Search results for: Jeffrey Heinz

Authors: Lee Tasker, Ali Karrech, Jeffrey Shragge, Matthew Josh

Abstract:

Monitoring for the deterioration of concrete infrastructure is an important assessment tool for an engineer and difficulties can be experienced with monitoring for deterioration within an infrastructure. If a failure crack, or fluid seepage through such a crack, is observed from the surface often the source location of the deterioration is not known. Geophysical methods are used to assist engineers with assessing the subsurface conditions of materials. Techniques such as Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) provide information on the location of buried infrastructure such as pipes and conduits, positions of reinforcements within concrete blocks, and regions of voids/cavities behind tunnel lining. This experiment underlines the application of GPR as an infrastructure-monitoring tool to highlight and monitor regions of possible deterioration within a concrete test wall due to an increase in the generation of fractures; in particular, during a time period of applied load to a concrete wall up to and including structural failure. A three-point load was applied to a concrete test wall of dimensions 1700 x 600 x 300 mm³ in increments of 10 kN, until the wall structurally failed at 107.6 kN. At each increment of applied load, the load was kept constant and the wall was scanned using GPR along profile lines across the wall surface. The measured radar amplitude responses of the GPR profiles, at each applied load interval, were reconstructed into depth-slice grids and presented at fixed depth-slice intervals. The corresponding depth-slices were subtracted from each data set to compare the radar amplitude response between datasets and monitor for changes in the radar amplitude response. At lower values of applied load (i.e., 0-60 kN), few changes were observed in the difference of radar amplitude responses between data sets. At higher values of applied load (i.e., 100 kN), closer to structural failure, larger differences in radar amplitude response between data sets were highlighted in the GPR data; up to 300% increase in radar amplitude response at some locations between the 0 kN and 100 kN radar datasets. Distinct regions were observed in the 100 kN difference dataset (i.e., 100 kN-0 kN) close to the location of the final failure crack. The key regions observed were a conical feature located between approximately 3.0-12.0 cm depth from surface and a vertical linear feature located approximately 12.1-21.0 cm depth from surface. These key regions have been interpreted as locations exhibiting an increased change in pore-space due to increased mechanical loading, or locations displaying an increase in volume of micro-cracks, or locations showing the development of a larger macro-crack. The experiment showed that GPR is a useful geophysical monitoring tool to assist engineers with highlighting and monitoring regions of large changes of radar amplitude response that may be associated with locations of significant internal structural change (e.g. crack development). GPR is a non-destructive technique that is fast to deploy in a production setting. GPR can assist with reducing risk and costs in future infrastructure maintenance programs by highlighting and monitoring locations within the structure exhibiting large changes in radar amplitude over calendar-time.

Keywords: 4D GPR, engineering geophysics, ground penetrating radar, infrastructure monitoring

Procedia PDF Downloads 142

Authors: Alon Cohen, Jeffrey Kantor, Shalom Levy

Abstract:

The use of the audit risk model in auditing has faced limitations and difficulties, leading auditors to rely on a conceptual level of its application. The qualitative approach to assessing risks has resulted in different risk assessments, affecting the quality of audits and decision-making on the adoption of CAATTs. This study aims to investigate risk factors impacting the implementation of the audit risk model and propose a complementary risk-based instrument (KRIs) to form substance risk judgments and mitigate against heightened risk of material misstatement (RMM). The study addresses the question of how risk factors impact the implementation of the audit risk model, improve risk judgments, and aid in the adoption of CAATTs. The study uses a three-stage scale development procedure involving a pretest and subsequent study with two independent samples. The pretest involves an exploratory factor analysis, while the subsequent study employs confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation. Additionally, the authors test the ability of the KRIs to predict audit efforts needed to mitigate against heightened RMM. Data was collected through two independent samples involving 767 participants. The collected data was analyzed using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to assess scale validity and construct validation. The suggested KRIs, comprising two risk components and seventeen risk items, are found to have high predictive power in determining audit efforts needed to reduce RMM. The study validates the suggested KRIs as an effective instrument for risk assessment and decision-making on the adoption of CAATTs. This study contributes to the existing literature by implementing a holistic approach to risk assessment and providing a quantitative expression of assessed risks. It bridges the gap between intuitive risk evaluation and the theoretical domain, clarifying the mechanism of risk assessments. It also helps improve the uniformity and quality of risk assessments, aiding audit standard-setters in issuing updated guidelines on CAATT adoption. A few limitations and recommendations for future research should be mentioned. First, the process of developing the scale was conducted in the Israeli auditing market, which follows the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs). Although ISAs are adopted in European countries, for greater generalization, future studies could focus on other countries that adopt additional or local auditing standards. Second, this study revealed risk factors that have a material impact on the assessed risk. However, there could be additional risk factors that influence the assessment of the RMM. Therefore, future research could investigate other risk segments, such as operational and financial risks, to bring a broader generalizability to our results. Third, although the sample size in this study fits acceptable scale development procedures and enables drawing conclusions from the body of research, future research may develop standardized measures based on larger samples to reduce the generation of equivocal results and suggest an extended risk model.

Keywords: audit risk model, audit efforts, CAATTs adoption, key risk indicators, sustainability

Procedia PDF Downloads 34