Jbridge 1.74 crack code#
The maximum load that needs to be applied to demonstrate that the bridge fulfills the code requirements is called the target proof load. In a proof load test ( Grigoriu and Hall, 1984 Juntunen and Isola, 1995 Saraf et al., 1996 Ransom and Heywood, 1997 Faber et al., 2000 Cai and Shahawy, 2003 Anay et al., 2016), a load that corresponds to the factored live load is applied to the bridge structure, to directly demonstrate that a bridge fulfills the code requirements. Situations when analytical models are insufficient are: when no structural plans are available ( Aguilar et al., 2015), when there are large uncertainties on the structural capacity as the result of material deterioration or degradation ( Lantsoght et al., 2017c), or when the analytical models cannot (fully) consider additional sources of resistance such as transverse load redistribution ( Lantsoght et al., 2015) or compressive membrane action ( Collings and Sagaseta, 2015). As such, this assessment method can be used when analytical models are insufficient.
Jbridge 1.74 crack verification#
A proof load test serves as a direct verification of the performance of the bridge, and as a demonstration that it can withstand the prescribed loads. Proof load testing of existing reinforced concrete bridges is becoming increasingly important as an assessment method for existing bridges, since the current bridge stock in Europe and North America is aging ( Lantsoght et al., 2017f). Eventually, an optimized combination of field testing and finite element modeling will result in an approach that potentially reduces the cost of field testing. The approaches shown for viaduct De Beek should be applied for other case studies before recommendations for practice can be formulated. Similarly, an improved assessment based on a linear finite element model is carried out.
Jbridge 1.74 crack update#
The data from the field test (measured strains on the bottom of the concrete cross-section, as well as measured deflection profiles) are used to update the non-linear finite element model for the end span, and to improve the modeling and assessment of the critical middle spans of the structure. To further study the behavior of this bridge, a non-linear finite element model is used. The initial assessment of this viaduct was carried out with increasingly refined linear finite element models.
However, the middle spans are the critical spans of this structure. This viaduct was proof load tested in the end span. Upon assessment, it was found that the requirements for bending moment are not fulfilled for this structure. In this paper, the case of viaduct De Beek, a four-span reinforced concrete slab bridge, is studied. Finite element models can for example be used to assess a tested structure after the test when the critical position could not be loaded. To optimize the procedures used in proof load tests, it can be interesting to combine field testing and finite element modeling.
In a proof load test, a load that corresponds to the factored live load is applied to a bridge structure, to directly demonstrate that a bridge fulfills the code requirements. Proof load testing of existing reinforced concrete bridges is becoming increasingly important as the current bridge stock is aging. 3Ane de Boer Consultancy, Arnhem, Netherlands.2Concrete Structures, Department of Engineering Structures, Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.