Hazards identification and risk assessment for UAV–assisted bridge inspections

References

• Aven, T., Renn, O., & Rosa, E. A. (2011). On the ontological status of the concept of risk. Safety Science, 49(8-9), 1074–1079. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayele, Y. Z. (2019). Drones for inspecting aging bridges. Paper presented at the International Conference on Natural Hazards and Infrastructure. ISSN 2623-4513., Chania, Crete Island, Greece.
   Google Scholar
• Ayele, Y. Z., Barabadi, A., & Barabady, J. (2016). Dynamic spare parts transportation model for Arctic production facility. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 7(1), 84–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayele, Y. Z., & Droguett, E. L. (2019). Application of UAVs for bridge inspection and resilience assessment. Paper presented at the 29th European Safety and Reliability Conference, Hannover, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Barabadi, A., & Markeset, T. (2011). Reliability and maintainability performance under Arctic conditions. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 2(3), 205–217.
   Google Scholar
• Belcastro, C. M., Newman, R. L., Evans, J., Klyde, D. H., Barr, L. C., & Ancel, E. (2017). Hazards identification and analysis for unmanned aircraft system operations. Paper presented at the 17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-3269
   Google Scholar
• Benamara, F., Kaci, S., & Pigozzi, G. (2010). Individual opinions-based judgment aggregation procedures. Paper presented at the International Conference on Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• Burdett, H., Stoker, J., & Simpson, A. (2009). Functional Hazard Assessment (FHA) report for unmanned aircraft systems. Eurocontrol, 1, 1–81.
   Google Scholar
• Cai, H., & Lin, Y. (2011). Modeling of operators' emotion and task performance in a virtual driving environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(9), 571–586. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cha, Y.-J., Choi, W., & Büyüköztürk, O. (2017). Deep learning-based crack damage detection using convolutional neural networks. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 32(5), 361–378. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cha, Y.-J., Choi, W., Suh, G., Mahmoudkhani, S., & Büyüköztürk, O. (2018). Autonomous structural visual inspection using region-based deep learning for detecting multiple damage types. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 33(9), 731–747. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciampa, E., De Vito, L., & Pecce, M. R. (2019). Practical issues on the use of drones for construction inspections. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series. doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1249/1/012016
   Google Scholar
• Clothier, R. A., & Walker, R. A. (2015). The safety risk management of unmanned aircraft systems. In: Valavanis K., Vachtsevanos G. (eds). Springer, Dordrecht. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9707-1_39
   Google Scholar
• DeYoung, R. (2018, December). Aviator pro, drones, and falling into the vortex ring state. Retrieved from https://www.agi.com/articles/aviator-pro-drones-and-falling-into-the-vortex-rin.
   Google Scholar
• Foreman, V. L., Favaró, F. M., Saleh, J. H., & Johnson, C. W. (2015). Software in military aviation and drone mishaps: Analysis and recommendations for the investigation process. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 137, 101–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gielo-Perczak, K., & Karwowski, W. (2003). Ecological models of human performance based on affordance, emotion and intuition. Ergonomics, 46(1-3), 310–326. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130303536
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudmestad, O., Alhimenko, A., Løset, S., Shkhinek, K., Tørum, A., & Jensen, A. (2007). Engineering aspects related to Arctic offshore developments. St. Petersburg, Lan, 1–255.
   Google Scholar
• Hayhurst, K. J., Maddalon, J. M., Miner, P. S., DeWalt, M. P., & McCormick, G. F. (2006). Unmanned aircraft hazards and their implications for regulation. Paper presented at the 2006 ieee/aiaa 25TH Digital Avionics Systems Conference. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC.2006.313735
   Google Scholar
• Hora, S. C. (2009). Expert Judgement in Risk Analysis. Retrieved from http://create.usc.edu/sites/default/files/publications/expertjudgmentinriskanalysis_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Southam, J. (2018). GPS common problems and how to mitigate them. Retrieved from https://safety4sea.com/gps-common-problems-and-how-to-mitigate-them/.
   Google Scholar
• Jung, H.-J., Lee, J.-H., & Kim, I.-H. (2018). Challenging issues and solutions of bridge inspection technology using unmanned aerial vehicles. Paper presented at the Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 2018. doi:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2300957
   Google Scholar
• Kang, D., & Cha, Y.-J. (2018). Autonomous UAVs for structural health monitoring using deep learning and an ultrasonic beacon system with geo-tagging. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 33(10), 885–902. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar, R., Barabady, J., Markeset, T., & Kumar, U. (2009). Improvement of performance of oil and gas production facilities in Arctic regions by applying human factors/ergonomic principles at the design phase. Paper presented at the. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions: June 9-12, 2009, Luleå, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, M., Frangopol, D. M., & Kim, S. (2009). Bridge system performance assessment from structural health monitoring: A case study. Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(6), 733–742. doi:https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lootsma, F. A. (1991). Scale sensitivity and rank preservation in a multiplicative variant of the AHP and SMART.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, C., Lan, J., & Wang, Z. (2006). Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision-making based on similarity and distance. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 19(1), 63–71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-006-0063-y
   Google Scholar
• Maldonado, E., Casas, J., & Canas, J. A. (2019). Modelos de vulnerabilidad sísmica de puentes basado en" conjuntos difusos. Monograph Series in Earthquake Engineering, Editor A.H. Barbat, 1, 1–63.
   Google Scholar
• Markeset, T. (2008). Design for high performance assurance for offshore production facilities in remote harsh and sensitive environments. OPSEARCH, 45(3), 275–290. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03398819
   Google Scholar
• Moud, H. I., Shojaei, A., Flood, I., Zhang, X., Hatami, M., & Rinker, M. (2018). Qualitative and quantitative risk analysis of unmanned aerial vehicle flights over construction job sites. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Advanced Communications and Computation (INFOCOMP 2018), Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• NCHRP. (2017). New guidelines for NDE bridge inspection methods. Retrieved from https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_readyresult_08.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ortiz, N., Wheeler, T., Breeding, R., Hora, S., Meyer, M., & Keeney, R. (1991). Use of expert judgment in NUREG-1150. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 126(3), 313–331. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(91)90023-B
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phares, B. M., Rolander, D. D., Graybeal, B. A., & Washer, G. A. (2001). Reliability of visual bridge inspection. Public Roads, 64(5), 64.
   Google Scholar
• Rakha, T., & Gorodetsky, A. (2018). Review of Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) applications in the built environment: Towards automated building inspection procedures using drones. Automation in Construction, 93, 252–264. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramanathan, R., & Ganesh, L. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79(2), 249–265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90356-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seddon, J. M., & Newman, S. (2011). Basic helicopter aerodynamics (Vol. 40). New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Seo, J., Wacker, J. P., & Duque, L. (2018). Evaluating the use of drones for timber bridge inspection. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-258. Madison, WI: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 1-152(258)1152.
   Google Scholar
• Tummala, V. M. R., & Ling, H. (1996). Sampling distribution of the random consistency index of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 55(1-2), 121–131. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00949659608811754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tummala, V. M. R., & Ling, H. (1998). A note on the computation of the mean random consistency index of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Theory and Decision, 44(3), 221–230. Retrieved from < Go to ISI>://WOS:000075460100002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tummala, V. M. R., & Wan, Y. (1994). On the mean random inconsistency index of analytic hierarchy process (Ahp). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 27(1-4), 401–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tung, S. L., & Tang, S. L. (1998). A comparison of the Saaty's AHP and modified AHP for right and left eigenvector inconsistency. European Journal of Operational Research, 106(1), 123–128. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00353-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wackwitz, K., & Boedecker, H. (2015). Safety risk assessment for uav operation. Drone Industry Insights, Safe Airspace Integration Project, Part One, Hamburg, Germany.
   Google Scholar