Ground penetrating radar-based deterioration assessment of RC bridge decks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Although ground penetrating radar (GPR) technology is commonly used to assess the condition of reinforced-concrete (RC) bridge decks, the GPR data interpretation is not straightforward. Further, the thresholds that define the severity of deterioration are selected arbitrarily. This paper aims to solve a problem associated with GPR results generated by using a numerical amplitude method to assess corrosiveness of bridge decks. Design/methodology/approach Data, for more than 50 different bridge decks, were collected using a ground-coupled antenna. Depth-correction was performed for the collected data to normalize the reflected amplitude. Using k-means clustering technique, the amplitude values of each bridge deck were classified into four categories. Later, statistical analysis was performed where the threshold values of different categories of corrosion and deterioration are chosen. Monte-Carlo simulation technique was used to validate the value of these thresholds. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis was performed to realize the effect of changing the thresholds in the areas of corrosion. Findings The final result of this research is a four-category (good, fair, poor and critical) GPR scale with three fixed numerical thresholds (−7.71 dB, −10.04 dB and −14.63 dB) that define these categories. Besides, deterioration curves have been modeled using Weibull function and based on GPR outputs and corrosion areas. Originality/value The developed numerical GPR-based scale and deterioration models are expected to help the decision-makers in assessing the corrosiveness of bridge decks accurately and objectively. Hence, they will be able to take the right intervention decision for managing these decks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".