1、An ACI Technical Publication SYMPOSIUM VOLUME SP-323 Evaluation of Concrete Bridge Behavior through Load Testing International Perspectives Editors: Eva Lantsoght and Pinar OkumusEvaluation of Concrete Bridge Behavior through Load Testing International Perspectives SP-323 Editors: Eva Lantsoght and
2、Pinar Okumus Discussion is welcomed for all materials published in this issue and will appear ten months from this journals date if the discussion is received within four months of the papers print publication. Discussion of material received after specified dates will be considered individually for
3、 publication or private response. ACI Standards published in ACI Journals for public comment have discussion due dates printed with the Standard. The Institute is not responsible for the statements or opinions expressed in its publications. Institute publications are not able to, nor intended to, su
4、pplant individual training, responsibility, or judgment of the user, or the supplier, of the information presented. The papers in this volume have been reviewed under Institute publication procedures by individuals expert in the subject areas of the papers. Copyright 2018 AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE
5、 38800 Country Club Dr. Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331 All rights reserved, including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by any electronic or mechanical device, printed or written or oral, or recording for sound or vi
6、sual reproduction or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors. On the cover: Load test of a cable stayed bridge over Wisok River, Poland. Photograph by Dr. K. Wilde. Printed in the United States of America Editori
7、al production: Susan K. Esper ISBN-13: 978-1-64195-007-7 First printing, May 2018Preface Load testing of concrete bridges is a practice with a long history. Historically, and particularly before the unification of design and construction practices through codes, load testing was performed to show th
8、e travelling public that a newly built bridge was safe for use. Nowadays, with the aging infrastructure and increasing loads in developed countries, load testing is performed mostly for existing structures either as diagnostic or proof tests. For newly built bridges, diagnostic load testing may be r
9、equired as a verification of design assumptions, particularly for atypical bridge materials, designs, or geometries. For existing bridges, diagnostic load testing may be used to improve analysis assumptions such as composite action between girders and deck, and contribution of parapets and other non
10、structural members to stiffness. Proof load testing may be used to demonstrate that a structure can carry a given load when there are doubts with regard to the effect of material degradation, or when sufficient information about the structure is lacking to carry out an analytical assessment. In rece
11、nt years, both researchers and practicing engineers worldwide have been refining load testing methods to balance accuracy, cost, effort, and time, and have been addressing increasingly complex structures and situations. To exchange international experiences among a global group of researchers and co
12、mpare load testing methods used internationally, ACI Committee 342 organized two sessions titled “Evaluation of Concrete Bridge Behaviour through Load Testing International Perspective” at the 2017 ACI Fall Convention in Anaheim, CA. This Special Publication contains several technical papers from ex
13、perts who presented their work at these sessions, in addition to papers submitted for publication only. This Special Publication combines contributions from different regions of the world, and in particular from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and from different regions in
14、the United States. The technical papers consider both theoretical and practical aspects of load testing, discuss different levels of bridge behaviour assessment such as visual inspections, modelling, and load testing. They introduce the reader to the codes and guidelines that may only be available i
15、n some countries. The impact of differences in live loads, design codes, reserve capacities, age of structures, construction practices between Europe, and North America on assessment of concrete bridges is reflected by case studies. Recent developments with regard to codes and standards around the w
16、orld for load testing are discussed, and open questions for future developments are highlighted by the authors. The wide variety of concrete bridge structures investigated included short- span reinforced concrete slab bridges, older reinforced concrete earth-filled arch bridges, bridges that have be
17、en damaged and/or retrofitted, and modern prestressed concrete bridges with new materials. Reasons why load testing is required also vary and include apparent damage, opportunities created by decommissioned bridges, necessity to carry super heavy vehicles, use of unique materials or geometry, and ab
18、sence of design plans. Results of testing bridges under static or dynamic service loads create knowledge on expected service performance and allow load ratings, while testing decommissioned bridges to near collapse or collapse reveals true capacity and the level of conservatism in design assumptions
19、. Several papers highlight vehicles or rigs designed specifically for reuse in standardized load testing. Others use recent technology such as 3-D scanning or digital image correlation to collect data, in addition to traditional methods such as strain gauges. As such, this Special Publication provid
20、es a global perspective on strategies for assessing the in-service performance of concrete bridges, and an overview of the state-of-the-art with regard to load testing internationally. Overall, in this Special Publication, authors from different backgrounds and geographical locations share their exp
21、eriences and perspectives on load testing and its impact on understanding concrete bridge behaviour. The coeditors, Dr. Pinar Okumus and Dr. Eva Lantsoght, are grateful for the contributions of the Special Publication authors and sincerely value the time and effort of the authors in preparing the pa
22、pers in this volume. Eva Lantsoght and Pinar Okumus Co-Editors TABLE OF CONTENTS SP-3231 Assessment of Slab Bridges through Proof Loading in the Netherlands Authors: Eva O. L. Lantsoght, Cor van der Veen, Ane de Boer, and Dick A. Hordijk SP-3232 Load Testing of Highly Skewed Concrete Bridges Authors
23、: Mauricio Diaz Arancibia and Pinar Okumus SP-3233 Rating of Concrete Road Bridges with Static Proof Load Tests Authors: Anna Halicka, Dick A. Hordijk, and Eva O.L. Lantsoght SP-3234 Bridge Load Testing and Monitoring for Super-Heavy Permit Loads Authors: Brett Commander and Jesse Sipple SP-3235 Rat
24、ing of Prestressed Concrete Adjacent Beam Bridges without Plans Authors: Carlos V. Aguilar, David V. Juregui, Brad D. Weldon, and Craig M. Newtson SP-3236 Bridge Load Testing In Germany Authors: Gregor Schacht, Frederik Wedel, and Steffen Marx SP-3237 Diagnostic Load Testing Of Concrete Bridges, Pri
25、nciples and Example Authors: Joan Ramon Casas, Piotr Olaszek, Juliusz Ciesla, and Krzysztof Germaniuk SP-3238 Assessment and Loading to Failure of Three Swedish RC Bridges Authors: Jonny Nilimaa, Cristian Sabau, Niklas Bagge, Arto Puurula, Gabriel Sas, Thomas Blanksvrd, Bjrn Tljsten, Anders Carolin,
26、 Bjrn Paulsson, and Lennart Elfgren SP-3239 High Magnitude Loading of Concrete Bridges Authors: Jacob W. Schmidt, Philip S. Halding, Thomas W. Jensen, and Svend Engelund SP-32310 Torsional Effects on Load Tests to Quantify Shear Distribution in Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges Authors: Benjamin Z
27、. Dymond, Catherine E. W. French, and Carol K. Shield SP-32311 Diagnostic Test for Load Rating of a Prestressed SCC Bridge Authors: E. S. Hernandez and J.J. Myers SP-32312 Extending the Life of Aged, Reinforced Concrete Arch Bridges through Load Testing and Monitoring Authors: Jeffrey Weidner, John
28、Prader, Nathaniel Dubbs, Franklin L. Moon, A. Emin Aktan, John Taylor, and Clifford J. SkeensSP-3231 1.1 ASSESSMENT OF SLAB BRIDGES THROUGH PROOF LOADING IN THE NETHERLANDS Eva O. L. Lantsoght, Cor van der Veen, Ane de Boer and Dick A. Hordijk Synopsis: A large subset of the Dutch bridge stock consi
29、sts of reinforced concrete slab bridges, for which assessment often results in low ratings. To prioritize the efforts of the bridge owner, more suitable assessment methods for slab bridges are necessary. Research efforts over the past years resulted in the development of several methods, at levels r
30、equiring increasing costs, time, and effort for increasing accuracy. The last option, when an analytical assessment is not possible due to uncertainties, is to use proof load testing to evaluate the bridge directly. To develop recommendations for the proof load testing of reinforced concrete slab br
31、idges for the Netherlands, different methods are combined: pilot proof load tests on bridges with and without material damage, a collapse test, tests on beams taken from an existing bridge and new beams with similar dimensions cast in the laboratory, and an extensive literature review. The result of
32、 this study is a set of recommendations that describe how to prepare and execute a proof load test, and how to analyze the results. This paper summarizes the research program about proof load testing from the Netherlands and gives an overview of the currently developed recommendations and topics for
33、 further research. Keywords: field testing; flexure; measurements; proof load testing; reinforced concrete; shear; slab bridges Lantsoght et al. 1.2 ACI member Eva O. L. Lantsoght is a full professor at Universidad San Francisco de Quito, a structural engineer at Adstren and a researcher at Delft Un
34、iversity of Technology. She is a member of ACI 445-0D Shear Databases and of ACI-ASCE 421, Design of Reinforced Concrete Slabs, and an associate member of ACI 342, Evaluation of Concrete Bridges and Bridge Elements, ACI 437, Strength Evaluation of Existing Concrete Structures, and ACI-ASCE 445, Shea
35、r and Torsion. Cor van der Veen is an associate professor at Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. He received his M.Sc. and Ph.D. from Delft University of Technology. He is a member of various National Committees. His research interests include (very) high strength (steel fiber) c
36、oncrete, concrete bridges and computational mechanics. Ane de Boer is a senior advisor at Rijkswaterstaat, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Utrecht, The Netherlands. He received his M.Sc. and Ph.D. from Delft University of Technology. He is a member of some National Committees, fi
37、b COM3 and member of an IABSE Working Committee. His research interests are remaining lifetime, existing structures, computational mechanics, traffic loads and composites. Dick A. Hordijk is a full professor at Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. He received his M.Sc. and Ph.D. i
38、n civil engineering from Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, in 1985 and 1990, respectively. His research interests include concrete fracture mechanics, assessment of existing structures, structural application of new concrete types and forensic engineering. INTRODUCTION Existing
39、 bridges in the Netherlands The expansion of the Dutch road network after the Second World War included the construction of a large number of bridges. These bridges are now approaching the end of their originally devised service life of 80 years. To evaluate if extension of the service life of these
40、 bridges is possible, and if they are suitable for carrying the current traffic, assessment of these structures is required. A large subset of the Dutch bridge stock consists of reinforced concrete slab bridges. Of the bridges built during the 1960s and 1970s, 50% are reinforced concrete slab bridge
41、s. In later periods, the majority of bridges were prestressed prefabricated girder bridges. The reinforced concrete slab bridges are typically short span bridges in or over the highway, and can be a single span or multiple spans. A first assessment, based on the code provisions for the design of new
42、 structures (Vergoossen et al., 2013), showed that about 600 of these bridges do not fulfil these code requirements. In many cases, the shear capacity was insufficient. This observation resulted from the fact that the applied live loads according to NEN-EN 1991-2:2003 (CEN, 2003) are heavier than th
43、ose used in the past, and that the shear provisions described in NEN-EN 1992-1-1:2005 (CEN, 2005) generally lead to lower shear capacities than the previously governing national code NEN 6720:1995 (Code Committee 351001, 1995). Assessment based on Levels of Approximation The fib Model Code 2010 (fib
44、, 2012) introduced the Levels of Approximation concept for the first time. A low Level of Approximation is a conservative method that can be used, for example, for preliminary design. If the assessment requires a more accurate answer, a higher Level of Approximation is necessary. This higher Level o
45、f Approximation will require more time to set up the model, and increased computational time and effort as compared to a lower Level of Approximation. Belletti et al. (2015) recommend different Levels of Approximation for the shear and punching provisions (Belletti et al., 2015), as used in the fib
46、Model Code 2012 (fib, 2012). Figure 1 illustrates the concept of using Levels of Approximation. For the assessment of the shear capacity of reinforced concrete slab bridges, a method with Levels of Approximation was developed as well (Lantsoght et al., 2017a), called Levels of Assessment. In total,
47、four Levels of Assessment were identified: 1. Level of Assessment 1 Quick Scan method: the Quick Scan method (Lantsoght et al., 2013b; Lantsoght et al., 2016f) is a fast, spreadsheet-based calculation that mimics a hand calculation. The provisions of the Eurocodes NEN EN 1991-2:2003 (CEN, 2003) and
48、NEN-EN 1991-2-2:2005 (CEN, 2005) are followed and extended with recommendations based on slab experiments (Lantsoght et al., 2013c; Lantsoght et al., 2014b; Lantsoght et al., 2015a; Lantsoght et al., 2015c). The result is a Unity Check: the ratio of the shear stress caused by the loads (self-weight,
49、 superimposed dead load, and live loads) to the shear capacity. If the Unity Check is smaller than or equal to one, no further refinement of the assessment method is required and the code requirements for the bridge are fulfilled. If the Unity Check is larger than 1, a higher Level of Assessment is necessary. Assessment of Slab Bridges through Proof Loading in the Netherlands 1.3 2. Level of Assessment 2 Linear finite element models: at Level of Assessment 2, the shear stresses caused by the loads (self-weight, superimposed dead load, live loads consisting of d
