2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.127
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Laboratory assessment of nine methods for nondestructive evaluation of concrete bridge decks with overlays

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Among the methods, impact-echo testing (IE) and ultrasonic testing (UT) can detect delamination. IE is a method that a mechanical impact is applied to a target object, then the frequency of the wave reflected on delamination is analyzed with FFT [126,127]. UT is a method in which a transducer emits ultrasonic pulses into a target object.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Ndtsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the methods, impact-echo testing (IE) and ultrasonic testing (UT) can detect delamination. IE is a method that a mechanical impact is applied to a target object, then the frequency of the wave reflected on delamination is analyzed with FFT [126,127]. UT is a method in which a transducer emits ultrasonic pulses into a target object.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Ndtsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(12,13) Owing to this trend, attempts have recently been made to create a standard dataset of IE signals for concrete structures. (27) As such, machine learning has been applied in many studies. However, although internal void detection of ducts is a very important problem, many studies have mainly used signalprocessing-based approaches and machine learning has been rarely applied.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…References N M Delamination IE [20,26,27,29,30,40,41,[43][44][45]48,53,55,56,61,62,68] 17 34% GPR [19,20,[22][23][24][25][26][27]29,[31][32][33][34][35]38,40,43,45,46,48 The results are also illustrated in Figures 6-9 for clarity. The charts clearly show the NDT method(s) that is (are) most appropriate for each damage type in closure joints, as denoted by the higher percentage(s).…”
Section: Type Of Defectmentioning
confidence: 99%