Chang, L M; Georgy, M E and AbdelRazig, Y A (2000) Warranting quality of steel bridge coating. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(5), pp. 374-380. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Civil infrastructure systems, particularly the highway and bridge systems, have become a focal point of attention both nationally and among researchers. Because many of the nation's bridges have been identified by the Federal Highway Administration as deficient, more attention needs to be given to the quality of bridge coatings, which act as inhibitors of bridge deterioration. This paper represents an extended study by the authors to establish and implement contract warranties for steel bridge coatings. First, the earlier activities in warranting the quality of bridge coatings are reviewed. Next, the writers focus on the basic categories of a steel bridge coating warranty, especially the warranty period and defects for which the contractor is held responsible. The paper further illustrates the functioning of a hybrid model for nondestructive quality assessment of steel bridge coatings. The model provides objective and quantitative analysis to improve the coating quality assessment process. This approach prevents potential conflicts that might arise between the state Department of Transportation and the bridge-coating contractors during the warranty implementation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | implementation, warranty, quantitative analysis, quality assessment, coating, deterioration |
| Subjects: | quality assurance, material degradation and durability, building materials, contractual arrangements, performance measurement, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Construction Materials, Quality Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here