Beam experiments to investigate loading protocol and stop criteria for load testing
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,050 views
poster presented at ACI Spring Convention 2017
![Beam Experiments to Investigate Loading
Protocol and Stop Criteria for Load Testing
Eva O.L. Lantsoght1,2, Yuguang Yang2, Dick Hordijk2
1 Politécnico, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
2 Concrete Structures, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Proof load testing research:
field testing
Laboratory testing:
beams
Results
Proof load testing in the Netherlands
To explore the possibility of using proof load testing for the assessment of existing
bridges, a number of pilot proof load tests on shear- and flexure-critical bridges,
with and without material degradation, were carried out [2].
Open questions after pilot tests
Which stop criteria should we use? Stop criteria [3, 4] are criteria based on the
structural response measurements. If a criterion is exceeded, the test needs to be
terminated. Further load could cause irreversible damage or collapse.
Which loading protocol should we use? How many load cycles per load level? At
which loading speed?
References
[1] Lantsoght EOL, van der Veen C, de Boer A,
Walraven JC (2013) Recommendations for the
Shear Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Slab
Bridges from Experiments. Structural Engineering
International, Vol. 23, Nr. 4, pp. 418-426
[2] Lantsoght EOL, Van der Veen C, De Boer A,
Hordijk DA (in press) Proof load testing of
reinforced concrete slab bridges in the
Netherlands. Structural Concrete.
[3] Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton (2000)
DAfStb-Guideline: Load tests on concrete
structures. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton.
[4] ACI Committee 437 (2013) Code Requirements
for Load Testing of Existing Concrete Structures
(ACI 437.2M-13) and Commentary Farmington
Hills, MA.
What is proof load testing?
In a proof load test, a load representative of the factored live load is applied to the
bridge. If the structure can withstand the applied load without signs of distress, it
is experimentally shown that the bridge fulfills the loading requirements.
Why proof load testing?
Existing bridges often do not rate sufficient for the current live load models [1].
When uncertainties with regard to material degradation or the structural system
are large, proof load testing can be used.
Fig. 4: Vertical deformation
of a beam test
Fig. 2: Loading protocol followed for proof load
test on viaduct De Beek
Fig. 1: Load application methods: (a) loading
vehicle; (b) steel spreader beam with
counterweights
Fig. 5: Beam with instrumentation: grid of LVDTs,
lasers for vertical displacement, AE sensors
UNCRACKED CRACKED
Flexural
failure
εc < 0.8 ‰ – εc0
wmax ≤ 0.5 mm
wres ≤ 0.1 mm
wres < 0.3wmax
Stiffness reduction ≤ 25 %
Deformation profiles
Load-displacement graph
εc < 0.8 ‰ – εc0
wmax ≤ 0.5 mm
wres ≤ 0.1 mm
wres < 0.2wmax
Stiffness reduction ≤ 5 %
Deformation profiles
Load-displacement graph
Shear
failure
εc < 0.8 ‰ – εc0
wmax ≤ 0.3 mm
Stiffness reduction ≤ 5 %
Deformation profiles
Load-displacement graph
εc < 0.8 ‰ – εc0
Stiffness reduction ≤ 5 %
Deformation profiles
Load-displacement graph
Table 2: Overview of recommended stop criteria based on beam tests
Current
practice
• Codes: German
guideline [3] and ACI
437.2M-13 [4]
• Stop criteria for
flexure, not shear
• Developed for
buildings
Loading
protocol
Cyclic: repeatability and
linearity
Load levels: check linearity,
check measurements
Target proof load as
maximum load level
Parameters
• Loading speed
• Number of load cycles
• Rest time at peak
• Rest time at baseline
load
• Safe approach to higher
load level
Test
No.
Shear
span
(mm)
Effective
depth
(mm)
Shear
capacity
(kN)
Bending
capacity
(kN)
Tested
capacity
(kN)
Failure
mode
P804A1 3000 755 273 199 207 F
P804A2 2500 755 219 248 232 S
P804B1 2500 755 219 248 196 S
P502A2 1000 465 150 154 150 F
Table 1: Overview of tested beams
Fig. 6: Recommended loading protocol
Recommendations
Stop criteria depending on failure mode,
See Table 2.
Four load levels, see Fig. 6: lowest level to
check functioning of sensors, serviceability
limit state, interim level, target proof load
Fig. 3: Stiffness reduction
with load cycles
(a)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/posteraci1232017-02-08-170328144526/85/Beam-experiments-to-investigate-loading-protocol-and-stop-criteria-for-load-testing-1-320.jpg)
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Beam experiments to investigate loading protocol and stop criteria for load testing
Similar to Beam experiments to investigate loading protocol and stop criteria for load testing (20)
More from Eva Lantsoght
More from Eva Lantsoght (15)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Beam experiments to investigate loading protocol and stop criteria for load testing
- 1. Beam Experiments to Investigate Loading Protocol and Stop Criteria for Load Testing Eva O.L. Lantsoght1,2, Yuguang Yang2, Dick Hordijk2 1 Politécnico, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador 2 Concrete Structures, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Proof load testing research: field testing Laboratory testing: beams Results Proof load testing in the Netherlands To explore the possibility of using proof load testing for the assessment of existing bridges, a number of pilot proof load tests on shear- and flexure-critical bridges, with and without material degradation, were carried out [2]. Open questions after pilot tests Which stop criteria should we use? Stop criteria [3, 4] are criteria based on the structural response measurements. If a criterion is exceeded, the test needs to be terminated. Further load could cause irreversible damage or collapse. Which loading protocol should we use? How many load cycles per load level? At which loading speed? References [1] Lantsoght EOL, van der Veen C, de Boer A, Walraven JC (2013) Recommendations for the Shear Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Slab Bridges from Experiments. Structural Engineering International, Vol. 23, Nr. 4, pp. 418-426 [2] Lantsoght EOL, Van der Veen C, De Boer A, Hordijk DA (in press) Proof load testing of reinforced concrete slab bridges in the Netherlands. Structural Concrete. [3] Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton (2000) DAfStb-Guideline: Load tests on concrete structures. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton. [4] ACI Committee 437 (2013) Code Requirements for Load Testing of Existing Concrete Structures (ACI 437.2M-13) and Commentary Farmington Hills, MA. What is proof load testing? In a proof load test, a load representative of the factored live load is applied to the bridge. If the structure can withstand the applied load without signs of distress, it is experimentally shown that the bridge fulfills the loading requirements. Why proof load testing? Existing bridges often do not rate sufficient for the current live load models [1]. When uncertainties with regard to material degradation or the structural system are large, proof load testing can be used. Fig. 4: Vertical deformation of a beam test Fig. 2: Loading protocol followed for proof load test on viaduct De Beek Fig. 1: Load application methods: (a) loading vehicle; (b) steel spreader beam with counterweights Fig. 5: Beam with instrumentation: grid of LVDTs, lasers for vertical displacement, AE sensors UNCRACKED CRACKED Flexural failure εc < 0.8 ‰ – εc0 wmax ≤ 0.5 mm wres ≤ 0.1 mm wres < 0.3wmax Stiffness reduction ≤ 25 % Deformation profiles Load-displacement graph εc < 0.8 ‰ – εc0 wmax ≤ 0.5 mm wres ≤ 0.1 mm wres < 0.2wmax Stiffness reduction ≤ 5 % Deformation profiles Load-displacement graph Shear failure εc < 0.8 ‰ – εc0 wmax ≤ 0.3 mm Stiffness reduction ≤ 5 % Deformation profiles Load-displacement graph εc < 0.8 ‰ – εc0 Stiffness reduction ≤ 5 % Deformation profiles Load-displacement graph Table 2: Overview of recommended stop criteria based on beam tests Current practice • Codes: German guideline [3] and ACI 437.2M-13 [4] • Stop criteria for flexure, not shear • Developed for buildings Loading protocol Cyclic: repeatability and linearity Load levels: check linearity, check measurements Target proof load as maximum load level Parameters • Loading speed • Number of load cycles • Rest time at peak • Rest time at baseline load • Safe approach to higher load level Test No. Shear span (mm) Effective depth (mm) Shear capacity (kN) Bending capacity (kN) Tested capacity (kN) Failure mode P804A1 3000 755 273 199 207 F P804A2 2500 755 219 248 232 S P804B1 2500 755 219 248 196 S P502A2 1000 465 150 154 150 F Table 1: Overview of tested beams Fig. 6: Recommended loading protocol Recommendations Stop criteria depending on failure mode, See Table 2. Four load levels, see Fig. 6: lowest level to check functioning of sensors, serviceability limit state, interim level, target proof load Fig. 3: Stiffness reduction with load cycles (a)