Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ACI 437.1R-07 Load Testing
ACI 437.1R-07 Load Testing
1R-07
First Printing
March 2007
www.concrete.org
ISBN 978-0-87031-233-5
ACI 437.1R-07
Tarek Alkhrdaji
Jeffrey S. West
Secretary
Ashok M. Kakade
Javeed Munshi
Thomas Rewerts*
Joseph A. Amon*
Dov Kaminetzky
Thomas E. Nehil
K. Nam Shiu
Nicholas J. Carino
Andrew T. Krauklis
Renato Parretti
Avanti C. Shroff
Paolo Casadei
Chuck J. Larosche
Brian J. Pashina
Jay Thomas
Ufuk Dilek
Michael W. Lee
Stephen Pessiki
Jeffrey A. Travis
John Frauenhoffer*
Daniel J. McCarthy*
Predrag L. Popovic
Fernando V. Ulloa
Zareh B. Gregorian
Patrick R. McCormick
Guillermo Ramirez*
Paul H. Ziehl*
Pawan R. Gupta
Matthew A. Mettemeyer
*
Member of subcommittee that prepared this report.
Chair of subcommittee that prepared this report.
CONTENTS
Chapter 1Introduction, p. 437.1R-2
1.1Background
1.2Introduction
1.3Limitations
Chapter 2Notation and terminology, p. 437.1R-3
2.1Notation
2.2Terminology
Chapter 3History of load test, load factors, and
acceptance criteria, p. 437.1R-4
3.1Scope of historical review
3.2Summary and conclusions
Chapter 4Load factors, p. 437.1R-5
4.1Introduction
4.2Load factors for various components of service load
4.3Load factors for extreme ratios of live load to total
dead load
437.1R-1
437.1R-2
437.1R-3
437.1R-4
dead loads. Total dead load D will include both dead load
due to self-weight and superimposed dead loads; that is, D =
Dw + Ds. This definition creates a distinction not used in ACI
318 or the International Building Code (IBC).
dead load (Dw), self-weightdead load due to selfweight Dw is to include the weight of the concrete structural
system only.
dead load (Ds), superimposedthis report uses superimposed dead load to designate all other weight of materials of
construction incorporated into a building other than selfweight of the concrete structural system. Such loads include,
but are not limited to, partitions, floor finishes, nonstructural
topping slabs and overlays, roofing materials, ceiling
finishes, cladding, stairways, fixed service equipment, and
landscaping, including fixed planters, soils, and plantings.
failurewhen referred to the performance of a structure
(or a portion of it) under load test, it indicates that one or
more acceptance criteria are not met.
proof load and proof load ratioproof load is used to
describe a load applied to a structure with intent to prove a
safe margin of satisfactory performance beyond coderequired service live and dead loads. For this reason, proof
load is defined in terms of service loads and not in terms of
required or ultimate strength. A proof load is generally not
intended to provide an indication of the ultimate strength of
the structure. Arithmetically, the proof load ratio is defined
as the TLM minus the total dead load divided by the service
live load; that is, proof load ratio = (TLM D)/L.
strip or patch test loada test load distributed over a
limited portion of the tributary area of the structure or
member to be tested and typically applied by means of
hydraulic jacks.
test load magnitude (TLM)TLM is defined as all
existing dead load due to self-weight and existing superimposed dead load plus additional test loads used to simulate
effects of factored service live loads and factored superimposed dead loads. The factors to be applied to live loads and
superimposed dead loads to establish the TLM are provided
in Chapter 4. The factor for superimposed dead loads is to be
applied to both existing superimposed dead loads and those
not already in place.
CHAPTER 3HISTORY OF LOAD TEST, LOAD
FACTORS, AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
3.1Scope of historical review
An extensive review of the existing literature has been
done to develop a history of load testing of reinforced
concrete structures. The results of this work are reported in
detail in Appendix B. The focus of this literature search has
been in the following areas that are under consideration for
revision in ACI 318:
The purpose or goal of load testing, and the types of
load tests that should be used;
Development of appropriate superimposed loads to be
used in a load test; and
Establishment of appropriate acceptance criteria for
structural response to those test loads.
437.1R-5
437.1R-6
Table 4.1Design strength and test load comparison: full load test*
Type of
facility
Dw ,
Ds ,
L,
lb/ft2 lb/ft2
lb/ft2
(kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
L
---D
(4)
U99 ,
U05 ,
U 05
lb/ft2
lb/ft2
-------(kN/m2) (kN/m2) U 99
(5)
(6)
(7)
TL05 ,
05
lb/ft2 TL
---------(kN/m2) U 05
(8)
(9)
TLM,
TL 05 TL 05 D lb/ft2
------------- --------------------D+L
L
(kN/m2)
(10)
(11)
(12)
TLM
-----------TL 05
(13)
TLM
-----------U 05
(14)
TLM TLM D
------------ ---------------------U 99
L
(15)
(16)
Parking slab,
unreduced
live load
65
(3.11)
50
(2.39)
0.77
176
(8.43)
158
(7.57)
0.90
150
(7.18)
0.95
1.30
1.69
135
(6.46)
0.90
0.85
0.77
1.40
Parking beam,
reduced
live load
100
(4.79)
30
(1.44)
0.30
191
(9.15)
168
(8.04)
0.88
162
(7.76)
0.97
1.25
2.08
142
(6.80)
0.87
0.85
0.74
1.40
Office slab,
unreduced
live load
65
(3.11)
20
(0.96)
50
(2.39)
0.59
204
(9.77)
182
(8.71)
0.89
173
(8.28)
0.95
1.28
1.77
157
(7.52)
0.91
0.86
0.77
1.44
Storage, light
110
(5.27)
125
(5.99)
1.14
367
332
(17.57) (15.90)
0.91
312
(14.94)
0.94
1.33
1.61
285
(13.65)
0.91
0.86
0.78
1.40
Storage, light
with heavier
structure
150
(7.18)
125
(5.99)
0.83
423
380
(20.25) (18.19)
0.90
359
(17.19)
0.95
1.31
1.67
325
(15.56)
0.90
0.86
0.77
1.40
Storage, heavy
150
(7.18)
250
(11.97) 1.67
635
580
(30.40) (27.77)
0.91
540
(25.86)
0.93
1.35
1.56
500
(23.94)
0.93
0.86
0.79
1.40
Manufacturing, 175
very heavy
(8.38)
400
2.29
(19.15)
925
850
(44.29) (40.70)
0.92
786
(37.63)
0.93
1.37
1.53
735
(35.19)
0.93
0.86
0.79
1.40
100
(4.79)
0.20
870
760
(41.66) (36.39)
0.87
740
(35.43)
0.97
1.23
2.40
670
(32.08)
0.91
0.88
0.77
1.70
250
1.25
(11.97)
705
640
(33.76) (30.64)
0.91
599
(28.68)
0.94
1.33
1.60
550
(26.33)
0.92
0.86
0.78
1.40
0.90
0.95
1.31
0.91
0.86
0.77
1.44
Landscaped
pedestrian
plaza
200
(9.58)
300
(14.36)
Plaza,
truck dock
200
(9.58)
Average
Landscaped
Definitions:
Dw = dead load to self-weight; Ds = superimposed dead load; D = Dw + Ds = total dead load; and L = live load.
U99 = required strength per 318-99 = 1.4D + 1.7L.
U05 = required strength per 318-05 = 1.2D + 1.6L.
TL05 = TL99 = test load per 318-71 through 318-05 = 0.85(1.4D + 1.7L) = 1.19D + 1.44L.
TL99/U99 = 0.85 for any value of D and L.
TLM = proposed test load magnitude = 1.0Dw + 1.1Ds + 1.4L (simplified by assuming F, Lr , S, and R equal to 0).
437.1R-7
(20-1)
(20-2)
or
or
TLM = 1.0Dw + 1.1Ds + 1.4(Lr or S or R) + 0.9L
where
Ds
=
Dw
=
L
=
Lr
(20-3)
437.1R-8
TLM
-----------U 05
(14)
TLM
-----------U 99
(15)
TLM D
---------------------L
(16)
Parking slab,
unreduced live load
145 (6.94)
0.97
0.92
0.82
1.60
Parking beam,
reduced live load
148 (7.09)
0.91
0.88
0.77
1.60
Office slab,
unreduced live load
167 (7.99)
0.96
0.92
0.82
1.64
Storage, light
310 (14.84)
1.00
0.93
0.85
1.60
350 (16.76)
0.97
0.92
0.83
1.60
Storage, heavy
550 (26.33)
1.02
0.95
0.87
1.60
Manufacturing,
very heavy
815 (39.02)
1.04
0.96
0.88
1.60
0.93
0.91
0.79
1.90
600 (28.73)
1.00
0.94
0.85
1.60
0.98
0.92
0.83
1.64
Type of facility
Average
*TLM
Definitions:
TLM = proposed test load magnitude = 1.0Dw + 1.1Ds + 1.6L (simplified by assuming F,
Lr , S, and R equal to 0).
(20-4)
(20-5)
or
or
TLM = 1.0Dw + 1.1Ds + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + 1.0L
Ds
Dw
L
=
=
=
Lr
(20-6)
437.1R-9
L
------------------ > 2.0, where 2.0 is upper limit of normal range
Dw + Ds
(4-1)
For structures where L/(Dw + Ds) < 0.50, the load factors
applied to the dead load due to self-weight and superimposed
dead load in the recommended new TLM definition achieve
two ends. First, they remove the potential penalty against
structures with large self-weight compared with the live
loads they carry by eliminating the extra dead load component of the test load. They also reduce the TLM as a
percentage of the required strength per ACI 318-05
compared with the test load defined in ACI 318-05 versus
required strength. As can be seen in Table 4.1, Column 14,
the ratio of the proposed new TLM to required strength
remains nearly constant, regardless of the L/D, whereas
Column 9 shows the penalty assigned to structures with low
L/D by the current test load definition. For partial load
testing, the ratio is not as constant, and Column 14 of Table 4.2
shows that structures with higher L/D ratios also have larger
TLMs relative to their required strength, but the TLMs are
not significantly different than the current test load.
It is recommended that the load factor for the live load
component of the service loads for such structures with L/D
less than 0.50 be the same as for structures falling in the
normal range of L/D. The minimum TLM given by Eq. (20-1)
and (20-4), however, provides an additional lower bound to
the test load that will apply in those cases where the live-dead
load ratio is very small (L/D less than 0.15), where the factored
live load does not provide a sufficiently large proof load with
respect to the self-weight and superimposed dead loads.
437.1R-10
437.1R-11
437.1R-12
437.1R-13
lt
max ------------------20,000h
r
max
max
---------4
(6-1)
(6-2)
437.1R-14
Chapter 20 of ACI 318-05 requires that response measurements are to be made after each load increment is applied as
well as after the total load has been on the structure for at
least 24 hours. No commentary, however, is offered
regarding the purpose of the intermediate deflection readings.
These measurements clearly provide an opportunity to verify
the linear response of the structure and to discontinue the test
if a pronounced change in linearity is noted, as evidenced by
a large increase in deflection observed after a loading
increment. The concept of deviation from linearity,
discussed in more detail in the following section, could be
applied to the intermediate readings of the 24-hour monotonic
load test and provide an explicit guideline for interpretation
of deflection readings taken during the sequence of load
application steps.
Chapter 20 of ACI 318-05 does not define acceptance
criteria for establishing satisfactory behavior at service load
level. Even though it is recognized that calculations
regarding deflection and crack width may not be sufficiently
developed or accurate to justify using them as mandatory
accept/reject criteria at this load level, the engineer should
include the assessment under service load as an integral part
of the structural performance evaluation process.
In summary, new deflection acceptance criteria must be
developed. These deflection acceptance criteria should
generally be based on the following principles of engineering
mechanics under the assumption that accurate deflection
readings are attained:
Maximum deflection under full test load compared
with calculated theoretical maximum deflection at that
load level;
Recovery of deflection upon full removal of load; and
Linearity of deflection response during loading and
unloading.
max r
IR = repeatability index = ----------------------- 100%
A
A
max r
(6-3)
r
- 100%
IP = permanency index = ---------B
max
(6-4)
If the level of permanency is higher than the aforementioned 10%, it may be an indication that load application
has damaged the member/structure and that nonlinear
effects are taking place; and
Deviation from linearity represents the measure of the
nonlinear behavior of a member/structure being tested
at any time after a given threshold that typically corresponds to its service load level. To define deviation
from linearity, linearity is defined first as the ratio of
the slopes of two secant lines intersecting the loaddeflection envelope (Fig. 6.2). Figure 6.2 shows the
schematic load-deflection curves obtained by a total of
six loading cycles (A through F), which consisted of
three pairs of twin cycles with each pair at the same
load level. The load-deflection envelope is the curve
437.1R-15
(6-5)
The deviation from linearity of any point i on the loaddeflection envelope is the complement of the linearity of
that point, as given in the following equation
IDL = deviation from Linearityi index = 100% Linearityi
(6-6)
*
Secant is the line that connects the origin to the point of interest on the load-deflection
envelope.
The reference point usually coincides with the peak load of the first cycle.
437.1R-16
437.1R-17
the variable portions of the service loads (the live loads and
superimposed dead loads) and in so doing provides a more
consistent proof load than does the ACI 318-05. Second, the
recommended equations given in Chapter 4 of this report to
define the test load magnitude are parallel with the equations
for required strength given in Chapter 9 of ACI 318-05 and
so provide a consistent format and logic within the code.
While the 24-hour monotonic load test has been part of the
ACI code since the early part of the last century, it is
recommended that the cyclic load test method described in
Chapter 5 be considered for use in the code to supplement the
current test method. The cyclic method provides a technique
to more thoroughly evaluate structural response than does
the monotonic load test method.
The current maximum deflection and deflection recovery
criteria need to be revised because the theoretical bases for
the criteria are considered inapplicable to most structural
systems and modern materials, and are unrelated to design
criteria. A clearer rationale and explanation of deflection
criteria have been provided in Chapter 6 of this report. For
performance assessment at service load levels, the proposed
deflection limits for evaluating test results are related to the
deflection limits of Chapter 9 of ACI 318-05, and for the
24-hour monotonic load test protocol, the predicted deflection
used to establish an acceptable upper bound is to be calculated
using the deflection prediction equations of Chapter 9. This
consistency within the code would dispel some of the
mystery associated with the current deflection limit for load
testing. An additional set of acceptance criteria has been
proposed when cyclic load testing is used. Additional
testing and verification of the appropriate values for
acceptance criteria for cyclic load testing are needed to make
the test interpretation more meaningful.
As discussed in Chapter 4, this report recommends that the
TLM be redefined in terms of service loads rather than
required strength; however, there is the acknowledgement
that the intent of the new definition is to limit the test load to
approximately 85 to 90% of the required strength as defined
in ACI 318-05 when testing all suspect areas of a structure,
or 90 to 95% of the required strength when testing only a
portion of the suspect areas. The load test provisions in
Chapter 20 of ACI 318-05 should be reviewed any time there
is a change in the definition of required strength, strengthreduction factors (-factors), or both.
This report uses as a reference the provisions on load
testing outlined in ACI 318-05, and will have to be modified
if future editions of the building code change such provisions. From a legal standpoint, ACI 318 sets the binding
requirements. The recommendations provided in this report
have the purpose of integrating and enriching the understanding and practice of load testing and its acceptance
criteria, but do not replace ACI 318 provisions.
CHAPTER 8REFERENCES
8.1Referenced standards and reports
The documents of the various standards-producing organizations referred to in this document are listed with their serial
designations. Because some of these documents are revised
437.1R-18
frequently, the user of this report should check for the most
recent version.
American Concrete Institute (ACI)
224R
Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures
318
Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary
437R
Strength Evaluation of Existing Concrete Buildings
ASTM International
E 196
Standard Practice for Gravity Load Testing of
Floors and Low Slope Roofs
F 914
Standard Test Method for Acoustic Emission for
Insulated and Non-Insulated Aerial Personnel
Devices Without Supplemental Load Handling
Attachments
International Code Council
International Building Code (IBC)
8.2Cited references
ACI Committee 318, 1947, Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-47), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 64 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 1951, Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-51), ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 47, No. 8, Apr., pp. 589-652.
ACI Committee 318, 1956, Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-56), ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 52, No. 9, May, pp. 913-986.
ACI Committee 318, 1963, Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 144 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 1971, Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-71), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 78 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 1999, Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary
(318R-99), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 391 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2002, Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary
(318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 443 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2005, Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary
(318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 430 pp.
ACI Committee 437, 1967, Strength Evaluation of
Existing Concrete Buildings (ACI 437R-67), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 6 pp.
ACI Committee 437, 1982, Strength Evaluation of
Existing Concrete Buildings (ACI 437R-67) (Revised
1982), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 7 pp.
ACI Committee 437, 2003, Strength Evaluation of
Existing Concrete Buildings (ACI 437R-03), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 28 pp.
ACI Committee E-1, 1928, Joint Code Building Regulations for Reinforced Concrete, Report on Reinforced
Concrete Building Design and Specifications Amended and
Adopted as a Tentative Standard at the Twenty-Fourth Annual
Convention of the American Concrete Institute, Feb. 28.
American Concrete Institute, 1920, Standard Specification No. 23Standard Building Regulations for the Use of
Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
American Concrete Institute, 1936, Building Code Regulations for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 501-36T, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2002,
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE, Reston, Va. (CD-ROM)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
2005, Reinforced Thermoset Plastic Corrosion Resistant
Equipment, ASME, New York, 340 pp.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
2004, BPVC Section XFiber-Reinforced Plastic Pressure
Vessels, ASME, New York.
Arnan, M. A.; Reiner, M.; and Teinowitz, M., 1950,
Research on Loading Tests of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Report, Standards Institution of Israel, Jerusalem, 52 pp.
Bares, R., and FitzSimons, N., 1975, Load Tests of
Building Structures, Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, May, pp. 1111-1123.
Birkmire, W. H., 1894, Skeleton Construction in Buildings,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 80 pp.
BRE Information Paper 2/95, 1995, Guidance for Engineers
Conducting Static Load Tests on Building Structures,
Building Research Establishment, England, 4 pp.
Canadian Standards Association, 1994, Design of
Concrete Structures, Chapter 20Strength Evaluation
Procedures, Standard A23.3.
Casadei, P., 2004, Assessment and Improvement of
Capacity of Concrete Members: A Case for In-Situ Load
Testing and Composite Materials PhD dissertation, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Mo.
Casadei, P.; Parretti, R.; Heinze, T.; and Nanni, A., 2005,
In-Situ Load Testing of Parking Garage RC Slabs: Comparison Between Cyclic and 24 Hrs Load Testing, Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE,
V. 10, No. 1, Feb., pp. 40-48.
Chicago Building Ordinance, 1910.
Committee on Reinforced Concrete and Building Laws,
1916, Proposed Revised Standards Building Regulations
for the Use of Reinforced Concrete, Proceedings of the
Twelfth Annual Convention of the American Concrete
Institute, p. 172.
Committee on Reinforced Concrete and Buildings Laws,
1917, Proposed Standard Building Regulation for the Use of
Reinforced Concrete, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual
Convention of the American Concrete Institute, p. 410.
Concrete Innovation Appraisal Service (CIAS), 2000,
Guidelines for the Rapid Load Testing of Concrete Struc-
437.1R-19
437.1R-20
A.2Introduction
A 24-hour load test or a cyclic load test conducted with
hydraulic jacks that apply concentrated or patch loads (ws) as
an alternative to the distributed load (TLM = w) offers
significant advantages. A disadvantage is the computational
complexity associated with the determination of the patch
load(s) that generates the internal forces (that is, shear or
bending moment) at a critical location identical to that for the
distributed load.
This appendix intends to provide a concise explanation of
the analytical steps necessary for the determination of ws
given the value of w. To accomplish this objective, only the
concepts are presented, leaving the details to available literature
(Masetti 2005; Masetti et al. 2006; Nehil et al. 2006) and
using as an example the case of a one-way slab (for which
the positive moment at midspan is the force at the location of
interest). Other cases can be approached using the methodology
shown.
Is
ks1
=
=
ks2
Ll
=
Lt
=
Mint1 =
Mint2 =
ML1 =
ML2 =
MR1 =
MR2 =
P
Ps
t
v(x)
w
=
=
=
=
=
ws
wscal =
x
(A-1)
437.1R-21
Lt, ft (m)
t, in. (mm)
Loads
w, lb/ft2 (kN/m2)
100 (4.79)
18 (5.49)
c1
6.25
7 (177)
c2
9.28
16 (4.88)
18 x 24
(457 x 610)
18 x 18
(457 x 457)
Patch load
a, in. (mm)
b, in. (mm)
TLM
Preliminary
ws,
(kN/m2)
5777 (276.60)
575 (27.53)
c1
5.95
12 (305)
18 (457)
lb/ft2
After calibration
cycle
c2
7.83
4662 (223.22)
28.8 (128.11)
Ps = ws a b, kip (kN)
8.67 (38.57)
Ps = ws a b, kip (kN)
7.01 (31.18)
(A-2)
437.1R-22
(A-6)
v ( x ) = C 5 x 4 + C 6 x 3 + C 7 x 2 + C 8 x + C 9 if a 1 x a 1 + a (A-7)
C 10 x 3 + C 11 x 2 + C 12 x + C 13
if a 1 + a < x L l
3
M R1 = M R1 ( w, L l, E, I s, k s1, k s2 )
The 13 constants C1, C2, ..., C13, related to ks1 and ks2, can be determined by means of six compatibility relationships (displacement
and rotation at x = 0, x = a1, x = a1 + a, and x = a1 + a + a2) and by
measurement of at least seven displacements.
Step 4 The absolute displacements d1, d2, ..., d7 have to be measured at the
positions shown in Fig. A.4. Because zero displacement is assumed
at the supports, the measures d1, d2, ..., d7 should be transformed
into displacements relative to the slab movement, namely, 1, 2, ...,
7 (where 1 = 7 = 0). The displacements i can be determined as
d7 d1
i = d i -------------------------x
i d i with i = 1,2, ...., 7
a1 + a2 + a
(A-3)
M R2 = M R2 ( w s, a 1, a 2, a, E, I s, k s1, k s2 )
(A-4)
M ( x ) = Cx 2 + Dx + E
Fx + G
if 0 x < a 1
if a 1 x a 1 + a
(A-5)
if a 1 + a < x L l
Step 6 Using C1, C2, ..., C13, taking the second derivative of Eq. (A-7),
plugging it into Eq. (A-6), the constants A, B, C, D, E, F, and G in
Eq. (A-5) are found.
Step 7 Using A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, the approximate shape of the
moment diagram due to wscal is found. Therefore, Mint2, ML2, MR2,
and EIs can be derived, where EIs represents the slab constant
flexural stiffness.
Step 8 Using Mint2, ML2, MR2, and EIs, the linear system described in
Eq. (A-4), when ws = wscal, can be solved for ks1 and ks2.
437.1R-23
(A-8)
D
D
A.6Conclusions
The following conclusions can be derived:
Given w, it is possible to compute ws based on a, b, and
the location of the force of interest; ws is related to w by
c1 and c2;
c1 and c2 can be estimated first by classical analysis;
c1 and c2 can be calibrated during a preliminary load
test at a magnitude wscal under which the slab behavior
is linear elastic; and
For the one-way slab used as an example, the difference
between preliminary and calibrated load values to attain
the same maximum positive moment at center span was
approximately 20%, indicating that calibration is an
important step.
E
I
L
TL05
L
Mf
N
Pf
TL
Vf
W
max
437.1R-24
his brother, Albert Kahn, between 1900 and 1920; and the
Turner system of reinforced concrete construction, developed
in the early 1900s by C. A. P. Turner. Proof load testing of
those systems and many others is widely reported in the
literature between 1890 and 1920.
The Ward House, built in Port Chester, N.Y., from 1873 to
1876 and constructed by William E. Ward, is generally
recognized as the first reinforced concrete structure in the
United States. Ward employed load testing during the
construction of this residence as a means of proving the
viability of this new and unique method of construction, as
reported by Kramer and Raafat (1961):
...Ward undertook numerous field tests of his new system
from which acceptable results for deflection and strength
were obtained. Before constructing any of the floors, he
subjected a sample beam to a weight far beyond its normal
load carrying capacity. After the parlor floor had been laid
for 1 year, he piled a weight of 26 tons between the two
central beams, leaving it there over the winter; at the end of
the testing period, the amount of deflection was only one
hundredth of an inch. Ward was an eminently practical man
who believed in putting his theories to the most rigid tests.
He also carried out experiments on flat slabs of concrete
supported on all four sides.
This document clearly shows the importance of the deflection response in evaluating a load test.
At about the same time, Emile G. Perrot summarized the
prevailing mood regarding the intent of load tests among
contemporaries (Perrot 1911).
These load tests are made, not with a view of obtaining
scientific data, but more particularly of satisfying both the
architects and the owners that the work of the contractor had
been properly performed, and that the building would sustain
the loads for which it was designed.
437.1R-25
437.1R-26
Minimum age
Duration of load
Maximum
deflection
Deflection
recovery
Notes
1916
1.00
2.00
1917
60 days
1.00
2.00
80% at 3 days
1920
60 days
1.50
1.50
l/800
80% at 7 days
1924
30 days
1.50
1.50
24 hours
None
75% at 24 hours
1928
60 days
1.50
1.50
24 hours
None
75% at 24 hours
1936
None
1.50
1.50
24 hours
lt2/12,000h
75% at 24 hours
75% at 24 hours
1941
None
1.50
1.50
24 hours
lt2/12,000h
1947
None
1.50
2.00
24 hours
lt2/12,000h
60% at 24 hours
1951
None
1.50
2.00
24 hours
lt2/12,000h
60% at 24 hours
1956
56 days
1.00
2.00
24 hours
lt2/12,000h
75% at 24 hours
1963
56 days
1.30
1.70
24 hours
lt2/20,000h
75% at 24 hours
24 hours
lt2/20,000h
75% at 24 hours
56 days
1.19
1.45
(B-1)
where L = the span (lt in this report and ACI 318-05), and t
= total depth of the slab or beam (h in the notation of this
report and ACI 318-05), expressed in the same units as span
and deflection.
This general form of the deflection acceptance criterion
has been in the ACI Building Code ever since. Because the
origin of this important and lasting criterion in ACI 318 has
become lost to most current practitioners, it is discussed in
some detail herein, and the derivation of Eq. (B-1) is shown.
In 1909, C.A.P. Turner (Turner 1912) discussed the fundamental principle of engineering mechanics behind this
nL f
= ---------------------c
mcE
This shows that the maximum deflection for the same unit
stress varies as L2/c for beams of the same material, while
coefficients n and m result in additional variation. Of course,
such variations make it impossible to limit the permissible
deflection to a fixed percent of the span.
ACI 501-36T (American Concrete Institute 1936)
included the following regarding the allowable compressive
stress and the modulus of elasticity of concrete:
Allowable compressive stress fc
Modulus of elasticity E
Thus, the ratio of fc/E = 1/2500, and for the case where c =
h/2 (for an uncracked section), the equation for maximum
becomes
2
n lt fc
n lt
= ------------------ = --------------------------mcE
m 1250 h
(B-2)
437.1R-27
max
Uniform load
lt2/12,000h
lt2/15,000h
Uniform load
lt2/40,000h
lt2/30,000h
437.1R-28
Fixed
ends
2000
(13.8)
2500
(17.2)
3000
(20.7)
3750
(25.9)
4000
(27.6)
5000
(34.5)
Uniform
13,800 12,300 11,200 10,000
load
9700
8700
Point
load at 17,200 15,400 14,000 12,500 12,200 10,900
midspan
Uniform
45,800 40,800 37,400 33,500 32,400 29,000
load
Point
load at 34,400 30,700 28,000 25,100 24,300 21,700
midspan
Deflection
L2/1800t
L2/1800t
L2/9000t
L2/10,000t
L2/10,000t
dead and live loads and could be either higher or lower than the
ACI 318-56 test load. The 24-hour holding period for the test
load was reaffirmed. The acceptance criteria, however, were
made more restrictive. The maximum allowable deflection at
the end of the 24-hour holding period was reduced significantly to max = lt2/20,000h. If that deflection limit was to be
exceeded, then recovery of deflection within 24 hours after
removal of the test load was to be at least 75% of the
maximum deflection to pass the test. The maximum allowable
deflections provided in Table 203(c) of ACI 318-56 were
dropped from the 1963 code.
The rationale behind the change of the maximum allowable
deflection from lt2/12,000h to lt2/20,000h is unknown to
Committee 437. In an attempt to understand why this change
was made, one should note that the values for allowable
compressive stress in the extreme fiber of a flexural member
in bending fc and the relationship for the modulus of elasticity E were changed in ACI 318-63 as follows:
Allowable compressive stress fc = 0.45fc (Section 1002)
Modulus of elasticity E
= w1.533fc (Section 1102)
where w = unit weight of concrete.
Table B.3 provides a summary of the values in the coefficient
k used for computing the maximum deflection according to
the equation max = lt2 /kh, where k = mE/2nfc for various
values of fc and various conditions of loading and end fixity,
based on these 318-63 parameters and using Eq. (B-2)
developed in Section B.2.4 of this report.
Table B.3 shows that the k values and, therefore, the corresponding beam deflections that result from variations in the
end fixity and load type, vary by more than 300%. This is a
clear illustration of the inadequacies of using a single value
such as 12,000 or 20,000 for computing the maximum
acceptable deflection during a load test for all conditions of
end restraint and different concrete strengths.
B.2.8 ACI 437-67ACI Committee 437 published the
first version of Strength Evaluation of Existing Concrete
Buildings in 1967 (ACI Committee 437 1967). That document
provided extensive guidance for load testing of existing
concrete buildings. The following specific criteria were
included:
Test load:
Where the strength of a whole structure is under
investigation, test load TL = 1.25D + 1.50L, or TL =
1.50D, whichever is greater; and
Where the strength of only a portion of a structure is
under investigation, test load TL = 1.30D + 1.70L, or
TL = 1.60D, whichever is greater.
Duration of test load = 24 hours;
Maximum allowable deflection = lt2/20,000h; and
Deflection recovery = 75% at 24 hours after load
removal.
When Committee 437 revised its report in 1982 (ACI
Committee 437 1982), the test load was no longer separately
defined for tests on portions of a structure versus tests on a
whole structure. Instead, the single definition for the TLM as
given in ACI 318-71 and later editions was recommended.
437.1R-29
437.1R-30
The information contained in the CIAS report was subsequently reviewed and discussed in Committee 437. The
cyclic load test method was reported in Appendix A of ACI
437.1R-31
Table B.4Sampling of load test requirements other than those from ACI
Year and document
Minimum
age
Duration
of load
Maximum
deflection
Deflection
recovery
Notes
1.00
3.00
45 days
1.50
1.50
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
90 days
1907: French Government Rules
(NACU 1908)
65 days
24 hours No deflections
after 15 hours
30 days
1907: Great Britain (NACU 1908) 2 months
Ordinary construction
Floors
1.00
1.50
1908:
Austrian Ministry of the Interior
Rules (NACU 1908)
6 weeks
1.00
1.50
1.00
3.00
24 hours
1.00
2.00
L/700
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
L/700
1.00
3.00
1908:Baltimore, Md.
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
24 hours
1926: Russia
L/750
67%
56 days
1.00
1.50
24 hours
75%
56 days
1.00
1.25
24 hours
Not undue
75%
56 days
1.00
1.25
24 hours
Not undue
85%
56 days
1.00
2.00
24 hours
L2/cd
75%
(a)
1.00
1.00 to
1.10
(b)
(b)
(b)
1.10
1.25
8 hours
L/360*
L/250
75%
1.20
1.40
16 hours
75%*
87.5%
80%
56 days
3 months
1.00
1.05 to
1.25
24 hours
Code values
1.1 to 1.2
75%
28 days
1.125
1.35
1.25
1.50
60%
1.25
1.25
24 hours
Code values
90%
437.1R-32
B.3.3 Report of Committee on Testing of Structures (Institution of Structural Engineers 1964)This report identified
two types of load tests. The first was an acceptance test to
check the behavior of a structure or part of a structure under
a load equal to or greater than the known working load, so as
to assess its adequacy for service; the second was a test to
destruction to determine ultimate strength.
Regarding test load for an acceptance test, this report
indicates that the estimated dead load should be arbitrarily
increased by an amount that should not exceed 10%. It is
further indicated that the imposed load (that is, live load)
should also be arbitrarily increased by not more than 25%.
This would equate to a total test load TL = 1.10D + 1.25L.
The report contained the following statements relative to
these guidelines:
The above recommended increases of loadings are not
intended to ensure some particular load factor against failure
nor to test the structure to a specified proportional increase in
stress. The acceptance test is intended merely to demonstrate
that the behaviour of the structure at working loads, or at
slightly higher loads that might for some reason be applied
during the life of the structure, is likely to be satisfactory.
437.1R-33
437.1R-34
437.1R-35
B.3.7 CSA Standard A23.3 (Canadian Standards Association 1994)Section 20.3 of this document addresses
General Requirements for Load Tests. It contains the
following relevant items:
1. Age of structure should be 28 days or more at time of
testing.
2. Superimposed dead loads: A load to simulate the effect of
the portion of the dead loads not already present shall be
applied 24 hours before the application of the test load and
shall remain in place until all testing has been completed.
3. Test load:
a. When an entire structural system in doubt is load tested
or an entire questionable portion of a system is load
tested, the test load shall be 90% of the factored loads,
Mf , Vf , and Pf . When only a portion of a structural
system in doubt is tested and the results of the tests are
taken as representative of the structural adequacy of
other untested portions of the system, the test load
shall be equal to the factored loads Mf , Vf , and Pf .
b. The superimposed test load shall be applied in not less
than four approximately equal increments without
shock to the structure and in a manner to avoid arching
of the load materials.
c. The test load shall be left in place for 24 hours.
4. Acceptance criteria:
a. If the portion of the structure tested fails or shows
visible indications of impending failure, it shall be
considered to have failed the test.
b. Deflection recovery: For load tests of flexural systems
or members for moment resistance, the required
deflection recovery values are specified as follows:
i. Nonprestressed members:
437.1R-36
437.1R-37
437.1R-38
As ACI begins its second century of advancing concrete knowledge, its original chartered purpose
remains to provide a comradeship in finding the best ways to do concrete work of all kinds and in
spreading knowledge. In keeping with this purpose, ACI supports the following activities:
Technical committees that produce consensus reports, guides, specifications, and codes.
Spring and fall conventions to facilitate the work of its committees.
Educational seminars that disseminate reliable information on concrete.
Certification programs for personnel employed within the concrete industry.
Student programs such as scholarships, internships, and competitions.
Sponsoring and co-sponsoring international conferences and symposia.
Formal coordination with several international concrete related societies.
Periodicals: the ACI Structural Journal and the ACI Materials Journal, and Concrete International.
Benefits of membership include a subscription to Concrete International and to an ACI Journal. ACI
members receive discounts of up to 40% on all ACI products and services, including documents, seminars
and convention registration fees.
As a member of ACI, you join thousands of practitioners and professionals worldwide who share a
commitment to maintain the highest industry standards for concrete technology, construction, and
practices. In addition, ACI chapters provide opportunities for interaction of professionals and practitioners
at a local level.
www.concrete.org
www.concrete.org