MATEC Web of Conferences 196, 02020 (2018)

https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819602020
XXVII R-S-P Seminar 2018, Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering

Load testing of Highway Bridge

Petra Bujňáková1,*, Jozef Jošt1 , and Matúš Farbák1
1
University of Žilina, Department of Structures and Bridges, Univerzitná 8215/1, Slovakia

Abstract. New segmental concrete bridge has been built near the city
Žilina, aligned on European highway corridor E 50. The bridge is
composed of the two separate precast prestressed box girder structure
constructed by balanced cantilever method. The total length of both
structures is 1042 m. The similar superstructure consists of a total of
eighteen continuous spans with main spans of 60.5 m. The construction
process, load carrying capacity and monitoring of the bridge has been
investigated before the opening of the bridge. The paper presents
verification of the structural behaviour of the bridge under static load
compared to predicted model for both precast prestressed structures.

1 Introduction
The use of precast concrete box girder was chosen as the flexible system and appropriate
method in a municipal zone. One advantage of this technique is elimination of conventional
falsework and temporary supports by adopting cantilever construction method. The major
part of the work is performed in the precasting yard and erection process can start
simultaneously with the foundation work. During the construction process, the structure
changes in static system, in support, loading and magnitude of external prestressing. The
whole section remains in compression under both dead and live load. An accurate
evaluation of stresses and deformation in each construction stage is essential to maintain
safety levels and to ensure the final required bridge alignment. Before the serviceability of
the bridge system, The Slovak standard codes recommended a static load test for any new
bridge exceeding 18 m and a dynamic load test for bridge span over the 45.0 m [9]. Load
testing of bridges allows to investigate the real behaviour of structure under short-term
loading. Bridge monitoring is a complement to a load testing. It could detect the abnormal
behaviour during construction stage, service period and deterioration of the bridge.
Structural changes may result from other causes such as sudden settlement of foundation,
ground movement, excessive traffic or failure of post-tensioning tendons [4]. To avoid the
unpredictable structural changes both bridge superstructures were monitored. The data have
been collected continuously during the fabrication and erection process in 2016 and 2017.
The static and dynamic test (right bridge) was performed in November, 2017. These data
can be used to check future condition of the bridge in relation to the initial condition.

*
Corresponding author: petra.bujnakova@fstav.uniza.sk

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
MATEC Web of Conferences 196, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819602020
XXVII R-S-P Seminar 2018, Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering

2 Bridge load testing

The load test was performed by Department of Structures and Bridges (University of
Žilina) in collaboration with the Accredited Laboratory of Civil Engineering at University
of Žilina. Measurement of the right and left bridge has been carried out so as to achieve the
greatest loading effect for selected spans of the bridge superstructure. The measured
quantities were compared with the corresponding values obtained from the theoretical
calculation achieved using FE model to determine the actual behaviour of the bridge
structure. During the test, strain and vertical deflection were measured and recorded by the
host computer. The bearing movement was geodetically controlled. The temperature of
structure and also ambient temperature was registered.

2.1 Bridge description

The segmental bridge is a part of the new Slovak highway connection from Bratislava to
the Ukrainian border forming the international connection E 50, located in the urban area
of village “Lietavská Lúčka” near the city Žilina. The bridge is composed of the two
separate precast concrete structure. The both superstructure consists of a total of eighteen
continuous spans with lengths 46.10 +15 x 60.50 + 49.80 + 32.80 m, Fig. 1. The balanced
cantilever method, with the self-launching gantry was used for erection. The shorter end
spans, adjacent to the abutment, had to be built by employing falsework. The post-
tensioned structure is made of individual precast units stressed together. The joints are
made of a very thin epoxy resin. To lock the segments together the shear keys are cast into
the joint faces.
The roadway has a variable width from 11.75 to 13.25 m between barriers and the total
deck width varying from 14.25 to 15.75 m. The typical cross section consists of post-
tensioned box girders of the constant depth 3.0 m for all the spans providing the most
efficient section for casting, Fig. 2. The span- to- depth ratio is corresponding to 20. Pier
and abutment segments are 1.65 m in length, the span segments are 2.2 m long. The span
segments were designed of concrete class C 45/55 and pier segments of C 55/67. The
typical cross section is shown in Figure 2. The constant web thickness 500 mm was
determined by shear considerations, as tendon ducts internal to the concrete were present.
Box girder webs are inclined. The local haunches are used at the intersection of the bottom
slab and the webs to provide sufficient space for accommodating the required number of
tendons. The box segment has a bottom slab width of 6.5 m. The bottom flanges are 200
mm and 350 mm thick. The top slab thickness is variable, resulted from the limit deflection
criteria under the live loading. The superstructure is prestressed by bonded prestressing
tendons of 15.7 mm diameter strand.

Fig. 1. View on the bridge Fig. 2. Cross section of the bridge

2
MATEC Web of Conferences 196, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819602020
XXVII R-S-P Seminar 2018, Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering

2.2 Modelling and Analysis

The representative fine element model (FEM) was created to investigate the structural
behaviour of both prestressed bridges under loads. The bridge structure was created as a
continuous box girder structure in computing program Scia Engineer, Fig.3. Bridge
geometry has been taken from the technical report [1], [2]. As an input material
characteristics, the experimentally determined values of compressive strength and modulus
of elasticity of concrete were used. All specimens were tested in Accredited Laboratory of
Civil Engineering at University of Žilina [3].
The concrete specimens were gained during the segment erection in the stationary yard
and during the concreting of closure joint at the construction site. The compressive strength
as the common performance property was measured by breaking cube concrete specimens
of 150 mm size in the laboratory. The average achieved concrete strength was 74.8 MPa for
segments near the pier and for the concrete closing joint at the mid- span was 66.8 MPa
(3x3 specimens). The actual modulus of elasticity of the concrete is a determinant
parameter for the bridge deflection. The average static modulus of elasticity obtained from
testing was 42.7 GPa (3x3 samples, 150x300 mm). For better determining of the modulus
of elasticity the non-destructive method was used. The ultrasonic measurements were made
on the 3x3 samples with size of 150x300 mm. The average value was 41.07 GPa.

Fig. 3. FE model of the bridge superstructure

2.3 Load test procedure

The load testing procedure and the type of instrumentation used for both bridges were
essentially the same. The strain gauges, deflection gages and acceleration gages were
installed at specified locations for the testing.
Four strain gauges according to Figure 4 were installed at the intersection of the slabs
and the webs of cross sections. A total of 16 strain gauges were placed on the left bridge
(span no. 7 and no. 16) and the 16 strain gauges on the right bridge (span no. 2 and no. 9).
The selected segments of the right bridge were implemented with strain gauges during the
erection process. The strain gauges were installed in the mid- span on the closure joint
(Figure 4) and near the pier segment (Figure 5). For strain time dependent variation of the
left bridge, the vibrating wire strain gauges, suitable for long term readings were placed in
the pier segment during casting in the stationary yard (Figure 6) and in the closure joint
before concreting in- situ (Figure 7).
Vertical deflections were measured with linear displacement tranducers. The seven
selected spans were measured on the each bridge. The measurement points are installed at
the left and at the right bottom side of the cross section at the mid - span. The movement of
the bridge superstructure over the bearings were verified at two points. Temperature
measurements (ambient and structure) were made on the specified 32 different locations
across the centre of the span and pier sections The other signs such as cracking were
controlled during the testing.

3
MATEC Web of Conferences 196, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819602020
XXVII R-S-P Seminar 2018, Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering

The testing apparatus for static load test was designed as follows, 4 testing vehicles on
the first span and end span. Main fields (60.5 m) consist of 6 testing vehicles. The
maximum weight of the 4-axle vehicle required for a load test was 42.0 t. The vehicles
were placed at the predetermined critical load positions on the bridge structure and strain
and deflection were measured.

Fig. 4. Right bridge - The strain gages setup – closing joint

Fig. 5. Right bridge - The strain gages setup near the pier

Fig. 6. Left bridge - The strain gages setup – segment casting

Fig. 7. Left bridge - The strain gages setup – closing joint – during erection

The measurement period of the load effect was 60 minutes and then 60 minutes for
unloading. The overall time for static load test of both prestressed box girder structure was
taken fifteen hours. The static load efficiency (the ratio of the actual load value to the value

4
MATEC Web of Conferences 196, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819602020
XXVII R-S-P Seminar 2018, Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering

considered in the calculation) was determined from the values of the vertical deflection at
the mid- span according to STN 73 6209 9. Results of comparison between the measured
and theoretically estimated deflection of the mid- span for left and right side of prestressed
bridges are shown in Figure 8, 9. The maximum residual deflection in the middle of main
span of both superstructure was approximately 12.5 mm

Fig. 8. Deflection of the bridge structure – Right Bridge

Fig. 9. Deflection of the bridge structure – Left Bridge

Figure 10 illustrates the normal stresses variation in the mid-section of the sixteenth
span of the left bridge during the construction stages (in the stage of cantilever, Pnk), before
loading (PZS) and in static load test (ZS). The prediction stress distribution and obtained
values in bottom and top slab of the cross section achieved acceptable agreement.

Fig. 10. Normal stress variation (span no.16) – Left Bridge

The dynamic load test of right bridge was conducted with two 4-axle vehicles driven in
the centre of the road at constant speed. Testing began at approximately a vehicle speed of
5 km/h and then the speed was increased to the 70 km/h. Tests were repeated with a plank
placed on the road in the main measurement cross section (span no. 8). The left bridge
(span no. 9) will test in close future. Subsequently the results of dynamic tests, such as
natural frequencies, dynamic deflection, damping ratio will show in next paper.

5
MATEC Web of Conferences 196, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819602020
XXVII R-S-P Seminar 2018, Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering

3 Conclusions
Proof loading has indicated that both precast segmental structures have greater strength
than predicted by analysis. Neither cracking nor other signs of distress were observed at the
applied load. Load efficiency factor was approximately 73% for the main spans and 88%
for the end spans that meets national standard requirement of 0.7 to 1.05 for concrete
bridges according to 9. Deflection analysis indicate that the bridge structure is in good
elastic condition. The actual modulus of elasticity must be known for better interpretation
of the load test results. The collected data during the load testing can be used for future
condition assessment and will be able to detect any potential failure.

This research work was supported by the Slovak Grant Agency under contract No. 1/0336/15 and No.
1/0343/18.

References
1. J. Bujňák, Design review of the right bridge SO 209 at the highway construction D1
Hričovské Podhradie – Lietavská Lúčka (University of Žilina, Slovakia, 07/2015)
2. J. Bujňák, Design review of the left bridge SO 209 at the highway construction D1
Hričovské Podhradie – Lietavská Lúčka (University of Žilina, Slovakia, 11, 2015)
3. J. Bujňák J, P. Bujňáková, Monitoring report of the bridge SO 209 at the highway
construction D1 Hričovské Podhradie – Lietavská Lúčka (University of Žilina,
Slovakia, 2018)
4. B. Massicotte, A. Picard, PCI Journal, May-June, 66- 80 (1994)
5. M. Hassan, O. Burdet and R. Favre, IABSE Colloquium: Remaining Structural Capacity,
Copenhagen, Denmark, March (1993)
6. J. Zhao, T. Liu, Y. Wang, International Conference on Risk and Engineering
Management (2011)
7. Design guide: Prestressed concrete bridges built using the cantilever method (Sétra:
FR, 2003)
8. Guide to good practice, FIB report: 2017 Precast Segmental Bridges, ISBN 978-2-
88394-122-9, 183 (2017)
9. STN 73 6209: Loading test of Bridges (1979)
10. STN EN 1991-2: 2006 Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures. Part 2: Traffic Loads on
Bridges (UNMS, Bratislava, SK)
11. STN EN 1992-2: 2012 Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Bridges. Design and Detailing
Rules (UNMS, Bratislava, SK)
12. STN EN 206 +A1: 2017 Concrete. Specification, performance, production and
conformity (UNMS, Bratislava, SK)