Show simple item record

contributor authorDebra F. Laefer
contributor authorJane Gannon
contributor authorElaine Deely
date accessioned2017-05-08T21:21:40Z
date available2017-05-08T21:21:40Z
date copyrightJune 2010
date issued2010
identifier other%28asce%291076-0342%282010%2916%3A2%28129%29.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/48425
description abstractDespite billions of dollars of annual exposure from claims and litigation related to construction-induced damage, there are no quantitatively based, agreed upon standards or procedures as to what constitutes due diligence with respect to a preconstruction, condition assessment. Similarly, the relative accuracy, reliability, and costs for various inspection approaches are not well established. This paper compares the relative performance capabilities of crack detection by sidewalk-based manual inspection with digital photography, terrestrial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and elevated manual inspections based on two brick and two concrete buildings (8.2–14.3 m high) in Dublin, Ireland. Results showed that nonmanual methods tended to overpredict crack widths by at least 5 mm and underestimate crack lengths by one-half. Digital photography, however, detected the shortest cracks (as short as 17 mm) and had no significant decline in accuracy beyond 12 m high, which has the added benefit of generating a permanent objective record. The terrestrial LiDAR proved neither particularly accurate nor cost-effective at the selected point density of less than
publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
titleReliability of Crack Detection Methods for Baseline Condition Assessments
typeJournal Paper
journal volume16
journal issue2
journal titleJournal of Infrastructure Systems
identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2010)16:2(129)
treeJournal of Infrastructure Systems:;2010:;Volume ( 016 ):;issue: 002
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record