Moodi, F and Knapton, J (2003) Research into a management system for diagnosis, maintenance, and repair of concrete structures. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(5), pp. 555-561. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The choice of an appropriate repair material and method requires a systematic observation of the symptoms and their probable cause together with a source of available information relating to durability. In response to a growing awareness of durability problems, a repair of concrete (REPCON) database has been developed, which deals with the diagnosis, evaluation, maintenance, and repair of concrete structures. The REPCON Management System is designed to be an effective support tool for experts whose data can be evaluated and tested to ensure that the evolving database retains its integrity. By providing a quantitative and consistent means for evaluating both new data and the person contributing it, the confidence level (CL) allows new knowledge and experience to be gathered and monitored over time. The paper explains how a computerized database management system can allow an initial database to evolve and become a forum for exchanging ideas in the field of concrete repair, and how the new methodology of data/user evaluation could have wider implication in many knowledge-rich areas of expertise.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | concrete structures; databases; diagnosis; durability; rehabilitation |
| Index terms: | management system, methodology, repair, database, integrity, durability, concrete structure |
| Subjects: | material degradation and durability, management, structural engineering, research methods, maintenance engineering, health safety and environment, data management |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Construction Materials, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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