Dr. Eva Lantsoght's research focuses on proof load testing in civil engineering, following her education in structural engineering and a PhD in civil engineering. Her work includes experimental studies and the development of guidelines for assessing existing concrete structures, emphasizing shear and bending behavior. The document details her academic journey, research projects, teaching responsibilities, and collaboration with international committees.

1.  
Dr. ir. Eva Lantsoght
10/28/2016
1

2.  General overview of
work/research since
graduating from VUB
 Current research line:
(proof) load testing
10/28/2016 2

3.  2003-2008: burgerlijk
ingenieur bouwkunde
 2008-2009: M.S. in structural
engineering, Georgia Institute
of Technology
10/28/2016 3

4.  2009-2013: PhD in Civil
Engineering
 Concrete Structures research
group
 Promotor: Joost Walraven
 Co-Promotor: Cor van der Veen
10/28/2016 4

5.  Experiments
o Shear in reinforced concrete slabs
o 156 experiments
 Analytical work
o Extended Strip Model – plastic
analysis method for shear in slabs
o Probability-based improvement for EC
shear formula based on experiments
 Practical application
o Quick Scan for Rijkswaterstaat
10/28/2016 5

6.  2013 – …
 B.Sc. level, 5-year program
 Teaching (3 courses/semester):
o Reinforced Concrete I
o Reinforced Concrete II
o Construction Materials Lab
o Design of Pavements
o Structural Analysis I
 Research with students for
“Trabajo de Titulacion”
10/28/2016 6

7.  2013-2016: Profesor auxiliar
 2016 (?) - … : Profesor
Investigador Principal Titular
after concurso de
merecimientos y oposiciones
=> reduction of teaching,
more research
 ACI student chapter
 ASCE student chapter
 2013 – 2016: Starting ICV-Lab
10/28/2016 7

8.  Research:
o Publications of PhD research
o Analysis existing bridge Tambura
o Torsion in slabs
o Digital Image Correlation with
cheap tools
o Chancellor Grant 2015: Extended
Strip Model
o Chancellor Grant 2016: Stop
criteria load testing (research line
TU Delft)
10/28/2016 8

9.  Research lines:
o Difficulties:
• contact with Ministry of Public Works?
• Infomation (structural plans?)
• Mentality: no interest in existing structures
• Limited facilities
• No research group
o Approach:
• Desk research
• Presentations about existing structures and
maintenance
• Cooperation through international committees
10/28/2016 9

10.  2013 – now: 0,2 fte
 Short projects
 Summer 2013:
o Quick Scan spreadsheets for
Rijkswaterstaat
 Summer 2014:
o Fatigue of high-strenght concrete:
proposal for Dutch code
o Ruytenschildt Bridge collapse test
10/28/2016 10

11.  Summer 2015:
o Effect of ASR on shear- and
bending moment capacity
o Proof load test viaduct Zijlweg
o Support for research line proof
load testing
10/28/2016 11

12.  Summer 2016
o Research line proof load testing
o Beam tests + analysis of results
o Analysis results of proof load test
viaduct De Beek
o Literature review
o Overview previous proof load tests
in NL
o First draft guideline
o Vechtbrug: last week – collapse
test
10/28/2016 12

13.  ACI-ASCE 421: Design of reinforced concrete slabs
 ACI-ASCE 445: Shear & Torsion
 ACI-DAfStB 445-D: Shear Databases
 ACI 342: Evaluation of Concrete Bridges and Bridge
Elements
 TRB AFF30: Concrete Bridges
 TRB AFF40: Testing and Evaluation of Transportation
Structures
 IABMAS, IALCCE, IABSE, fib
10/28/2016 13

14.  Advanced structural
engineering
 2 junior engineers
 Bridges: La Armenia, Los
Pajaros (ILM), Villorita
 Buildings
 Project on concrete masonry
houses (EQ-resistant) for
coast of Ecuador
10/28/2016 14

15.  Introduction
o Why proof loading?
o Stop criteria?
 Overview of existing guidelines
 Past proof load tests by TU Delft
 Recommendations
o Preparation of proof load tests
o Execution of proof load tests
 Summary and conclusions
Slab shear experiments, TU Delft
10/28/2016 15

16. Bridges from 60s and 70s
The Hague in 1959
Increased live loads
common heavy and long truck (600 kN)
End of service life + larger loads
10/28/2016 16

17. 10/28/2016 17

18. Diagnostic load testing Proof load testing
10/28/2016 18
Barcza ridge, Poland (Olaszek et
al., 2012)
Delaware (Jones, 2011)

19. Diagnostic load testing
 Calibration of FEM
 Strain gages over girder
height
 Low load levels
 Rating with updated FEM
Proof load testing
 Directly demonstrate that
bridge fulfils criteria
 Higher load levels
 Larger involved risk
 Follow measurements
 Stop criteria
10/28/2016 19

20.  Safety philosophy
 Stop criteria:
o Further loading not permitted
o Failure near
o Irreversible damage near
MSc Thesis W. Vos
10/28/2016 20

21.  Apply predetermined load
to bridge
o Information lacking
o Damage due to ASR, …
 Proof load testing
o Immediate approval of
bridge
o Recalculate updated β
o RC slab bridges
10/28/2016 21

22.  Europe: DAfStB Richtlinie
 Stop criteria
o Concrete strain
o Steel strain
o Crack width and residual
crack width (new & existing
cracks)
o Residual deflection
 For flexure
 Structures with large existing
cracking?
10/28/2016 22

23.  North America:
o Buildings: ACI 437.2M-13
o Bridges: Manual of Bridge
Rating Through Load Testing
(1998)
 ACI 437.2M-13 stop criteria:
o Residual deflection
o Permanency ratio
o Deviation from Linearity Index
10/28/2016 23

24.  Guideline for proof loading of existing bridges for the
Netherlands
 Flexure + shear
 Stop criteria?
10/28/2016 24

25.  Proof load tests:
o Heidijk 2007
o Medemblik 2009
o Vlijmen-Oost 2013
o Halvemaans Bridge 2014
o Ruytenschildt Bridge 2014
o Viaduct in the Zijlweg 2015
o Viaduct De Beek 2015
o Vecht Bridge 2016 Load test to failure of Ruytenschildt Bridge, summer 2014
10/28/2016 25

26.  Heidijk
o RC slab bridge
o ASR-induced damage
o Loading frame
o RWS + TNO
 Medemblik
o Girder bridge
o BELFA
o RWS + TNO + ifem
10/28/2016 26

27.  Video
10/28/2016 27

28.  BELFA
 Viaduct with ASR-damage
 Viaduct remained open to
traffic
 Disturbs AE measurements
 TU Delft + ifem:
measurements
 Bridge approved
10/28/2016 28

29.  System with load spreader
beam
 Bending moment capacity
 1 night closure of bridge
 TU Delft: measurements
 Bridge from 1930s
 Approved with proof load test
10/28/2016 29

30.  Existing reinforced concrete slab
bridge (1962)
 Test to failure in two spans
 4 concentrated load – one tandem
 Cyclic loading protocol
 Failure only achieved in span 2
10/28/2016 30

31. Existing bridge Partial demolition and building new bridge
10/28/2016 31

32. 10/28/2016 32

33.  Proof load test for bending
moment and shear
 Bridge closed for 1 week
 Viaduct over highway
 ASR-induced damage
 Approved thanks to proof
load test
10/28/2016 33

34.  No material damage
 Extensive cracking
 Proof load test on Span 1
 Span 2 over highway
 Shear and flexure position
 Bridge approved if 7% plastic
redistribution in Span 2 is OK
 Check for durability/corrosion
10/28/2016 34

35.  Video
10/28/2016 35

36.  Determination of dimensions
 Live load: EN 1991-2:2003
 RBK load levels
o Different β
o Different load factors
 In FEM model
o mx over 3 m
o v over 4d
10/28/2016 36

37.  Critical position
o Bending moment: largest
moment
o Shear: 2.5d from Support
 Required proof load
o Same shear or bending
moment as with load
combination
o Value → considered safety
level
10/28/2016 37

38.  Cyclic loading scheme
o Acoustic emission measurements
o Check linearity and reproducibility of measurements
o Check residual deformations
 Stop criteria
o Evaluated during tests
o Research in progress
o Criteria for shear failure need to be developed
10/28/2016 38

39.  Beams from Ruytenschildt Bridge
o Cyclic loading protocol
o Tests: Failure in shear and flexure
o Measurements:
• Lasers: deflection of beam
• LVDTs: crack opening
• Acoustic emission sensors
Beams RSB01 after failure (Yang, 2015)
Yang, Y. (2015). "Experimental Studies on the Structural Behaviours of Beams from Ruytenschildt Bridge,"
Stevin Report 25.5-15-09, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 76 pp.
Beams RSB02B after failure (Yang, 2015)
10/28/2016 39

40. RSB 01F 02A 02B 03F 03A
d (mm) 503 515.5 520 521 515
Ac (m2) 0.290 0.297 0.307 0.596 0.537
Rebar 4Ø22
4Ø19
4Ø22
4Ø19
4Ø22
5Ø19
9Ø22
8Ø19
7Ø22
8Ø19
ρl 0.91% 0.89% 0.96% 0.95% 0.92%
10/28/2016 40

41.  Analysis of stop criteria ACI 437.2M-13 and DAfStB
Richtlinie for RSB03F – Flexure test
ACI 437.2M-13
Criterion
Load (kN) DAfStB
Criterion
Load (kN)
Δr 340 Δr 150
Ipr >Pu w new crack 300
IDL 250 Strain -
PACI,st 250 PDA,st 150
Pu 606.6 Pu 606.6
PACI,st/Pu 0.41 PDA,st/Pu 0.25
Tersteeg, R. H. D. (2015). "Proefbelastingen op betonnen bruggen," B.Sc. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 69.
10/28/2016 41

42.  Analysis of stop criteria ACI 437.2M-13 and DAfStB
Richtlinie for RSB03A – Shear test
ACI 437.2M-13
Criterion
Load (kN) DAfStB
Criterion
Load (kN)
Δr >Pu Δr >Pu
Ipr >Pu w new crack 690
IDL 390 Strain -
PACI,st 390 PDA,st 690
Pu 706.7 Pu 706.7
PACI,st/Pu 0.55 PDA,st/Pu 0.98
Tersteeg, R. H. D. (2015). "Proefbelastingen op betonnen bruggen," B.Sc. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 69.
10/28/2016 42

43.  Use cyclic load protocol
o Study linearity and repeatability of results
 Flexure: Stop criteria exceeded long before failure
o Suitable stop criteria
• Crack width criterion from DAfStB + add lower bound
• Residual deflection DAfStB / ACI 437.2M-13 + minimum load level
• Deviation from Linearity ACI 437.2M-13: consistent performance except for
retested beam
• BUT: Deviation from Linearity and Permanency Ratio depend on applied loading
protocol
 Shear:
o Need to develop stop criteria
o Research on acoustic emission measurements
10/28/2016 43

44.  Controlled experiments in
laboratory
 Heavily instrumented beams
 Beams: part of series of
shear tests
 Study of stop criteria and
loading protocol
o Interrelated!
 First proposal for stop criteria
for guideline
10/28/2016 44

45. Previously cracked in bending moment or not?
Failure mechanism Uncracked Cracked
Flexural failure Concrete strains
wmax ≤ 0.5 mm
wres ≤ 0.1 mm
Stiffness reduction ≤ 25
%
Deformation profiles
Load-displacement graph
Concrete strains
wmax ≤ 0.5 mm
wres ≤ 0.1 mm
Stiffness reduction ≤ 5 %
Deformation profiles
Load-displacement graph
Shear failure Concrete strains
wmax ≤ 0.3 mm
Stiffness reduction ≤ 5 %
Deformation profiles
Load-displacement graph
Concrete strains
Stiffness reduction ≤ 5 %
Deformation profiles
Load-displacement graph
10/28/2016 45

46. 10/28/2016 46

47.  Proof loading to approve existing
bridges
 Existing guidelines:
o Only flexure
o Cracked structures?
 Research on stop criteria
 Determination of maximum proof
load
o LFEA
o Different safety levels
 Execution
o Cyclic loading protocol
o Safely applying large loads
Viaduct Zijlweg, tested in summer 2015
10/28/2016 47

48. Contact:
Eva Lantsoght
elantsoght@usfq.edu.ec // E.O.L.Lantsoght@tudelft.nl
10/28/2016 48