patricmacdroff-blog - Tumblr blog

patricmacdroff-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Stop the Bridges from Falling Down

Using technology instead of manual inspections will detect structural issues in bridges before they bring on disasters

Ravages of time leave their scars on everything, including highways and bridges.Most of America’s highways and bridges were built in the 1950s, and are now old and crumbling. Years of bearing the weight of relentless and growing traffic have taken their toll. Many of our bridges are in dire need of repair. Some require outright replacement.

A 2017 the updated National Bridge Inventory counted a total of 607,380 bridges in the US. Of these, 65,605 are “structurally deficient” 20,808 are flagged as “fracture critical,” and 7,795 more bridges are flagged as “structurally deficient” and “fracture critical,” placing them at a higher level of danger of collapsing. If a bridge is “fracture critical,” compromise of evenone of its vital components is sufficient for the bridge to collapse without warning.

These assessments should have sent shivers of apprehension through highway authorities, and made them jump to act. But life goes on as usual, and 88 million trips on average are made across our bridges every day. There appears to be little concern that so many accidents are just waiting to happen.

And major accidents have happened.

On August 1st, 2007, Interstate 35W Bridge over Mississippi River suddenly caved in during rush hour traffic near downtown Minneapolis. Thirteen people died, 145 others were injured and 111 vehicles were destroyed in this catastrophe. Followinga National Transportation Board investigation, the cause of the collapse was traced to a design error involving steel connectors known as “gusset plates.” The gusset plates, which should have been 1” thick were only ½” thick. This design flaw was overlooked because it was apparently not standard practice for bridge inspections to seek out design errors. However, if technology had been used instead of manual inspections, quantitative data might have indicated an abnormality, for what should have been the strongest part of the bridge, was in fact, one of its weakest.

In 2011, a disaster was miraculously averted in Indiana when an enormous crack on a busy bridge was discovered in the nick of time. But, on May 24, 2013, a bridge north of Seattle collapsed when a truck crashed into it, sweeping away a number of vehicles. The Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge into Washington DC, built in 1950, was neglected to a point of being beyond repair. The steel support was worn out, the bridge span was rusted and the concrete was crumbling. In August 2017, the DC Mayor Muriel E. Bowser unveiled the design for a replacement bridge.

The nation’s attention was initially drawn to the condition of its older bridges, following the collapse of the Silver Bridge between Virginia and Ohio in 1967. The bridge collapsed during rush hour and 46 people died. Two bodies were never recovered. A crack in a single link led to the collapse. An investigation found that apart from poor maintenance, the bridge was carrying much heavier loads daily than it had been designed to carry.

The collapse inspired the first legislation for regular inspection and maintenance of bridges. In 1971, the Federal Highway Administration, in the National Bridge Inspection Standards, laid out minimum requirements for inspecting highway bridges. The main instrument to be used was visual inspection.

Along with the dubious accuracy of visual inspections, their subjective and superfluous nature generally do little to reflect ground reality.Apart from the fact that federal and state guidelines for manual inspection of bridges are about fifty years old, a significant number of bridges go beyond the stipulated two years without safety inspections.

If, instead of manual inspections, engineering firms utilize continuous monitoring systems like Infrastructure Preservation Corporation’s BridgeScan,™engineers would be instantly alerted by abnormal data in specific areas. Immediate action can be taken well ahead of any catastrophe.

Material deterioration, fatigue, vibrations, foundation integrity issues, design flaws and consistent loads and overloads on bridges weaken their serviceability and lifespan. Extreme weather conditions add to the problem. Intense heat can warp concrete and steel while salting of bridges in harsh winters will corrode steel. Conventional technologies that have been used over the years up to the present, will not expose these problems until it is too late to prevent a disaster.

On the other hand, systematic technological inspection processes provide specific data to categorize bridge conditions and to evaluate specific needs in terms of repair, retrofit, upgrades or replacements.

For instance, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) in drones can easily access all areas of a bridge, whereas, antiquated manual inspection methods require lane closures, night inspections to allow uninterrupted traffic flow and expensive equipment to access the under bridge.

Nondestructive testing and robotic bridge inspections will also yield quantitative data and uncover issues at an early stage to avert disasters and to prolong the serviceability of bridges.

What is more, employing technology will actually trim costs and enable authorities to redirect more funds for repair and maintenance tasks.

#Bridge Inspection

0 notes

patricmacdroff-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Safety of people is the Highest Law

United States Departments of Transportation (USDOTs) stubbornly resist the advent of technology in bridge inspections, wasting taxpayer dollars and throwing safety to the winds

You can have results or excuses, but not both.

This unvarnished truth may be pertinent in many situations, but it is a particularly relevant comment for America’s infrastructure industry.

The 614,387 bridges in the US national bridge inventory are facing an aging crisis, with most of them over half a century old. Added to this, constant exposure to extreme weather conditions,and years of bearing the weight of relentless and growing traffic have taken their toll. According to the 2017 Infrastructure Report Card compiled by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the nation’s infrastructure scored D+, and includes 55,909 “structurally deficient” bridges, which is 9.1% of all bridges.

Red flags are waving urgently, desperately, but no one, least of all the authorities, appears to be concerned.Some, especially members of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in different states, appear totally oblivious to the crisis looming over their industry. They are not even interested in meeting the fundamental requirements of bridge inspection or concrete inspection services of bridge, which is a thorough inspection of bridges once every two years. Although they are probably aware of the necessity, their lackadaisical attitude conveys otherwise. A Manager of the Bridge Asset Management Section of the DOT in a particular state, said, “They (bridges) have to be inspected every two years, but because we don’t have the staff, we do a percentage of it.”

Overtly, federal employees may feel justified in providing explanations such as “The inspection protocols are pretty much defined by FHWAand we have to adhere to their standards, “or, “FHWA regulations require hands-on inspections. Hands-on inspections mean you must be within arm’s reach of the object you are looking at.” Also, “We cannot change criteria because we are stuck with the FHWA requirements.”

However, beneath the wrap of flimsy, sometimes ridiculous excuses, burns a fierce fire of resistance to change, in particular, resistance to technology. This brings to mind the observations of American writer and Professor of Biochemistry, Isaac Asimov, who once spoke at the Newark College of Engineering in New Jersey. He said, “I discovered, to my amazement that all through history there had been resistance ... and bitter, exaggerated, last-stitch resistance ... to every significant technological change that had taken place on earth. Usually the resistance came from those groups who stood to lose influence, status, money...as a result of the change.”

The conflict here is between the conventional method of bridge inspection(which has been around for long yearspre-technology), and the speedy, accurate and convenient methods introduced by technology. It seems incongruous, even shocking that antiquated methodology is still used extensively in inspecting the country’s vital bridges. Even more, that they are deemed more acceptable than technology. Ironically, when the rest of the world is taking advantage of the speed, accuracy and conveniences of modern technology, the world’s only super power is obsessed with highly subjective manual bridge inspections.As one DOT official said, “We do sounding (on bridges). We take a big hammer and beat it on theconcrete and listen to the frequency. You can’t do that with (technology).” On the other hand, Doug Thaler, President of the robotic engineering firm, Infrastructure Preservation Corporation (IPC), said, “That we still drag a chain across a bridge deck to listen for potential issues just seems archaic.”The level of subjectivity is such that it has been said 10 different inspectors may give 10 different reports upon inspecting the same bridge.

As Thaler says, “Modern technology greatly empowers Inspection and Engineering staff. It provides quantitative data that makes inspection far more effective, and allows DOTs to better allocate existing funds within their current maintenance budgets."

If DOTs are unable ensure all bridges are inspected during the specified period for lack of manpower, they should be all the more receptive to using technology that requires fewer people and gets the job done quicker, more accurately and without unwieldy procedures and road closures. Contrary to DOT arguments, technology allows greater proximity to inspection areas than human beings can get. Accurate data, scans and 3D images allow inspectors to make real-time assessments, identifying exact locations and sizes of irregularities. This is where human skill and expertise should come in. Nondestructive penetration and obtaining information in real time cannot be achieved by sounding with a hammer. 2013 Nobel laureate in economics and Professor of Economics at Yale University, Robert J. Shiller, said, “Some of the best theorizing comes after collecting data because then you become aware of another reality.”

This reality could mean safeguarding innocent lives as much as saving taxpayer dollars. For instance, on August 1st, 2007, the Interstate 35W Bridge over Mississippi River near downtown Minneapolis collapsed during rush hour, killing 13 people, injuring 145 others and destroying 111 vehicles. Investigations found the cause was a design flaw involving steel connectors known as “gusset plates” that were only ½” thick when they should have been 1” thick.Even though it was an accident waiting to happen since the beginning, inspectors never knew because seeking out design errors were not standard practice for bridge inspections. Yet, had technology been used instead of manual inspections, quantitative data would have indicated an abnormality, for what should have been the strongest part of the bridge, was in fact, one of its weakest. Thus, nondestructive testing and robotic bridge inspection yield quantitative data to uncover issues at an early stage and to avert disasters while prolonging the service life of bridges.

Then why are DOTs so opposed to technology? The answer appears to be “billable hours.” They are burying their heads in the sand to protect man-hours that bring in the revenue from contracts. The fact that they are cheating taxpayer dollars and allowing innocent lives to be lost in bridge collapses appear to mean less than safeguarding “billable hours.”

A recent NBC report urges change in current procedures, citing a new report by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association compiled using government data. The report counts 54,259 bridges in America bridges that are categorized as “structurally deficient.”NBC asks a very pertinent question. “Are the best technologies being utilized in construction materials and inspection services to stretch every dollar, manage maintenance and repairs while being sure that the top priority of keeping the public safe is always the first priority?”

Late as it is, the basis of awarding contracts needs to change. Dismissing imminent risk to innocent lives and mouthing inane excuses should stop. Marcus Cicero, the Roman politician, once said, “The safety of the people shall be the highest law.”

#concrete inspection services

0 notes

patricmacdroff-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Mysterious Breakdown of America’s Infrastructure

The Unnecessary Breakdown of Americas Infrastructure

Why are the nation’s bridges on the verge of collapse, with billions of dollars spent on inspection and repairs every year?

Alarm bells are ringing desperately as disasters are waiting to happen on America’s bridges.

The reason, as the American Road and Transportation Builders Association says, is that over 47,000 of the country’s 616,087 bridges are “structurally deficient,” and need urgent repair.

Then again, four out of every ten bridges, are at least 50 years old, and are endlessly subjected to traffic loads and vibrations greater than intended in their initial design capacity. Extreme weather conditions multiply the problem. All of this inevitably shortenthe lifespan of bridges.

Only days ago, President Donald Trump, during of one of his daily White House briefings, mentioned a $2 trillion infrastructure plan because roads and bridges are “in bad shape.”

However, the state of disrepair of the country’s infrastructure has nothing to do with lack of money. On the contrary, the U.S. spends billions of dollars on bridge repairs every year.

But still, the bridges are, as President Trump said, “in bad shape.”

The blame for this state of affairs, falls squarely on America’s bureaucrats, specifically, on the unwillingness of the Federal government, Federal Highways and the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT), to change with changing times.

Bridge inspections take place along federal and state guidelines provided by Federal Highways and specific U.S.and State DOTs.These guidelines have not changed for over half a century. Once upon a time, bridge inspections focused on what was seen on the bridge surface with the naked eye, and problems were discovered by pinging a bridge cable with a hammer, or dragging a chain across the surface. In most cases the this is still how are bridge inspection are conducted.

Doug Thaler, President of a Florida-based robotic engineering firm, Infrastructure Preservation Corporation (IPC), said, “We are still dragging a chain across a bridge deck to listen for potential issues, and it just seems so archaic.”

Thaler, whose technology-based bridge inspection methods directly contrast with the antiquated ones currently in use, is frustrated by the apparent refusal of federal and local authorities, as well as giant companies, to incorporate available technology into their inspections.

He asks,“How can you repair something if you have no understanding of what is wrong, to begin with?”

Apart from being unrefined and incomplete, manual inspections are subjective and inaccurate. Thaler says 10 different inspectors could give 10 different reports upon inspecting the same bridge. Decision-making on critical bridge repairs, is thus, left to guessing or to gut feeling.

As business magnate Warren Buffet once said, “Risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing.”

This is exactly the scenario with bridge repairs. Millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted on repairs that do not address the problems on the infrastructure.Conventional techniques, by their very nature, cannot expose problems until it is too late to prevent a disaster.

If, U.S.DOT bureaucrats replace conventional inspection methods with modern technology and robotics, they will find that inspections are taken to a whole new level of objectivity, all-encompassing precision and timeliness, cluing in on irregularities before issues become problems. They will then realize that manual inspections are just out of this league.

Indeed, time is of the essence, as infrastructure deterioration is like cancer, progressing relentlessly towards a lethal end, unless discovered early, and nipped in the bud. The technology-based Bridge Condition Assessment Inspections available today provide quantitative data on the components of the bridge that they are inspecting, categorizing bridge conditions and evaluating specific repair needs. This can save billions in premature replacements, prolong serviceability of bridges, and avert potential catastrophe.Furthermore, robotic inspections will make the whole process so convenient to all, especially to road users. There will be fewer lane closures and less heavy equipment on bridges and roadways, and will cost less for greater accuracy and efficiency.

Then why is U.S.DOT unwilling to embrace technology for bridge inspections?

American photojournalist, Steve McCurry, once said, “Technology changes, times change, but the essence of the culture and the people basically stays the same.”This sums upthe Federal Government, States and U.S.DOT’s stance on using technology for inspections. But the country is paying an unconscionable price for this obstinacy, wasting gigantic budgets and losinginnocent lives, as bridges crumble to the ground.

The U.S., as the world’s only super power, should be setting standards for the rest of the world to follow. But instead, other nations use technology, and the U.S. blissfully continues with obsolete methods of 50 years or more ago.

As Thaler says, “Bridge inspection firms can easily assure it is meeting the antiquated guidelines. But does this help our infrastructure recover its health and ensure the traveling public’s safety?”

Yet, currently, engineering firms have almost no incentive to engage technology in bridge inspections, as there is no incentive to change the status quo. Why should they, when most U.S. DOT contracts are based on billing of man hours. The more man hours an engineering firm can bill, the more money it will make. That is, taxpayer money.

If robotic devices are employed instead, the number of man hours required for inspection will reduce drastically, and engineering firms fear the loss of revenue. Therefore, Project Managers handling U.S.DOT projects resist the advent of robotic engineering as an alternative methodology to manual inspections.

And so, the system passes the buck from federal, to state, to local governments, to large corporations, and ultimately holds no one accountable when disasters happen.

Thus, the entire concept of bridge inspection needs to change. The “Billable Hours” system of awarding contracts must be replaced, otherwise engineering firms will never use technology for inspection. And yet, managers desperately need the quantitative data that robotics can provide for repairs.

In any case, the U.S.DOT can retract any part of a contract not in the best interests of the public. This alone should prod asset managers to engage technology. What is more, the engineering companies make most of their money on design, build and repair contracts.Therefore, exposing more problems and issues through technology, will actually lead to larger maintenance and repair contracts for these firms. So, public safety aside, squeezing every dollar in man hours to maximize inspection revenues,is undoubtedly short-sighted. From a state’s perspective there is very little political gain connected to inspections. Building a new bridge certainly raises awareness and give the current politicians a boost. More modern inspections, not so much.

Then again, one can postpone the inevitable only for so long. The advantages of technology are realized sooner rather than later, as happened in New York recently. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, during a recent daily briefing on the pandemic, related how he proposed using technology in repairing New York’s CanarsieTunnel damaged by Superstorm Sandy. Cuomo said, “The opposition to this new idea was an explosion. I was a meddler. I didn't have an engineering degree. They were outside experts. How dare you question the bureaucracy; the bureaucracy knows better.' It was a thunderstorm of opposition, but we did it anyway." He achieved it under budget and ahead of schedule. He reflected, “People don't like change. We like control more than anything… but if you don't change you don't grow."

Thus, it is imperative that Federal Government and U.S.DOT urgently replaces obsolete inspection methods with robotic engineering technology. By so doing,it can achieve actionable results, to better allocate budgets and personnel. Politicians can save money in their state budgets during this time of COVID-19, and also keep their local economies relevant. And, as the writing on the wall proclaims, it is in the overall interests of engineering companies to leave their comfort zones and embrace change.

American author Stewart Brand said, “Once a new technology rolls over you, if you're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the road.”

#Bridge Inspection

0 notes

patricmacdroff-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Beneath the Apparent

IPC’s BridgeScan discovers the precise state of bridge decks with sophisticated and relevant technology that takes bridge deck inspection to a whole new level

Basic economics state that inefficient processes will send costs soaring way beyond the acceptable. This is particularly true when considering the inspection, repair and maintenance of the aging infrastructure of the US.

Reality is grim. Four out of every ten bridges in the US are at least 50 years old. In 2017, 55,909 bridges, that is, 9.1% of all existing bridges, were categorized as “structurally deficient.” There is a backlog of $123 billion for rehabilitating decrepit bridges, and in many instances, bridges are not inspected on time – which is supposed to be once in two years. In too many instances, this could mean the difference between life and death.US lawmaker, Elizabeth Esty, once said, “We should not be waiting until trains derail, bridges collapse and people die to adequately fund our transportation infrastructure.”

The gravity of the condition of bridges will not become a priority until accurate information is available to make decision makers aware of how unsafe the country’s bridges really are. Only then willpeople be galvanized into action.Why accurate information on the state of the country’s bridges is scant is due to the manner in which bridge inspection are done. The lack of clarity and specificity is due to archaic methods of inspection still widely used on the country’s bridges.

The constant change that is apparent in every other sphere of life appears to have bypassed bridge inspections. When technology is evolving so rapidly, and every day new and better ways of doing things areenhancing the quality of life, it is atrocious that dragging a chain across sections of bridges and listening to changes in sound is still the method of inspecting the conditions of a bridge. This has been the conventional method of inspecting bridge decks approach roadways for the past 50 years. That is still the method that is being used.

The biggest disadvantage of manual inspections is their obviously subjective nature.Ask 10 inspectors to report simultaneously on the condition of the same bridge, and you will receive10 different reports. The basis for conclusions is the subjective opinion of the inspectors. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), understood the shortcomings of this situation 15 years ago, when officials admitted, “For more than 30 years, inspectors relied largely on visual inspections to evaluate the condition of bridges.” They also accepted that Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) technologies are far superior to visual inspections. “New NDE technologies increasingly are sought to solve difficult inspection challenges that are beyond the capability of normal visual inspections.”

The reality is that while bridge inspectors visually inspect a bridge, record cracks and damage, take pictures and give the bridge a health rating, they are unable to assess the internal integrity of the structures, for, without using technology, they can only discover what is visible to the naked eye.What is also true is that by the time deterioration becomes visually apparent to the inspector, the damage to the structure is often severe, and irreparable.

What is unforgivable in this situation, is that technology to detect issues early, is available but is often ignored. For instance, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), is a technological approach to bridge deck assessments. In this method, high frequency radio signals are transmitted into the ground. Signals reflected back from the ground are captured through a receiver and saved on digital media. Once the data is in, IT is able to figure out the location and depth of the pulse, through the time taken for the vibration to travel to and from the target. The reflected signals interpreted by the equipment, are displayed on the screen, and through the specific numerical data, analysts are able to detect changes in material, cracks, voids and objects. This technique is used to discover deterioration of bridge decks, and to determine the quality of concrete highway surface and its uniformity.

One company in particular, Infrastructure Preservation Corporation (IPC), a robotic engineering company headquartered in Florida, has developed sophisticated equipment in the form of BridgeScan® which is based on an enhanced application of the conventionalGPR.

BridgeScan® is capable of conducting a comprehensive bridge deck inspection,probing 18” inside the concrete deck to analyze the steel reinforcement and assess its condition. Furthermore, the strength of a deck depends on the size and pattern of its rebar. With little to no knowledge of the rebar patterns and size, bridge owners can only guess at the configuration, and the loading rate.On the other hand, BridgeScan, with the help of the newest Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) technologies, is able to figure out with precision, the size and pattern of rebar of a given bridge.While accurate numbers help the understanding of how to enhance the serviceability of the bridge, BridgeScanalso locates and quantifies concrete deterioration, de-lamination and de-bonding. It records thickness, locates and monitors crack progression and produces advanced proprietary condition assessment reports. The figures generated from BridgeScan reports, help create an appropriate action plan for the Department of Transportation to handle necessary repairs and maintenance work within current allotted budgets. The information generated from BridgeScan is used to create Condition Assessment Ratings and Remaining Life Estimates.

Contrast this with visual inspection, which is a simple method that inspectors use to visually map spalling, cracks and potholes on bridge decks. The technique is limited to the exterior of the bridge deck and cannot assess the interior of the concrete structure. It is also the least efficient of inspection methods, because it addresses problems after they have become conspicuous, dangerous and expensive, sometimes even too late, to fix.

Doug Thaler, President of IPC, sees a parallel with a cancer patient who delays obtaining a chest X-ray until symptoms are obvious and the patient feels ill.“Like the cancer that should have been detected early, when it was curable, bridge deterioration is as progressive as cancer. Yet, if caught early, can be more cost-effectively repaired, thereby extending the service life of the structure,” says Thaler.

This process will not only provide and action plan but will allow the DOT to maintain these bridge decks to keep the public safe and help extend the service life of these asset well beyond their original intended lifespan saving billions in untimely replacements.

As American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger said, “Science and technology revolutionize our lives, but memory, tradition and myth frame our response.”

#Bridge Inspection

0 notes

patricmacdroff-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Time to Become Part of the Steamroller

Bridge inspectors should be asked to hand over inspections to technology and get retrained to analyze data obtained through technology and advise on repair decisions

In any industry, people will either be part of the problem or part of the solution.

The lines appear to be drawn clearly enough in the bridge inspection, concrete inspection services industry.

Primarily, the reasons why problems assail the bridges of the world today, are self-explanatory. The ever-increasing daily loads on bridges and extreme weather conditions that seem to be the norm than the exception, exacerbate deterioration of bridges. In the US, in particular, most bridges were built in the 1950s, and are now old and crumbling. Many of the bridges are in dire need of repair. Some require outright replacement. Recent history records horrific bridge collapses, destroying lives and property of unimaginable proportions. The latest bridge collapse occurred recently in Genoa, Italy.

In every bridge collapse, subsequent investigations concluded that the problems on the bridges were not properly understood or addressed by those responsible for repairs.

It is also self-explanatory that a prerequisite to successful resolution of a problem, is insightful knowledge of the problem, and therein lies the biggest stumbling block in the bridge inspection industry.

In this age of technology, America still persists in using manual inspection of bridges. To make matters worse, federal and state guidelines for manual inspection of bridges are about fifty years old, with significantly subjective inspection methods. So, antiquated methods which ought to have been grandfathered years ago, are still pervasively used, and new technology is blatantly sidelined and ignored.

The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) in a multitude of states, and Asset Managers in large companies that win inspection contracts, have stock excuses for not using technology.

“The inspection protocols are pretty much defined by FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), and we have to adhere to their standards.”

“FHWA regulations require hands-on inspections.”

“We cannot change criteria because we are stuck with the FHWA requirements.”

“Hands-on inspections mean you must be within arm’s reach of the object you are looking at. A lot of things we do, like sounding, taking a big hammer and beating on something and listening to the frequency - you can’t do that with a drone.”

“We are not allowed to do inspections without being physically present.”

“We are only interested is using technology when it is appropriate.”

“Technology hasn’t been around for long.”

These statements, if nothing else, indicate it is about time bridge inspections are taken off the hands of asset managers and handed over to companies that have developed sophisticated technology to handle in-depth and accurate inspections.

Small companies like Florida-based Infrastructure Preservation Corporation (IPC), have a range of modern technologies utilizing customized robotics and drones for convenient and speedy inspections, with the ability to provide accurate and quantitative data that records anomalies, raising red flags even before a problem has materialized.

Archaic visual inspection or “sounding” with a hammer to listen to changes in tone are flawed and subjective in the extreme, and conclusions will differ according to the experience and perspective of different inspectors. When an inspector sees a crack on a bridge, it is probably too late for repairs.

In contrast, after six years of R&D, IPC has added TendonScan to its service range, able to scan the inside of the tendon and locate vulnerability to corrosion by analyzing air, water and bleeding grout within the tendon. Using the latest Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) and Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) technologies, the TendonScan is able to track the size and shape of the developing abnormality, and guide timely and necessary repairs with razor-sharp accuracy.

IPC’s solutions also include CableScan to handle bridge cable stay inspections, PoleScan for high mast light pole inspections and CrackScan for concrete and steel crack assessments.

These robotic systems can identify deterioration in concrete and other structural material at the initial stages, andare geared to galvanize repairs and maintenance before deterioration spreads and compromises the safety of bridges.While averting a disaster, such swift proactive measures can save millions of taxpayer dollars.

Also, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) in drones can easily access all areas of a bridge,unlike the outdated manual inspection methods that require lane closures, night inspections to allow uninterrupted traffic flow and expensive equipment to access the under bridge.

Thus, it is as clear as day that the existing system of manual inspections must change immediately and give way to the age of technology. Obstinately clinging to antiquated methods will only compromise the safety of bridges and gobble up many millions of precious dollars in unnecessary repairs and replacements. The naked eye and even a trained ear are no match for the incredible performance and information that technology can provide.

Furthermore, history records how manually conducted in-depth Inspections have missed detecting vital deficiencies that led to major tragedies.The collapse of Interstate 35W Bridge over Mississippi River during rush hour on August 1, 2007, which killed 13 people, injured 145 and destroyed 111 vehicles, was later attributed to a serious flaw in the original bridge design. Manual inspections never caught this because focusing on design aspects are outside the scope of manual inspections. The bridge was weakest at the point it should have been the strongest, and everyone was blissfully unaware of a disaster waiting to happen.

President of IPC, Doug Thaler says, “Technology today allows us to develop very sophisticated condition assessments. We just need state and federal governments to evaluate and adopt them.”

This brings the conversation to how experienced bridge inspectors can use their years of experience and analytical skills to read the information provided by technology and assess the condition of the bridge while identifying existing issues and problems in the making. This means that bridge inspectors need to be retrained to take on these new responsibilities, and make informed repair decisions based on information provided by technology.

Says Thaler,”“A human inspector cannot compete with technology.In one instance, for example, the regular manual inspection on cable stays on bridges was for eighty-four cables. The inspectors found one problem on one stay. IPC did a quality control inspection on just nine of those stays and found twelve issues. Some of them were actually issues that were caused by the inspectors or the painters. A painter’s bucket had hit a cable in an earlier time and scraped off the coating, creating rust and pitting which resulted incorrosion of the steel.”

As much as old habits are hard to overcome, survival and progress require embracing change. American author Stewart Brand said, “Once a new technology rolls over you, if you're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the road.”

#ground penetrating radar services

0 notes

patricmacdroff-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Discovering the path to remain relevant

A nation’s treasure is buoyed by the existence of healthy infrastructure. On the flip side, a bridge collapse is a monstrousand unjustifiable loss of national treasure, apart from the ensuing loss of innocent lives and unwarranted loss of property.

As consequential as infrastructure is, one would expect that only the best of attention would be mobilizedto take care of a country’s bridge system.And more so in an age of technology when accuracy and convenience are available at the touch of a button.

However, reality brings a rude awakening.More often than not, technology is bypassed in the crucial task of bridge inspection, and archaic inspection methods over half a century old, still hold sway. The result can only be a disaster waiting to happen.

And disasters do happen with no notice. The latest collapse of a bridge that received global attention, wasa 200-meter stretch of a highway bridge in Genoa, Italy, which gave way during a violent storm on August 14, 2018, killing 38 people, injuring at least 15 others, andrendering 10-20 more people missing, while destroying 35 cars and a number of trucks, whichdropped 45 meters to the railway below.Subsequent investigations into the disaster exposed severe underspending on aging infrastructure over the years, even though heavy tolls were collected from road users.

What happens in the US is somewhat different. US authorities are spending colossal budgets every year, on inspection, and repair and maintenance of the aging US bridge system, but with little result. Despite gobbling down precious tax payer dollars, many bridges continue to be in a state of grave deterioration.Red flags are rustling urgently, even as maintenance work gets done. The primary problem is inaccurate diagnoses and insufficient data of bridge conditions obtained from obsolete inspection methods. And it is self-explanatory, that unless a correct diagnosis is made, the cure is not going to be effective, whatever the money spent on repair and maintenance.

This begs the question, when preventive maintenance is lighter on the nation’s purse than replacing parts of bridges, why isn’t more care given to the process of maintenance, which starts with bridge inspection?

To counter the current muddled situation, small firms such as Florida-based Infrastructure Preservation Corporation (IPC), have introduced modern technologies utilizing customized robotics and drones. These methods are convenient and speedy, and provide accurate and quantitative data to help the Department of Transportation (DOT) better allocate its limited resources.

Robotics are able to detect issues early in the infrastructure lifecycle. Asset owners, therefore, are able to carry out repairs early, extending the service life of the structure and saving billions in untimely replacements.The same inspections that are currently being done manually, can be donewith greater accuracy, andwith quantitative results, by using modern technology and robotics.

IPC engages nondestructive technology (NDT) in robotic systems that are able to identify deterioration in concrete and other structural material at the initial stages. In fact, IPC has taken modern technology to another level, byproducing custom-built robotics that enable quantitative results. And all this is possible with existing DOT budgets. With the results it receives, IPC is able to provide an action plan for repairs before deterioration spreads and compromises the safety of bridges.

Material deterioration, fatigue, vibrations, foundation integrity issues, design flaws and consistent loads and overloads on bridges weaken their serviceability and lifespan. Extreme weather conditions add to the problem. Intense heat can warp concrete and steel while salting of bridges in harsh winters will corrode steel. Conventional technologies can only expose these problems when they are apparent to the naked eye, which is too late to prevent a disaster.

IPC has shown how robotic devices are able to provide precise quantitative data for an entire bridge, not just for sections of it. And the data provided is decisive enough to expose any problem minutely. It clues in on anything irregular, even before the issue becomes a problem.

This is where the knowledge and years of experience of bridge inspectors, can make a difference. Accurate data provides the opportunity for inspectors to make real-time assessments, identifying exact locations and sizes of irregularities.Armed with their skills and expertise, inspectors are able to analyze the information received and decide how to proceed with repair and maintenance.

When I interviewed the president of Infrastructure Preservation Corporation, Doug Thaler as to why technology like this has not been adopted for bridge inspection globally, his response was, “With the condition of infrastructures worldwide, it is only a matter of time.”

Thaler explained that modern technology and robotics provide more quantitative data for less money and exceed requirements of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the two agencies that set the standards for these inspections. He said, “Typically, and unfortunately change only takes place after a catastrophe. After the I-35 collapse of 2007 in the US, new regulations were released. You will see the same in Italy after the recent collapse.”

In the I-35 disaster, the design anomaly ensured an accident waiting to happen, since the bridge opened for business.Yet, inspectors were taken completely unawares because seeking out design errors is not standard practice for bridge inspections. Had technology been used instead, quantitative data may have indicated an abnormality before disaster struck, for what should have been the strongest part of the bridge, was in fact, one of its weakest.

With inspections done the same way for over 50 years by a handful of companies, it appears more than time to let fresh air in. Says Thaler, “The asset owners themselves need to be at the forefront of legislating the changes. Also, local heads of USDOT districtshave the authority to pull any work away from current asset managers in the interests of the public. Those who don’t want a catastrophe striking on their watch, willstart exerting their authority before it’s too late.”

What appears to be the problem is the lack of a cohesive approach among USDOT senior officials in the different states, in responding to the brewing crisis in the bridge inspection industry. Some, like the Bridge Inspection DOT Lead in South Dakota, Chief Bridge Engineer Steve Johnson, says, “We are always looking to incorporate new technology into bridge inspections, whether it is Nondestructive Testing, or using new technology.” His assertiveness is significant. “In our state, the inspectors I am familiar with, they really like to use the latest technology. They are always suggesting new technology so yes, they like to use new technology, absolutely.”

On the other hand, Justin Bruner, Chief, Bridge Asset Management Section, Pennsylvania DOT, said, “We are only interested in using technology when it is appropriate. On the larger structures, it makes a lot of sense.”

Gradually, even the most entrenched views will change as reality shows the urgency of adopting technology. Nevertheless, time is of the essence. The bridge inspection industry seriously needs to welcome the advantages of technology before another bridge collapses somewhere. American writer Adora Svitak very fittingly said, “To ignore technology is to become obsolete.”

#Bridge Inspection

0 notes