Technology allows 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.
American writer and biochemistry professor Isaac Asimov, speaking at the Newark College of Engineering in New Jersey, once said: “I discovered, to my amazement, that throughout history there had been resistance … and bitter, exaggerated, last stitch of resistance … to every significant technological change that had taken place on earth. Usually the resistance came from those groups that were going to lose influence, status, money … as a result of the change. “
Professor Asimov’s comments are astute when looking at bridge inspections in the US You could even say that truer words were never spoken. As the world’s only superpower, the United States is expected to set standards for the rest of the world. So it seems incredulous, even shocking, to look at an antiquated methodology that is still widely used to inspect the vital bridges of the country. Why? And even as technology advances, bridges are still manually inspected. Why?
And it is certainly not because of the lack of a viable alternative. Doug Thaler, President of Infrastructure Preservation Corporation (IPC) said, “Modern technology is greatly empowering inspection and engineering personnel today. Traditional infrastructure inspection methods are over 50 years old and quite out of date. New technology provides quantitative data that makes the inspection much more effective and also allows DOTs 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. Bridge Inspection Departments continue to happily assign inspectors to tasks according to “billable hours.” This is how things happened all these years. And they remain unchanged despite the numerous red flags waving them frantically.
The collapse of the 35W Interstate Bridge over the 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 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 the strongest, and everyone was blissfully unaware of a disaster waiting to happen. Technology may well have warned of the disaster, as the scientifically obtained data is accurate and consistent, and would have indicated an anomaly that went unnoticed on 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 issues that had not even been suspected, resulting in more projects for the engineering company and more revenue earned in the process.
“Therefore, rejecting the use of technology from smaller firms in the mistaken belief that larger engineering firms will generate losses 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 thought and designed to do. Additionally, modern vehicles are significantly heavier than vehicles of earlier times that provided the guidelines for weight on bridges when the plans were made.
Federal and state guidelines for manual bridge inspection are also around fifty years old, with methods that are significantly subjective. However, some 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 nondestructive evaluation (ECM) technologies were not being used as widely as they should be. Even 15 years ago, FWHA realized that “new NDE technologies are increasingly being sought to solve difficult inspection challenges that are beyond the capabilities of normal visual inspections.”
The FHWA, on instructions from Congress, established a Non-Destructive Evaluation Validation Center (NDEVC), which, in 1998, set about investigating the accuracy of the bridge inspection process. In the course of its study, the NDEVC found that manual in-depth inspections may, in fact, miss many types of deficiencies for which such 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 the safety of bridges. .
IPC’s inspection technology, which automates the inspection of bridges via inexpensive drones and robotic systems, will actually strengthen the prospects for engineering companies to involve engineers and technical personnel in improved maintenance work on bridges. In this way, these companies can prop up their profits and profits in ways they never anticipated.
Therefore, engineering companies must change with the changing needs of the day. Holding on 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 will change.”