where: Pi  defect ``i'' rating; Iext  defect extent index; Ij  joint's
service life penalty index; It  traffic penalty index (in terms of
comfort or safety); Iloc  defect location index; Ie  structure
penalty index; Ip  population penalty index; Cvt  traffic volume
coefficient; Cepsurrounding population coefficient. Table 2 provides an indication of the degree of urgency of repair
of a defect based on its rating and of the general actions to be taken.
To establish reliable values and numerical limits for Eq. (1)
and Table 2, it was paramount to test them and scrutinize the
results within the inspection campaign performed. These results
are succinctly presented:
 total number of defects: 369;
 minimum rating: 1.2;
 maximum rating: 52.8;
 average rating: 9.5;
 number of defects classified as non-urgent (see Table 2): 265
(72%);
 number of defects classified as mildly urgent (see Table 2): 66
(18%);
 number of defects classified as urgent (see Table 2): 37 (10%);
 number of defects classified as very urgent (see Table 2): 1
(0.3%).
The rating of the 369 defects identified in the sample is
graphically presented in Fig. 10 where abscises represent defects
(arranged from the lowest rating to the highest) and ordinates
show the rating obtained.
Based on the results obtained a diagram (Fig. 11) was built in
which theminimum, average andmaximumratings are presented
by defects category (except for AG because nonewas found), from
which the following conclusions can be drawn: defects in categories AD Anchorage to the structure and AE
Joint/joint material are the ones that are rated higher; the
maximum values, around 50, are very close to the limit above
which it is necessary to cut traffic and immediately repair the
defect, even if only temporarily;
 the second most rated defects (around 40) fall into categories
AB Geometry and AA Transition to the pavement/pavement;
even if they do not achieve the level of urgency associated with
those of the categories mentioned above, a repair within a 3
month time-frame is still necessary;
 categories AC Movement and especially AF
Watertightness/drainage are the oneswith the lowestmaximum
ratings; in the first case, that is explained by the small number
and importance of the defects identified in the sample; in the
second case, this situation was predictable since the major im-
plications of these defects are related with the structure's ma-
terial and not with traffic (Eq. (1) therefore leads to low rating
values);
 comparing categories AB Geometry and AA Transition to
the pavement/pavement with categories AD Anchorage to the
structure and AE Joint/jointmaterial, it is found out that the first
ones have lower maximum ratings but slightly higher average
ratings; thismeans thatmost defects in categories AB and AA
are more serious than those in categories AD and AE;
 in terms of minimum rating, defects in category AC Movement
are the oneswith the highest value, leading to the idea that even
the slightest defects of this type are somewhat important.
4. Conclusions
The size of the inspection campaign performed and the sample's
intrinsic characteristics, namely the typology and bridges age,
allowed a consistent calibration of the road bridges expansion
joints management system proposed, e.g. within the Brisa
network.
The calibration of the system comprised two different stages:
the validation of the classification systemand the validation of the
correlation matrices. Some changes in the system resulted from
both stages, namely the designation of the single elements within
the lists and the correlation matrices indexes. In relative terms 公路桥梁伸缩缝检查英文文献和中文翻译(6):http://www.youerw.com/fanyi/lunwen_16504.html