Determination of Favorable Time Window for Infrared Inspection by Numerical Simulation of Heat Propagation in Concrete

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 7)

Abstract.

Every bridge is subjected to a thorough inspection process every other year at most. Nondestructive evaluation techniques, especially noncontact methods, are gaining popularity to take part in structural health monitoring of existing bridges for expediting the inspection process. Infrared thermography is one of the noncontact testing methods; it is based on capturing and processing the thermal gradient on a radiant surface which is highly affected by the ambient environmental conditions. The objective of this study is to numerically search for an appropriate time window to carry out infrared inspections. To this end, a numerical model of a bridge deck with certain initial and boundary conditions was used to numerically obtain temperature differentials at any nodes across the model for a period of 24 h. A delamination with a constant thickness was positioned in the concrete deck. The transient solutions of the nonlinear partial differential equation were obtained by utilizing the finite element method. The numerical results point to afternoon as the most favorable time window to conduct infrared inspections; this result coincides with some of the experimental research found in literature. Additionally, it was shown that the existence of water in the defect greatly affected the heat conduction process.

Keywords

Infrared inspection Bridge decks Subsurface defects 

References

  1. 1.
    Gucunski N, Imani A, Romero F, Nazarian S, Yuan D, Wiggenhauser H, Shokouhi P, Taffe A, Kutrubes D (2013) Nondestructive testing to identify concrete bridge deck deterioration. SHRP 2 Report, S2-R06A-RR-1, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vaghefi K, Ahlborn TM, Harris DK, Brooks CN (2015) Combined imaging technologies for concrete bridge deck condition assessment. J Perform Constr Facil 29(4):04014102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oh T, Kee S, Arndt RW, Popovics JS, Asce M, Zhu J (2013) Comparison of NDT methods for assessment of a concrete bridge deck. J Eng Mech 139:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaplan H (2007) Practical applications of infrared thermal sensing and imaging equipment, 3rd edn. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, Bellingham, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meola C, Carlomagno GM, Giorleo L (2004) Geometrical limitations to detection of defects in composites by means of infrared thermography. J Nondestruct Eval 23(4):125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Washer G, Fenwick R, Bolleni N (2010) Effects of solar loading on infrared imaging of subsurface. J Bridge Eng 15(4):384–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM D4788-03 (2007) Standard test method for detecting delaminations in bridge decks using infrared thermography. American Society of Testing MaterialsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yehia S, Abudayyeh O, Nabulsi S, Abdelqader I (2007) Detection of common defects in concrete bridge decks using nondestructive evaluation techniques. J Bridge Eng 12:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahlborn TM, Shuchman RA, Sutter LL, Harris DK, Brooks CN, Burns JW (2013) Report: bridge condition assessment using remote sensors. United States Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Project No: DT0S59-10-H-00001Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Starnes MA, Carino NJ, Kausel EA (2003) Preliminary thermography studies for quality control of concrete structures strengthened with fiber-reinforced polymer composites. J Mater Civ Eng 15(3):266–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minkina W, Dudzik S (2009) Infrared thermography: errors and uncertainties. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Washer G, Fenwick R, Bolleni N, Harper J (2009) Effects of environmental variables on infrared imaging of subsurface features of concrete bridges. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2108:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang J, Gupta A, Baker J (2007) Effect of relative humidity on the prediction of natural convection heat transfer coefficients. Heat Transf Eng 28(4):335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matsumoto M, Mitani K, Çatbaş FN (2013) Bridge assessment methods using image processing and infrared thermography technology: on-site pilot application in Florida. In: Proceedings of transportation research board; 92nd annual meeting, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    FLIR website. http://www.flir.com. Accessed 1 Dec 2015
  16. 16.
    Washer G, Fenwick R, Bolleni N (2009) Development of hand-held thermographic inspection technologies. Organizational Results Research Report, September 2009, OR10-007, Submitted to MoDOTGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringMuğla Sıtkı Koçman UniversityMuğlaTurkey

Personalised recommendations