![]() ![]() ![]()
EI Compendex Source List(2022年1月)
EI Compendex Source List(2020年1月)
EI Compendex Source List(2019年5月)
EI Compendex Source List(2018年9月)
EI Compendex Source List(2018年5月)
EI Compendex Source List(2018年1月)
中国科学引文数据库来源期刊列
CSSCI(2017-2018)及扩展期刊目录
2017年4月7日EI检索目录(最新)
2017年3月EI检索目录
最新公布北大中文核心期刊目录
SCI期刊(含影响因子)
![]() ![]() ![]()
论文范文
1. Introduction The poor condition of the US bridge inventory requires an enhanced approach to bridge management. Bridge inspection is a key part of the management process, which is somewhat overlooked when it comes to strategic planning and optimization. The National Bridge Inspection Standards (23 CFR 650C) require inspection of all bridges (with a length of 20 feet or more) on public roads every 24 months [1]. In 2009, a joint American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Ad Hoc group was created to study how current bridge inspection practices could be improved for the future [2]. The group recommended that “a more detailed inspection conducted less frequently may have a positive impact on the overall safety and maintenance of bridges in the U.S., allowing for broader application of Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) technologies and a better understanding of the condition of individual bridges” [2]. In order to move to a more realistic inspection model where the inspection of a given bridge is not necessarily conducted on a set 24-month cycle as suggested above, it is necessary to have a better understanding of the uncertainty in inspection results and an understanding of the costs of these more advanced NDE methods. 2. Problem Statement and Purpose It was determined through an extensive literature review by Hesse [3] and Hesse et al. [4] that there is limited existing experimental work that can be used to quantify the level of bias, accuracy, reliability, and cost of common NDE methods as far as their use on bridges is concerned. The lack of such data is a significant obstacle to moving away from the set 24-month inspection cycle and to increasing the use of NDE more generally. The problem is that the experimental work necessary to find these values is difficult and would be extensive. Expert opinion could be used as a starting point, providing initial assessments of uncertainty that could then be updated based on agency specific findings that are collected as part of the normal inspection process rather than as separate experimental studies. This is similar to the approach of the element deterioration models in AASHTOWare Bridge Management Software (formerly known as PONTIS) that can be updated as outlined by Hatami and Morcous [5]. This paper describes a study to collect expert opinions on the uncertainty and costs of commonly used NDE methods. The information presented in this paper can serve as a starting point for characterizing different NDE methods for use in bridge management and inspection planning and identifies the type of information that is still needed. As such, this research has the potential to promote further research on this subject. ![]() |
|