Technology empowers engineering companies to improve national infrastructure
Human beings are creatures of habit, and most are reluctant to step out of their comfort zone. This perennial truth is evident in many areas, but in technology, its impact seems formidable and challenging, with the potential to cause national disasters.
The American writer and professor of biochemistry, Isaac Asimov, speaking at the Newark College of Engineering in New Jersey, once said: “I discovered, to my astonishment, that throughout history there has 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 were willing to lose influence, status, money… as a result of the change.”
Professor Asimov’s comments are astute looking at bridge inspections in the US One could even say that truer words were never spoken. As the world’s only superpower, the US is expected to set standards for the rest of the world to follow. Therefore, it seems incredible, even shocking, to observe that the outdated methodology is still widely used to inspect the country’s vital bridges. Why? And, even as technology advances, bridges are still manually inspected. Why?
And it’s certainly not for lack of a viable alternative. Doug Thaler, President of the Infrastructure Preservation Corporation (IPC), said, “Modern technology today greatly empowers inspection and engineering personnel. Traditional infrastructure inspection methods are over 50 years old and quite outdated. New technology provides quantitative data that makes inspection much more effective and also allows DOT to better allocate existing funds within their current maintenance budgets.”
The Federal Government awards contracts to large engineering companies. The engineering companies already have the funds in their hands when the projects are delegated to the different divisions within the companies. The Bridge Inspection Departments continue to happily assign Inspectors tasks according to “billable hours”. This is how things happened all these years. And they continue unchanged despite the numerous red flags waving frantically above them.
The collapse of the Interstate 35W Bridge over the Mississippi River during rush hour on August 1, 2007, killing 13 people, injuring 145, and destroying 111 vehicles, was later attributed to a serious flaw in the bridge’s original design. Manual inspections never caught this because focusing on design aspects is beyond the scope of manual inspections. The bridge was weakest at the point where it should have been strongest, and everyone was blissfully unaware of the disaster to come. Technology may well have averted the disaster, as scientifically derived data is accurate and consistent, and would have indicated an anomaly that went unnoticed by manual inspection.
Doug Thaler recounts how IPC recently inspected a small bridge in Florida using BridgeScan™, which is an effective tool for quickly determining the condition of aging bridge decks. The engineering company that was awarded the contract to repair the bridge suspected there was a problem, but the Department of Transportation did not believe there was a problem. The data provided by IPC’s BridgeScan™ identified several previously unsuspected issues, resulting in more projects for the engineering company and more revenue in the process.
“Therefore, rejecting the use of technology from smaller companies in the mistaken belief that larger engineering companies will make a loss is an absolute fallacy,” Thaler said.
Most of America’s bridges and highways were built in the 1950s, and they are constantly being forced to carry more traffic than they were originally intended and designed to do. Also, modern vehicles are significantly heavier than vehicles of earlier times, which provided the guidelines for weight on bridges when the plans were made.
Federal and state guidelines for manual inspection of bridges are also about fifty years old, with methods that are significantly subjective. However, about 15 years ago, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) admitted that “for more than 30 years, inspectors relied heavily on visual inspections to assess the condition of bridges.” The FHWA also admitted that non-destructive evaluation (NDE) technologies were not being used as widely as they should. Even 15 years ago, FWHA realized that “new NDE technologies are increasingly sought after to solve difficult inspection challenges that are beyond the capability of normal visual inspections.”
FHWA, at the direction of Congress, established a Non-Destructive Evaluation Validation Center (NDEVC), which, in 1998, dedicated itself to investigating the accuracy of the bridge inspection process. In the course of its study, the NDEVC discovered that Manually Performed In-Depth Inspections may, in fact, miss many types of deficiencies for which In-Depth Inspections are used.
IPC has opened new frontiers in non-destructive technology (NDT), with robotic systems that can identify deterioration in concrete and other structural materials in the early stages, and recommend repairs before deterioration spreads and compromises bridge safety. .
IPC inspection technology, which automates bridge inspection through drones and low-cost robotic systems, will actually strengthen the prospects for engineering firms to engage engineers and technical personnel in enhanced maintenance work on bridges. These companies are thus able to shore up their profits and profits in ways they never anticipated.
Therefore, engineering companies must change with the changing needs of the day. Clinging to outdated methods will not only cost the nation precious lives and property, it will also deprive engineering companies of valuable opportunities to improve their capabilities and profit margins.
American philosopher Wayne Dyer once said, “If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”