonders how vulnerable this system-of-systems will be to data loss or identity theft resulting from unscrupulous employees, flawed technologies, external compromises or human error–even under the best of security conditions. And second, there is no clear guidance on the limits of how the Real ID database would be used. Other homeland security initiatives, such as the Patriot Act, have been used and applied–some say abused–for purposes far removed from anything related to homeland security. How can we ensure the same will not happen with Real ID?

As currently proposed, Real ID will fail for several reasons. From a technical and implementation perspective, there are serious questions about its operational abilities both to protect citizen information and resist attempts at circumvention by adversaries. Financially, the initial unfunded $11 billion cost, forced onto the states by the federal government, is excessive. And from a sociological perspective, Real ID will increase the potential for expanded personal surveillance and lay the foundation for a new form of class segregation in the name of protecting the homeland.

It’s time to rethink some of the security decisions made during the emotional aftermath of 9/11 and determine whether they’re still a good idea for homeland security and America. After all, if Real ID was such a well-conceived plan, Maine and 22 other states wouldn’t be challenging it in their legislatures or rejecting the Real ID concept for any number of reasons. But they are.

And we as citizens should, too. Let the debate begin.

Comments Notification on Notification off Tech Industry