Elliott, M E and Heymsfield, E (2003) Inspection of luling bridge cable stays: Case study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(2), pp. 226-230. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Most cable-stayed bridges in the United States have been built in the last 30 years. As the number of existing cable-stayed bridges increase, one problem continues to arise - how to inspect the cable stays for corrosion and deterioration. An inherent difficulty in developing an inspection procedure for cable-stayed bridges is that each cable-stayed bridge is unique in its cable configuration. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) has built two separate trolleys to aid their inspectors and maintenance crew with visual inspection and maintenance of the cable stays on the Luling Bridge over the Mississippi River in St. Charles Parish near New Orleans, Louisiana. With the use of the two trolleys, LADOTD bridge inspectors are able to inspect the cable stays at hands-on distances. The cable-stay inspection procedure adopted by the LADOTD is inexpensive and time efficient, and it minimally impacts bridge traffic. This manuscript reviews the inspection procedure adopted by the LADOTD to inspect the cable sheathing at the Luling Bridge.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bridge inspection; bridges; cable-stayed; case reports; Louisiana |
| Index terms: | configuration, corrosion, United States, deterioration, visual inspection, case study, inspection |
| Subjects: | Geography, systems engineering, quality assurance, data collection methods, professional practice, material degradation and durability |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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