Load carrying capacity based on load testing Joan R. Casas Technical University of Catalunya (UPC) Barcelona, Spain.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
St. Anthony Falls Bridge Replacement Jon Chiglo, P.E., Project Manager.
Advertisements

Chapter-2 Parts of Steel Bridge.
Condition Monitoring (CM)  Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) a joint lecture for MECH 512: Design for Structural Integrity MECH 513: Smart Materials.
Findings from On-site Inspection (Rt 202/US Rt 23 BRIDGE)
1 Chapter 7 Length of flange Introduction As the bending moment decreases towards the support, the flange plate may be varied and a smaller flange.
Workshop at Indian Institute of Science 9-13 August, 2010 Bangalore India Fire Safety Engineering & Structures in Fire Organisers:CS Manohar and Ananth.
By : Prof.Dr.\Nabil Mahmoud
No. 18 of 19 Geosynthetics in Asphalt Pavements by Prof. S.F. Brown FEng University of Nottingham The information presented in this document has been reviewed.
Rating of Local Bridges for SHVs Using Virtis Software Virtis/Opis User Group Meeting August 3-4, 2010 Moises C. Dimaculangan, P.E. Minnesota Department.
Asset Management Performance (Structures) Awtar Jandu Safe Roads, Reliable Journeys, Informed Travellers Bridge Owners Forum – Leeds -14 June 2005.
Shear and Diagonal Tension
Lecture Goals Slab design reinforcement.
CEA UNIT 3 TERMS & DEFINITIONS. BEAM A structural member, usually horizontal, that carries a load that is applied transverse to its length.
Load Models for Bridges Outline Dead load Live load Extreme load events Load combinations Andrzej S. Nowak University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Section 3 design of post-tensioned components for flexure Developed by the pTI EDC-130 Education Committee lead author: trey Hamilton, University of.
. Condition Assessment of Railway Bridges Condition Assessment of Railway Bridges.
A Dual-Purpose Bridge Health Monitoring and Weigh-In-Motion System Anne-Marie McDonnell, P.E., Connecticut DOT Richard Christenson, Ph.D., University of.
1 Remaining Life of Concrete Sleepers: A Multifaceted Approach A/Prof Alex Remennikov School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering University.
COMPOSITE BEAMS-II ©Teaching Resource in Design of Steel Structures –
Case Study – Application of Sensors in measuring torque and thrust produced by propellers in small unmanned quad-rotor helicopter.
Shear Capacity of Composite Steel Girder at Simple Support Virtis/Opis User Group Conference Nashville, TN, August 3-4, 2010 George Huang, PhD, PE California.
SUSTAINABLE BRIDGES PROJECT Masonry Arch Bridges Subgroup.
Increased load capacity of arch bridge using slab reinforced concrete T.G. Hughes & M. Miri Cardiff School of Engineering Arch 04, Barcelona, Nov ,
Maintaining Roadworthiness. Overview o Tyres within the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Vehicle Roadworthiness o Service Station Tyre Checks (understanding.
Classification of Instruments :
Cracks in Concrete. 2-Classifications 2-Classifications 3-Concrete removal, preparation 4-References Cracks in Concrete 1-lntroduction.
5 april 2004 J.M. Zwarthoed Workshop on Cracking and Durability of Reinforced Concrete Concerning the Serviceability Limit State.
Abstract This paper presents an experimental investigation on the flexural failure behavior of RC Beams having different weight loss of 0, 5, 10 and 30%
Courtesy of Holbert Apple Associates Georgia Avenue Building Introduction Statistics Gravity System Lateral System Problem Statement & Solution.
Group N Chris Jones Ella Feekins Nikoline Hong
INSPECTION OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE ROAD BRIDGES BY ULTRASOUND 3D TOMOGRAPHER SYSTEM Eng. Guy Rapaport Infrastructure & Transport, Finland.
Reliability Analysis Procedures for Infrastructure Facilities Andrzej S. Nowak University of Nebraska - Lincoln Outline  Causes of Uncertainty  Load.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Melbourne Finite Element Modelling Applications (Notes prepared by A. Hira – modified.
BEAMS AND COLUMNS.
B-WIM for Bridge Enforcement and Structural Safety
PA Non-composite Adjacent Box Beam Bridges PennDOT June 2006 A presentation adapted from the AASHTO T-18 Bridge Inspection Technical Committee Meeting.
REPAIRS AND REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURES UNIT – II
Application of the Direct Optimized Probabilistic Calculation Martin Krejsa Department of Structural Mechanics Faculty of Civil Engineering VSB - Technical.
Concrete 2003 Brisbane July 2003 Design Of Pre-cast Buried Structures For Internal Impact Loading.
Optimising Precast Bridge Girders for Sustainability With the use of High Performance Concrete Doug Jenkins - Interactive Design Services Leigh McCarthy.
Reliability-Based Design (for CE152) by Siddhartha Ghosh Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering IIT Bombay.
©Teaching Resource in Design of Steel Structures IIT Madras, SERC Madras, Anna Univ., INSDAG 1 COMPOSITE FLOORS - II.
Acoustic Emission Testing. Activity of AE Sources in Structural Loading AE Sources Non-metallic inclusions Cracks Frequency range 100 – 500kHz Activity.
INTERACTION AND COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN PROPULSIVE PLANT AND ENGINE ROOM / DOUBLE BOTTOM STEELWORK.
Justin Purcell Structural Option Advisor: Dr. Hanagan.
Bridge Load Tests involve test trucks, data acquisition and computer models. Field inspection Bridge load test Data acquisition system FEM computer model.
BEAMS: Beams are structural members that can carry transverse loads which produce bending moments & shear force. Girders: Main load carrying members into.
DESIGN AND IN-SERVICE INSPECTIONS Guy BAYLAC Technical Advisor to EPERC TAIEX Workshop, Working Group 4 Bratislava – 12 April 2005.
Beam Design Beams are designed to safely support the design loads.
Leads Institute of Technology & Engineering Subject Code : Name Of Subject :Building Construction Name of Unit : Soil Foundation Topic : Bearing.
Kistler / David Cornu 12 June 2016 Lineas® Кварцевые датчики для больших и малых скоростей WIM David Cornu Product Manager Road & Traffic.
Session 10 Purdue Research Updates Use of railroad flatcars as bridges on low-volume roads.
How safe are our highway structures? Optimised assessment of bridges Aleš Žnidarič Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute.
1 ROAD & BRIDGE RESEARCH INSTITUTE WARSAW Juliusz Cieśla ASSESSSMENT OF PRESTRESSING FORCE IN PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BRIDGE SPANS BY THE PROOF LOAD.
A Paper from the Transportation Research Record
Design of Gantry Girders
1 ROAD & BRIDGE RESEARCH INSTITUTE WARSAW Juliusz Cieśla ASSESSSMENT OF PRESTRESSING FORCE IN PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BRIDGE SPANS.
Workshop on Cracking and Durability of Reinforced Concrete
Pressure Vessel Inspection Techniques
CIVI 6061-Strengthening of bridges using FRP
Assessment of dynamic loading of bridges
Chapter-2 Parts of Steel Bridges.
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLAT SLAB
Chapter 3 BENDING MEMBERS.
Physical-Model-Based Data Interpretation
Structure II Course Code: ARCH 209 Dr. Aeid A. Abdulrazeg
Are We Abandoning Bridges with Remaining Life?
Design Ribbed and Flat Slabs
Post-earthquake Building Usability Assessment:
ASSESSEMENT AND REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURES
Presentation transcript:

Load carrying capacity based on load testing Joan R. Casas Technical University of Catalunya (UPC) Barcelona, Spain

1 Objectives (WP2)  Optimise bridge assessment by using load testing and integration of inspection and monitoring results.  Do not waste money on unnecessary replacement or strengthening due to innacurate assessment  To provide Guidelines for more accurate bridge assessment tools in NMS and CEEC

2 Justification  In situ tests show that bridges have a reserve strength that is not accounted for in design codes or standard assessment methods Limitation of theoretical models Hidden resisting mechanisms Insufficient information on bridge performance and external loading Absence of documentation for old bridges

3 Example a bridge in Gameljne near Ljubljana:  12.4 m simply supported span  “obsolete”: low resistance (poor assessment) insufficient serviceability  reassessment: 5 layers of reinforcement likely safe

4 Gameljscica bridge (Slovenia)

5 Example

6 Bridge assessment  Realistic structural behaviour: load testing: To improve the limitations of theoretical models  Realistic traffic loading: static dynamic loading

7 Soft load testing Previous results of SAMARIS new, more efficient way of diagnostic load testing  based on bridge weigh-in-motion measurements: measures important structural parameters (influence lines, distribution of traffic loads, impact factors)  under normal traffic, without pre-weighed vehicles and no road closures ARCHES: validate results of soft load testing with more traditional diagnostic and proof load tests  Result: Many posted bridges rated as unsafe for normal traffic loads have been rated as safe.

8 Theoretical (left) and measured influence lines (right): 35% reduction in bending moments at mid-span

9 Typical measured load distribution factors obtained with a B-WIM system

10 Proof load testing Load the bridge to a certain level of load to assure a minimum capacity versus service loads ( actual traffic) with a required safety level

11 BELFA project (Germany)

12 BELFA project (Germany)

13 Michigan State (USA)

14 Justification High reserves of strength in some decomissioned bridges  Hidden resisting mechanisms  Composite action due to friction  Limitation of available analytical models  Lack of knowledge on failure mechanisms  Absence of documentation for old bridges

15 Application Only exceptional cases  Old bridges with lack of documentation  Bridge with high level of redundancy (robustness)  Bridges that have not passed the standard assessment process

16 Important issues  Minimum load level to achieve ?: Target proof load  Risk of damage to the bridge (failure during the test ?)  When should the increment of loading stop ?  How to deal with bridge owner reluctance ?

17 Main characteristic of traffic data used in the calibration Netherlan ds (NL) Slovakia (SK) Czech Republic (CZ) Sloveni a (SI) Poland (PL) Directions12111 Total trucks646,548748,338729,929147,752429,680 Time span in weeks Number of weekdays with full record Trucks per day lane 16,5451,0314,4903,1583,708 Trucks per day lane 25571, Trucks per day ( both lanes) 7,1022,1994,7513,2934,022

18 NMS,CEEC: Proposed proof load factorsNMS,CEEC: Proposed proof load factors  Non-documented bridges Nominal value from the EC-1Nominal value from the EC-1 Span length (m) β

19 NMS,CEEC: Proposed proof load factorsNMS,CEEC: Proposed proof load factors  Documented bridges (BETA= 2.3) Nominal value from the EC-1Nominal value from the EC-1 R/RnSpan-length (m)

20 Acoustic emission

21 Acoustic emission

22 Acoustic emission

23 Proof load test: Barcza bridge The bridge - should be removed in the next future The lateral span - to not interact with the railway traffic The end girder - load possibility (short span)

24

25 Diagnostic and proof load testing - Measuring equipment Deflections - inductive transducers Deflection/Support displacement – Total Station Strain/stress - electric resistance wire strain gauges Acoustic emission - sensors Support displacement – leveling staff

26

27

28 Proof load testing - Test results - Deflections/Time

29 Proof load testing - Test results - Acoustic emission Phase No. 6: five concrete slab layers + one steel weights layer Cracking in concrete under bearing Phase No. 7: five concrete slab layers + two steel weights layers Cracking in concrete under bearing and in transverse beam Phase No. 8: five concrete slab layers + three steel weights layer The most increase of AE signal in the girder midpoint The visual inspection – no cracks near the girder midpoint Phase No. 9: five concrete slab layers + four steel weights layer The fast increase of AE signal in the girder midpoint - development of existing cracking processes The visual inspection –the crack near the girder midpoint

30 Proof load testing - Test results – Deflections/Bending moment Green lines - loading level where load testing should have been stopped on the base of AE signals The red line - loading level where the cracking was detected by visual inspection

31 CONCLUSIONS LOAD TESTING  Soft  Diagnostic  Proof NEW POSSIBILITIES IN ACTUAL LOADING CAPACITY OF EXISTING BRIDGES